A

essays in culture , history ,

a n d p o l i t i c a l e c o n o m y

R O S E B E R R Y
Anthropologies and Histories
r

ANTHROPOLOGIES
AND
HISTORIES
Essays i n Culture, History,

a n d Po litical E c o n o m y

W il l ia m Roseberry

H
R U T G E R S U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

N E W B R U N S W I C K A N D L O N D O N
T h ir d paperback p rinting, 1994

T h e author wishes to acknowledge permission to reprint revised versions of the follow­

ing chapters:

Chapter 1 , “ Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology,” was originally

published in S o a a l Re s e a r c h 49 (4): 1 0 1 3 - 1 0 2 8 . Copyright © 19 8 2 by the N e w School
for Social Research, N e w York.
Chapter 2, “ M a r x is m and Culture,” was originally g iven as a lecture in the 19 8 7 series
“T h e Politics of Culture,” sponsored by the Anthropological Society of Washington,
D .C . , and the Smithsonian Institution.
Chapter 3, “ Images of the Peasant in the Consciousness of the Venezuelan Proletariat,”
was originally published in Pro letar ia ns a n d Protest: T h e Roots of Class F o r m a tio n i n a n
I n d u s t r ia l iz in g World, edited by M ichael H a n a g a n and Charles Stephenson, p p . 14 9 —
16 9 (Westport, C o n n .: Greenwood Press). Copyrig ht © 19 8 5 by Michael Ha n ag an
and Charles Stephenson.
Chapter 5, “ Euro pean History and the Construction of Anthropological Subjects,” was
originally published in D ia l e c t ic a l Anthro pology 10 : 1 4 1 - 1 5 3 . Copyright © 19 8 5 by
Elsevier Science Publishers, A m s te r d a m .
Chapter 6, “ Anthropology, History, and Modes of Production,” was originally published
in Anthro po lo g y, C a p it a l is m , a n d the State, edited by B enj am in Orlove, Michael Foley,
and T h o m a s L o ve (Boulder, Colo.: W estview Press, 1988).

Lib r a ry of Congress Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Data

Roseberry, W il l ia m , 19 5 0 -
Anthropologies and histories : essays in culture, history, and
political economy / W il l ia m Roseberry.
p. cm.
Bibliography: p .
Includes in d e x .
I S B N 0 - 8 13 5 - 14 4 5 - 2 (cloth) I S B N 0 -8135-1446-0 (pbk.)
1 . Ethnology— Philosophy. 2 . Eco no mic anthropology. 3. Political
anthropology. 4. Symbolism. I. Titl e .
G N N 3 4 5 .R 6 6 8 1989
306— del 9 89-30378
C IP

British Cataloging-in-Publication information available

Co pyrig ht © 19 8 9 by Rutgers, T h e State University

All Rights Reserved
Manufactured in the U n it e d States of A m e r ic a
fo r Nicole, in m y right m i n d
r

C O N T E N T S

Preface ix

Introduction 1

PART ONE CULTURE

C ha p ter ONE: Balinese Cockfights and the Seduction of Anthropology 17

TWO: Marxism and Culture 30

THREE: Images of the Peasant in the Consciousness of

the Venezuelan Proletariat 55

FOUR: Americanization in the Americas 80

PART TWO POLITICAL ECONOMY

FIVE: European History and the Construction of

Anthropological Subjects 125

SIX: Anthropology, History, and Modes of Production 145

SEVEN: Agrarian Questions and Functionalist Economism

in Latin America 17 5

EIGHT: The Construction of Natural Economy 197

Notes 233

References 243

Ind ex 269
My a im in this book is to explore some of the cultural a n d

political im plica tio n s of a n anthropological political economy.

In m y v ie w , too few of these im plicatio n s h a v e b e en explored,

by those authors w h o dismiss the very po s s ibility of a political

eco no m ic u n d e r s ta n d in g of culture as well as by m a n y of the

political economists themselves. O u r ideas about culture a n d

history n e ve r seem to confront each other. W it h i n too m a n y

understandings of political economy, w e m a y h a v e sophisticated

treatments of u n e v e n d evelo pm ent and of the formation of

centers a n d p e r ip h e r ie s , b u t w h e n w e c o m e to consider culture

a n d politics, w e enclose profoundly contradictory social e x p e r i­

ences w it h in u n p r o b le m a tic a n d simplistic class or epochal la­

bels. W i t h i n too m a n y understandings of cultural anthropology,

history is little m o r e th an a n e w terrain into w h ic h to e xten d

anthropological practice. Anthropologists seldom let w h a t they

kno w about history affect w h a t they t h in k about culture. In this

book, I h a v e tried to place culture a n d history in relation to

each other, in the context of a reflection on the political econ­

o m y of u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t .
In p u r s u in g m y a r g u m e n t , I ask the reader to a c c o m p a n y m e
thro ugh a discussion of G eertz’s essay on the Balinese cock­
fight, M a r x ’s postulation of G e r m a n ic a n d A siatic a n d A n c ie n t
modes of pro ductio n, W o l f ’s exploration of the formation of
X PREFACE

anthropological subjects in world history, Cardoso a n d Faletto’s

un d e r s tan d in g of the “ internalization of the external” in L a t in

A m e r ic a , W il l ia m s ’s concept of a selective tradition, a n d so on.

I also ask the reader to consider these ideas in relation to

politics a n d culture in co ntem po rary Ven e zu ela or processes of

“ A m e r ic a n iz a t io n ” in L a t in A m e r ic a . W h il e I co m e to this book

w it h large questions, m y discussions are e m b e d d e d w it h in a

consideration of particular texts a n d historical processes. T h e

a r g u m e n t is carried by essays, a form that requires some p r e ­

l im in a r y discussion.

Clifford G eertz’s observation that the essay has b e c o m e the

“ natural genre” for anthropological w r it in g ( 19 7 3 b : 25) finds

a p p a r e n t support from the n u m b e r of recent books in anthro­

pology that are based on essays. T h e y are often m o re w idely

read th a n the eth n o g r a p h ic work that gives rise to or informs

the essays, a n d they are generally published as part of an ongo­

in g intellectual a r g u m e n t , as in Geertz’s In t e r p r e t a t io n o f C u l tu r e s

( 19 7 3 a ) or Marshall Sahlins’s Islands o f H is t o r y ( 19 8 5 ) , so that the

book m a ke s a statement or pursues an a r g u m e n t that could not

be fo und in any of the essays, taken in d ivid u a l l y or in their

severalty. Essays a n d books of essays h a ve b eco m e our p rin cipa l

m e an s of c o m m u n ic a t io n .

W h a t , th e n , are w e to m a k e of George M a rcu s ’s contention

that the advan tag e of the essay is that it,

opposes conventional systematic analysis, absolves the writer

from having to develop the broader implications of his thought
(while nonetheless indicating that there are such implications)
or of having to tie loose ends together. T h e essayist can mystify
the world, leave his subjects’ actions open-ended as to their
global implications, form a rhetorical posture of profound half­
understanding, half-bewilderment with the world in w hich the
ethnographic subject and the ethnographer live. T h is is thus a
form well suited to a tim e such as the present, when paradigms
are in disarray, problems intractable, and pheno mena only
partly understood. (198 6 : 19 1)

W h a t is m is s in g in this celebration of anthropological “ play” is

the very aspect of the essay that m a d e it attractive to Geertz— the
 PREFACE XI

constant a n d sustained e n g a g e m e n t w it h e thno g raphic subjects

and the r e q u ir e m e n t that one e m b e d o ne’s observations, in fer ­

ences, a n d interpretations w it h in that e n g a g e m e n t. H o w far this

is from an anthropology that sets out to “ mystify the world” !

In d e e d , if w e look at the w a y most essays h a v e b e en w ritten

and read in anthropology, th e ir im p o r ta n c e lies in their a tte m p t

to m a k e sense— of eth n o g r a p h ic encounters, of texts, of ideas, of

processes— w it h o u t enclosing that sense w it h in totalizing m o d ­

els. T h e y are, or should be, the m e a n s by w h ic h w e develop our

ideas, interpretations, a n d arg um en ts rather than m e r e perfor­

mances or rhetorical postures, demonstrations of an autho r’s

in terpretive prowess or postmo dern consciousness.

In m y o w n case, I began w o r k in g five years ago on a c o m p a r a ­

tive history of the e m e r g e n c e of “ fa m ily e co n o m y” in regions of

E u r o p e a n d L a t in A m e r ic a . M y object was to develop a critique

of the notion of “ domestic modes of pro ductio n ,” especially

those modes that treated domestic modes as quintessential

precapitalist forms a n d projected t h e m into a p r im o r d ia l h u m a n

past. T h a t book r e m a in s in progress, if such a phrase be p e r m it ­

ted to describe the actual state of notes accum ulated through two

leaves a n d three years of bureaucratic post sitting (see Roseberry

19 8 6 b ; 19 8 8 ) . Had I not b e g u n that book, however, I would

n ever h a v e w ritten the present one. In order to work through the

historical materials, I fo und that I h a d to r e th in k some of m y

understandings of capitalism , of history, of peasantries. In order

to develop the larger im plicatio n s of the a r g u m e n t, I n e e d e d to

t h in k m o r e clearly about culture, ideology, a n d politics a n d to

link m y e m e r g in g understandings of culture a n d politics to m y

perspectives on history a n d capitalis m .

R a t h e r th an dealing w it h Cu ltu re or History or C a p it a l is m in

the abstract, ho w ever, I looked at w h a t Geertz or Sahlins or

W il l ia m s said about culture or history, w hat M a r x or W olf said

about capitalis m , a n d so on. A t the sam e t im e , I co ntin ue d to

work w it h historical materials. I wrote essays, usually v ie w e d as

u n w e lc o m e digressions from T h e Project at h a n d . W it h t im e ,

two things b e c a m e clear. First, the very structure or m y argu­
m e n t for the fa m ily e c o n o m y project was c h a n g in g as m y u n d e r ­

standings of capitalis m , history, culture, a n d politics cha n g e d .

Xll PREFACE

Second, I b egan to see the outlines of an a r g u m e n t that in ­

fo rm ed the in d iv id u a l essays but h a d not b een explicitly devel­

o p e d . M y object in w r it in g this book has b e en to develop that

a r g u m e n t, first by w r it in g n e w essays that would m a k e the con­

nections m o r e exp lic it (Chapters 2 , 4, 6, a n d 8, two of w h ic h are

“ old” essays that h a v e b e e n extensively rewritten here) a n d sec­

ond by rew o rkin g some of the others.

In w r itin g this book, I h a v e contracted serious intellectual

debts, some of w h ic h are e v id e n t in the pages that follow. In some

cases, I h a v e th a n k e d particular in d ivid u a l s so often in the past

that I prefer to let m y discussion of their work in these pages

stand as an a c k n o w le d g m e n t of their influence. I concentrate

here on another group of colleagues. First, I th a n k the m e m b e r s

of the short-lived R a y m o n d W il l ia m s r ea d in g group at the N e w

School for Social Research in 1 9 8 1 — 82 (R ic h a r d Blot, M a r y

Fallica, T h o m a s H a r d y , Fr a n c in e Moccio, a n d Julie N ie h a u s ) for

h e l p in g m e set out in a n e w directio n. Second, I th a n k a m o re

recent gro up of people w h o h a v e influenced m e in conversations

in m y office or over beers, w h o h a v e asked uncomfortable ques­

tions or suggested books or articles that h a d to be read— G us

Carbonella, K im Clark, L in d s a y D u B o is , Chandana M a th u r ,

Mary M c M e c ha n , Patricia M u s a n te , Nicole Polier, a n d Susan

Suppe.
I h a v e also benefitted fro m discussions a n d a collaboration

w it h Jay O ’B r ie n , w h o read an early version of C h a p t e r 8 that was

focused on the concept of domestic modes of production a n d

suggested that the historical a n d political issues invo lved n e ed e d

to be m o r e broadly considered a n d stated. T h is book is one re­

sponse to that suggestion; our collaborative work is another
( O ’B r ie n a n d Roseberry, eds., forthcoming). As the m a n u s c r ip t
neared co m pletio n, I presented the final chapter at a session on

“ Co nfro ntin g C a p it a l ” organized by A s hr af G h a n i for the 19 8 7

m e e t in g of the A m e r ic a n Anthropological Association. I th a n k
the discussants in that session— D e r e k Sayer, G a v in S m it h , a n d
Joan V in c e n t — for th e ir criticism and en co u r ag e m e n t. I also
th a n k G a r th G r e e n , w h o took on the thankless task of serving as
discussant for the book m a n u s c r ip t in m y course on culture a n d
political e co n o m y in the spring of 19 8 8 . M y relationship w it h
 PREFACE Xlll

Rutgers U n iv e r s it y Press has b e e n thoroughly satisfying, from

the initial contacts w it h M a r lie W as s e r m a n thro ugh the r e v ie w

process, the graceful copy e d it in g of E v e Pearson, a n d p ro d u c­

tion. I th a n k the Press’s reviewers, especially Jane S c h n e id e r a n d

“ R e a d e r # 3 , ” fqr their helpful suggestions.

Most of the essays w ere written d u r in g two a c a d e m ic leaves,

d u r in g w h ic h I was supported by the John S im o n G u g g e n h e im

M e m o r ia l Fo u n d a tio n ( 19 8 3 - 8 4 ) and the Social Science Re­

search C o u n c il ’s C o m m it t e e on L a t in A m e r ic a a n d the C a r ib ­

bean ( 19 8 6 — 8 7). T h e y tho ught I was w o rkin g on the fam ily

eco no m y project, a n d I p ro m is e that I was.

A b o v e all, I t h a n k m y ally, Nicole Polier, w itho ut w h o m this

book could not h a v e b e en im a g in e d . A n y a tte m pt to elaborate

on that statement is necessarily in co m p le te : she helped m e to

see the pieces whole; she bro ught her en thu s ia s m , skepticism ,

a n d critical intelligence to our m a n y conversations a n d discus­

sions; she has consistently acted as this m a n u s c r ip t ’s first reader

a n d best critic. W i t h her, I once ag ain enjoy anthropology, a n d

m u c h else.
Anthropologies and Histories
T h e tem ptatio n is to reduce the historical variety of the forms of inter­

pretation to w hat are loosely called symbols or archetypes: to abstract

even these most evidently social forms and to give th e m a prim ar ily psy­

chological or metaphysical status. T h is reduction often h appens w h e n we

find certain major forms and images and ideas persisting through p e r i­

ods of great change. Yet if we can see that the persistence depends on
the forms and images an d ideas b ein g changed, though often subtly,

internally and at times unconsciously, w e can see also that the persistence

indicates some p e r m a n e n t or effectively p e r m a n e n t need, to w h ic h the

changing interpretations speak. I believe that there is in d e e d such a

need, and that it is created by the processes of a particular history. B u t if

we do not see these processes, or see t h e m only incidentally, we fall back

on modes of thought w h ic h seem able to create the p e rm an en ce without

the history. W e m a y find emotional or intellectual satisfaction in this, but

we h ave then dealt w ith only half the problem, for in all such major

interpretations it is the coexistence of persistence and change w h ic h is

really striking and interesting, and w h ic h we h ave to account for without
reducing either fact to a form of the other.

— R a y m o n d W illiam s , T h e Country and the City

I N T R O D U C T I O N

O n a J u n e n ig h t in Tepo ztlan in 19 8 7 , a brass b a n d led a proces­

sion from the chapel of L a S a n tis im a toward the house of the

m ayo rdo mo . Preparations for the barrio fiesta h a d begun the

e v e n in g before w it h a small Mass, w it h fireworks, and w it h

m us ic from La M ic h o a c a n a — a band h ir e d especially for the

festival— that lasted late into the n ig h t w hile w o m e n w ove gar­

lands to decorate the chapel. T h e n ext day, Sun d ay, would be

the actual festival, w it h small processions from other barrios

passing the busy m a r k e t on the plaza to place their own barrio

banners at the altar alongside the b an n e r for L a S a n tis im a . A

Mass would be held, followed by fireworks, m a r ia c h i m u s ic

played by another b a n d , as well as m arches a n d waltzes from L a

M ic h o a c a n a , a n d d r u n k e n revelry. B u t tonight the celebrants

were leaving the chapel to d r in k a g u a r d ie n t e a n d to socialize at

the h o m e of the m a y o r d o m o or festival sponsor. T h e proces­

sion in clu d e d the b a n d , m e n a n d w o m e n w ho h a d b een p r e p a r ­

in g for the fiesta, a n d the requisite fireworks. A b o u t a block a n d

a half from the m a y o r d o m o ’s house, ho wever, the b a n d stopped

playing w h ile the procession passed the house of a wealthy m e r ­
chant, w h e r e a party was in progress celebrating the fifteenth
b ir th d a y of the m e r c h a n t ’s daughter. T h e gates to the m e r ­
cha n t’s courtyard w ere o p e n , a n d all w ere welcome to attend
a n d dan ce to the lively m ix t u r e of A m e r ic a n rock, C a r ib b e a n
2 IN TRO D UC TIO N

salsa, a n d M e x ic a n p o p b e in g played by a M e x ic o C it y b a n d . L a

M ic h o a c a n a could not c o m p e te , a n d the crowd at the b ir th d a y

party easily o u t n u m b e r e d the gro up m a k in g its w ay to the

m a y o r d o m o ’s house. But the d o m in a n c e of the m e r c h a n t ’s

party was not l im it e d to the few m o m e n ts w h e n the procession

passed his house: the m e r c h a n t h a d set u p a stage for his m u s i­

cians in such a w a y that th e ir loudspeakers p o in te d directly at

the m a y o r d o m o ’s house.
In this conflict of fiestas is concentrated a conflict of anthro­

pologies. In a sense it is fitting that our setting is Tepoztlan,

since one of our most famous controversies concerns life in that

h ig h la n d village in Morelos. Robert R ed field saw in Tepoztlan

an expression of the folk society, based in c o m m u n it a r ia n values

a n d celebrating a fully develo ped calendar of village-wide and

barrio festivals thro ugh w h ic h c o m m u n it y solidarity m ig h t be

expressed (19 3 0 ). Oscar L e w is , on the other h a n d , saw a village

torn b y conflicts that w ere rooted in differential access to land

as well as a history m a r k e d by pro found a n d at tim es bloody

political struggles ( 1 9 5 1 ) . T h e two points of v ie w serve as cen­

tral texts for two traditions in M e x ic a n anthropology, both of

w h ic h can p o in t to a rich literature. I n d e e d , the literature on

village politics in M e x ic o is so large that the conflict witnessed

d u r in g the barrio fiesta in L a S a n tis im a should not surprise.

T h is book does not b e g in w it h a description of that conflict in

order to say s o m e th in g n e w about Tepoztlan or about M e x ic a n

anthropology. T h e description is offered because it allows us to

t h in k thro ugh certain problems in co ntemporary anthropologi­

cal theory.
Anthropologists are fond of presenting their most im p o r ta n t

disagreements in oppositional terms, the very statement of

w h ic h im p l ie s the “ correct” position— from H a r r is ’s opposition
of cultural m a te r ia lis m vs. id ea lis m or m e n ta lis m ( 19 7 9 ) , to
Geertz’s opposition of a semiotic appro ach vs. a p r e d ic tive sci­

ence ( 19 7 3 a ) , to Sahlins’s opposition of a cultural account vs.

vulgar m a te r ia lis m ( 19 7 6 ) , to, m o re recently, the po stm o dern­
ists’ opposition of a literary turn vs. a n a iv e a n d unreflective
realism (Clifford a n d M arcus 19 8 6 ). A t first glance, it m ig h t
a p p e a r that all of these oppositions revolve aro und a single
 INTRO D UC TIO N 3

disagreem ent, one that has been expressed most forcefully by

Marshall Sahlins:

Th e alternatives in this v e n e r a b l e conflict . . . m a y be broadly

phrased as follows: w h e t h e r th e cultural order is to be c o n ­

c e iv e d as th e co d ific a tio n of m a n ’s actual p ur p o s e ful a n d p r a g ­

m a t ic a c tio n ; or w h e t h e r , conversely, h u m a n actio n in th e world

is to b e un d er s to o d as m e d ia t e d b y th e cultural d e s ig n , w h ic h

g ives o rder at o nce to practical e x p e r ie n c e , c u s to m a r y p ractic e,

and th e r e l a tio n s h ip b e t w e e n th e tw o. T h e d if f e r e n c e is not

tr ivial, nor will it b e resolved b y th e h a p p y a c a d e m ic conclusion

that th e a n s w e r lies s o m e w h e r e in b e t w e e n . ( 1 9 7 6 : 5 5 )

The d iv id e to w h ic h Sahlins points is im po rta n t, and this

book is offered as a c o m m e n t a r y u p o n it. Nonetheless, proper

understand ing of the issues invo lved a n d of the work of par tic u ­
lar authors requires that the d iv id e itself be presented in less
sharply d e f in e d a n d provocative terms. As I argue m o re fully in
C h a p t e r 2, the several oppositions that characterize anthropo­
logical discussions are not s im ply variations on a single an-

tino m io us t h e m e . T h e differences a m o n g those w ho pursue a

“ cultural account” are significant, as are the differences a m o n g

those w ho pursue w h at Sahlins would call “ practical reason.”

The arg um ents used to criticize a M a r v in Harris cannot be
recycled to criticize an E r ic Wolf; nor can the same arguments

be used against Marshall Sahlins and Clifford Geertz. The

m a n y attempts to do so represent allegiance to a c o nven ien t

opposition rather than e n g a g e m e n t w it h actual texts.
T h is book offers c o m m e n ta r ies on a n u m b e r of recent anthro­
pological texts as part of an a r g u m e n t for a political eco no m ic
appro ach to history a n d culture. T o better understand that a p ­
proach a n d its relation to other view s of history and culture, w e
b e g in by r etu r nin g to the b ir th d a y celebration in the m e r c h a n t ’s
courtyard.

T o understand the c o m p e t in g fiestas, w e would need to know

s o m eth in g about the structural relations w it h in and among
4 IN TRO D UC TIO N

barrios in Tepo ztlan, the place of L a Santfsima w it h in those

structural relations, the place of this relatively m in o r barrio

fiesta w it h in the ro und of fiestas in Tepoztlan, a n d so on. For

this, a whole body of literature from R ed field thro ugh L e w is to

Bock (1980 ) a n d L o m n it z - A d l e r (19 8 2 ) is helpful. A n u m b e r of

other questions n e e d to be asked as well, ho wever. S u ch ques­

tions could b e g in w it h the m a y o r d o m o a n d the m e r c h a n t. W h o

w ere these people, a n d h o w d id their actions fit w it h in their

particular life courses? H o w long h a d the m a y o r d o m o b een

p r e p a r in g h im s e lf for sponsorship? W h a t h a d it cost h i m and

w h a t h a d h e h o p e d to g a in from it? H o w d id h e m a k e a living?

W h a t kinds of eco n o m ic, social, a n d political relations d id he

h a v e w it h others in the barrio a n d in Tepoztlan? W h a t materials

d id the m e r c h a n t deal w it h , a n d w h a t w ere his eco no m ic, social,

and political relations w it h others in the barrio a n d beyond?

W o u ld h e ever aspire to sponsorship of barrio or village-wide

fiestas, or d id h e consider all of that beneath h im ? W a s there a

history of e n m it y be tw e e n the m a y o r d o m o a n d the m e r c h a n t,

or b e tw e e n the families of the m a y o r d o m o a n d the m e r c h a n t,

or betw een the m e r c h a n t a n d other residents in the barrio?

W h a t was the m e r c h a n t t h in k in g about w h e n h e scheduled the

b ir th d a y party for the w e e k e n d of the barrio fiesta? D id he

consider ho lding it another w e e k e n d ? H o w was the m e r c h a n t ’s

party r ec eived — both in a n tic ipa tio n a n d in the e ven t— by the

m a yo r d o m o , by others p r e p a r in g for the barrio fiesta, by the

celebrants cro w d ing into the m e r c h a n t ’s courtyard? W h a t , if

a n y th in g , d id people say about the two fiestas or about the

m erchant and the m a y o r d o m o and their relations w it h each

other? W h a t consequences m ig h t the c o m p e t in g fiestas h a v e —

over the c o m in g weeks, the c o m in g m o nths, the c o m in g years—

for relations b e tw e e n these two m e n , or for relations w it h in the

barrio a n d w it h in Tepoztlan?
To understand the conflicts, w e n e ed to kn o w s o m ethin g
about the long-term structure a n d m e a n in g of this particular
barrio fiesta w it h in a cycle of fiestas, but w e also n e ed to kn o w
s o m eth in g about how specific in d ivid u a l s are acting w it h in
those structures, u sing a particular m e a n in g f u l occasion to say
s o m eth in g about th e ir relationships w it h each other, their rela-
 in tr o d u c tio n 5

tive standing in the barrio a n d village, their history or their

prospects.
T o understand w h a t people are saying a n d h e a r in g in p a r tic u ­

lar situations, w e n e e d to turn to history. E a c h of our questions

about the fiestas is historical— h o w d id the actions fit w it h in the

life histories of particular in d ivid u a ls ? H o w d id those life histo­

ries relate to fa m ily histories? H o w d id those life a n d fam ily

histories fit w it h in recent a n d not so recent events a n d trends in

the barrio a n d village? H o w had the barrio festival c han g ed

over the decades?

At this moment in the develo pm ent of anthropological

thought, such questions do not surprise. Anthropologists of

various persuasions are discovering history these days, but as

they do so they create two kinds of problems. First, they m a y

write a partial history of the relationship b e tw e e n anthropology

and history. In the most restricted unders tan d ing , there was

no relationship at all until Clifford Geertz published T h e I n t e r ­

p r e ta tio n of Cu ltu res ( 19 7 3 a ) , and historians at Princeton a n d

elsewhere discovered a n d a pp r o p r ia te d a particular version of

cultural anthropology (see Silk 19 8 7 ) . B u t this ignores a m u c h

longer tradition a n d a r g u m e n t , one that has often r e m a in e d

“ subterranean” ( V in c e n t 19 8 9 ), not only w it h in anthropology

from Boas to some of his students a n d colleagues (see M in t z

19 8 7 ) but also a m o n g anthropologists a n d historians invo lved

in area studies in m o r e recent decades.

Second, anthropologists m a y “ turn to history” w itho ut specify­

in g w h at k in d of history they h a v e in m in d . I a m not referring

s im ply to the life, family, barrio, village, a n d national histories

m e n t io n e d in our discussion of Tepo ztlan, tho ugh the relation­

ships a m o n g these r e m a in im p o r t a n t. O f m o r e im m e d ia t e conse­

quence for our discussion here is the fact that anthropologists

m e a n rather different things w h e n they talk about history. T h e

different understandings of history are, in turn, related to d if ­
ferent positions w it h in anthropological debates. W e h a ve , in
short, a variety of anthropologic a p p r o p r ia tin g a variety of
historic, m a k in g a n y one-sentence invo catio n of the intersec­
tion of anthropology a n d history simplistic a n d n a iv e . In d e e d ,
we can better understand the issues that d iv id e anthropologists
6 IN TRO D UC TIO N

if w e m o v e beyo nd the oppositions encountered earlier a n d ask

w hat particular anthropologists m e a n w h e n they talk about his­

tory. Rather th an presenting an e xha u s tive survey, I con­

centrate on three major authors who have contributed to

“ anthropology’s” e n g a g e m e n t w it h “ history” a n d , thro ugh that

eng ag em ent, ha ve outlined the most im p o r ta n t issues facing

anthropologists today— Clifford Geertz, Marshall Sahlins, and

Eric W o lf.1

As expressed in T h e I n t e r p r e t a t io n of C u l tu r e s ( 19 7 3 a ) , N e g a r a

(1980 ), a n d other works, Geertz’s u n ders tan d ing of history is

rooted in the n e o -K a n tia n distinction b etw een the natural a n d

historical sciences, in w h ic h the latter are associated w it h the

study of h u m a n society a n d culture. T h e invocation of history,

g iv e n such usage, is tied to an epistemological a n d methodologi­

cal critique of positivist social science. For Geertz, history cannot

be understood by m e a n s of elaborately constructed theoretical

formulas or by reference to general laws. A search for such laws

misses the creative capacity a n d consequence of h u m a n activity,

w h ic h occurs w it h in the context of sets of “ historically” d e r ive d

symbols, to w h ic h human actors attach m e a n in g . Geertz thus

regards positivist attempts at historical explanatio n as incapable

of addressing the pro b lem of m e a n in g a n d action. Accordingly,

the anthropologist’s or historian’s task m u s t be to interpret the

m e a n in g s h u m a n s assign to their actions. In such a schem e, the

terms “ history” a n d “ culture” are at least interrelated w h e n they

are not v ie w e d as synonym ous. A n d in m u c h of Geertz’s work,

the two are in d e e d synonym ous. T o say that a pro blem or prac­
tice is historical is to say that it is culturally situated, a n d vice
versa. Geertz m a ke s this most clear in his reconstruction of the

n in eteen th -c en tu ry Balinese state, w h ic h he sees as an explicit

critique of certain styles of historical w r itin g . In his introduc­
tion, h e observes:

T h e history of a great civilization can be depicted as a series of

rrjajor events— wars, reigns, and revolutions— which, whether
or not they shape it, at least mark major changes in its course.
 IN TRO D U C TIO N 7

Or it can be depicted as a succession not of dates, places, and

prominent persons, but of general phases of sociocultural de­
velopment. A n emphasis on the first sort of historiography
tends to present history as a series of bounded periods, more
or less distinct units of tim e characterized by some special
significance of their own. . . . T h e second approach, however,
presents historical change as a relatively continuous social and
cultural process, a process w hich shows few if any sharp
breaks, but rather displays a slow but patterned alteration in
which, though developmental phases m ay be discerned when
the entire course of the process is view ed as a whole, it is
nearly always very difficult, if not impossible, to put one’s
finger exactly on the point at w hich things stopped being what
they were and became instead something else. T h is view of
change, or process, stresses not so m u c h the annalistic chroni­
cle of what people d id , but rather the formal, or structural,
patterns of cumulative activity. (1980: 5)

One m ig h t t h in k , on the first statement of difference, that

Geertz is contrasting history seen as string of events, “ one d a m n

thin g after another,” w it h m o r e structural readings of history.

As h e develops the contrast, ho wever, it is clear that both styles

of historical w r it in g invo lve some sort of “ structural” account.

In the former, ho wever, the writer sees history as a material

social process (“ the annalistic chronicle of w h a t people d id ” ); in

the latter, the writer sees history as cultural pattern. T h o u g h

Geertz suggests that both styles are valid , h e clearly prefers the

cultural, offering it as a critical alternative to the “ annalistic”

and suggesting that it is the style most a ppro pria te for the non-
Western societies most anthropologists study ( ib id .: 6).

In one respect at least, Sahlins’s appro ach to culture a n d

history m ig h t appear similar. In Culture a n d P r a c t ic a l R e a s o n

( 19 7 6 ) , h e too ten d e d to treat culture a n d history as virtually

synonymous. In d e e d , in a book that criticizes a variety of m a t e ­

rialist styles of tho ught for their lack of a culture concept, one
can generally replace his n u m e r o u s references to “ history” a n d
“ historical” w it h the words “ culture” and “ cultural” w it h no
loss of m e a n in g . B o th history a n d culture are used as critical

counterpoints to materialist styles that are seen to reduce

8 IN TRO D UC TIO N

h u m a n variety to positivist law. Yet Sahlins differs from Geertz

in this 19 7 6 book in im p o r t a n t ways. W it h respect to culture,

Sahlins is less concerned w it h m e a n in g or action than w it h con­

ceptual s c h em e , a n d his appro ach to that s chem e d ep e n d s less

on W e b e r th an on Levi-Strauss. H is analyses of structural o p p o ­

sitions a n d transformations w it h in various conceptual schemes

m a y be m o r e or less sophisticated, but the basic p o in t in C u l ­

tu re a n d P r a c t ic a l R e a s o n was an opposition betw een a co ncep­

tual s c h em e a n d “ p r a xis ,” w it h the conceptual s c hem e b e in g

seen as both prior to a ctivity a n d m e d ia to r of activity. Culture,

as conceptual s c h em e , was not seen as the product of past

activity a n d concept.

T h is left Sahlins w it h an im p o r t a n t pro b lem : e thno g raphic

a n d “ historical” e v id e n c e presented n u m e r o u s exam ples of pro­

found transformation of conceptual schemes, a n d an anthropol­

ogy that set u p the opposition of praxis a n d culture in such an

e x t r e m e fashion could be seen as sophisticated, eru d ite, a n d out

of touch. In his m o r e recent work, then, Sahlins has p a id m o re

attention to the c o m p le x interaction of conceptual s chem e and

activity. A s h e has do ne so, the relationship betw een culture a n d

history in his work has altered. Sahlins still does not p a y m u c h

attention to m e a n in g : h e continues to see culture as conceptual

s chem e to be subjected to structural analysis. In d e e d , the two

terms that are now seen as synonymous would a p p e a r to be

“ culture” a n d “ structure.” (R e m a r k a b ly a n d humorously, if one

looks u p the word “ culture” in the in d e x of his recent Islands of

H is t o r y [ 19 8 5 ] , one reads, “ see structure.” 2) B u t history is now

seen as a process in w h ic h conceptual s chem e informs practice

a n d practice transforms the conceptual s c hem e . As h e observes

at the b e g in n in g of Islands of H is t o r y :

History is culturally ordered, differently so in different soci­

eties, according to meaningful schemes of things. T h e con­
verse is also true: cultural schemes are historically ordered,
since to a greater or lesser extent the meanings are revalued
as they are practically enacted. T h e synthesis of these contrar­
ies unfolds in the creative action of the historic subjects, the
people concerned. For on the one hand, people organize their
 IN TRO D UC TIO N 9

projects and give significance to their objects from the exist­

ing understandings of the cultural order. . . . O n the other
hand, then, as the contingent circumstances of action need
not conform to the significance some group m ig ht assign
them, people are known to creatively reconsider their conven­
tional schemes. A n d to that extent, the culture is historically
altered in action. W e can speak even of “ structural transfor­
mation,” since the alteration of some meanings changes the
positional relations among the cultural categories, thus a
“ system-change.” (19 8 5 : vii)

O n e m ig h t note that the d e f in itio n of structural transforma­

tion as chan g e in “ positional relations a m o n g the cultural cate­

gories” is rather partial a n d l im it e d , g iv e n the antimaterialist

stance of Sahlins’s recent work. G r a n te d that d efin itio n , h o w ­

ever, his a pp r o a ch to history is no longer one that reduces it to

context. H e now uses it to characterize the “ transformations”

associated w it h the relation a n d interaction of structure and

event, or structure a n d practice. A s this perspective is a p p l ie d to

examples from Polynesian history, however, the o v e r w h e l m in g

e m ph a s is r e m a in s fixe d on the incorporation of “ e ve n t ” w it h in

structure— the structural (cultural) r ea d in g of n e w events w it h in

preexisting codes a n d relations. W e are treated to e n terta in in g

and e n lig h te n in g discussions of the ways in w h ic h H a w a iia n s or

Maoris or Fijians interpreted the actions of Westerners in terms

of p reexis ting categories, incorpo rating e ve n t w it h in m y t h . B u t

w e learn relatively little about transformation— except in the

narrowly structuralist terms Sahlins sets for himself. T h e most

im p o r ta n t case of transformation to w h ic h Sahlins directs our

attention is the set of events associated w it h early Western

contact w it h H a w a i i, events that led to w h a t anthropologists

h a ve long recognized as a “ cultural revolution” (D a ve n po r t

19 6 9 ). B u t m u c h of Sahlins’s attention is still directed to the

a tte m pt, finally unsuccessful, to incorporate these events w it h in

preexisting conceptual schemes. The political a n d eco no m ic
transformation that a c c o m p a n ie d contact receives m e n t io n , es­
pecially in H is t o r ic a l M e t a p h o r s a n d M y t h ic a l R e a l it ie s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , but it
serves as backdro p a n d is not itself the subject of analysis. T h e
10 IN TRO D UC TIO N

a n th r o p o lo g ic a l r ea d in g of history is seen as focused on other,

cultural, questions. “ T h e pro b lem n o w ,” Sahlins tells us, “ is to

explo de the concept of history by the anthropological e x p e r i­

ence of culture” ( 1 9 8 5 : 7 2 ).

D e s p ite th e ir differences, both Sahlins a n d Geertz use a con­

cept of history that is tie d to a concept of culture. It can be used

to criticize m o r e scientific or materialist approaches: reference

to history, like reference to culture, is a recognition of h u m a n

difference. A s Sahlins expresses it, “ T h e different cultural or­

ders studied by anthropology h a ve their own historicities”

( ib id .: 53 ). W h il e such understandings of culture a n d history

m a y be v ie w e d as attempts to grasp an “ actor-centered po in t of

v ie w ” or as contributions to an e m e r g in g “ practice theory”

(O rtner 19 8 4 ) , the most significant aspect of both of these a p ­

proaches is that they are several steps r e m o v e d from action. As

Geertz stresses, his interest lies not in “ the annalistic chronicle

of w h a t people d id , b u t rather the formal, or structural, pat­

terns of c u m u l a t iv e a c tivity” ( 19 8 0 :5 ) . In Sahlins’s case, w hile w e

read m u c h about the “ structure of the conjuncture,” about the

interrelation of structure a n d practice, the e m ph a s is r e m a in s on

practice as a theo retical category rather than the practices of differ­

ently situated a n d positioned actors w it h in contradictory social

relations. In this v ie w (or in this m o m e n t a r y conjunction of two

distinct view s), culture is e n a c t e d rather than a cted .

If w e w ere to return briefly to Tepo ztlan, w e m ig h t fin d that

anthropologists w o r k in g w it h in , say, a structuralist fram ew o rk
would h a v e m u c h to say about the symbolic a n d structural rela­

tionships that exist a m o n g barrios— the d ivis io n betw een those

from abo ve a n d those from below, the p a ir in g of in d iv id u a l

barrios from abo ve w it h in d iv id u a l barrios from below, the
analogous links b e tw e e n a n im a l symbols attached to p a ir e d bar­

rios, the im p o r t a n c e of the n u m b e r three in the link betw een

the barrios of Los Reyes ( T h e T h r e e Kings) a n d L a S a n d s im a
(The H o ly T r in it y ) (see Bo ck 1980 ). T h e y would h a v e m u c h
m o re to say about the symbolism of L a S a n d s im a than about the

symbolism of the loudspeakers.

A different u n d e r s ta n d in g of history can be used to criticize
the cultural assumptions of a Sahlins or Geertz. W it h i n anthro-
 IN TRO D U C TIO N 11

pology, this perspective has b e en develo ped most im po rtantly

by Eric Wolf. H e r e history is seen as a material social process,

one characterized by eco n o m ic and political inequality and

d o m in atio n , a n d by transformations not only of the relations

am o n g cultural terms b u t of entire social orders. History in this

sense is not s im p ly the m a r k in g of different cultural contexts—

though it includes that. It is also the a tte m p t to trace the connec­

tions a m o n g various cultural orders w it h in a global, u n e ve n l y

developing b u t u n if ie d , social process. T h e critical project to

w h ic h this u n d e r s tan d in g of history is attached is one that re­

jects those anthropological styles that d raw analytical b o u n d ­

aries aro und particular villages, regions, or “ cultures” a n d then

treat those analytical entities as different by d e f in itio n . In a

c o m m e n t on the uncritical use of the H u m a n Relations A r e a

Files by some anthropologists, W olf m a ke s an observation that

can easily be e x t e n d e d to other understandings of culture a n d

history:

W h at, however, if we take cognizance of processes that tran­

scend separable cases, m o ving through and beyond them and
transforming th e m as they proceed? Such processes were, for
example, the North A m er ic a n fur trade and the trade in na­
tive A m er ic a n and African slaves. What of the localized
Algonkin-speaking patrilineages, for example, w hich in the
course of the fur trade moved into large nonkin villages and
became known as the ethnographic Ojibwa? W h a t of the
Chipeweyans, some of whose bands gave u p hunting to be­
come fur trappers, or “ carriers,” while others continued to
hunt for game as “caribou eaters,” with people continuously
changing from caribou eating to carrying and back?. . . .
W h a t, moreover, of Africa, where the slave trade created an
unlimited d em a n d for slaves, and where quite unrelated po pu­
lations met that d em a n d by severing people from their kin
groups through warfare, kid n a ppin g , pawning, or judicial
procedures, in order to have slaves to sell to the Europeans?
In all such cases, to attempt to specify separate cultural wholes
and distinct boundaries would create a false sample. These
cases exemplify spatially and temporally shifting relation­
ships, prompted in all instances by the effects of European
12 IN TRO D UC TIO N

expansion. If we consider, furthermore, that this expansion

has for nearly 500 years affected case after case, then the
search for a world sample of distinct cases is illusory. (19 8 2 :
17 - 18 )

A few points require clarification here. First, although the

anthropological project W olf envisions m ig h t be called a global

and historical political economy, it has little in co mmo n w ith

some forms of global social science w it h w h ic h readers m a y be

familiar. Most popular versions, especially the “ world-system”

theory of I m m a n u e l Wallerstein ( 1 9 7 4 ; 19 7 9 ) , tend to obliterate

cultural difference and in terpret social processes in various

parts of the world in terms of processes occurring in the devel­

oped centers of the world economy. As an anthropologist, Wolf

starts w it h the m u l t if o r m a n d various societies studied by other

anthropologists a n d attempts to explore their histories in a way

that connects t h e m w it h processes occurring elsewhere. Second,

although W o lf’s is a v ie w of history as material social process

a n d therefore fits w it h in materialist approaches to anthropol­

ogy, it has n o th in g in common w it h evolutionist attempts to

subsum e cultural variety w it h in general, lawlike explanatory

schemes (see below, C h a p t e r 2). Wolf is a tt e m p t in g to place

various cultures w it h in the context of a global, but u n e v e n ,

history; h e is not a t t e m p t in g to pro duce a science of universal

history.
B o th historical styles— history as cultural difference a n d his­

tory as material social process— h a ve im p o r ta n t critical things to

say to a m o re traditional, “ ahistorical” anthropology. It m ig h t

be comforting to assert that there is room for both histories

w it h in anthropology; alone, each perspective offers a partial

a n d necessarily distorting perspective. C o m fo r tin g but insuffi­
cient: room for both r e m a in s w it h in an e x p a n s iv e a n d eclectic
d iscipline, b u t th e ir partial a n d distorting visions do not neces­
sarily c o m p l e m e n t one another. A lth o u g h I appro ach this book
w it h the co nvictio n that the oppositions betw een apparently
a n tin o m io u s terms like “ m e a n in g ” a n d “ action,” or “ m e a n in g ”
a n d “ po w er,” can be m e d ia t e d , I do not t h in k that m e d ia t io n
consists of cooking a stew w it h a little bit of Wolf, a little bit of
 in tr o d u c tio n 13

Geertz, a n d a little bit of Sahlins. S o m e foods do not c o m ple ­

m e n t each other; some anthropologies are in c o m p a tib le . T h e

in c o m p a tib ility here rests w it h basic attitudes toward cultural

others, w h ic h in turn rests on fundam entally different u n d e r ­

standings of history. T h e one sees the O th e r as different and

separate, a product of its own history a n d carrying its own his­

toricity. Co nnections w it h a larger history m a y not be d e n ie d ,

but authors w it h in this tradition contend that one m ust u n d e r ­

stand culture (as m e a n in g or as structure) by setting that larger

history aside (see O r tn er 19 8 4 ) . T h e second sees the O th e r as

different but co n n ec ted , a pro duct of a particular history that is

itself in te r tw in e d w it h a larger set of eco no m ic, political, social,

and cultural processes to such an extent that analytical separa­

tion of “ our” history a n d “ th e ir ” history is impossible. In this

vie w , there are no cultures-outside-of-history to be recon­

structed, no culture w ith o u t history, no culture or society “ w it h

its own structure a n d history” to w h ic h world-historical forces

arrive. T h e co n cept of culture that emerges from such a project

is fundam entally different from the concept of culture w it h

w h ic h a Geertz or Sahlins m ig h t b e g in ; the anthropological

project that emerges is different as well.

T h is book bases itself in W o l f ’s u n d er s tan d ing of an anthro­

pological history a n d devotes its a r g u m e n t to an e x a m in a t io n of

the im plicatio ns of this u n d e r s ta n d in g of history for our analy­

ses of culture a n d politics. M y a r g u m e n t is as follows:

Geertz a n d other anthropologists w h o h a v e b een influenced

by W e b e r are fun dam entally correct w h e n they po in t to cul­

ture as the central concept of anthropological practice and

w hen they situate that centrality w it h in a call for studies of

m e a n in g fu l action. T h a t is, cultural m e a n in g is im p o r t a n t b e ­

cause social a n d political actors, a n d their actions, are fo rmed

in part by pre e xis tin g understandings of the world, of other

people, of the self. T h e i r appr o a ch to m e a n in g is inad eq uate,
however, because they pay insufficient attention to cultural
differentiation, to social a n d political inequalities that affect
actors’ differential understandings of the world, other people,
14 IN TRO D UC TIO N

a n d themselves, a n d to the historical formation of anthro po ­

logical subjects w it h in processes of u n e v e n d e ve lo p m e n t.

Sufficient attention to such questions requires a concern for

political econo m y. I therefore explore the assumptions a n d prac­

tices of anthropological political economy, in d ica te the kinds of

problems that should be central to such an appro a ch, a n d re­

v ie w some of the inad eq uacies of m a n y anthropological studies

of politics a n d economics.

A lth o u g h I trust that the a r g u m e n t is coherent, I do not

develop it in a step-by-step, linear fashion. T h e book is d iv id e d

into two parts, “ C u l t u r e ” a n d “ Political E c o n o m y ,” w h ic h are

linked by a particular u n d e r s ta n d in g of history. T h e essays in

each part follow a similar pattern. I b e g in w it h a consideration

of a particular text— G eertz’s essay on Balinese cockfights in

Part O n e a n d W o l f ’s study of the historical formation of a n ­

thropological subjects in Part T w o . Discussion of central texts

then leads to a m o r e general discussion of theoretical issues

a n d problems— M a r x is m a n d culture in Part O n e a n d anthro­

pological approaches to political eco no m y in Part T w o . The

last two essays in each section address m o r e specific problems

suggested by the theoretical essays. In Part O n e , I turn to

historical analyses— of politics a n d culture in m o d e r n V e n e z u ­

ela a n d of a m o r e w id e -r a n g in g reflection on the “ in ternali­

zation of the external” (Cardoso a n d Faletto 19 7 9 ) in L a t in

A m e r ic a n history. In Part T w o , I explore m o r e specific theo­

retical problems w it h in anthropological political eco no m y— our

understandings of the positions, roles, a n d fates of peasantries

w it h in m o d e r n L a t in A m e r ic a , a n d our u n d er s tan d ing of poli­

tics a n d culture w it h in processes of u n e v e n proletarianization.

In the final chapter, I essay a statement of the kinds of u n d e r ­

standings of culture a n d politics that e m e r g e from an appro ach
to the fo rm atio n of anthropological subjects in terms of u n ­
e ve n d e v e l o p m e n t . Central to this a r g u m e n t is a return to the
concept of c o m m u n it y , seen not as a g iv e n society- or culture-
outside-of-history but as a political association fo rm ed through

processes of political a n d cultural creation a n d im a g in a t io n —

the generation of m e a n in g of contexts of unequal power.
CULTURE

The sta rting -po int of critical elaboration is the consciousness of w h a t o ne

really is, a n d is “ k n o w in g thyself” as a p r o d u c t of th e historical process

to d ate w h ic h has d e p o s ite d in yo u a n in f in it y of traces, w it h o u t l e a v in g

a n in v e n t o r y . . . .

P h ilo s o p h y c an n o t b e separated f r o m th e history of philo s o phy, nor can

culture f r o m th e history of c ulture.

— A n t o n io G r a m s c i, T h e P r is o n N o te bo o ks
r
C H A P T E R O N E

Balinese Cockfights
and the Seduction
of Anthropology

Few anthropologists in recent years h a ve enjoyed w id e r in ­

fluence in the social sciences than Clifford Geertz. Sociologists,

political scientists, a n d social historians interested in popular cul­

ture a n d m e n t a l it e s h a v e tur n e d increasingly to anthropology, a n d

the anthropologist most often e m b r a c e d is Professor Geertz.

A number of factors can be adduced to account for this

trend. In the first place, Geertz’s position at the Institute for

A d v a n c e d S tu d y has allowed h i m to transcend the disciplinary

and subdisciplinary in vo lutio n that characterizes anthropology

and other social sciences. A t the Institute, h e is able to attract

scholars from a variety of disciplines, a d o ptin g an antidisci-

plinary m o o d a n d focus that is rare in current a c a d e m ic prac­

tice. Second, Geertz is an excellent eth no grapher w ho writes

w it h an eloquence a n d sophistication u n c o m m o n for the social

sciences. H is cultural essays can be read w it h profit by intro duc­

tory students or graduate students in a d va n c e d seminars. A n d

his descriptions of life in B ali or Java or Morocco call to m i n d

one of the aspects of anthropology that has always b een so

seductive: the lure of distant places a n d other modes of b e in g .

T h u s , in part, the title of this essay. B u t the title is in t e n d e d to
suggest another aspect of G eertz’s work as well, for there is a
sense in w h ic h anthropologists— and other social scientists—
h a ve b e e n seduced by Geertz’s writings on culture.
18 CULTU RE

T o explore this c la im , w e m u s t first e x a m in e a third aspect of

Geertz’s p r o m in e n c e : his par tic ipa tio n in anthropological d e ­

bates be tw e e n materialists a n d idealists. A lth o u g h the a pp a re n t

a n tin o m ie s b e tw e e n e xplan atio n and interpretation, science

a n d history, a n d m a te r ia lis m a n d idealis m h a v e served as con­

stant th em es in anthropological debates over the years, the dis­

course b e c a m e increasingly acrim o nio us d u r in g the 1960s and

1970 s. O ver a perio d of a p p r o x im a te l y twenty years after

World War II, many A m e r ic a n anthropologists turn ed aw ay

from Boasian relativism a n d toward m o re scientific, e xp la n a ­

tory approaches to culture a n d society. W it h this trend, a type

of m a te r ia lis m d o m in a t e d anthropological discussions, espe­

cially thro ugh the cultural ecology of Julian Steward a n d the

cultural evo lutio nism of Leslie W h it e . B y the late 1960s, h o w ­

ever, increasing n u m b e r s of social scientists were rejecting e x ­

planatory accounts as positivist a n d were rediscovering G e r m a n

historicism a n d the in te r p r e tive sociologies that h a d influenced

the early Boasians. Yet, at a p p r o x im a te ly the same t im e , the

position of pub lic d o m in a n c e in anthropological m aterialis m

passed to M a r v in H a rr is upo n the publication of his R is e of

A n t h r o p o l o g ic a l T h e o r y ( 19 6 8 ) . W it h that book and subsequent

volumes, most notably his C u l t u r a l M a t e r ia l is m ( 19 7 9 ) , Ha rr is

m a p p e d out a materialist terrain that was resolutely scientific,

although it e x h ib it e d m u c h less caution regarding w h a t w e can

kno w about social a n d cultural processes than d id the cultural

ecology of Julian Steward.

In such a context, G eertz’s p r o m in e n c e is hardly surprising.

The 19 7 3 publicatio n of a collection of his essays, T h e In ter­

p r e t a t io n of C u l t u r e s ( 19 7 3 a ) , and especially an essay entitled

“ T h ic k D es c r ip tio n : To w ard an Interpretive T h e o r y of C u l ­
ture” ( 19 7 3 b ) , w ritten especially for that vo lu m e , p r o vid e d a
persuasive text for those anthropologists w ho were dissatisfied
w it h the vis io n of a science of culture offered by H a rr is . G iv e n
Geertz’s backg ro und in W e b e r ia n perspectives a n d his f a m ilia r ­
ity w it h the pheno m eno logical a n d h e r m e n e u t ic literature that

Harris dismisses as “ obscurantist,” Geertz can, w it h a short

discussion of w in k s a n d blinks, call into serious question H a r ­
ris’s u n m e d ia t e d u n d e r s ta n d in g of social and cultural facts.
 t h e s e d u c tio n of a n th r o p o l o g y 19

A n d he is able to m a k e a persuasive case for an anthropology

that is “ not an e x p e r im e n t a l science in search of law but an

interpretive one in search of m e a n in g ” ( ib id .: 5).

T h e difference be tw e e n H a r r is a n d Geertz, a n d their p a r tic u ­

lar versions of e xplan atio n a n d interpretation, can be d e m o n ­

strated w it h a discussion of th e ir approaches to culture. For

Harris,

The starting point of all sociocultural analysis for cultural

materialism is simply the existence of an etic h u m a n popula­
tion located in etic tim e and space. A society for us is a m a x i­
mal social group consisting of both sexes and all ages and
exhibiting a w id e range of interactive behavior. Culture, on
the other hand, refers to the learned repertory of thoughts
and actions exhibited by the members of social groups. (19 79 :
47)

Harris goes on to m a k e r ig id distinctions a m o n g infrastructure,

structure, a n d superstructure a n d tells us that “ T h e etic b e h a v ­

ioral modes of pro ductio n a n d reproduction probabilistically

d e t e r m in e the etic behavioral domestic a n d political economy,

w h ic h in turn probabilistically d e t e r m in e the behavioral a n d

mental e m ic superstructures” ( ib id .: 5 5 - 5 6 ) . N o te that culture

is reduced to a set of ideas, or, less im a g in a tive ly , a “ learned

repertory of thoughts a n d actions.” Culture is seen as a pro d­

uct; it is not seen simultaneously as pro ductio n. T h e r e is, then,

no concern in H a r r is ’s work w it h m e a n i n g — the socially con­

structed understandings of the world in terms of w h ic h people

act. B u t as long as w e are w o r k in g w it h such an ideational v ie w

of culture, w h e th e r from a materialist or idealist perspective, we

r em o ve it from h u m a n action a n d praxis a n d therefore exclude

the possibility of b r id g in g the anthropological a n t im o n y be­

tween the material a n d ideal. W e m a y explore this assertion by

tur n in g to Clifford Geertz.
The pro m is e of G eertz’s project, especially as elaborated in
“ T h ic k D e s c r ip tio n ,” is that h e seems to be w o rkin g w it h a
concept of culture as socially constituted a n d socially constitut­
in g . He explicitly criticizes ideational definitions of culture,
20 C U LTU RE

concentrating on symbols that carry a n d c o m m u n ic a t e m e a n ­

ings to social actors w h o h a v e created t h e m . Unfortunately, at

no p o in t does h e say w h a t h e m e a n s as clearly a n d rigorously as

does H a r r is . Instead, h e places his definitions in a m o r e elegant

a n d elusive prose. For e x a m p l e : “ B e l ie v in g , w it h M a x W eber,

that m a n is a n a n im a l suspended in webs of significance he

h im s elf has s p u n , I take culture to be those webs . . . ” ( 19 7 3 b :

5). Or: “ culture consists of socially established structures of

m e a n in g in terms of w h ic h people do such things as signal

conspiracies a n d join them or p er c e ive insults and answer

t h e m . . . ” ( ib id .: 13 ) . O r : “ T h e culture of a people is an e n s e m ­

ble of texts, themselves ensembles, w h ic h the anthropologist

strains to read over the shoulders of those to w h o m they p r o p ­

erly belong” ( 19 7 3 c : 4 5 2 ) . T h e last quote comes from the well-

k n o w n essay, “ D e e p Play: Notes on the Balinese Co ck fig ht,” to

w h ic h m o r e attention is devoted here. It was noted earlier that

Geertz seems to be w o r k in g w it h a concept of culture as socially

constituted and socially constituting. We m u s t no w question

w h e th e r he has realized this p ro m is e . T h is essay compares

Geertz’s claims for h im s e lf in “ T h ic k D es cr iptio n ” w it h one of

his o w n pieces of description. Because Geertz’s ethno g raphic

work is vo lu m in o us , a n d the a im s of this chapter are modest, w e

shall concentrate on his essay on Balinese cockfights.1

Geertz’s essay is at once a n a tte m p t to show that cultural

products can be treated as texts a n d an a tte m pt to interpret

one such text. T h e m e t a p h o r of the text is, of course, a favor­

ite of the practitioners of both structuralism a n d herm eneu­

tics, tho ug h Geertz takes his lead from R ic o e u r rather than

Levi-Strauss. T h e reference to culture as a text, g ive n Geertz’s
project, calls for an exercise in interpretation. Geertz in te r pr e ­
tation m u s t be s u m m a r iz e d before w e can ask some questions
of it. “ Notes on the Balinese Co ckfig ht” begins w it h an account
of the Geertzes’ difficulties w hen first a r r ivin g in the field,
their response to a police raid on a cockfight, a n d their final
acceptance, g iv e n that response, by the villagers. T h e essay
then m oves into a description of the cockfight itself, in c lu d in g
 t h e s ed uc tio n of a n th r o p o l o g y 21

a discussion of the psychological identificatio n of m e n and

cocks, the procedures associated w it h cockfights a n d wagers,

and so on. P r e lim in a r ie s out of the way, Geertz m oves toward

an interpretation of the fight itself. He begins w it h J e r e m y
B e n t h a m ’s notion of d e e p play, or games in w h ic h the conse­

quences for losers are so devastating that partic ipatio n in the

games is irrational for all concerned. N o t in g that the central

wagers in Balinese cockfights seem to correspond to such a

h ig h stakes g a m e , h e then counters:

It is in large part because the marginal disutility of loss is so

great at the higher levels of betting that to engage in such
betting is to lay one’s public self, allusively and metaphorically,
through the m e d iu m of one’s cock, on the line. A n d though to
a Bentham ite this m ig h t seem merely to increase the irrational­
ity of the enterprise that m u c h further, to the Balinese what it
mainly increases is the meaningfulness of it all. A n d as (to
follow W eber rather than Bentham ) the imposition of m e a n ­
ing in life is the major and prim ary condition of h u m a n exis­
tence, that access of significance more than compensates for
the economic costs involved. (19 73 c: 434)

Geertz th e n looks to two aspects of significance in the cock­

fight. B o th are related to the hierarchical organization of B a l i­

nese society. H e first observes that the cockfight is a “ sim ulation

of the social m a t r ix ,” or, following G o f f m a n , a “ status blood­

b ath” ( ib id .: 436 ). T o explore this, Geertz m entio n s the four d e ­

scent groups that organize factions in the village a n d e x a m in e s

the rules in vo lve d in betting against the cocks o w n ed by m e m ­

bers of other descent groups, other villages, rivals, a n d so on.

A lth o u g h h e has not yet referred to the cockfight as a text, as

Geertz m o ves toward the second aspect of significance, he be­

gins to refer to it as “ an art fo rm ” ( ib id .: 4 43 ). As an art form, it

“ displays” fu n d a m e n ta l passions in Balinese society that are h id ­

d en from v ie w in o rdinary daily life a n d c o m p o r tm e n t. As an
atomistic invers io n of the w a y Balinese normally present t h e m ­
selves to themselves, the cockfight relates to the status hierarchy
in another sense— no longer as a status-based organization of
22 C U LTU RE

the cockfight b u t as a c o m m e n t a r y on the existence of status

differences in the first place. T h e cockfight is “ a Balinese read­

in g of Balinese e x p e r ie n c e , a story they tell themselves about

themselves” ( ib id .: 4 48 ). W h a t they tell themselves is that b e ­

neath the external ve n e e r of collective calm a n d grace lies a n ­

other nature. A t both the social a n d in d iv id u a l level, there is

another B a li a n d another sort of Balinese. A n d w h a t they tell

themselves they tell in a text that “ consists of a c h ic k e n h a c k in g

another mindlessly to bits” ( ib id .: 449).

After this basic interpretatio n of the Balinese cockfight in

terms of status organization and co m m e n ta r y, Geertz closes

w it h a discussion of culture as an ensemble of texts. H e notes

that their interpretation is difficult a n d that such an appro ach is

not “ the only w a y that symbolic forms can be sociologically h a n ­

dled. Fu n ctio n alis m lives, a n d so does psychologism. But to

regard such forms as ‘saying s o m e th in g of s o m e th in g ,’ a n d say­

in g it to somebody, is at least to o p e n u p the possibility of an

analysis that attends to th e ir substance rather than to r ed uctive

formulas professing to account for t h e m ” ( ib id .: 4 5 3 ) .

A c c e p t in g this criticism of red u ctive formulas, w e m u s t ques­

tion w h e th e r Geertz’s analysis has sociologically handled the

Balinese cockfight or p a id sufficient attention to its substance.

In w h a t follows, no fu n d a m e n ta l reinterpretation of the B a l i­

nese cockfight is a tt e m p t e d . S u ch a reinterpretation is the task

of a writer m o r e fa m ilia r w it h B a li a n d Indonesia than is the

present one. T h is essay s im p ly points to a few elements present

in G eertz’s essay b u t o m itte d from the in te r pr e tive exercise that

should fo rm a part of a cultural a n d sociological interpretation

of the cockfight. A l t h o u g h Geertz m ig h t regard reference to

these elements as a form of functionalist red u ctio n is m , no at­

t e m p t is m a d e here to account for or e x p la in the existence of
the cockfight. Rath e r , by p o in t in g to other aspects of Balinese
society a n d history w it h w h ic h the cockfight m a y be in vo lved ,
this essay calls into question the m e ta p h o r of culture as text (cf.
K e e s in g 19 8 7 ) .

A c c e p t in g for a m o m e n t that m e ta p ho r , w e m ig h t briefly

turn to three aspects of Balinese society not in clu d ed in the
interpretatio n. T h e first has to do w it h the role of w o m e n . In a
 t h e s e d uc tio n of a n th r o p o l o g y 23

footnote early in the article, Geertz notes that w hile there is

little a p p a r e n t p ub lic sexual differentiatio n in B ali, the cock­

fight is one of the few activities from w h ic h women are e x ­

cluded ( 19 7 3 c : 4 17 - 4 18 ) . T h is a p p a r e n t ano m aly m a y make

sense in terms of G eertz’s interpretatio n. A s w it h status differ­

ences, so w it h sexual differences. T h e cockfight, a n d betting on

the cockfight, are the activities of m e n , serving as co m m e n tar ies

on the pub lic den ial of difference. B u t sex cannot be s u b s u m ed

so sim ply w it h in status. T h e sexual exclusion becomes m o re

interesting w h e n w e learn in another footnote that the Balinese

countryside was integrated by rotating m arket systems that

would encompass several villages a n d that cockfights w ere held

on m a r k e t days near the markets a n d w ere so m etim es orga­

nized by petty m erchants. “Trade has followed the cock for

centuries in rural B ali, a n d the sport has b e en one of the m a in

agencies of the island’s m o n e tiz a tio n ” ( ib id .: 4 3 2 ). Fu r the r m o r e,

in yet another footnote in his m o r e recent N e g a r a , Geertz tells

us that the traditional markets, w h ic h w ere “ staffed almost e n ­

tirely by w o m e n ,” w ere held in the m o r n in g , a n d that the cock­

fights were held on the sam e afternoon as the m a r k e t (19 8 0 :

199).
A s id e from sexual differentiatio n a n d the connection w it h

markets, Geertz also notes thro ugho ut the early part of the

essay ( 19 7 3 c : 4 14 , 4 18 , 424, 425) that the cockfight was an

im po rta n t a ctivity in precolonial Balinese states (that is, before

the early tw e n tie th century), that it was held in a rin g in the

center of the village, that it was taxed and was a significant

source of p ub lic r e v e n u e .2 Further, w e learn that the cockfight

was outlawed by the D u t c h a n d later b y Indonesia, that it is now

held in semisecret in h id d e n corners of the village, a n d that the

Balinese regard the island as ta k in g the shape of a “ small,

proud cock, poised, neck e x t e n d e d , back taut, tail raised, in

eternal challenge to large, feckless shapeless J ava ” ( ib id .: 4 18 ) .

Surely these matters require some in te r p r e tive attention. A t the
very least they suggest that the cockfight is in tim a te ly related
(though not reducible) to political processes of state formation
and colonialism. T h e y also suggest that the cockfight has gone
through a significant ch a n g e in the past e ig hty years, that if it is
24 C U LTU RE

a text, it is a text that is b e in g written as part of a profound

social, political, a n d cultural process.

T h is , finally, brings us to the third po in t, w h ic h is less an

aspect o m itte d from the interpretation than one that is not

sufficiently explicated. Geertz refers to the cockfight as a “ status

bloodbath” and tells us that as a c o m m e n t a r y on status, the

cockfight tells the Balinese that such differences “ are a matter

of life a n d d e a th ” a n d a “ profoundly serious business” ( ib id .:

4 4 7 ) . Yet, in this essay at least, w e learn very little about caste

and status as material social process a n d the connection that

process does or does not h a v e w it h cockfighting. In N e g a r a ,

Geertz turns his attention to elaborate crem atio n ceremonies

and sees t h e m as an “ aggressive assertion of status” (19 8 0 : 1 1 7 ) .

C o m p a r a b le in spirit to the potlatch, the crem atio n is “ conspicu­

ous co n s u m p tio n , Balinese style” ( ib id .: 1 1 7 ) a n d is one of v a r i­

ous rituals that elaborately tell the Balinese that “ status is all”

( ib id .: 10 2 ). In this case, w e are dealing in part w it h political

c o m pe titio n a m o n g high-caste lords a n d princes. B u t lords are

also c o m m u n ic a t in g to th e ir co m m o n ers that the hierarchy is

d iv in e l y o r d a in e d . Status in B ali has to do w it h in h e r ite d caste

but also w it h positions a c h ie v e d in life thro ugh various forms of

political m a n e u v e r — most clearly a m o n g lords but also a m o n g

low-caste Sudras. W i t h so m u c h m a n e u v e r , and w it h so m a n y

cultural “ texts” relating to status, some attention should be p a id

to the different messages of these texts a n d to their construc­

tion in the context of status formation as a historical process.

Thes e three problems lead to a basic p o in t. T h e cockfight

has gone thro ugh a process of creation that cannot be sepa­

rated from Balinese history. H e r e w e confront the major in a d e ­

quacy of the text as a m e t a p h o r for culture. A text is w ritten; it

is not w r it in g .3 T o see culture as an ensemble of texts or an art
form is to r e m o ve culture from the process of its creation.4 If
culture is a text, it is not eve r yo n e ’s text. B e y o n d the obvious
fact that it m e a n s different things to different people or differ­
ent sorts of people, we m u s t ask w ho is (or are) d o in g the
w r itin g . O r, to break w it h the m etapho r, w ho is d o in g the
acting, the creating of the cultural forms w e interpret. T h is is
a key question, for e x a m p l e , in the transformation of the cock-
 t h e s e d u c tio n of a n th r o p o l o g y 25

fight after the arrival of the D u t c h . In a recent essay, Geertz

has p o in ted to the separation of the text from its creation as

one of the strengths of the m e ta p h o r . R efer r in g to R ic o e u r ’s

notion of “ in s c r ip tio n ,” or the separation in the text of the said

from the saying, Geertz concludes:

T h e great virtue of the extension of the notion of text beyond

things written on paper or carved into stone is that it trains
attention on precisely this pheno m eno n: on how the inscrip­
tion of action is brought about, what its vehicles are and how
they work, and on what the fixation of m ean in g from the flow
of events— history from what happened, thought from thin k­
ing, culture from behavior— implies for sociological interpre­
tation. (19 8 3 : 3 1)

T h e reader should not assume that I a m calling for the reduc­

tion of culture to action (see C h a p t e r 2). Geertz correctly points

to m e a n in g s that persist beyo n d events, symbols that outlast a n d

transcend the intentions of th e ir creators. B u t n e ithe r should

culture be separated from action; otherwise w e are caught in

yet another of anthropology’s a n t in o m ie s . Unfortunately, the

text as m e t a p h o r effects precisely this separation.

The e m p h a s is on cultural creation brings out two aspects of

culture that are m is s in g from Geertz’s work. T h e first is the

presence of social a n d cultural differentiation, e ve n w it h in an

apparently u n if o r m text. Referen ce to differentiation is, in

part, reference to the connections betw een culture a n d rela­

tions of po w er a n d d o m in a t io n , as im p l ie d in the previo us c o m ­

ments on state a n d status. S o m e m ig h t t h in k that to refer to

culture a n d po w er is to reduce culture to power, to treat values

as “ glosses on property relations” (Geertz 19 7 3 c : 449) or to “ r un
on about the exploitation of the masses” ( 19 7 3 b : 2 2). B u t there
are reductions, a n d then there are reductions. A n d the denial
of such connections is b u t one of m a n y classical reductions in
A m e r ic a n anthropology. T h e second aspect that is m iss in g is a
concept of culture as material social process. W it h o u t a sense of
26 CULTU RE

culture as material process or creation— as w r itin g as well as

w h a t is w ritten— w e once a g a in h a v e a conception of culture as

product b u t not as p ro d u c tio n .5 T h e reference to culture as

material social process is not in t e n d e d to take us back to the

anthropological m a te r ia lis m of M a r v in H a r r is . In d e e d , the criti­

c is m I h a v e directed at Clifford Geertz is similar to the criticism

I directed at M a r v in H a r r is : both treat culture as product but

not as pro ductio n. T h e r e the sim ilarity ends, of course. B u t

both h a v e r e m o v e d culture from the process of cultural cre­

ation a n d h a v e therefore m a d e possible the constant repro duc­

tion of an a n t in o m y b e tw e e n the m aterial and the ideal.

The resolution of the a n t in o m y , a n d the concept of culture

that emerges from that resolution, m u s t be materialist. B u t the

m a te r ia lis m in v o k e d in this essay is far r e m o ve d from the red uc­

tive scientism that has c o m e to d o m in a t e m aterialis m in A m e r i ­

can anthropology. Rather, w h a t is n e e d e d is s o m ethin g close to

the “ cultural m a te r ia l is m ” of Raymo nd W il lia m s ( 19 7 7 ; cf.

19 8 0 ; 19 8 2 ) , w h o notes that the pro blem w it h m echanical m a t e ­

rialism is not that it is too materialist but that it is not materialist

e n o u g h . It treats culture a n d other aspects of a p r e s u m e d “ su­

perstructure” s im p ly as ideas. It therefore m akes room for,

in d e e d requires, idealist critiques that share the ideational defi­

n itio n but d e n y the m aterial connection or, as in the case of

Geertz, that reject the ideational d efin itio n in favor of one that

sees a socially constructed text that is, nonetheless, r e m o ve d

from the social process by w h ic h the text is created. In contrast,

W il l ia m s suggests that cultural creation is itself a form of m a t e ­

rial pro ductio n, that the abstract distinction betw een material

base a n d ideal superstructure dissolves in the face of a material

social process thro ugh w h ic h both “ m aterial” a n d “ ideal” are

constantly created a n d recreated.
Ye t W il l ia m s does not leave his analysis at this elem entary
assertion. He also pays attention to the socially constructed
m e a n in g s that in f o r m action. H e does this in part by m e an s of a
revaluation of the id e a of tradition, d e f in in g it as a reflection
u p o n a n d selection from a peo ple’s history ( 1 9 6 1 ; 19 7 7 ) . T h e
process of selection is political a n d is tied to relations of d o m in a ­
tion a n d subordinatio n, so that W il l ia m s can talk of a d o m in a n t
 t h e s e d uc tio n of a n th r o p o l o g y 27

culture, or h e g e m o n y , as a selective tradition. A lth o u g h this

d o m in a n t culture is related to a n d supports an order of ineq ual­

ity, W il lia m s does not v ie w it s im p ly as a ruling-class ideology

im po s ed u p o n the d o m in a t e d . Rather, as a selection from a n d
interpretation of a peo ple’s history, it touches aspects of the

lived reality or e x p e r ie n c e of the d o m in a n t and d o m in a t e d

alike. It is, in short a n d in part, “ m e a n in g f u l .” B u t W il l ia m s also

notes that no order of d o m in a t io n is total. T h e r e are always

relationships a n d m e a n in g s that are exclu d ed . Th e r e f o r e , alter­

n ative m e a n in g s , alternative values, alternative versions of a

people’s history are available as a potential challenge to the

d o m in a n t . W h e t h e r such alternative versions are constructed

depends u p o n the nature of the cultural a n d historical material

available, the process of class formation a n d d ivis io n , a n d the

possibilities a n d obstacles presented in the political process. W il ­

liams’s concept of culture, th e n , is tied to a process of class

formation but is not red uced to that process. D o m in a n t and

em er g e n t cultures are fo rm ed in a class-based social world, but

they are not necessarily congruent w it h class divisions.

The th e m e s of culture as material social process a n d of cul­

tural creation as (in part) political action are further developed in

an article by Peter Taylor a n d H e r m a n n Rebel ( 1 9 8 1 ; cf. Rebel

19 8 8 ). In a masterful analysis of culture in history, the authors

concentrate on four “ texts” — four of the G r i m m ’s folk tales that

deal w it h c o m m o n th em es of in h e r ita n c e , d is in her ita n ce, fam ily

dissolution, a n d m ig r a u o n . A fte r c r id cizin g psychological in te r ­

pretations, they place the tales in the late-eighteenth- a n d early-

n ineteen th-c en tu ry context in w h ic h they were collected. T h e y

then take two in n o v a t iv e methodological steps that are of great

im p o r ta n c e for the concept of culture. First, they ask w ho is

telling the tales a n d in w h a t context. T h e y also note that w hile the

tales are t r a d it io n a l , they are not tim eless; that is, the form and

content of the tales m a y ch a n g e in the telling. T h e question of

w ho is telling the tales a n d in w h a t context therefore becomes
im p o r t a n t. T a k in g a form of culture as a text, the authors take
the first step toward an analysis of text as w ritin g , as material
social process. Second, they assume that the peasant w o m e n w ho
are telling the tales form a “ peasant intelligentsia” that is trying to
28 CULTU RE

in te r ve n e in the social process. T h a t is, the tales are c o m m e n t a r ­

ies on w h a t is h a p p e n in g to t h e m a n d their families that call for

particular forms of action to alter the situation. T h is is a crucial

methodological step in the construction of a concept of culture

not s im p ly as a product b u t also as pro duction, not s im p ly as

socially constituted b u t also as socially constituting. G iv e n this

fram ew o rk, the authors th e n e m b a r k on a detailed symbolic

analysis of the tales a n d , finally, suggest that the tales w ere at­

tempts b y peasant w o m e n to respond to the d is ruptio n of f a m i­

lies a n d the d rafting of th e ir d is in h e r ite d sons. T h e suggested

response: in h e r it in g daughters should renounce their in h e r i­

tance, m o v e from the region, m a r r y elsewhere, a n d offer a ref­

uge for their fleeing brothers. Taylor a n d Rebel show that such a

response is in accord w it h d e m o g r a p h ic e vid e n c e from late-

eig hteen th-cen tury Hesse, although it cannot yet be d e m o n ­

strated w h e th e r the process they suggest actually occurred.

Nonetheless, the authors h a v e p ro duced a cultural analysis that

goes significantly further than does Geertz’s in his “ Notes on the

Balinese C o c k fig h t.” T o ask of a n y cultural text, be it a cockfight

or a folk tale, w h o is talking, w h o is b e in g talked to, w h a t is b e in g

talked about, a n d w h a t fo rm of action is b e in g called for, is to

m o v e cultural analysis to a n e w level that renders the old a ntin o ­

m ie s of m a te r ia lis m a n d id e a lis m irrelevant.6

It m ig h t be a rg ued that this is precisely w h a t Geertz does. As

one of our most able ethnographers, h e is one of the few anthro­

pologists w h o can p r o vid e detailed ecological, eco no m ic, a n d

political in fo r m a tio n at the sam e t im e that h e engages in sophisti­

cated symbolic analysis. H is e x a m in a t io n of the theater state in

n in e teen th -c en tu ry B ali is an e x a m p l e of this: w e fin d treatments

of political a n d social structure at h a m le t, irrigation system, a n d

tem p le levels, of caste divisions, of trade, a n d of the rituals of

hierarchy. T h a t Geertz sees all of these as necessary for a cultural

a r g u m e n t, a n d that h e sees his inclusion of these elements as
r en d e rin g a n “ idealist” charge absurd, is clear from his conclu­
sion to N e g a r a . A l th o u g h all the elements are presented a n d
connected in a fashion, they are n e ve r fully joined. Culture as
text is r e m o v e d from the historical process that shapes it a n d that
it in turn shapes. W h e n w e are told that in B ali “ culture c a m e
 THE s e d u c tio n o f a n t h r o p o l o g y 29

from the top d o w n . . . w h ile po w er welled u p from the bottom”

(1980 : 85), the im a g e m a k e s perfect sense g iv e n the analysis of

state structure that precedes it. B u t the im a g e im p l ie s separation,

a removal of culture from the wellings-up of action, interaction,

power, a n d praxis.
W e return, t h e n , to the co m paris o n of Geertz’s pro m is e w it h

his practice. A lth o u g h this essay already contains m o re quota­

tions than it can easily bear, it closes w it h yet another. T h e

quotation returns us to the p r o m is in g appro ach to culture e x ­

pressed in “ T h i c k D e s c r ip tio n ,” a n d it is a statement of connec­

tion rather th an separation. T h e passage establishes a standard

for cultural interpretatio n that is in accord w it h the premises of

this essay. T h a t it also serves as a standard in terms of w h ic h

Geertz’s cultural analysis can be criticized should be a pp a r e n t.

If anthropological interpretation is constructing a reading of

what happens, then to divorce it from what happens— from
what, in this tim e or that place, specific people say, what they
do, what is done to them, from the whole vast business of the
world— is to divorce it from its applications and render it
vacant. A good interpretation of anything— a poem, a person,
a history, a ritual, an institution, a society— takes us into the
heart of that of w h ich it is an interpretation. W h e n it does not
do that, but leads us instead somewhere else— into an a dm ira­
tion of its own elegance, of its author’s cleverness, or of the
beauties of Euclidean order— it m a y have its intrinsic charms;
but it is something else than what the task at hand . . . calls for.
(19 7 3 b : 18)

Interpretation cannot be separated from w h a t people say, w h a t

they do, w h a t is done to t h e m , because culture cannot be so

separated. As long as anthropologists are seduced by the in t r in ­

sic charm s of a textual analysis that takes such separation as a

point of honor, th e y will c o n tin ue to do s o m ethin g other than
w hat the task at h a n d calls for.
C H A P T E R T W O

M a r xis m and Culture

T h e history of anthropology can be written in terms of a series

of theoretical oppositions, or a n tin o m ie s — evo lutio nism and

particularism, science a n d history, explanatio n a n d interpreta­

tion, m a te r ia lis m a n d id e a lis m , a n d so on. S u c h expressions are

useful in that they help us to organize a mass of m aterial and

quickly see w h a t was at issue at a particular m o m e n t . T h e y po in t

to areas of tension, irresolvable conflicts betw een m utually e x ­

clusive sets of assumptions— b etw e e n , for e x a m p l e , those w ho

take a science of society as their goal a n d seek precise e xp la n a ­

tions of social processes and those w ho deny that such an

explanatory science is possible a n d seek instead in te r pr e tive

u n d e r s tan d in g of social life.

B u t a n tin o m io u s t h in k in g carries its own problems as well.

Most obviously, the presentation of theory in terms of opposed

p a r a d ig m s may o vers im plify the actual m o vem en t of social

thought. M o r e c o m ple x or pro blematic work m a y be lost or
u n d e r e m p h a s iz e d , w h ile work that m o re easily fits the opposi­
tional s c h em e becomes a part of officially r e m e m b e r e d histo­
ries. T h u s , an Alexand er Lesser m ig h t be forgotten w hile a
Leslie W h it e is easily r e m e m b e r e d . Less obviously but m o re
im po rtantly for the d e v e l o p m e n t of anthropological thought,
presentation of our history in oppositional terms m a y repro­
d uce or recreate the a n tin o m ie s , fortifying the a ppear a nc e of
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e

mutually exclusive sets of assumptions a n d foreclosing the possi­

bility of m e d ia t io n . For Marshall Sahlins, for e x a m p l e , the o p ­

position, w h ic h he expressed as a “ conflict b etw een practical

activity a n d constraints of the m i n d , ” is seen as “ an original,

fo unding contradiction, b e tw e e n the poles of w h ic h anthropo­

logical theory has oscillated since the n in e te e n th century

( 19 7 6 : 5 5 ) . H is conclusion that m e d ia t io n of this conflict is i m ­

possible, that one m u s t choose sides a n d get on w it h it, its hardly

surprising g iv e n the w a y h e has set out the terms of discourse.

T h e pro blem w it h the “ f o u n d in g contradiction” v ie w is that it

collapses the various oppositions to w h ic h one m ig h t p o in t into

a single grand opposition. T o take the exam ples used earlier, w e

could present t h e m on a grid of analogous oppositions, thus:

evo lutio nism particularism

science history

e xplan atio n interpretation

m a te r ia lis m idealism

On the one side w e fin d the materialists, or those w h o pro­

mote “ practical reason” ; on the other side w e fin d those w h o

seek a cultural account. T h e arg um en ts used to criticize one of

the poles in one of the pairs can then be used to criticize all of

the analogous poles in the other pairs. A n a r g u m e n t against

evolutionism can be seen as an a r g u m e n t against science, expla­

nation, a n d m a te r ia lis m because they are all part of a single

fo un d in g contradiction.

The title of this essay would seem to fit well w it h in such a

contradiction, g iv in g us another p a ir for the list, w it h M a r x is m

on the left a n d culture on the rig ht. T h a t I w a n t to suggest ways

in w h ic h the a p p a r e n t a n t in o m y can be m e d ia t e d , that I w an t to

sketch out the possibility of a M a r x is t u n d e r s tan d in g of culture

and a cultural r e a d in g of M a r x would s eem , for some, to pursue

the impo ssible; for others, a gross fo rm of theoretical pre te n ­

sion. B u t m y goals are m o r e m odest: I do not pretend that the
personal a n d idiosyncratic u n d e r s ta n d in g sketched here will
b eco m e some grand synthesis that will finally destroy all of the
a n tin o m ies of anthropological tho ug ht. M a n y Marxists would
find the fr am e w o r k presented h ere too far from an original
32 C U LTU RE

visio n to be M a r x is t ; many cultural theorists would fin d the

concept of culture explored here too social a n d material to be

m e a n in g f u l . G r a n d synthesis is n e ith e r pro m is e d nor possible.

Ye t m e d ia t io n is possible if w e reject the analogous position­

in g of the pairs. Before explo ring that possibility, let us intro­

d uc e a m o r e recent opposition— that betw een political eco no m y

a n d symbolic anthropology. B o th are rather loose terms used to

categorize heterogeneous m o vem ents , but most of us have

some general u n d e r s ta n d in g of the sort of work that m ig h t be

g iv e n one or the other label. O n the whole, there is some room

for dialogue b e tw e e n political economists a n d symbolic anthro­

pologists, a n d the level of discourse seems to h a v e im p r o v e d

from the t im e w h e n charges like “ r e d u c tiv e ” a n d “ mentalist”

were thro w n aro und w it h ease. S o m e political economists a n d

symbolic anthropologists share certain a pp a r e n t interests— in

history, in the study of particular social groups, in the interpreta­

tion of social action a n d m o v e m e n t s . Y e t they m a y understand

each of these terms differently, a n d their anthropological proj­

ects are finally, a n d fundamentally, different. We can easily

p o in t to literature on each side that dismisses the work of the

other.
L e t us concentrate, ho w ever, on a recent criticism of political

eco n o m y from a broadly co nc eived in te r pr e tive side. In a sur­

ve y of recent anthropological history, George M arcus a n d M i ­

chael Fischer contend that three internal critiques e m e r g e d in

anthropology d u r in g the 1960s— in te r pr e tive anthropology, cri­

tiques of the practice of fieldwork, a n d critiques of the ahistori-

cal a n d apolitical nature of anthropological work. The first

m o v e m e n t “ was the only one . . . that h a d an early a n d im p o r ­

tant im p a c t on c h a n g in g the practice of anthropologists.” T h e

latter two “ w ere m ere manifestos a n d polemics, part of the
h ig h ly politicized atm o s phere of that p e r io d ” ( 19 8 6 : 33). Of
work in political econo m y, M arcus a n d Fischer assert that it

“ tend ed to isolate itself from cultural anthropology’s concur­

rent d e v e l o p m e n t of a m o r e sophisticated eth no g r aphic prac­
tice on in te r p r e tive lines. It retreated into the typically M a rxis t
relegation of culture to an e p ip h e o n o m e n a l structure, dismiss­
in g m u c h of cultural anthropology itself as idealist” ( ib id .: 84).
 m a r xis m a n d c u l t u r e 33

By this v ie w , political e co n o m y a n d symbolic anthropology

would fit neatly on the grid outlined above, w it h political econ­

o m y on the left a n d symbolic anthropology on the right. W e

could therefore repeat the i w it h all of the terms thus far
presented:

evo lutio nism particularism

science history

explan atio n interpretation

m a te r ia lis m id ea lis m

M a r x is m culture

political eco n o m y symbolic anthropology

R ec en t work w it h in a loosely co nceived political eco no m ic

literature, ho w ever, suggests a m u c h richer interconnection b e ­

tween the concerns of political eco n o m y a n d those of symbolic

anthropology th a n is recognized by those critics w h o repeat fac­

ile dismissals based on old-fashioned a n tin o m ie s . L e t us briefly

consider four rather different a n d interesting books: B e n e d ic t

An d e r s o n ’s I m a g in e d C o m m u n it ie s (19 8 3 ) , W il l ia m Sewell’s W o r k

a n d R e v o l u t io n in France (19 8 0 ), S id n e y M in t z ’s Sweetness a n d

P o w e r ( 19 8 5 ) a n d Gerald S id e r ’s C u l t u r e a n d Class i n A n th r o p o l o g y

a n d H is t o r y (19 8 6 ). O n ly two of the authors are anthropologists,

and at least one m ig h t well reject a connection w it h political

economy. T h a t is not the p o in t; the po in t is an intersection of

the concerns of political e co n o m y a n d symbolic anthropology, an

intersection that is based on an e m p h a s is u p o n m e a n in g f u l ac­

tion a n d recognizes that action is s haped by the m e a n in g s peo ­

ple take to th e ir action e v e n as m e a n in g s are s haped by people’s

activities.

A n d e r s o n ’s book is an a tte m p t to grasp the im po r ta n c e of

nationalism in the mo dern world. It view s nationalism as a

k in d of “ im a g in e d c o m m u n it y ” a n d analyzes the rise of this

type of im a g in e d c o m m u n it y in the context of the world-

historical d e m is e of other types (e.g., religious c o m m u n it ie s ,
monarchical realms). T h e rise of nationalism is also situated in
the em ergence of w h a t he calls “ prin t-capitalis m ,” a rather
nice w e ld in g of a political eco n o m ic a n d a cultural a r g u m e n t.
G iv e n this world-historical u n d e r s tan d in g of nationalism as a
34 CULTU RE

general p h e n o m e n o n , h e th e n e x a m in e s the e m er g e n ce of p a r ­

ticular kind s of nationalism in their m o re specific historical

contexts— nation b u il d in g in the nineteen th-cen tury A m e r ic a s ,

nationalism in d o m in a t e d regions of nineteen th-cen tury E u r o ­

pean e m p ir e s , late-nineteenth-century “ official” and reactive

nationalism at the centers of the e m p ir e s themselves (e.g., Prus­

sia), a n d , m o r e recently, nationalism in post-colonial states.

Sewell’s book is a reflection on the origins of the concept of a

proletariat in France from the e ig h te e n th century to 18 4 8 . In

p u r s u in g his study, this historian calls u p o n the cultural anthro­

pology of Clifford Geertz (in d e e d , the book was written at the

Institute for A d v a n c e d Study), but h e deals w it h a set of issues

a n d a political process of pro found interest to political econo­

mists. H e traces the co ntinuities in certain forms of association

a n d a certain language for describing association from old re­

g im e to revolutionary France. O f particular interest w ere the

corporations a n d confraternities that linked j o u r n e y m e n a n d

workers w it h in particular trades but m a in t a in e d r ig id divisions

betw een the trades, thus m a k in g class forms of association d iffi­

cult. D e s p it e such co ntinuities in language a n d association, the

m e a n in g s of the terms a n d associations were e xte n d e d in f u n d a ­

mentally n e w directions d u r in g the first half of the n in e te e n th

century, so that the im a g e e m e r g e d of a u n io n of workers as a

class, a confraternity of proletarians despite differences in

trade. T h is fu n d a m e n ta l shift in m e a n in g a n d action is in turn

understood in terms of the political m o v e m e n t s and events

from the Fr e n c h Revo lutio n to the revolution of 18 4 8 .

M in t z ’s book is a n im p o r t a n t contribution to political econ­

omy and social history, one that links the transformation of

C a r ib b e a n islands into a series of plantation economies w it h
c h a n g in g d ie t a n d increasing sugar co n s u m p tio n in En g la n d ,
from the seventeenth to n in e t e e n t h centuries. H e begins w it h
an outline of the place of sugar in the creation of a world
economy, the creation of plantation economies in the C a r ib ­
bean, a n d the increasingly powerful position of En g la n d in the
sugar trade a n d in the colonization of the islands. T h o u g h his
study is explicitly placed in this context, the focus is on the
c h a n g in g structure of c o n s u m p tio n . H e r e h e traces c h a n g in g
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e 35

uses of sugar from late-medieval to industrial contexts, from

differentiated uses as m e d ic in e , spice, decorative substance,

sweetener, a n d preservative to m o r e w id e s p r ea d a n d less differ­

entiated use as sweetener. H e also e x a m in e s the transition from

exclusively upper-class use to m o r e general, po pulatio n -w id e

use. T h e ch a n g e of d ie t, a n d of the place of sugar in the d iet,

are explicitly connected w it h the ch a n g e in class structure— the

proletarianization of w o r k in g people a n d consequent changes

in domestic groups, work a n d eatin g habits, a n d forms of so­

ciality w it h in a n d b e tw e e n households. A lth o u g h the data on

diet are not presented in terms of regional a n d social d ifferen ­

tiation, M in t z m a ke s a powerful case for un d e r s tan d in g cultural

change in terms of c h a n g in g circumstances of class, work, a n d

power.
S id er’s book reflects u p o n a series of traditions a n d forms of

interaction in the “ traditional” outport fisheries of N e w f o u n d ­

land, especially in the n in e t e e n t h century. H e connects a theo­

retically sophisticated analysis of work, m e r c h a n t capital, a n d

the social relations betw een fis h e r m e n a n d merchants w it h a

series of telling vignettes, d r a w n from a variety of d o cu m e n ta r y

sources, that illu m in a te the psychological consequences of those

social relations. O f special interest a n d im po r ta n c e is S id e r ’s

e x a m in a t io n of a n u m b e r of “ n e w ” or recent traditions (Christ­

mas m u m m i n g , scoffing, a n d cuffing) that simultaneously e x ­

press sociality a n d isolation. If the connection betw een these

fine-grained analyses a n d some of S id e r ’s m o re im p o r ta n t cul­

tural a rg um en ts (e.g., on h e g e m o n y ) is not always clear or d i­

rect (see Reb el 19 8 9 b ), the book is nonetheless an im p o r ta n t

contribution. A m o n g its most im p o r t a n t innovations is a stress

on the role of m e r c h a n t capital in creating social relations that

dissolve relations of k in s h ip a n d c o m m u n it y a m o n g small pro­

ducers and tie in d iv id u a l iz e d producers to particular mer­

chants. S id er stresses the im p o r t a n c e of such social relations for
both political ec o n o m ic a n d symbolic analyses. T h e m a n y im p l i­
cations of this in s ig h t can be explored m o re fully in N e w f o u n d ­
land a n d in a n u m b e r of other settings.
Thes e books are not, strictly s peak in g , co mparable. They
deal w it h separate problems in distinct historical periods and
36 CULTU RE

settings, a n d they ado pt different strategies to do so. B u t they

also h a v e certain c o m m o n aspects. T h e y all appro ach the rela­

tion of m e a n in g a n d action in a context of unequal power. T h a t

is, there is a political e le m en t to all of these books: if pow er is to

a certain extent shaped by m e a n in g , m e a n in g is also shaped,

q uite profoundly, by power. T h e y are also deeply historical.

They place their reflections w it h in precise historical contexts

a n d e x a m in e the s h a p in g of m e a n in g a n d pow er over t im e . It

should also be noted that no ne of the books can be m a d e to fit

on a grid of f o u n d in g oppositions in anthropological theory

w ith o ut the loss of all that is special a n d distinctive about their

contributions.
L e t us return, th e n , to the terms in the a n tin o m io u s grid and

sketch a fram ew o rk for the consideration of M a r x is m a n d cul­

ture that could in clu d e the work of A nd er s o n , Sewell, M in t z ,

and Sider. I do not m e a n to suggest that a n y of these authors

would agree w it h the fram ew o rk to be sketched. In d eed , I

would expec t d is ag re e m en t. Nonetheless, I t h in k that it is a

fram ew o rk that will allow us to co m e to an a p p r e c ia tive read in g

of their work a n d m o v e b eyo nd the “ fo u n d in g contradiction”

v ie w of anthropological theory. We b e g in by r e m o v in g the

M arxism /culture opposition from the list, precisely because it is

the relationship be tw e e n the two that w e are a tt e m p t in g to e x ­

plore. I also r e m o ve the science/history opposition because it is

based on a special, a n d especially narrow, u n d er s tan d ing of

history a n d can only be understood in terms of the anthropo­

logical oppositions b e tw e e n evo lutio nism and particularism,

a n d explan atio n a n d interpretatio n. M y appro ach is historical,

but not in the sense im p l ie d by a science/history opposition.

T h e a ppr o a ch suggested here would then be one that is m a t e r i­

alist a n d one that is simultaneously political eco no m ic a n d s y m ­
bolic. It rejects evo lutio nism a n d particularism, a n d it tries to

place itself betw een the e x t r e m e versions of explanatory scien­

tism a n d in te r p r e tive self-absorption. T h a t is, it rejects the goal
of an explanatory science that postulates a set of transhistorical
laws of history or evolution. Ye t it is also resolutely materialist: it
sees ideas as social products a n d understands social life as itself
objective a n d material. Its appro ach to public symbols a n d cul­
 m arxis m a n d c u l t u r e 37

tural m e a n in g s would therefore place those symbols a n d m e a n ­

ings in social fields characterized b y differential access to politi­

cal and eco no m ic power.

The m a teria lis m called for h ere is not the sort that comes

from a q uick r e a d in g of M a r x ’s well-known “ Preface” to the

C o n t r ib u t io n to the C r it iq u e o f P o l it ic a l E c o n o m y :

In the social production of their existence, m e n inevitably

enter into definite relations, w hich are independent of their
will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given
stage in the development of their material forces of produc­
tion. T h e totality of these relations of production constitutes
the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on
which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which
correspond definite forms of social consciousness. T h e mode
of production of material life conditions the general process
of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the conscious­
ness of m e n that determines their existence, but their social
existence that determines their consciousness. (1970 [1859]:
20- 2 1 )

T h is is the classic a n d most influential statement of M a r x ’s m a t e ­

rialism. W h il e there are aspects of it w it h w h ic h most a ny M a rxis t

would agree, it has h a d unfortunate consequences. First, al­

though it seems to b e g in w it h people (“ m e n ” ), it m oves quickly to

structure: relations of pro duction, e co n o m ic structure of society,

m o d e of pro ductio n. T h e s e structures then act u p o n , or “ c o n d i­

tion,” other structures (the political superstructure a n d con­

sciousness), w h ic h are seen as secondary or d e r iva t iv e . W h e t h e r

one’s appr o a ch to the relationship betw een these structures is

m echanical or “ dialectical,” the structural hierarchy r em a in s i n ­

tact. Later passages of the “ Preface” then a pply this structural
hierarchy to an e xplan atio n of the evolutionary m o v e m e n t from
one m o d e of pro ductio n to another. T h u s , a pervas ive a n d tena­

cious version of M a r x is m , rooted in the words of M a r x , would

a m p l y justify the inclusion of an opposition betw een M a r x is m
38 CULTU RE

a n d culture on the grid of analogous oppositions as part of a

fo u n d in g contradiction.

In other passages, ho wever, M a r x offers a different starting

po in t for his m a te r ia lis m . O n e could b e g in this appro ach in T h e

G e r m a n Ideology (a text w it h its o w n problems, as Sahlins [19 7 6 ]

a n d others h a v e shown). T h e r e the basic p r e m is e offers m o re

possibilities for a n u n d e r s tan d in g of culture:

T h e premises from w hich we begin are not arbitrary ones, not

dogmas, but real premises from w hich abstraction can only be
m a d e in the imagination. T h e y are the real individuals, their
activity and the material conditions under w hich they live,
both those w hich they find already existing and those pro­
duced by their activity. . . .
T h is mode of production must not be considered simply as
being the production of the physical existence of the in d iv id u ­
als. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals,
a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life
on their part . . . (M arx and Engels 1970 [1846]: 42)

A n u m b e r of aspects of this m a te r ia lis m , as expressed in this

passage a n d later in T h e G e r m a n Ideology, deserve m e n t io n .

First, it is a m a te r ia lis m that starts not w it h nature or w it h a

postulated eco n o m ic structure b u t w it h a h u m a n po pulatio n.

It begins not w it h m atter but w it h the social, co nceived as

material.
Second, it is a m a te r ia lis m that is active. People enter into

d efin ite relations w it h others a n d w it h nature, but as they enter

into those relations they transform both nature a n d themselves.

Nature and the social world, th e n , are always socially con­

structed, historical.
T h ir d , in his conception of activity, the most fu n d a m e n ta l

activity is that associated w it h pro ductio n. B u t M a r x n e ve r has a

narrow conception of pro ductio n, as, for e x a m p l e , the pro duc­
tion of subsistence. Rather, it is “ a d efin ite form of activity of
these in d ivid u a l s , a d efin ite fo rm of expressing their life, a

d efin ite m o d e o f lif e

Fo urth, the m a te r ia lis m here presented is historically situ­
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e 39

ated, the forms of a ctivity a n d m o des of life b e in g the products

of prior forms of activity a n d modes of life:

“ History is n o th in g b u t the succession of the separate genera­

tions, each of w h ic h exploits the materials, the capital funds, the

productive forces h a n d e d d o w n to it by all pr e c e d in g genera­

tions, a n d thus, on the one h a n d , continues the traditional activ­

ity in completely ch a n g e d circumstances and, on the other,

modifies the old circumstances w it h a completely cha n g ed a ctiv­

ity” ( ib id .: 5 7 ) .
It is only in light of the previo us points that w e can suggest an

interpretation of the fifth aspect of the m a te r ia lis m presented

here: the appr o a ch to consciousness. In T h e German Ideology,

M a r x a n d Engels constantly contrast their appro ach to that of

classical G e r m a n Philosophy, a n d they express the contrast in

the starkest possible terms: “ w e do not set out from w hat m e n

say, im a g in e , co nceive, nor from m e n as narrated, thought of,

im a g in e d , co nc eived , in order to arrive at m e n in the flesh. W e

set out from real, active m e n , a n d on the basis of their real life-

process, w e demonstrate the d e v e l o p m e n t of the ideological

reflexes a n d echoes of this life-process” ( ib id .: 4 7). A n y m aterial­

ist m ust start w it h an assertion of a connection betw een b e in g

and consciousness, b u t there are two unfortunate aspects of

M a r x a n d Engels’s conception of this connection here. T h e first

is in the “ reflexes a n d echoes” expression here a n d elsewhere,

w h ic h places us once a g a in in the realm of hierarchical struc­

tures w it h p r im a r y forces a n d d e r iv a t iv e products. T h e second

is in the expression of consciousness as arising directly from

material activity. T h is is a consequence, in part, of their a tte m pt

to tie their statement of prem ises to an evolutionary specula­

tion, so that consciousness is intro duced as part of a discussion

of the first supposedly g e n u in e h u m a n acts. Yet if w e u n d e r ­

stand material a ctivity in the more broad sense suggested

above— pro ductio n as pro ductio n of a whole w ay of life that is

itself part of a historical process— then w e n e ed a m o r e histori­
cal a n d less d e r iv a t iv e u n d e r s ta n d in g of consciousness.
T w o suggestions from M a r x ’s work in other contexts p o in t to
his use of this m o r e historical a n d less d e r iva t iv e understand­
in g . T h e first comes from the well-known passage in C a p it a l in
40 C U LTU RE

w h ic h M a r x talks about the specifically h u m a n character of pro­

d u c tive labor:

A spider conducts operations w hich resemble those of the

weaver, and a bee would put m a ny a h u m a n architect to
shame by the construction of its honeycomb cells. But what
distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is that
the architect builds the cell in his m in d before he constructs it
in wax. A t the end of every labour process, a result emerges
w hich had already been conceived by the worker at the begin­
ning, hence already existed ideally. ( 19 7 7 [1867]: 284)

A t the least, this would suggest a sim ultan eity or u n it y of activity

a n d consciousness, h a n d a n d b r a in , thus challenging the d e r iv a ­

tive v ie w expressed in T h e G e r m a n Ideology. B u t here conscious­

ness is still tied to a direct material activity or object. For a m o re

historical un d e r s tan d in g , w e can turn to another well-known

passage from yet another work.

A t the b e g in n in g of T h e E ig h t e e n t h B r u m a ir e , M a r x m akes his

famous observation that “ M e n m a k e their own history, but not of

their o w n free will; not u n d e r circumstances they themselves

h a v e chosen b u t u n d e r the g iv e n a n d in h e r ite d circumstances

w it h w h ic h they are directly confronted” ( 1 9 7 4 [ 18 5 2 ] : 14 6 ) .

Most people w h o cite a n d t h in k about this passage use it as part of

a reflection on the relationship betw een structure a n d agency, or

historical d e t e r m in a tio n a n d human activity (to call u p some

m o re a n tin o m ies ). It is seldom noted that the observation intro­

duces a c o m m e n t on the w e ig h t of ideas in a historical process:

T h e tradition of the dead generations weighs like a nightmare

on the m ind s of the living. A n d , just w hen they appear to be
engaged in the revolutionary transformation of themselves
and their material surroundings, in the creation of something
w hich does not yet exist, precisely in such epochs of revolu­
tionary crisis they timidly conjure u p the spirits of the past to
help th e m ; they borrow their names, slogans and costumes so
as to stage the new world-historical scene in this venerable
disguise and borrowed language. . . . In the same way, the
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e 41

beginner who has learned a new language always retranslates

it into his mother tongue, (ibid .: 14 6 - 14 7 )

T h is text, a n d the larger work it introduces, are instructive for

Marxists w h o could reduce their M a r x is m to a set of formulas,

or rules for pedants. T h e E ig h t e e n t h B r u m a i r e is an a tte m pt to

analyze the political events surro unding the m o vem ent in

France from a repub lican revolution in February 18 4 8 to the

Bonapartist co up in D e c e m b e r 1 8 5 1 . O n e sees here the engag e­

m e n t of M a r x ’s m e t h o d w it h actual political a n d historical m a t e ­

rials. T h e materials are not m a d e to fit into some narrow a n d

preconceived s c h e m e : the two great classes of capitalist society

give w ay to a series of c o m p e t in g a n d c o m b a tin g class fractions.

The particularities of the Fr e n c h case— the history a n d struc­

ture of the state, the relative lack of industrial d e ve lo p m e n t, the

social position of the peasantry, the role of B o n aparte— are all

included in M a r x ’s analysis. T h e epochal or evolutionist m a t e r i­

alism of the “ Preface” or T h e G e r m a n Ideology has g iv e n w a y to a

historical m a te r ia lis m that starts w it h “ real in d ivid u a ls , their

activity a n d the material conditions u n d e r w h ic h they live, both

those w h ic h they fin d already exis tin g a n d those pro duced by

their activity.”
M o re to the p o in t, among the material conditions under

w h ic h they live is in c lu d e d a set of ideas, or sets of ideas, t h e m ­

selves historical products, that serve as material forces. H e r e ,

culture itself is m a d e m aterial. T h e k in d of m a te r ia lis m pro­

posed here, th e n , is not one that appropriates a n d subsumes

culture a n d consciousness w it h in a n e x p a n d in g material base

but one that starts w it h a g iv e n po pulatio n a n d the material

circumstances that confront it a n d includes culture a n d con­

sciousness a m o n g the material circumstances to be e x a m in e d .

T h is appro ach to symbolic analysis is one that most cultural

theorists in anthropology would not accept. It seems to grant

culture no a u t o n o m y a n d to reduce it to a d e r iva t iv e product of
h u m a n activity. B u t the assertion of a u to n o m y can only be u n ­
derstood in terms of a structural hierarchy. In this sense,
m echanical m a te r ia lis m a n d a cultural theory that denies the
materiality of culture are c o m p le m e n ta r y reflections of each
42 CULTU RE

other. E a c h starts in a structural univers e r e m o ve d from “ real

in d ivid u a l s , their activity and the material conditions u n d e r

w h ic h they live ” a n d directs questions to relationships (or the

p r e s u m e d lack of relationship) a m o n g structural levels.

The “ a u t o n o m y ” of culture, in m y v ie w , comes not from its

removal from the material circumstances of life but from its

connection. As one of m a n y products of prior activity and

thought, it is a m o n g the material circumstances that confront

real in d ivid u a l s w h o are born in a concrete set of circumstances.

As some of those circumstances change, a n d as people a ttem pt

to conduct the s am e sorts of activities u n d e r n e w circumstances,

their cultural understandings will affect the w ay they v ie w both

their circumstances a n d th e ir activities. It m a y im b u e those cir­

cumstances a n d activities w it h an a pp e ar a n c e of naturalness or

of order, so that the utterly n e w m a y a p p e a r to be a variation on

a them e. In this sense, peo ple’s activities are co nd itio ned by

their cultural understandings, just as their activities u n d e r new

circumstances m a y stretch or change those understandings. C u l ­

ture’s auto no m y, a n d its im p o r ta n c e , rest on this dual character:

although m e a n in g s are socially p ro duced , they may be ex­

tended to situations w h e r e a functionalist m ig h t say they do not

fit, or they m a y be a p p l ie d e v e n after the circumstances and

activities that pro duced t h e m h a v e c h a n g e d . T h is is not to call

u p the old notion of “ cultural lag,” w h ic h would im p l y that the

lack of fit is tem po ra ry a n d that at some p o in t functional corre­

spondence will be r eg a in e d . H e r e Geertz’s notion of inscription

(19 8 3 ) , or the removal of cultural m e a n in g from the im m e d ia t e

circumstances of its creation, is especially a pp r o p r ia te . Because

action takes place in m e a n in g f u l contexts— that is, because peo ­

ple c o m e to their actions w it h prior understandings a n d act in

terms of t h e m — a m a te r ia lis m that saw consciousness arising

solely and directly out of a ctivity would be especially im p o v e r ­

ished. Cu ltu re is at once socially constituted (it is a product of
present a n d past activity) a n d socially constitutive (it is part of
the m e a n in g f u l context in w h ic h activity takes place).
For e x a m p l e , a w h it e boy growing u p in a So uthern city in the
1950s a n d 1960s would be c o m in g of age in a situation of fer­
m e n t , of c h a n g in g e co n o m ic, political, a n d social circumstances.
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e 43

Yet he m ig h t e x p e r ie n c e these circumstances in the context of a

family that is trying to raise h i m in a certain way, to reproduce a

certain style of life a n d set of values. H e m ig h t be learning w h a t

it is to be a boy or yo un g m a n , to be w h it e , to be an A m e r ic a n , to
be a Southerner (or an A r k a n s a n , or a Geo rgian), to be a M e t h ­

odist, a n d so on at a t im e w h e n w h a t it m e an s to be all of these

things is c h a n g in g . H e will learn these things in c h a n g in g institu­

tional settings— schools, churches, his fa m ily— each of w h ic h

has developed a particular form of discourse for talking about

the world a n d each of w h ic h is u n d e r g o in g r a p id cha n g e . H is

ideas about race, or sex, or class, or nation will be co nd itio ned

by events, b u t the events will be interpreted in terms of a reli­

gious language that e m ph a s ize s justice, morality, g iv in g unto

Caesar that w h ic h is Caesar’s, or a h ig h school civics language

that em phas izes ideas about equality, democracy, or freed o m .

Yet the a tte m p t to talk about n e w events w it h old language a n d

m ean in g s stretches the language a n d develops n e w m e a n in g s .

It should be stressed that this u n d e r s tan d in g of action a n d

m e a n in g is not a k in to Sahlins’s discussion of the “ structure of

the conjuncture” ( 19 8 5 ) a n d the dialectical relation of structure

and e ven t. It differs in that (a) its un d e r s tan d in g of culture is

m u c h less structural a n d systemic; a n d (b) it sees this concatena­

tion of structure a n d e ve n t as a constant process, one in w h ic h

culture is constantly b e in g s ha ped, pro duced , repro duced, a n d

transformed by activity rather than one in w h ic h culture e n c a p ­

sulates activity until the structure of culture can no longer hold.

T h u s the m e a n i n g of b e in g a So utherner will be different for a

Southern w h it e boy w h o grew u p in the thirties a n d forties than

for one w h o grew u p in the fifties a n d sixties, w h ic h in turn will

be different for one w h o grew u p in the seventies a n d eighties.

In each case people would be trying, through families a n d insti­

tutions, to reproduce a w a y of life d u r in g a t im e in w h ic h local,

national, a n d global events (we could pro duce a superficial list)

altered the e x p e r ie n c e of life in the South in profound a n d in t i­
m ate ways.
B u t there is, of course, m o r e . T h e e x p e r ie n c e of a Southern
w h ite boy of the thirties or fifties or seventies will be different
from that of a So uthern w h it e girl, or a black boy or girl, or one
44 C U LTU RE

from the country or one from the city, one from a sharecrop­

p in g fa m ily or one from a cotton planter’s family. Or, m o r e to

the p o in t, some of th e ir experiences a n d the events to w h ic h

they respond will be c o m m o n (let us say shared), a n d some will

be utterly different.

The a tt e m p t to understand these co m mo nalities a n d differ­

ences takes us from the e x p e r ie n c e of persons (tho ugh w e m ust

return) to the analysis of institutions a n d structures. It takes us

to political economy, first as an analysis of social relations based

on unequal access to wealth a n d power. T h u s far our discussion

of the m aterial nature of ideas a n d m e a n in g s a n d of the relation­

s h ip b e tw e e n a ctivity a n d consciousness has not taken this d i­

m e n s io n into account. Ye t if ideas a n d m e a n in g s are themselves

material products a n d forces, they too are caught u p in hie ra r ­

chical relations based on differential access to wealth and

power. L e t us return to T h e G e r m a n Ideology a n d another well-

k n o w n passage:

T h e ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling

ideas, i.e . the class w hich is the ruling material force of society,
is at the same tim e its ruling intellectual force. T h e class w hich
has the means of material production at its disposal, has con­
trol at the same tim e over the means of mental production, so
that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack
the means of mental production are subject to it. T h e ruling
ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the d o m i­
nant material relationships, the dominant material relation­
ships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships w hich m ake
the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its d o m i­
nance. T h e individuals composing the ruling class possess
among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Inso­
far, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent
and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in
its whole range, hence among other things rule also as think­
ers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and
distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the
ruling ideas of the epoch. (M arx and Engels 1970 [1846]: 64)
 m arxis m a n d c u l t u r e 45

T h is passage is at once suggestive a n d problematic. L e t us

begin w it h one of the suggestive aspects a n d connect it w it h

Gram s ci’s notion of h e g e m o n y ( 1 9 7 1 [ 19 2 9 - 3 5 ] ) or R a y m o n d

W illia m s ’s concept of d o m in a n t culture ( 19 7 7 ) . The concept

refers to a c o m ple x set of ideas, m e a n in g s , a n d associations, a n d

a way of talking about or expressing those m e a n in g s a n d associa­

tions, w h ic h present an order of ineq uality a n d d o m in a t io n as if

it were an order of equality a n d reciprocity, w h ic h g ive a pro d ­

uct of history the appearance of natural order. A powerful

element in such a d o m in a n t culture will be a particular a n d

highly selective version of a peo ple’s history, w h a t W il l ia m s calls

a selective traditio n. S u c h a tradition or history will be taught in

schools or expressed in television programs. T h u s differential

access to po w er is crucial in the d e t e r m in a tio n of control over

the m e an s of cultural pro ductio n, the m ean s for the selection

and presentation of tradition.

B u t w h a t m a k e s this h e g e m o n y c u ltu r e a n d not s im p ly ideol­

ogy is that it appears to connect w it h the e x p e r ie n c e a n d u n d e r ­

standing of those people w h o do not pro duce it, people w ho

lack access, or h a v e sharply d im in is h e d access, to wealth a n d

power. H e r e , paradoxically, it is im p o r t a n t to return to Geertz’s

notion of in scriptio n, to the remo val of m e a n in g from direct

e xp er ie n c e and activity, not as part of an a r g u m e n t for the

removal of culture from relations of inequality a n d d o m in a t io n

but as an essential part of our u n d e r s ta n d in g of its connection.

W it h h e g e m o n y , traditions, m e a n in g s , a n d forms of discourse

are b e in g pro d u ce d a n d e x t e n d e d , w it h a pp a r e n t success, to

situations a n d groups w h o could not h a ve e x p e r ie n c e d those

events or w h o would h a ve e x p e r ie n c e d them in profoundly

different ways. I n the process a c o m m o n set of assumptions a n d

selections from “ our” tradition can e m e r g e despite the fact of

differentiation. T h u s the Statue of Lib erty, w h ic h can only serve

as a m e a n in g f u l symbol for a fraction (although sizeable) of the

population, is, in the process of official celebration, trans­

formed into a symbol of the natio n, a nation in w h ic h “ w e all”
were im m ig r a n t s . O r, as part of the official celebration of M a r ­
tin L u t h e r K i n g ’s birthd ay, his actual activities a n d the struggles
in w h ic h h e p a r tic ip a te d d is a p p e a r from v ie w . H e becomes not
46 C U LTU RE

the black m a n w h o struggled for racial justice, w h o upset the

status quo a n d was m u r d e r e d , but the R e v e r e n d Doctor w ho

d ie d for peace— a k in d of m id -tw e n tie th -c e n tu r y black Jesus

w h o lived an e x e m p l a r y life a n d d ie d for our sins a n d can be

elevated to a place in our p a n th e o n of civil-religious heroes.

T h is notion of h e g e m o n y is im p o r t a n t for a n y political eco­

n o m ic u n d e r s ta n d in g of culture, a n d one that requires m u c h

m o re analytical attention. H e r e I differ from these M a r xis t a n d

socialist writers w h o are uncomfortable talking about h e g e m o n y

because it seems to rule out resistance or because it seems to

suggest a consensus v ie w of a society based on shared values. In

the first place, such authors ro m a nticize working-class a n d other

subaltern forms of e x p e r ie n c e a n d culture, granting t h e m a hero­

is m that m a ke s it difficult to understand “ u n her o ic decades”

(W illia m s 19 7 9 ) . Second, they m a k e too direct a connection be­

tw een class a n d culture, so that the w o r k in g class can be seen to

h a ve th e ir o w n culture, based on their o w n e x p e r ie n c e of work

a n d c o m m u n it y . T h e r e are two problems w it h such a v ie w . First,

it im p l ie s m u c h too direct a connection b etw een m e a n in g a n d

e x p e r ie n c e and ignores the political im plicatio ns of cultural

inscription, the separation of m e a n in g from e x p e r ie n c e in the

context of d o m in a t io n . Second, it ignores the a m b ig u o u s and

contradictory nature of e x p e r ie n c e itself (or, m o re properly, on­

going a n d confusing experiences), an a m b ig u it y that can only

produce a contradictory consciousness. A s G r a m s c i expresses it,

the “ m a n -in -th e -m a s s ”

has a practical activity, but has no clear theoretical conscious­

ness of his practical activity, w hich nonetheless involves under­
standing the world in so far as it transforms it. H is theoretical
consciousness can indeed be historically in opposition to his
activity. O n e m ig h t almost say that he has two theoretical con­
sciousnesses (or one contradictory consciousness): one which
is im plicit in his activity and w hich in reality unites h im with all
his fellow-workers in the practical transformation of the real
world; and one, superficially explicit or verbal, w hich he has
inherited from the past and uncritically absorbed. But this
verbal conception is not without consequences. 1 9 7 1 [19 2 9 -
35]: 333)1
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e 47

Nonetheless, s im p ly to describe h e g e m o n y or d o m in a n t cul­

ture as it has thus far b e e n sketched in this presentation would

be insufficient, for it grants to culture m u c h too coherent a n d

systemic a quality. T o understand its lack of coherence a n d sys­

tem, w e can return to two passages from the M a r x a n d Engels

passage on ruling ideas. L e t us b e g in w it h the sentence, “ I n ­

sofar, therefore, as they rule as a class a n d d e t e r m in e the e x ­

tent and compass of a n epo ch . . . they do this in its whole

range. . . In th e ir language, M a r x a n d Engels h a v e rendered

problematic a relation that m a n y Marxists treat as auto m atic.

T h e r e are lines of cleavage a n d conflict a m o n g elements of a

d o m in a n t class. S u c h a class is seldom so u n it e d or h o m o g e ­

neous as to “ d e t e r m in e the extent a n d compass of an e p o c h .”

E ve n w it h in a d o m in a n t culture, th e n , there will be elements of

tension a n d contradiction. Aspects of a selected tradition m a y

be rejected or differently valued by different groups a m o n g

those w h o control the m e a n s of cultural pro duction— witness

the conflicts over f u n d in g policies of the National E n d o w m e n t s

for the H u m a n it ie s or the Arts, or over interpretations of the

V ie t n a m W a r on pub lic television.

N e ither, ho w ever, should our u n d e r s ta n d in g of h e g e m o n y be

lim ited to those w h o pro duce d o m in a n t culture, ig n o ring those

who a p p e a r to c o n s u m e it. T o do a slight turn on one of M a r x

and Engels’ phrases, “ T h e in d ivid u a l s co m po sing the subordi­

nate class possess a m o n g other things consciousness, a n d there­

fore t h in k .” If culture is inscribed, if m e a n in g can be r e m o ve d

from direct e x p e r ie n c e , such inscriptio n a n d removal can never

be total. If some m e a n in g s pro d u ce d by the d o m in a n t culture

seem to connect, or at least not contradict, the e x p e r ie n c e of

ordinary people, other m e a n in g s may directly conflict w it h

lived e x p e r ie n c e . In normal circumstances, that m a y not matter,

or not m atter deeply. In less ordinary circumstances, such

disjunction m a y be the focal p o in t for the pro duction of n e w

and alternative m e a n in g s , n e w forms of discourse, n e w selec­

tions from tradition or conflicts a n d struggles over the m e a n in g
of particular elements w it h in tradition. M a r t in L u t h e r K i n g ’s

birthday a g a in pro vides the e x a m p l e he re : first the struggle

over the designation of the d ay as a holiday a n d the inclusion of
48 CU LTURE

a black m a n as a national hero, a n d m o re recently a n d crucially,

the struggle over the m e a n in g of his life for “ us” — the official
a tte m p t to sanitize his life a n d other attempts to m a k e K in g a

symbol of opposition a n d struggle. T h e outcome of this m o v e ­

m e n t is by no m e an s obvious, a n d the most im p o r ta n t arena for

struggle will be in p ub lic schools, the central fo rum for the

production a n d m o d ificatio n of a selected tradition. “ T h e line

b etw een d o m in a n t a n d subordinate cultures,” Jackson Lears

notes, “ is a p er m e a b le m e m b r a n e , not an im p e n e tr a b l e barrier”

( 19 8 5 : 574 ).

Let us return to our original exam ple. We now have a

fram ew o rk for talking about— but not for red u c in g to neat

formulas— culture a n d e x p e r ie n c e in the southern U n it e d States.

It requires, first, the recognition of differential e x p e r ie n c e : the

differential e x p e r ie n c e of persons— w h it e a n d black, m ale and

female, rural a n d u r b a n , sharecropper a n d planter, a n d so on;

of particular generations in particular tim es a n d places— and

the u n d e r s tan d in g of that differential e x p e r ie n c e in terms of

in d iv id u a l life courses but also in terms of structures of inequal­

ity a n d d o m in a t io n . Ye t it also requires a recognition that across

this differential e x p e r ie n c e , a n d to a certain extent across t im e ,

some c o m m o n understandings em erge, along w it h common

forms of language a n d modes of interaction, c o m m o n sensibili­

ties of self a n d place a n d history. T h e b u r d e n of the discussion

of political eco n o m y has b e en to stress that these commonalities

are pro duced thro ugh a variety of institutions a n d m ean s of
cultural pro duction (w h ic h also vary across t im e ) — churches,

schools, 4 - H clubs, county a n d state fairs, state celebrations of

centennials a n d sesquicentennials, books, m agazines, television,

and the like— a n d that the pro duction or s h a p in g of culture
occurs in the context of unequal access to power. B u t I h a v e also
tried to stress that these c o m m o n understandings a n d modes of
interaction can n e ve r encompass all of differential e x p e r ie n c e .
Cultural pro duction is not l im it e d to those w h o control the
m ean s of cultural pro ductio n. E x p e r ie n c e constantly intrudes.
D es p ite the a p p a r e n t inscription of c o m m o n understandings
a n d modes of interaction, th e n , “ Southern culture” in the th ir ­
ties was different from w h a t it h a d b eco m e by the fifties or from
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e 49

what it h a d b e c o m e in the seventies. A n d in each of these d e ­

cades, the e x p e r ie n c e a n d m e a n i n g of “ So uthern culture” would

be quite different for specifically situated in d ivid u a l s . T h is dis­

cordant e x p e r ie n c e h a d direct effects on events in the South,

e.g., the civil rights m o v e m e n t of the fifties a n d sixties, w h ic h in

turn h a d a pro found effect on “ So uthern culture.” T h e a tte m p t

to constantly place culture in t im e , to see a constant interplay

between e x p e r ie n c e a n d m e a n in g in a context in w h ic h both

experience a n d m e a n in g are shaped by inequality a n d d o m i­

nation requires a m u c h less structured a n d systemic u n d e r ­

standing of culture th an that prescribed by our most p r o m in e n t

cultural theorists.

B u t there is another aspect to political economy, at least as it

has e m e r g e d in anthropology over the past two decades, and

that is its historical aspect, its a tte m p t to understand the e m e r ­

gence of particular peoples at the conjunction of local a n d

global histories, to place local populations in the larger currents

of world history. T h u s the different shape of So uthern e x p e r i­

ence in the thirties, fifties, a n d seventies would be understood,

in part, in terms of the national a n d global events a n d m o v e ­

ments that h a d affected it. T h e social relations of differential

access to wealth and power, th e n , are understood in world-

historical terms. T o discuss this aspect of political economy, w e

must leave b e h in d our consideration of m e a n in g a n d e x p e r i­

ence, not because the relationship is irrelevant but because the

structure of e x p e r ie n c e is so m u c h m o r e c o m ple x than has thus

far been in d ic a te d . Just because the word a n d concept of “ cul­

ture” is not obviously present in w h a t follows, this does not

mean that w h a t follows is irrelevant to an un d e r s tan d in g of

culture. T h e sam e basic fram ew o rk for talking about culture

would be in place, b u t the m o re c o m ple x structure of e x p e r i­

ence would require an even m o r e c o m ple x appro ach to the
production, s h a p in g , a n d inscriptio n of m e a n in g .
Historical political e co n o m y does not s im p ly assert that p a r ­
ticular societies are part of world history. It also asserts that the
attem pt to d ra w r ig id cultural boundaries aro und, say, the South,
50 CULTU RE

or Navajo or O j ib w a or T s e m b a g a or N a m b iq u a r a or C h a m u l a is

to reify culture. Because populations are not fo rm ed in isolation,

their connections w it h other populations a n d , perhaps , w it h the

larger currents of world history, require attention. T o ignore

these connections is to treat societies a n d cultures like “ billiard

balls,” in E r ic W o l f ’s telling words ( 19 8 2 : 6).

T h is political ec o n o m ic perspective on history, a n d the connec­

tion of apparently dis tin ctive anthropological subjects w it h in

that history, p r o vid e us w it h our rejection of both poles of the

a n t in o m y b e tw e e n evo lutio nis m a n d particularism. B o th sides of

this d is pu te took the billiard-ball v ie w of culture as a starting

p o in t. T h e particularists arg ued that each billiard ball h a d its

o w n history, w h ic h could be understood on its own terms. E vo lu ­

tionists, on the other h a n d , placed the billiard balls in an evolu­

tionary g a m e that followed certain rules (laws) that the scientist

could use to e x p l a in the directio n of the balls themselves. H is to r i­

cal political e c o n o m y shares the sense that the particular is part

of a world-historical process, b u t it differs from evolutionists’

u n d e r s ta n d in g of that process in k e y respects.

First, the evolutionists’ v ie w is not radical enough to the

extent that it still accepts the boundaries aro und particular cul­

tures a n d seeks generalization by fitting the particular into spe­

cific points on a n evolutionary ladder. S u ch a v ie w ignores the

constant s h a p in g of the particular by the evolutionary process

itself, the r e m a k in g of the “ folk” in the civilizational process, the

creation of (perhaps egalitarian) p e r ip h e r ie s in the process of

state fo rm atio n. In recent years, two attempts to reinterpret
Edmund L e a c h ’s analysis in P o l it ic a l Systems o f H i g h l a n d B u r m a

( 19 6 4 [ 19 5 4 ] ) demonstrate this difference quite nicely. T h a t

both reinterpretations are avowedly M a rxis t a n d co m e from

two rather different understandings of M a r x is m m a k e the e x ­
a m p l e all the m o r e interesting. In 1 9 7 5 , Jonathan F r ie d m a n
a p p l ie d his systems theory M a r x is m to an a tte m p t to use L e a c h ’s
material as a m e d it a t io n on state fo rm atio n. L o o k in g at a variety
of populations in h ig h l a n d B u r m a , h e tried to v ie w the m o v e ­
m e n t from g u m l a o to g u m s a to S h a n as an e x a m p l e of the pro­
cess a n d pro blem of state fo rm atio n. In d o in g so, ho wever, h e
took all of the populations as distinct units w it h direct relations
 M ARXIS M a n d c u l t u r e 5 1

w ith an ecosystem, w it h o u t e x a m in in g the interconnections of

the p r e s u m e d units. More recently, D a v id N u g e n t ( 19 8 2 ; cf.

F r ie d m a n 19 8 7 ) has tried to interpret the g u m l a o / g u m s a cycle in

terms of the incorporation of the K a c h in Hills in long-distance

trade routes, th e ir a p p a r e n t relation to the o p iu m trade, colo­

nial attempts to cut the routes or r e m o ve the K a c h in Hills from

t h e m , a n d so on. T h a t L e a c h dismisses both reinterpretations is

not so im p o r t a n t for the current p o in t. W e h a v e here two rather

different attempts to place the particular in a larger context,

one that fits the particular in a p u t a t iv e evolutionary s c hem e

and another that attempts to understand the s h a p in g of the

particular by a larger historical process.

Historical political e co n o m y would v ie w evo lutio nism as too

radical, ho w ever, in ano ther sense. F r o m the perspective of his­

torical political econo m y, w e now h a v e world history, a n d w e

must understand the particular, at least in part, in terms of that

history. B u t w e h a v e not always h a d world history, w h ic h is itself

a historical pro duct. Or, better said, there has been a series of

world histories, centered in civilizational focuses, the vast major­

ity of w h ic h h a v e not b e en truly global. If populations generally

live in webs of relationships, in c o m p le x connection a n d in ter­

connection w it h other populations, those webs are not necessar­

ily a n d h a v e not always b e e n global. Global history comes w it h

the e xp a n s io n of the world m a r k e t, w h ic h “ pro duced world

history for the first t im e ” ( M a r x a n d Engels 19 7 0 [ 18 4 6 ] : 78),

and the subsequent incorporation of regions w it h in colonial

e m pir e s or spheres of capitalist in ve s tm e n t, a history that has

been nicely sketched by W olf ( 19 8 2 ) . T h e incorporation of local

populations w it h in that m a r k e t or w it h in e m p ir e s , a n d the ef­

fect of such incorporation u p o n those populations, differ (or

are “ u n e v e n ” ) in space a n d t im e . T h u s , world history of this

sort c a m e to L a t in A m e r ic a sooner than it c a m e to C h in a , a n d is

only b e in g extend ed to some other regions (e.g., parts of

Melanesia) in our l ife tim e . A n y a tte m p t to v ie w particular p o p u ­

lations in terms of historical political eco n o m y m ust take this

unevenness into account as w e a tt e m p t to explore the fo rm a­

tion of populations in terms of local a n d global histories. As any
careful r e a d in g of W o lf would in d ic a te , incorporation w it h in
52 C U LTU RE

the world m a r k e t or the introduction of capitalist social rela­

tions does not set a local po pulatio n en route to an unalterable

or predictable series of social or cultural changes.

It should be noted, ho wever, that historical political eco no m y

is not w ith o u t its im p o r t a n t anthropological critics, especially in

its appr o a ch to culture. O n e w id e s p r ea d v ie w is best expressed,

perhaps , in Sherry O r tn e r ’s concern that the a tte m p t to write a

political e co n o m ic history reduces other cultural realities to

Western e x p e r ie n c e a n d W estern historicities. N o t in g various

strengths in a political eco n o m ic perspective, she finds its major

weakness in its “ capitalism-centered w o rldview ,” its a tte m p t to

place a variety of societies a n d social relations w it h in a capitalist

world eco no m y. S h e writes:

The problems derived from the capitalism-centered world­

view also affect the political economists’ vie w of history. H is ­
tory is often treated as something that arrives, like a ship,
from outside the society in question. T h u s we do not get a
history of that society, but the im pact of (our) history on that
society. T h e accounts produced from such a perspective are
often quite unsatisfactory in terms of traditional anthropologi­
cal concerns: the actual organization and culture of the society
in question........... T h e political economists, moreover, tend to
situate themselves more on the ship of (capitalist) history that
on the shore. T h e y say in effect that we can never know what
the other system, in its unique, “ traditional,” aspects, really
looked like anyway. 19 8 4 : 143)

W h il e O r tn er has isolated a g e n u in e pro blem in political eco­

n o m ic (as well as other) approaches to history, her statement of

the pro blem precludes a resolution of it. T h e d il e m m a for a n ­

thropologists is to v ie w the people they study as i n some w a y
connected w it h a w id e r world that includes capitalist relations
w ith o u t r e d u c in g social a n d e co n o m ic processes w it h in those
societies to processes of world history or capital accum ulatio n.
The resolution of that d il e m m a cannot be to set aside, e ve n
temporarily, the w id e r world, to reassert the disjunction b e ­
tween “ us” a n d “ t h e m ” a n d cla im that, “ A society, e ve n a village,
has its o w n structure a n d history, a n d this m u s t be as m u c h part
 m a r xis m a n d c u ltu r e 53

of the analysis as its relations w it h the larger context” (ib id .) . If

the rejection of an overly capitalism-centered a n d d ete r m in is tic

view leads to the contention that one can isolate a society or a

history or a culture from its larger context, understand it “ on its
own terms,” a n d t h e n place it in context, one has replaced one
simplistic v ie w w it h its opposite e x t r e m e . Yet this seems to be

what O rtner is proposing, a n d the evocative im a g e r y of s h ip

and shore supports such a vis io n . It perpetuates a disjunction

between “ our” history a n d “ th e ir ” history that finally, regardless

of w h ic h e x t r e m e one starts from, is r ed u c tive . A n d it returns

us to a grid of anthropological a n tin o m ie s .

B u t if w e consider a g ain the four books m e n t io n e d earlier, w e

see examples of work that is sensitive to the issues w e h a ve

discussed and that render O r tn e r ’s objection moot. These

books consider the s h a p in g of social m e a n in g s in specific histori­

cal situations a n d in the context of relations of power. E a c h of

the specific historical situations is seen in world-historical terms,

most clearly, b u t not exclusively, in the work of M in t z a n d A n ­

derson. M in t z carefully links the creation of C a r ib b e a n plan­

tation economies w it h c h a n g in g patterns of co ns u m ptio n a n d

sociality in E n g la n d , w h ile A n d e r s o n sees nationalism arising at

particular m o m e n t s in global history. Yet each of these studies is

sensitive to the particular, a n d no ne of t h e m attempts to reduce

the particular to a variatio n on a single capitalist t h e m e . T h e

way in w h ic h they link the global a n d particular m akes the s hip

and shore, us a n d t h e m , our history a n d their history im a g e r y

used by O rtn er especially in a p p r o p r ia t e . T h e y po in t, the n , to­

ward an u n d e r s ta n d in g of culture as historical product a n d

historical force, shaped a n d s h a p in g , socially constituted a n d

socially constitutive.

L ik e the works considered here, historical political eco no m y

does not fit well w it h in a scientistic search for transhistorical

laws. Nonetheless, the perspective outlined here does h a v e a

strong sense of d e t e r m in a tio n . Because its m a teria lis m rejects
the hierarchy of structures a n d takes as its starting po in t real
individ uals a n d the conditions in w h ic h they live, the d e t e r m in a ­
tion here a d d u c e d is not one that concerns the s h a p in g of super­
structure by base, e v e n in the p u t a t iv e last instance. Rather, I
54 C ULTURE

h a ve in m i n d a historical d e t e r m in is m , the d e te r m in a tio n of ac­

tion a n d the consequences of action by the conditions in which

that action takes place, conditions that are themselves the con­

sequences of prior a ctivity a n d thought. Real in d ivid u a l s and

groups act in situations co nd itio n ed by their relationships with

other in d ivid u a l s a n d groups, their jobs or their access to wealth

a n d property, the po w er of the state, a n d their ideas— a n d the

ideas of their fellows— about those relationships. C e r ta in ac­

tions, a n d certain consequences of those actions, are possible

w hile most other actions a n d consequences are impossible.

T h e s e d e t e r m in a t iv e pressures a n d limits are quite powerful,

especially at present. If w e step back from the activity of actual

in d ivid u a l s a n d consider the formation a n d action of institu­

tions, w e can see a d efin ite shape a n d direction in the historical

process. B u t the shape a n d direction of history, a n d the de­

t e r m in a t iv e pressures a n d limits that g ive it that shape, are not

predictable in a scientistic sense. T h e starting po in t is always

co nditio ned activity, a n d if a large range of actions a n d conse­

quences is ruled out, there is still a range of actions a n d conse­

quences that is possible, some of w h ic h cannot e ve n be im a g in e d ,

either by the actors or by those w h o a tte m p t to understand their

action. W e n e ed to allow for the creative a n d som etim es surpris­

in g activity of h u m a n subjects, l ivin g co nditio ned lives a n d acting

in co nd itio n ed ways w it h results that h a ve a d e t e r m in e d and

understandable shape, a n d so m etim es, u n d e r conditions not of

their choosing a n d w it h results that cannot be foreseen, creating

s o m ethin g n e w — w h e th e r that be the concept of the nation or of

a proletariat, or the practice of C hris tm as m u m m e r y .

C H A P T E R T H R E E

Images of the Peasant

in the Consciousness of
the Venezuelan Proletariat

In an influential a n d controversial book, James Scott suggested

that peasants h a v e a “ moral e c o n o m y ” by w h ic h they evaluate

the destructive effects of capitalist exp an s io n a n d the increasing

exactions of the colonial state. Based on a subsistence ethic, the

moral e co n o m y d e m a n d s that those w h o a ppr o pria te peasant

surpluses offer guarantees for the c o n tin ue d survival of the

peasant household. A l t h o u g h precapitalist orders m a y be seen

as exploitative in a M a r x is t sense, they m a y be based on patron-

client relations that offer survival guarantees a n d m a y not be

perceived as explo itative by the peasants w h o enjoy the g u a ra n ­

tees. T h e intrusion of capitalis m or the formation of a colonial

state m a y break the social ties of the old moral economy, erode

survival guarantees, a p p e a r explo itative to the peasantry, a n d

provoke rebellion (Scott 1 9 7 6 ; cf. his 1 9 7 7 ; P o p k in 1 9 7 9 ; Ad a s

1980).

Scott’s analysis of peasant politics in Southeast A s ia explicitly

draws u p o n the w ork of E . P. T h o m p s o n a n d others w h o h a ve

e m p h a s iz e d the moral e co n o m y of peasants, artisans, a n d prole­

tarians in e ig h te e n th - and n in e te en th -c en tu ry E n g la nd and
France. T h is literature has e m p h a s iz e d the active presence of
precapitalist traditions, values, a n d c o m m u n it ie s in the early
working class— traditions that w ere transformed w it h the In d u s ­
trial R evo lutio n a n d in terms of w h ic h the industrial e x p e r ie n c e
56 CULTURE

was evaluated, criticized, and resisted ( T h o m p s o n 19 6 3 : 63;

19 7 1; cf. Ho bsbawm 19 5 9 ; Rude 19 6 4 ) . The literature has

served a n im p o r t a n t corrective function w it h relation to M arxist

a n d n o n -M a r xis t eco n o m ic history, in w h ic h the history of c a p i­

talism is often considered the history of the capitalists, the

history of those w h o w o n . E v e n m o r e im p o r t a n t than its recap­

tur in g of the history of those w h o lost, ho wever, the moral

eco no m y literature has created the basis for a n e w theory of

consciousness. It has r e n e w e d the notion of tradition, not as the

d ea d w e ig h t of the past, b u t as the active, s h a p in g force of the

past in the present.

A lth o u g h the moral e co n o m y literature, particularly that

dealing w it h the E u r o p e a n e x p e r ie n c e , m us t be regarded as

a d v a n c in g our historical u n d er s tan d ing , there is an unfortu­

nate ten d en cy to treat the peasant or artisan past in u n a m b ig u ­

ous, uncritical terms. For e x a m p l e , w h e n T h o m p s o n analyzes

traditional notions of t im e in his essay “ T i m e , W o r k -D is c ipl in e ,

a n d Industrial C a p it a l is m ” ( 19 6 7 ) , h e freely draws on examples

from the N u e r a n d other p r im it iv e societies w itho ut carefully

d is tin g u is h in g a m o n g these societies, the nature of their tradi­

tions, values, experienc es , a n d c o m m u n it ie s , a n d the traditions

of the peasants a n d artisans w h o w ere to e x p e r ie n c e the In d us ­

trial Revo lutio n in E n g l a n d . In W o r k , C u l t u r e a n d S o ciety i n I n ­

d u s t r ia l iz in g A m e r ic a ( 19 7 6 ) , Herbert G u t m a n lu m ps together

u n d e r the single label “ preindustrial” a w id e variety of peasant

and artisan traditions from different parts of E u r o p e and
No rth A m e r ic a a n d at different historical m o m e n ts . A n d James

Scott ( 19 7 6 ) has a ten d en cy to overstate his case, r o m a n tic iz in g

the precapitalist past a n d ig n o r in g the forces of disorder a n d

exploitation that preced ed capitalism a n d the colonial state.
One m u s t, th e n , question the distance from m o d ern iza tio n
theory traveled by these theorists. A lth o u g h they ado pt a m u c h

m o re critical stance toward the capitalist transformation than do

the classical theorists of m o d e r n iz a tio n , they h a v e remarkably
similar starting points for their historical trajectories— a rela­
tively ho m o geneo us, un d iffe r en tiate d traditional order. M o r e
im p o r t a n t for our purposes, this weakness has unfortunate con­
sequences for th e ir u n d e r s ta n d in g of consciousness. A lth o u g h
 im a g es o f t h e peasant 57

they are correct to p o in t to the active force of the past in the

present, their uncritical approaches to the past leave t h e m in

poor positions to understand the contradictory im ag es , values,

and feelings presented to the e m e r g in g proletarian.

In T h e C o u n t r y a n d the C it y , R a y m o n d W il l ia m s notes the d iff i­

culty in d a tin g the d is appear an ce of an idyllic rural past. For

w hatever century, it always seems to h a v e recently d is appe ar e d

or to be in the process of d is a p p e a r in g . In a passage that has

special relevance to the moral e co n o m y literature, h e observes:

Take first the idealisation of a “ natural” or “ moral” economy

on w hich so m a n y have relied, as a contrast to the thrusting
ruthlessness of the new capitalism. T h e r e was very little that
was moral or natural about it. In the simplest technical sense,
that it was a “ natural” subsistence agriculture, as yet u n ­
affected by the drives of a market economy, it is already
doubtful and subject to m a n y exceptions; though part of this
emphasis can be readily accepted. But the social order w ithin
which this agriculture was practiced was as hard and as brutal
as anything later experienced. E ve n if we exclude the wars
and brigandage to w hich it was commonly subject, the u n ­
countable thousands who grew crops and reared beasts only
to be looted and burned and led away with tied wrists, this
economy, even at peace, was an order of exploitation of a most
thoroughgoing k in d : a property in m e n as well as in land; a
reduction of most m e n to working animals, tied by forced
tribute, forced labour, or “ bought and sold like beasts” ; “ pro­
tected” by law and custom only as animals and streams are
protected, to yield more labour, more food, more blood; an
economy directed, in all its working relations, to a physical
and economic domination of a significantly total kind. (19 7 3 :
37-38 ).

B u t, some m ig h t argue, the “ moral e c o n o m y” n eed not h a ve

existed in the past; it m a y be p e r c e iv e d in the past from the
perspective of a disordered present. T h e im ag e s of a moral
econo m y m a y be a m e a n in g f u l im a g e e ve n if “ w h a t actually h a p ­
p e n e d ” was less idyllic. B u t as W il l ia m s suggests, the p e r c e p ­
tions of the past will d e p e n d u p o n the relative positions of the
58 CULTURE

perceivers; different idealizations a n d evaluations will emerge

d e p e n d in g on distinct e xperiences of a “ physical a n d economic

d o m in a t io n of a significantly total k in d .”

In a c o m m e n t a r y on F r a n k R . L e a v is a n d D en y s T h o m p s o n s

Culture and E n v ir o n m e n t ( 19 7 7 [19 3 3 ] ) , W il l ia m s turn ed this

po in t about the past toward an evaluation of consciousness in

the present: “ W h a t is true, I would argue, is that a n u m b e r of

new kind s of unsatisfying work h a v e co m e into existence; a

n u m b e r of n e w kind s of c h e a p e n te r ta in m e n t, a n d a n u m b e r of

n e w kinds of social d iv is io n . A g a in s t these m u s t be set a n u m b e r

of n e w kind s of satisfying w o rk; certain n e w kinds of social

organization. B e t w e e n all these a n d other factors, the balance

has to be m o r e finely d r a w n th an the m y t h allows” (19 6 0 : 279).

In p o in tin g to these passages, I do not m e a n to suggest, just as

W il l ia m s does not m e a n to suggest, that the industrial capitalist

order represented, on balance, progress for h u m a n k in d and

advances for w o r k in g peo ple. M y p o in t has to do w it h our a p ­

proach to consciousness. Too often moral eco n o m y theorists,

w hile p o in t in g out the im p o r t a n c e of the past in the present,

analyze a relatively u n a m b ig u o u s transition from an ordered

past to a disordered present. W e instead n e ed to v ie w a m o v e ­

m e n t from a disordered past to a disordered present. W it h such

a starting p o in t w e can assess the contradictions in h e r e n t in the

develo pm ent of working-class consciousness and appreciate

that the past pro vides e xperiences that m a y m a k e the transition

seem positive as well as experiences that m a y make it seem

n e g a tive . O n ly th e n can w e see the moral eco no m y as a source

for protest a n d a c c o m m o d a tio n , despair a n d h o p e .

W i t h this in m in d , I turn to the social history of a segment of

the V e n e z u e l a n peasantry. U n l ik e peasantries w it h w h ic h an­

thropologists are m o r e c o m m o n ly familiar, the peasantry I e x ­

a m in e has relatively shallow historical roots. It fo rm ed in the

n in e t e e n t h century w it h the e m e r g e n c e of a coffee eco no m y

and u n d e r w e n t a proletarianization process in the tw entieth

century w it h the rise of Ve n e z u e l a ’s petroleum economy. T h is
short historical existence, in tim a te ly related to the cyclical devel­
opment of the world m a r k e t, corresponds to another basic
po in t of T h e C o u n t r y a n d the C i t y : that both country a n d city (and
 JMAGES of t h e peasant 59

I would a dd peasant a n d proletarian) are e ver-cha n g ing quali­

ties a n d , as qualities, are to be understood in the context of

capitalist history (W il l ia m s 1 9 7 3 : 302 et passim).

Before t u r n in g to specifics, I offer some introductory c o m ­

ments. First, I do not pre te n d to analyze the Ve n e z u e l a n peas­

antry as a whole. T h e Ve n e z u e l a n peasantry n e ve r existed as

an identifiable whole b u t only in its regionally differentiated

parts. I concentrate on the coffee-producing peasantry of the

Andes, w h ic h e x h ib its a n u m b e r of u n iq u e features. M y own

personal knowledge of the A n d e a n peasantry is d e p e n d e n t on

field research in a smaller, specialized region— the Bocono D is ­

trict of Trujillo State (Roseberry 19 8 3 ) .1 Second, despite such

limitation, I do not g iv e a detailed account of the peasantry’s

history. S u ch detail can be fo und elsewhere. Here I s im p ly

s u m m a r iz e those aspects of its history that are necessary for

cultural analysis. T h i r d , m y analysis of peasant a n d proletarian

consciousness is not based upo n my presentation of ideas,

opinions, or conceptions that w ere expressed to m e by i n d i­

viduals; nor is it based upo n the b e h a vio r of peasants a n d

proletarians in elections, unio ns, or related political events and

m o ve m e n ts . T h is is, rather, an a tt e m p t to outline the cultural

possibilities presented to V e n e z u e l a n peasants a n d proletarians

in their social history— the constitutive elements of political

consciousness.

I e x a m in e these cultural possibilities w it h four symbolic sets

that, in deference to a fashion in cultural analysis, are presented

as opposed pairs: coffee a n d petro leum , backwardness a n d d e ­

velo pment, country a n d city, a n d dictatorship a n d democracy.

T h is is hardly an esoteric gro up of im ag es , but the m e a n in g s

attached to t h e m are constitutive elements of political conscious­

ness. In discussing each set, I first trace the political a n d eco­
n o m ic history that produces a n d connects the im ag e s . I then
concentrate on the im ag e s themselves a n d discuss ho w they are
presented to Ven ezuelan s , w ith o u t d is tin g u is h in g a m o n g differ­
ent class perceptions. In the process, I a tte m p t to outline the
raw materials available for cultural analysis.
60 CULTURE

C offee a n d Pe t r o leum

T h e A n d e a n peasantry e m e r g e d in the n in e te e n th century with

the growth of a coffee econo my. A t in d e p e n d e n c e , the Andes

were not central to V e n e z u e l a ’s economy, w h ic h was based on

lowland plantation pro duction of cacao for export. Cacao-

p r o d u c in g areas w ere devastated by the W a r of In d ep e n d e n c e ,

a n d coffee soon displaced cacao as Ve n e z u e l a ’s prin c ipa l ex­

port. S u ch a shift d id not im m e d ia t e l y invo lve major political,

eco no m ic, or d e m o g r a p h ic upheavals. Plantation owners in the

central a n d coastal lowlands could e x p a n d their holdings into

s urro unding highlands, planting coffee a n d displacing the gar­

d e n plots (conucos) of their d e p e n d e n t tenants a n d slaves. Only

in the late n in e t e e n t h century d id the A n d e s — w h ic h h a d been

relatively d epo pu la ted a n d w h ic h pro duced p r im a r il y for re­

gional markets d u r in g the colonial perio d — e m e r g e as an i m ­

portant coffee-producing region. By the e n d of the century,

M aracaib o , w h ic h served the Andes, was a major port, the

Andes pro duced m o r e than half of V e n e z u e l a ’s exports, and

A n d e a n s captured national pow er in Caracas (L o m b a r d i and

Hanso n 19 7 0 ; Carvallo a n d Hernandez 19 7 9 ; Rangel 19 6 8 ;

19 6 9 ; Roseberry 19 8 3 ) .
Because the A n d e s were not densely populated d u r in g the

colonial perio d , the formation of the coffee eco no m y could

not proceed w ith o u t an intense m ig r a tio n process. Peasants

a n d m erchants from other parts of Ven e z u ela (especially the

cattle-producing llanos to the south, in decline throughout the

n in e te e n th century), as well as migrants from southern Eu­

rope, settled on vacant national lands or in the n e w towns and

cities in the te m p e r a te zone w h e r e coffee was planted. The

migrants entered some areas that were virtually unpo pulated
a n d other areas that h a d a long colonial history. T h e interac­
tion of m ig r a n t and resident, coffee eco no m y and colonial
economy, is im p o r t a n t for u n d er s tan d ing regional differentia­
tion in the A n d e s a n d the nineteen th-cen tury political battles
betw een liberals a n d conservatives. S u ch detail is not crucial
for the present analysis, ho w ever. M o r e im p o r ta n t is an e m p h a ­
sis on the relatively small scale of production throughout most
 im a g e s o f t h e peasant 61

of the tem pe ra te coffee-producing zone. Regio nal d ifferentia­

tion must be stressed h ere as well, but w it h the dissolution of

colonial forms of landed property, a pro perty-o w ning peas­
antry was created. T h e s e pro perty-o w ning peasants, along w it h

those w ho ow ned no property but o c cu pied national lands,

became the p r in c ip a l coffee producers. For the most part, they

entered into direct relations w it h merchants w h o loaned t h e m

the funds necessary to start a coffee farm and to m a in t a in

themselves until the first harvest, a n d w ho thus established a

claim to most of the product of the coffee farms. T h e A n d e a n

peasantry was therefore u n iq u e in m a n y respects. U n l ik e other

parts of Ve n e z u e l a , w h e r e large farms a n d d e p e n d e n t tenants

p r e d o m in a te d , a relatively in d e p e n d e n t peasantry was estab­

lished in the Andes. U n l ik e other regions, w he re landlords

were politically a n d economically d o m in a n t , merchants con­

trolled the coffee-producing Andes. T h is is not to say that

landlords w ere nonexistent; it is to say that the m erchant-

peasant relationship d e f in e d the Andean eco no m y (Rangel

19 6 8 ; 19 6 9 ; Roseberry 19 8 0 ; 19 8 3 ) .

T h e b right historical possibilities that faced pioneers w ho h a d

established th e ir o w n farms a n d passed t h e m on to their chil­

dren began to d i m in the tw e n tie th century. T h e coffee econ­

o m y reached its spatial limits aro und the turn of the century.

Indebtedness became a p ro b lem , especially d u r in g perio dic

world m a r k e t depressions, for e x a m p l e , in the m a r k e t ’s virtual

closure d u r in g the World W a r I a n d especially d u r in g the 1930s

crisis. T h e depression could be seen as one of a series of cyclical

crises in the coffee econo m y. T w o aspects of the Ve n e z u e l a n

situation m a d e the 1930s u n iq u e , ho wever. First, the fact that

the effective spatial limits to coffee production had b een

reached m e a n t that the favored response to crisis— increased

production thro ugh spatial e xp a n s io n — was available only by

e x p a n d in g on to less p ro d u c tive land. Second, by the 1930s

coffee h a d b een displaced by petro leum as the d o m in a n t V e n e ­

zuelan expo rt. E c o n o m ic d is placem en t was a c c o m p a n ie d by po ­

litical d is place m e n t, even w h ile Andeans co ntin ued to hold
formal positions of state power. Farm ers a n d merchants facing
foreclosure, poverty, a n d in some cases starvation a ban d o n ed
62 C ULTURE

the coffee econo m y. N e a r b y petro leum ca m ps in the Maracaibo

basin attracted some A n d e a n m igrants, b u t most of t h e m went

to cities such as Caracas a n d M a ra ca ib o to participate in the

co m m e r cial a n d go vernm ental expan s io n a c c o m p a n y in g V e n e ­

zuela’s transformation. T h is is not to say that the coffee economy

d is a p p e a r e d . In d e e d , land area planted w it h coffee increased in

the A n d e s d u r in g the decades following the crisis, e ve n as pro­

d u c tiv it y a n d total pro ductio n declined, in d ic a tin g expansio n

on to less a n d less favorable land. E x c e p t for growing urban

centers in the A n d e s that pa r tic ip a te d in V e n e z u e l a ’s c o m m e r ­

cial a n d go vernm ental e xp a n s io n , ho wever, most A n d e a n dis­

tricts e ither lost population from one census to the n e xt or

m a in t a in e d extrem ely low levels of population growth. Sons

a n d daughters left the area, aggravating the situation for those

coffee farmers w h o r e m a in e d .

The nature of the petro leum transformation is discussed in

the n ext section. H e r e I concentrate on the coffee economy,

the peasantry that characterized it, a n d the im ag e s it presented

for a moral econo m y. First, the relative in d e p e n d e n c e of the

A n d e a n coffee-producing peasantry m u s t be stressed. Yet it is

remarkable to note the d is appearan ce of this peasantry from

the political consciousness of co ntem po rary Ve n e z u e l a . In both

the official versions of Venezuelan history and alternative

left-wing versions, the rural landscape has been reduced to a

relatively un diffe r en tiate d opposition betw een landlords and

d e p e n d e n t tenants, w it h a peo nag e relationship d e f in in g the

social existence of the peasantry. T h e r e is some debate about

the relative im p o r ta n c e of l a t if u n d ia in the A n d e s , in part d u e

to a ten d en cy to ignore regional differentiation a n d to aggre­

gate state-level statistics. Nevertheless, one would t h in k that

the coffee-farming peasant of the n in e t e e n t h century would
serve as one basis for the construction of a moral eco no m y
p o in tin g to an ordered past. A number of factors operate
against this alternative historical m e m o r y , b u t I m e n t io n only
those directly related to the coffee eco no m y a n d the peasantry.
The most im p o r t a n t is the process of d e v e l o p m e n t of the cof­
fee econo m y. T h e e xp a n s io n a n d hopes of the late n in e te e n th
century gave w a y to relative stasis in the early tw en tieth cen­
 IMAGES OF T H E P E A S A N T 63

tury a n d finally to the crisis a n d collapse of the 1930s. D u r in g

a price crisis in the early tw e n tie th century, a local A n d e a n

newspaper struck a note of des pair:

W it h rare exceptions, what is the capital w hich has been

formed among coffee producers, even w hen prices were as
high as thirty-six or forty pesos for one hundred kilos? None.
A n d w hen the market presented low prices, our fields were
inexplicably and painfully neglected. M a n y of our hacendados
had to abandon their farms to go look for another way to
survive; others stay on their haciendas in a languid, heavy life,
with no strength to move themselves. (El Renacimiento, Bocono,
Venezuela, 4 March 1904).

The people w h o e x p e r ie n c e d the years of collapse w ere the

sons a n d daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of the

nineteenth-century pioneers. D u r in g the years of crisis, their

debt obligations w ere leading to foreclosures. T h e ir conscious­

ness a n d m e m o r ie s would not be of in d e p e n d e n c e but of ab ­

ject d e p e n d e n c e .
T h is leads us to the crucial characteristic of the A n d e a n peas­

antry that separates it from those peasantries analyzed in the

moral e co n o m y literature. T h e moral economists consider peas­

antries that seem to h a v e d e e p historical roots. Capitalist d evelo p­

m e n t or colonialism intrudes u p o n that peasantry a n d disrupts

its traditions a n d forms of organization. T h e r e is no sense, h o w ­

ever, in w h ic h the A n d e a n peasantry was precapitalist. Rather, it

e m er g e d in the n in e t e e n t h century as the region was incorpo­

rated into the world m a r k e t . It was not oriented toward subsis­

tence b u t toward c o m m o d it y pro ductio n. F r o m the b e g in n in g ,

its fate was tied to the cyclical d e v e l o p m e n t of the world m a r k e t.

Because of internal d ifferentiatio n w it h in the peasantry, some

producers could prosper, take ad van ta g e of periods of h ig h

prices, establish deb t relations w it h poorer farmers, a n d create a
protective cushio n to absorb the shock of periods of low prices.

T h e ir less fortunate fellows could get b y d u r in g periods of h ig h

prices b u t suffered at other tim e s . G iv e n their relations w it h
merchants— relations that w ere essential if the fa m ily was
64 CULTURE

to grow coffee— their establishment as a peasantry was sim ul­

taneously the establishment of a relationship w it h a form of c a p i­

tal. W h il e one m ig h t legitimately argue about w h e th e r that rela­

tio n s hip was capitalist or noncapitalist, there is little historical

sense in labeling it precapitalist. T h e coffee eco n o m y presented

some raw m aterial for a moral eco n o m y that could p o in t to an

ordered past, b u t it also presented raw material for a conscious­

ness that could p o in t to a disordered past.

B ackwardness an d D evelo pm ent

W e r e it not for petro leum , V e n e z u e l a would h a v e fit the ste­

reotypic m o del of a n u n d e r d e ve l o p e d country— e xp o r tin g one

or two agricultural raw materials a n d im p o r t in g m a n u fa c tu r e d

products. A t one level, petro leum extraction a n d export sim ply

replaced a n agricultural raw material by a m in e r a l one w itho ut

affecting the basic im po rt-e xp o rt m o del. I n d e e d , Ven e z u ela be­

c a m e m o r e d e p e n d e n t on a single product than h a d ever been

the case w it h coffee or cacao. A n u m b e r of things were, h o w ­

ever, different about p etro leu m . In the first place, it brought in

far greater returns th an w ere possible w it h agricultural pro d­

ucts. D u r in g the decade in w h ic h petro leum replaced coffee as

the p r in c ipa l export, the portion of total export value to w h ic h

coffee co ntributed d r o p p e d to a m in u s c ule level before actual
pro duction dec lined . Second, u n lik e agricultural and most
other m in e r a l products, petro leum was less subject to cyclical

fluctuations in d e m a n d a n d price on the world m a rk e t, at least

d u r in g these long decades of e x p a n s io n . Finally, it was a re­

source on w h ic h the develo ped world was so d e p e n d e n t that

p r o d u c in g countries could occasionally exercise some pressure
a n d control in the international m a r k e t, as demonstrated by the
success of the O rg a n iz atio n of Petroleum E x p o r tin g Countries

in the 1970 s. In short, m o r e things b e c a m e possible w it h petro­

l e u m than would h a v e b een possible w it h coffee.
W h il e petro leum extraction made an escape from typical
forms of u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t possible, it would be a m is tak e to
automatically link coffee to backwardness a n d petro leum to
 IMAGES of t h e peasant 65

development. T h e petro leum e co n o m y simultaneously symbol­

izes Ven ezu ela ’s backwardness a n d its d e v e l o p m e n t. T h e cof­

fee economy was n e ve r u n d e r foreign control. Im port-expo rt

houses in port cities w ere ow ned by resident foreigners—

Germans and English— and their Venezuelan-bo rn children,

but local pro duction rested in Ven e z u ela hands. E v e n w h e n a

foreigner controlled some aspect of production or m a r k e t in g ,

the foreigner was not a corporation; the Ve n e z u e l a n patr i­

mony h a d not b e en sold. In contrast, the granting of conces­

sions to A n g lo -D u tc h Shell or the Standard O il Corporation

introduced a wholly n e w chapter in Ve n e z u e l a ’s u n d e r d e velo p ­

m ent. T h e early laws g o ve r n in g the concessions w ere written

by representatives of the c o m p a n ie s themselves a n d called for

a modest royalty to be p a id to the Ve n e z u e l a n g o ve r n m e n t, but

the vast majority of the oil wealth was extracted by foreign

companies to feed foreign capital accum ulatio n. In short, the

rise of the petro leum eco n o m y m e a n t the insertion of V e n e z u ­

ela w it h in the im p e r ia lis t system.

A k in d of d e v e l o p m e n t nevertheless occurred in Ven e zu ela.

In the previo us section, I referred to the “ co m m ercial and

governmental e x p a n s io n ” of Ve n e z u e l a ’s econo my. We m ust

now g ive some content to that phrase. V e n e z u e l a ’s oil wealth

has been distributed p r im a r il y by the state. E v e n in the early

years, w h e n foreign c o m p a n ie s p a id modest royalties to the

state, the sums generated allowed for an enormous expan s io n

of the go vernm ental apparatus. As production a n d the p e r ­

centage of royalties o w ed to the state increased over the d e ­

cades, this apparatus grew e v e n larger. T o serve the m e m b e r s

of the gro w ing bureaucracy a n d th e ir families, merchants of

consumer goods proliferated. One remarkable result of the

petroleum transformation, th e n , was the growth of an urban

m id d le class, d e p e n d e n t on inco m es from g o ve r n m e n t or c o m ­

merce. V e n e z u e l a ’s industrial structure, however, was w e a k . It

was only w it h efforts starting in the 1940s to “ sow the petro­
le u m ” that the gro w ing state began to turn its resources to­
ward s tim ulating d ivers ified pro ductio n. Industrial in ve s tm e n t
and d e v e l o p m e n t w ere pro m o ted by import-substitution poli­
cies starting in 19 5 9 . The state began in 19 7 4 to encourage
66 CU LTU RE

basic industry (e.g., petrochemicals) in public a n d m ix e d pub.

lie a n d p r iva te enterprises. B u t e ve n w it h these recent attempts

to stimulate industrial d e ve lo p m e n t, Ve n e z u e l a has b eco m e an

urb a n , essentially nonindustrial country.2

T h is is reflected in statistics on the distribution of gross domes­

tic product (g d p ) a n d population a m o n g p r im a r y (agriculture,

m in in g ) , secondary (m a n u fa c tu re , construction, utilities), and

tertiary (c o m m er c e , transportation, service) sectors. Distribution

of g d p a m o n g sectors has b een relatively stable because of the

im p o r ta n c e of petro leum earnings in the p r im a r y sector. From

19 5 0 to 19 6 9 , nevertheless, there was significant slippage in the

p r im a r il y sector (dow n from 38 percent to 28 percent of g d p ), a

m in o r proportional increase in the secondary sector ( u p from 17

percent to 20 percent), a n d a larger proportional increase in the

tertiary sector (from 45 percent to 5 2 percent) (Venezuela,

Banco Central 1 9 7 1 ) . If w e d iv id e the economically active popula­

tion a m o n g these sam e sectors, ho wever, a m o re d r a m a tic change

appears. In 19 5 0 , 46 percent w ere w o r k in g in the p r im a r y sec­

tor; b y 1 9 7 1 , only 2 2 percent w ere. T h e secondary sector has

r e m a in e d relatively stable (rising from 1 7 percent to 20 percent),

and the percentage of the population w o rkin g in the tertiary

sector increased from 34 percent to 4 2 percent. T h e major in ­

crease was in a group that co nfounded the census takers a n d that

will be discussed later, the residual “ others” increased from 3

percent to 1 6 percent. T h e decline in the percentage of people

engaged in the p r im a r y sector can be e x p la in e d by the decline in

the agricultural sector, w h ic h d r o p p e d from 43.0 percent to 20.3

percent of the economically active population (Venezuela, M in is -

terio d e Fo m e n to 1 9 7 1 ) .
The statistics tell us that a d r a m a tic change has occurred in
the structure of the V e n e z u e l a n po pulatio n; one aspect of that
change is discussed in the n ext section. Statistics also indicate
the skewed structure of V e n e z u e l a ’s eco no m y— the o ve r w h e lm ­
in g w e ig h t of petro leum in the p r im a r y sector and of govern­
m e n t services a n d c o m m e r c e in the tertiary sector. T h e y can
only h in t , ho wever, at the quality of life that allows Darcy
R ib e ir o to w rite of “ the ‘Pue r to -R ica n iza tio n ’ of V e n e z u e l a ”
1 9 7 2 : 288). H e refers in part to the historical im po rta n c e of the
 IMAGES OF T H E P E A S A N T 67

petroleum c o m p a n ie s a n d in part to the increased im po r ta n c e

of multinationals in V e n e z u e l a n industry a n d c o m m e r c e since

19 5 9 . He refers as well to a cultural transformation that—

especially in urban areas such as Caracas and M aracaib o —

affects language, dress, social relations, art, c in e m a , a n d other

cultural manifestations.
The sketch of eco n o m ic evolution in this century and of

macrolevel statistics also does not in d ic a te the struggles that

have b een w ag ed aro und the petro leum sector. Efforts to “ sow

the petro leu m ” in the 1940s, increased royalties assessed by the

state, im p o r t substitution a n d industrialization in the 1960s a n d

1970s a n d , finally, the nationalization of the petroleum c o m p a ­

nies in 19 7 6 are associated w it h a series of political m o v e m e n ts

that are best assessed in our discussion of dictatorship a n d d e ­

mocracy. T h e s e struggles g ive social content to im ag es of back­

wardness a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . V e n e z u e l a has been d efin e d as a

petroleum e c o n o m y for most of this century. In the selling of

Venezuela’s p a tr im o n y , in the d o m in a n c e of multinationals, in

the cultural influence of N e w York, M i a m i , or Paris, the petro­

leum sector stands for V e n e z u e l a ’s backwardness. In the early

labor struggles in the petro leum ca m ps , in the attempts to rede­

fine the relationship betw een the state a n d the corporations, in

the nationalization of iron a n d petro leum , in the a tte m pt to

promote industrial d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d in the a tte m pt to create

and m a in t a in democracy, the petro leum sector is m a d e to stand

for the possibility of V e n e z u e l a ’s d e v e l o p m e n t . W it h petroleum

e m b o d y in g both d e v e l o p m e n t a n d backwardness, coffee and

the agricultural past occupy an a m b ig u o u s position. T h e y are

relegated to a relatively ahistorical tradition, largely d e vo id of

social content a n d the positive a n d n e g ative valuations that are

placed on p etr o le u m . T h is allows for rather contradictory atti­

tudes toward the countryside.

Co untry and C ity

T h e r e is p erha ps no m o r e visible m a r k e r of V e n e z u e l a ’s transfor­

m atio n than u rb a n iza tio n . In 19 3 6 , 3 5 percent of all Venezuelans
68 CULTURE

lived in u r b a n areas; b y 1 9 7 1 , the figure was 7 7 percent. M u c h of

the u r b a n concentration has b e e n in Caracas, but the p h e n o m e ­

non is not l im it e d to the capital. E v e n the A n d e a n states, once

p r e d o m in a n tly rural a n d one of m a n y sources of migrants for

Caracas a n d other u r b a n centers, h a v e b e c o m e p r im a r il y urban.

A lth o u g h the A n d e a n states h a v e b e en major sources of m i ­

grants, they are not the only sources. M igrants to the city come

from various regions a n d a variety of rural experiences . O n e

factor in the u rb an izatio n process has b e en the stagnation of the

rural sector, of w h ic h the coffee eco n o m y is only the most visible

e x a m p l e . A n o t h e r factor concerns the transformation of V e n e ­

zuela’s political eco n o m y a n d the e xpan s io n of g o ve r n m e n t ser­

vices a n d c o m m e r c e m e n t io n e d earlier.

People w h o m o v e from rural areas to the city m a y m o v e into

these gro w ing spheres. T h is is less true for peasants a n d their

sons a n d daughters th a n it is for the sons a n d daughters of the

m id d l e class from towns a n d cities in the interior. S u ch opportu­

nities are not, ho w ever, entirely closed to the peasant. T h e first

u rb a n e x p e r ie n c e for such a person m a y be livin g w it h a relative

in a pro vincial center w h ile a tten d in g secondary school. T h is

can o p e n doors in the educational establishment or for low-level

positions elsewhere in the bureaucracy, as a person w it h a h ig h

school degree a n d modest political connections can b eco m e a

grade school teacher. For a yo un g daughter, the first urban

e x p e r ie n c e m a y , ho w ever, be l ivin g in a pro vincial center or in

Caracas w it h a fa m ily that has h ir e d her as a domestic servant.

O r the m o v e for a yo un g m a n m a y invo lve a series of stays w it h

relatives a n d searches for w ork d u r in g the agricultural dead

season. H e m a y eventually stay in the city. T h e work h e finds, if

h e finds it, probably will not be in industry. It m a y be in c o m ­
m e r c e ; it m a y be in petty trades servicing the growing urban
population of u n e m p l o y e d ; it m a y be a series of short jobs in
construction, co mmerce, and petty trades. T h is last group
m akes u p the “ other” category that so confuses the census tak­

ers. A gro w ing literature on these migrants in other parts of

L a t in A m e r ic a tells us that their “ m a rg in a lity” is a m y t h (e.g.,
Per lm a n 1 9 7 6 ; L o m n it z 19 7 7 ) . T h is is particularly clear as w e
p a y m o re attention to the petty trades that elude macrolevel
 IMAGES OF T H E P E A S A N T 69

statistics. Just as w e cannot glibly label t h e m “ m a r g in a l,” h o w ­

ever, w e also cannot s u b s u m e t h e m w it h in a “ proletariat” in the

sense of a w o r k in g po pulatio n integrated w it h in an industrial

economy. T h e m o v e from country to city is not, in most cases, a
m o ve from peasant to proletarian b u t from peasant to “ other.”

T h e industrial sector is too constricted to absorb the w o rk in g

population, a n d the portion of the population it absorbs is not,

again for the most part, right off the fa rm .

Physical e v id e n c e of u n e m p l o y m e n t a n d u n d e r e m p l o y m e n t

of migrants can be fo und in the ranc ho s or slums that c lim b the

hillsides a n d cling to the walls of riverbeds in towns of modest

size and in major cities. T h e existence of the ranchos is not to

be understood solely in terms of the e co n o m ic condition of

their residents. S o m e h a v e a rather long history. W it h t im e , the

cardboard houses g iv e w ay to concrete tiles a n d zinc roofs;

w ith t im e , water a n d electrical services, as well as pub lic health

and educational facilities, m a y be intro d uced. (O r the rancho

may d is ap p e ar in a landslide. Or it m a y be displaced by a

government-sponsored ho us ing project that rancho dwellers

cannot afford to live in .) In a d d itio n to offering e vid e n c e of

unem plo ym ent and un derem plo ym ent, then, the rancho is

also in d ic a t iv e of disordered urban growth. More migrants

arrive than a city can absorb, a n d they find a place by creating

one. C it y services follow at a slower pace a n d are constantly

stretched b eyo n d their capacity.

E v e n so, no discussion of a city like Caracas is adequate unless

one m entio n s that it is an e x c it in g place. T h is is obviously true

for those w h o can afford to enjoy its restaurants a n d clubs, w ho

can b u y the latest N e w Yo rk or Paris fashions, or w ho can w hile
away an afternoon discussing M a r x is m at a sidewalk c a f e t in —

but these people a n d their historical m e m o r ie s are not central

to our analysis. T h e city can also be an e xc itin g place for those

whose possibilities are m o r e l im it e d . E v e n if urb an e m p l o y m e n t
is l im it e d , there is always a chance one will get a job. T h a t

chance m a y not exist in a stagnating countryside. Moreover, the

petty trades can offer some o p p o r tun ity for modest wealth.
T h e city also offers other oppo rtunities . For e x a m p l e , a yo ung
woman may find schooling in a place like B ar q u is im e to or
70 CULTURE

Caracas a necessary step in liberating herself from her fam ily of

orientation w ith o u t getting m a r r ie d .

T h is b r ie f discussion has in d ic a te d s o m ethin g of the contra­

dictory im a g e s presented b y notions of country a n d city. In the

section on coffee a n d petro leum , I in d ic a te d that the im a g e of

the peasant a n d countryside e m e r g in g from the coffee econ­

o m y is that of a disordered past, b u t the m ig r a n t m oves from a

disordered countryside to a disordered city. T h e city that pre­

sents itself as a symbol of m o d e r n Ven e zu ela also creates its

critical opposite: the pastoral countryside. Coffee, the country­

side, a n d the peasant, w h ic h serve as symbols of an agricultural

past, are also countersymbols to the present. T h e y evoke a half-

r e m e m b e r e d pre pe tr o leu m , p r e u r b a n , p r e m o d e r n Ven e zu ela.

T h is symbol is less effective for the recent m ig r a n t for w h o m

the backwardness of the countryside is part of his or her lived

e x p e r ie n c e . For someone born in the city, perhaps w it h parents

w h o grew u p in the countryside, or for someone w ho has lived

in the city for a n u m b e r of years, ho wever, the country m a y be

g iv e n a positive valuatio n. T h e countryside is able to carry this

w e ig h t because, as noted previously, petro leum a n d the city that

is a pro duct of the petro leum eco n o m y simultaneously symbol­

ize backwardness a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e countryside, pur g e d

of its o w n history, comes to represent the true Ven e z u ela .

T h is is e v id e n t in Ve n e z u e l a n popular m u s ic . Protest m u s ic

seldom celebrates the city. W h e n it refers to the city at all, it is to

the ranchos, the “ houses of cardboard.” T h e city is an object of

protest along w it h im p e r ia l is m , the petro leum eco no m y in g en ­

eral, the state, a n d similar institutions. T h e countryside, h o w ­

ever, has numerous referents. It too m a y be the object of

protest, as songs call attention to the exploited position of the

peasant, in the past a n d in the present, b u t it can also serve as a
co unterpo int to the present w it h the evocation of the s im plicity
of peasant life, the positive virtues of agricultural labor, a n d the
daily life a n d interactions of the rural family. In a d d itio n to
protest m u s ic , the pro ductio n of folklore as an industrial c o m ­
m o d it y recalls the rural past as well. R e c e n t folk m u s ic m a y
nostalgically recall the “ streets of m y child ho o d.” M o r e im p o r ­
tantly, traditional th em es of folk m u s ic — love, nature, a n d the
 im ag es o f t h e peasant 71

family— are placed in a rural setting a n d are presented in dis­

tinctive regional styles, such as the t o n a d a (tone p o e m ) of the

llanos and the waltz of the A n d e s . On record albums or on

television programs they celebrate a past w h e n the regions m a t ­

tered. In one sense, disordered u r b a n iz a tio n creates an im a g e

of a h o m o g e n iz e d countryside s tripped of history a n d regional
differentiation. In another sense, especially in popular m u s ic ,

regional affiliations are reasserted as differences in style a n d

te m p e r a m e n t.

I do not m e a n to enter into an e x t e n d e d discussion of p o p u ­

lar m us ic in V e n e z u e l a , b u t s im p ly to in d ic a te that the disor­

dered nature of V e n e z u e l a n d e v e l o p m e n t , in c l u d in g the urb an

disorder of a city like Caracas, calls u p the im a g e of a V e n e ­

zuelan past w it h o u t disorder. T h is im a g e can g a in expression

because most urbanites h a v e some connections w it h the country­

side w h e re they or th e ir parents grew u p . K in s h ip ties connect

the m w it h rural regions, a n d they return to th e ir or the ir p a r ­

ents’ childhood h o m e for Ch r is tm a s or H o ly W e e k . S o m e pro­

vincial towns organize reunions in w h ic h fo rmer residents are

asked to return for a day-long celebration. W h il e there, the

urban resident can go to a country house for a pas eo (picnic),

where a sanco cho (soup) is p r e p a r e d , m u c h r u m is d r u n k , and

the ideal of rural order is c o n f ir m e d .

D ictato rs hip a n d D em o cracy

The final symbolic p a ir requires that w e m o v e in a different

direction from that im p l ie d by our discussion of country a n d

city. It is an essential directio n, ho w ever, if w e are to tie together

the various threads of this discussion. The m a in lines of

twentieth-century Venezuelan political history are fairly well

known a n d can be fo und in literature w id e ly available in N o rth
A m e r ic a .3 I s im p l y in d ic a te a few key features a n d d raw some
conclusions im p o r t a n t for our cultural analysis.
Coffee was displaced b y petro leu m d u r in g the dictatorship of
Juan V ic e n t e G o m e z , w h o ruled from 19 0 8 to 1 9 3 5 a n d w ho ,
paradoxically, first c a m e to p r o m in e n c e as a coffee grower in
 T
72 culture

the A n d e a n state of T a c h ir a . H e oversaw the transformation

that r e m o ve d coffee from its privile g e d position in the econ-

om y. D e s p ite the fact that A n d e a n s held positions of authority

in the a r m y or the a d m in is tra tio n , the entire perio d of Andean

rule represents a progressive loss of political a n d economic

power by A n d e a n s a n d the coffee economy. T h e transforrna-

tion, a n d the e m e r g e n t m id d l e class that a c c o m p a n ie d it, ere-

ated an in c ip ie n t dem o cratic m o v e m e n t . Its first expression was

in student protests at the Central Un ivers ity, the most famous of

w h ic h occurred in 19 2 8 a n d was led by m e n w ho later founded

the social dem o cratic party A c c io n D em o cratica (a d ), w h ic h la­

ter b e c a m e the d o m in a n t political party. A series of political

parties e m e r g e d after G o m e z ’s d eath, although political power

co ntin ue d until 1 9 4 5 to rest w it h A n d e a n s w ho granted more

dem o cratic freedoms th an d id Go m ez. A c c io n Democratica

c a m e to pow er in a co up that m e m b e r s co ntinue to refer to as

the Revo lutio n of ’4 5 . T h e party then organized the first V e n e ­

zuelan presidential election based on universal suffrage, from

w h ic h the novelist R o m u l o Gallegos e m e r g e d victorious. His

a d m in is tra tio n was overthrown by a m ilita ry co up in 1948,

shortly after a n u m b e r of progressive measures were passed—

a m o n g t h e m a series of agrarian reform laws a n d a law requir­

in g the petro leum c o m p a n ie s to p a y 50 percent royalties. Perez

J im e n e z eventually b e c a m e the strong m a n of the junta until

massive demonstrations in 19 5 8 forced h i m to flee a n d ushered

in a dem o cratic perio d that has lasted until the present.

A c c io n D em o c r a tic a has d o m in a t e d this perio d, although the

two major parties— a d a n d the C h r is tia n D em o c r atic copei (C o m ­

m itte e for Political O rg a n iz atio n a n d In d e p e n d e n t Elections)—

e xc h a n g e d positions every five years in the general elections

from 19 6 8 to 19 8 8 . W h e n a d c a m e to power in 19 5 9 , m a n y in its

top leadership m a in t a in e d their c o m m it m e n t to democracy, but

they h a d abando ned the radical perspectives of their youth.
R o m u lo Betancourt a n d his followers d efin e d their project in
nationalist terms. T h e y would exact ever greater royalties from
the petroleum c o m p a n ie s — from 60 percent to 80 percent
d u r in g the 1960s— a n d would assume control of the petroleum
sector by a series of steps that would c u lm in a te in 19 7 6 w ith
 im ag es o f t h e peasant 73

nationalization. T h e y would in it ia t e a n d participate in the for­

mation of o p e c . They would institute import-substitution poli­

cies to stimulate industrializatio n. Divers ificatio n— “ sowing the

petroleum” — h a d b e en a concern of a d since the m id - 19 4 0 s , but
diversification a n d industrialization d id not exclude p a r t ic ip a ­

tion by multinationals. T h e directio n of n e w foreign in ve s t m e n t

changed dramatically from petro leum a n d iron extraction to

industry a n d c o m m e r c e after 19 5 9 . A c c io n D em o cr atica wel­

comed foreign in ve s t m e n t as part of its a tte m p t to alter the

course of V e n e z u e l a n d e v e l o p m e n t .

A n u m b e r of participants in A c c io n D em o cr atica, as well as

m em bers of other parties in c l u d in g the C o m m u n is t party, w ere

disillusioned w it h a d ’s project a n d in it ia t e d a guerrilla m o v e ­

m e n t in the countryside d u r in g the 1960s. T h e m o v e m e n t n ever

attracted as m u c h support as guerrilla leaders h a d h o p e d . O n e

reason was that the m o v e m e n t r o m a n ticize d a n d a tte m pte d to

organize the peasantry d u r in g a decade w h e n it was d is a p p e a r ­

ing. B y the e n d of the 1960s, the economically active population

engaged in agriculture was only 20 percent of all Venezuelans.

More importantly, ho w ever, m a n y peasants were s y m pa thetic to

a d . T h is brings us to a p o in t crucial to un d e r s tan d in g V e n e z u e ­

lan culture a n d politics. T h e in itial strength of a d was in popular

organizations of peasants, workers, a n d others w itho ut represen­

tation in a b ac kw a rd , dictatorial V e n e z u e l a . T h e r e w ere two as­

pects to this. T h e party ow ed its existence a n d support to such

organizations, a n d peasants a n d workers were first organized

and first acted politically thro ugh A c c io n D em o c r a tic a . T h e s e

bases of support w ere not ignored by a d , e ve n if they were not

always well served. O n e of the first measures passed w h e n a d

cam e to po w er in 1 9 5 9 was an agrarian reform law— w e ak , but

nonetheless an a p p a r e n t reform.

There is in the formatio n of A c c io n D em o cr atica a n d the

political history of w h ic h it is a part an aspect that too often
eludes those on the Left w h o d e r id e Ve n e z u e l a ’s democracy.

Three m o vem en ts w ere symbolically u n it e d in a d : d evelo p­

m e n t, democracy, and the organization of w o rkin g people.
Accio n D e m o c r a tic a gave particular a n d partial definitions to
d eve lo p m e n t a n d democracy, but it was able to im p o s e those
74 C U LTU R E

definitions thro ugh its organizations. Im ages of backwardness

a n d d e v e l o p m e n t in the petro leum eco no m y are associated with

the im ag e s of dictatorship a n d democracy. T h e backwardness

of the petro leum e co n o m y is seen as a legacy of the past, of the

dictators w h o sold the V e n e z u e l a n p a t r im o n y a n d w ho , as it

h a p p e n s , w ere also associated w it h the coffee economy. T h e

struggle for d e v e l o p m e n t is simultaneously presented as a strug­

gle for democracy.

T h is symbolic association has exercised enormous power in

the political consciousness of V e n e z u e l a n peasants, proletari­

ans, a n d “ others,” b u t there are two sorts of weakness in that

association that require elaboration— the potential failure of

d e v e l o p m e n t a n d the potential failure of democracy. G iv e n the

fact that the d em o cratic per io d has lasted for three decades,

both sources of weakness h a ve b e co m e apparent and have

g iv e n greater space to m o v e m e n t s of the Left a n d R ig h t than

existed in the early 1960s. T h e failure of democracy results in

part from the fact that the political leaders a n d spo kesmen for

a d a n d other parties often purs ue in d iv id u a l a im s a n d in d iv id ­

ual careers. Parties a n d factions of parties m a y purs ue their

o w n projects a n d candidacies by endlessly d e b a tin g relatively

trivial matters in congress. T h e r e is a trem endo us dissipation of

energy in V e n e z u e l a ’s democracy, a n d d u r in g periods of eco­

n o m ic crisis, w h e n the country’s d e v e l o p m e n t seems im p e r il e d ,

“ d em o cr acy” can seem a nonessential luxury. T h e failure by

leaders p u r s u in g their o w n goals to attend to the country’s “ d e ­

v e l o p m e n t ” calls “ d em o cr acy” into question a n d gives organiza­

tional space to the R ig h t .

T h e failure of d e v e l o p m e n t results in part from the fact that

multiclass d em o cratic parties like a d are nonetheless p ur s uin g

class projects. A c c io n D e m o c r a tic a ’s class project is associated
w it h an in c ip ie n t industrial bourgeoisie. T h e form of develop­
m e n t they advocate closely a p p r o x im a te s F. H . Cardoso’s no­
tion of associated d e p e n d e n t d e ve lo p m e n t— linkage betw een

sectors of local capital, state capital, a n d m ultinatio nal capital

in the diversification a n d industrialization of the Ven e zu elan
eco n o m y (Cardoso 1 9 7 3 a ; Cardoso a n d Faletto 19 7 9 ) . U n l ik e
other e xa m p le s of this m odel, the linkage betw een develop­
 !MAGES of t h e peasant 75

ment and dem o cracy is m o r e than a symbol, a n d Ven e z u ela

has so far escaped the m o r e a utho ritarian forms of go vern­

m e n t usually associated w it h this m o d el. M u c h of the e xp la n a ­

tion for this rests w it h the petro leum sector. As in d ic a te d ,

petroleum wealth has b e en chan n eled by the state into the

tertiary sector, a n d part of that exp a n s io n has been an e x p a n ­

sion of social services, subsidies for agricultural producers,

m a rk e tin g organizations, a n d h o us in g projects. T h e democrats

therefore are simultaneously able to pro mote d e p e n d e n t devel­

o p m e n t a n d to incorporate significant segments of the V e n e ­

zuelan po pulatio n into the state thro ugh social services. H o w ­

ever, as the a tt e m p t to pro m o te basic industry has in recent

years encountered d e c lin in g petro leum revenues, the state has

diverted funds from social services. T h e results for the for­

tunes of the two major parties of this diversio n are not clear. A

class project m a y no longer be coterminous w it h a democratic

project. T h e old linkage b e tw e e n dem o cracy a n d d e ve l o p m e n t

is therefore im p e r il e d g iv in g organizational space to both the

Left a n d R ig h t .

C a n w e p u t these shifting a n d contradictory im ag e s of V e n e ­

zuela’s past, present, a n d future into a coherent picture? T o

address this question, I turn to the cultural analysis suggested

by R a y m o n d W il l ia m s in M a r x i s m a n d L it e r a t u r e ( 1 9 7 7 : 10 8 — 1 2 7 ,

et passim). U n l ik e m u c h recent anthropology, W il l ia m s ’s notion

of culture cannot be separated from political economy. As i n d i­

cated in Ch a p te r s 1 a n d 2 , W il l ia m s points to the construction

of a “ d o m in a n t culture” that is not a coherent integrated cul­

tural system or structure but a rather inchoate set of lived e x ­

periences, feelings, and relationships w it h in a political and

econo mic order of d o m in a t io n . Because it is not a closed sys­

tem , it is in a constant process of construction a n d reconstruc­
tion. A l t h o u g h m a n y elements could be considered constitutive
of a d o m in a n t culture, one that W il l ia m s points to is of par tic u ­
lar relevance to the moral e co n o m y literature: tradition as a
selective tradition— a version (in d e e d , the ruling version) of a
people’s history (see Ch a pter s 1 a n d 2). T r a d it io n as selective
76 CU LTU RE

tradition is im p o r t a n t when we consider one of W il lia m s ’s

central points about d o m in a n t culture— that no order of d o m i­

nation is total. T h e r e are always sets of relationships a n d e x p e r i­

ences that are exclud ed a n d that m a y serve as points around

w h ic h alternative, perha ps oppositional, cultural forms can

emerge. W it h the creation of an alternative culture, a basic

e lem en t m u s t be an alternative tradition— a reinterpretation

a n d rew r itin g of history, concentrating on events a n d relation­

ships excluded from the ruling version a n d p o in tin g to a differ­

ent set of historical possibilities.

W il l ia m s is clearly suggesting a cultural analysis that goes

beyo nd approaches to culture as symbolic systems or shared

values or m e a n in g s . H e has tied his notion of culture to a histori­

cal process a n d to class structures a n d relationships. N e v e r t h e ­

less, there is no sense in w h ic h d o m in a n t a n d e m e r g e n t culture

are coterminous w it h particular class positions. T h e im ag es of

Ve n e z u e l a ’s tradition that h a v e b e e n discussed in this essay are

not class specific. A class culture or class discourse is never

g iv e n ; it m u s t be constructed from the cultural raw material

presented by history, from the “ tradition” that is used to con­

struct both d o m in a n t a n d e m e r g e n t forms of culture. It is in

this sense that I refer in the title of this essay to the conscious­

ness of a proletariat. I can, by analysis of V e n e z u e l a ’s history,

in d ic a te the kind s of im a g e s that h a v e b e en used to create a

h e g e m o n ic order or d o m in a n t culture. I can also in d ic a te the

kinds of im a g e s that are available for a co unterheg em o ny. In

both cases, cultural creation a n d the formation of consciousness

are political processes. A n e m e r g e n t culture m us t be created by

using elements of past a n d present that h a v e b e en excluded in

the d o m in a n t culture or by g iv in g n e w m e a n in g s to elements

that h a v e not b e e n exclu d ed .
T h u s the first p o in t to be m a d e about the d o m in a n t culture in
Ve n e z u e l a is that it is political. T h e linkage be tw e e n develop­
m e n t a n d dem o cracy created by A c c io n D em o c r atic a is so pro­
fo und that it sets the terms for all political debate. T h e prin c ipa l
opposition party, co pei , accepts the linkage a n d contests par tic u ­

lar policies. Most socialist parties also accept the linkage but
argue that the d o m in a n t parties are not really demo cratic or
 im a g e s o f t h e peas ant 77

that their form of d e v e l o p m e n t is not really d e v e l o p m e n t. T o a

certain extent, this linkage a n d associated aspects of d o m in a n t

culture are consciously p ro m o ted a n d can be seen as constitu­

tive of a ruling ideology. Professors of history s y m pa th etic to a d

write histories of V e n e z u e l a sho w in g a m o v e m e n t from de­

gradation to d em o cracy a n d from backwardness to d evelo p­

m ent. All history is a m o v e m e n t toward the progress enjoyed in

the present. T h e r e is also a constant m a n ip u l a t io n of emotions

in the use of television, p ub lic rallies, a n d state occasions. For

exam ple, the contradictory im a g e s of the peasant and the

countryside— im a g e s that stress a n exploited past or that stress

pastoral calm and in d e p e n d e n c e — can be expressed simulta­

neously a n d played against each other. Official celebrations of

the anniversary of the agrarian reform law ro m anticize the

Venezuelan peasant e v e n as they e m p h a s iz e the exploitative

“ past.” T h e d o m in a n t culture cannot, however, s im p ly be dis­

missed as conscious m a n ip u l a t io n or ruling-class ideology. W h e n

these histories are w ritten, or w h e n the past is unfavorably c o m ­

pared w it h the present, the ideologues are to u chin g on one

aspect of the live d e xperienc es of peasants a n d proletarians.

T h e m o v e from country to city, from peasant to proletarian or

“other,” or from backwardness to d e v e l o p m e n t can be e x p e r i­

enced as progress.4
G iv e n the contradictory nature of Ve n e z u e l a ’s d e ve lo p m e n t,

the d o m in a n t culture can only touch on one aspect of that e x p e ­

rience. It can p o in t to V e n e z u e l a ’s progress; it cannot p o in t to

all that is troubling a n d contradictory in that disordered prog­

ress. T o w h a t extent does the past p r o vid e raw material for an

em ergent culture, a moral eco n o m y of protest? T h e past is

certainly available, most obviously in the e ve r yd ay co mparison

of present basic food a n d grain prices w it h those in effect of

generation, a year, or e ve n a m o n th ago. By e x a m in in g the

symbols of coffee a n d petro leum , backwardness a n d develo p­

m ent, country a n d city, I h a v e traced the e m er g e n c e of a n i m ­

age of an ordered rural past that serves as critical co unterpoint
to the disordered present. C a n this im a g e serve as the basis for
an alternative e m e r g e n t tradition? I t h in k not. It represents not
historical m e m o r y , b u t historical nostalgia. It has no connection
78 cu ltu re

w it h the lived e x p e r ie n c e of most peasants or e ve n most prole,

tarians. It s im p ly calls u p an idealized past, a n d as an ideal it can

support the present order or, in the e ve n t of the failure of

V e n e z u e l a ’s models of d e v e l o p m e n t a n d democracy, a fascist

turn. H e r e it is interesting to note that most socialist historians

do not fundam entally differ from a d historians on large seg­

ments of V e n e z u e l a ’s past. B o th stress the d e p e n d e n c e a n d back­

wardness of the early petro leum economy. T h e y differ on their

interpretations of the present a n d on some of the labels they

g ive to past a n d present. T h e y differ, in short, in their valua­

tions of V e n e z u e l a n forms of d e v e l o p m e n t a n d demo cracy.5

The construction of an e m e r g e n t culture that can serve a

proletarian consciousness, th e n , cannot turn to an idealized

past but m u s t b e g in w it h the lived e x p e r ie n c e of Venezuelan

proletarians. T h e starting p o in t is the very linkage that proved

so powerful for the d o m in a n t culture— d e ve lo p m e n t a n d de­

mocracy. It m u s t recognize a n d celebrate those aspects of prog­

ress in Ve n e z u e l a ’s tw e n tie th century that represent historic

gains: the em ergence of forms of organization of popular

masses, the struggle to g a in control over petroleum resources

a n d to turn the wealth created by the petroleum sector toward

national d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d the struggle for democracy. Because

these a c h ie v e m e n ts h a v e b e e n progressive a n d because histori­

cally they are associated w it h A c c io n D em o cr atica, they have

served as constitutive elements of the d o m in a n t culture, but the

contradictions in h e r e n t in the d o m in a n t parties’ appro ach to

d e v e l o p m e n t m e a n that these sam e a c h ie ve m e n ts can be turned

into constitutive elements of an e m e r g e n t political culture. D e ­

v e lo p m e n t and dem o cracy may still serve as the basis for

working-class consciousness, but the terms m a y be g iv e n fuller,
m o re critical, more d e m a n d in g m e a n in g s . Workers may de­
mand forms of organization they control, forms of develop­
m e n t that exclude multinationals, forms of demo cracy that give
t h e m greater control over their own destiny.
T h e moral economists argue that a first-generation proletar­
ia n or a peasantry first confronted w it h capitalist d eve lo p m e n t
looks backw ard for its forms of response at the sam e t im e that it
looks forward. T h is is true in V e n e z u e l a ; a less anthropologi-
 im ag es o f t h e peasant 79

cally in clined w riter m ig h t argue that it is universally true.

W hen V e n e z u e l a n peasants a n d proletarians look back, h o w ­

ever, their v ie w is not clear. Ve n e z u e l a n peasants a n d proletari­

ans are confronted w it h a disordered past that has g iv e n w a y to

a disordered present. T h e i r political a n d cultural task is to take

aspects of the past a n d of the present that h a v e offered pro m is e

and turn t h e m into d e m a n d s for the future.

C H A P T E R F O U R

Americanization
in the Americas

It is understandable that the rational talents on this side of the world,

exalted in the contemplation of their own cultures, should have found
themselves without a valid means to interpret us. It is only natural that
they insist on measuring us with the yardstick that they use for them­
selves, forgetting that the ravages of life are not the same for all, and
that the quest of our own identity is just as arduous and bloody for us as
it was for them. T h e interpretation of our reality through patterns not
our own serves only to make us ever more unknown, ever less free, ever
more solitary.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, 1982

W r it in g a survey of the A m e r ic a s in the 1960s, Darcy R ib e ir o , in

an essay on Ve n e z u e l a , foresaw the possibility of “ the ‘Puerto-

R ic a n iz a t io n ’ of V e n e z u e l a ” ( 1 9 7 2 : 288). H e d id not say w h a t he

h a d in m i n d : his survey h a d little to say about Puerto R ic o , and
the phrase s im p ly a p p e a r e d w ith o u t elaboration in a discussion
of the political options facing Ve n e z u e l a n elites. T h e a tte m p t to
preserve their o w n positions would lead to greater d e p e n d e n c e ,
restriction of population growth, a n d , at the e x tr e m e , Puerto-
R ic a n iz a t io n . E v e n in the absence of elaboration, ho wever, the
phrase produces strong im a g e s of e co n o m ic a n d political d e p e n ­
dence a n d cultural d e b a s e m e n t: multinationals s tr ipp in g the
e n v ir o n m e n t a n d e xplo itin g c h e a p labor, beach resorts a n d casi-
 A M ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 81

nos catering to N o r th A m e r ic a n tourists, s h o p p in g malls on the

North A m e r ic a n m o d el, language that m ix e s English a n d S p a n ­

ish, politics based on the U .S . party system a n d d e p e n d e n t on

decisions m a d e in W a s h in g to n . In short, the phrase “ Puerto-
R ic an izatio n ” calls u p a “ first t im e tragedy, second t im e farce” 1

vision; w e k n o w w h a t R ib e ir o is talking about.

W h e n w e hear the word “ A m e r ic a n iz a t io n ,” a similar set of

images comes to m i n d . W e t h in k of office buildings for local

outlets of multinationals, of M cD o n a ld s a n d Kentucky F r ie d

C h ic k e n , of s h o p p in g malls filled w it h products carrying labels

from U .S . corporations e v e n tho u g h they are he c ho e n M e x ic o , of

Exxo n and Coca-Cola signs, of television stations carrying

Spanish-language versions of “ Dallas” or “ D ynasty,” of mass-

m arket m a g azin e s carrying translations of articles from P e o p l e ,

of stores selling plastic p u m p k in s a n d Hallo w een costumes a n d

children going door to door saying, “ T r ic k or treat, trick or

treat, it ie n e dulces para m i ? ” W e t h in k of d eb a s e m e n t, of ho ­

m o g enizatio n, of d o m in a t io n , of “ the material apparatus of p e r ­

fected civilizatio n w h ic h obliterates the in d iv id u a l it y of old

towns under the stereotyped co nveniences of m o d e r n life”

(Conrad 19 6 0 [19 0 4 ]: 89). W e are right, of course: the e xam ples

offered abo ve could be elaborated at considerable length. B u t

we are also wrong, a n d the b u r d e n of this essay is to explore

both the accuracy a n d inaccuracy of such perceptions.

When I was first asked to address the topic of A m e r ic a n iz a ­

tion for a g ro up of historians w h o d id not specialize in L a t in

A m e r ic a ,2 I h a d the reaction most anthropologists would h a v e :

an a uto m a tic , almost in s tin ctive, revulsion. W e are accustomed

to dealing w it h local populations, s tudying their histories, their

forms of social organization, forms of adaptatio n and resis­

tance, ritual practices, m yth s , beliefs, values— in short, their

cultures. A n d w e find the very notion of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n a n d

the im a g e of h o m o g e n iz a tio n a n d d eb a s e m e n t that it conjures

u p to be a fo rm of eth no cen tris m . W e nod in assent to G a r c ia
M a r q u e z ’s plea for a recognition of L a t in A m e r ic a ’s “ out-sized
reality” ( 19 8 3 ) . B u t our a uto m a tic , almost instinctive, response
cannot take the s im p le and n a iv e form of a celebration of
“ our” people a n d “ t h e ir ” o w n history. (In d e e d , the possessive
82 CU LTU RE

adjectives themselves in d ic a te part of the pro blem.) Part of

L a t in A m e r ic a ’s out-sized reality is a m ultistranded encounter,

stretching across nearly five h u n d r e d years, w it h Western pow­

ers, the most im p o r t a n t of w h ic h , since the early twentieth

century, has b e e n the U n it e d States.

An anthropologist interested in L a t in A m e r ic a should have

s o m eth in g to say about A m e r ic a n iz a t io n , then. He or she

should be able to reject the h o m o g e n iz in g stereotype without

retreating into the equally stereotypic comfort of the distinctive­

ness of his or h e r “ o w n peo p le .” T o t h in k carefully about A m e r i­

canizatio n, th e n , is to explore our ideas about history, culture,

power, A m e r ic a , a n d the A m e r ic a s . W h a t follows is not a history

of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n in the A m e r ic a s . Instead, I w an t to suggest

ways in w h ic h w e m ig h t t h in k about processes such as A m e r i ­

canizatio n, a n d the understandings of culture, history, a n d poli­

tics that are necessarily in vo l ve d .

W e m ig h t b e g in by r e tu r n in g to D ar cy R ib e ir o ’s phrase and
suggesting that his choice of “ P ue r to -R ica n iza tio n ” rather than

the equally available “ A m e r ic a n iz a t io n ” is instructive. L e t us

first a d m it that as a n autho r R ib e ir o s im p ly chose the phrase

because it was effective, because it could pro duce a sharp and

shocking set of im a g e s . A critical consideration of the concept

of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n was not his object. B u t R ib e ir o has some­

t h in g to tell us nonetheless.
First, although a N o r th A m e r ic a n m ig h t h a v e looked at V e n e ­
zuela in the 1960s a n d spoken of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n , a Brazilian

sociologist chose another t e r m . B o th would be trying to u n d e r ­

stand the im p a c t of a powerful eco no m ic, political, a n d cultural

force on Ve n e z u e l a , but w h e r e A m e r ic a n iz a t io n m ig h t im p l y a
k in d of u n if o r m it y of e x p e r ie n c e a n d incorporation, Puerto-
R ic a n iz a tio n im p l ie s diversity. T h e phrase r e m in d s us that w e
are dealing w it h plural experiences , the A m e r ic a s , not sim ply

(tho ugh im po rtantly) in the sense that the U n it e d States is not

the only “ A m e r ic a n ” country but also in the sense that there are
m a n y L a t in A m e r ic a n countries w it h a variety of experiences of
d e p e n d e n c e a n d incorporation. R ib e ir o could look critically at
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 83

the e x p e r ie n c e of his o w n country a n d of Ven e zu ela, a n d h e

explored U .S . d o m in a t io n in each case. H e was w r itin g a few

years after a m ilita r y co up that h a d b een backed by the U .S .

go vernm ent in Brazil, a n d his account of Ven e z u ela e m p h a ­

sized the d o m in a t io n of the Ve n e z u e l a n eco no m y b y p r im a r il y

North A m e r ic a n petro leum c o m p a n ie s . B u t w h a te ve r h a d h a p ­

pened in those countries, they h a d not yet a ppr o a che d the e x ­

treme of Puerto R ic o . They w ere not colonies. I m p l ic it in

R ib e iro ’s phrase is the id e a of a range of experiences of N o r th

A m e r ic a n d o m in a t io n .
T h e r e are other lessons to be d r a w n from the shift in perspec­

tive p r o vid e d b y a v ie w from Brazil. W h il e an e m p h a s is on

A m e r ic a n iz a tio n m ig h t b e g in w it h processes e m a n a t in g from a

powerful center and e x p a n d in g outward, and e m p h a s is on

Puerto -Ricanizatio n begins w it h a specific d e p e n d e n t entity, e x ­

plores the forces of d o m in a t io n c o m in g from a powerful center,

put places those forces in the context of specific local forces a n d

experiences. I n d e e d , this was the in te n t of R ib e ir o ’s book. A n ­

other Brazilian sociologist, Fer n a n d o H e n r iq u e Cardoso, has

m a d e a similar criticism of some N o rth A m e r ic a n approaches to

im p e r ia l is m a n d d e p e n d e n c y in L a t in A m e r ic a . Calling for an

approach to ec o n o m ic a n d political d e p e n d e n c e that would con­

centrate on specific cases a n d situations, h e criticized the ten­

dency a m o n g N o r th A m e r ic a n scholars to concentrate solely on

North A m e r ic a n forces a n d ignore specific L a t in A m e r ic a n re­

sponses a n d acco m m o datio ns. H e concluded:

In the process of disseminating these studies in the U .S ., how­

ever, the characterization of dependency acquired local color.
T h e r e was a preoccupation with the denunciation of forms of
“ foreign a id ”— the intervention of the cia in foreign policy, the
invisible and Machiavellian hand of the multinationals, etc.— a
politically legitimate preoccupation that emphasized real as­
pects of the contemporary historical process. Little by little,
however, this ended by reestablishing the priority of the exter­
nal over the internal (which m a y be well-founded), and it led in
the end to the elimination of the d yn am ic proper to dependent
societies as a relevant explanatory factor (which is not accept­
able). Once again, in metaphysical fashion, the two terms of the
84 C U L TU R E

opposition— external and internal— were separated, and the

opposition passed from dialectical to structural-mechanical,
w hen it was not conceived of in terms of antecedent causes and
inert consequences. (19 7 7 a : 14)

T h is pro blem in studies of political a n d eco no m ic depen­

dence has its analogue in cultural theory. B e g in n in g in the

1930s, studies of “ acculturation” began to a p p e a r in A m er ican

anthropology, g a in in g popularity in the forties, fifties and six­

ties before d r o p p in g out of fashion.3 As the studies began to

appear, they addressed certain p e r c e ive d problems in anthropo­

logical studies co ncerning history, social a n d cultural change,

a n d the im p a c t of the W estern world on anthropological sub­

jects. Before acculturation studies b e c a m e fashionable, anthro­

pologists seldom a tte m p te d to place the people they studied in a

co ntem po rary context. T h e y w ere “ historical” in that they at­

t e m p t e d to recover a n d recapture values, practices, a n d tradi­

tions of A m e r ic a n In d ia n s from the e ig hte e n th a n d nineteenth

centuries, b u t history stopped w it h conquest a n d the m o v e to

reservations. I n d e e d , fieldworkers m ig h t do their research in

reservation settings w ith o u t ever m e n t io n in g the reservation

context in their pub lis h ed reports.

Acculturatio n studies w ere attempts to b rin g such popula­

tions into the present, to explore the settings in w h ic h they

lived a n d the im p a c t of those settings on their cultural prac­

tices a n d beliefs. A l t h o u g h early attempts m e t w it h resistance

from an anthropological establishment— the A m e r ic a n Anthro ­

pologist even declined to publish acculturation studies for a

period in the 1930s because they w e n t too far beyo nd tradi­

tional anthropological concerns— they w ere to go through a

prodigious d e v e l o p m e n t, w it h theoretical elaboration (Red-
field, L in t o n , Hers k o vitz 19 3 6 ; S S R C S u m m e r S e m in a r in A c ­
culturation 19 5 4 ) a n d e m p ir ic a l investigation.
In the theoretical statements on acculturation, the c o m m o n
assum ptio n was that two “ auto no m o us” cultures entered into
contact. Anthropologists could t h in k through the logical possi­
bilities: they could en vis io n different sorts of contact situation,
situations of relative equality or relative inequality, a n d they
 AM ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 85

could outline different outcomes— diffusion, cultural creativity,

cultural disintegration, and “ reactive ad a pta tio n ” ( i.e ., rejec­

tion) ( S S R C 19 5 4 ) . W i t h regard to disintegration, the anthro­

pologists’ language m ig h t be full of references to “ forced”
change, “ coercion,” loss of “ political f r e e d o m ,” a n d so on ( ib id .:

986). B u t the two auto no mous cultures w ere still referred to as

“donor” a n d “ receptor,” analysis of colonialism a n d im p e r ia l is m
was a vo id e d , a n d the c o n c ept of p o w er was absent.

B u t most of the situations anthropologists w ere fa m ilia r w it h

were those in w h ic h the donor was m u c h m o re powerful than

the receptor, in w h ic h the contact situation was one that pro­

duced a variety of forced a n d unforced eco no m ic, political,

and social changes, a n d one in w h ic h the receptor m ig h t be

expected in t im e to look a lot m o r e like the donor. T h is be­

cam e a pro blem e v e n as anthropologists b e c a m e m u c h m o re

willing to talk about colonialism a n d power, w it h effects that

carried b eyo nd the acculturation literature to the m o d e r n iz a ­

tion literature of the fifties a n d sixties a n d e v e n to the radical

critiques of the sixties a n d seventies. A t the heart of the a p ­

proach was a pro blematic set of understandings of history,

culture, a n d po w er that led to a linear u n d e r s tan d in g of cul­
tural chan g e.

T h e historical pro blem begins w it h the a ssum ptio n of two “ a u ­

tonomous” cultures that are placed in contact. E r ic Wolf (19 8 2 )

suggests that anthropologists treated such cultures in contact as

if they w ere billiard balls striking each other on a billiard table.

O n e could th e n postulate a precontact base-line perio d or cul­

ture (a postulation that was q uite popular in both the accul­

turation a n d m o d e r n iz a tio n literatures) a n d analyze the effects

produced by contact w it h another auto no m us culture, effects

that m ig h t be labeled acculturation, W esternizatio n, m o d e r n iz a ­

tion, H is p a n ic iz a t io n , or w hatever. For the present, it does not

matter w h e th e r the analysis crudely lists a n d counts Western

and non-Western traits or pursues a m o r e sophisticated explora­
tion of cultural webs of m e a n in g . N o r does it matter w h e th e r
the writer is willing to w rite about power, force, a n d colonial­
is m . T h e m o r e im p o r t a n t pro blem is the denial of history to at

least one of the cultures. W hat acculturationists called the

86 c u l t u r e

donor culture— the colonial po w er or d o m in a n t center— m ight

be seen to h a v e a history, a n d w e m ig h t be able to talk w it h s o m e

sophistication about the e m e r g e n c e of capitalism or the particu­

lar stage of capitalist develo pm ent at w h ic h the center in

question— the U n it e d States or E n g la n d or S p a in — began to

enter a particular arena. B u t w e m ig h t h a v e m u c h less to say

about the so-called receptor. T h e r e w e w ere m o r e likely to pos­

tulate a historical base line. Ye t this ignored the significant fact

that the supposedly auto no m ous receptor cultures rarely ex­

isted in isolation, that they entered into m u ltip le relations with

other societies, that those relations m ig h t involve excha n g e and

trade networks of some scope, that those trade networks m ig h t

be im p l ic a t e d in the fo rm atio n of regional a n d social inequali­

ties or in processes of state fo rmatio n, a n d that those trade

networks m ig h t e v e n in vo lve a set of relations w it h the Western

world. In short, the auto no mous receptors h a d histories. T h e

contact situation d id not in vo lve the establishment of a base line

b etw een two auto no m us cultures b u t the intersection of at least

two— a n d often m o r e — historical processes, each of w h ic h was

d eve lo p in g in contradictory a n d u n e v e n fashion, each of w h ic h

in vo lved different a n d evo lvin g forms, uses, a n d conceptions of

social space a n d t im e , different a n d evo lving modes of work

a n d a p p r o p r ia tio n .

T h is has im plicatio n s for our un d e r s tan d in g of culture. Just

as the historical assumptions of the acculturationists a n d their

successors w ere overly s im p le a n d linear, their concept of cul­

ture was reifie d . Cultures w ere donors a n d receptors, “ they”

gave or rec eived , a d a p te d , responded, or disintegrated. Central

to this reification was a so m etim es im p l ic it assum ptio n of h o m o ­
geneity. I stress the im plicitness of the assum ptio n because m a n y
contributors to the literature w o rked w it h concepts of pluralism
a n d subcultural diversity. Unfortunately, such concepts seldom
affected the w a y the authors co nceived the contact situation
itself. I n d e e d , pluralism was often seen to be an outcome of
contact. B u t if w e h a v e a m o del that sees the intersection of two
or m o r e historical currents, each in vo l vin g differential and
c h a n g in g occupation a n d use of space a n d t im e , then the cul­
tural webs of m e a n in g are also differential a n d c h a n g in g . It b e ­
 A M ERICA NIZ A TIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 87

comes difficult to outline the “ H is p a n ic ” or “ A m e r ic a n ” toward

w h ic h a group or sector is H is p a n ic iz in g or A m e r ic a n iz in g , a n d
it becomes equally difficult to outline w h a t is M a y a n or Q u e -

chuan or, for m o r e recent history, M e x ic a n or P e r u v ia n . In each

case, im ag e s c o m e to m in d , a n d w e t h in k w e kn o w w h a t w e are

talking about, just as clear im a g e s c a m e to m i n d w h e n w e first

used words like “ A m e r ic a n iz a t io n ” or “ P u e r to -R ic a n iz a tio n .”

B u t confidence fades w h e n w e b e g in to place cultures in t im e

and space. If whole cultures do not enter into contact, the inter­

action involves in d ivid u a l s , groups, institutions, representatives

of institutions, corporations, representatives of corporations,

products such as books, m o vies , television programs co ns um ed

by in d ivid u a ls , a n d so on. E a c h of these people, institutions, a n d

products is the bearer not of a whole culture or e v e n of a

“ subculture” b u t of particular cultural traditions or e m e r g e n t

formations. T h e people m a y be Peace Corps volunteers or tour­

ists (from rich a n d brash to poor, yo un g [and brash], in c lu d in g

C an ad ian s , English, Fr e n c h , a n d G e r m a n , all of w h o m will be

labeled A m e r ic a n ) or anthropologists or retired couples or e x ­

patriates. T h e institutions will in clude V e n e z u e l a n - A m e r ic a n

F r ie n d s h ip Associations, protestant churches, and D is n e y

World in Florida. The products will include m o vie s such as

R a m b o or O n e F l e w O v e r the C u c k o o ’s N e s t , or books such as H o l l y ­

wood W iv e s and The Grapes of W r a t h . The encounter, the n , is

between two different but o ve rla p p in g sets of cultural tradi­

tions a n d formations.

T h is brings us to power. T o analyze cultural m e a n in g s in

terms of po w er m e a n s that w e cannot r e m o ve our discussion of

cultural contacts a n d processes from a discussion of colonialism

and im p e r ia l is m . O u r sense of Pue r to -R ica niza tio n cannot ig ­

nore Puerto R ic o ’s colonial status. N o r can w e ignore, if our

concern is A m e r ic a n iz a t io n , the role of multinationals or of

State D e p a r t m e n t Cultural Offices or of official programs such

as the recent “ Project D e m o c r a c y .” B u t w e m u s t also look b e ­
yond the obvious forms of ec o n o m ic a n d political power a n d
e x a m in e the role of po w er in cultural pro duction in other are­
nas as well. “ T o resort to the concept of cultural h e g e m o n y ,”

Jackson Lears notes,

88 CULTU RE

is to take a banal question— “who has power?”— and deepen

it at both ends. T h e “who” includes parents, preachers, teach­
ers, journalists, literati, “ experts” of all sorts, as well as advertis­
ing executives, entertainment promoters, popular musicians,
sports figures, and “celebrities” — all of w ho m are involved (al­
beit often unwittingly) in shaping the values and attitudes of a
society. T h e “ power” includes cultural as well as economic and
political power— the power to help define the boundaries of
common-sense “ reality” either by ignoring views outside those
boundaries or by labeling deviant opinions “ tasteless” or “ irre­
sponsible.” (19 8 5 : 572)

Yet the concept of h e g e m o n y also carries w it h it a strong

sense of contradiction a n d tension, as w e h a v e seen in earlier

chapters. Relations of political a n d eco no m ic d o m in a t io n are

seen as contradictory a n d incapable of d e t e r m in in g or e n c o m ­

passing all social life a n d a ctivity; d o m in a n t culture based on

pro duced and d is s e m in a ted shared values enters at several

points into pro blematic connection w it h a variety of in d iv id u a l

and group e xperiences that do not connect w it h d o m in a n t

m e a n in g s (see G r a m s c i 1 9 7 1 [ 1 9 2 9 — 3 5 ]; W il l ia m s 1 9 7 7 ; Lears

19 8 5 ) .
When w e connect the three d im e n s io n s — intersecting histo­

ries characterized by differentiatio n, heterogeneous cultural

relations a n d values, a n d relations of power that encompass

contradictions a n d tensions— w e appro ach a m o re fruitful and

challenging set of understandings. A s was e v id e n t in m y ear­

lier reference to anthropological instincts, our m o r e auto matic

and unreflective ways of t h in k in g about the conjunction of

local a n d global historical processes are in ad e q ua te. W e c o m ­

m o nly refer to “ internal” and “ external” factors as if they
could be easily d is tin g u is h e d a n d id e n t if ie d . It is then sim ple
e n o u g h to criticize some anthropologists for “ ig n o ring the i m ­
portance of external factors” or world-system theorists for “ ig ­
no ring internal factors.” B u t the very terms of critique place
us back on the billiard table. T h e m o r e im p o r ta n t challenge is
to grasp, thro ugh a variety of historical processes, the “ internal­
ization of the external” (Cardoso 1 9 7 7 a : 1 3 ; see also Cardoso
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 89

and Faletto 1 9 7 9 : x v i) . Cardoso a n d Falleto elaborate on such

internalization as follows:

The expansion of capitalism in Bolivia and Venezuela, in

Mexico or Peru, in Brazil and Argentina, in spite of having
been submitted to the same global dynam ic of international
capitalism, d id not have the same history or consequences.
T h e differences are rooted not only in the diversity of natu­
ral resources, nor just in the different periods in w hich these
economies have been incorporated into the international sys­
tem (although these factors have played some role). T h e ir
explanation must lie in the different moments at w hich sec­
tors of local classes allied or clashed with foreign interests,
organized different forms of state, sustained distinct ideolo­
gies, or tried to im ple m e n t various policies or defined alter­
native strategies to cope with imperialist challenges in diverse
moments of history. (19 7 9 : xvii)

Yet the pro blem can be e x te n d e d m o r e radically, for such d if ­

ferential encounters do not s im p ly involve the encounter w it h

capitalism b u t earlier relations w it h e x p a n d in g m ercantile e m ­

pires a n d w it h S p a in a n d Portugal. For e x a m p l e , w h e n a petro­

leum c o m p a n y sets u p shop in M a ra c a ib o d u r in g the second

decade of the tw e n tie th century, this “ external” force is e n c o u n ­

tering an “ internal” force that already contains w it h in it a p a r ­

ticular s e d im e n ta tio n of prior encounters w it h the Western

world— in this case, a gro up of G e r m a n a n d English merchants

operating im po r t-e xp o r t houses a n d r u n n in g a t h r iv in g coffee

trade b u y in g u p coffee from the Ve n e z u e l a n a n d C o lo m b ia n

Andes. T h e fathers a n d grandfathers of these merchants, in

turn, h a d enco untered a local society just e m e r g in g from a colo­

nial relationship w it h S p a in . A n d so on. T h u s , a n y m o m e n t of

encounter b e tw e e n a particular agent of a global econo m y a n d a

local po pulatio n, b e tw e e n the “ external” a n d the “ internal,” will

necessarily in te r tw in e w it h prior a n d ongoing encounters, each
of w h ic h will h a v e its o w n structure, its o w n “ concentration of
m a n y d ete r m in a tio n s , h e n c e u n it y of the d iverse” ( M a r x 1 9 7 3
[ 18 5 7 - 5 8 ] : 1 0 1 ) , its o w n internalization of the external.
90 c u l t u r e

T h u s , if w e h a v e a m o r e differentiated u n ders tan d ing of his­

tories, cultures, a n d powers, w e can analyze both the imposition

of powerful eco n o m ic, political, a n d cultural forces and the

contradictory nature of such im po s itio n s . T h e lack of success of

such forces (or, m o r e properly, their success in some places and

tim es a n d th e ir lack of success in other places a n d times) would

not be d u e necessarily or solely to the resilience of local popula-

tions or to the cultural resistance of precapitalist traditions and

values (although both of these m a y so m etim es be powerfully

operative), b u t to the fact that one set of powers, co ntaining and

generating its own contradictions, is b e in g im p o s e d u p o n an­

other set of powers, c o n ta in in g a n d generating its o w n contra­

dictions, p r o d u c in g a variety of u n in t e n d e d consequences. And

each of these sets of powers, forces, a n d contradictions will

represent the s e d im e n ta tio n of particular historical moments

a n d encounters.
A significant task for the person trying to understand such

processes will be the a tte m p t to m a p these powers, contradic­

tions, a n d consequences in space a n d t im e . In this sense, an

exploration of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n in the A m e r ic a s provides an

especially interesting challenge. In the first place, if w hat we

h a v e said about the specificity of historical e x p e r ie n c e has any

validity, an adequate study could not deal w it h L a t in A m e r ic a as

a whole but rather w it h a particular country. A n d in the consid­

eration of a n y country’s e x p e r ie n c e of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n , we

m us t recognize the intersection of two states, w it h two struc­

tures of political, eco n o m ic, a n d cultural d o m in a t io n , each of

w h ic h has its o w n set of histories. T h e encounter, or unfolding

set of encounters, comes at particular m o m e n ts in those histo­

ries, each of w h ic h m u s t be understood. W e can analyze the

forces p r o d u c in g d o m in a t io n by exploring the social, economic,
and political forces p r o d u c in g the encounters. W h a t are the
interests a n d m o tivatio ns of the c o m pa n ie s in ves ting in this par­
ticular activity in this particular country at this particular time?
W h a t are the interests a n d m otivatio ns of state officials granting
concessions to multinationals in that particular area? W h a t are
the interests a n d m o tivatio ns of in d iv id u a l entrepreneurs enter­
in g into l im it e d partnerships w it h multinationals for the estab­
 A M ER ICA NIZ A TIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 91

lishment of enterprises in M e x ic o or V e n e z u e l a or Brazil? W e

can understand s o m e t h in g of the u n in t e n d e d consequences

and contradictions of such encounters by explo ring the differ­

ent sets of interests, b u t also b y tracing the rather different

histories into w h ic h such interests are inserted.
O u r interpretatio n of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n , then, cannot b e g in

with the first in d ic a tio n of N o r th A m e r ic a n influence. W e m u s t

push our analyses back in t im e a n d e x a m in e the historical cur­

rents into w h ic h a variety of N o r th A m e r ic a n forces h a v e b een

inserted. T h is m e a n s that a n y project s tudying A m e r ic a n iz a t io n

is u n d e r ta k in g a n enormously c o m p le x pro blem a n d that it will

have to analyze a rich variety of subjects before it e v e n gets to

the S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n War. But I know of no other w a y to

avoid a billiard-ball a p p r o a c h .

G iv e n w hat has b e en said, an analysis of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n

would h a v e to c o m b in e a history of the U n it e d States w it h histo­

ries of various L a t in A m e r ic a n countries. S u c h would be the

task of m a n y books, c o m b in in g local histories w it h global p e r ­

spective. W h a t follows is a m o r e modest effort to po in t to four

m o m ents w it h in the ongoing, centuries-long process of the i n ­

ternalization of the external in L a t in A m e r ic a : the conquest a n d

establishment of colonial institutions, the process of state and

nation b u il d in g after in d e p e n d e n c e in the n in e te e n th century,

the perio d of o utw ard e xp a n s io n in the late n in e t e e n t h a n d

early tw e n tie th centuries, a n d the e x p e r ie n c e of the A m e r ic a n

century from the 1930s to the present. T h e a r g u m e n t is neces­

sarily at a ve r y general level a n d cannot possibly satisfy any

specialist in the regio n. T o sketch the m a p of powers, contradic­

tions, a n d consequences for a n y one of these “ m o m e n t s ” would
be a major task. M y purpose here is not to u n d e r ta k e such a task

but to g ive it a certain shape, to sketch a context for the m o re

detailed study of particular conjunctions of local a n d global

histories. It is an in vita t io n to an anthropological a n d historical

e x a m in a t io n of a variety of internalizations, one that would take
our u n d e r s ta n d in g of problems like A m e r ic a n iz a t io n off the
billiard table.
92 CULTURE

T o b e g in w it h , w e state the obvious a n d elaborate upo n it

L a t in A m e r ic a n nations h a d prior experiences w it h colonialism

and im p e r ia l is m before the U n it e d States began to exercise

h e g e m o n y in the regio n. If w e are interested in processes of

“ -ization,” the peoples of L a t in A m e r ic a h a d e x p e r ie n c e d pro­

cesses of H is p a n ic iz a t io n a n d W esternizatio n, a n d e v e n a bit of

m o d e r n iz a tio n of various sorts. S o m e of these processes over­

la ppe d w it h the k ind s of processes w e m ig h t associate with

A m e r ic a n iz a t io n ; others differed.

S p a in enco untered various sorts of societies in the N e w World

of the sixteenth century. In M e s o a m e r ic a and the Central

A n d e s , S paniards fo und densely populated state societies with

richly elaborated civilizations. O n the m a rg in s of these civiliza­

tions a n d thro ugho ut m u c h of the tropical lowlands a n d coasts,

they fo und less densely po pulated but settled horticultural

groups w it h e m e r g e n t social a n d political hierarchies but w it h ­

out states. A n d in the e xten s ive plains of the southern cone and

of northern M e x ic o , they fo und n o m a d ic h u n t in g a n d gather­

in g populations. Thes e differences affected the nature and

progress of conquest a n d c o n tin ue to affect the nature of p o p u ­

lations a n d social integration to this day. T h e states of Meso­

a m e r ic a and the Central A n d e s w ere most quickly subd ued .

U p o n conquest, S p a n is h entrepreneurs were able to incorpo­

rate pre e xis tin g forms of tribute a n d d o m in a t io n . Less densely

settled a n d less hierarchical populations w ere not so easily con­

q uered. H e r e the conquest was protracted, e x t e n d in g into the

e ig h te e n th century. I n d e e d , some areas (such as the Atlantic

coast of Central A m e r ic a a n d vast stretches of the South A m e r i ­

can lowlands) n e ve r c a m e u n d e r S p a n is h or Portuguese control

d u r in g the colonial centuries. W h e r e fringe areas were subdued

and incorporated into the E m p ir e , ho wever, they often suf­
fered m o r e , a n d m o r e radical, changes. T h u s the areas w here
in d ig e n o u s populations are concentrated today, a n d the areas
that m a y s e e m most m a rg in a l to “ W es tern ” influence, are in
parts of M e s o a m e r ic a a n d the Central A n d e s .4

T h is was partly d u e as well to the pattern of S p a n is h settlement

a n d exploitation, w h ic h d id not neatly overlay in d ig en o u s settle­
m e n t a n d exploitation. For e x a m p l e , w hile in d ig e n o u s po pula­
 A M ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 93

tions were most densely settled in southern a n d central M e x ic o ,

Spaniards settled in central a n d northern M e x ic o , w he re their

m in in g a n d h a c ie n d a complexes w ere concentrated. In Per u ,

Spaniards exploited the A n d e a n m in e s at Potosi, b u t most of the

population settled on the coast, the a d m in is tr a tive a n d export

center.
T h is is not to suggest that few changes occurred in those

areas of in d ig e n o u s concentration. F e w h a v e not heard of the

extraordinary d e m o g r a p h ic collapse of the sixteenth a n d seven­

teenth centuries, the extent of w h ic h is debated by historians

but the fact of w h ic h is beyo n d d is p u te . In a d d itio n , Spaniards

were interested in collecting tribute a n d labor a n d intro duced a

variety of institutions to do so. T h e in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it y , or

r e p u b l ic a de in d io s , b e c a m e a k e y colonial a n d in d ig e n o u s institu­
tion. A t once the m e c h a n is m for colonial exploitation a n d colo­

nial protection, the c o m m u n it y took on a corporate character,

w ith certain obligations (taxes a n d tithes) a n d certain rights (to

land) recognized b y the C r o w n .3

Fu r th e r m o r e, in d ig e n o u s populations were subject to mis-

sionization. O f the in t e n t io n s of the missionaries, N a n c y Farriss

has c o m m e n t e d :

W h a t distinguished Spain from other colonial powers was the

concerted effort to impose their culture on their colonial sub­
jects by force: to transform the Indians into shorter, darker
versions of Spaniards. . . .
T h e Spanish missionaries in the N e w World thought it not
only necessary but possible . . . to transform the Indians into
replicas of Spaniards— Spanish peasants, to be more precise,
and a highly idealized peasantry at that. . . . For the Spanish
clergy in A m er ic a, the pursuit of this ideal was no more than a
corollary to their Christian ministry. A n y Catholic priest en­
trusted with the “ care of souls” has the duty to keep watch
over the faith and morals of those in his charge. T h e Spanish
missionaries, with the full support of the Crown, interpreted
this duty broadly as a mandate to supervise every aspect of the
Indians’ lives from birth to death and to modify them when
necessary in accordance with the church’s teachings. (198 4:
91)
94 C ULTURE

Scholars debate the extent to w h ic h such conversions were

complete or successful, no ting the persistence of a variety of

in d ig e n o u s beliefs a n d practices or the syncretic c o m b in a tio n of

in d ig e n o u s a n d C h r is t ia n symbols. Yet there w ere several areas
in w h ic h C h r is tia n iz a tio n had profound effects. O n e am o ng

m a n y that could be m e n t io n e d was in the organization of family

life. In N e w S p a in , for e x a m p l e , missionaries im p o s e d the ideal

of the nuclear family, c o n d e m n in g a n d p r o h ib it in g a variety of

forms a n d practices as co ncubin ag e, a n d p r o h ib it in g joint f a m ­

ily residence as p r o m o tin g incest. Here they co in cid ed w ith

Crown tribute policies, w h ic h im p o s e d a m o d if ie d head tax.

T r ib u t e was collected a n d p a id b y c o m m u n it ie s , but they were

assessed on the n u m b e r of heads of household resident in a

c o m m u n it y (see Farriss 19 8 4 : 16 5 - 17 4 pas s im ; R ic a r d 19 6 6

[ 19 3 3 ] : 96 — 1 1 5 p as s im ; Gibs o n 19 6 4 : 1 9 7 — 204 pas s im ; B a r n a ­

bas 19 8 4 ) .

By the e n d of the e ig h te e n th century, S p a n is h colonialism

had only partially o c cu pie d and transformed its territories.

Core areas in c lu d e d m in in g a n d h a c ie n d a complexes, a d m in is ­
trative centers a n d ports, a n d — increasingly, in the eig hteen th

century in formerly m a rg in a l zones such as Ven e z u ela a n d the

C a r ib b e a n — plantation zones p r o d u c in g sugar a n d cacao for

export. S p a n is h settlement had concentrated in those c o m ­

plexes a n d in h ig h la n d regions. Vast stretches of land were

m a rg in a l to S p a n is h interests a n d h a d only b e e n partially incor­

porated w it h in S p a n is h spheres of control. Alexander von

H u m b o l d t ’s c o m m e n t at the turn of the n in e te e n th century was

telling:

In every part of A m er ic a , where civilization d id not exist to a

certain degree before the Conquest (as it d id in Mexico,
Guatimala [sic], Quito, and Peru), it has advanced from the
coasts toward the interior, following sometimes the valley of
a great river, sometimes a chain of mountains, that afforded
a temperate climate. Concentrated at once in different points,
it has spread itself as by diverging rays. T h e union into prov­
inces and kingdoms was effected at the first im m e d ia t e con­
tact between civilized parts, or those at least subject to a
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 95

permanent and regular sway. Lands deserted, or inhabited

by savage nations, now surround the countries, w hich Euro­
pean civilization has subdued. T h e y d iv id e its conquests like
arms of the sea difficult to pass, and neighboring states are
often connected with each other only by strips of cultivated
land. It is less difficult to acquire a knowledge of the configu­
ration of coasts bathed by the ocean, than of the sinuosities
of that interior shore, on w hich barbarism and civilization,
impenetrable forests and cultivated land, touch and bound
each other. It is from not having reflected on the early state
of society in the N e w World, that geographers so often disfig­
ure their maps, by tracing the different parts of the Spanish
and Portugueze [«c] colonies, as if they were contiguous at
every point in the interior. ( 18 18 , 3: 4 2 1- 4 2 2 )

O n e n e e d not accept his language of civilizatio n a n d barba­

rism to recognize that w h e n H u m b o l d t wrote of “ that interior

shore” h e was o u tlin in g a pro blem that all of the newly in d e p e n ­

dent states w ere to face in the n in e t e e n t h century— the pro blem

of o ccupyin g a n d controlling territory, of e x t e n d in g “ civiliza­

tion,” a n d of t u r n in g states on a disfigured m a p into nations.

All of these problems in vo lve d struggles betw een liberals a n d

conservatives, a n d it was in these n a tio n -b u ild in g struggles that

the U n it e d States first entered, as actor a n d e x a m p l e . L e t us

first note that liberal/conservative splits pitted two elites against

each other, although both could call u p o n peasants, artisans,

and other c o m m o n people for support. Conservatives w an te d

to preserve the benefits a n d protections of S p a n is h civilizatio n.

Such benefits a n d protections in c lu d e d the central role of the

Catholic C h u r c h , in a d d itio n to the m a in t e n a n c e of corporate

rights a n d privileges (fueros) that h a d b e en transferred from the

Spanish old r e g im e to the N e w W o rld. S u ch privileges in cluded

the right of the C h u r c h to own land a n d collect tithes w ith o u t

state interference a n d control, a n d th e y in clu d ed the structur­

ally subordinate position of In d ia n s , o w in g special taxes b u t
holding the rig ht, as corporate in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s , to own
land. Conservatives also w a n te d to preserve their own p r iv i­
leged position in the old colonial eco no m y. T h e old activities

m
96 c u l t u r e

w ere to be c o n tin u e d if possible, the co m m er cial relationship

w it h S p a in was to be c o n tin u e d if possible, a n d privile g e d ports

a n d cities w ere to retain th e ir p r ivile g e d position if possible.

Liberals, on the other h a n d , w a n te d to o p e n their n e w na­

tions to w id e r e co n o m ic, political, and intellectual currents.

T h e y w ere anticlerical, often a n ti-S pa n is h, a n d opposed to cor­

porate a n d other forms of p rivile g e . T h e y w an ted either to

abolish C h u r c h landholdings or to treat the C h u r c h like any

other landholder. T h e y w a n te d all persons to be equal citizens

u n d e r the law. In d ia n s should therefore not be subject to de­

g rading special taxes, b u t n e ith e r should they hold land in com­

mon. The basis for a good citizenry was in d iv id u a l private

property— all property a n d all persons subject to a c o m m o n set

of laws. L ik e w is e , the old monopolies a n d privileges attached to

a d m in is t r a t iv e and port cities should be abolished. Formerly

m a rg in a l regions should be allowed free access to world m a r ­

kets; free trade should r eig n .

The battles be tw e e n these two sets of elites a n d their ideas

were profoundly im p l ic a t e d in the processes of nation b uild ing.

T h e y m ig h t take the form of centralism (conservatives) versus

federalism (liberals), w h ic h could results in the disintegration of

polities (e.g., Gran C o l o m b ia into Ven e zu ela, C o lo m b ia , and

Ecu ad o r ; Central A m e r ic a into five states) or separatist m o v e ­

m ents in particular regions. T h e y also set in m o tio n a series of

social transformations (e.g ., in d ig e n o u s loss of lands) that are

beyo nd the scope of this essay.

It should be e v id e n t that m a n y of these ideas h a d their Euro ­

pean and N o r th A m e r ic a n antecedents. Certainly their free

trade doctrines w ere profoundly influenced by M anches ter lib­

eralism. In a d d itio n , Charles H a l e (19 6 8 ) has argued persua­

sively that the most im p o r t a n t influences on M e x ic a n liberalism
were Fr e n c h , partly because French revolutionary thinkers
were addressing an analogous set of problems. T h e y too were
confronting a n old r e g im e based on corporate privileg e, and
they p r o vid e d powerful a rg um en ts against such privileges. T h e
U n it e d States could be a n d was a d m ir e d a n d em u la te d for its
W a r of I n d e p e n d e n c e , a n d its constitutional structure served as
a m odel for m a n y n in e te en th -c en tu ry L a t in A m e r ic a n constitu­
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 97

tions. B u t the U n it e d States h a d not h a d to shake off a feudal

legacy. For liberals, the thinkers w h o gave t h e m the most insight

on social questions w ere Fr e nc h (H a l e 19 6 8 ). T h is is not to

suggest that the liberals’ appro ach to social questions was neces­

sarily thoroughgoing. T h e y w ere trying to shake free of conser­

vative a n d corporate restraints; they w ere not trying to free

their own d e p e n d e n ts . In this the U n it e d States may h a ve

served as a m o d el. A s M arco Palacios suggests, L a t in A m e r ic a n

liberals a d m ir e d the U n it e d States m o del because in the U n it e d

States the elite h a d won their in d e p e n d e n c e , established the

equality of citizens, a n d k ept their slaves ( 19 8 6 ) .6

As L a t in A m e r ic a n states entered w h a t Cardoso a n d Faletto

(19 79 ) call the perio d of “ outward e x p a n s io n ” (roughly, from

the m id - n in e t e e n t h century until 19 3 0 ), however, their p r im a r y

contacts were w it h E u r o p e a n capitalists a n d powers, most i m ­

portantly E n g la n d , b u t also— especially in some of the coffee

regions— G e r m a n y . S u c h ties b e c a m e im p o r t a n t in the last half,

and especially the last quarter, of the n in e t e e n t h century, w h e n

liberals c a m e to po w er in m a n y L a t in A m e r ic a n countries. As
they d id so, they sought out n e w markets for n e w and old

products. Coffee was im p o r t a n t in Brazil, Ven e z u ela , Costa

R ica, a n d , as the century closed, C o lo m b ia , G u a te m a la , El Salva­

dor, and N ic a r a g u a .7 As liberal go vernm ents a tte m pte d to

stimulate eco n o m ic a ctivity a n d establish close ties w it h E u r o ­

pean centers, th e y also turned th e ir attention to longstanding

projects of n atio n b u il d in g . T h e liberal/conservative wars h a d

g iven some liberals state pow er in m a n y regions, b u t the liberal
program r e m a in e d an u n c o m p le te d project. D is am o rtizatio n

laws m a d e the dissolution of in d ig e n o u s landholdings possible,

but they w ere enforced u n evenly. In some regions, the laws

simply legalized prior dispossessions; in others, the laws were
never enforced because of in d ig e n o u s resistance, elite hesitance
to u n d e r m in e a secure labor supply, or the m a r g in a lity of the

region. L ik e w is e , whole regions r e m a in e d u n d e velo p ed a n d u n ­

incorporated. T o develop t h e m , states m ig h t encourage i m m i ­
gration schemes, both to settle n e w areas a n d “ w h it e n ” the
98 CULTURE

population so that it could b eco m e m o re like the “ civilized”

world. T h e y also undertook pub lic works projects. For e x a m ­

ple, in Central A m e r ic a , H is p a n ic settlement h a d concentrated

in the highlands along the Pacific coast. A s the Central A m e r i­

can states d evelo ped stronger export economies, the Pacific lo­

cation of their ports presented problems. For states such as

G u a te m a l a a n d Costa R ic a , the establishment of Atlantic ports

r e m a in e d a dream , p r o m p t in g various unrealized road, and

later railroad, projects across the lowlands to shallow Atlantic

ports. S u c h projects would, it was thought, incorporate new

lands a n d establish a closer a n d firm e r link to E u r o p e a n m a r ­

kets a n d w it h it the possibility of wealth a n d d e ve lo p m e n t. In

these a n d other projects of railroad b u il d in g a n d public works,

L a t in A m e r ic a n states entered into contracts w it h Euro pean

c o m pa n ie s , banks, a n d states (W o o d w a r d 1 9 8 5 ; M c C r e e r y 19 7 6 ;

C .F .S . Cardoso 19 8 6 ).

T h is is not to suggest that the U n it e d States played no role at

all in this p er io d . For the most part, the U n it e d States was in the

m id s t of its o w n westward expan s io n a n d consolidation. T h a t

very e xp a n s io n h a d its effects, most obviously on M e x ic o , w h ic h

lost vast territories to the U n it e d States a n d was the first and

most im p o r t a n t object of N o r th A m e r ic a n in ve s t m e n t in the late

n in e te e n th century, b u t also on Central A m e r ic a after the m i d ­

n in e t e e n t h century, w h e n m o r e r a p id c o m m u n ic a t io n a n d trade

betw een the east a n d west coast b e c a m e im p o r ta n t a n d V a n d e r ­

bilt established coach a n d then train lines across the isthmus

(W o o d w a r d 1 9 8 5 : 1 3 7 — 140 ). It was only toward the e n d of the

n in e te e n th century, ho wever, w it h the close of the frontier and

the m a tu r a tio n of N o r th A m e r ic a n industrial capitalism, that it

b e c a m e both possible a n d desirable for particular investors and

corporations to directly challenge English a n d G e r m a n inves­
tors in L a t in A m e r ic a .

For all practical purposes, the A m e r ic a n century proper be­

gins w it h the S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n war in 18 9 8 a n d the a n n e x a ­
tion of Puerto R ic o a n d C u b a . F r o m this po in t, U .S . d o m in a t io n

in some areas was exercised most clearly in m ilitary terms (as in

the G u n b o a t D ip l o m a c y of Roosevelt a n d the actual occupations
of H a it i [ 1 9 1 5 — 34], the D o m in ic a n R e p u b l ic [ 1 9 1 6 — 24], and
 AM ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 99

Nicaragua [ 1 9 1 2 - 3 3 ] , the in terventio ns in the M e x ic a n R e v o l u ­

tion at Veracruz a n d in northern M e x ic o , a n d the creation of

P a n a m a in 19 0 3 a n d the subsequent b u il d in g and a d m in is t r a ­

tion of the canal, in a d d itio n to a variety of other, not so subtle,

diplomatic pressures). T h e spirit of such interventio ns was c a p ­

tured most forcefully in T . Roosevelt’s 19 0 4 , “ corollary” to the

Monroe D o c tr in e :

If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable

efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it
keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interfer­
ence from the U n ite d States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an
impotence w hich results in a general loosening of the ties of
civilized society, m a y in A m e r ic a , as elsewhere, ultimately re­
quire intervention by some civilized nation, and in the West­
ern H e m is p h e r e the adherence of the U nited States to the
Monroe Doctrine m a y force the Un ited States, however reluc­
tantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to
the exercise of an international police power. (Cited in R . F.
Sm ith 198 6 : 10 1- 10 2 )

It was also d u r in g this perio d that U .S . capitalYwas invested in

La tin A m e r ic a in gro w ing v o l u m e , especially in minerals and

agricultural enclaves (sugar in C u b a a n d Puerto Ric o , bananas

in Central A m e r ic a a n d C o l o m b ia , co pper in M e x ic o a n d C h il e ,

petroleum in M e x ic o and Ven e z u ela ). By the b e g in n in g of

World W a r I, m a n y L a t in A m e r ic a republics w ere already i m ­

porting m o r e from the U n it e d States th an from B r it a in ; by the

end of the war, the U n it e d States h a d b eco m e the d o m in a n t

trader a n d investor in the region. T h is position was consoli­

dated d u r in g the so-called “ D a n c e of the Millions” in the 1920s,

in w h ic h unprecedented a m o unts of U .S . capital flowed into

L a t in A m e r ic a , both in the form of direct investm ents a n d i n d i­

rect in vestm ents (setting u p banks, m a k in g public loans to n a ­
tional a n d pro vincial go vernm ents, etc.).8
W e are no w in a position to explore the a d ve n t of A m e r ic a n i­
zation per se. Economically a n d politically, U .S . d o m in a n c e was
established d u r in g the perio d of outward expan s io n and was to
co ntinue into subsequent periods. O n e im p o r t a n t im p l ic a tio n
1 00 CULTURE

of the foregoing should be stressed at this po in t, ho w ever. W h a t

some m ig h t regard as a cultural co nseq uence of the A m e r ic a n

presence actually p r e c e d e d it, at least a m o n g those liberals hold­

in g state po w er a n d their supporters. T h e r e was a remarkable

co incid ence b e tw e e n the liberal a n d positivist ideology of Latin

A m e r ic a n powerholders a n d N o r th A m e r ic a investors at the

turn of the century. Peace d e p e n d e d on progress, a n d progress

d e p e n d e d on outwardly focused d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e r e were to

be no major barriers to p r iva te enterprise a n d in it ia t iv e , a n d the

greatest good for the greatest n u m b e r could be a c h ie v e d by

risk-taking entrepreneurs trying to e n r ic h themselves. Yet n e i­

ther liberalism nor p o s itivis m w ere N o r th A m e r ic a n im po rts to

L a t in A m e r ic a .9

T h is visio n was not shared by all; it generated its o w n opposi­

tion. S o m e of that opposition c a m e from conservatives who

h a d long b e en suspicious of n o n - H is p a n ic civilization a n d had

articulated critiques of eco n o m ic openness a n d free trade in

the n in e t e e n t h century. Some of the opposition came from

fellow liberals as well. Here it is im p o r t a n t to consider the

nature of liberal rule in late-nineteenth-and early-twentieth-

century states in the context of the transformations that were

w ro ught as c o m p a n ie s and entrepreneurs from the U n it e d

States beg an to invest in L a t in A m e r ic a .

In the first place, it was seldom the case that “ the liberals”

c a m e to power. Rather, a group of liberals c a m e to power, co­

alescing a ro un d the leadership of a single person. T h e struggle

for po w er m ig h t in vo lve wars w it h conservatives, but it would

also in vo lve battles w it h fellow liberals as well. In M e x ic o , for

e x a m p l e , Porfirio D ia z h a d fought for B e n ito Juarez but c a m e
to oppose h i m . A fter Juarez’s d ea th , h e fought fellow liberal
Sebastiano L e r d o d e Tejada for control of the state. T h e person
w h o c aptured state po w er m ig h t h a v e a liberal ag end a, but he
h a d regionalist a n d personalist agendas as well. D ia z was a lib­
eral, but h e was also a O a x a c a n a n d a m ilita ry hero. C ip r ia n o
Castro a n d J u a n V ic e n t e G o m e z in Ven e z u ela w ere liberals, but
they w ere also A n d e a n s , the political a n d m ilita ry expressions
of a vib r a n t coffee econo m y. Liberal ideology a n d politics were
n e ve r u n d il u t e d expressions, t h e n . T h e y in vo lved a collection
 AM ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 10 1

of conflicting, a n d s o m etim es contradictory, ideas, attitudes, a m ­

bitions, alliances, struggles, a n d d rea m s .

As powerholders entered into relations w it h foreign states,

corporations, a n d banks, they w ere acting on one or all of these

ideas a n d struggles. T h e y m ig h t be seeking d e v e l o p m e n t . In

Costa R ic a , for e x a m p l e , G u a r d ia acted on a longstanding lib­

eral a n d national d r e a m of o p e n in g a n outlet to the Atlantic

and incorporating the Atlantic lowlands into the Costa R ic a n

economy a n d polity w h e n h e contracted w it h H e n r y M e ig g s in

1 8 7 1 to bu ild a railroad from San Jose to L im o n . T h e deal was

to lead to the establishment of vast b a n a n a plantations o w n e d

by U n it e d F r u it (fo rm ed in 18 9 9 ), but Costa R ic a n liberals

gained access to the Atlantic. G u a te m a l a a n d H o n d u r a s eagerly

followed suit (W o o d w a r d 19 8 5 ) . Powerholders m ig h t also be

attem ptin g to consolidate their rule. In M e x ic o , D ia z was most

interested in d e ve lo p in g a network of railroads, w h ic h facili­

tated c o m m e r c e , im p r o v e d c o m m u n ic a t io n s , a n d allowed h i m

to build a m o b ile a r m y (Coatsworth 19 8 1; Bazant 19 7 7 ) . Or

powerholders m ig h t s im p ly be a tt e m p t in g to e n r ic h themselves.

B y the t im e G o m e z c a m e to pow er in Ven e z u ela , his original

coffee holdings h a d b e c o m e a m in o r contributor to his wealth.

H e h a d a ccu m ulated land, monopolies on m e a t a n d liquor s u p ­

ply, a n d associated businesses. In power, h e co n tin ue d to ac­

cumulate a n d seemed to regard the state as in s tr u m e n t a n d

guarantor of personal wealth a ccu m ulatio n . W h e n h e granted

concessions to U .S . and Euro pean petro leum c o m pa n ie s , he

m a d e sure that h e a n d his friends were p a id commissions a n d

royalties that represented princely sums in Ven e z u ela but desul­

tory sums for the c o m p a n ie s themselves (Roseberry 19 8 3 ) .

B u t, of course, N o r th A m e r ic a n investors a n d corporations

d id not necessarily share these national, political, a n d personal
dreams. T h e in v e s t m e n t a n d accum ulatio n strategies of the cor­

porations m ig h t intersect w it h the a m b itio n s of L a t in A m e r ic a n

powerholders at certain points, b u t the purs uit of the invest­

m e n t strategies bro ught w it h t h e m a series of unforeseen conse­
quences a n d transformations. S o m e of the consequences m ig h t
not be regarded as unfortunate by the powerholders. T h e rail­
roads in M e x ic o w ere built w it h N o r th A m e r ic a n a n d E u r o p e a n
10 2 c u l t u r e

capital. A lth o u g h they were eventually controlled by the Mexi-

can state, they facilitated a m u c h closer connection w it h North

A m e r ic a n a n d E u r o p e a n business. Establishing M e x ic a n owner­

s h ip of the railways increased M e x ic o ’s foreign debt, the con­

struction of railways in clu d ed vast land grants to foreigners

and the railroads b e c a m e im p o r t a n t infrastructural links for

N o rth A m e r ic a n investm ents such as A m e r ic a n Sm elting and

R e f in in g in the north a n d International Harvester in Yucatan.

All of these consequences fit well w it h in D ia z ’s vision of prog­

ress for M e x ic o ’s future (Bazant 1 9 7 7 ; Coatsworth 1 9 8 1 ) .

Yet these consequences a n d transformations introduced new

social forces, conflicts, a n d resentments. It should be r e m e m ­

bered that increasing U .S . in v o l v e m e n t c a m e at a t im e w h e n the

nature of foreign e co n o m ic activity was c h a n g in g dramatically.

T h e basic eco n o m ic m odel d u r in g the late n in e te e n th a n d early

tw entieth centuries was one based on the export of agricultural

a n d m in e r a l raw materials a n d the im p o r t of finished goods for

a relatively small domestic m a r k e t. For most of the nineteenth

century, this h a d not necessarily in vo lved foreign control of

export a n d im p o r t trade. Rather, the p r im a r y link w it h Euro­

pean markets was the trading c o m p a n y , o w ned by British or

G e r m a n families w h o set u p residence in particular countries.

T h e ir sons a n d daughters would be born in L a t in A m e r ic a and

educated in E u r o p e before c o n tin u in g a n d e x p a n d in g the fam ­

ily business. T h e trading c o m p a n y would h a v e long-established

contractual relations w it h E u r o p e a n firms a n d w it h local pro­

ducers of tropical agricultural products, im p o r t in g Euro pean

textiles a n d tools, e xp o r tin g coffee, sugar, a n d cacao. M u c h of
the control of pro ductio n, a n d some of the control of m arket­

in g , r e m a in e d in local hands. Railroads built in the late n in e ­

teenth century w ere a m o n g the first exam ples of large-scale
foreign capital in ve s t m e n t . W it h the rise of im p e r ia l is m , the
preferred form of in ve s t m e n t in vo lved direct control of produc­
tion or extraction a n d c o m m e r c e , often w it h an enclave char­
acter. T h e n e w form was especially e v id e n t in m in in g — nitrates,
copper, a n d petro leum — but also in agriculture— bananas and
sugar.
The enclaves were m o re im p o r ta n t in some countries than
 AM ER ICA N IZ A TIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 103

others. In a significant analysis, Fer n a n d o H e n r iq u e Cardoso

and Enzo Falleto ( 19 7 9 ) d is tin g u is h betw een two forms of out­

wardly focused d e v e l o p m e n t in L a t in A m e r ic a d u r in g the late

n ineteenth a n d early tw e n tie th centuries. In both, d e ve lo p m e n t

was based on exports of raw materials. In the first type, h o w ­

ever, control of key aspects of pro duction a n d exp o r tin g re­

m a in e d w it h a local bourgeoisie, w h ic h exported cattle, coffee,

and other goods. Fo reign corporations would still be present,

but a local bourgeoisie was not necessarily displaced. E x a m p l e s

include Brazil, A r g e n t in a , U r u g u a y , a n d C o l o m b ia . In the sec­

ond, m in in g a n d agricultural enclaves w ere controlled by for­

eign corporations. E x a m p l e s in clude Porfirian M e x ic o , V e n e z u ­

ela, C h il e , a n d the Central A m e r ic a n states.

T h is distinction is pro blem atic. One m ig h t , for e x a m p l e ,

question the inclusion of M e x ic o as an enclave economy. D e ­

spite the eno rm o us activity of foreign corporations, M e x ic o

had a more divers ified econo my than one would normally

expect in enclave situations. Moreover, the various devel­

opments on w h ic h Cardoso a n d Faletto place e m ph a s is (d e­

velo pm en t of a national bourgeoisie, m id d l e classes, political

incorporation of m id d l e classes, develo pm ent of nationalist

and populist alliances, a n d so on) occurred early in M e x ic o ,

unlike other enclave situations.

T h e s e two types w ere to develop q uite differently in the t w e n ­

tieth century. In a d d itio n , as w e shall see, the relationship b e ­

tween “ enclave” a n d “ national” eco n o m ic sectors in places like

Costa R ic a , C o lo m b ia , a n d V e n e z u e l a carried im p o r t a n t eco­

n o m ic, social, political, a n d cultural consequences. M o r e im p o r ­

tantly, the different class relations w it h in particular countries

cannot easily be subsumed w it h in a national control/foreign

enclave distinction. If w e look solely at the coffee economies,

each of w h ic h was characterized by local control (tho ugh e n ­

claves devo ted to other c o m m o d itie s c a m e to d o m in a t e some of

these countries), the class structures through w h ic h coffee was
produced, processed, a n d m a r k e te d va r ie d enormously— from
the free-labor im m ig r a n t colonato in Sao Paulo to small pro duc­
ers in Ve n e z u e l a , C o l o m b ia n A n t io q u ia , a n d Costa R ic a , to large

farms w it h d e p e n d e n t laborers in C o l o m b ia n C u n d in a m a r c a
104 CULTURE

a n d El Salvador, to large farms w it h m ig r a n t in d ig e n o u s labor

in G u a te m a la. T h e internalization of the external in each of

these settings, a n d the consequent social, political, a n d cultural

processes, w ere q uite distinct.

M oreover, some of the changes that w ere intro duced in so-

called enclave econo mies deserve m o r e e x te n d e d c o m m e n t . As

enclaves d evelo ped , eco n o m ic activities a n d elites that h a d been

im p o r t a n t at earlier m o m e n t s w ere displaced. A t tim es the dis­

plac em e n t was direct, as in the r eplacem ent of sugar ha-

cendados in Puerto R ic o a n d C u b a by N o r th A m e r ic a n firms.

Elsewhere it was in d ir ec t, as in the tem po rary dis placem ent of

coffee elites b y U n it e d F r u it in the b a n a n a sector of Costa Rica,

or the p e r m a n e n t d is placem en t of coffee elites b y Standard Oil

a n d A n g lo -D u tc h Shell in the petro leum sector of Venezuela.

In V e n e z u e l a a n d Costa R ic a , the n e w activities d id not compete

w it h the old for territory. For Costa R ic a , bananas w ere grown

in newly incorporated Atlantic lowlands, w hile coffee was

grown on the Central M e s a toward the Pacific; for Venezuela,

petro leum was extracted near M a ra c a ib o , w hile coffee was

grown in the A n d e s . Ye t the establishment of foreign enclaves

in vo lved political a n d eco n o m ic d is placem en t. T h a t displace­

m e n t m ig h t take a regional fo rm, e .g ., the shift of economic

po w er from the Central M e s a to the Atlantic lowlands or from

the A n d e s to the M a r a c a ib o basin a n d grow ing co m m ercial cit­

ies. T h e paradoxes of such d is placem en t were especially pro­

no u n ced w h e n the powerholder c a m e to pow er w it h regionalist

associations a n d th e n oversaw the relative decline of his own

regions. S u c h was the case w it h G o m e z in Ven e zu ela, whose

p r im a r y ide n tifica tio n was A n d e a n a n d w h o staffed the govern­

m e n t w it h A n d e a n s b u t w h o set in m o tio n forces that u n d e r ­
m in e d A n d e a n eco n o m ic h e g e m o n y .

The social, political, a n d cultural consequences of this dis­

p la c em e n t w ere im p o r t a n t . T h e establishment of enclaves cre­
ated social groups w h o felt e m b it t e r e d , resentful, a n d opposed.
W e h a v e already enco untered one current of opposition a m o n g

n in e te en th -c en tu ry conservatives. T h is n e w current, or set of

currents, h a d its locus a m o n g displaced liberal elites, people
w h o d id not question m a n y of the basic tenets of free trade and
 AM ER ICA N IZ A TIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 105

liberal philosophy. T h e y valued progress a n d felt that progress

could best be a c h ie v e d thro ugh foreign trade. B u t they h a d not

been v e n d e p a t r ia s , a n d they resented both the foreigners and

the local elites w h o associated w it h t h e m . W e get a sense of this

feeling in Pablo N e r u d a ’s p o e m , “ Los Abogados del Dolar”

(“T h e Dollar’s La w ye rs ” ), w h ic h assumes a critique of the c o m ­

panies but reserves it harshest j ud gm ents for the L a t in A m e r i ­

can agent of the c o m p a n ie s , w h o “ dresses like a gringo, spits like

a gringo, dances like a gringo, a n d m oves u p ” (N e r u d a 19 5 5 :

1 7 3 ) . 10
T h is current of opposition m ig h t be q uite diffuse. In M e x ic o ,

in 1 9 1 0 , it c o m b in e d w it h other elite a n d nonelite segments in

the revolution. More co m m o nly, it would take less political

forms, or its political forms would concentrate on particular

aspects of the transformed c o m p le x. It would not necessarily

concentrate on the U .S . presence, although a growing U .S . pres­

ence m a y serve to precipita te resentm ent. Rather, opposition

would concentrate on local a n d national them es a n d events. It

m ig h t concentrate on the dictatorial rule of a D ia z or a G o m e z ,

and its d e m a n d s m ig h t be for dem o cracy or no-reelection.

In all of these forms, the liberal elite current of opposition

could c o m b in e w it h other currents as they developed and took

different shapes in the course of the eco no m ic a n d political

changes of the m id d l e and late tw en tieth century, in c lu d in g

social d em o cratic a n d m o re radical a nti-im perialis t forms of

opposition. W e fin d a good fictional account of this twentieth-

century current across generations in A d r ia n o Gonzalez L e o n ’s

Ven e z u ela n novel, P a t s P o r t a t il [Po rtab le Co un try) ( 19 6 7 ) . The

novel m o ves back a n d forth betw een the activities of an early-

tw entieth-century c a u d illo general in the A n d e s a n d those of his

grandson, an u rb a n g u errillero , in Caracas in the 1960s. T h e

e x a m p l e is not that far-fetched a n d has its analogues in actual

A n d e a n fam ilies. A n il l u m in a t in g e x a m p l e is that of the Gabal-
don f a m ily : the father, Jose Rafael, was an A n d e a n caudillo and
an early associate of G o m e z w h o e n d e d u p in the opposition
and led one of the more notable, a n d unsuccessful, revolts
against h i m ; his son, Jo aq uin, w h o was a m e m b e r of the student
“ generation of 2 8 ” that led a student strike a n d precipitated
106 C U LTU R E

forms of opposition to G o m e z that eventually led to the found­

in g of A c c io n D em o c r a tic a a n d other political parties; a n d his

youngest son, A r g im ir o , w h o was killed w it h the guerrillas in

the early 1960s (Roseberry 19 8 2 ) .

A lth o u g h A m e r ic a n investors encountered powerholders who

s e e m e d to share their general outlook a n d visio n for the fu­

ture, they also encountered and h elped to generate social

groups that d id not share that outlook a n d c a m e to oppose it. It

would be wrong, ho wever, to v ie w the split as one between

“ A m e r ic a n ” or A m e r ic a n iz in g elements a n d a n t i- A m e r ic a n or

a n t i- A m e r ic a n iz in g elements. O n e of the m o re interesting para­

doxes in these social m o v e m e n t s is the connection of several of

t h e m to segments of U .S . life a n d politics. As U .S . im p e r ia l is m

generated oppositional currents in L a t in A m e r ic a , it also gener­

ated t h e m in the U n it e d States. T h is was especially true in rela­

tion to the m o r e directly political a n d m ilita ry expression of

im p e r ia l is m , the control of C u b a a n d Puerto Ric o , the m a n ip u l a ­

tion of P a n a m a , or the m ilita ry occupation of N ic a r a g u a , H a it i,

and the D o m in ic a n R e p u b l ic . T h e s e oppositional currents in

the U n it e d States w ere in turn connected w it h a variety of pro­

gressive a n d socialist m o v e m e n t s in the early tw entieth century.

L a t in A m e r ic a n a n d U .S . oppositional currents could enter into

direct contact, in part because leaders of L a t in A m e r ic a n opposi­

tions would go into exile. T h o u g h exile m ig h t take t h e m to

other L a t in A m e r ic a n countries or E u r o p e , it could also take

t h e m to N e w Yo rk, N e w Orleans, or Los Angeles, w h e r e they

m ig h t go to school, form friendships w it h progressives, actively

participate in and contribute to their m o v e m e n t s , a n d place
their o w n struggles in international (and som etim es in ternatio n­

alist) pers pective.

T h is is crucial for a ny cultural analysis of A m e r ic a n iz a t io n .
O ppo s itio nal currents of various sorts m ig h t be “ a n t i- A m e r ic a n ”

and would actively reject a n d oppose U .S . d o m in a t io n and

in te r ve n tio n . They m ig h t also h a v e an affection for certain
aspects of life in the U n it e d States based on r e m e m b e r e d e x p e ­
riences and c o n tin u e d associations, and som etim es sophisti­
cated understandings of political life a n d possibilities in the
U n it e d States. T h e s e oppositional formations would, in turn,
 AM ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 107

be differentiated and diffuse, some connecting w it h socialist

and progressive groups in the U n it e d States, others connecting

with liberal representatives of the D e m o c r a tic party, or fo un d a­

tions a n d univers ities. T h e liberal segm ent, calling for greater

democracy or m o r e auto no mous d e ve lo p m e n t, m ig h t sim ulta­

neously reject certain (especially economic) forms of U .S . pres­

ence and in te r ve n tio n and a d m ir e certain other (especially

political a n d cultural) forms of U .S . life. T h u s various political

constituencies in the U n it e d States m ig h t share a general sense

that L a t in A m e r ic a was im p o r t a n t a n d a general visio n of a

developed, “ d em o cr atic” future but would differ on specifics,

on practical alliances a n d allegiances. T h e s e different constitu­

encies would, in turn, h a v e connections w it h representatives of

different social, eco n o m ic, a n d cultural groups in L a t in A m e r i ­

can countries.

W it h these observations, w e m o v e beyo nd the perio d of out­

ward exp an s io n a n d into the variety of eco n o m ic, political, and

cultural e xperienc es of the m id d l e a n d late tw en tieth century.

Although w e can a tt e m p t a general sketch of the basic d im e n ­

sions of those experiences , the limitations of such a sketch m ust

be stressed. A variety of general histories has foundered on the

attempt to im p o s e a u n if o r m eco n o m ic or political model u p o n

the recent history of L a t in A m e r ic a n nations— from d e p e n d e n t

capitalism on the eco n o m ic side to p o p u lis m a n d bureaucratic

autho ritarianism on the political. Most h a v e in m i n d the e x p e r i­

ence of a particular country (say, A r g e n t in a or Brazil) a n d at­

tem pt to e x te n d their u n d e r s tan d in g of that e x p e r ie n c e to

other countries in ways that are in a p p r o p r ia t e . B u t this does not

m ean that analyses at a general level should be suspended alto­

gether or that w e should s im p ly restrict ourselves to the e x p e r i­

ence of particular states a n d regions. T h o s e particular states

and regions h a v e e x p e r ie n c e d s im il a r m o m e n ts in the develo p­
m e n t of N o r th Atlantic capitalism in d if f e r e n t ways, in part d u e
to the u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t a n d e xp an s io n of capitalist sectors

(here coffee, there bananas, there copper, there petroleum)

and in part d u e to the different responses of particular states,
108 C ULTURE

w h ic h in turn rest u p o n different internalizations of the exter-

nal. As long as our general analysis draws our attention to com.

mon experiences , forces, a n d trends in such a w ay that we

develop a set of basic questions that w e can take to particular

situations, rather than a restrictive model that is im p o s e d upon

them , a discussion carried out at a general level is not only

defensible b u t necessary. M y appr o a ch to the general character­

istics of the present, th e n , is d evelo ped in this spirit. I a m sketch­

in g a set of eco n o m ic, political, a n d cultural forces to which

L a t in A m e r ic a n states a n d regions h a ve b e en subject, along

w it h some of the e co n o m ic, political, a n d cultural consequences

a n d contradictions of those forces. T h r o u g h o u t , I a m outlining

a set of questions that can be taken to the analysis of various

internalizations. Following Cardoso a n d Faletto, I stress the col­

lapse of the outwardly focused model a n d the growth of a do­

mestic m a r k e t a n d of the n e w social groups that participated in

that m arket. If w e see each of these terms as a pro b lem —

“ collapse,” “ grow th,” “ domestic m a r k e t ,” “ n e w social groups”—

w e h a v e b e g u n to outline a series of historical questions that can

g u id e our study of particular situations.

T h e d is placem en t of elites a n d regions, a n d the political and

cultural effects of such d is placem en t, w ere not the only charac­

teristics of the perio d of outward e xp a n s io n . O utw ard ly focused

d e v e l o p m e n t also in vo lved the e m e r g e n c e of n e w eco no m ic and

social groups a n d forces, both in “ national” and “ enclave” econo­

m ie s . It in vo lved the e m e r g e n c e of w o r k in g classes in enclave

areas (m in e s , petro leum c a m ps , plantations) a n d in growing cit­

ies. It in vo lved the growth a n d ram ificatio n of the state. Eco­

n o m ic e xp a n s io n a n d state formation stimulated the growth of

the capital cities, a n d those near enclaves a n d ports. In turn, this

growth stimulated the e m e r g e n c e of m id d l e classes composed of
state employees, m erchants, clerks, artisans, a n d service workers
of various kind s, a n d so on. It also stimulated the growth of
“ m a r g in a l” u rb a n groups w h o h a d left the countryside but found
no “ formal” place in the e c o n o m y .11
All of these processes occurred according to different tim e
frames, in response to different events, a n d w it h different ef­
fects in particular countries. For the most part, they occurred
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 109

earlier in the “ national” economies th an in the “ enclave” ones.

W it h the collapse of the outward per io d a n d m odel in the 1930s

and 1940s, the national economies were able to enter periods of

im po rt substitution a n d industrialization d u e to the size of their

domestic m a r k e t . T h e y occurred m u c h later in “ enclave” econo­

mies (1940s a n d 1950 s in Venezuela; 1960s a n d 1970s in El

Salvador a n d N ic a r a g u a ).

T h e s e processes h a v e created n e w eco no m ic, political, and

cultural space for the expression of U .S . power a n d influence,

but they h a v e also generated n e w sets of contradictions, w h ic h

in turn overlay sets of contradictions in h e r it e d from the past.

W e m ig h t consider these by first explo ring the d im e n s io n s of

power a n d th e n r e v ie w in g the sources of lim ita tio n . Cardoso

and Faletto place great stress on the e co n o m ic a n d political

aspects of this p e r io d . T h e growth of cities, w o r k in g classes, a n d

m id d le classes created a large domestic m a r k e t for co nsumer

goods. A major eco n o m ic and therefore political issue con­

cerned these n e w groups a n d the m a r k e t they presented. W it h

the growth of u r b a n w o r k in g a n d m id d l e classes, the outward

model was subject to challenge: would the m a r k e t be su pplied

by foreign or local industries? For local entrepreneurs anxio us

to capture that m a r k e t, th e ir goals in vo lve d im m e d ia t e political

questions a n d issues: e xc h a n g e rates, tariffs, taxation policies,

state in ve s t m e n t in transportation a n d c o m m u n ic a t io n infra­
structures. Cardoso and Faletto see m u c h of the history of

twentieth-century L a t in A m e r ic a n states in terms of a struggle

between two po w er blocs— the export bloc composed of export

merchants, landed oligarchs, a n d their rural retainers, a n d a

nationalist bloc co mpo sed of industrial entrepreneurs, u rb a n

m id d le a n d w o r k in g classes, a n d the like. T h e political struggles

of these n e w groups took the form of m o v e m e n t s toward d e ­
mocracy, p o p u l is m , a n d nationalism (Cardoso a n d Faletto 19 7 9 ;

Laclau 19 7 7 ; Bergquist 19 8 6 ; G e r m a n i, di T e l ia , and Ia nn i

19 73 ).

W it h the d e m is e of the e xp o r t-im p o r t m o del a n d the rise of a

domestic m a r k e t , the nature of foreign e co n o m ic activity in L a t in
A m e r ic a n states ch a n g e d dramatically. A g a in , one would h a v e to
take into account the different processes a n d conjunctures of
110 C ULTURE

specific countries, a n d the m o v e from the e xpo r t-im po rt model

to the d o m estic-m arket m o del was usually a c c o m p a n ie d by pro.

found eco n o m ic a n d political crises. A s nationalist a n d populist

regim es c a m e to power, they a tte m p te d to e x p a n d a n d consoli­

date domestic markets, en te r in g into regional agreements,

a d o ptin g m o r e restrictive tariffs, a n d p r o v id in g various protec­

tions a n d incen tives in an a tte m p t to stimulate local industry.

Paradoxically, ho w ever, this has not resulted in decreased for­

e ig n pa r tic ip a tio n in national economies. Rather, the expansion

of domestic markets has increased in ve s t m e n t opportunities for

a w id e r range of foreign corporations. A s the focus of activity

shifts from agricultural a n d m in e r a l export, n e w industries may

be established to pro duce co ns um er goods for local a n d regional

markets. S o m e of these m a y be fo rm ed by local entrepreneurs,

some by multinationals, some by m ix e d or joint ventures. T h e

a tte m p t to develop dom estic markets has often intensified de­

pendence on foreign multinationals and increased debt to

foreign banks. Industrial d e v e l o p m e n t has often b e e n concen­

trated, at least in its in itial stages, in co nsumer industries—

especially light industries p r o d u c in g nondurables. T h e s e have

b e en d e p e n d e n t on m a c h in e r y a n d raw materials pro duced and

purchased elsewhere. E v e n as some L a t in A m e r ic a n states have

m o v e d into h e a v y industry a n d m a c h in e a n d steel production,

they h a v e often b e en d e p e n d e n t on foreign technology and par­

tic ipatio n , all of w h ic h m u s t be p a id for.

M o r e differentiated domestic markets a n d industrial struc­

tures h a v e therefore facilitated a m o r e r a m if ie d a n d entrenched

m ultinatio nal presence, one that has m o v e d from an extractive,

enclave character to one that is in vo lved in industrial develop­

m e n t a n d c o m m e r c e for a gro w ing u rb a n a n d small-town popula­
tion, as well as the control of a variety of services.
Politically, the per io d since the m id - t w e n t ie t h century has
b e en characterized b y the e m e r g e n c e of the state as the p r in c i­
pal local actor in dealings w it h multinationals. A t tim es, as in
Brazil, such dealings invo lve w h a t Peter E va n s calls a “ triple
alliance” of m ultinatio nal capital, local capital, a n d the state
( 19 7 9 ) . M o r e often, ho w ever, local capital is relatively w e ak , and
the p r in c ip a l relationship is one betw een particular states and
 AM ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS Ill

particular m u ltinatio nal corporations. States m a y a tte m p t to set

limits u p o n foreign capital or to require various forms of joint

participation a n d m ix e d enterprise. As a result, states b eco m e

junior partners to foreign corporations a n d p r in c ip a l eco no m ic

actors in local arenas. T h is involves a remarkable e xpan s io n of

the state apparatus , b u t as Cardoso a n d Faletto note,

W h a t lends d yn am is m to this form of state, and what charac­

terizes its m o vem en t, is not the bureaucratic aspect it m a y have
assumed in some countries . . . but rather its entrepreneurial
aspect, w h ich leads it to ally itself, in production, with the
multinational corporation. Somehow, the state has become a
strategic element, functioning as a hinge that permits the
opening of the portals through w hich capitalism passes into
industrializing peripheral economies. (19 7 9 : 202)

T h e nature of political a ctivity a n d struggle has c han g ed d u r ­

ing this perio d as well. Struggles d u r in g the n in e te e n th century

often in vo lved attempts by factions led by caudillos to capture

relatively small states. Caudillos fo rm ed alliances w it h each other,

and they fought for a n d about ideas— liberal or conservative— as

well as fig h tin g in the service of regions a n d personal a m b itio n s .

B y w elco m in g the active presence of foreign corporations, h o w ­

ever, the last of the caudillos h a d set in m o tio n forces that u n d e r ­

m in e d the original bases of their power. In the process, they used

e x p a n d in g state m a c h in e r ie s to consolidate their power, but the

new types of states that e m e r g e d w ere states in w h ic h such

caudillo rule no longer h a d a place.

It is c o m m o n to refer to leaders of parties a n d states in m id -
and late-twentieth-century L a t in A m e r ic a as caudillos, but this

represents an illusory co ntinuity. In the first place, the e m e r ­

gence of n e w social classes a n d groups— w o rkin g classes in plan­

tations, m in e s a n d oil fields, a n d cities; m id d l e classes composed

of g o ve r n m e n t workers, clerks, small merchants, a n d profes­
sionals in g ro w ing towns a n d cities— has pro duced a variety of
political expressions such as labor unio ns a n d political parties
that press a range of dem o cratic, progressive, a n d fascist d e ­
m ands at tim es thro ugh official channels a n d at tim es through
112 CULTURE

m ilita r y struggle. Leaders of these parties m a y h a v e charisma

a n d act like caudillos, b u t w e n e e d to p a y m o r e attention to the

m o v e m e n t th a n the leader. T h e s e m o v e m e n t s , of a national

rather th an a regional character a n d w it h im p o r t a n t interna­

tional connections, represent s o m eth in g qualitatively different.

Moreover, e v e n w h e n states are u n d e r the rule of a particular

strong m a n , the nature of that person’s pow er has changed.
T h e y no w d e p e n d on a professional military, trained at h o m e in

the U n it e d States, a n d on a professional bureaucracy.13

As in the eco n o m ic realm, the grow ing co m ple xity of the state
a n d politics has created n e w a n d m u ltifo r m possibilities for the

expression of U .S . power. W e are fa m ilia r e n o u g h w it h the litany

of U .S . m a c h in a tio n s in its p r e s u m e d backyard. In m a n y ways,

the recent history of m ilita r y in te r ve n tio n a n d blatant m a n ip u l a ­

tion in Central A m e r ic a a n d the C a r r ib e a n represents a direct

co n tin uity w it h past m ilita r y occupations, m a n ip u l a tio n s , plots,

threats, a n d m u r d e r s . E v e n as w e recognize such continuity, we

can see it as e v id e n c e of a r ig h t-w in g e x t r e m e w it h in a range of

official pressures that h a v e b e en placed on L a t in A m e r ic a n

states. M o r e subtle a n d less militaristic pressures are available

a n d h a v e b e e n used, d e p e n d in g on the political conjuncture in

the U n it e d States a n d the nature of the political process and

p r e s u m e d crisis in particular L a t in A m e r ic a n states.

B u t w e n e e d to see a variety of official a n d unofficial expres­

sions of connection b e tw e e n U .S . a n d L a t in A m e r ic a n politics as

well. B e g in n in g w it h state apparatuses a n d the people w h o staff

t h e m , w e n e e d to recognize the role of U .S . officials a n d educa­

tors in a d v is in g state officials a n d tr a in in g bureaucrats a n d m il i­

tary officers. S u c h t r a in in g m a y be part of an official program,

as in the active role of the U .S . m ilita ry in fo r m in g professional­

ized officer corps in L a t in A m e r ic a a n d in counterinsurgency
tr a in in g . L ik e w is e , local schools of public a d m in is tra tio n m a y be
set u p w it h the he lp of U .S . agencies or private U .S . foundations
a n d m a y be staffed w it h U .S . educators (perhaps thro ugh spe­
cial arrang em ents w it h particular U .S . universities) or La t in
A m e r ic a n s educated in th e U n it e d States.
If w e look b e yo n d the level of the state to the activities of
political parties a n d m o v e m e n t s , w e see an ever w id e r range of
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 113

ossibilities. H e r e too educatio n a n d the activity of the A r e a

Studies co mpo nents of p r iva te foundations play im p o r t a n t

roles, as militants in various sorts of m o v e m e n t s — in c lu d in g , of

course, opposition m o v e m e n t s — m a y h a v e w id e e x p e r ie n c e in

the U n it e d States. O r foundations m a y g ive grants to labor a n d

social action groups, or p r o vid e support for local cooperatives.

Familiar exa m ple s include a f l -c i o sponsorship a n d support of

various L a t in A m e r ic a n labor unio ns in recent decades through

the A m e r ic a n Institute for Free Labo r D e v e l o p m e n t (a i f l d ), a

descendant of S a m u e l G o m p e r s ’s earlier efforts in World W a r I,

as well as the support of peasant cooperatives a n d self-help

groups by the U .S . g o v e r n m e n t ’s In t e r - A m e r ic a n Fo u n d a tio n .

W e should also consider the continuous efforts, of w h ic h “ Proj­

ect D em o c r ac y” is the latest e x a m p l e , of the U .S . g o ve r n m e n t to

influence pub lic o p in io n thro ugh so m etim es clandestine s up­

port of newspapers, m a g azin es , a n d political organizations. S u ch

influences affect both the substance a n d style of L a t in A m e r ic a n

politics. O n e recent e x a m p l e of c h a n g in g style is the p a r t ic ip a ­

tion of U .S . political consultants like D a v id G a r th as m e d ia advis ­

ers to L a t in A m e r ic a n politicians in election c a m p a ig n s .

It would be a m is ta k e , ho w ever, to v ie w all of this as a u n if o r m

expression of U .S . power, to see these diverse efforts as expres­

sions of an ideological state apparatus. M u c h of the pressure

and influence does c o m e from agencies a n d departm en ts of the

government, b u t it also comes from p r iva te foundations a n d

individuals . A n d the in d ivid u a l s w h o co m e to the U n it e d States

to study m a y c o m e w it h bureacratic aspirations, e n tr e p r e n e u ­

rial a m bitio n s , or longstanding interest a n d activity in opposi­

tion m o v e m e n t s . They may connect w it h , learn from, and,

more importantly, contribute to a variety of oppositional m o v e ­

ments in U n it e d States. W h e n we t h in k of an A m e r ic a n iz e d

politics, th e n , w e should not t h in k solely of the State D e p a r t ­

m e n t’s sycophants.
T h e growth of a domestic m a r k e t a n d the e m er g e n c e of w hat
Cardoso a n d Faletto refer to as the “ m id d l e classes” h a v e h a d
profound social a n d cultural effects as well, o p e n in g space for

new expressions of U .S . power. T h e growth of a domestic m a r ­

ket d e p e n d e d u p o n the e m e r g e n c e of n e w social groups livin g
114 c u l t u r e

in grow ing towns a n d cities. T h is has m e a n t the growth ofa

population w it h a n e w set of co n s u m p tio n needs a n d interests

T h e s e needs m ig h t invo lve a rejection of a n y th in g w it h the taint

of the countryside a n d backwardness a n d a celebration of any.

t h in g considered m o dern. The u rb a n m id d l e classes might

w ant w h e a t bread rather th an products m a d e from corn meal.

T h e y m ig h t not w an t potatoes or other A n d e a n products. De­

p e n d in g on the available technology a n d the fads of the period,

they m ig h t w an t— and need— refrigerators, w as hing machines,

cars, radios, stereos, televisions, V C R s . T h e y w an t to see films,

take trips, shop at supermarkets a n d malls. In these a n d other

ways, w e seem to witness the e m er g e n c e of a n e w current that

shares certain cultural values that w e m ig h t regard as “ A m e r i­

c a n .” T h e earlier gro up was a portion of the liberal elite that

shared w it h U .S . investors a n d promoters an evolutionist, devel-

opmentalist vis io n . T h e n e w group is rooted in an u rb a n middle

class that is trying to create a “ m o d e r n ,” c o n ven ien t, consumer-

oriented w ay of life. I n d e e d , w h e n w e t h in k about A m e r ic a n iz a ­

tion, it is often this diffuse u rb a n group, their d e m a n d s , and the

proliferation of u r b a n services a n d businesses designed to serve

t h e m that c o m e to m in d , as is e v id e n t in the stereotypic images

w it h w h ic h w e began this essay.

W e n e e d to bew are, ho wever, of caricature a n d a patronizing

tone. First, it should be stressed that m a n y of the n e w articles and

forms of co n s u m p tio n do represent needs a n d conveniences for

an u rb a n w o r k in g po pulatio n. The outsider v ie w in g these

changes in the context of a p r e s u m e d rural, traditional, H is p a n ic

past m ig h t v ie w t h e m as a form of loss or d eb a s em ent— a m o ve ­

m e n t from a m o r e g e n u in e to a spurious culture. B u t this m ay

m is rea d both the past a n d present a n d does not take into account
the fact that these changes m a y be felt a n d e xp e r ie n c e d as forms
of social a n d eco n o m ic a d v a n c e m e n t , increased comfort a n d lei­
sure. I n d e e d , these caricaturable styles of co ns um ptio n d epe n d
u p o n the e m e r g e n c e of less easily caricaturable ways of life. Sec­
ond, the caricature d ep e n d s u p o n a particular group w it h in the
n e w m id d l e classes w h o h a v e the m e an s to purchase these goods
a n d realize some of their d rea m s . It would be m o re enlightening
to develop a m o re differentiated un ders tan d ing of the goods
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 115

that m a k e u p the n e w u r b a n middle-class package. S o m e of the

goods, like clothes, c o n ve n ie n c e foods, refrigerators, radios, a n d

televisions, represent w id e ly diffused co n s u m p tio n goods— in

m a n y settings, “ necessities,” although style a n d cost will vary

widely. O th e r ite m s will be m u c h less w id ely diffused. C e r ta in

aspects of c o n s u m p tio n styles, w it h w id e a n d obvious variatio n

due to differences in personal resources, m a y h a ve w id e cur­

rency w it h in the po pulatio n— from cities to small towns, from

u pper m id d l e class to w o r k in g classes. T h e co n s u m p tio n styles

are therefore rooted in a m id d l e class b u t are not specific to

the m .
E v e n as w e a pp r o a ch a less patro n izin g a n d m o r e differen ti­

ated un d e r s tan d ing , ho wever, w e n e ed to recognize that the

new ways of life a n d c o n s u m p tio n styles o pe n n e w possibilities

for the expression of U .S . po w er a n d influence. A few exam ples

will suffice. The dem and for m o d e r n , elite, or co nve n ie n ce

foods creates a d e p e n d e n c e on im p o r t e d foods, w h ic h are often

pro vided by U .S . exporters. In u rb a n jobs, m a n y of the o ppo rtu­

nities o pen to the n e w m id d l e class m a y be in businesses that are

either subsidiaries of U .S . corporations or h a v e extensive c o m ­

mercial dealings w it h t h e m . K n o w le d g e of English becomes an

im po rtant job r e q u ir e m e n t for a s pirin g managers a n d secretar­

ies. Televisio n opens m a n y aven ues for A m e r ic a n iz a t io n in o b v i­

ous ways, such as the im p o r ta tio n of d u b b e d versions of U .S .

dramatic series a n d co m ed ies or m o vie s , a n d the broadcast of

commercials advertis in g U .S . products. H e r e w e find a direct

linkage be tw e e n the rise of a social group w it h u rb a n ways of

life and tastes a n d the proliferation of a domestic m a r k e t w it h
strong pa r tic ip a tio n by multinationals. The d e ve l o p m e n t of

new technologies m a ke s this connection e ve n m o re direct. For

e xa m ple, n e w cable systems a n d satellite dishes m a k e it possible

to produce a m u c h broader variety of programs, such as sports

events a n d d u b b e d versions of the programs pro duced by prot-

estant evangelists in the U n it e d States.

In all of these ways, L a t in A m e r ic a seems to be b e c o m in g

more a n d m o r e like an a p p e n d a g e of the U n it e d States. B u t
116 c u l t u r e

each of the d im e n s io n s of the present situation that w e have

considered— e co n o m ic, political, a n d cultural— has generated

its o w n contradictions, some of w h ic h are in h e r e n t in the d ep e n ­

d en t fo rm of d e v e l o p m e n t that characterizes L a t in A m e r ic a n

states a n d some of w h ic h rest u p o n formations a n d movements

from the past that are still active in the present. W e shall con­

sider the eco n o m ic, political, a n d cultural d im e n s io n s of these

contradictions in turn.

In the first place, although the e co n o m ic model is one that

intensifies connections w it h multinationals, those mutinationals

are not necessarily headq uartered in the U n it e d States. T h is has

b eco m e increasingly im p o r t a n t as the U n it e d States has entered

a prolonged eco n o m ic crisis. T h is is w h y it is im p o r ta n t not to

glibly id e n t if y the n e w life styles a n d ways of life as “ A m e r ic a n .”

Japanese c o m m e r c e a n d capital are b e c o m in g increasingly i m ­

portant, especially in automobiles a n d electronics, as is Euro­

pean, especially German, capital. In d e e d , state planners in

m o re nationalistic reg im es actively court no n-No rth A m e r ic a n

capital in a n a tt e m p t to divers ify their contacts w it h m u ltin a tio n ­

als. T h e result is not a n e co n o m y that is less d e p e n d e n t on

m ultinatio nal capital a n d p ar tic ip a tio n , but it m a y be (or m a y

becom e) an e co n o m y that is less d e p e n d e n t on the U n ite d

States.
Second, the process of internationalization im p l ie s an interna­

tionalization of labor as well, for both political a n d economic

reasons, as increasing n u m b e r s of L a t in A m e r ic a n s from M e x ­

ico, the C a r ib b e a n , a n d Central A m e r ic a are im m ig r a t in g to the

U n it e d States. T h is , too, is “ A m e r ic a n iz a t io n ,” of course, but it

im p l ie s a series of social, political, a n d cultural processes that

are m u c h m o r e in teractive a n d h a v e m o re d y n a m ic effects on

the U n it e d States th an a linear acculturationist m odel m ig h t
foresee. H e r e the m u ltip le im plicatio n s of the phrase “ A m e r i ­
canization in the A m e r ic a s ” b e c o m e m o re a pp a re n t.
T h ir d , it should be noted that the model of d eve lo pm e nt
sketched abo ve is one that d e p e n d s u p o n an e x p a n d in g domes­
tic m a r k e t, b u t one that places in h e r e n t limits u p o n that e x p a n ­
sion. W ho le sectors of the eco n o m y— and this often means
whole regions— r e m a in exclud ed or incorporated in partial and
 A M ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 117

u n e ve n ways. T o a certain extent these sectors are generated by

the u n e v e n character of the d e v e l o p m e n t process itself. Others,

however, are the social precipitates of earlier historical periods.

As portions of the e co n o m y are industrialized, the eco no m ic

process is centered in space— a few industrial centers, port facili­

ties, a n d a d m in is t r a t iv e cities. W h o l e regions, some of w h ic h

m ig h t h a v e b e en im p o r t a n t in earlier periods, are not incorpo­

rated. W it h i n these regions live populations of peasants, s e m i­

proletarians, a n d others. T h e economist m a y see t h e m in terms

of their functions w it h in a m odel of disarticulated accum ulatio n

(see, e. g., d e J an vry 1 9 8 1 ) , b u t they m a y see themselves in other

terms. T h e y are trying to get jobs, hold on to their lands, b rin g

in a harvest, get a decent price for their crops, p a y a doctor,

feed their families, m a in t a in their in d e p e n d e n c e . As they sell

their goods a n d as they purchase clothing, they too enter a

domestic m a r k e t d o m in a t e d by multinationals. B u t they do not

necessarily do so as functions of a n eco n o m ic m odel, or they do

not fit easily w it h in Cardoso a n d Faletto’s broadly d efin e d m i d ­

dle classes. T h e y co m e w it h th e ir o w n projects, their own sense

of their place in a c o m m u n it y or region or e th n ic group, at

times w it h th e ir o w n language, their o w n sense of history.

T h e s e groups p r o vid e an im p o r t a n t link to our discussion of

politics. T h e m odel outlined abo ve generates its own opposi­

tions. Partly because it d ep e n d s u p o n the restricted expan sio n

of the domestic m a r k e t, it rests u p o n the e m e r g e n c e of social

groups w it h political a n d eco n o m ic aspirations that cannot be

satisfied. For particular reg im es in particular eco no m ic con­

junctures, this m a y mean a d e e p e n in g contradiction betw een

the m a in t e n a n c e of a m odel of accum ulatio n a n d the satisfac­

tion of political a n d eco n o m ic d e m a n d s from large segments

of the populace. A s a result, as Cardoso a n d Faletto note, the

entrepreneurial state is increasingly an autho ritarian state. A u ­
thoritarian reg im es cover a w id e range, from relatively o pen
and formally dem o cratic to extrem ely repressive. T h e differ­
ence b e tw een the two extrem es is hardly negligible, a n d m a n y
more possibilities for m o v e m e n t are o pe n at the former e x ­
treme than at the second. T h e reg im es that e m e r g e are, of
course, products of local, q uite specific forces, events, and
118 C ULTURE

struggles. I s im p ly w a n t to suggest that the specific regimes

share a m o r e generalized m odel of accum ulatio n a n d a funda­

m ental political contradiction. T h e y therefore generate a m ulti­

form opposition, co mpo sed of elements of an old displaced

elite, enco untered earlier, m id d l e classes whose aspirations can­

not be satisfied, workers pressing for less repressive conditions

and a greater portion of the products of their labors, and

peasants a n d semiproletarians w h o are the direct a n d i m m e d i ­

ate v ic t im s of e x p a n d e d disarticulated a ccum ulatio n . S u ch op­

positions coalesce in a variety of m o v e m e n t s that range from

regional a n d e th n ic associations to multiclass political parties.

A lth o u g h some of these m o v e m e n t s p r o vid e space for U .S .

influence a n d control, they m a y h a v e m u c h w id e r international

connections. T h e most im p o r t a n t state-building parties have

b e en connected w it h E u r o p e a n Social D em o cr atic a n d Christian

D em o c r a tic parties. D e p e n d in g on local histories a n d conjunc­

tures, both at tim e s h a v e b e en subject to U .S . pressures and

willing to cooperate w it h U .S . directed in itia tive s . B u t they ha ve

also b e e n part of w id e r international m o v e m e n t s a n d interests

that cannot be subordinated automatically to the will of the U .S .

State D ep a rtm e n t. The international connections of opposi­

tional groups are e v e n m o r e obvious. E v e n as the aifld estab­

lishes connections w it h nonradical unio ns, c o m m u n is t groups

of various persuasions h a v e long b e e n active, at tim es clandes­

tinely, in labor a n d party organization. T h e recent im po rta n ce
of liberation theology in some countries provides another e x a m ­

ple. T h e m o v e m e n t has in c lu d e d in d iv id u a l U .S . priests, b u t the

leadership has b e e n elsewhere— essentially a n d profoundly L a ­

tin A m e r ic a n — as recognized b y theologians a n d activists who

h a v e a tte m p te d to im p o r t a n d reinterpret liberation theology
for a N o r th A m e r ic a n protestant context.
T h is brings us to cultural contradictions. It is im p o r ta n t to
place this discussion in the context of eco no m ic a n d political
forces a n d contradictions lest w e repeat the mistakes of an older
acculturation literature that took cultural traits at face value
a n d assum ed linear cultural c h a n g e . O n e can only understand
cultural m e a n in g s if one can show ho w goods a n d symbols are
interpreted a n d used. Particular people in particular cir cum -
 AMERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 119

stances m a y ado pt certain practices or purchase certain goods

that a pp e ar to outsiders as “ A m e r ic a n , ” b u t the practices a n d

goods a p p e a r a n d are repro d uced w it h in u n iq u e ly L a t in A m e r i ­

can contexts.
Let us take an e x a m p l e from the anthropological literature.

In A n d e a n Ecuador, Blanca M urato rio (1980 ) has studied the

recent conversion to evangelical protestantism of the majority

of Colta I n d ia n peasants in the Colta region of C h im b o r a z o

Province. O n the one h a n d , w e m ig h t see this process as a n ­

other e x a m p l e of cultural im p e r ia l is m , a n d w e would not be

wrong. T h e protestant missionaries are representatives of the

North A m e r ic a n Gospel M issio nary U n io n , w h ic h had trans­

lated the B ib le into Q u ic h u a . Studies of the activities of this a n d

related groups raise serious a n d justifiable concern a m o n g a n ­

thropologists a n d L a t in A m e r ic a n in d ig e n is t a s . On the other

hand, M urato rio has suggested that the peasants h a v e con­

verted to protestantism, in part, as a n a tte m p t to m a in t a in their

ethnic iden tity. T h e conversions occurred d u r in g a perio d in

w hich the old h a c ie n d a structure— in c l u d in g the region’s larg­

est estate, o w n e d b y a Catholic order— was b e in g reform ed, a n d

peasants w ere facing a reformist state bureaucracy staffed by

mestizos. In a d d itio n , m o vem ents w it h in the Catholic C h u r c h

pus hing liberation theology increased the cultural space for reli­

gious freed o m a n d e x p e r im e n t a t io n . Finally, the translation of

the Bib le into Q u ic h u a was seen as a w a y of pres erving a threat­

ened language a n d w a y of life. A n u m b e r of aspects of this

exa m ple are worthy of note. First, the a tt e m p t to use protestant­

ism, w it h its in d ivid u a l is t ic ethos, in an effort to m a in t a in a

group id e n t it y is filled w it h obvious contradictions, as M u r a ­

torio notes in detail. It will almost certainly carry social a n d

cultural consequences that could not be foreseen by the peas­

ants. Second, the e x a m p l e underlines the im p o r ta n c e of a v o id ­
ing a s im ple po w er m o del that sees cultural forces c o m in g from
the outside a n d b e in g e ith e r accepted or resisted. H e r e a n exter­

nal cultural force (protestant missio nary activity) enters a re­

gion d iv id e d by class antagonisms that h a v e their o w n history
and h a v e taken th e ir o w n cultural forms. T h e N o r th A m e r ic a n

cultural fo rm is ado pted b y a particular group for use w it h in th a t

120 C U L TU R E

class context. It simultaneously represents a form of accommoda­

tion (the ado ptio n of a foreign set of forms) a n d of resistance
(to the E c u a d o r ia n state a n d Catholic C h u r c h ) .

O n e cannot a pp r o a ch a discussion of culture that abstracts

cultural symbols from fo rm a n d use. A n d a discussion of form

and use directs us to specific eco n o m ic, political, a n d social

conjunctures. If w e return to the caricatured list of consump­

tion goods a n d aspirations presented earlier, it is insufficient to

p o in t to such c o n s u m p tio n styles a n d the social groups that

pursue them and contend that they represent a process of

A m e r ic a n iz a t io n . T h e y m a y represent a project of A m e r ic a n iz a ­
tion on the part of missionaries, cultural officers of the State

D e p a r t m e n t , a n d entrepreneurs, but the process itself is much

m o re c o m p l e x . In the first place, it encounters im p o r t a n t limits,

some of w h ic h are im p o s e d by the accum ulatio n process and

political structure themselves, w h ic h pro duce a large social sec­

tor w it h urban and m o dern aspirations that cannot be met.

T h e s e aspirations m a y still be pur s ued , b u t u n d e r constrained

circumstances. Second, the use of specific c o n s u m p tio n goods
fits w it h in a particular in d iv id u a l life a n d project in Venezuela

or M e x ic o or Brazil, w h ic h is in turn tied to the aspirations and

possibilities of particular groups a n d classes, n e ithe r of which

can be r ed uced to a n opposition betw een cultural ho m o geniza­

tion or resistance.

Unfortunately, such an opposition is im p l ie d by most of our

“ -ization” words. M o d e r n iz a tio n , W esternization, a n d A m e r i­

canization can im p l y linear processes connecting polar oppo­

sites. In his throw-away phrase, th e n , D arcy R ib e ir o po inted us
in the right d irectio n. Perhaps the operative label should not
be A m e r ic a n iz a t io n but Pue r to -R ica n iza tio n , M e xic an iza tio n ,

P e r u via n iz a t io n , a n d so on. W e are still dealing w it h “ -ization”

words, b u t words that direct us to specific historical processes.
There is always a d an g er that the latter set of words can be
placed at a polar e x t r e m e from “ A m e r ic a n iz a t io n ” as part of a
ro m a n tic search for cultural authenticity, an artificial separa­
tion of the history of capitalis m (or in this case the history of
 A M ERICANIZATIO N IN T H E AMERICAS 12 1

U S . expansio n) from a society’s “ o w n ” history. T h is too would

be a m is tak e . The u n d e r s ta n d in g of a n y of these processes

should direct us to powerful external forces, especially, in this

century, the U n it e d States. B y placing an e m p h a s is on p a r tic u ­

lar national experiences , ho wever, w e can see that these forces

are inserted in particular contexts of power, each of w h ic h

represents particular internalizations of the external.
PO LITICA L E C O N O M Y

T h u s even ts of s tr ik in g s im il a r ity , t a k in g place in d if f e r e n t historical c o n­

texts, led to totally d is p a r a te results. B y s t u d y in g e a c h of these d e v e l o p ­

m ents separately, a n d t h e n c o m p a r in g t h e m , o n e m a y easily d isco ver th e

key to this p h e n o m e n o n . B u t success will n e v e r c o m e w it h th e master-

key of a general histo rico -philo so phical theory, w ho se s u p r e m e v ir t u e

consists in b e in g supra-historical.

— K ar l M a r x , letter to O t e c h e s t v e n n y e Z a p i s k i
 c H A P T E R F I V E

European History
and the Construction of
Anthropological Subjects

In his b ig a n d im p o r t a n t book, E u r o p e a n d the P e o p l e W it h o u t

Histo ry, Eric W o lf ( 19 8 2 ) begins a n d ends w it h the assertion that

anthropology m u s t p a y m o r e attention to history. T h e type of

history h e advocates is one that is written on a global scale, that

takes account of the major structural transformations of world

history, a n d that traces connections a m o n g discernible c o m m u ­

nities, regions, peoples, a n d nations that anthropologists h a v e

often separated a n d reified as discrete entities. He sees this

effort, in part, as r ec apturin g the spirit of an older anthropol­

ogy that a tt e m p t e d to grasp civilizational processes. T h e p r in ­

cipal weakness of such efforts, according to Wolf, was their

failure to confront questions of pow er a n d d o m in a t io n , their

removal of anthropological subjects from the eco no m ic and

political processes associated w it h the m a k in g of the m o d e r n

world. W o lf’s object is to r e m e d y that failure by p ro d u c in g a his­

torical account that traces the major social, eco no m ic, a n d po ­

litical transformations that h a v e occurred in the Western world

over the past six centuries a n d that connects these transforma­

tions w it h the histories of the “ people w ith o u t history”— the
p rim itive s a n d peasants enco untered, analyzed, a n d objectified
by anthropologists. T h e r e is no w a y to describe such a project
without m a k in g it s e e m grand : it is. T o assess its theoretical a n d

substantive a rg um en ts is a d a u n t in g task.
126 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

T h e book has other antecedents in a d d itio n to the ambitious

but politically n a iv e anthropology of earlier generations. For

one th in g , there is a m o r e recent tradition in anthropology, to

w h ic h Wolf has b e en a major contributor, that has consistently

placed culture in history. W o l f ’s earliest work, in c lu d in g his

doctoral fieldwork in Puerto R ic o ( 19 5 6 a ) , represents such an

a tte m p t. In a d d itio n , his early typological essay on L a t in A m e r i­

can peasantries ( 1 9 5 5 ) d evelo ped a historical interpretation of

rural peoples in L a t in A m e r ic a that suggested a profound re­

w o rk in g of the culturalist tradition of c o m m u n it y studies. A

fuller statement of this interpretation, concentrating in this in ­

stance on the colonial encounter be tw e e n Spaniards and In­

dians d u r in g the colonial era, can be fo und in C h a p t e r 5 of

Euro pe. O n e can clearly trace, then, a co ntin uity from Wolf’s

early work to his most recent, e v e n as the theoretical a n d histori­

cal material grows in sophistication and elaboration. T h e o r e t i­

cally, E u r o p e represents W o lf’s clearest a n d most explicit use of

M a rxis t concepts, although such concepts also influenced his

early work. Substantively, the book represents a remarkable

co m pilatio n, condensation, a n d interpretation of historical and

e th n o g r ap h ic material from aro und the globe.

A s id e from the anthropological traditions that influence

W o lf’s work, a whole body of work has developed over the past

two decades that has taken as its p o in t of d eparture the connec­

tion betw een apparently traditional societies a n d the formation

of the m o d e r n world. O ften associated w it h d e p e n d e n c y theory,

especially the “ catastrophist” v ie w of A n d r e Gunder Frank

( 19 6 7 ; 19 6 9 ; on catastrophism see below, C h a p t e r 6), the per­

spective has r ec eived its most elaborate scholarly treatment in

the world-system theory of I m m a n u e l Wallerstein ( 19 7 4 ) . D u r ­

in g the 1970s, this p o in t of v ie w b e c a m e quite popular among
liberal social scientists in the U n it e d States, so m u c h so that a
major L a t in A m e r ic a n sociologist could c o m pla in of the “ con­
s u m p t io n ” of d e p e n d e n c y theory in the U n it e d States (Cardoso
19 7 7 a ) — a c o n s u m p tio n that h e felt signified the loss of its criti­

cal edg e. W h a t e v e r w e m ig h t t h in k of the politics of academic

co n s u m p tio n , the po pularity of the literature has m e a n t that
in d iv id u a l historians, anthropologists, a n d sociologists— m any
 C O N S TR U C TIO N OF A N T H R O P O L O G I C A L SUBJECTS 127

of w h o m reject basic aspects of d e p e n d e n c y or world-system

theory— ha ve been co nd u ctin g regional case studies that re­

interpret earlier work a n d place particular regions w it h in the

history of the m o d e r n world. W o lf has b e en able to use this n e w

scholarship in a t t e m p t in g his o w n historical synthesis, one that

explicitly challenges— both in conception and substance—

world-system approaches.

Wolf has read w id e ly a n d well. H e begins the book w it h an

attempt to place the peoples and societies a world traveler

m ig h t h a v e enco untered in 140 0 , the trade routes that con­

nected t h e m , a n d the civilizational processes that e ither w ere or

were not successful in incorpo rating t h e m . T h is effort, based

on a rem arkable synthesis of historical, ethnohistorical, a n d ar­

chaeological research, comes closest to realizing W o lf’s stated

goal of e m u l a t in g the global vis io n of an older anthropology.

The survey serves as a base line for W o lf’s discussion of the

emergence of E u r o p e as a global po w er a n d the reorientation

of world areas toward the pro ductio n of goods destined for a

world m a r k e t . U n l ik e Frank and Wallerstein, ho wever, Wolf

contends that the sixteenth to the e ig h te e n th centuries in E u ­

rope w ere not characterized by capitalis m b u t that eco n o m y a n d

polity c o n tin u e d to be d o m in a t e d by tributary relationships.

Mercantile a c cu m ulatio n in the e m e r g in g E u r o p e a n powers was

unable to transcend a tributary fram ew o rk e ve n as that f r a m e ­

work rec eived greater elaboration w it h the creation of n e w state

structures. T h e only state that was able to m a k e the transition,

and this for special reasons a n d at a later perio d , was E n g la n d .

Wolf then turns his attention to the im p a c t of the perio d of

mercantile a ccu m ulatio n u p o n four major world areas. A discus­

sion of the Iberians in A m e r ic a assesses the e m er g e n c e of L a t in

A m e r ic a n peoples w it h in a colonial structure d esigned to create

and protect a tributary po pulatio n . A n e x a m in a t io n of the fur

trade leads to a description of the response by n a tive N o rth

A m e r ic a n populations as the trade m o v e d westward, the politi­
cal alliances fo rm e d w it h English or F r e n c h powers, the m e r c a n ­
tile activities of particular groups, a n d the creation of entirely
new “ tribes” a n d ritual co m plexes. A n analysis of the slave trade
facilities a discussion of state formation in West a n d Southern
128 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

A frica , a n d the e m e r g e n c e of n e w e co n o m ic a n d political com-

plexes as A f r ic a n populations w ere d iv id e d into raiders and

r aid ed , c ivilize d a n d b arb arian . A n d a discussion of the develop­

m e n t of trade networks in the Pacific pro vides the necessary

context for a n e x a m in a t io n of political a n d eco no m ic transfor­

m atio ns in I n d ia a n d C h in a . I n each of these areas, W olf makes

use of anthropology in two ways. First, h e is able to utilize a

grow ing body of ethnohistorical literature that has e x a m in e d in

some detail the transformations that occurred at local levels

d u r in g this p e r io d . H e r e W olf further develops his well-known

ability to synthesize a vo lu m in o u s literature and produce a

m o r e global pic tu re of w h a t is h a p p e n in g in , in this instance,

“ L a t in A m e r ic a ” or “ N o r th A m e r ic a ” or “ A f r ic a ” w ith o u t losing

sight of regional a n d temporal co m ple xity a n d differentiation.

Second, h a v in g traced a history of eco no m ic, political, a n d cul­

tural fo rm atio n a n d reformation, W olf situates famous anthro­

pological e xa m ples of N o r th A m e r ic a n or A f r ic a n “ tribes”

w it h in that history, sho w in g th e ir e m e r g e n c e as part of a con­

figuration of responses to a particular form of incorporation

into circuits of m ercantile accum ulatio n .

W olf th e n m o ves to a discussion of the capitalist transforma­

tion, w h ic h h e considers to h a v e occurred w it h the Industrial

R evo lutio n . A l t h o u g h most authors tend to concentrate on the

Industrial R evo lutio n in E n g la n d alone, W olf e x a m in e s textile

pro duction in E n g la n d in conjunction w it h cotton production
in the A m e r ic a n South a n d E g y p t a n d the fate of textile produc­

tion in I n d ia , co n te n d in g , q uite correctly, that they w ere all

c o m p o n e n t elements w it h in a single structural transformation.

A fter a theoretical treatise on the d y n a m ic s a n d contradictions

of u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t u n d e r capitalism , W olf turns his atten­

tion once a g a in to the creation of anthropological subjects.
First, h e looks at the c o m m o d itie s that were associated w it h the
international d iv is io n of labor that a c c o m p a n ie d the industrial
era— the agricultural a n d m in e r a l raw materials, the foods and
food substitutes— and e x a m in e s the incorporation of various
world areas into that d iv is io n of labor. Second, h e e x a m in e s the
m o bilizatio n of labor in industrial enterprises a n d plantations
w it h special attention to m igratio ns— of contract laborers to
 CO N S TRUCTIO N OF A N T H R O P O L O G IC A L SUBJECTS 129

plantations or displaced peasants incorporated into an in d u s ­

trial order. T h e discussion begins a n d ends w it h a treatment of

labor-market segm entatio n, a theoretical statement at the b e g in ­

n ing that leads to a historical account of the creation of e th nic

segmentation. A g a in , anthropology and anthropologists are

used in two ways— as sources for W o lf’s synthetic interpreta­

tions a n d as objects of criticis m . In some cases h e is able to use

one historically m in d e d anthropologist to criticize others, as in

his use of Ro bert Wasserstrom’s research in C h ia p a s (19 8 3 ) .

The book succeeds at just about every level that matters to

Wolf. T h e historical analysis, from the global vision at the be­

g in n in g thro ugh the description of E u r o p e a n transformations

to the e x a m in a t io n of the creation of anthropological subjects

at different m o m e n t s in world history, is masterful. T h e r e are,

of course, few scholars w h o can aspire to this sort of w riting ,

w h ic h requires close attention to a be w ild e rin g m ix of local

and regional details as well as large-scale syntheses. For those

of us w h o cannot a ppr o a ch such an analysis, the book will

r e m a in a valuable reference work for m a n y years. T h e theo­

retical analysis is also s tim ulating. T h e chapter on modes of

production ( 19 8 2 : 7 7 - 10 0 ) , about w h ic h I shall offer some

critical c o m m e n ts , provides a sophisticated and spirited de­

fense of the concept in a perio d in w h ic h — partly in over­

reaction to “ Althus serian” or “ structuralist” writers— m o d e of

production analysis was d r o p p in g out of favor. T h e first three

pages of that c ha pter p r o vid e one of the most eloquent state­

ments of M a r x is t m e t h o d I h a v e enco untered. T h e chapter on

“ Crisis a n d D iffer e n tia tio n in C a p it a l is m ” ( ib id .: 296 — 309) goes

beyond the ritualistic references to “ u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t ” and

attempts to d e f in e it a n d analyze the d y n a m ic s of u n e v e n devel­

o p m e n t u n d e r capitalis m . D e p e n d in g in part on the work of

Ernst M a n d e l ( 19 7 8 ) , W o lf largely succeeds in this a tte m pt.

The afterword (Wolf 1 9 8 2 : 3 8 5 — 3 9 1) offers, in a d is a p p o in t­
ingly short a n d s u m m a r y form, some rich observations on cul­
ture, politics, a n d ideology.
More im p o r t a n t, the historical analysis has b een carefully
thought out theoretically. A s id e from the explicit criticism of
Fr an k a n d Wallerstein ( ib id .: 2 1 - 2 3 ; 2 9 6 - 2 9 8 ) , the entire book is
130 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

a demonstration of the im p o r t a n c e a n d possibility of an alterna-

tive account. W h e r e world-system theory has relatively little to

say about the “ p e r ip h e r y ,” m a k in g social a n d political processes

in such areas a function of the d y n a m ic s a n d requirements of

capital accum ulatio n at the “ core,” W o lf turns his attention to the

history of those w h o h a v e b e e n d e n ie d history— e ither by im p e r i­

alists or by their a c a d e m ic spo kesmen a n d critics. T h is is espe­

cially true in his treatm ent of social processes in various world

areas d u r in g the p er io d of co m m e r cial expan s io n , w h e n Wolf

pays attention to the active e n g a g e m e n t of anthropological sub­

jects in the creation of those n e w social a n d cultural forms that

were e m e r g in g in the context of co m m ercial e m p ir e s . In this,

W olf has h e lp e d restore a crucial balance.

W o lf tends to m a k e some of his most im p o r t a n t theoretical

arg um ents as part a historical analysis, just as M a r x e m b e d d e d

some of his most im p o r t a n t a rg um ents regarding the m o v e ­

m e n t from absolute to relative surplus value in historical c h a p ­

ters on the struggle over the length of the w o rkin g day, the

m o v e m e n t from m a n u fa c tu r e to industry, a n d so on (see below,

C h a p t e r 6). For M a r x , theory a n d history could not be sepa­

rated, a lesson subsequent generations of Marxists h a v e not

always learned as well as one m ig h t h o p e . As his book d e m o n ­

strates, W o lf has learned it q uite well. In w o rk in g toward a

critical assessment of w h a t W o lf has accomplished, however, I

shall concentrate on the m o r e obviously “ theoretical” aspects of

the book. T h a t this breaks u p w h a t W o lf correctly regards as a

unity, I readily a d m it a n d regret.

O n e of the book’s weaknesses is a consequence of its strengths.

Its scope allows W o lf to present a civilizational process in broad
outlines, b u t two kind s of analysis suffer. In the in itial world
survey, W o lf is very good at presenting the long cycles that h a ve
pro duced, say, a C h in a , b u t h e can p a y little attention to w hat
w e m ig h t call the short cycles, the conjunctures of eve n t and
trend that are s haped by a n d shape the structural changes that
seem to take centuries to e m e r g e . T h is is, of course, a necessary
consequence of the autho r’s object in the chapter, but it im plie s
 CO NSTRUCTIO N OF A N TH R O P O L O G IC A L SUBJECTS 13 1

a theoretical u n d e r s ta n d in g of history that can leave history­

m a kin g out of account. T h a t this is not W o lf’s un d e r s tan d in g is

clear, not only fro m the whole body of his work but from the
other sections of the book. H is discussion of the e m e r g e n c e of
Europe a n d the creation of anthropological subjects in the p e r i­

ods of m ercantile a ccum ulatio n and capitalist d e ve lo p m e n t

shows sensitivity to the conjuncture of e ve n t a n d trend. B u t

even w it h such care, attention to regional differentiation m us t

suffer. Wolf is at his best in analyzing the m a in lines of, or most

important regions in , a process, e .g ., the nuclear areas of L a t in

A m e r ic a or the westward m o v e m e n t of the N o r th A m e r ic a n fur

trade from the northeast to the northern plains. A s h e turns his

attention to d ive r g e n t lines or less central areas, his analysis

weakens. A t tim es it seems to be directed to a m o r e complete

sense of the variety of types enco untered. A t other tim es, as

Wolf discusses particular populations, one gets lost in a list of

names w ith o u t the sociological analysis one has c o m e to expect

from his other discussions. W h e n one encounters an entire area

that seems not to be characterized b y a n y d o m in a n t tendencies,

this sense of b e in g lost in a list of n a m e s is h e ig h t e n e d .

B u t these matters are relatively trivial. O f m o re im p o r ta n c e

are theoretical issues suggested by W o l f ’s analysis of modes of

production. T h e m o d e of pro ductio n chapter is a revised v e r ­

sion of an earlier p a p e r (Wolf 1 9 8 1 ) . L ik e the original version,

this chapter offers a n im p r e s s iv e account a n d defense of M a r x ’s

materialism a n d of the im p o r t a n c e of a m o d e of production

concept for a n analysis of the fu n d a m e n ta l relations people

enter into w it h other people a n d w it h nature as they transform

themselves a n d nature in pro ductio n. Also like the original ve r ­

sion, this c ha pter analyzes three m o des of pro ductio n: capital­

ist, tributary, a n d k in-o rd ered. T h e present version, ho wever,

offers a m o r e detailed analysis of the relationships a n d d y n a m ­

ics of the various m o des, a n d it also places m o re limitations on

the applicability of m o d e of pro duction analysis. B o th versions
eschew evo lutio nis m and b e g in w it h capitalism, a rg uin g that
our u n d e r s ta n d in g of tributary a n d kin-ordered modes of pro­
duction is colored by our u n d e r s ta n d in g of capitalism . T h e
chapter in Euro pe, ho w ever, develops this a r g u m e n t in m o re
132 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

detail. In the passage in w h ic h Wolf develops this a rg u m e n t, he

contends (and this is one of the book’s central theses) that the

societies studied by anthropologists are not exam ples of earlier

evolutionary stages but products of the encounter betw een the

West a n d the Rest, that the apparently p r im it iv e or precapitalist

are secondary, “ in d e e d often tertiary, quaternary, or centenary”

p h e n o m e n a ( 19 8 2 : 76). H e argues further that h e is not trying

to categorize all societies but to isolate basic relationships charac­

teristic of capitalism a n d the societies encountered by European

e xp a n s io n . Moreover, the utility of m o d e of pro duction analysis
does not lie in classification but in an un d e r s tan d in g of “ the

strategic relationships in vo lved in the d ep lo ym e n t of social la­

bor” (ib id .) . G iv e n these im p o r t a n t conditions a n d reservations,

I shall discuss problems associated w it h his analysis of capitalist,

tributary, a n d kin-ordered m o des. A lth o u g h I recognize the

im p o r ta n c e of W o lf’s order of presentation, I shall discuss capi­

talism last. T o avo id a n y h in t of evo lutio nism , however, I shall

consider tributary modes first.

By tributary mode of pro duction ( ib id .: 79-88; cf. A m in

19 7 6 ) , W olf understands a situation in w h ic h direct producers,

in d ivid u a l l y or in c o m m u n it y , possess m ean s of production, and

surplus product is a pp r o p r ia te d from t h e m by extra-economic

m e a n s . S u c h a pp r o p r ia tio n im p l ie s that labor is “ m o b ilize d and

c o m m it t e d to the transformation of nature p r im a r il y through

the exercise of po w er a n d d o m in a t io n — thro ugh a political pro­

cess” ( 19 8 2 : 80). T h e tributary m o d e therefore includes, as part

of the d e f in itio n , a state, a n d in W o lf’s v ie w the state can be

either strong or w e a k . Power m a y rest p r im a r il y w it h the state

or p r im a r il y w it h particular in d ivid u a l s . T h e strong extrem e

corresponds w it h Marxists’ d e f in itio n of an Asiatic m o d e , while

the w e a k e x t r e m e corresponds w it h their d efin itio n of a feudal
m o d e . W o lf correctly em ph a s izes that strong a n d w e a k states
were variable outcomes of similar relationships a n d that particu­
lar states oscillated back a n d forth betw een the two extremes.
H e therefore contends that As iatic a n d feudal modes “ e x h ib it a
fam ily resemblance to each other” ( ib id .: 8 1) and should be
treated as a single m o d e of pro ductio n. He argues further:
“ R eific a tio n of ‘feu d a lis m ’ into a separate m o d e of production
 CO N S TRUCTIO N OF A N T H R O P O L O G I C A L SUBJECTS 133

merely converts a short perio d of E u r o p e a n history into a type

case against w h ic h all other ‘feudal-like’ p h e n o m e n a m u s t be

m easured” (ib id .) .
A ltho u g h I h a v e no desire to restore M a r xis t orthodoxy, I

should p o in t out that one of W o lf’s central points violates his

own rules for a r g u m e n t . H e contends that A s iatic a n d feudal

modes “ e x h ib it a fa m ily resemblance to each other,” w h ic h is

most certainly a classificatory a r g u m e n t . D ifferen tia tio n be­

tween feudal a n d A s ia tic forms becomes im p o r ta n t w h e n w e

consider the potential of certain “ strategic relationships” for the

em ergence of wholly n e w relationships. G r a n te d that feudalism

characterized a short perio d of E u r o p e a n history (although it

can only be considered short by ta k in g a rather long-term v ie w ),

there w ere two d iffer e n tia tin g aspects of feudalism that pro ved

crucial, a w e a k state a n d a w e a k c o m m u n it y of producers. Bo th

allowed m o r e room for in d iv id u a l m a n e u v e r that was f u n d a ­

mental in the context of the accum ulatio n of mercantile wealth.

Wolf demonstrates that tributary states were not necessarily u n ­

d e r m in e d by m ercantile accum ulatio n a n d could, in fact, con­

solidate control w it h m ercantile wealth. State consolidation a n d

mercantile accum ulatio n u n d e r feudalism , ho wever, could grant

more a u to n o m y to m erchants. Simultaneously, the weakness of

the c o m m u n it y of producers was im p o r t a n t in the e m er g e n ce

of differentiated petty c o m m o d it y pro duction, upo n w h ic h

Marxists h a v e laid such stress in their analysis of the develo p­

m e n t of capitalis m (D o b b 19 6 3 ; H ilto n , ed. 19 7 6 ) . In short,

certain outcomes b e c a m e possible w it h mercantile accum ulatio n

under feudalism that w ere not possible u n d e r A siatic states. A

structural trend that m a y h a v e only represented a var ian t form
w it h in a classificatory fa m ily of relationships c o m b in e d w it h a

series of events from the fourteenth to the e ig hte e n th centuries

to produce s o m e th in g wholly n e w in Western E u r o p e . Feudal­

ism becomes “ universal,” th e n , because it is so particular, be­

cause of its world-historical significance (cf. Godelier 19 7 8 ) .

T h is is, of course, an a r g u m e n t from the evolution of capital­
ism, a n d it sees im p o r ta n c e in feudalism not in terms of its
characteristic relationships a n d d y n a m ic s b u t in terms of w hat
cam e after it. T h a t there are logical problems w it h this sort of
134

analysis I readily a d m it . B e y o n d logic, it m ig h t be argued fur.

ther that the evolutionary significance of feudalism is irrelevant

to the historical pro blem of the incorporation by mercantile
e m p ir e s or a capitalist system of a variety of tributary systems

G iv e n such a n interest, ho w ever, I contend that m o re attention

to variatio n w it h in a fa m ily of relationships is im p o r ta n t. Just as

mercantile a ccum ulatio n was internalized differently in Asiatic

a n d feudal systems, p r o d u c in g different results, different tribu­

tary systems respond to capitalist expan s io n in different struc­

tural ways.

T h e kin-ordered m o d e (Wolf 1 9 8 2 : 88— 99) presents another

set of problems. W o lf sees k in s h ip as a set of symbolic con­

structs co ncerning filiation, m a r r ia g e , consanguinity, a n d affin­

ity that d ef in e the relationships into w h ic h people are placed.

In a kin-ordered m o d e , social labor is m o b ilize d through these

relationships by reference to the symbolic constructs (ib id .:

9 1) . La b o r is m o b iliz e d u n d e r capitalism thro ugh the purchase

a n d sale of labor power, u n d e r tributary modes thro ugh politi­

cal d o m in a t io n , and under kin-ordered modes through k in ­

s h ip . R eferen ce to k in s h ip as a relation of production has been

develo ped most clearly in recent years by French Marxists and

those w h o follow t h e m (Meillassoux 19 7 2 ; 19 7 8 ; 19 8 1; Go-

delier 1 9 7 2 ; 1 9 7 7 ; T e r r a y 1 9 7 1 ; S is kin d 19 7 8 ) . W olf mentions

in particular the work of Meillassoux, a n d his influence is most

e v id e n t in the discussion of seniors a n d juniors a n d in the

classic anthropological distinction betw een two types of kin-

ordered m odes d e p e n d in g upo n w h e th e r nature is trans­

fo rm ed . Several aspects of W o l f ’s discussion are insightful,

e .g ., the consideration of k in s h ip itself, the analysis of sources

of conflict a n d tension in kin-ordered modes, a n d the treat­

m e n t of the e m e r g e n c e of hierarchy.
B u t W o l f ’s discussion of kin-ordered modes leaves one con­
fused. It is n e ve r clear w h e th e r h e is trying to reconstruct the

structure a n d d y n a m ic s of kin-ordered modes in prestate situa­

tions or of kin-ordered modes in a world of tributary states and
m ercantile a ccu m ulatio n . W o lf’s initial discussion of modes of
pro duction indicates that one should a vo id an evolutionary
r ea d in g a n d that h e is discussing the basic features of various
 C O N S TRUCTIO N o f a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l subj ects 135

modes of pro ductio n in order to assess the im p a c t of E u r o p e a n

expansion u p o n t h e m ( 1 9 8 2 : 76 ). Further, h e begins the section

on kin-ordered m odes by d e n y in g that p r im it iv e populations

are our co ntem po rary ancestors. H e then contends that most

discussions of such populations e m p h a s iz e w h a t they are not

rather than w h a t they are ( ib id .: 88, 89). H is analysis of w h a t

they are is an internal analysis of kin-ordered modes w it h scant

reference to tributary states or m ercantile e m p ir e s . S u ch refer­

ences generally c o m e as h e discusses a set of relationships (e.g.,

between seniors a n d juniors) that will b e c o m e im p o r t a n t as the

population is incorporated w it h in a system based on the accu­

mulation of m ercantile wealth. Further, the m o d e of pro du c­

tion chapter follows the chapter s u r ve yin g the world as of 140 0 .

T h e tributary a n d kin-ordered m odes are m a d e to a pp ly to the

populations one enco untered in that per io d , a n d the discussion

of tributary m o des refers to societies that actually existed in the

centuries p r e c e d in g the em ergence of capitalism . It would

seem, then, that the kin-ordered modes also h a v e a historical

existence a n d are seen, in this reconstruction, as prestate soci­

eties. Yet all of W o l f ’s sources are based u p o n e th n o g r ap hic

analyses of kin-o rdered societies of the present as if they were

in d e e d our co ntem po rary ancestors. W olf is, of course, well

aware of this pro blem w it h classic anthropology, a n d the whole

book is a largely successful a tte m p t to address it. M o r e i m m e d i ­

ately, his introductory remarks in the m o d e of pro duction c h a p ­

ter refer to the literature criticizing the concept of tribe as a

product of external incorporation ( ib id .: 76). B u t n o w here in

the kin-ordered mode section does W olf engage in a critical

dialogue w it h the sources of his reconstruction. T h e im p o r ­

tance of such a dialogue becomes a p p a r e n t w h e n one begins to

notice h o w often words like “ m a n a g e m e n t ” or “ m anagerial c o m ­

m a n d ” or “ m o b iliz a tio n ” are used to refer to the activities of

leaders in kin-o rdered societies.

Critical discussion would be most a pp r o p ria te w it h reference
to the Fr e n c h M a r x is t literature on West A fr ic a . A whole litera­
ture on the lineage m o d e of pro duction developed in the 1960s

and 1970 s, b e g in n in g w it h Meillassoux’s essay on traditional

societies based on “ auto-subsistence” (Meillassoux 1 9 7 8 ; 19 8 1;
136 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

Te r r a y 19 7 1; 19 7 5 ; 19 7 9 ; Rey 19 7 5 ; 19 7 9 ; Dupre and R ey

1 9 7 8 ; K a h n 1 9 8 1 a ) . T h is essay discussed relationships between

seniors a n d juniors a n d p a id attention to the seniors’ monopoly

of b r id e wealth, th e ir ability to a pp r o p ria te labor a n d control

marriages, a n d so on. T h e n e xt generation of Fr e n c h Marxists

pro ceeded to debate w h e th e r such a system was exploitative.

Terray, considering Meillassoux’s work a m o n g the G u ro and

l im it in g h im s e lf to the precolonial material, initially argued that

the situation was not explo itative ( 1 9 7 1 ) . H e later changed his

m in d u n d e r the influence of P ie r r e - P h il ip p e R e y , w h o m a in ­
tain e d from the b e g in n in g that it was exploitative ( R e y 19 7 5 ;

1 9 7 9 ; T e r r a y 19 7 9 ) . Meillassoux has b e e n willing to talk of ex­

ploitation b u t not of class in lineage-based societies ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Yet

none of the authors seriously questioned the basis for their

reconstruction of lineage m o des of pro duction. Meillassoux has

m u c h to say about capitalism , b u t in his M a id e n s , M e a l a n d M o n e y

( 19 8 1) he reconstructs a lineage mode w ith o u t reference to

capitalism a n d th e n plops capitalism on top of it in the second

part of the book. T e r r a y ’s subsequent work p a id m o re attention

to states a n d state fo rm atio n ( 1 9 7 4 ; 19 7 5 ) , b u t h e has not m a d e

that work engage his earlier discussion of lineage modes.

A m o n g the participants, R e y is most willing to discuss colonial­

is m a n d the relationships b etw een lineage societies a n d Euro pe

( 1 9 7 5 ; 19 7 6 ) . B u t h e th e n im a g in e s that h e is saying something

about prestate societies, n e ve r m a k in g basic historical distinc­

tions. R e y ’s eth n o g r a p h ic sources are in a p p r o p r ia t e for a discus­
sion of exploitation a m o n g p r im it iv e s .
C a t h e r in e C o q u e r y - V id r o v itc h , in an essay that is cited by

other Fr e n c h Marxists b u t that seems not to h a v e h a d a major

im p a c t on th e ir t h in k in g , outlines w h a t she calls a n “ African

m o d e of pro ductio n ” ( 19 7 8 ) . W e n e e d not accept such a label to
recognize the im p o r t a n c e of he r m odel of w e a k states based
upo n wealth accum ulatio n thro ugh long-distance trade and
slave labor. O t h e r subject populations, not turn ed into tribute
producers, are able to preserve their basic social relations and
c o m m u n it ie s . T h e y are, ho w ever, participants in long-distance
trade networks a n d nontributary subjects of the w e a k states.
T h e s e local populations are, in large m eas ure, the ones studied
 CO NSTRUCTION OF A N TH R O P O L O G IC A L SUBJECTS 137

by French Marxists. A “ lineage m o d e ” m a y therefore be p r e ­

served, but it does not take a great im a g in a t io n to see that their

participation w it h in long-distance trade networks and w eak

states will h a v e a pro fo und effect u p o n relations betw een seniors

and juniors, in s titutin g an expansionist logic that Meillassoux

sees as in h e r e n t in the in t e r n a l logic of the lineage m o d e . In an

article that develops this p o in t in a rigorous fashion by m e an s of

an e x a m in a tio n of D a h o m e y , K atz a n d K e m n it z e r h a v e explored

the relationship b e tw e e n lineage modes, the state, a n d an e x ­

pand ing world system ( 19 7 9 ) . T h e p o in t is that some of the f u n ­

damental tensions a n d relationships Fr e n c h Marxists h a v e seen

in lineage-based societies can only be understood in the context

of state formation a n d long-distance trade. T h is is a po in t w it h

which Wolf will be in full a g r e e m e n t. A g a in , the book as a whole

is a demonstration of this, a n d specific sections also treat the

point, as in the discussion of the formation of slave-raiding a n d

slave-providing populations in West A fr ic a (Wolf 19 8 2 : 2 17 f f .) .

But in his discussion of the kin-ordered m o d e , h e suspends this

critical appraisal a n d seems to revert to a k in d of evo lutio nism .

Wolf’s discussion of capitalism likewise provides n u m e r o u s

insights a n d provokes a few questions ( ib id .: 7 7 - 7 9 ; 29 6 -3 0 9 ).

His un ders tan d ing of capitalism is extraordinarily r ic h. I h a ve

already in d ic a te d that I regard some of his theoretical discus­

sions of capitalis m (e.g., the treatment of u n e v e n d evelo p­

ment) to be r e w a r d in g . In a d d itio n , I am in fu n d a m e n ta l

agreement w it h his criticism of world-system theory a n d his

definition of capitalis m in terms of the c o m m o d it y form of

labor power. In his u n d er s tan d ing , ho wever, the c o m m o d it y

form of labor po w e r becomes virtually synonymous w it h in d u s ­

trial labor, a n d the d e v e l o p m e n t of capitalism is id e n t if ie d w it h

the Industrial Revo lutio n of the late e ig h te e n th a n d early n in e ­

teenth centuries. A number of questions can be raised, the

first h a v in g to do w it h labels a n d t im in g . O n e of the interest­
ing questions that c a m e out of the “ transition debate” betw een
M a urice D o b b a n d Paul Sw eezy (H ilto n , e d . 19 7 6 ) h a d to do
with the characterization of the per io d betw een the fourteenth
and sixteenth centuries, w h e n feudalism was in decline a n d

capitalism h a d not yet e m e r g e d . Sw eezy saw feudalism e n d in g

138 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

in the fourteenth century a n d postulated a system of precapf

talist c o m m o d it y pro duction that characterized the e n s u in g

two centuries. D o b b preferred to label the period “ feudal” up

until the sixteenth century. W olf is clearly willing to see a tribu­

tary m o d e of pro duction a n d tributary states in force until the

Industrial R evo lutio n ( 19 8 2 : 1 0 1 — 1 2 5 ) . Yet such an interpreta­

tion needs to confront m o r e directly the political events of
seventeenth-century E n g la n d .

A n o t h e r pro blem that requires m o re discussion takes us be­

yo nd the question of t im in g and forces us to confront the

identificatio n of industrial labor a n d the c o m m o d it y form of

labor power. In the first place, such identificatio n does not

p a y sufficient attention to the transformation of the English

eco n o m y d u r in g the two centuries prior to the Industrial

Revo lutio n — the “ freeing” of peasants from estates a n d the

growth of domestic m a n u f a c t u r in g beyo nd the major cities.

B o th signified the growth of a potential factory proletariat, a

group of people stripped of control over m ean s of production

whose labor po w er was b e c o m in g a c o m m o d ity . Of course,

Wolf does not ignore this d e v e l o p m e n t . H e discusses it in some

detail a n d produces statistics sho w ing that some 40 percent of

the English po pulatio n had left the land by the e n d of the

s e ve n t e e n t h century ( ib id .: 269). B u t h e does not m a k e this m a te­

rial confront the theoretical question of the c o m m o d it y form

of labor power. Second, although the Industrial Revolution

quickly transformed textile pro duction a n d , secondarily, metal­

lurgical branches of the economy, other branches m a in t a in e d

their craft character for a m u c h longer p er io d . D o b b notes, for

exam ple:

Not until the last quarter of the [nineteenth] century d id the

working class begin to assume the homogeneous character of
a factory proletariat. Prior to this, the majority of the workers
retained the marks of the earlier period of capitalism. . . . As
late as 1870 the im m e d ia t e employer of m a n y workers was not
the large capitalist but the intermediate sub-contractor who
was both an employee and in turn a small employer of labour.
(19 6 3: 265, 266)
 CO N S TRUCTIO N OF A N T H R O P O L O G I C A L SUBJECTS 139

Yet few would contend that capitalis m d id not e m e r g e until

so m etim e after the publicatio n of C a p it a l . T h ir d , workers w it h a

connection to threatened craft traditions but w h o w ere not yet

subjected to factory dis ciplin e w ere the leading figures in the

nineteenth-century political d e f in itio n of the proletariat as a

class (see, e .g ., T h o m p s o n 19 6 3 ; Sewell 1980 ). W e n e e d to p a y

more attention, th e n , to w h a t M a r x called the formal s u b s u m p ­

tion of labor to capital ( 1 9 7 7 [ 18 6 7 ] : 6 4 5 , 646, 9 4 8 - 10 8 4 ) , the

creation of the c o m m o d it y form of labor pow er on farms a n d in

small shops as j o u r n e y m e n fo un d the p a th to the status of m a s ­

ter craftsman blocked. I do not m e a n to d e n y the im p o r ta n c e of

the Industrial R evo lutio n . I s im p ly w a n t to suggest that the

capitalist m o d e of pro duction should not be l im it e d to a p a r tic u ­

lar form of pro ductio n.

W e are no w in a position to m o v e beyo nd modes of pro du c­

tion and consider political questions raised by W o lf’s book. It is

always an u n fa ir request of such a b ig book, b u t one wishes that

there w ere yet another chapter that p a id m o re attention to

politics. As the book stands, it traces the j u m b l in g u p of various

regions a n d peoples w it h the d e v e l o p m e n t of certain kinds of

c o m m o d ity pro ductio n (e.g., coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar) in the

n ineteenth a n d tw e n tie th centuries a n d the m ig r a tio n of peo ­

ples to work in factories a n d on plantations. B u t the conclusion

to these analyses is often s im p ly an assertion of connection. For

e xa m p le , after a b r ie f look at Wasserstrom’s ethnohistorical

work in C h ia p a s , W o lf concludes:

Zinacantan, Ch a m u la, and other Tzeltal- and Tzotzil-speaking

communities in the vicinity of San Cristobal Las Casas in h ig h ­
land Chiapas have been studied intensively by A m er ic a n an­
thropologists since the 1940s. Most of these studies have dealt
with th em either as “ tribal” survivors of the ancient M aya, m a in ­
tained in relative isolation from outside contact, or as parts of a
colonial H is p a n ic society preserved in encapsulated form
w ithin a modernizing Mexico. Tzeltal and Tzotzil, along with
other N ative Americans in Central A m erica, however, were
drawn early into the networks of mercantile expansion . . . and
they have participated actively since the nineteenth century in
140 PO LITICAL
e c o n o m y

the commercial coffee and corn economy of the area and in the
politics of the M e xican state. These involvements, in turn, have
altered their agricultural adaptation, changed their class struc­
ture, and affected their political and ceremonial organization.
T h e ir continuing identity as inhabitants of “ Indian” c o m m u n i­
ties is thus not a corpus of unchanged traditions maintained in
unbroken fashion from a distant past. It is, rather, the outcome
of a multitude of interrelated and often antagonistic processes
set in motion by capitalist development. (19 8 2 : 338, 339; cf.
Wasserstrom 1983)

Th o s e of us w h o share this v ie w will appreciate the accumula­

tion of case m aterial from various parts of the world, but we will

w an t to k n o w m o r e . W e will w a n t to see anthropological subjects

not only as products of world history b u t also as actors in that

history— a c c o m m o d a t in g themselves to some developments, re­

sisting others, a n d so on. Ye t this passage is offered as a conclu­

sion reg ard ing C h ia p a s rather th an a starting p o in t. O f course,

to say that anthropological subjects h a v e in te r ve n e d in history

as political actors tells W o lf n o th in g n ew . H e em pha s izes this at

various points in the book. In a d d itio n , his P e a s a n t W a r s of the

T w e n t ie t h C e n t u r y (19 6 9 ) e x a m in e d one form of that action. In­

d ee d , the present effort can be seen as a fu n d a m e nta l revision

of the discussion of “ N o r th Atlantic ca pitalis m ” in the Conclu­

sion to P e a s a n t W a r s . Because E u r o p e treats capitalist develop­

m e n t in such detail, ho w ever, the political questions it raises

take us well b eyo nd the pro blem of peasant participatio n in

revolutionary m o v e m e n t s .

For e x a m p l e , W o l f ’s discussion of the “ n e w laborers” (19 8 2 ):

3 5 4 - 3 8 3 ) traces the creation a n d reproduction of e th n ic d iv i­

sions w it h in a s eg m en ted labor force. A s in other sections of the
book, his analysis of historical connections shows that they none­
theless occur in a disconnected m a n n e r — that is, in this case,
that u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t creates a differentiated, fractionated
w o r k in g po pulatio n. T h is raises the political questions of how,
or w hether, or in w h a t ways, such w o r k in g populations m ig h t
organize themselves as a w o r k in g class. Lest there be a n y m is u n ­
derstanding, I a m not here m a k in g the easy po in t that Wolf
 CO N S TRUCTIO N OF A N TH R O P O L O G IC A L SUBJECTS 14 1

pays insufficient attention to “ agency,” d e f in in g agency solely

and romantically as some form of heroic resistance. A s I h a ve

argued elsewhere in this book (see Chapters 2, 4 , a n d 8), the

emphasis on resistance is often overstated in the recent litera­

ture (Scott 1 9 8 5 ; cf. Rebel 19 8 9 a ; 19 8 9 b ) . M y po in t is s im ply

that the kinds of historical processes that W olf has outlined do

more than establish certain kinds of connections for anthropo­

logical reflection a n d discourse. T h e y also h a v e profound politi­

cal and cultural consequences for the actors themselves: they

open u p possibilities for certain kinds of connections a n d close

off others; they m a k e possible certain kinds of action (resis­

tance, a c c o m m o d a tio n , active support) in this t im e or place but

not in that t im e or place. O n e wishes that W olf h a d m o v e d m o re

forcefully fro m an establishment of anthropological connec­

tions to a discussion of such political a n d cultural questions (see

below, C h a p t e r 8). D e s p it e an Afterw o rd that contains some

im po rtan t suggestions reg arding politics, culture, a n d ideology,

however, this pro b lem is not directly confronted.

W o lf’s book is, nonetheless, politically consequent. State­

ments of historical connection m u s t once ag ain be raised as a

challenge to conservative orthodoxy. T h e book was published

just as an ascendant political philosophy a n d its attendant aca­

d e m ic sycophants w ere a t t e m p t in g to banish historical un­

derstanding from politics. O ppo sitio ns such as tradition and

m o d e rn ity w ere (and are) once ag ain p r o m in e n t (see, e .g ., K ir k ­

patrick 19 7 9 ) . T h is book, w h ic h so carefully traces connections

that others find c o n ve n ie n t to ignore, will serve an im p o r ta n t

educational functio n. L ik e e ve r y t h in g Wolf writes, it is quite

readable, a n d the research is im p r e s s iv e . O n e can see, as one

could see w it h P e a s a n t W a r s before it, this book b e in g used to

good effect in classrooms across the U n it e d States, challenging

the official version of “ our” history a n d “ th e ir ” history and
insisting u p o n the u n it y of the two branches of in q uiry. Wolf has
therefore once a g a in m a d e his scholarship in te r ve n e in an i m ­
portant political conjuncture. In the 1950s, his w r itin g was not
142 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

addressed to a pub lic a u d ie n c e , b u t h e was a leader in a group

that was trying to redirect anthropological in q u ir y toward radi­

cally historical questions d u r in g one of the ugliest periods in the

recent history of the A m e r ic a n academy (see Steward et al

19 5 6 ; cf. M in t z 19 7 8 ; W o lf 19 7 8 ; Roseberry 19 7 8 a ) . In the

1960s, his P e a s a n t Wars grew out of a n d contributed to the

teach-in m o v e m e n t in response to the V ie t n a m W a r . T h e pres­

ent book challenges d o m in a n t understandings in a political m o ­

m e n t W o lf could not h a v e foreseen w h e n the book was begun.

B u t the book is not s im p ly a response to resurgent conserva­

tis m . Its historical vis io n offers a profound challenge to those

thinkers in anthropology w ho develop their critique of the

capitalist present by t u r n in g to putatively precapitalist societies

as counterpoints a n d alternatives. In d o in g so, this group of

writers seems to be in search of a n u n c o n ta m in a te d , “ authen ­

tic” past (cf. C o h n 19 8 0 ; 1 9 8 1 ; O ’B r ie n a n d Roseberry forth­

c o m in g ; see below, C h a p t e r 8). S u c h a search requires a sharp

distinction be tw e e n “ our” history a n d “ th e ir ” history— the ca pi­

talist s h ip a n d the a u th e n tic precapitalist shore (Ortner 19 8 4 ;

see abo ve, Ch a pte r 2), a distinction for w h ic h W o lf’s book

serves as an effective challenge.

L e t us take a n e x a m p l e . Shortly before Wolf began working

on Europe, Marshall Sahlins p ub lis h ed Sto ne Age E c o n o m ic s

( 19 7 2 ) , t u r n in g to p r im it iv e societies as a co unterpoint to capital­

ist econo m ies. H e arg ued that, u n lik e capitalism , p r im it iv e eco­

nomics was inherently u n d e r p r o d u c t ive in relation to capacity
because p r im it iv e s d id not pro duce in accordance w it h norms

of m a x im iz a t io n a n d e xp an s io n b u t in accordance w it h the so­

cially d e f in e d needs of the household. O n e m ig h t raise ques­

tions reg ard ing Professor Sahlins’s u n d er s tan d ing of capitalist

rationality a n d use of resources, but the im m e d ia t e pro blem is
in his a pp r o a ch to anthropological subjects as part of his u n d e r ­
standing of p r im it iv e societies. T o develop his analysis of the
structure of u n d e r pr o d u c tio n , Sahlins elaborates a domestic
m o d e of pro ductio n, resting on the household a n d its response

to co n s u m p tio n r eq uirem ents . O f im m e d ia t e relevance to the

Wolf book is the fact that Sahlins uncritically e x a m in e s ethno­
g r a ph ic m aterial from the tw en tieth century to support his argu­
 CO NSTRUCTIO N OF A N T H R O P O L O G I C A L SUBJECTS 143

m e n ts reg arding the u n d e r p r o d u c t ive character of p r im it iv e

economics. H is calculations reg ard ing one of the cases, M a z u l u

village a m o n g the G w e m b e T o n g a , shows that the village as a

whole is p r o d u c in g less th a n it requires. H is theory told h i m that

some households would be u n d e r p r o d u c t ive w hile others would

be o verproductive, but h e n e ve r fully confronts the pro blem

presented by M a z u l u village ( ib id .: 7 3 , 7 4 , 1 0 3 - 1 1 4 ) . Perhaps

an observation by its eth n o g r ap h e r will help. For the year d u r ­

ing w h ic h research was co nducted a n d the statistics used by

Sahlins w ere gathered, T h a y e r S c ud d er writes:

D u r in g 19 5 6 - 5 7 half (nine) of the adult m e n of Mazulu vil­

lage were out of the Valley for periods of three months to over
a year, while at least two of the nine who remained w ithin the
Valley worked several months for contractors clearing bush
along the future lake shore m argin. O f the rem aining seven,
one was an invalid while three others had stopped participat­
ing in wage labour because of their age. O ut of fifteen of the
village m e n on w h o m I have data, eleven had already m ade
four or more work trips to the Plateau. W h ile some of these
trips had been for over two years, the modal length was under
a year with the m e an returning to the Valley just prior to the
beginning of the rains and the m a in cultivation season. T h e n ,
when the harvests were in, some of these would again leave
the neighborhood for outside work. (19 6 2 : 156)

O ne m ig h t choose to analyze cultivation in such a village in

terms of a dom estic m o d e of pro ductio n, but one should at least

insert that m o d e w it h in the logic of a capitalist m o d e that e m ­

ploys most of the adult m e n of the village. T h is Sahlins does not

do. In d e e d , his detailed presentation of S c ud d er ’s statistics on

village economics does not in clude the data on m ig r a t io n . In

pursuit of an anticapitalist economics, th e n , one of our most

im po rtant authors ignores capitalis m .

I do not m e a n to im p l y , nor does Wolf suggest, that our
understanding of anthropological subjects should be red uced
to an analysis of the d y n a m ic s of the capitalist m o d e of p ro d u c­
tion. Shanghai d id not b e c o m e Kansas City, h o w e ver much

some capitalists a n d Co ng ressm en m ig h t h a ve desired such an

144 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

o utco me. Noncapitalist relations shaped, and in m a n y cases

co ntin ue to shape, the lives of most of the peoples anthropol0.

gists h a v e stud ied . O n e of the paradoxes of the history of capj.

talism has b e e n its d e v e l o p m e n t in noncapitalist m ilie u s . Such

situations are not unaffected by the encounter w it h capitalism
however, a n d in m a n y cases noncapitalist relations ha ve been

created as a direct or in d ir ec t result of capitalist development.

Anthropologists turn such situations into im ag es of our past

into precapitalist relations, at the expen s e of a m o re profound

historical a n d political un d e r s tan d in g . It is w it h pleasure, then,

that one reads a critical analysis that rejects pseudohistorical

oppositions a n d explores w it h such care the historical processes

by w h ic h p r im it iv e a n d peasant pasts h a v e b eco m e a fu n d a m e n ­

tally altered p r im it iv e , peasant, a n d proletarian present. Eric

Wolf has m a d e possible a d e e p e r un d e r s tan d in g of our anthro­
pological a n d political task.
C h a p t e r s i x

Anthropology, History,
and Modes of Production

A t this po in t in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the literature, an author

with conscience w h o sets out to w rite yet another essay on the
articulation of modes of pro ductio n should b e g in by apologiz­

ing to his readers. It is an appr o a ch that seems to h a v e caught

fire and b u r n e d itself out rather quickly. In the process it gener­
ated a literature that is so exten s ive that only the most d edicated

bibliophile can k e e p u p w it h it. Yet a s y m pa thetic or curious

reader w h o looks at only a small portion of the literature will

soon discover that there is little a g r e e m e n t a m o n g writers on

the d e f in itio n of a m o d e of pro duction, of different types of
modes of pro ductio n, of the nature of their articulation, or
exactly w h a t is b e in g articulated, or w h e th e r a situation is char­
acterized by d is articulation, a n d so on. A n essay by Pablo M a -
rinez ( 1 9 8 1 ) , w h ic h was not based on an extens ive bibliography,
found twenty-five different precapitalist modes of production
being used in analyses of L a t in A m e r ic a , in c lu d in g A n d e a n ,
Asiatic, peasant, c o m m u n a l , s im p le c o m m o d ity , feudal, Indo-
his pan ic, p r im it iv e , tributary, a n d tropical. W h e n one attempts
to “ articulate” these modes w it h a capitalist m o d e about the
nature of w h ic h there is equal d is ag reem en t, one begins to w o n ­
der about o n e ’s sanity. A n d w h e n one then encounters a criti­
cism of the Althusserian philoso phy that in s p ir e d so m u c h of
the L a t in A m e r ic a n literature on modes of production by a
146 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

sophisticated historian like E. P. Tho m ps o n (19 7 8 a ) , one is

tem pted to w is h the literature a speedy d e m is e and to vow

n e ve r to use the phrase “ m o d e of p ro ductio n ” a g ain .

W h y , t h e n , this essay? I w rite because I a m co nvinc ed that the

m o d e of pro duction literature addressed a n d offered some reso­

lution to a n u m b e r of methodological a n d theoretical issues

associated w it h the history, political economy, a n d anthropology

of L a t in A m e r ic a . Further, it was associated w it h a political de­

bate a n d struggle that w e n t b eyo n d the limits of the m o d e of

pro duction pers pective a n d that is far from b e in g resolved. T h e

literature, in short, generated some heat, a n d I a m concerned

that scholars a b a n d o n e d the perspective too quickly. T h is essay
represents, th e n , a settling of accounts, a n a r g u m e n t for a par­

ticular p o in t of v ie w . It develops this a r g u m e n t by returning to

the original context in w h ic h the m o d e of pro duction literature

e m e r g e d . T h e essay th e n e x a m in e s the problems a n d prospects

generated b y the literature a n d suggests a perspective that car­

ries us b e yo n d articulating m o des of pro duction but also makes

a discussion of m o des of pro ductio n a necessary historical and

political task.1

A l t h o u g h the m o d e of pro ductio n literature d id not originate

w it h in and has not b e e n l im it e d to a n anthropological dis­

course, this essay concentrates on anthropological usages and

understandings. I shall b e g in w it h anthropological approaches

to peasants as they develo ped in that line of peasant studies

in s p ir e d b y Julian Steward a n d his students (S ilve rm a n 19 79 ).

W e can see in this 1950 s literature the recognition of a crisis of

anthropological theory a n d m e t h o d , a recognition that methods
for the study of p r im it iv e s d id not serve those studying peasants
in “ c o m p le x societies.” T h e pro blem was aptly expressed in a
p a p e r b y Robert M a n n e r s addressing c o m m u n it y studies in the
C a r ib b e a n . A fte r n o ting that c o m m u n it y studies m us t “ take cog­
nizan ce of the centuries of struggle a m o n g Western powers for

political a n d eco n o m ic d o m in a n c e of almost every island,” he

continues:
 A N TH RO PO LO G Y, his to ry , and pr o d uctio n 147

Every co m m u n ity study in the area . . . will in some measure

have to take notice of the past effects and cultural end-
results of the vagaries of sugar production, or coffee, or
cacao, or cotton, or indigo; of the production and sale of
rum ; of the shifting periods of mercantilist and capitalist
forms of exploitation; of the presence or lack of gold depos­
its in the earlier contact period; of the activities of missionar­
ies of all kinds; of the West Indies’ geographical position
with regard to the mainland; of trade, smuggling, barter and
the like. . . . (1960: 82)

Peasants w ere, q uite simply, not isolated from w id e r historical

processes. T h e y lived in a n d p a id taxes to states. T h e products

of their labor w ere bo ught a n d sold on the world m a r k e t. A n d

yet, in their daily lives a n d c o m m u n it y traditions a n d values,

they s e e m e d to be isolated (or to isolate themselves) from that

w id er world. T h e y w ere, then (or so Kro eber thought), part

societies a n d part cultures. H o w w ere w e to understand these

anthropological subjects in terms of the world-historical pro­

cesses thro ugh w h ic h they e m e r g e d or by m e a n s of w h ic h they

m a in t a in e d themselves w ith o u t simplistically r e d u c in g the d y ­

namics of th e ir c o m m u n it ie s to the d y n a m ic s of world history?

W h a t d id the anthropological perspective m e a n w h e n the as­

sumptions of holism w ere so clearly inadeq uate?

Perhaps the clearest statement of this pro blem , in conjunc­

tion w it h an a d m ir a b l y crafted a tt e m p t to resolve it, can be

found in T h e P e o p l e o f P u e r t o R ic o (Steward et al. 19 5 6 ; cf. M in t z

19 7 8 ; W olf 1 9 7 8 ; Roseberry 19 7 8 a ) . T h e book was based on a

series of c o m m u n it y studies, b u t the c o m m u n it y studies w ere d i­

rected toward a n u n d e r s ta n d in g of Puerto R ic o in its historical,

political, e c o n o m ic , a n d cultural co m plexity. E a c h c o m m u n it y

specialized in a specific c o m m o d it y . T h r o u g h an introductory

eco no m ic history a n d thro ugh th e ir in d iv id u a l c o m m u n it y stud­

ies, the authors a tte m p te d to show ho w the c o m m u n it ie s fit

w it h in the larger historical processes that h a d shaped them ,
that h a d pro d u ced particular class configurations, a n d so on.
Finally, the authors a tt e m p t e d to v ie w their c o m m u n it y studies
in the context of “ the f u n d a m e n ta l similarities in the processes
 148 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

of proletarianization as these h a v e develo ped throughout the

world” (Steward et al. 1 9 5 6 : 50 5). T h e authors thereby laid the

fo undation for an anthropology that would take proletar­

ian iza tio n as a focal p o in t. T h e y develo ped this further in a
series of typological essays that can be seen as attempts to cap-

ture the u n it y a n d divers ity in vo lved in the creation of anthro­

pological subjects at the conjunction of local histories a n d world

history (see W o lf 1 9 5 5 ; 1 9 5 7 ; 1 9 5 9 b ; W o lf a n d M in t z 1 9 5 7 ; but

see as well R u b in , e d . 19 6 0 ; Service 1 9 5 5 ; W ag le y a n d Harris

1 9 5 5 ; H a r r is 19 6 4 ) .

Nonetheless, the in n o v a t iv e literature of the 1950 s r em a in e d

a m in o r it y tradition, as peasant studies in N o r th A m e r ic a were

d o m in a t e d by the R ed field tradition, w it h its e m p h a s is on the

local c o m m u n it y , culture, a n d values (see S il v e r m a n 19 7 9 ) . T h e

d o m in a n c e of this perspective was only threatened w it h the

radical critique, both w it h in a n d w ith o u t anthropology, gener­

ated in response to the V ie t n a m W a r . W it h i n anthropology, we

could p o in t to the work of one of the contributors to the 1950s

fe r m e n t— E r ic Wolf. T h e obvious e x a m p l e is his P e a s a n ts (1966),

w h ic h continues to set the terms for debate in peasant studies.

Perhaps m o r e im p o r t a n t as a criticism of the p re va ilin g ortho­

do xy was his P e a s a n t W a r s o n the T w e n t ie t h C e n t u r y (19 6 9 ) . Peas­

ants, principally thro ugh their o w n action a n d in part because

of a cad e m ic s ’ c h a n g in g perceptions of their action, w ere once

ag ain placed in world history. T h e theoretical a n d methodologi­

cal crisis, w h ic h had n e ve r d is a p p e a r e d , once a g ain loomed

large. T h e literature addressing the pro blem in the past two

decades has b e en exten s ive (e.g., A d a m s 19 7 0 ; F o r m a n 19 7 5 ;

Co ok a n d D is k in , eds. 1 9 7 6 ; C . S m it h , e d . 1 9 7 6 ; Stavenhagen

1 9 7 5 ; Orlove 1 9 7 7 ; H a l p e r in a n d D o w , eds. 1 9 7 7 ; Wasserstrom

19 8 3 ; Roseberry 19 8 3 ; M in t z 19 7 3 ; 19 7 4 a ; 19 7 4 b ; W arman
1 9 8 1 ) . T w o of the contributors to the Puerto R ic o project, Wolf
and M in t z , h a v e gone b e yo n d th e ir original concentration on
rural cultivators a n d m a d e major contributions to a reconcep­
tualization of anthropological subjects in terms of world history

(Wolf 19 8 2 ; M in t z 19 8 5 ) . Because some of the recent anthropo­

logical literature overlaps w it h or enters into dialogue w it h the
dependency and mode of pro duction literature, w e may set
 A N TH RO PO LO G Y, his to ry , and p r o d uc tio n 149

anthropology aside for a m o m e n t a n d e x a m in e the m o v e m e n t

outside anthropology.
H e r e w e m a y p o in t to the popularization of d e p e n d e n c y theo­

ries through the writings of A n d r e G u n d e r Fr a n k a n d others

(Frank 19 6 7 ; 19 6 9 ; cf. B a r a n 19 5 7 ; A m in 19 7 6 ; Wallerstein

19 7 4 ; 19 7 9 ) . T h e literature has a long a n d rich history (see F. H .

Cardoso 19 7 7 b ) . Nonetheless, its proliferation is a p h e n o m e ­

non of the 1960s in L a t in A m e r ic a d u r in g a perio d of a p p a r ­

ently unalterable U .S . h e g e m o n y . T h e literature develo ped an

elaboration a n d critiq ue of the ideas of R a u l Prebisch a n d his

followers in the E c o n o m ic C o m m is s io n on L a t in A m e r ic a as

well as a critiq ue of L a t in A m e r ic a n c o m m u n is t understandings

of rural regions. D e s p it e n u m e r o u s disagreements a m o n g con­

tributors to the dependency literature, there was general

agreement in e m p h a s iz in g a systematic c o n n e c tio n betw een the

develo pm ent of some countries a n d the u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t of

the majority, on the historical creation of a situation of d e p e n ­

dence that served as a l im it in g co nditio n in the d e v e l o p m e n t of

underdeveloped countries, a n d on the extraction of surplus

from the u n d e r d e ve l o p e d by the d evelo ped . It was their a p ­

proach to rural regions, ho w ever, that most clearly connected

with an anthropological pro blematic, a n d it was the d evelo p­

ment of that connection that m a d e the literature attractive to

m a n y anthropologists interested in peasants. Briefly, in opposi­

tion to dual e co n o m y theorists w h o talked of discrete u rb a n

modern sectors a n d rural, traditional sectors a n d d efin e d devel­

opm ent as the diffusion of m o d e r n ity, a n d in opposition to

orthodox M a r x is t treatments of the countryside as feudal, d e ­

pendency theorists such as Fr a n k e m p h a s iz e d the c a p ita l is t char­

acter of the countryside, the historical creation of backwardness

as a product of capitalist evolution. D e s p it e differences in in te r ­

pretation a n d tone, the connection b e tw e e n this v ie w a n d the

m ino rity tradition in anthropological peasant studies e m e r g in g

from T h e P e o p l e o f P u e r t o R ic o should be a p p a r e n t. M u c h of the
anthropological peasant literature of the 1970s a n d 1980s has
been written in dialogue w it h d e p e n d e n c y perspectives, either

“co ns um in g ” t h e m (F. H . Cardoso 19 7 7 a ) or criticizing t h e m .

We must, th e n , pay more detailed attention to some of the
150 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

problems associated w it h the d e p e n d e n c y literature before mov­

in g to the m o d e of pro ductio n literature.

W h il e d e p e n d e n c y perspectives can be classified according to

n u m e r o u s criteria, two broadly d ive rg en t approaches m a y be

discerned. T h e first e m ph a s ize s the pers istence of dependence

despite changes in political, eco n o m ic, a n d social relations be­
tw een d evelo ped a n d u n d e r d e ve l o p e d nations. T h e second e m ­

phasizes m o v e m e n t : the transition from one form of dependence

to another or from one situation of u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t to an­

other. T h e first a pp r o a ch is e x e m p l if ie d by F r a n k ’s analysis of

the “ d e v e l o p m e n t of u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t ” ( 19 6 7 ; 19 6 9 ), and the

second is e x e m p l if ie d by F. H . Cardoso’s analysis of “ dependent

d e v e l o p m e n t ” a n d “ structural m o v e m e n t ” ( 1 9 7 2 ; 19 7 3 a ; 1977a;

Cardoso a n d Faletto 19 7 9 ) . B o th approaches e m p h a s iz e the

historical creation of u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t in the context of capi­

talist evolution, a n d both see d e p e n d e n c e as a co nditio ning or

l im it in g situation. B e y o n d a broad historical fram ew ork, how­

ever, the first appr o a ch is in herently static w hile the second is

d y n a m ic . T h e y differ in their appro ach to periods of political

or eco n o m ic transition. T h e first, in its e x t r e m e forms, tends to

v ie w such changes as “ e p ip h e n o m e n a l .” T h e co nd itio n in g situa­

tion of d e p e n d e n c e is tho ught to h a v e b een forged in the six­

teenth century w h e n L a t in A m e r ic a was incorporated w ithin

the e x p a n d in g capitalist system. Fro m that po int, whatever

changes m a y occur (e.g., political in d e p e n d e n c e ) are not thought

to alter the situation of d e p e n d e n c e . Rather, they represent

variations on a t h e m e . Histo ry h a p p e n e d (in the sixteenth cen­

tury); it no longer h a p p e n s . T h e other set of approaches tends

to stress the fact that capitalism is a constantly d evelo ping and

transforming system. W h il e L a t in A m e r ic a has long existed
w it h in a capitalist system, that system has e xp e r ie n c e d (and
continues to e xp e r ie n c e ) m u ltip le transformations that change
both the form a n d content of relations betw een developed and
u n d e r d e velo p ed societies. R a t h e r than v ie w in g changes in the
nature of d e p e n d e n c e as e p ip h e n o m e n a l , then, this set of ap­
proaches would v ie w them as central, affecting the nature of

class relations w it h in countries as well as relations betw een devel­

o ped a n d u n d e r d e ve l o p e d countries.
 A N TH R O PO LO G Y, his to ry , and p r o d uc tio n 15 1

Des pite differences a m o n g in d iv id u a l writers, there are two

basic elements to the first a pp r o a c h . O n e is the insistence on the

capitalist system or the world system as the essential u n it of

analysis w it h the corollary p r in c ip l e that the d y n a m ic s of the

system are d e t e r m in e d by the needs of the core or metropolis.

T h e other is the contention that, short of a socialist revolution,

the basic situation will not c h a n g e . C a p it a l is m will grow, d e ­

velop, transform itself technologically, and suffer occasional

crises of m o r e or less im p o r t a n c e . Peripheral countries m a y

become s e m ip e r ip h e r a l (and vic e versa), a n d occasional s e m i­

peripheral countries m a y enter the core. B u t the system as a

system is rem arkably stable a n d has r e m a in e d so for four ce n tu ­

ries. T h e r e is m u c h in this last p o in t, h o w e ver pessimistic its

im po rt, w it h w h ic h those w h o do not share the theoretical a p ­

proach m ig h t agree. T h e system has b e en rem arkably stable

and, despite the d e e p e n in g crisis, does not seem on the verge of

collapse. We must disagree w it h the dismissal of m o v e m e n t

w it h in that situation of systematic stability, ho wever. T h is gets us

to the im p o r t a n c e of our first p o in t. T h e purely systemic u n d e r ­

standing, w it h all that is d y n a m ic c o m in g from the core, or from

the m a in t e n a n c e req uirem en ts of the system, leads to a d is par­

a g em en t of d y n a m ic s from below a n d results in an im p o v e r ­

ished u n d e r s ta n d in g of the contradictions, possibilities, and

potential instability of the system itself.

Much of the criticis m of this version of d e p e n d e n c y and

world-system theory is based on dissatisfaction w it h its systemic

understand ing . T h e criticism m a y look to particular countries

and e x a m in e the possibilities for m o v e m e n t w it h in t h e m , e x a m ­
ine the particular class configuarions that e m e r g e , their rela­

tions w it h each other, a n d th e ir connections w it h or opposition

to m ultinatio nal firms or the superpowers. T h is is the essential

characteristic of the second version of d e p e n d e n c y theory m e n ­

tioned earlier (see Cardoso a n d Faletto 1 9 7 9 ; cf. H e n f r e y 1 9 8 1 :

2 7 — 32). A second line of criticism , w h ic h m a y or m a y not h a v e a
concern for m o v e m e n t , addresses m o r e specifically the sources
and nature of d if f e r e n t ia t io n w it h in the system. T h is line has
close connections w it h the anthropological problematic dis­

cussed earlier a n d is the one that has p a id attention to the

152 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

concept of “ m o d e of pr o d u c tio n .” T o address this connection

a n d the significance of m o d e of pro ductio n perspectives, let us
return to the anthropological study of peasants. A s a result of
the methodological a n d theoretical fe r m e n t of the 1970s and

1980s, anthropologists d id fewer a n d fewer “ c o m m u n it y stud­

ies.” Rath e r , m a n y b eg an to turn to some form of “ regional

study.” It is not always clear, ho w ever, that the m o v e to regional

studies is a c c o m p a n ie d b y a n y radical r e t h in k in g of theory and

m e t h o d . T h e r e is no obvious sense in w h ic h the region resolves

a n y of the problems associated w it h the articulation of local
history a n d world history. In d eed , it m a y actually m a k e for

m o r e im p o v e r is h e d analyses in that w e m a y still be stuck w ith a

w o r m ’s eye v ie w ( S m it h , e d . 19 7 6 , 2 : 3), yet w e will be more

r e m o v e d from the daily lives, hopes, a n d feelings of the people

w e study, w h ic h will rob our accounts of a distinctive anthropo­

logical focus. Clearly, w e m u s t be careful in d e f in in g regions,

but e v e n w it h careful definitio ns, theoretical in n o va tio n is still

essential. For that in n o va t io n to occur, w e m ust m o v e beyond

spatial understandings of the c o m m u n it ie s and regions in

w h ic h peasants live. O f course, such regions h a v e economically,

ecologically, or politically d e f in e d boundaries. B u t our analyses

will r e m a in at a low level as long as the concepts w e use to

analyze regions are b o u n d by sim ilar criteria. In order to truly

articulate local history a n d world history, w e n e e d to m o v e be­

yo nd co m munity/regio n/nation/w orld conceptions a n d m o v e to­

w ard concepts that p o in t to relationships that are less easily

reifie d . T h e search for such concepts m a ke s the m o d e of pro­

d uctio n literature relevant for anthropologists. T h e m o d e of

pro ductio n concept, in conjunction w it h other concepts such as

social fo rm atio n, offered the po s s ib ility of an analysis of differen­
tiation w it h in a capitalist totality that would take sufficient ac­
count of anthropological subjects a n d avo id the reduction of
that differentiatio n to its spatial expression. T h e d il e m m a for

m o d e of pro ductio n theorists, as presented thus far, was not

altogether u n l ik e the d il e m m a for anthropologists trying to u n ­

derstand “ th e ir ” valley. For anthropologists, the pro blem was
h o w to articulate local history a n d world history. For m o d e of
pro duction theorists (in c lu d in g some w h o happen to be an­
 A N TH R O P O LO G Y , his to ry, a n d pro d uctio n 153

thropologists), the pro blem was h o w to understand d ifferen­

tiation w it h in a totality. T h e second pro blem , w hile related, is

not reducible to the first. B u t further discussion of their connec­

tion requires that w e p a y m o r e detailed attention to modes of

production.

I h a v e thus far referred to the m o d e of pro duction literature

only in the context of a n a tte m p t to understand differentiation

w it h in a capitalist totality. B u t the m o d e of production critique

of d e p e n d e n c y theory (to the extent that it is possible to talk of

“ the” critique) is directed to the ver y d e f in itio n of capitalism .

Frank, w it h a p p a r e n t support from M a r x ( 1 9 7 7 [ 18 6 7 ] : 247;
19 6 7 b [ 18 9 4 ] : 3 3 2 — 33 3), saw the capitalist system arising w it h

the d e v e l o p m e n t of the world m a r k e t— on w h ic h it d e p e n d e d

and w h ic h it in turn h elped to create. Wallerstein, w h o accepted

this conceptualization ( 1 9 7 4 : 38, 7 7 ), argued further that the

d e ve lo p m e n t of a capitalist world eco n o m y “ in vo lved a d ivis io n

of pro d u ctive labor that can only be properly a ppr ec ia ted by

taking into account the world-economy as a whole” ( ib id .: 12 6 ) .

T h is , of course, was s im p ly another w a y of saying that capital­

ism im p l ie d the d e v e l o p m e n t of a world m a r k e t, but it allowed

h im to argue further that the d is tin g u is h in g characteristic was

not the existence of “ free labor” throughout the system but the

worldwide d iv is io n of labor itself ( ib id .: 1 2 7 ) .

If the “ m o d e r n history of c a p it a l ” begins in the sixteenth cen­

tury ( M a r x 19 7 7 [ 18 6 7 ] : 2 4 7 ; e m p h a s is a dd ed), however, it is

not altogether certain that w e can talk of c a p it a l is m on a world

scale from such an early date. M o r e orthodox Marxists h a ve

criticized the Fr a n k and Wallerstein perspective as “ circula-

tionist.” B y circulationism, they refer to a d efin itio n of capital­

ism in terms of e x c h a n g e , or the d e v e l o p m e n t of a world m a rk et,

in contrast to a d e f in itio n stated in terms of a m o d e of p r o d u c ­
tio n. Ernesto Laclau, w h o wrote the central criticism of F r a n k ’s
early essays, noted that long-distance c o m m e r c e a n d the devel­
o p m e n t of world markets h a d long preced ed capitalism and
had b e en characteristic of early modes of production ( 1 9 7 1 ) .
H e preferred a d e f in itio n of capitalism as a m o d e of production
1 54 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

based on the existence of free wage labor, a conceptualization

that finds support in n u m e r o u s passages in M a r x ’s work. M a u ­
rice D o b b , in criticizing earlier circulationist view s , h a d pro-
v id e d a most influential M a r x is t d e f in itio n of capitalism as:

a system under w hich labour-power had “ itself become a com­

m odity” and was bought and sold on the market like any other
object of exchange. Its historical prerequisite was the concen­
tration of ownership of the means of production in the hands
of a class, consisting of only a mino r section of society, and the
consequential emergence of a propertyless class for w ho m the
sale of their labour-power was their only source of livelihood.
Productive activity was furnished, accordingly, by the latter,
not by virtue of a legal compulsion, but on the basis of a wage
contract. (19 6 3 : 7)

T h is co nd itio n d id not obtain in much of L a t in A m e r ic a for

most of its colonial a n d postcolonial history. If it accurately

characterized more of L a t in A m e r ic a n reality by the m id ­

tw e n tie th century, there w ere still significant sectors of the vari­

ous national econo mies that w ere not based on free wage labor

(e.g., the peasantry, petty c o m m o d it y producers a n d traders,

latifundia, etc.). T h e y w ere therefore, according to the d e f in i­

tion as it was a p p l ie d , not capitalist. Yet those sectors, in the past

as well as the present, w ere caught u p in the world-historical

processes associated w it h the m a k in g of the m o d e r n world.

H o w was this relationship to be understood?

Laclau was interested in pres erving the value of F r a n k ’s criti­
c is m of the dual e co n o m y notions of both L a t in A m e r ic a n M a r x ­

is m and m o d e r n iz a tio n theory w h ile m a in t a in in g the more

orthodox d e f in itio n of capitalis m as a m o d e of production
based on free w ag e labor. H e d id this by m a k in g a distinction
b etw een an “ eco n o m ic system” and a “ m o d e of pro duction”
( 1 9 7 1 : 33). T h is allowed h i m to co nceive of a w orldwide system
of e x c h a n g e d o m in a t e d by a capitalist m o d e of pro duction (an
eco n o m ic system that m ig h t correspond w it h F r a n k ’s capitalism
or Wallerstein’s m o d e r n world system) that incorporated a se­
ries of capitalist a n d noncapitalist modes of pro duction.
 anthro po lo g y , his to ry , an d pro d uctio n 155

T h is conceptualization h a d a n enorm ous influence on M a r x ­

ists and b e c a m e the p r in c ip a l p o in t of attack against Fr a n k a n d

other circulationists (cf. Assado urian et al. 19 7 3 ) . W it h i n L a t in

A m e r ic a , the literature was directed p r im a r il y toward an analysis
of colonial a n d n in e te en th -c en tu ry history (e.g., Assadourian et

al. 19 7 3 ; C u e v a 1 9 7 7 ; C .F .S . Cardoso 1 9 7 5 a ; 1 9 7 5 b ; Q u in t e r o
Rivera 1 9 7 3 ; P a le r m 19 7 6 a ; Sanoja a n d Vargas 19 7 4 ) a n d the
twentieth-century presence of apparently noncapitalist elements

in L a t in A m e r ic a (e.g., S ta ve n h a g e n 19 7 8 ; M o n to ya 19 7 8 ;
Archetti 1 9 8 1 ; Co o k 1 9 8 2 ; C . D . Scott 1 9 7 6 ; S m it h 1 9 7 9 ; L l a m b i

1 9 8 1 ; P ale r m 1 9 7 6 b ; 19 8 0 ; Bartra 19 7 4 ) . T h e literature was by

no means h o m o g eneo us. S o m e a tt e m p t e d a synthesis w it h d e ­

pendency literature, p r o v id in g a richer analysis of structural

differentiation in u n d e r d e ve l o p e d social formations. S o m e pro­

duced concepts of modes of pro duction not m e n t io n e d by M a r x

that s eem ed to be of particular relevance to L a t in A m e r ic a a n d

other u n d e r d e ve l o p e d regions (e.g., a colonial m o d e of p ro d u c­

tion). Others w ere content to l im it themselves to the m o r e or less

“official” m o des of pro ductio n and fo und A siatic or feudal

modes of pro ductio n in L a t in A m e r ic a . For e x a m p l e , although

Laclau insisted on a narrow d e f in itio n of capitalism , h e p r o vid e d

a broad d e f in itio n of feudalism , w h ic h h e a p p l ie d to most of

La tin A m e r ic a n history. Before these trends, a n d the a c a d e m ic

and political issues that in f o r m t h e m , are discussed, however, w e

m ig h t retreat a few paces a n d e x a m in e the concept of m o d e of

production.

C o ncepts an d D efin itio n s

A n y discussion of M a r x a n d modes of pro duction m u s t b e g in

by noting that M a r x was n e ve r as rigorous in conceptualizing

modes of pro ductio n as h a v e b e e n subsequent generations of

Marxists. A s C .F .S . Cardoso notes ( 19 7 5 a ) , there are at least
three uses of the phrase in M a r x ’s w ritings: ( 1) a descriptive
usage, “ w it h o u t a real theoretical d im e n s io n ,” as in “ a n agricul­
tural m o d e of pro d u ctio n ” ; (2) an epochal usage, des igned to
refer to m odes of pro ductio n that d o m in a t e entire periods of
 m
156 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

history; a n d (3) a usage that refers to secondary modes of p ro.

ductio n, w h ic h n e ve r d o m in a t e historical periods but m a y char­

acterize certain aspects of those periods (e.g., “ petty commodity

m o d e ” ).2 C u t t in g across these usages can be found a synthesis

of two of the central tenets of the M a r xis t tradition: (1) the

e m p h a s is on pro duction as a basic a n d d e t e r m in in g social activ­

ity; a n d (2) the e m p h a s is on historical specificity, the notion that

“ laws of m o t io n ” in society are socially constructed a n d , rather

than b e in g valid for all types of society, are only relevant for
particular epochs. N e it h e r aspect by itself is startling. It is the

u n it y of the two e m ph a s e s in a concept of m o d e of production

that gives the concept its power. T h e socially constructed laws of
m o tio n are to be understood in terms of the m o d e of produc­

tion that characterizes a particular e po ch. W e are able to ana­

lyze these laws because the m o d e of production concept draws

our attention to two types of relationships: ( 1) forces of produc­

tion (methods a n d m e a n s of a p p r o p r ia tin g a n d transforming

nature, in c l u d in g technology, work organization, and so on)

a n d (2) relations of pro duction (methods a n d m e an s of appro­

p r ia tin g a n d transforming labor). T h e concept therefore articu­

lates a n d treats as a u n it y h u m a n / n a t u r e relations a n d hum an/

h u m a n relations (see Co o k 1 9 7 3 ; W olf 19 8 2 ; Roseberry 1978 a;

19 8 3 ) . E a c h m o d e of pro duction specifies a particular type of

sociality a n d a particular relationship w it h nature, the co m bin a ­

tion of w h ic h forms the basis for a d e te r m in a te class structure.

T h e d y n a m ic relations betw een classes, in turn, d efin e the laws
of m o tio n of a particular e po ch . T h e y do not do so, however, in

the s im p le or formulaic m a n n e r im p l ie d by this b rief outline.

T h e c o m ple x relationship betw een m o d e of pro duction, social

classes, a n d laws of m o tio n receives fuller treatment in the final

section of this essay.
T o further develop the m o d e of production concept, w e must
place it in opposition to two popular usages w it h w h ic h m a n y
anthropologists will be f a m ilia r : ( 1) cultural m aterialis m and (2)
structural M a r x is m . For the cultural materialists, the m o d e of
production is g iv e n an extrem ely l im it e d d e f in itio n . In his clear­
est statement of his m e t h o d , M a r v in Ha rr is ( 19 7 9 ) d ivid e s the
world into infrastructure, structure, a n d superstructure. “ Infra-
r
A N TH R O PO LO G Y, his to ry, a n d pr o d uctio n 157

structure” is d iv id e d into a m o d e of (subsistence) pro duction

and a m o d e of reproductio n (d e m o g r a ph y , m a t in g patterns,

etc.)* “ Structure” refers to “ domestic e c o n o m y” (fam ily struc­

ture, domestic organization, etc.) a n d “ political e c o n o m y” (politi­
cal organization, d iv is io n of labor, class or caste structure, etc.).

“Superstructure,” finally, refers to art, m u s ic , ritual, sports,

games, etc. ( 1 9 7 9 : 5 2 - 5 3 ) . T h is r ig id separation of structures is

the basis for a d e te r m in is tic pro blematic in w h ic h the infrastruc­

ture “ probabilistically” d e te r m in e s the structure a n d superstruc­

ture ( ib id .: 5 5 - 5 6 ; see above, C h a p t e r 1) .

O f the m a n y areas in w h ic h a M a r xis t un d e r s tan d in g of m o d e

of pro duction would differ from H a r r is ’s u n d er s tan d ing , w e

shall concentrate on two. T h e first concerns the d efin itio n of

m o de of pro ductio n itself. A M a r x is t concept co m bines m u c h of

what H a r r is d iv id e s into infrastructure a n d structure. W hat

Harris calls a m o d e of pro ductio n would incorporate only a

part of w h a t Marxists call p ro d u c tive forces. Second, the atti­

tude toward p ro d u c tive forces is s o m ew hat different. W h il e

some Marxists, particularly those influenced by Althusser, h a v e

little to say about p ro d u c tive forces, placing their e m p h a s is on

the d o m in a n c e of the relations of pro duction, M a r x him self

stressed that the interaction b e tw e e n h u m a n s a n d nature in the

production process tr a n s fo r m e d nature. T h e whole un derstand­

ing of the h u m a n / n a t u r e relationship to w h ic h the concept of

pro ductive forces refers is m o r e active, w it h humans as the

subject of a process b y w h ic h they transform nature a n d , in the

process, transform themselves ( M a r x a n d Engels 19 7 0 [ 18 4 6 ] :

6 2 - 6 3 et p a s s im ; M a r x 19 6 4 a [ 18 4 4 ] : 1 7 7 — 1 9 3 ) .3

T h e second literature that has a pp r o p r ia te d the m o d e of pro­

duction concept is structural M a r x is m , that is, the work of

Althusser a n d his followers.4 T h e Althusserians w ere by no

means of one m i n d a n d differed on such crucial issues as the

very d e f in itio n of m o d e of pro ductio n, social formation, social
class, a n d so on. A n adeq uate treatm ent of w h a t is too often
loosely t e r m e d “ A lth u s s e r ia n is m ” would h a v e to differentiate
am o ng the various authors a n d trace the writings of in d iv id u a l
authors thro ug h their careers of critiques a n d autocritiques. I
do not enter into such a discussion here. D e s p it e diversity, there
158 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

is a set of shared assumptions that allows us to tie the various

structuralist approaches together. T h e first is that one of M arx’s

central contributions was the distinction betw een a level of p h e.

n o m en al appearances a n d a basic u n d e r lyin g reality. W h il e one

m a y question w h e th e r this is a “ central epistemological prem ­

ise” of M a r x is m ( W r ig h t 19 7 8 : 11) , it is clearly an important

aspect of M a r x ’s (and H e g e l ’s) m e t h o d . T h e c o m m o n example

is the analysis of exploitation in capitalism, w h ic h begins with

the level of appearances— the circulation of co m m o d ities , the

e xc h a n g e of equivalents— a n d penetrates that level to exa m in e

the extraction of surplus value thro ugh the sale of the co m m o d­

ity labor p o w e r a n d its use as labor. T h e surface relationship of

c o m m o d it y e xc h a n g e at equal values facilitates a n d obscures an

actual relationship of exploitation.

T h is distinction b e tw e e n a level of appearances a n d an under­

lying structural reality is im p o r t a n t for an understanding of

three of the basic concepts of the Althusserian tradition: mode

of pro ductio n, articulation, and social formatio n. A g a in the

definitions vary, a n d the usages are in m a n y cases contradictory.

M o d e of pro ductio n m a y be narrowly d e f in e d as a concept of a

precise c o m b in a t io n of forces a n d relations of production (or

labor processes a n d d o m in a n t relations of appro priatio n), or

m o r e broadly as a concept of a c o m b in a tio n of several struc­

tures or levels or instances (eco no m ic, juridico-political, ideo­

logical, theoretical) d e t e r m in e d “ in the last instance” by the

eco n o m ic. A lr e a d y in these definitio ns the ter m “ articulation”

m a y creep in , as articulation m a y refer to the precise c o m b in a ­

tion of forces a n d relations of pro ductio n, or to the connections

a m o n g structural levels. B u t articulation m a y also refer to the

connection of a m o d e of pro duction to a social formation, or to

the connections a m o n g modes of pro duction w it h in a social
formation (see Foster-Carter 1 9 7 8 : 5 2 — 54 ). Social formation is
most c o m m o n ly d e f in e d as a concept of the social whole, co m ­
posed of the s am e structural levels that a p p e a r in broader defi­
nitions of the m o d e of pro ductio n. B u t the precise definitio n
d ep e n d s u p o n o n e’s u n d e r s ta n d in g of m o d e of pro duction and
articulation. T h e s am e language is b e in g used to discuss three
different problems, d e p e n d in g on o ne’s d efin itio n of terms: (1)
 A N TH R O PO LO G Y, his to ry , and pro d u c tio n 159

the relationship b e tw e e n an abstract m o d el (m o d e of p ro d u c­

tion) a n d a concrete case (social fo rm atio n); (2) the distinction

between a n e c o n o m ic base (m o d e of production) a n d a social

whole in c l u d in g base and superstructure (social formation);

and (3) a social whole (social formation) co m po sed of various

modes of pro ductio n , one of w h ic h will be seen as d o m in a n t

(Roseberry 19 7 8 b ) . I n the second usage, the m o d e of pro d u c­

tion concept is g iv e n its m o r e restricted, “ e c o n o m ic ,” m e a n in g .

In the first a n d th ir d usages, the m o d e of pro ductio n concept

m a y be g iv e n e ith e r a restricted or m o r e e x p a n s iv e m e a n in g
since the distinction b e tw e e n mode of pro ductio n a n d social
formation is located elsewhere.

In all these usages, m o d e of pro ductio n is regarded as an

abstract concept that allows one to grasp structures that lie b e ­

h in d the level of a ppearances . In a n early work that adopts the

first and th ir d articulation problematics, Poulantzas clearly e x ­

pressed the d istinctio n. A fte r h e d e f in e d the m o d e of pro du c­

tion expan s ively as a n articulated c o m b in a t io n of eco n o m ic, po ­

litical, ideological, a n d theoretical levels, h e c l a im e d :

T h e mode of production constitutes an abstract-formal object

w hich does not exist in the strong sense in reality. . . . T h e
only thing w hich really exists is a historically determined social
formation, i.e ., a social whole, in the widest sense, at a given
m o m en t in its historical existence: e.g., France under Louis
Bonaparte, England during the Industrial Revolution. But a
social formation, w hich is a real-concrete object and so always
original because singular, presents a particular combination, a
specific overlapping of several “ pure” modes of production
(as L e n in demonstrated in T h e Development of Capitalism in
Russia [sec ]). Bismarck’s G e r m a n y is characterized by a specific
combination of capitalists, feudal and patriarchal modes of
production whose combination alone exists in a strong sense
of the term; all that exists in this sense is a social formation
historically determined as a particular object. ( 19 7 5 : 15 )

As Foster-Carter noted ( 1 9 7 8 : 5 4 ), the te r m “ articulation” was

here reserved for the relationship a m o n g levels in a m o d e of
production. The c o m b in a t io n of m o des of pro duction was
described as a c o m b in a t io n , an o ve rlappin g , or a d o m in a tio n . It

was P ie r r e - P h il ip p e R e y (to be discussed below) w h o adapted

the language of articulation to the c o m b in a tio n of modes. But

the p o in t I w a n t to stress h ere is the stated relation of m o d e of

pro duction as abstract to social formatio n as concrete. T h is is to

be related to the distinction b e tw e e n surface appearances a n d

u n d e r lyin g structural reality, knowledge of w h ic h is to be

g a in e d thro ugh a p r ivile g e d fo rm of theoretical practice (Al­

thusser 1 9 7 1 ) .

B u t further discussion of structuralism requires that w e con­

sider the second a s s u m p tio n : that a n y reference to an active,

constituting h u m a n subject is an e x a m p l e of voluntarism, his-

toricism, h u m a n is m , anthropologism, or other d ark sins. To the

extent that reference to a subject is historicist (in the Hegelian

sense of history as u nfo lding S pirit) or voluntarist (w ith an e m ­

phasis on a n in d iv id u a l or class subject c ho o s ing or willing a

particular historical outco me), the structuralist rejection of “ the

subject” is valid . B u t , as n u m e r o u s critics h a v e po in te d out,

there is no necessary reason for reference to h u m a n subjects to

take this turn . B y l u m p in g completely different approaches u n ­

der the label “ histo ricism ,” the structuralists constricted t h e m ­

selves in a n u m b e r of ways.

First, th e y placed themselves in an essentially p r e -M a r x ia n

a n t im o n y b e tw e e n id e a lis m a n d m a te r ia lis m , history a n d struc­

ture, ideology a n d science. T h e ver y texts of the early M a r x that

they rejected as h u m a n is t w ere the ones in w h ic h the antino­

m ie s w ere shattered. Second, w h e n lin k ed to the structuralists’

first a s s um ptio n (the distinction b e tw e e n appearances a n d u n ­

derlying structural reality), the second assum ptio n led t h e m

into a rationalism fro m w h ic h there was no escape. T h e level of

reality was, b y th e ir d e f in itio n , structurally, rather than socially,
d e t e r m in e d . H u m a n s w ere seen as “ bearers” of structural rela­
tions, a n d the structures themselves w ere co nceived as logically
prior to h u m a n action. T h e y w ere abstract-formal modes of
pro ductio n a rr ive d at thro ugh theoretical practice. Th e refo re,
classes a n d other social p h e n o m e n a w ere seen as structural ef­
fects (cf. Poulantzas 1 9 7 5 : 5 8 — 70 ; F. H . Cardoso 19 7 3 b ) . T h e
 A N TH R O PO LO G Y, his to ry, a n d p r o d uc tio n 161

rationalism of this s c h em e is e v id e n t w hen we a tte m p t to

analyze chan g e a n d transformation. D e s p ite a variety of a p ­

proaches, all of the structuralists shared this attitude toward

change: f u n d a m e n ta l contradictions w ere seen as contradic­

tions b e tw e e n structures (see Go delier 19 7 2 : 77-8 2). Thes e

problems should be k e pt in m in d when r ea d in g structuralist

exegeses on m o des of pro ductio n a n d social formations, eco­

no m ic, political, a n d ideological instances, relative auto no m y,

and so on. T h e y w ere elaborate theoretical exercises for the

production of the basic structures from w h ic h classes a n d other

“effects” could be d e d u c e d .

As the mode of pro ductio n literature developed in L a t in

A m e r ic a , it borrowed much of the language of the Althus-

serians, in part because m a n y of the contributors to the litera­

ture studied in Paris. “ Social fo rm atio n,” for e x a m p l e , referred

to a social whole, usually a nation-state. “ Articulatio n” gener­

ally referred to a c o m b in a t io n of capitalist a n d noncapitalist

modes of pro ductio n w it h in a social formatio n. D e s p ite the

language, ho w ever, much of the literature was far r e m o ve d

from its Althusserian origins, in part because the literature was

not co nceived as a scholastic exercise b u t as an a tte m pt to

understand the political a n d eco n o m ic formation of P er u or

M e xic o or V e n e z u e l a a n d the position a n d role of the peas­

antry or other groups in political processes a n d struggles. T h is

led to no small a m o u n t of e m p ir ic is m , b u t it also allowed m a n y

authors to escape the rationalism of an Althusser a n d recap­

ture the M a r x ia n focus on class formation a n d class struggle.

In the worst of the literature, mode of production analysis

becam e an end in itself, a labeling exercise. In the best, it

becam e a m e a n s to another e n d — class analysis. A s in d ic a te d

earlier the mode of pro duction literature in L a t in A m e r ic a

addressed two central a n d related problems: ( 1) colonial a n d

n ineteenth-century history, a n d (2) the presence of apparently

noncapitalist sectors in the tw e n tie th century. I shall address
the second issue, especially as it concerns the literature on
peasantries, in Ch a pte r 7 . H e r e I concentrate on approaches

to and understanding s of history.

162 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

A rtic u la tio n as H is to r ic a l P ro cess

B e y o n d all of the debates about labels be tw e e n m o d e of produc­

tion a n d world-system theorists, the historical pro blem to which

those debates allude is in d e e d significant. If w e follow M arx’s

d efin itio n of capital in the strict sense not as a t h in g but as a

social relation be tw e e n capital a n d labor pow er as a commodity

w e are confronted by the most v e x in g difficulties in the analysis

of the e xp a n s io n of capitalis m . W e m a y talk about the invest­

m e n t of capital in a noncapitalist region, but our language then

im p l ie s a concept of capital as a th in g . As a social relation,

“ capital” exists w it h in a capitalist m o d e of production, but “it”

does not exist, by d e f in itio n , in a m o d e of production in which

the basic presuppositions for capitalism (that is, the social rela­

tion d efin e d by the separation of labor from m ean s of labor) do

not yet exist. T h o s e presuppositions m u s t be created through a

social process that involves an interaction betw een “ capital”

(that is, the social relation of separation of labor from means of

labor a n d all of the institutions through w h ic h that relation is

expressed) a n d “ noncapital” (that is, some type of u n io n of

labor w it h m e an s of labor a n d all of the institutions through

w h ic h that u n io n is expressed). T h e historical problem is this:

ho w are w e to analyze this process w itho ut red u cin g it to what it

m a y b e c o m e (capitalism) or to w h a t it once was a n d no longer is

(not-capitalism)?
For the world-system theorists, there is little pro blem. For

t h e m , capital is not d e f in e d as a social relation (or at least not

the sam e social relation to w h ic h most Marxists refer). Once

noncapitalist regions h a v e b e en incorporated w it h in the capital­

ist d iv is io n of labor d e f in e d by the world m a rk e t, they are capi­

talist because the relations of production that d efine the core
d efin e the system (Wallerstein 1 9 7 4 : 1 2 7 ) . D es p ite the n u m e r ­
ous traps that some m o d e of production theorists h a v e set for
themselves, their literature is the only one that has b e en willing
to confront the his to ric a l pro blem directly. T h is confrontation
w it h historical process has b e en the m o d e of production litera­
ture’s greatest strength, e ve n if that strength sometimes re­
m a in s an unrealized p ro m is e . T h e questions authors w it h in this
 anthro po lo g y , his to ry , and pr o d uctio n 163

tradition h a v e asked are im p o r t a n t, e ve n if the answers h a v e

been elusive.
The pro blem was most clearly addressed outside the L a t in
A m e r ic a n context by P ie r r e - P h il ip p e R ey , w ho saw three stages

in the articulation of capitalist a n d noncapitalist modes of pro­

duction w h e n “ capital” intervenes in noncapitalist formations

(Rey 1 9 7 6 : 8 1 - 1 0 9 ; B r a d b y 1 9 7 5 ; Foster-Carter 19 7 8 ) .

1. In the first stage, capitalist a n d noncapitalist modes of

production articulate solely thro ugh circulation. C o m m o d it ie s

produced thro ugh noncapitalist relations enter into capitalist

circuits of e xc h a n g e , b u t the basic u n it y of labor w it h m e an s of

labor in the noncapitalist m o d e is not necessarily threatened.

C o m m o d it y pro ductio n a n d circulation long precede capitalism

and are in no w a y in c o m p a tib le w it h noncapitalist pro duction

relations. C a p it a l is m may therefore be reproduced by selling

and p ur ch a s in g c o m m o d itie s w it h noncapitalist sectors w itho ut

necessarily b r e a k in g u p those relations.

2. Stage two comes, for R e y , w h e n the req uirem ents of capital­

ist accum ulatio n a n d reproductio n can no longer be m e t by this

form of articulation. Capitalists may n e ed additional labor

power or n e w m e a n s of pro ductio n, a n d the former u n it y of

labor w it h m e a n s of labor in the noncapitalist m o d e m u s t be

broken to p r o v id e e ith e r or both of these newly d e f in e d c o m ­

modities. Because, according to R e y , this separation cannot be

accomplished at the eco n o m ic level alone, violence is necessary.

“ A rticulatio n,” as a process of e x p a n d e d reproduction of capital­

ism a n d destruction of noncapitalist relations, is in this stage a

pre d o m in an tly political process. E v e n tho u g h the former u n it y

is broken, the old forms thro ugh w h ic h that u n it y was e x ­

pressed co n tin u e to exist. C a p ita l is therefore accum ulated

through noncapitalist forms that are now d o m in a t e d (politi­

cally) by capitalist relations of pro duction a n d reproductio n.

R e y characterized this per io d as one in w h ic h capitalism is “ tak­

in g root.”
3. In the th ir d stage, capitalism no longer “ needs” noncapital­
ist relations, a n d its relations of pro duction are established w it h ­
out the necessity of political in te r ve n tio n . A c c o r d in g to R ey , this
stage has a r r ive d in the U n it e d States alone.
164 PO LITICA L ECONOMY

R e y a p p l ie d his s c h em e to W est A f r ic a n history. L e a v in g aside

the question of its applicability to that region, w e can note that

its relevance for L a t in A m e r ic a is pro blematic. T h is must be

k e p t in m i n d w h e n one reads the debates that e m e r g e d on the

necessity of violence. W he the r we consider A f r ic a or Latin

A m e r ic a , ho w ever, the violent nature of “ articulation” in the

first stage (essentially, the historical perio d that preced ed im p e ­

rialism) is u n d e r e m p h a s iz e d . T h is is clear w it h the A f r ic a n slave

trade a n d the colonization of L a t in A m e r ic a . A s a result, the

relative violence of the second stage (and the tortured discus­

sion of political vs. eco n o m ic d o m in a t io n throughout) m a y be
o v e r e m p h a s iz e d .

B u t I shall not discuss the stages as stages, the necessity of

violence, or the d o m in a n c e of the political or eco no m ic. More

importantly, R e y has il l u m in a t e d the historical pro blem in such

a w a y that w e can a pp r o a ch a n u n d e r s tan d in g of the relevance

of the m o d e of pro duction literature a n d its most important

pitfalls. A l th o u g h his language is less evocative than Ortner’s

discussion of the capitalist s h ip and the noncapitalist shore

( 19 8 4 ; see above, C h a p t e r 2), h e has raised a series of questions

that m a ke s possible a m o r e serious a n d careful consideration of

the issues. H e has outlined three broadly co nceived historical

po s s ib ilities , in each of w h ic h m o d e of production analysis must

take a different fo rm . In discussing these possibilities, I stress

that they are not co nc eived as stages. Roughly, the first and
second possibilities could characterize parts of L a t in A m e r ic a in

the colonial a n d im m e d ia t e postcolonial per io d , w it h the second

possibility b e c o m in g m o r e im p o r t a n t in the late n in e te e n th cen­

tury. T h e second a n d th ir d possibilities could characterize parts

of L a t in A m e r ic a in the m id d l e a n d late tw en tieth century. H o w ­

ever, I stress that these possibilities are simultaneously present
in an u n e v e n l y d e ve lo p in g capitalis m . Too often w e t h in k of
capitalism as a n u n d iffe r e n te d , e x p a n d in g whole. “ It” is a total­
ity, but it is characterized by the u n e v e n n e s s of its d evelo pm ent.
T h a t unevenness results in the distinct possibilities (w h ic h are
nonetheless not separate or discrete) to w h ic h I refer.
In the firs t possibility, capitalism does not d o m in a t e non­
capitalist m o des of pro ductio n, although they m a y “ articulate”
 anthro po lo g y , his to ry, a n d pr o d uctio n 165

through the circulation of c o m m o d itie s . T h e phrase “ does not

d o m in a te ” im p l ie s that the u n it y of labor w it h m e a n s of labor is

intact a n d the laws of m o tio n of the noncapitalist m o d e h a v e not

been in te r r u p te d . In such situations, it is extrem ely im p o r ta n t

that w e h a v e concepts w it h w h ic h w e can characterize the type

of u n it y a n d the laws of m o tio n w ith o u t r e d u c in g t h e m to the

terms or logic of capitalis m (see H a r b s m e ie r 1 9 7 8 ; K a h n 1 9 8 1 b ;

Clarke 19 8 1) . D e s p it e articulation thro ugh circulation, those

laws of m o tio n m u s t not be analyzed in terms of the logic and

needs of capitalist pro ductio n a n d reproductio n. In such situa­

tions, m o d e of pro ductio n analysis offers m o re possibilities for

historical u n d e r s ta n d in g than does world-system analysis, as

long as the ver y terms in w h ic h m odes of pro duction are dis­

cussed can be freed from capitalist categories (an outcome that

is by no m e a n s guaranteed a n d for w h ic h there are few success­

ful examples).

In the t h ir d possibility, the u n it y of labor w it h m e an s of labor

has b een bro ken, a n d capitalist relations are d o m in a n t . T h is

situation m a y exist e v e n w h e r e apparently noncapitalist social

groups (e.g., peasants, artisans, a n d so on) are actively present

in the social fo rm atio n. T h e s im ple existence of social group

that does not correspond to “ p u r e ” capitalist classes does not

indicate the existence of another m o d e of production unless

the apparently pro blematic groups exist w it h in relations of

production and reproductio n that can g en u in e ly be consid­

ered noncapitalist. T h e y m a y exist as part of the total repro­

duction process of capital; in d e e d , the very logic of capital

reproduction m a y create such a m b ig u o u s class positions ( W r ig h t

19 7 8 : 6 1 — 8 7). In such a situation (and it surely applies to
m a n y aspects of co ntem po rary L a t in A m e r ic a that h a v e been

analyzed w it h in the articulation literature), reference to the

articulation of m odes of pro duction is at once too m u c h a n d

too little. It is too m u c h because it im p l ie s a d y n a m ic , or law of

m o tio n, that does not exist. It is too little because it locates that
d y n a m ic in terms of an abstractly co nceived m o d e of pro duc­
tion rather th a n the concrete action of the problematic groups
themselves (see below, C h a p t e r 7 , for a consideration of one
such pro blem atic g r o u p).5
166 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

T h e most im p o r t a n t historical problems concern the interm e­

diate, second possibility, the one R e y refers to as capitalism “ tak­

in g root.” R e y expresses the pro blem fairly well:

In the case of the transition from the feudal to the capitalist

mode of production, it seems obvious that one begins the
study of the necessity [sic ] of that evolution with feudalism,
since capitalism is born there. O n the other hand, in all the
other known historical examples of capitalist development
from w ith in a noncapitalist social formation, capitalism was
imported from elsewhere, already grown and strong. One
therefore has the temptation to analyze the necessity [jzc ] of
its development only from the point of view of its own laws.
Nevertheless, we will see that it is not possible to follow this
unilateral vision and that the phase of transition cannot be
understood except in terms of the internal characteristics of
the mode of production dominant before the intrusion of
capital. T h e social formation should take its own form of
transition to capitalism. T h e social formation of transition
therefore finds itself submitted to a double history, where
the contradiction between two orders of necessity is made
manifest: on the one side the history of capital itself, w hich is
essentially written outside of these social formations; on the
other side, the history of the specific transition of the modes
of production articulated with it. (19 7 6 : 82-83)

E v e n w it h in this passage w e can see w h e r e the very real histori­

cal pro b lem is d iv e r t e d . O u r labels, a n d the ideas they express,

prejudge the issue. It is a p p a r e n t in the reference to capitalism

“ tak in g root.” H o w e v e r m u c h R e y wants to see transition con­

c e ive d in terms of the modes of pro duction into w h ic h capital is
inserted, there is no do ubt about the e n d result of that process.
It is seen as a t r a n s it io n to capitalis m . T h e double history has a
single, teleological e n d . B u t if the historical process d u r in g this
perio d is one that cannot be reduced to the situation that e x ­
isted before capitalis m entered the picture or to the situation
that m ig h t exist if capitalis m becomes d o m in a n t , the n our cur­
rent ideas about history a n d our current concepts of modes of
pro duction do not serve us well.
 AN TH RO PO LO G Y, his to ry, a n d pro d uctio n 167

In a well-known passage, M a r x describes three outcomes of

conquest: “ In all cases of conquest, three things are possible.

The co nq uering people subjugates the conquered under its

own m o d e of pro ductio n . . . ; or it leaves the old m o d e intact

and contents itself w it h tribute . . . ; or a reciprocal interaction

takes place w h e r e b y s o m eth in g new , a synthesis, arises . . . ”

( 19 7 3 [ 1 8 5 7 — 5 8 ]: 9 7 ; cf. C .F .S . Cardoso 19 7 5 a ) . W e h a v e n u m e r ­
ous examples of subjugation a n d tribute, a n d our concepts a n d

ideas serve us well e n o u g h in th e ir analysis. W e also h a v e e x a m ­

ples of historical syntheses, a n d our concepts h a v e thus far not

proved adequate for the task. W e h a v e not yet shown ourselves

capable of grasping, theoretically, s o m eth in g n ew . In this case,

reference to m o des of pro duction that do not relate to or a d ­

dress this p ro b lem , h o w e ve r n u m e r o u s w e m a k e t h e m or h o w ­

ever convoluted our discussions of th e ir articulation, cannot

obscure (although the language is certainly obscurantist) our

failure.
If w e are really talking about s o m eth in g new , a n d w e take the

assumptions b e h in d the m o d e of pro duction concept seriously,

then new sets of class relations em erge, and new laws of

motion— based u p o n the class relations— result. T h e s e laws of

motion (and the interests of the newly d o m in a n t classes) cannot

be reduced to the needs of capital or the interests of the capital­

ist class as a whole. We therefore do in d e e d have a double

history, a transition w ith o u t an easily definable e n d p o in t. O f

course, I do not m e a n to suggest that later periods of history

m ig h t not fin d the n e w m odes a n d classes a n d d y n a m ic s sub­

jected to m o r e powerful pressures from the centers of capitalist

d evelo pm ent. I n d e e d , just as noncapitalist modes m a y be subju­

gated by the laws of m o tio n of capitalism , so m a y these synthetic

modes. B u t such an outco me is not im m a n e n t w it h in the syn­

thetic m o d e itself.

For e x a m p l e , I h a v e e x a m in e d a situation in the n ineteen th-

century V e n e z u e l a n A n d e s in w h ic h m e r c h a n t capital was b e in g
invested in coffee pro ductio n. T h e in ve s t m e n t of capital was

associated w it h the transformation of forms of landed property,

the creation of a pro perty-o w ning , c o m m o d it y - p r o d u c in g peas­

antry, a n d the rise of a m e r c h a n t class that was able to force ties

168 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

of d e p e n d e n c e u p o n the peasantry. Entirely n e w class relations

e m e r g e d , a n d the resulting d y n a m ic could only be understood

in terms of the im p o s it io n of a form of capital in the region.

Models of precapitalist modes of pro duction that treated capital

as an external feature would be in ad e q ua te. Yet n e ith e r was the

region subjected to a capitalist d y n a m ic . T h e merchants were

not agents of industrial capital or of a capitalist m o d e of produc­

tion. T h e y w ere p u r s u in g their o w n interests, w h ic h could not

be reduced to a n d w ere often in conflict w it h the interests of

larger capitalists. T h a t the m erchants a n d the coffee economy

they d o m in a t e d w ere later displaced d u r in g V e n e z u e l a ’s petro­

l e u m era should not obscure the alternative trajectory of the

n in e te e n th century (Roseberry 19 8 3 ) .

T h e p o in t is that w e are dealing w it h d e te r m in a te a n d contin­

gent historical processes. W e m u s t understand the interaction

betw een noncapitalist a n d capitalist modes in L a t in A m e r ic a n

history across five centuries in terms of w h a t existed before

contact, the nature of the contact a n d the transformation of

social relations that resulted, the n e w relations a n d dynamics

that w ere instituted, the contradictions e n g end ered by those

relations, a n d the m a n n e r in w h ic h those contradictions were

resolved a n d , in turn, set in m o tio n n e w contradictory relations

a n d d y n a m ic s . T h is analysis m u s t take into account L a t in A m e r ­

ica as a whole a n d its position w it h in a d evelo pin g world system.

Yet it m u s t simultaneously grasp the regional diversity of Latin

A m e r ic a in terms of ecology, prehistory, historical incorpora­

tion, etc. W e m u s t, in short, analyze regional processes of class

fo rm atio n. S u ch analyses m a k e room for, in d e e d require, an­

thropological u n d ers tan d ing .

For e x a m p l e , if one were trying to analyze the im p a c t of

coffee pro duction on agrarian class formation in nineteenth-
century L a t in A m e r ic a , one would first h a v e to co m e to grips
w it h coffee pro duction and c o n s u m p tio n as world-historical
facts, analyzing d eve lo p in g international m a r k e t in g a n d distri­
butional networks a n d c h a n g in g co n s u m p tio n patterns as cof­
fee m o v e d from coffee houses into the h o m e . B u t one would
also h a v e to e x p l a in the rem arkable diversity of production
arrangements a n d class relations that resulted from the produc-
 anthro po lo g y , his to ry, a n d p r o d uc tio n 169

tion of this world-historical product— from capital-intensive

plantations in Brazil to haciendas a n d d e p e n d e n t (as well as

in d e p e n d e n t) small farmers in Ve n e z u e l a , C o lo m b ia , a n d Costa

R ica, to large estates w it h resident a n d nonresident laborers in

El Salvador, to large estates w it h m igratory in d ig e n o u s laborers
in G u a te m a l a . S u c h an investigation would n e ed to p a y close

attention to the m a rk e d ly different societies into w h ic h coffee

production was intro d uced (Roseberry 19 8 6 a ; see C .F .S . C a r ­

doso 1 9 7 5 b for a p r e l im in a r y co m parison of Central A m e r ic a n

coffee-producing countries along these lines).6 O n e m ust, the n ,

e x a m in e several q uite distinct expressions of the “ internaliza­

tion of the external” (see C h a p t e r 4).

M u c h of the best anthropological a n d historical work that has

p a id attention to regional processes of class formation has

avo ided the m o d e of pro ductio n literature entirely, e v e n as it

has contributed to a resolution of the issues raised by that litera­

ture. It would s e e m , th e n , that the theoretical problems associ­

ated w it h m o d e of pro ductio n analysis p o in t toward historical

and anthropological solutions. W e cannot leave our discussion

at that level, ho w ever. “ H is to r y” does not present itself as a

master key. A s Go delier suggests, history does not e xp la in a n y ­

thing b u t m u s t itself be e x p l a in e d ( 1 9 7 7 : 49) It will be r e m e m ­

bered that this essay began w it h a pro blem in anthropological

and historical w r it in g that p o in te d toward the necessity of a

theoretical discourse. Clearly some sort of synthesis of theory

and history is necessary, b u t most of our popular models d r iv e

wedges b e tw e e n t h e m .

T h e most im p o r t a n t wedges concern the pro blem of “ law.” I

have referred at various points in this essay to the “ laws of

motion of particular modes of pro ductio n ,” a n d this phrase
must n o w receive critical attention. T h r o u g h o u t M a r x ’s w rit­
ing, one will fin d references to basic, fu n d a m e n ta l laws— of
accum ulatio n, of po pulatio n, a n d so on. O f course, M a r x d id

not see t h e m as natural laws that a p p l ie d to all historical e p ­

ochs. Rath e r , each mode of pro duction had its o w n laws of
m o tio n . Nonetheless, h e d id see w h a t h e was d o in g as scien-
170 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

tific, a n d his reference to law is fu n d a m e n ta l to any under­

standing of h i m . For m a n y readers, such an e m ph a s is — even

w hen laws only a p p ly to particular modes of p r o d u c t io n ^

raises the pro b lem of h u m a n agency, choice, a n d contingency

W h il e this pro b lem has b e e n elaborated by a n u m b e r of West­
ern Marxists whose distinct analyses have b e en lum ped by
m o re orthodox writers as H e g e l ia n or “ voluntarist” (e.g., Lu-

kacs 19 7 1 [ 19 2 2 ] ; Gramsci 19 7 1 [ 19 2 9 - 3 5 ] ; Korsch 19 7 1

[19 2 3 ] ) , the question of h u m a n agency has b e en most often

raised outside the M a r x is t tradition as part of a n em phas is on

in d iv id u a l choice. More recently, h u m a n agency a n d history

h a v e b e e n treated as central problems in the M a r xis t tradition

by E . P. T h o m p s o n a n d his followers.

M o r e theoretical readings of M a r x m a y e m p h a s iz e the “ scien­

tific” M a r x , the M a r x of fu n d a m e n ta l laws of m o tio n . T h e s e can

be fo und , for e x a m p l e , in the Second a n d T h ir d Internationals,

a n d in such recent m o v e m e n t s as the Kapitallogik formation in

G e r m a n y (see H a r b s m e ie r 19 7 8 ) or the Althusserians. W h il e the

Althusserians would reject the m o r e economistic versions of

M a r x ia n scientism, they continually stressed the im po rta n ce of

science as opposed to ideology. A n d w e h a v e already encoun­

tered th e ir rejection of history. S o m e scholars w ho reject this sort

of scientism b u t also seek to a vo id voluntarist e m phas es refer to

the laws of m o tio n as “ tendencies” (see, e .g ., C h in c h il l a a n d Dietz

1 9 8 1 ) . B u t this avoids the pro blem altogether a n d does not take

us b eyo nd a co n te m p lative appr o a ch (see Lukacs 1 9 7 1 [19 2 2 ]) to

social processes shared b y both scientism a n d voluntarism.

Full discussion of the philosophical a n d political problems

associated w it h law in theory a n d history would require a sepa­

rate v o l u m e . For the purposes of this essay, I concentrate on
Althusser a n d T h o m p s o n a n d e x a m in e their readings of C a p i­

tal. For the Althusserians, C a p it a l was M a r x ’s most developed

scientific work, in terms of w h ic h all his other w r it in g was to be
evaluated. T h e book was seen as a theoretical work— the theory
of the capitalist m o d e of pro ductio n. It was not seen as a histori­
cal work. T h e classic a n d oft-repeated formulation of this point
of v ie w stressed that M a r x ’s C a p it a l was a n analysis of the capital­
ist mode of production w h ile L e n in ’s D e ve lo p m e n t of C a p it a l is m in
 anthro po lo g y , his to ry , and p r o d uc tio n 171

R u s s ia ( 19 6 4 [18 9 9 ]) was an analysis of a capitalist social fo rm atio n.

T h is interpretatio n m u s t, of course, confront the attention

M a r x devo ted to the history a n d conditions of capitalism in

England (e.g ., in Ch a p te r s 10 , 13 — 15 , 2 7 - 3 2 of V o l u m e 1 of

C a p ita l ). For the Althusserians, these materials w ere s im p ly i n ­

tended as e xa m p le s a n d rend ered the work m o r e accessible to a

read ing p ub lic. N o organic relationship was seen, th e n , betw een

the theory a n d the lengthy historical discussions.

Tho m ps o n d e n ie d an organic relationship b etw een theory

and history in C a p it a l as well, but h e preferred the historical

parts of the book. For T h o m p s o n , M a r x ’s “ obsessive” ( 19 7 8 a :

59) encounter w it h political e co n o m y led h i m into a trap. H o w ­

ever m u c h h e u n d e r m in e d a n d transcended the assumptions

and categories of classical political economy, in his concern for

laws of m o tio n in capitalism h e was caught in the sam e “ static,

anti-historical structure” ( ib id .: 6 1) that h e was criticizing . T h is

was most e v id e n t , according to T h o m p s o n , in the G r u n d r is s e

( 19 7 3 [ 1 8 5 7 — 58]). The a d d itio n of the historical material in

C a p it a l was the s p r in g in g of the trap, the b e g in n in g of a m o v e

beyond political e c o n o m y ( T h o m p s o n 19 7 8 a : 5 5 - 6 6 ) . C a p it a l

r e m a in e d , ho w ever, a “ m o u n ta in o u s inconsistency” ( ib id .: 65).

Perhaps . B u t it seems to m e that both Althusser a n d T h o m p ­

son separated w h a t in C a p it a l was an indissoluble u n it y a n d pro­

duced a pro fo und m is r e a d in g of M a r x . If w e look at one set of

historical chapters, w e fin d that they c o m e at a particularly i m ­

portant place in M a r x ’s book. M a r x has just set out his analysis of

value a n d surplus value, the basis for an un d e r s tan d in g of capital­

ist exploitation. In its first theoretical expression, surplus value

appears as absolute surplus value. U n d e r this form, the n u m b e r

of hours necessary to reproduce the value of labor power is taken

as g iv e n . Surplus labor, a n d b y extensio n surplus value, can only

be e x p a n d e d thro ugh an e xp a n s io n of the w o rk in g day. M a r x

then enters into a long historical chapter (C h a p t e r 10) on the
struggle in E n g la n d over the length of the w o rk in g day. T h e
account of the struggle concentrates on legislation. In the early
stages of capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t , laws w ere passed to lengthen
the w o r k in g day, to require apprentices a n d s e m iin d e p e n d e n t or
formerly in d e p e n d e n t workers to work full days a n d weeks for
172 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

e m e r g in g masters. W i t h the industrial transformation of the late

e ig h te e n th a n d early n in e t e e n t h centuries, ho wever, legislation

began to turn in the opposite directio n, shortening the working

day, restricting the labor of w o m e n a n d children, a n d so on. T h is

a p p a r e n t victory for the w o r k in g class m e a n t that the capitalist

was confronted w it h a reductio n of absolute surplus value. In the

face of this d e v e l o p m e n t , M a r x then introduces the concept of

relative surplus value. W i t h it, h e no longer assumes the n u m b e r

of hours necessary to reproduce the value of labor power as

g iv e n . Rather, the necessary labor c o m p o n e n t could be reduced

either by r e d u c in g the value of labor pow er or by increasing the

p ro d u c tivity of labor. M a r x th e n entered into another series of

historical chapters ( 1 3 — 1 5 ) describing the process by w h ic h capi­

tal transformed the work process a n d the worker, increasing

p ro d u c tivity a n d extracting ever greater masses of surplus value

from the laborer.

L e t us look at these chapters in terms of the laws of m o tio n of

capitalis m . It should be clear that these laws are not v ie w e d in

terms of the abstract logic of capital or a n y other ahistorical

formulation. Rather, they are set in m o tio n thro ugh a struggle

betw een two f u n d a m e n ta l classes. T h e w o rkin g class struggled to

reduce the w o r k in g day, earn ed victories in that fight, but was

simultaneously confronted by another in it ia t iv e from capital—

the transformation of work. I do not m e a n to im p l y that the

m o v e from absolute to relative surplus value was represented in

historical t im e . It is, rather, a theoretical m o v e m e n t . Historically,

both types of surplus value were present simultaneously. For

e x a m p l e , the a p p a r e n t victory for workers in the shortening of

the w o r k in g d ay occurred in the context of the Industrial R evo lu ­

tion, or the growth of relative surplus value w it h the transforma­
tion of work. N o r do I m e a n to im p l y that a struggle between
classes is the only m e a n s by w h ic h w e can understand the m o v e ­
m e n t toward relative surplus value. M a r x quite clearly showed
that the im p u l s e toward relative surplus value was p r o vid e d by
c o m p e titio n a m o n g capitals. Nonetheless, M a r x d id m a k e the
action of h u m a n s central to the laws of m o tio n of capitalism . T h e
result of that action was not w h a t the w o r k in g class en vis io n e d .
In d e e d , they w ere further proletarianized in the process. T h e r e
 anthro po lo g y , his to ry , and p r o d uc tio n 173

is, then, no h in t of voluntarism in M a r x ’s appro a ch, no sugges­

tion that workers w ere choosing historical outcomes. T h e ir ac­

tion, ho wever, a n d the o ppo s ing action of capital are the m e an s

through w h ic h history is m a d e . It is thro ugh struggle that w e

m a y write of structure, thro ugh struggle that w e m a y en visio n

laws of m o tio n .
Le t us return, t h e n , to the pro blem of theory a n d history. T h e

historical sections of C a p it a l only m a k e sense because they are

placed w it h in a theoretical analysis that has sketched the basic

relationships of c a pita lis m : the d iv is io n be tw e e n capital a n d la­

bor, the c o m m o d it iz a t io n of labor power, the labor theory of

value. O n the basis of these relationships, a certain im p e r a t iv e is

adduced for the capitalist: the constant e xpan s io n of surplus

value. Thes e relationships a n d that im p e r a t iv e are analyzed

through a process of abstraction. B u t there is no sense in w h ic h

the im p e r a t iv e can be abstractly realized. It can only be realized

through the basic relationships, w h ic h now take concrete forms

and fight historical battles. T h r o u g h these battles, the relation­

ships themselves are transfo rmed.7

T h is is the sort of u n d e r s ta n d in g that w e should take to the

analysis of m o d es of pro ductio n and regional processes of

class fo rmatio n in L a t in A m e r ic a . If in d e e d “ s o m ethin g new , a

synthesis” em erged in some periods a n d in some regions in

La tin A m e r ic a , our analyses m u s t be theoretically sophisticated

enough to outline the basic relationships that characterized

those regions a n d periods. For this study, a concept of m o d e of

production is essential. It m u s t be seen, ho wever, as a starting

point for analyses of class fo rm atio n a n d struggle. T h a t is, w e

must a vo id the rationalism of Althusser, w h ic h takes the sepa­

ration of theory a n d history as a p o in t of honor, a n d w e m us t

avoid the e m p ir ic is m and fo rmalism of m u c h of the L a t in

A m e r ic a n literature. In both cases, m o d e of pro duction analy­

sis becomes a n e n d in itself. In the first, one adopts a co nde­
scending attitude toward the h u m a n subjects of history; in the
second, one s im p l y applies labels to history. T h e labels then
im p l y certain u n p r o b le m a tic relationships a n d certain laws of

m o tio n; the g r o u p in g of labels in some form of articulation

becomes a w ay of categorizing structural heterogeneity a n d
174 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

calling it contradiction. In contrast, the appro ach I a m callin

for is one that uses the m o d e of pro duction concept as a thecf

retical tool in o utlin in g certain class relationships. T h e central

focus of study, ho w ever, is the formation of the classes them­

selves, th e ir relations w it h other classes in space a n d t im e , their

forms of organization, a n d their struggles— over the price of

corn or coffee, for land, for the state. In this type of study, the

m o d e of pro ductio n perspective reaches its limits. T h e limits

cannot be transcended w it h in m o d e of pro duction analysis it­

self but only w it h the recognition that the subjects of history,

the m akers of laws of m o tio n , are n e ith e r the concepts nor the

conceptualizers.
C H A P T E R S E V E N

Agrarian Questions
and Functionalist Eco no m ism
in Latin A m e r ic a

O ur discussion of m o des of pro duction began w it h a b rie f dis­

cussion of anthropological work a m o n g L a t in A m e r ic a n peas­

antries a n d turn ed toward approaches to history. In returnin g

to twentieth-century peasantries, I do not a tte m p t to survey the

various approaches to peasants w it h in the m o d e of production

literature. S im p l y at the level of basic categories, the range of

opinio n is w id e — from those w h o see peasants as part of a

noncapitalist mode of pro duction (called “ peasant,” “ sim ple

co m m o d ity,” or “ tributary” ), through those w ho try to u n d e r ­

stand peasant pro duction a n d e xc h a n g e in terms of the d y n a m ­

ics of a capitalist m o d e of pro duction, to those w ho aband o n the

more abstract posturings of the m o d e of pro duction literature

and concentrate on discrete “ forms” of p ro d u c tio n .1

Cross-cutting the various divisions a m o n g writers concerning

labels is a m o r e serious d is ag re e m en t co ncerning the positions,

roles, a n d fates of peasantries w it h in the d y n a m ic s of c o n te m p o ­

rary L a t in A m e r ic a n capitalis m . O n e gro up of writers projects

the eventual or actual d is appearan ce of peasants w it h in capital­
ist society; another stresses the persistence of peasants in se­
verely d is ad van tag ed positions w it h in circuits of capital a n d
state a ccu m ulatio n . T h e most sophisticated discussion has oc­
curred in M e x ic o and has in clu d ed such authors as Roger
Bartra (who places his analytical attention u p o n a n d political
176 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

faith in a proletariat) a n d A rtu ro W a r m a n (who stresses the

persistence a n d political creativity of peasants).2

To a certain extent, the literature repeats a n d draws upon

them es played out in the R us sian literature of the early twentieth

century. O f particular interest has b een the w r itin g of the Rus­

sian Marxists— especially V . I. L e n in ’sD e v e l o p m e n t o f C a p it a l is m in

R u s s ia ( 19 6 4 [18 9 9 ]) and later works— and of the populists

(“ N a r o d n ik s ” ) a n d neopopulists— especially A. V. Chayan o v

( 19 6 6 [ 19 2 5 ] ) , w h o offered a profound if often obliquely stated
critique of the M a r x is t u n d e r s tan d in g .

T h e reasons for the popularity of this literature are not hard

to locate. Russia was a p r im a r il y agricultural country in the

initial stages of a capitalist transformation that was most evident

in industrial pockets in u rb a n areas. Marxists a n d populists

w ere concerned about the roles a n d fates of recently e m a n c i­

pated peasants in Rus sia’s capitalist d e ve lo p m e n t, and they

w ere especially concerned about their position w it h in revolu­

tionary m o vem en ts . N in e te e n th -c e n tu r y populists w an ted to

preserve the peasant c o m m u n e from capitalist intrusion from

outside, seeing in the c o m m u n e the cell form of a future co m ­

m u n is t society (cf. S h a n in 19 8 3 ) . L e n in , whose D e v e l o p m e n t of

C a p it a l is m i n R u s s ia was w ritten as a critique of populist ideas (to

w h ic h M a r x h a d offered support late in his life), contended that

capitalism was already en tr e n ch e d in the countryside, that peas­

ant c o m m u n it ie s w ere differentiated into rich, m id d l e , and

poor strata, a n d that the differentiation was part of an ongoing

process of class fo rm atio n as the peasantry separated into a

small petty bourgeoisie a n d a large proletariat. C h a y a n o v , writ­

in g some years later, d id not enter this debate. H is “ n e o p o p u ­

list” school, ho w ever, arose in light of the failure of Russian
peasants to differentiate into classes as one m ig h t h a ve ex­
pected, especially after the 19 0 5 Stolypin Reform s, a n d the fact
that peasants in the revolution acted as peasants rather than
rural proletarians. G iv e n the circumstances, L e n in is t theory
could not be directly confronted, b u t C h a y a n o v develo ped an

appro ach that concentrated on the organizational features and

domestic cycles of peasant households. H e understood differen­
tiation a m o n g households not as a social process leading to class
 ag rarian q u e s tio n s a n d ec o n o m is m 1 77

formation b u t as a d e m o g r a p h ic process w h e r e b y peasant hold­

ings increased as the number of d epen d en ts increased and

decreased thereafter. C h a y a n o v c la im e d to see his work as c o m ­

plem entary to M a r xis t theory, d eve lo p in g a noncapitalist eco­

nomics. W h e t h e r it was c o m p l e m e n ta r y or not, it d e p e n d e d

more on marginalist assumptions than h e could ever a d m it (for

s u m m a rie s and critiques, see S h a n in 19 7 2 ; Ha rriso n 19 7 5 ;

19 7 7 ; 1 9 7 9 ; D urrenb erg er, e d . 19 8 4 ; L e h m a n 19 8 2 ; D o n h a m

1 9 8 1 ) . M o reover, the different interpretations of the process of

differentiation (social or d e m o g r a p h ic ) im p l ie d profoundly d if ­

ferent understandings of the positions, roles, a n d fates of peas­

ants in R us s ian d e v e l o p m e n t .

T h e formal similarities b e tw e e n Russia in the late n in e te e n th

century a n d some T h i r d World societies in the m id d l e to late

twentieth century h a ve often b e en noted (S h a n in 19 7 2 ) , as

ha ve the differences (S h a n in 19 7 9 ) . M o r e im p o r ta n t, our u n ­

derstandings of peasants w it h in co ntem po rary L a t in A m e r ic a n

capitalist societies are still f r a m e d in m u c h the sam e terms that

were used in late-nineteenth- a n d early-twentieth-century R u s ­

sia. One need only im m e r s e oneself in the differentiation

debates in M e x ic o a n d elsewhere to be co nvinc ed of the con­

tem po rary relevance of the literature. T h a t im p o r ta n t ques­

tions are at stake is clear from the frequent misrepresentations

and caricatures, both of the Rus sian literature a n d of recent

contributions. For e x a m p l e , it is often c la im e d that L e n in saw

differentiation a n d d is appear an ce as in evita b le, virtually auto­

m a tic, thus falling into a k in d of d e t e r m in is m that m akes peas­

ants m echanically d is a p p e a r a n d d e n y in g to peasants a n y k in d

of agency. T h e analysis is thus seen to fit w it h in a typical M a r x ­

ist dismissal of peasants as part of a univocal celebration of the

proletariat. T h e r e is some truth here, especially in the later

literature, b u t it should be r e m e m b e r e d that L e n in fr a m e d his

analysis as an argum ent against state policies that were de­

signed to block differen tiatio n ; there was little in his analysis
that suggested in evita b ility.
On the other hand, Chayano v and C h a y a n o v ia n s are dis­
missed as populists a n d romantics w h o , in their celebration of a
d is a p p e a r in g peasantry, served reactionary goals. Here, too,
 178 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

there is some truth: agrarianist policies that ignore proletar­

ian iza tio n may freeze agriculturalists on the land in a semi­

peasant, sem ipro letarian status that assures c o n tin ue d poverty.

B u t the truth is hardly u n c o m p lic a te d . T h a t a populist apprecia­

tion of the peasantry n e e d be n e ith e r ro m a ntic nor reactionary

should be clear from a careful r e a d in g of Arturo W a r m a n ’s

analysis of the Morelos peasantry in the context of M e x ic a n

capitalism a n d state fo rm atio n ( 1 9 8 1 ) . A n a tte m p t to p a y atten­

tion to the activities of peasants as they endeavo r to hold onto

land a n d livelihood in the face of such powerful pressures is not

necessarily, th o u g h in e x t r e m e versions it certainly is, a denial

of those pressures a n d a ro m a n tic search for authenticity. L ik e ­

wise, a M a r x is t a tt e m p t to analyze the d y n a m ic s of capitalist

d e v e l o p m e n t that im p in g e u p o n a peasantry a n d subject it to

powerful pressures toward proletarianization is not necessarily,

tho u g h in e x t r e m e versions it certainly is, an a tte m p t to im po se

m echanically d e te r m in is t laws u p o n supposedly passive anthro­

pological subjects. A s M a r x c o m m e n t e d regarding the Russian

peasantry: “ W h a t threatens the life of the Russian c o m m u n e is

n e ith e r a historical in e v it a b il it y nor a theory; it is state oppres­

sion, a n d exploitation by capitalist intruders w h o m the state has

m a d e powerful at the peasants’ e x p e n s e ” (in S h a n in 19 8 3 : 10 4 -

10 5 ) . O n e should not b la m e the messenger for b r in g in g us bad

news.

W e can a pp r ec ia te the literature a n d its im po r ta n c e for an­

thropologists if w e eschew a broad survey or r e v ie w a n d concen­

trate on one recent co ntributio n. W e can then e x a m in e what

that work has to say to anthropologists a n d w h a t (some) anthro­

pologists m ig h t say in response. I turn, the n , to the work of a

political economist, A l a in d e Janvry. In his o w n essays a n d in

essays coauthored w it h some of his former students (see de
J anvry a n d G a r r a m o n 1 9 7 7 ; D e e r e a n d de J anvry 1 9 7 9 ; 1 9 8 1 ) ,
h e has b e e n d e ve lo p in g a m o del that fits firmly w it h in a slightly
m o d if ie d L e n in is t a pp r o a ch to peasants. T h is has rec eived its
most thorough statement in his book, T h e A g r a r ia n Q u e s t io n a n d
R e f o r m is m i n L a t i n A m e r ic a ( 1 9 8 1 ) . T h is essay m akes no attem pt
to evaluate all aspects of his analysis b u t concentrates on his
basic m o d el of articulated versus disarticulated accum ulation
 AGRARIAN q ue s tio n s a n d ec o n o m is m 179

and assesses his u n d e r s ta n d in g of peasants w it h in a m o d e of

accumulation characterized by “ functional d u a l is m .” After a

brief presentation of the m o del, I offer a critical assessment.

D e J an vry’s m o d e l3 begins w it h a basic distinction betw een

articulated a n d disarticulated a ccum ulatio n (cf. A m i n 19 7 6 ) .

Articulated a ccu m ulatio n (de J an vry 1 9 8 1 : 2 6 - 2 3 ) , characteris­

tic of “ central” econo m ies, d e p e n d s u p o n an eco n o m y that can

be d iv id e d along the classic lines of M a r x ’s distinction be tw e e n a

capital goods sector ( D e p a r t m e n t i ) a n d a co n s u m p tio n goods

sector ( D e p a r t m e n t n ). Sectoral articulation s im p ly refers to

the fact that the two sectors supply the goods necessary to sat­

isfy the d e m a n d presented by each of the two sectors. T h e

capital goods sector pro vides the m a c h in e s a n d raw materials

necessary for further pro ductio n in both the capital goods a n d

co nsumption goods sectors. T h e co n s u m p tio n goods sector pro­

duces w ag e and luxury goods (de J anvry em pha s izes wage

goods) for workers in both the capital goods a n d co n s u m p tio n

goods sectors. M a r x m a d e the basic distinction to demonstrate

that all of the value pro d u ce d in one cycle of pro duction could

be realized in e x c h a n g e a n d that, g iv e n the right set of c ir c u m ­

stances, capitalis m could reproduce itself on a s im ple or e x ­

panded basis w it h o u t crisis or recourse to external outlets

(M a r x 19 6 7 a [18 8 8 ]) . O f course, capitalis m b e in g u n p l a n n e d ,

the right set of circumstances is h ard to co m e by, a n d crises of

various degrees of severity are e n d e m ic in capitalis m . M a r x ’s

model was in t e n d e d to criticize the m o r e simplistic n in e te en th-

century socialist theories of crisis, e m p h a s iz in g structurally

dictacted o verpro ductio n a n d u n d e r c o n s u m p t io n .

D e J an vry explores some of the literature on crisis, contradic­

tion, a n d a c c u m u la tio n in central econo mies, b u t the discussion

is not crucial to our current consideration. M o r e im p o r t a n t for

what follows are two of de J a n vr y ’s conclusions ( 1 9 8 1 : 3 1 ) . ( 1)
U n d e r articulated a ccu m ulatio n , labor is both a “ g a in ” a n d a
“loss” for capital. T h a t is, to increase or m a in t a in profits, labor
costs m u s t be r ed u c e d as m u c h as possible. O n the other h a n d ,
labor is a m a r k e t as well as a pro duction cost, a n d laborers m us t
be p a id well e n o u g h to purchase the products of the consume

goods sector. (2) T h e d r iv e to reduce labor costs and increase

the m arket capacity of labor im p l ie s the complete proletar

ian iza tio n of the labor force, m e a n in g that “ there is a rapid

tend ency toward u n im o d a l it y and ultimately only two classes”

(ib id .).

On the other h a n d , disarticulated accum ulatio n (ib id .: 32-

40) in “ p e r ip h e r a l” economies cannot be characterized in terms

of a relationship be tw e e n capital a n d c o ns u m ptio n goods sec­

tors. D e J an vry sees two types of disarticulated eco no m y: one in

w h ic h a m o d e r n enclave produces agricultural, m ineral, or in ­

dustrial goods for expo rt; another in w h ic h the export enclave

is c o m b in e d w it h an industrial sector created by im p o r t substitu­

tion policies. T h e industrial sector, however, will be devoted to

luxury goods. T h e m a r k e t for the “ m o d e r n ” sector, then, will be

in the exterior (enclave exports) a n d a m o n g the “ local bourgeoi­

sie” a n d “ landed elites” (im p o r t substitution industrialization).

Note that in n e ith e r case do workers p r o vid e a m a r k e t for the

o utput of the “ m o d e r n ” sector. T h is provides the basis for one

of de J a n vr y ’s basic distinctions. Labor is both a g a in and a loss

for capital in articulated economies but only a loss (that is, a

cost) in per iph er a l economies ( ib id .: 34). Th e r e fo r e , there is no

co untervailing pressure against a model of accum ulation that

decreases real wages as low as possible. Also, as a result, there is

no tend ency toward full proletarianization. Instead, a “ tradi­

tional” sector is m a in t a in e d to p r o vid e for the workers part of

the co n s u m p tio n needs that are not satisfied in the “ m o d ern ”

sector. H e r e d e J an vry introduces the concept of “ functional

d u a l is m .” In its first a p p r o x im a t io n , it is worth quoting in full.

O f the two motives for proletarianization of labor that exist in

articulated economies, the first (reducing labor costs) but not
the second (creating a ho me market out of rising wages), ap­
plies to disarticulated economies. As a result, labor costs can
be further reduced by perpetuating the subsistence economy
that partially assumes the cost of m a intaining and reproduc­
ing the labor force. Functional dualism between modern and
traditional sectors thus makes it possible to sustain a level of
 AGRARIAN q u e s tio n s a n d ec o n o m is m 181

wage below the cost of maintenance and reproduction of the

labor force— a cost that would determine the m in im u m wage
for a fully proletarianized labor force. Here, wage is only a
complement between the subsistence needs of the worker and
his family and net production in the traditional sector. From
the standpoint of the employer, labor is “ free” and fully prole­
tarianized; labor is a variable cost paid in cash. But from the
standpoint of the labor force, labor is only semiproletarianized,
since part of the laborers’ subsistence needs are derived from
production for ho m e consumption. Functional dualism thus
provides the structural possibility of meeting the necessity for
cheap labor that derives from the laws of accumulation under
social disarticulation. (Ibid.: 36, 37)

T h is first a p p r o x im a t io n im p l ie s that workers in the m o d e r n

sector h a v e direct connections w it h the traditional sector, w he re

they p r o vid e for a portion of th e ir o w n subsistence. A second

a p p r o x im a t io n im p lic itly takes into account urban/rural a n d

proletarian/semiproletarian or proletarian/peasant differences

that are not co ntained in the first statement of functional dual­

ism . In the second a p p r o x im a t io n , de J anvry considers the prob­

lem of p r o v id in g c h e a p food for a proletariat whose real wages

have b een depressed as low as possible. T h is proletariat, espe­

cially in u r b a n areas, m a y not p r o vid e for its o w n subsistence but

must find c h e a p food in the m arketplace. D e J anvry considers

three m e c h a n is m s that can p r o vid e c h e a p food: ( 1) suppression

of prices, m a n d a t in g food pro ductio n for sale by traditional sec­

tors, e .g ., peasants; (2) im po rts ; a n d (3) capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t in

agriculture. T h e th ir d option, ho w ever, g iv e n low prices, can

only be m a in t a in e d w it h cheap labor. It is here that s e m i­

proletarian labor is most characteristic. T h e laborer w ho works

for wages a n d engages in subsistence agriculture is now placed in

agriculture rather than thro ughout the disarticulated eco no m y

(ib id .: 39).
W it h this basic distinction, th e n , de J an vry has created the
possibility of an analysis that goes b eyo nd the s im ple opposi­
tions b e tw e e n C h a y a n o v a n d L e n in . Following L e n in (and M a r x ­
ist approaches generally), h e approaches peasants in terms of
182 p o litic a l econom y

their position w it h in a process of capital accum ulatio n. Unlike

those theorists w h o e xp ec t a replication in the T h ir d World of

the English e x p e r ie n c e described b y M a r x , de Janvry sees an

in co m plete proletarianization, the creation of a class of produc­

ers that is n e it h e r fully peasant nor fully proletarian: the s e m i­

proletariat. T h e creation of this class is a result of the logic of

functional d u a lis m , w h ic h de J an vry sees arising in L a t in A m e r ­

ica in the second a n d th ir d decades of the tw entieth century

although the exact t im in g differs from country to country. T h e

watershed is the abolition of coercive forms of labor control on

haciendas and plantations, the expulsion of internal peas­

antries, a n d the creation of smallholder peasants a n d capitalist

farms. T h e capitalist farms d e p e n d on the labor of rural prole­

tarians a n d “ free semiproletarians” — smallholders (m inifund is -

tas) w h o cannot fully p r o vid e for their own subsistence and

work on capitalist farms as well ( ib id .: 8 1 - 8 5 ) .

Altho ug h d e J a n vr y ’s m o del seems to stake out a middle

ground be tw e e n L e n in is t a n d populist approaches to peasants by

positing a special k in d of per iph er a l capitalism (“ disarticulated

a c c u m ulatio n ” ), h e does not leave his analysis at this level. Follow­

in g A m i n this far, h e th e n d enies that the eco no m ic a n d class

structure h e has outlined can be considered stable. H is conclu­

sion places h i m fully w it h in a m o d if ie d L e n in is t perspective:

Growth of the modern sector does not create a tendency to

eliminate peasants in response to the need for market cre­
ation. However, over the long run, peasants are outcompeted
[sic ] for access to land by capitalist agriculture and are increas­
ingly proletarianized: unimodality eventually occurs by the back
door, and with dramatic social costs. Functional dualism is
thus only a phase of the development of capitalism in the
periphery; it is being destroyed over tim e by being used today.
It does not have its own stable laws of reproduction as A m in
and Bartra suggested. Hen ce, peripheral capitalism is not a
distinct mode of production w ith its own laws of motion, but is
only a historically specific stage in the development of capital­
ism in the periphery. It is this extended period of p r im itive
accumulation, in w hich a surplus is extracted from the tradi­
tional sector via the labor and wage-foods markets and in
 ag rarian q u e s tio n s a n d ec o n o m is m 183

w hich the traditional sector gradually decomposes while sus­

taining rapid accumulation in the modern sector, that can be
properly labeled the development of underdevelopment.
(Ibid.: 37, emphasis added; cf. Deere and de Janvry 1979)

Suppo rt for this dramatically pessimistic conclusion regard­

in g the future of the peasantry comes as de J anvry elaborates

upo n his m o d el. It d e p e n d s u p o n a characterization of peasants

not as a “ m o d e of pro d u ctio n ” or as a “ special eco no m ic cate­

gory” b u t as a “ class or a fraction of a class w it h in different

modes of pro ductio n— a class that is essential in modes like

feudalism a n d transitory (and h e n ce only a fraction of a class) in

others, like ca pita lis m ” 19 8 1; 10 6 ). H e the n e x a m in e s the fate

of this transitory class w it h in the logic of functional d u a lis m .

G iv e n the necessity of c h e a p food to support the “ m o d e r n ”

sector, peasants m a y serve this necessity in two ways: as c o m ­

m o d ity producers w it h in the traditional sector a n d as s e m i­

proletarians w it h in the m o d e r n agricultural sector. A lth o u g h

de J anvry sees both functions b e in g served historically, h e ar­

gues that peasants are increasingly r e m o ve d from c o m m o d it y

producer status a n d increasingly red uced to semiproletarian

status ( ib id .: 39 , et passim ). T h is contention allows h i m to ac­

count for one of the pieces of e v id e n c e often cited by agrarian

populists— the g ro w ing n u m b e r , despite pressures, of peasants

in m a n y L a t in A m e r ic a n countries. For d e Janvry, such growth

should not be confused w it h resiliency. Rather, it signifies the

growth of a m in if u n d is t a class as part of the logic of capital

accum ulatio n:

W h a t the census data evidence, consequently, is a process

whereby the peasantry grows in size but simultaneously loses
its status as commodity producer. It is forced onto more and
more m in u t e and eroded land plots, where it is of necessity
increasingly semiproletarianized. A n d lack of employment op­
portunities blocks sufficient outmigration and perpetuates ru­
ral misery. T h u s , while the n u m b er of peasants increases, the
social relations that characterize these peasants are increas­
ingly those of a labor reserve with erratic and low-paying
employment opportunities. (Ibid.: 1 2 1 , 122)
184 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

T h e peasantry, so r ed uced e v e n as it grows, eventually will disap.

pear, in part a n d in some sectors thro ugh differentiation (ibid •

10 6 - 118 ; D e e r e a n d d e J an vry 19 7 9 ) a n d in part d u e to the
im p a c t of the contradictions of functional dualis m u p o n the
poorest s egm ent of the peasantry: increasing poverty and eco­

logical degradation that eventually p u s h the peasant into an

u rb a n area, perha ps w it h c o n tin u e d functional d ua lis m in the

“ in fo rm al” sector (de J a n vr y : 39,40, 8 5 - 9 3 ) .

Because I shall h a v e some rather critical things to say about

de J a n vr y ’s m o del, w e n e e d first to recognize the m a g n it u d e of

his a c h ie v e m e n t . U s in g a rigorous a n d consistent approach, he

has accounted for most of the facts alluded to by agrarian

populists by offering a different interpretation. He has of­

fered support for some classic M a r xis t positions that does not

d e p e n d u p o n slavish attention to sacred texts; rather, h e places

his e m p h a s is on an analysis of the d y n a m ic s of capital a c c u m u ­

lation in the tw e n tie th century. T h e m odel therefore captures

one aspect of the powerful forces u n d e r m in in g peasant liveli­

hoods in L a t in A m e r ic a today. H is un d e r s tan d in g of sem i­

proletarians offers a n alternative to endless anthropological

discussions of peasant, proletarian, a n d other role sets.4 N o n e ­

theless, problems r e m a in , a n d I turn now to a consideration of

them .

The first pro blem concerns the distinction betw een articu­
lated a n d disarticulated a ccum ulatio n . S o m e contrast between

central a n d p er iph er a l (or a m o n g central, s e m ip e r ip h e r a l , and

peripheral) economies is an im p o r t a n t first step in understand­

in g the d y n a m ic s of u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t . T h u s far, however,

most attem pts to formalize the distinction, by creating different
models of a ccu m ulatio n for center a n d p e r ip h e r y or by postulat­
in g hypothetical relationships a n d processes, h a v e p ro ven u n ­
satisfactory. N o t in g that failure, Fer n a n d o H e n r iq u e Cardoso
( 19 7 7 a ) likens it to the failures of positivist science in general,
enclosing in d e t e r m in a t e h u m a n processes w it h in d ete r m in a te
a n d r ig id structures. For Cardoso, one of the n eg ative im p l ic a ­
tions of such fo rmalism is the denial of m o v e m e n t to the so-
 AGRARIAN q ue s tio n s a n d e c o n o m is m 185

called p e r ip h e r y . D e J an vry also criticizes those d e p e n d e n c y

models that see e ve r y t h in g as externally im p o s e d . Nonetheless,

some aspects of d e J a n vr y’s fo rmalism suffer the consequences
alluded to b y Cardoso.
For one th in g , it assumes too m u c h “ articulation” at the center,

excluding a sense of contradiction. G r a n te d , h e writes of “ sec­

toral disproportionality” be tw e e n the two sectors. A n d granted,

he does p o in t to contradictions in “ articulated” economies (the

classic ones of the “ ten d en cy for the rate of profit to fall or the
financial surplus to rise” ; de J anvry 1 9 8 1 : 3 1 ) . T h e resolution of

these contradictions points to in d iv id u a l adjustments, state in te r ­

vention, a n d the necessity of “ external” relations. H e also notes

that no e co n o m y is e ve r “ perfectly articulated” ( ib id .: 44). N o n e ­

theless, the very distinction be tw e e n articulation a n d disarticula­

tion creates a false im a g e of economics a n d politics at the center.

M a r x postulated the distinction b etw een capital a n d c o n s u m p ­

tion goods d ep a rtm e n ts to show that capitalism could be repro­

duced from one cycle of pro duction to another a n d that the

structural u n d e r c o n s um p tio n is t u n d e r s tan d in g of capitalist cri­

sis h a d no necessary basis. T h e d iv is io n into departm en ts was not

designed to be l im it e d to or to characterize a single “ eco no m y,”

and one suspects that M a r x would be horrified at such formaliza­

tion. F u r th e r m o r e , the “ external” resolution of contradiction in

the center breaks apart the p r e s u m e d internal articulation of the

sectors, s h u n tin g pro ductio n into c h e a p labor areas. T h is breaks

apart the u n it y of labor as both loss a n d gain at the center, creat­

ing an increasingly superfluous a n d u n e m p l o y e d w o r k in g p o p u ­

lation constantly en gag ed in “ r e tr a in in g ,” a n d thro w in g into

question the “ full proletarianization” aspect of the model a n d its

consequent e m p h a s is on the u n im o d a l it y of the class structure.0

L ik e w is e , the m o del of disarticulated accum ulatio n is flawed. I

shall leave aside, for the m o m e n t , the use of ideas a n d labels such
as “ traditional” a n d “ m o d e r n .” It is most interesting that wage-
good pro ductio n is excluded from the m o d e r n sector in disar­
ticulated econo m ies at the level of d e f in itio n , just as luxury goods
are not m e n t io n e d in d e J a n vr y’s characterization of the con­
s u m p tio n goods sector of articulated econo mies. Yet if w e con­
sider im p o r t substitution industrialization as it has developed in
186 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

L a t in A m e r ic a , it is clear that some products h a v e b een destined

for a “ local bourgeoisie” a n d “ landed elites” w hile others can

m o r e properly be understood as “ wage goods,” e .g ., in f00(j

processing, textiles, a n d the like. T h is is not to d e n y that import

substitution is fraught w it h contradictions, m a n y of w h ic h (e.g

exacerbated balance of p a y m e n ts problems) are discussed by de

Janvry (see as well C h a p t e r 4, above). But the exclusion of

wage-good pro ductio n is not necessarily one of t h e m , and de

J a n vr y ’s postulation of such exclusion is a b it curious. It is also

the basis for one of his central a rg um ents concerning the cre­
ation of functional d u a lis m . W age-good production was to be

relegated to the traditional sector or to a capitalist sector that

nonetheless d e p e n d e d u p o n a semiproletariat w it h connections

to a traditional sector. T h is has certainly h a p p e n e d , a n d in agri­

culture the disjunction b e tw e e n export production and food

pro duction is especially m a r k e d in m a n y countries. B u t 1 would

argue against inclusion of this d e v e l o p m e n t as a necessary aspect

of an eco n o m ic m o d el. T h e disjunction is the result of politi­

cal decisions by particular classes a n d class fractions and is

therefore co ntingent. Co ns ideratio n of such questions takes us

beyo nd the possibilities of a bipolar m o d e l.6 For now, w e may

s im p ly note that the postulation of full proletarianization at the

center and sem ipro letarianizatio n at the p e r ip h e r y depends

upo n assumptions a n d definitio ns that are seriously open to

question.

B u t I beg an this essay w it h the general question of the posi­

tions, roles, a n d fates of peasants in the d e ve l o p m e n t of Latin

A m e r ic a n capitalis m . W e turn ed to de Janvry, w ho has provided

one rigorous, clear, a n d pessimistic answer. O u r critique must
now consider that answer. It cannot h a v e escaped notice that
peasants, as actors, are not present in de J an vry’s model. T h e y
function w it h in a particular m odel of accum ulatio n, are called

up in the tw e n tie th century as part of a functional dualism

betw een traditional a n d m o dern sectors, p r o vid e c h e a p food
a n d c h e a p labor to the m o d e r n sector, a n d eventually disap­
pear. L ik e w is e , the traditional sector (composed in part of peas­
 ag rarian q u e s tio n s a n d ec o n o m is m 187

ants) is d e v o id of content. It too serves as a function of the

m o d ern sector, filling gaps that the m o d e r n sector, because of

disarticulated accu m ulatio n , cannot fill. H o w would attention to

the presence of peasants alter our un d e r s tan d in g of their posi­

tions, roles, a n d fates in L a t in A m e r ic a n capitalism? A consider­

ation of the areas in w h ic h they are not present in d e J a n vr y’s

account will help us address this question.

To b e g in w it h , peasants are not present historically in de

Janvry’s m o d el. W e should r e m e m b e r that d e J anvry sees the

logic of functional d u a lis m arising in the tw en tieth century w it h

the abolition of coercive forms of labor m o bilizatio n a n d the

creation of m in if u n d is ta s w it h the expulsion of small producers

from haciendas . O n e positive aspect of d e J a n vr y’s account here

is that he does not reduce peasants to an undifferen tiated

precapitalist past. I n d e e d , the peasants that most interest h i m

are the products of a particular form of capital accum ulatio n

and h a v e no d e e p historical e x p e r ie n c e as smallholders or as

part of a c o m m u n it y of producers. Anthropologists, however,

can po in t to peasants w h o do h a v e such e x p e r ie n c e . In an often

misunderstood article, E r ic W olf ( 19 5 5 ) p o in te d to two “ types”

of peasants in L a t in A m e r ic a : the closed corporate c o m m u n it y

in nuclear areas, corresponding to in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s

that w ere preserved a n d reshaped to serve the t w in colonial

ends of labor a n d tribute; a n d o p e n c o m m u n it ie s , beyo nd the

nuclear zones, that arose in the n in e t e e n t h century in response

to w id e n in g c o m m o d it y markets in E u r o p e a n d N o rth A m e r ic a .

The types, as types, a n d the characteristics W olf attached to

th e m , are less im p o r t a n t than the exercise in anthropological

and historical u n d e r s ta n d in g . W o lf saw the e m er g e n c e of par­
ticular types of pro ducer in part as a result of particular local

relations a n d processes a n d in part as a specific form of incorpo­

ration w it h in global processes of a ccum ulatio n . O f im m e d ia t e

interest is the fact that n e ith e r type fits d e J a n vr y’s model very
well. Certainly, the history of m a n y corporate c o m m u n it ie s is
inseparable from h a c ie n d a or plantation histories. B u t in most
cases c o m m u n it y history is not reducible to h a c ie n d a history or
a particular m o d el of a ccum ulatio n , a n d e v e n w h e r e the result
of that in te r tw in e d history has b e en a class of m in ifu n d is ta s ,
188 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

one should not s im p l y w rite out of account c o m m u n it y t r a d i­

tions of landho lding, reciprocal labor, a n d the like.

It m a y b e m o r e useful to see a variety of in te r tw in e d histories

of regional processes of class fo rmatio n in w h ic h a local peas­
antry em erges in a particular constellation of forces, or a par­

ticular field of power. For e x a m p l e , if w e w ere to c o m pa re the

e m e r g e n c e of peasantries in Morelos, O a xa c a , a n d Y u c a t a n in
M e x ic o , w e would h a v e to e x a m in e each peasantry in the con­

text of colonial a n d postcolonial relations w it h haciendas, m e r ­

chants, state administrators, a n d the C h u r c h . B u t each of these

contexts offered fundam entally different features; the peas­

antry that e m e r g e d in each region showed rem arkably different

tendencies as well. In colonial Morelos, sugar haciendas devel­

o p e d in the lowlands. In d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s in the lowlands

suffered at the hands of the haciendas, losing lands a n d seeing

their towns o c c u pie d b y Span iards a n d mestizos. T h e haciendas

entered into sym bio tic relations w it h h ig h la n d in d ig e n o u s co m ­

m u n it ie s , ho w ever, d r a w in g off seasonal labor a n d purchasing

m a iz e a n d wood. C o m m u n it y structures were w e a k e n e d in the

lowlands, strengthened in the highlands, in relationship to the

sam e sugar hacien d as . In O a xa c a , haciendas were relatively u n ­

d evelo ped as the city of O a x a c a b e c a m e a center of colonial

a d m in is tr a tio n and mercantile accum ulatio n that depended

u p o n in d ig e n o u s control of agricultural resources. In the rela­

tively m a rg in a l Y u c a ta n , colonial cattle a n d m a iz e haciendas

existed alongside in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s in the northwestern

portion of the p en in s u la , presenting little d e m a n d for In d ia n
land or labor. It was only toward the e n d of the colonial period

that haciendas b eg an to e x p a n d , d r a w in g peasants onto the

haciendas or p u s h in g t h e m onto o p e n lands to the east and

south.
N in e t e e n t h - a n d tw entieth-century processes affected these
regions u n e v e n l y as well. T h e exp an s io n of agricultural estates
in late-nineteenth-century Porfiriato h a d profound effects in
Morelos a n d Yu c a ta n , w it h sugar estates e x p a n d in g further in
lowland Morelos, e v e n e x t e n d in g into the highlands, as estates
a tte m p te d to secure th e ir o w n supplies of m a iz e , pasture, and
fuel. It was h ere that the agrarian revolution explo ded in the
 A G R A R IA N QUESTIONS A N D ECONOMISM 189

early tw e n tie th century, as peasants fought to d efen d land a n d

c o m m u n it y against an encro aching agrarian capitalis m . In the

Yu ca tan , northwestern estates turned toward h e n e q u e n in the

late n in e t e e n t h century, creating a large plantation zone in

w h ic h in d ig e n o u s peasants became rural proletarians. The

southern a n d eastern parts of the peninsula r e m a in e d outside

of this process, ho w ever, partly for ecological reasons a n d partly

because the Caste W a r of the m id - n in e t e e n t h century h a d cre­

ated an escape zone in w h ic h small-scale m a iz e pro duction

could flourish. T h e M e x ic a n R evo lutio n c a m e to the Y u c a ta n

from the outside, b r in g in g w it h it a n agrarian socialism that

took firm e r root than elsewhere. In O a xa c a , the liberal laws of

the n in e t e e n t h century resulted in an increase in p r iva te p r o p ­

erty a n d the dissolution of some c o m m u n it y lands, but the land

r e m a in e d in ( in d iv id u a l ) in d ig e n o u s hands . Power c o n tin u e d to

rest w it h O axaca C it y merchants who entered into relations

w it h small producers a n d marketers, but these powerholders

d id not encroach u p o n peasant landho lding. O a x a c a n peasants

were not active participants in the revolution. G iv e n the differ­

ent histories a n d structures of class relations of each region, the

twentieth-century ejido has taken a different form in Morelos,

O a xa ca , and Yucatan. Ejidos w ere set u p rather quickly in

Morelos, w h e r e household pro ductio n w it h in the ejido struc­

ture has p r e d o m in a t e d , establishing a basic d iv is io n be tw e e n

those w h o h a v e access to ejido land a n d those w h o do not a n d ,

w it h in ejidos, those w h o control land d is tributio n and those

w ho do not. In Y u c a ta n , h e n e q u e n plantations w ere a p p r o p r i­

ated a n d tu r n e d into collective ejidos, in w h ic h ejido workers

entered into direct relations w it h the state thro u g h ejidal credit

institutions. D e s p it e n o m in a l control thro ugh the ejido, they

r e m a in rural proletarians. Ejidos h a v e b e en less im p o r t a n t in

O a xa ca , w h e r e c o m m u n it y a n d in d iv id u a l landho lding w it h in
in d ig en o u s c o m m u n it ie s was less threatened a n d therefore less
d e p e n d e n t on the in te r ve n tio n of the M e x ic a n state.7
The nature of capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t a n d state fo rm atio n in
each of these regions is different, e v e n as th e y fit w it h in the sam e
general fr am e w o r k of M e x ic a n capitalis m . T h e class structure of
each region is different, as are the b ehavio r, consciousness, a n d
190 PO LITICA L EC O N O M Y

politics of the peasantry. A m o del of disarticulated capitalism

that a tt e m p t e d to flatten out these differences in the context of a

model of functional d u a lis m would leave us in a poor position to

understand the actual b e h a vio r of peasants. D e J an vry does offer

a typology of farm enterprises that includes m a n y of the rural

types enco untered by anthropologists, p r o v id in g a fuller de­

scription th a n one would expec t from his model ( 1 9 8 1 : 10 9 -

1 1 4 ) . B u t h e leads from that directly into a characterization of

class structure that obliterates the differentiation that h e has just

recognized a n d therefore strips the peasantry of historical (and

therefore social) context.

Second, peasants are not present ec o n o m ic ally in his m o d el. For

e x a m p l e , the m o del of functional d u a lis m calls for peasants to

pro duce w age goods as part of a general c h e a p labor policy and

then to be gradually p u s h e d out of c o m m o d it y pro duction alto­

gether. B u t m a n y small producers follow a different economic

logic. For exam ple, in the Venezuelan Andes a group of

c o m m o d it y - p r o d u c in g small farmers e m e r g e d in the n in e te en th

century as part of the fo rmatio n of a coffee economy. Altho ugh

these peasants w ere c o m m o d it y producers, coffee was not a wage

good in V e n e z u e l a in the late n in e t e e n t h a n d early twentieth

centuries. In this century, coffee has declined in im po r ta n c e as

an export crop, b u t m a n y farmers co n tin ue to grow coffee. T h e y

do not p r o vid e c h e a p food; they do p r o vid e c h e a p labor; but that

is not e v e r y t h in g one needs to k n o w about t h e m . C o n t in u e d

pro duction of coffee m a y fit w it h in the reproduction strategy of

the peasant or semiproletarian household e ve n w h e n it makes no

sense as part of a larger m o del of d e v e l o p m e n t .8

Flere w e encounter a c o m m o n tension betw een the d yn am ics

a n d reproductio n logic of an eco n o m y as a whole a n d the d y ­
n am ics a n d repro ductio n logic of peasant a n d semiproletarian

households. Unfortunately, bourgeois economists a n d govern­

m e n t planners are not alone in ig n o r in g the latter. For e x a m p l e ,
in a classic c o m m e n t on proletarians w it h land in Russia, V . I.
L e n in observed:

It should be added that our literature frequently contains too

stereotyped an understanding of the theoretical proposition
 ag rarian q ue s tio n s a n d ec o n o m is m 19 1

that capitalism requires the free, landless worker. T h is propo­

sition is correct as indicating the m a in trend, but capitalism
penetrates into agriculture particularly slowly and in ex­
tremely varied forms. T h e allotment of land to the rural
worker is very often to the interests of the rural employers
themselves, and that is w hy the allotment-holding rural worker
is a type found in all capitalist countries. (1964 [1899]: 178)

If w e e x p a n d our fr a m e of reference to include smallholders as

well as allotment-holding rural workers, it is clear that L e n in

offers an observation w it h w h ic h d e J anvry can agree. B o th

v ie w the peasant (or rural worker) p r im a r il y in terms of “ the

interests of the rural employers themselves,” or in terms of the

interests of other employers w it h in the m o d e r n sector. N e it h e r

questions or pays a n y attention to the interests of the peasants

or rural workers. Postulating one set of interests a n d one logic

(ho wever contradictory that logic m ig h t be), they are therefore

able to en vis io n a process by w h ic h the peasant disappears a n d

“ u n im o d a l it y ” results. But we fin d increasing e vid e n c e that

peasant households m a y engage in w age labor as part of a d iv e r ­

sified strategy of household repro ductio n. O f course, this strat­

egy is often forced on households that cannot reproduce t h e m ­

selves w it h th e ir o w n resources, a n d m a n y of t h e m m a y be in

the process of proletarianization or stabilization at a s e m i­

proletarian level. Others, ho w ever, m a y be e n g a g in g in wage

labor in order to recreate or stabilize a peasant livelihood. For

e x a m p l e , Douglas H o l m e s (19 8 3 ) has e x a m in e d the peasant-

worker p h e n o m e n o n in E u r o p e , a n d especially in Italy, sho w ing

how the peasants engage in w age labor on a tem po rary basis in

order to p u t th e ir farms on a fir m e r footing. H e n r i Fa vr e ( 19 7 7 )

has w ritten an account of in d ig e n o u s c o m m u n it ie s in northern

H u a n c a v e l ic a , P e r u that used w ag e labor on the coast as part of

a strategy to liberate themselves from w h it e - d o m in a t e d c o m m u ­

nities in the highlands , m o v e to h ig h e r elevations, a n d establish
newly in d e p e n d e n t c o m m u n it ie s . Also in Peru, G a v in S m it h

(19 8 9 ) has explored the m u ltip le strategies used by residents in

a n d m ig ra n ts fro m H u a s ic a n c h a to reproduce pastoral house­
holds in the hig hlands . Residents a n d m igrants form c o m ple x
192 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

“ confederations of households” that pool a n d shift resources

a m o n g wage labor in cities a n d m in e s , fruit selling in L i m a , a n d

pastoralism in H u a s ic a n c h a . A s they do so, they enter the na­

tional e co n o m y a n d b e c o m e subject to its d y n a m ic s a n d contra­

dictions. But they also establish a series of enterprises a n d

purs ue projects that cannot be understood solely in terms of

that larger eco no m y.

T h ir d , peasants are not present po litic ally. M y s u m m a r y of de

J a n vr y’s model concentrated on its m o r e strictly eco no m ic as­

pects at the e xp en s e of his discussion of politics. A lth o u g h he

does discuss politics, a n u m b e r of critical c o m m e n ts m ust be

m ade. To b e g in w it h , he m a ke s too narrow a distinction be­

tw een what he calls “ objective” and “ subjective” factors, in

w h ic h the “ objective” refers to eco n o m ic processes, strictly con­

c e ive d , a n d the “ subjective” refers to class relations a n d conflict,

politics, culture, a n d so on ( 1 9 8 1 : 2, 3, et passim). In this view,

one has p r im a r y objective laws of d e ve lo p m e n t, elucidated in

the ec o n o m ic m o del, and secondary subjective forces w ith

w h ic h one can account for variatio n w it h in the m o del. B u t this

denies class relations a n d conflict— in short, politics— their pres­

ence a n d consequence as m aterial forces, as constitutive aspects

of the “ laws of m o t io n ” of a n y social formation (see C h a p t e r 6).

A good e x a m p l e of d e J a n vr y ’s appro ach can be found in his

discussion of class, state, a n d politics u n d e r disarticulated accu­

m u latio n ( ib id .: 4 0 - 4 5 ) . H e r e h e sees two types of class alliance

as possible: ( 1) a “ disarticulated” alliance— d o m in a t e d by in ­

ternational capital, a d e p e n d e n t (c o m p r a d o r ) bourgeoisie, and

landed elites— that will purs ue the expan s io n a n d consolidation

of the outwardly focused aspects of the e co n o m y; a n d (2) an

“ articulated” alliance— composed of a national bourgeoisie,
agrarian bourgeoisie, peasantry, a n d proletariat— that will p u r ­
sue national d e v e l o p m e n t a n d a tte m p t to articulate the various
sectors thro ugh im p o r t substitution a n d the like. T h e contradic­
tions d e J an vry sees in each form are interesting but will be
passed over h ere. O f m o re relevance is the fact that the class
alliances are d e d u c e d from an eco n o m ic model that simulta­
neously creates the classes a n d sets limits u p o n their “ subjec­
t iv e ” action. O f course, there m u s t be a profound interrelation
 A G R A R IA N QUESTIONS A N D ECONOMISM 193

betw een class politics a n d eco n o m ic process, b u t de J anvry has

p e r c e ive d that relationship in a one-directional fashion. In a d d i­

tion, subaltern classes (peasants, proletarians, semiproletarians)

are present only as allies or followers of d o m in a n t class frac­
tions p u r s u in g th e ir o w n class projects. T h a t this is a c o m m o n

pheno m eno n is clear from e x p e r ie n c e , but it should be ren ­

dered m o r e pro blem atic. H o w does a d o m in a n t fraction e xe r ­

cise h e g e m o n y ? What im a g e s of a c o m m o n past or present

m ig h t a d o m in a n t fraction use to present its particular projects

as a universal project? W h a t are the in h e r e n t weaknesses a n d

limitations of such as a presentation?

The m odel also leaves out of account the possibility of re­

sistance. D e J anvry does p o in t out that a semiproletariat or

proletarianizing peasantry does not necessarily see itself as a

proletariat a n d may co n tin ue to demonstrate a peasant con­

sciousness ( ib id .: 2 6 7 ) . T h is , ho wever, is seen s im p ly as another

subjective factor that does not alter the objective logic that d e ­

fines the peasantry as a “ transitory” class in capitalism . Of

course, peasants are threatened by powerful world-historical

forces, some of w h ic h de J anvry has elucidated. B u t unless w e

consider class consciousness a n d action as a m a t e r ia l fo rce, rather

than as a “ subjective factor,” our u n d e r s tan d in g of the historic

fate of peasants will be im p o v e r is h e d . We m ig h t return to

H u a s ic a n c h a , P er u , as described by G a v in S m it h (19 8 9 ), for an

e x a m p l e . H u a s ic a n c h a is k n o w n for its longstanding m ilita n ce,

from the War of the Pacific in the late n in e te e n th century

through a series of struggles in the tw en tieth century. T h a t

m ilita n ce has taken the fo rm of resisting h a c ie n d a attempts to

e x p a n d onto c o m m u n it y lands, in v a d in g h a c ie n d a lands in an at­

t e m p t to e x p a n d c o m m u n it y pastures, rustling h a c ie n d a sheep,

en g ag in g in protracted guerrilla struggles against the m ilita ry

forces of the state, a n d so on. T h e decades-long struggle has

pro duced defeats a n d victories, the most significant victory b e ­

in g the aw ard, in the 1970 s to the c o m m u n it y of a large tract of

land from the old h a c ie n d a . Significantly, although the award
came in the context of a general land reform a n d h a c ie n d a
exp ro pr ia tio n , H u a s ic a n c h in o s refused to associate their p a r ­
ticular struggle w it h state programs a n d d id not form a state-
sponsored agricultural cooperative. S m it h explores the id io m

of c o m m u n it y in the pur s uit of these struggles in Huas icancha

but that c o m m u n it y is not romantically in v o k e d . O n e of the

most interesting aspects of S m it h ’s account is his explicit linking

of H u a s ic a n c h in o s ’ strategies of livelihood w it h their forms of

resistance. T h is allows h i m to explore a variety of internal ten­

sions, pro vo ked in part b y the different types of household

confederations (e.g., those tied to pastoral a n d those tied to

agricultural strategies in the highlands), that are partially ex­

pressed a n d partially h id d e n thro ugh c o m m u n it y struggles.

An e v e n m o r e d r a m a tic e x a m p l e comes from El Salvador.

Carlos R . Cabarrus (19 8 3 ) , a n anthropologist a n d Jesuit priest,

has w ritten a splendid study based u p o n his evangelical and

political work from 1 9 7 4 to 1 9 7 7 in El Salvador, especially but

not exclusively in Aguilares. He starts w it h an analysis that

traces the intense eco n o m ic a n d political pressures that u n d er­

m in e d a n already im p o v e r is h e d peasantry over the past two

decades, a r g u in g that the process was one that was leading to­

w ard proletarianization w it h u n e m p l o y m e n t . H e contends that

the process pro vo ked a choice betw een proletarianization or

rebellion, b u t h e does not leave the analysis at such a m e c h a n is ­

tic opposition. H e shows h o w a s egm ent of the threatened peas­

antry turn ed to the pa r a m ilita r y organization, o r d e n , w h ic h , in

classic clientelist fashion, offered e m p l o y m e n t a n d security to a

proletarianizing peasantry. H e also shows ho w another group

took the m o r e difficult step of challenging the process that was

u n d e r m in in g their livelihoods. In pain s ta kin g detail, h e dis­

cusses the evangelical mission of the Jesuit fathers, the estab­

lis h m e n t of C h r is t ia n base c o m m u n it ie s , the creation of the

Federatio n of C h r is t ia n Peasants (f e c c a s ), a n d the o p e n in g u p

of political consciousness w it h evangelization. H e describes the
growth of a m il it a n t m o v e m e n t , first on a local level a n d later on
a national level, thro ugh a series of tentative actions m e t by
repression, p r o vo k in g m o r e m ilita n t actions, w h ic h in turn at­
tract stiffer repression, a n d so on. In a d d itio n to the ethnogra­
p h y of a revolution in formation, one of the strengths of this
study is its village-level analysis of o r d e n a n d of the relation­
ships a n d antagonisms— of k in s h ip , local politics, a n d national
 ag rarian q ue s tio n s a n d ec o n o m is m 195

politics— be tw e e n m e m b e r s of o r d e n and fecc as , both of w h ic h

draw u p o n the sam e class of threatened peasants a n d s e m i­

proletarians. T h e o utco m e of the struggle in El Salvador cannot

be p r e d ic te d ; the C h r is t ia n peasants of Aguilares h a v e e n c o u n ­

tered eco n o m ic, political, a n d m ilita r y forces of extraordinary,

international scope. (In a tragic aside, Cabarrus notes that all of

his info rm ants h a v e b e e n killed.) H is account demonstrates the

im po r ta n c e of an u n d e r s ta n d in g of peasants that does not re­

duce th e ir actions to a secondary, “ subjective” level.

T h e Salvadoran e x a m p l e suggests the lack of a c u ltu r a l pres­

ence in d e J a n vr y ’s model as well. Unfortunately a n d p a r a d o x i­

cally, m a n y cultural anthropologists a n d political economists

can agree u p o n a culture concept that is far r e m o ve d from

social action. C u ltu r e is th e n seen to be p r im a r il y about “ m e a n ­

in g ,” or subjective e x p e r ie n c e . The political economist may

therefore feel justified, in the context of a model that sharply

distinguishes b e tw e e n objective a n d subjective factors, relegat­

in g the subjective— a n d by extension the cultural— to a secon­

dary level. W h e n the anthropologist complains that the political

eco no m ic m o del “ ignores culture,” but can only hold up a

model of culture as subjective e x p e r ie n c e r e m o ve d from activ­

ity, the political economist m a y legitimately w o nder w h y culture

should be considered at all.

The culture concept called for in this book, however, is one

that includes a ctivity a n d is itself a material force. In alluding to

the historical, e co n o m ic, a n d political presence of peasants, the n ,

w e h a v e also suggested th e ir cultural presence. T h r e e decades

ago, w h e n M in t z a n d W olf showed ho w coffee-producing peas­

ants a n d sugar-cutting proletarians used c o m m o n cultural forms

(ritual coparenthood or c o m p a d r a z g o ) in profoundly different

ways (forging vertical alliances in the coffee zone a n d horizontal,

class-specific alliances in the sugar zone), they were m a k in g an

a r g u m e n t about the uses of cultural form in social action ( M in t z

and W olf 19 5 0 ; cf. M in t z 19 8 2 ) . L ik e w is e , w h e n V e n e z u e l a n peas­
ants resort to forms of reciprocal labor they h a d earlier a b a n ­
d o n ed as an a tt e m p t to solve labor problems caused by a d ra in of
labor to work for wages on larger coffee farms, they are solving
an ec o n o m ic pro b lem a n d are u sing cultural forms in n e w ways
196 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

(Roseberry 19 8 3 ) . When H u a s ic a n c h in o pastoralists use the

language of c o m m u n it y as part of a struggle for land, their strug.

gle is simultaneously political a n d cultural. W h e n Salvadoran

peasants fin d in the Gospels a message of liberation a n d create

political organizations that forge a synthesis of socialism and

Ch r is tia n ity , their creation is as m u c h cultural as it is political.

I do not pre te n d to h a v e p r o v id e d adequate statements re­

g a r d in g peasant economics, politics, or culture, b u t I do ho pe to

h a v e p r o v id e d e n o u g h e xa m p le s to illustrate one of the p r in c i­

pal weaknesses of de J a n vr y ’s m o del— a n d all other models that

leave no room for the action of peasants. H is “ functional dual­

is m ” m ig h t more properly be labelled “ functionalist econo-

m i s m . ” It is economistic because it elevates to a central position

a conception of economics d e v o id of class relations a n d strug­

gle. T h e laws of m o tio n are m echanically co nceived in terms of

the needs of capital. A lth o u g h classes are m e n t io n e d , they are

not central to the m odel a n d do not invo lve a relational sense.

That is, the interests a n d actions of subaltern classes are not

taken into account a n d are s im p l y s u b s u m e d w it h in the inter­

ests a n d actions of elites (who, in turn, are res po nding to the

r eq uirem ents of different capitals). A call for the “ presence” of

subaltern classes— in this case, peasants— in a model n e ed not

im p l y a ro m a n tic pic tu r e of peasant in d e p e n d e n c e a n d equality.

No r does it req uire a m o del of a peasant m o d e of pro duction. It

does im p l y a sense of peasants as a class (or classes, or a fraction

of a class), a n d it recognizes that peasants enter into relation­

ships w it h capitalists at a d is ad van tag ed position but in pursuit

of particular interests. A m odel that does not take those inter­

ests a n d projects into account necessarily leads to erroneous
conclusions about the fate of the peasants.
C H A P T E R E I G H T

Th e Construction of
Natural Economy

In order to m a k e m o de r n life intelligible I h ave m a d e a construct w h ic h

is called the M id d l e Ages. W h a t m a y h a v e been the actual conditions of

that era is a matter of complete indifference to m e , and it is ridiculous

to claim to refute m y theories w ith objections draw n from historical

essays.

— W e r n e r Sombart, C o m m e n ts at 19 0 3 H e id elberg Conference

Between the sim ple backward look and the simple progressive thrust
there is room for long a r g u m e n t but none for e n lig htenm ent. W e must

begin differently: not in the idealisations of one order or another, but in

the history to w h ic h they are only partial and m isleading responses.

— R a y m o n d W illiam s , T h e Country and the City

We n e e d no w to engage the terms “ culture,” “ history,” a n d

“ political e c o n o m y ” in light of the various discussions in this

book. T h e culture concept sketched at the b e g in n in g of our

considerations was one that was closely connected w it h politics.

O u r stated concern was an a tte m p t to understand the political
s ha pin g of culture a n d the cultural s h a p in g of politics, an effort
to v ie w culture as “ socially constituted a n d socially constituting.”
Such a project req uired a concern for history— a consideration
of the political creation of im a g e s of Ve n e z u e l a n history in
C h a p t e r 3 a n d a m o r e w id e -r a n g in g exploration of economics,
198 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

politics, a n d culture in L a t in A m e r ic a n history in C h a p t e r 4. i n

the second part of the book, w e h a ve considered some of the

im plicatio ns of a historical political eco no m y of the sort out­

lined by Wolf. T h r o u g h o u t , our discussions h a v e stressed the

unevenness of capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t a n d the inadeq uacy of

our models for c a p tu r in g that unevenness— especially in rela­

tion to the historical d e v e l o p m e n t of capitalism (C h a p te r 6) a n d

the positions, roles, a n d fates of peasants w it h in capitalist soci­

eties (C h a p t e r 7). W e h a v e not yet fully engaged our consider­

ation of culture a n d politics (Part O n e ) w it h our discussion of

political eco n o m y (Part T w o ) . T h is is the task of the concluding

essay. H e r e I consider the im plicatio ns of a historical under­

standing of u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t for our approaches to culture

and politics, especially a m o n g peasants a n d proletarians in a

d eve lo p in g capitalist world. A lth o u g h I refer to particular his­

torical e xa m p le s encountered earlier in the book, the present

essay is less concerned w it h specific cases than w it h a discussion

of h o w w e m ig h t t h in k about particular cases. T h r o u g h o u t , the

discussion is g ro un d ed in a consideration of particular texts.

W e m ig h t b e g in w it h the work of E . P. T h o m p s o n . In his classic

book, T h e M a k i n g o f the E n g l is h W o r k in g Class (19 6 3 ) a n d in a series

of essays (most especially his 1 9 6 7 ; 1 9 7 1 ; 1 9 7 4 ; 19 7 8 b ) , T h o m p ­

son has stressed the active presence of precapitalist traditions,

values, a n d c o m m u n it ie s in the e x p e r ie n c e a n d consciousness of

early proletarians. In his r e e x a m in a t io n of the Lu d d ite s , for

exam ple, Th o m p s o n restores to t h e m an active consciousness,

d e f e n d in g a w a y of life, using religious im a g e r y a n d other s ym ­

bols from the past in the present, a n d attacking the instruments

of a future at a m o m e n t w h e n the shape of that future was by no
m ean s certain. L ik e w is e , “ T i m e , W o r k -D is c ip l in e , a n d Industrial
C a p it a l is m ” ( 19 6 7 ) traces the transformation of notions of t im e
w it h the creation of an industrial order, the loss of artisan in d e ­

p e n d e n c e a n d r h yth m s of work a n d leisure, a n d the growth of a

proletariat subjected to factory work-discipline. “T h e Moral
E c o n o m y of the English C r o w d ” ( 1 9 7 1 ) dissects the food riots of
eig hteenth-century E n g la nd and e x a m in e s the structure of
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 199

crowd b e h a vio r in terms of its connections w it h “ some le g it im iz ­

in g notion. B y the notion of leg itim a tio n , I m e a n that the m e n

and w o m e n in the crowd w ere in f o r m e d by the belief that they

were d e f e n d in g traditional rights or customs; a n d , in general,
that they w ere supported b y the w id e r consensus of the c o m m u ­

nity. . . . ” Fu r th e r m o r e , T h o m p s o n continues, “ these grievances

operated w it h in a popular consensus as to w h a t w ere illegitimate
practices in m a r k e t in g , m illin g , b a k in g , etc. T h is in turn was

grounded u p o n a consistent traditional v ie w of social norms a n d

obligations, of the pro per eco n o m ic functions of several parties

w it h in the c o m m u n it y , w h ic h taken together, can be said to consti­

tute the moral e c o n o m y of the poor” ( ib id .: 78 , 79).

T h o m p s o n ’s u n d e r s ta n d in g represents an a d van ce in at least

three senses. First, as noted in C h a p t e r 3, it serves as a correc­

tive to both those M a r xis t a n d n o n -M a rxis t versions of eco­

n o m ic history that h a v e w ritten the history of capitalism as the

history of capital. T h o m p s o n pays attention to the social rela­

tions a n d cultural forms associated w it h a n d created by w o rk in g

people in the capitalist transformation. Second, u n lik e some

other social historians w h o h a v e tur n e d to a discussion of cul­

tural theory a n d of mentalites as part of a concerted effort to

avo id political questions, T h o m p s o n always places his u n d e r ­

standing of culture w it h in a discussion of class relationships a n d

politics. Most im p o r t a n t, ho w ever, is the third a d van ce — the

u n d er s tan d ing of culture as consciousness. T h o m p s o n has b een

heavily criticized for r e d u c in g class to consciousness, a n d despite

his o w n protestations (e.g., 19 7 8 b : 14 9 - 15 0 ) , there is some

truth to the c r itic is m . R ed u ctio n s aside, however, T h o m p s o n

correctly insists u p o n the inseparability of the two questions for

any writer w h o takes class-based politics seriously. T h e question

of w h e th e r of not, a n d u n d e r w h a t conditions, people act in

class ways d e p e n d s not s im p ly u p o n “ objective” d eterm inatio ns

but also u p o n “ subjective” evaluations. A n d the subjective eval­

uations in turn depend upo n their own lived experiences,
w here the supposed distinctions be tw e e n objective a n d subjec­
tive d is appear. Thus T h o m p s o n ’s e m p h a s is on values and
traditions— u p o n c u ltu r e — as constitutive elements of class con­
sciousness represents an im p o r t a n t a d va n c e . T h e s e values a n d i. ;
200 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

traditions are seen to rest u p o n the e x p e r ie n c e of c o m m u n it y

a n d it is toward an analysis a n d un d e r s tan d in g of c o m m u n ity

that m y critical remarks are addressed.

A s noted in C h a p t e r 3, in T h o m p s o n ’s early work, a cultural

feeling of c o m m u n it y was seen to rest in the actual experience

of c o m m u n ity -b a s e d social relations. In T h e M a k i n g o f the E n g l is h

W o r k in g Class a n d some of his subsequent essays (especially 19 6 7

and 19 7 1) , he tends to treat the precapitalist c o m m u n it y in

u n a m b ig u o u s , uncritical terms. T h e “ traditional rights and cus­

toms” a n d the “ w id e r consensus of c o m m u n it y ” that in fo r m the

“ moral e co n o m y of the poor” are treated in an unproblematic

m a n n e r . T h e experienc es of artisans over the centuries preced­
in g the e ig h te e n th century, especially their relationship to m e r ­

chant capital, are not considered. T h e y b e co m e instead part of

a c o m m u n ity -b a s e d precapitalist past. W h a t one misses in these

works is a historical u n d e r s ta n d in g of tradition itself, an u n d e r ­

standing that would d ra w our attention to the social a n d politi­

cal processes thro ugh w h ic h ideas a n d im ag es of c o m m u n it y are

constructed.

It should be noted that in his m o r e recent work in social history

(e.g., 1 9 7 4 a n d especially 19 7 8 b ) , T h o m p s o n m oves toward such

an u n d e r s ta n d in g . H e no w pays m u c h m o re attention to the

historicity of popular culture a n d places his u n ders tan d ing of

popular culture less in a traditional c o m m u n it y w it h traditional

values a n d m o r e w it h in a dialectical relationship betw een e m e r g ­

in g classes.

For the m o m e n t , ho wever, I w a n t to concentrate on the sur­

pris in g connection be tw e e n his earlier work a n d some of the

assumptions of m o d e r n iz a tio n theory— not in order to pillory

T h o m p s o n (w ho has, after all, gone beyo nd these views) but in

order to explore some w id e r issues in social history a n d politics.
S im p l y p u t , T h o m p s o n was not alone, e ve n a m o n g critical t h in k ­
ers. M o d e r n iz a tio n theories m a d e an opposition b etw een tradi­
tional a n d m o d e r n societies, d e f in e d m o d e r n society in terms of
a few key characteristics, and d e f in e d traditional society in
terms of the absence of those characteristics or the presence of
q uite different ones. In creating such models, these writers
could place themselves w it h in a line of thought that included
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 201

virtually every major social t h in k e r of the n in e te e n th century,

M a r x in c lu d e d . T h e r e was a convergence betw een celebratory

and critical versions of history in terms of the w ay they u n d e r ­

stood some aspects of the historical process. T h is is most clear

w h e n w e concentrate on w h a t they h a d (and have) to say about

w o rkin g people in the m a k in g of the m o d e r n world. In both the

d o m in a n t versions of M a r x is m and in m o d e r n iz a tio n theory,

the historical process (w h e th er it was called m o d e rn iza tio n or

industrialization or the d e v e l o p m e n t of capitalism) m ig h t be

seen as a passage from the peasant (or the artisan) to the prole­

tarian. Valuations m ig h t differ: the process m ig h t be celebrated

as freed o m from bo ndage or criticized as enslavem ent to c a p i­

tal. B u t in both the celebratory a n d the critical perspectives,

peasants a n d artisans m ig h t be taken as u n a m b ig u o u s , ahistori-

cal starting points. W e n e e d , th e n , to b e g in our exploration of

the culture a n d politics of w o r k in g people w it h another e xc u r ­

sion into history. T o discuss the problems w it h the sort of opposi­

tional history outlined above, I concentrate on one set of ideas

that h a d w id e currency in the late n in e t e e n t h a n d early tw e n ti­

eth centuries— the id e a of natural eco no m y a n d its opposite

(m o n e y e co n o m y or m a r k e t eco n o m y or c o m m o d it y econo my).

Why bother? Surely, after the d e v e l o p m e n t of a series of

e th n o g r ap h ic studies in eco n o m ic anthropology, few people

could take seriously the id e a of a natural econo my. Nonetheless,

it is the contention of this essay that the concept continues to

influence our tho ught, e ve n a m o n g those w ho could only use

the phrase w h ile g r im a c in g and placing it w it h in quotation

m arks. T h is c o n t in u in g influence can be seen in three related

areas. First, our concepts of peasantries owe m u c h to the ideas

associated w it h natural econo m y. T h is is most obvious a m o n g

those w h o are influenced by C h a y a n o v ia n assumptions, b u t it

also plays an im p o r t a n t if residual role in the identificatio n of

our ideas of peasantry w it h our ideas of household eco n o m y
(Roseberry 19 8 6 b ) . Second, as in d ic a te d in the discussion of
T h o m p s o n , our conceptions of the historical process, especially
those directed toward the e m e r g e n c e of capitalism a n d the pro­
cess of proletarianization, d e p e n d u p o n definitions of peasants
that m a y in turn be rooted in natural eco n o m y assumptions.
202 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

Finally, m a n y of our ideas about the politics of peasants a n d

first-generation proletarians are rooted in the above noted defi­

nitions of peasants a n d conceptions of the historical process. B y

subjecting the concept of natural eco n o m y to a historical cri­

tique, I h o p e to call into question m a n y of our latter-day as­

s um ptio ns about peasants a n d proletarians, their e x p er ie n c e of

and th e ir reactions to the m o d e r n world. I do this, first, by

e x a m in in g discussions of natural eco n o m y from the late n in e ­

teenth and early tw e n tie th centuries, second by e x a m in in g

some k e y texts from M a r x , a n d finally by tu r n in g toward more

recent literature.

A full account of the history of the concept of natural economy

is beyo n d the scope of this essay. S u c h an account would h a ve to

take us at least as far back as Aristotle’s Po litic s , through En lig ht­

e n m e n t ideas co ncerning natural law a n d the state of nature,

eig hteen th-cen tury Physiocratic understandings of nature and

economics a n d th e ir co ntribution to classical political economy,

to n in e te en th-c en tu ry discussions of social a n d cultural evolu­

tion. A l t h o u g h connections can easily be traced to classical litera­

ture, the concept of natural e co n o m y that e m e r g e d in the late

n in e t e e n t h a n d early tw e n tie th centuries was so influenced by

co ntem po rary intellectual, political, a n d social m o v e m e n t s that it

differed fro m earlier conceptions of nature a n d natural law in

im p o r t a n t ways.

O n e of the currents that deserves m e n t io n is the d o m in a n c e

of evolutionary tho ught in the n in e t e e n t h century. A ltho u g h

evolutionists m ig h t pro duce elaborate schem a of stages from

p r im it iv e origins to a c ivilize d present, the stages were often
embraced by a n o verarching opposition, as in M a in e ’s (19 7 0
[ 18 6 1] ) m o v e m e n t from fa m ily to in d iv id u a l a n d from status to
contract a n d M o r g a n ’s evolution from societas to civitas ( 19 7 4
[ 18 7 7 ] ) . T h is opposition, in w h ic h o ne’s u n d er s tan d ing of the

present was contrasted w it h a postulated p r im o r d ia l condition

in w h ic h the d e f in in g characteristics of the present w ere absent
or w ere reversed, affected the work of others w ho w ere not,
strictly s p e ak in g , evolutionists. Perhaps the classic e x a m p l e here
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L E C O N O M Y 20 3

would be the work of F e r d in a n d To e n n ie s , w ho was not p r im a r ­

ily interested in evolution b u t in the postulation of different

types of “ will” — natural a n d rational— that could be simulta­

neously present in various sorts of society. Ye t his opposition

betw een G e m e in s c h a f t a n d Gesellschaft was tied to an understand­

in g of the historical process— from isolated homesteads (“ T h e

study of the h o m e is the study of G e m e in s c h a f t, as the study of

the organic cell is the study of life itself” [To en n ies 1 9 5 7 [ 18 8 7 ] :

53]) thro ugh peasant villages, in w h ic h the spirit of G e m e in ­

schaft was most truly represented, to towns a n d finally urb an

Gesellschaft ( ib id .: 2 3 1 - 2 3 4 , et p a s s im ).1

A second influence, especially in G e r m a n y , was the growth of

agrarian history, itself not unrelated to the rise of nationalism.

Writers such as Geo rg vo n M a u r e r , Otto vo n G ie r k e , a n d A u ­

gust M e it z e n , in a t t e m p t in g to reconstruct the p r im o r d ia l G e r ­

m a n character, w ere most interested in the lives a n d conditions

of peasants. Debates co ncerning the relative freed o m or u n ­

freedom of the peasant, the relative w e ig h t of in d iv id u a l house­

holds a n d c o m m u n it y or M a r k associations, a n d so on, took a

prim o r d ia l past as their ostensible subject; b u t w h a t was really

in contention was the present— in this case, the construction of

Germ any.

A th ir d influence was the rise a n d increasing d o m in a n c e of

capitalism. If A n t h o n y G id d e n s is correct in a r g u in g that the

three great social thinkers of the n in e t e e n t h a n d early tw e n ti­

eth centuries (M a rx, W eber, and D u r k h e im ) had an “ over­

w h e l m in g in te r e s t. . . in the delineatio n of the characteristic

structure of m o d e r n ‘capitalis m ’ as contrasted w it h prior forms

of society” ( 1 9 7 1 : x v i) , it should not be surprising that other

figures shared that concern a n d project. A m o n g economists,

this was especially im p o r t a n t for the German historicists. In

contrast to increasingly d o m in a n t neoclassical assumptions re­

garding the universality of bourgeois rationality, the histori­

cists l im it e d that form of rationality to capitalism a n d sought
out other forms that would be characteristic of precapitalist
epochs.
A s the historicists a tte m p te d to reconstruct a noncapitalist
past, they tu r n e d to the literature of the agrarian historians.
20 4 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

The past that was to b e c o m e the object of a model opposing

capitalism (or c o m m o d it y e co n o m y or m o n e y economy) with t

precapitalism (or natural econo m y) was therefore rural and Eu- c

ro pean. Tr ib a l a n d feudal society a n d , w it h in both, the peasant f

b e c a m e the starting points for a historical process a n d the coun- t

terpoints to the capitalist present. L e t us explore this m o ve m e n t i

in the work of two characteristic a n d influential thinkers: Wer- (
ner So m bart a n d Karl B u c h e r . t

So m bart explicitly in v o k e d the feudal past a n d pain ted an i

idyllic portrait of relations be tw e e n lords a n d peasants in an t

era in w h ic h “ m a n was the m e as ure of all thin g s .” H is prim ary v

interest was in the elucidation of the spirit of particular eco- 1

n o m ic epochs. In contrast to the capitalist spirit, seen as the e

u n io n of the spirit of enterprise (“ the greed of gold, the desire v

for a d ve n tu r e , the love of exploration” ) a n d the bourgeois c

spirit (“ calculation, careful policy, reasonableness, and econ- | €

o m y ’j, S o m bart postulated a precapitalist spirit (196 7 [1915]): i f

22). He d is tin g u is h e d b e tw e e n two precapitalist types, the c

peasant a n d the craftsman, both of w h ic h w ere d o m in a te d by t

the sam e eco n o m ic outlook. “ In a word, eco no m ic activities in c

the pre-capitalist perio d w ere regulated solely in accordance r

w it h the p r in c ip l e of a sufficiency for existence; a n d peasant 1

a n d craftsman looked to their e co n o m ic activities to provide {
them w it h their livelihood a n d n o th in g m o r e ” ( ib id .: 17). He r

continues: (

[
As for work itself, for the peasant and the craftsman alike it 1
was lonely, patient effort. M a n lost himself in his work. H e I $
lived in it, as the artist does, he loved it so, that he would m u ch
rather not have parted with his handiwork. W h e n the dap- ,
pled cow was led from the stables to the shambles, the old
peasant w o m a n ’s eyes were wet; the potter strove hard not to f
be tempted by the trader’s offers for his p ip e . But if it had to
be sold, then the commodity was to be worthy of its maker.
T h e peasant, like the craftsman, had put something of h i m ­
self into his product; and in its m a k in g the rules of art were
obeyed. C a n we not understand, therefore, that the craft ideal ]
looked with scorn on scamped work, and on the substitution ! <
of bad for good materials? (Ibid.: 18 — 19) . <
 th e c o n s tru c tio n of n a t u r a l econom y 205

Karl Bucher was also interested in l im it in g e c o n o m iz in g

b ehavio r to the capitalist epo c h . U n l ik e So m bart, ho wever, h e

d id not automatically b e g in w it h E u r o p e a n feudalis m . Rather,

he devoted two exten s ive chapters to a consideration of p r i m i ­

tive societies, s u r ve yin g the work of ethnologists a n d conclud­

in g that p r im it iv e s h a d a n essentially “ pre-eco n o m ic” outlook

(B u c h e r 19 6 7 [190 0 ]: Chapters 1, 2). Nonetheless, w h e n he

turned to his discussion of a progression from w h a t h e called

in d e p e n d e n t dom estic e co n o m y thro ugh town e co n o m y to n a ­

tional econo my, he set aside p r im it iv e conditions a n d began

w ith the “ civilized peoples of E u r o p e ” ( ib id .: 8 4 ).2 A lth o u g h

B u c h e r d id not use phrases like “ natural e c o n o m y ” a n d “ m o n e y

econo my,” w e can see in his stages the basis for such a historical

vision. H is starting p o in t was characterized b y a lack of e x ­

change, a n d his e n d p o in t was m a r k e d by the d o m in a n c e of

excha n g e. T h e m id d l e stage was s im p ly a logically in te r m e d ia t e

form of direct e x c h a n g e . W e can also see q uite clearly an e xe r ­

cise in w h ic h the feudal past is m a d e to represent an opposite of

the capitalist present (or, in B u c h e r ’s usage, “ national econ­

o m y ” ). A n d , in the process, the peasant comes to represent a

model starting p o in t. In B u c h e r ’s case, the in d iv id u a l house­

hold is stressed. In other treatments, e m p h a s is is placed on a

peasant c o m m u n it y — a significant difference, b u t one that will

not be explored h e re . For now, the postulation of the peasant

(“ [production solely for o ne’s needs, absence of exchange] . . .

goods are c o n s u m e d w h e r e they are p r o d u c e d ” [ ib id .: 89]) as

historical co unterpo int a n d starting p o in t is w h a t needs to be

stressed.
Early M a r x is t theorists of natural economy, the n , w ere using

an id e a that was very m u c h in the air. W h e n Rosa L u x e m b u r g

postulated a natural e co n o m y in w h ic h “ eco n o m ic organization

is essentially in response to the internal d e m a n d ; a n d therefore

there is no d e m a n d , or very little, for foreign goods, a n d also, as

a rule, no surplus pro ductio n ” ( 19 6 8 [ 1 9 1 3 ] : 368), her ideas fit

w it h in a w id e r current of social thought. V . I. L e n in , for his
part, began his classic D e v e l o p m e n t o f C a p it a l is m i n R u s s ia w it h a
distinction that was to pro ve crucial for his whole analysis of the
creation of a h o m e m a r k e t for capitalism :
206 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

The basis for commodity economy is the social division of

labour. . . . T h u s , the development of commodity economy
leads to an increase in the n um b er of separate and indepen ­
dent branches of industry; the tendency of this development
is to transform into a special branch of industry the m aking
not only of each separate product, but even of each separate
part of a product— and not only the m a k in g of a product, but
even the separate operations of preparing the product for
consumption. U n d er natural economy society consisted of a
mass of homogeneous economic units (patriarchal peasant
families, p r im itiv e village communities, feudal manors), and
each such unit engaged in all forms of economic activity, from
the acquisition of various kinds of raw material to their final
preparation for consumption. Under commodity economy
heterogeneous economic units come into being, the number
of separate branches of economy increases, and the number
of economic units performing one and the same economic
function diminishes. It is this progressive growth in the social
division of labour that is the chief factor in the process of
creating a ho m e market for capitalism. (196 4 [1899]: 37-38)

L e n in set the opposition u p in such a w ay that m u c h of the

a r g u m e n t reg arding differentiatio n a n d class formation am o n g

peasants s e e m e d to follow logically from the d e ve lo p m e n t of

c o m m o d it y eco no m y. T h is , in turn, was related to c o m m o n m is ­

readings of the p r e s u m e d a uto m a tic ity of L e n in ’s s c hem e . A l ­

th o u g h these m is read in g s ignore L e n in ’s political a rg um e n t,

they h a d an accurate basis— L e n in ’s basic opposition suggests a

necessary process from natural eco n o m y to c o m m o d it y econ­

o m y to c a pita lis m .3

B u t L e n in a n d L u x e m b u r g w ere elaborating a set of M arxist

ideas. W e n e e d now to e x a m in e m o r e carefully certain relevant
passages in M a r x ’s work. W e m ig h t b e g in by noting that M a r x
a n d Engels w ere themselves subject to the sam e influences out­
lined earlier. F r o m the very b e g in n in g , they placed their u n d e r ­
standing of the present in terms of an evolutionary process.
T h e ir celebration of M o r g a n ’s A n c ie n t So ciety is well k n o w n .
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L E C O N O M Y 207

A n d , although th e ir evolutionary schemes (presented, e .g ., in

their C o m m u n is t M a n if e s t o a n d G e r m a n Ideology, M a r x ’s “ Preface”

and the G r u n d r is s e ) in c lu d e d several stages, they sometines con­

tain ed an o verarching oppositional m o d el. Moreover, as they

turned th e ir attention to the past, especially the E u r o p e a n past,

they used the sam e sources used b y the historicists. B o th M a r x

a n d Engels w elco m ed M a u r e r ’s work a n d saw in his e m ph a s is

on the original im p o r t a n c e of the M a r k association (as opposed

to isolated households) co nfirm atio n of their own ideas (see

Engels 1 9 7 2 [ 18 8 2 ] ; cf. M a r x ’s letter to Engels, 1 4 M a r c h 18 6 8 ,

in M a r x 19 6 4 b : [ 18 6 8 ] : 13 9 ) . A n d , of course, all of their work

was a n im a t e d b y a n a tt e m p t to understand a n d transform c a p i­

talism. It was in their use of the past to illu m in a te certain

characteristics of the present that they most often resorted to

oppositional models, as w e shall see.4

In discussing M a r x ’s o w n use of oppositional models of the

past to illu m in a te the present, I pass over the m o re obviously

evolutionary statements a n d concentrate on his discussions of

capitalism a n d its im m e d ia t e antecedents. M a r x began his analy­

sis of capitalis m w it h a discussion of c o m m o d itie s a n d c o m m o d ­

ity e xc h a n g e , c o m m o d it ie s b e in g the “ e co n o m ic cell-form” of

bourgeois society. As he e x a m in e d e xc h a n g e value and use

value or outlined his version of the labor theory of value, h e

liked to step back a n d contrast the relations h e was o utlining

w it h those that would characterize societies in w h ic h c o m m o d i­

ties would not constitute the e co n o m ic “ cell-form.” In these

contrasts, as h e tur n e d to descriptions of m e d ie v a l E u r o p e , to

the peasant family, to I n d ia n c o m m u n it ie s , and the like, he

would outline largely self-sufficient, natural economies (see,

e .g ., several passages in C h a pte r 1 of C a p it a l , Vo lum e 1 and

Chapters 20 a n d 36 of C a p it a l , V o l u m e 3).
B u t capitalis m , according to M a r x , was not s im ply a society

of c o m m o d it y producers. It was also, a n d m o re fundamentally,

a society in w h ic h labor po w er h a d b eco m e a c o m m o d ity , that
is, a society in w h ic h laborers m u s t work for a wage in order to
s u r vive. For that co nditio n to obtain, the laborer m u s t be free
in two senses: he or she m u s t not be subject to compulsory
labor, that is, m u s t not be a slave or serf; a n d he or she m ust
208 PO LITICAL ECO NO M Y
1
be free of o w n e rs h ip or control of m e an s of pro duction and
the pro ductio n process itself ( M a r x 19 7 7 [ 18 6 7 ] : 2 7 1, 272).

Yet, “ nature does not pro duce on the one hand owners of

m o n e y or c o m m o d it ie s , a n d on the other h a n d m e n possessing

n o th in g b u t th e ir o w n labour-power. T h is relation has no basis

in natural history, nor does it h a v e a social basis c o m m o n to all

periods of h u m a n history” ( ib id .: 2 7 3 ) . W i t h this basic condi­

tion for capitalis m , th e n , M a r x laid the fo undation for some of

his most im p o r t a n t historical contrasts, the ones that are of the

most interest g iv e n the a r g u m e n t of this essay. I concentrate

on two of t h e m : the one co ntained in his analysis of p r im it iv e

accum ulatio n and the one co ntained in the “ F o r m e n ” ( 19 7 3

[ 18 5 7 - 5 8 ] : 4 7 1 - 5 1 5 ) .
In the final section of V o l u m e 1 of C a p it a l , after o utlining the

basic relationships a n d laws of the capitalist m o d e of produc­

tion, M a r x tur n e d toward a historical account of the process by

w h ic h the conditions for capitalist pro duction w ere created. H e

concentrated on E n g la n d a n d analyzed the e m er g e n ce of c a p i­

talism out of the ruins of feudalis m . N o exercise in speculative

oppositions or search for h u m a n origins, M a r x ’s analysis con­

centrated on the historical situation im m e d ia t e l y prior to the

e m e r g e n c e of a capitalist m o d e of pro ductio n. Because one of

the basic conditions for capitalism was the freeing of the laborer

from m e a n s of pro ductio n a n d from bondage, M a r x claim ed

that, “ T h e e xp r o p r ia tio n of the agricultural producer, of the

peasant, from the soil is the basis of the whole process” ( ib id .:

876).

T h e subsequent analysis is well k n o w n a n d requires no s u m ­

m ary he re . Ho w ever, I w is h to d raw attention to one con­

sequence of M a r x ’s exercise. M arx im m e d ia t e l y m o ved to a

consideration of the “ free peasant,” co nten din g that serfdom
h a d virtually d is a p p e a r e d in E n g la n d b y the fourteenth cen­
tury. H is analysis of the separation of the agricultural pro­
ducer fro m the soil therefore began in the fifteenth century

w it h a free peasantry a n d e x a m in e d the process of its expro ­

p r ia tio n . T h e r e is n o th in g necessarily wrong about this proce­
d u r e . M a r x situated the peasant historically, a n d he was in no

w a y seen as a p r im o r d ia l , natural creature. Nonetheless, of the

 th e c o n s tru ctio n of n a tu r a l econom y 209

two conditions M a r x considered necessary for labor po w er to

be a c o m m o d it y — fr e ed o m from bo ndage a n d freed o m from

control over m e a n s of pro ductio n— only one, the second, re­

ceives a n y attention he re . T h e first occurred prior to the p e ­

riod that interested M a r x . T h u s the free peasant, in effect if

not in fact, b e c a m e a co unterpo int to the proletarian a n d a

starting p o in t in a m o v e m e n t fro m peasant to proletarian. N o t

considered was the possibility that the free peasantry, so

recently fo rm e d , was itself a product of the sam e historical

m o ve m e n ts that created the conditions for capitalism a n d the

em erg en ce of the proletariat.5

W it h this p o in t, w e a n tic ipa te m u c h of the a r g u m e n t that is to

follow. Before it can be pur s ued , ho wever, w e n e e d to turn to

another text in w h ic h M a r x considered social forms prior-to

capitalism a n d the e m e r g e n c e of the conditions necessary for a

capitalist m o d e of pro ductio n. A l th o u g h the “ F o r m e n ” is often

read as a n evolutionary account, I t h in k it can be m o re profit­

ably read as an oppositional exercise a n d placed firmly w it h in

the tradition of oppositional historical models. M a r x began the

“ F o r m e n ” W it h the observation that:

A presupposition of wage labour, and one of the historic pre­

conditions for capital, is free labour and the exchange of this
free labour for money, in order to reproduce and to realize
money, to consume the use value of labour not for individual
consumption, but as use value for money. Another presupposi­
tion is the separation of free labour from the objective condi­
tions of its realization— from the means of labour and the
material for labour. T h u s , above all, release of the worker
from the soil as his natural workshop— hence dissolution of
small, free landed property as well as of communal landown-
ership resting on the oriental c o m m u n e . . . .
In both forms, the individuals relate not as workers but as
proprietors— and members of a community, who at the same
tim e work. T h e a im of this work is not the creation of value . . .
rather, its a im is sustenance of the in dividual proprietor and
of his family, as well as of the total co m munity. T h e positing of
the individ ual as a worker, in this nakedness, is itself a product
of history. (19 7 3 [ 18 5 7 - 5 8 ] : 4 7 1 , 472)
2 10 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

C a p it a l is m , based on the separation of producers from con­

trol over the pro duction process, was contrasted w it h a prior

situation of connection or u n io n in two senses: u n io n w ith the

m e an s of pro ductio n, a n d u n io n w it h a c o m m u n it y of produc­

ers. T h e analysis that followed is less closely tied to an actual

historical process th an was the section on p r im it iv e accumula­

tion in C a p it a l . Rather, M a r x im m e d ia t e l y turns to a first form

of landed pro perty: “ an initial, naturally arisen spontaneous

c o m m u n it y appears as first presupposition. Fa m ily , a n d the fam­

ily e x te n d e d as a clan, or thro ugh in te r m ar r ia g e betw een f a m i­

lies, or c o m b in a t io n of clans” ( ib id .: 472). B u t this “ natural”

c o m m u n it y receives relatively little attention; it is sim ply postu­

lated. Instead, M a r x m o ves quickly into a consideration of three

historical forms of c o m m u n it y , w h ic h seems to be a logical exer­

cise in forms of relationship b etw een in d iv id u a l , c o m m u n ity ,
a n d land (see Go delier 1 9 7 8 ; cf. T o k e i 19 6 6 ), w it h each logical

type g iv e n a geographical or historical label. T h u s w e go from

one e x t r e m e in w h ic h in d ivid u a l s are s ub s um ed w it h in a com­

m u n it y that defines a n d d ete r m in e s in d iv id u a l access to land

(the Asiatic) to the other e x t r e m e in w h ic h the c o m m u n it y is

s im p ly a collectivity of in d iv id u a l families w it h access to land

(the G e r m a n ic ) . T h e A n c ie n t is a logically, but not necessarily

historically, in t e r m e d ia t e type.

Several points require attention here. First, M a r x ’s starting

p o in t is m a r k e d l y different from that in the section on p r im it iv e

a ccu m ulatio n . W h e r e a s in C a p it a l h e started w it h free peasant
households (w h ic h h e saw as a historical product, although the

historical process r e m a in e d outside the analysis), here h e starts

w it h a c o m m u n it y of producers. T h e process by w h ic h in d iv id u a l
pro perty-o w n in g households e m e r g e d is seen as part of the
sam e process that created capital as a social relation. T h e u n io n
of pro ducer w it h m e a n s of pro duction is m e d ia t e d by the un io n
of producers w it h each other, a n d the process of dissolution
necessary for the e m e r g e n c e of labor pow er as a c o m m o d it y is a

dissolution of the c o m m u n it y as well as a separation of pro­

ducer from m e a n s of pro duction ( 1 9 7 3 [ 1 8 5 7 — 58 ]: 4 9 5 — 498).
A lth o u g h h e is engag ed in a n oppositional exercise that con­
trasts his conception of capitalism w it h his conception of a pri-
 th e c o n s tru ctio n of n a t u r a l eco no m y 211

mordial co nd itio n, his u n d e r s ta n d in g of the past (and therefore

his u n d e r s ta n d in g of the present) could not be m o re different

from that of, say, Karl B u c h e r . Nonetheless, a n d this is the

second p o in t, h e once a g ain has m u c h m o r e to say about the

creation of free labor in terms of the separation of laborer from

m eans of pro ductio n than in terms of the dissolution of ties of

bondage. I n d e e d , in concentrating on the forms of c o m m u n it y

existing a m o n g producers, h e has little to tell us about forms of

exploitation. T h e past, then, w h ile based in c o m m u n it ie s rather

than households, is nonetheless based on a free, rather than an

unfree, peasantry.
A t the b e g in n in g of his discussion of p r im it iv e accum ulatio n,

M a r x observes:

Hen ce the historical m o vem en t w hich changes the producers

into wage-labourers appears, on the one hand, as their em an ci­
pation from serfdom and from the fetters of the guilds, and it
is this aspect of the m o vem en t w hich alone exists for our
bourgeois historians. But, on the other hand, these newly
freed m e n became sellers of themselves only after they had
been robbed of all of their own means of production, and all
the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal ar­
rangements. A n d this history, the history of their expropria­
tion, is written in the annals of m a n k in d in letters of blood
and fire. ( 19 7 7 [18 6 7]: 875)

Fr e e d o m , th e n , has a dual m e a n in g , as w e h a v e seen. B u t it is

not e n o u g h to h a v e one historiography (a bourgeois one) that

e m phas izes one m e a n in g , seeing a m o v e m e n t from u n fr e e d o m

to freed o m , a n d another historiography (a M a r xis t or critical

one) that e m ph a s iz e s another m e a n in g , seeing a m o v e m e n t

from freed o m to u n f r e e d o m . T h e d u a l m e a n in g suggests a c o n ­

tradictory process, a n d the contradictions b e co m e concentrated

in the peasantry— simultaneously free a n d unfree, historical
starting p o in t a n d historical product.
I do not m e a n to single out M a r x for special criticism . A n y of

the n o n -M a r xis t conceptions of natural eco n o m y would be sub­

ject to e ve n m o r e forceful criticisms. B y concentrating on M a r x ,
2 12 PO LITICA L ECONOMY

I m e a n to d ra w attention to a c o m ple x of problems associated

w it h the concept of natural econo my. T h e r e is n o th in g wrong

w it h the oppositional exercise itself. Historical fictions are neces­

sary to d ra w in sharp relief certain characteristics of the pres­

ent. Most theorists of natural eco n o m y clearly recognized its

fictional character, although some tho ught they were outlining

an actual historical process a n d would s im p ly concede that it

was m o r e c o m p le x than the list of stages would suggest (see,

e .g ., B u c h e r 19 6 7 [190 0 ]: 8 5). W h a t e v e r its connection or lack

of connection w it h an actual historical process, the “ F o r m e n ” is

an especially brilliant formulation to w h ic h one can continually

return for fresh in s ig ht. B u t a n y opposition simultaneously illu­

m in a te s a n d obscures. T h is particular opposition, especially as

it posits the peasant as starting p o in t a n d counterpoint, has

im p o r t a n t im plica tio n s for our un d e r s tan d in g of the historical

process a n d of our present co nditio n that m us t be subjected to

critical scrutiny. If, as M a r x in d ic a te d in the passage cited ear­

lier, the d e v e l o p m e n t of capitalism m e a n t a simultaneous m o v e ­

ment toward freed o m and toward alienation for working

people, a n y oppositional exercise, in c l u d in g M a r x ’s, that e m p h a ­

sizes one side of that m o v e m e n t will leave us w it h a flat u n d e r ­

standing of history a n d politics.

In discussing M a r x ’s passages in C a p it a l a n d the G r u n d r is s e , I

suggested two problems that no w require m o re detailed atten­

tion. W i t h regard to the section on p r im it iv e accum ulation, I

co ntended that M a r x ’s ta k in g the free peasantry as a starting

p o in t igno red the question of w h e th e r the free peasantry was

itself a pro duct of the s am e historical m o v e m e n t that created

the proletariat. W i t h regard to the “ F o r m e n ,” I cla im ed that one

m u s t e x a m in e elements of freed o m a n d u n f r e e d o m in the peas­

ant past a n d present. A l t h o u g h such a d ivis io n is false, and
although the two points are interrelated, I take the first po in t as
the basis for a discussion of history a n d the second p o in t as the
basis for a n e x a m in a t io n of culture a n d politics.

In co nsidering historical problems, w e can turn from a consid­

eration of n in e te en th -c en tu ry texts toward m o re recent au-
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 2 13

thors. Here I b e g in w it h an anthropologist w ho was deeply

influenced by the oppositional models of the late n in e te e n th

century, Robert R ed fie ld . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of an anthropologi­

cal critique of a n d alternative to R ed field laid the foundation

for the a pp r o a ch to history, culture, and politics suggested

h e r e .6

The basic aspects of R e d f ie ld ’s characterization of folk soci­

ety, or the opposition be tw e e n urban and folk, are so well

k n o w n that I shall not go into t h e m h ere. I w an t s im p ly to look

at his work in terms of three points. First, although R e d fie ld ’s

work was ado pted by m o d e r n iz a tio n theorists, h e saw his opposi­

tion as part of a critical a pp r o a c h . T h is is most clear in The

P r i m i t i v e W o r l d a n d its T r a n s f o r m a t io n s ( 19 5 3 ) , w it h the opposition

betw een a technical order a n d a moral order.7

Nonetheless, the critical im p a c t of R e d fie ld ’s v ie w of civiliza­

tion was m a r r e d b y the fundam entally antihistorical nature of

the folk/urban o pposition. T h is leads us to the two other points,

w h ic h suggest a criticism of the u n d e r s tan d in g of social rela­

tions a n d history that served as a basis for R e d f ie ld ’s critique.

T h e second has to do w it h the “ c o n t in u u m ” aspect of R e d fie ld ’s

work; the th ir d concerns R e d f ie l d ’s o w n a tte m p t to m o v e b e ­

yond it. A l t h o u g h a folk/urban opposition, differently stated,

served as a constant in R e d f ie ld ’s work from the b e g in n in g , the

notion of a c o n t in u u m from folk to u rb a n held a m o re re­

stricted place in R e d f ie l d ’s tho ught— essentially d u r in g the late

1930s a n d 1940s in relation to his work in Y u c a ta n . In T h e Fo lk

C u l t u r e o f Y u c a t a n (19 4 0 ), R ed field takes four c o m m u n it ie s as

exam ples of different points on the c o n t in u u m (from the folk

e n d to the u r b a n : T u s ik , C h a n K o m , Dzitas, a n d M e r id a ) . T h e

most im p o r t a n t aspect of the c o n t in u u m to be e m p h a s iz e d here

is that it was m a d e to represent an “ as if ” — or pseudo— history.

A lth o u g h Red fie ld k n e w that there was not, in actual fact, a

historical progression from T u s ik to M e r id a , h e thought that

the differences fo und a m o n g the c o m m u n it ie s at the t im e they
were studied in the late 1930s could be taken to represent the
kinds of changes that h a d occurred in an irrecoverable histori­
cal process in the m o v e from folk to u r b a n society.
A rather different and instructive perspective emerges in
2 14 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

R e d fie ld ’s w r it in g in the 1950 s, perhaps in response to a growing

critical literature. In T h e P r i m i t i v e W o r l d a n d its Tra n s fo r m a tio n s ,

for e x a m p l e , there is a clearer distinction betw een p r im it iv e and

peasant. M o r e im p o r t a n t, the peasant is not seen as a m id p o in t in

a historical progression from folk to u rb a n but as the product of

an interaction b e tw e e n the folk a n d the u r b a n . T h e peasant is a

product of civilizatio n a n d its r e m a k in g of the “ folk.” Indeed,

peasants b e c o m e “ r e m a d e folk” — folk in their internal relations,

w h ic h r e m a in k in - b o u n d , solidary, ho mo geneo us, b u t urb an in

their external relations thro ugh the co m m ercial nexus. W h il e

Red field h a d earlier suggested, in the e x a m p l e of the Yucatan , a

historical m o v e m e n t from T u s ik thro ugh C h a n K o m a n d Dzitas

to M e r id a , h e no w was suggesting a n interaction b etw een M e r id a

a n d T u s ik that pro duced a C h a n K o m . Nonetheless, the possibil­

ity of a historical critique of the folk/urban opposition, o p e n ed in

T h e P r i m i t i v e W o r l d , was not realized b y Red field him s elf but was

taken u p by his critics.

Among the most instructive criticisms were those that re­

e x a m in e d the Yucatecan m aterial. S id n e y M in t z , for e x a m p l e ,

p o in te d out that the c o m m u n it ie s selected by Red field were

located w it h in the m a iz e belt a n d that Red field h a d ignored the

h e n e q u e n plantations a n d the rural proletarians w h o worked

on t h e m ( 19 5 3 ) . Nonetheless, M in t z d id not consider the actual

historical processes that h a d characterized the Yu c a ta n or e x a m ­

in e the c o m m u n it ie s studied b y Red field in detail. T h a t task was

taken u p b y A rno ld Strickon ( 19 6 5 ) , w h o , by m e a n s of an e x a m i­

nation of the transformation of ecology a n d eco no m y in the

area as a result of the d e v e l o p m e n t of estate agriculture and

r a n c h in g , shows that all of the c o m m u n it ie s can only be u n d e r ­

stood in terms of that history. T h e people of T u s ik a n d C h a n

K o m c a m e from c o m m o n roots— h a c ie n d a a n d free M a y a — but
lived different histories. T u s ik was fo rm ed in Q u in t a n a Roo, an
escape zone d u r in g the Caste W a r a n d thereafter, w hile C h a n
K o m was established in a frontier b a n d be tw e e n the h e n e q u e n
zone a n d the free M a y a , p r o d u c in g m a iz e for the h e n e q u e n
plantations. T h u s , a pseudohistory that sees a passage from a
folk T u s ik to an u r b a n M e r id a , or an interaction b etw een a folk
T u s ik a n d a n u r b a n M e r id a that produces a peasant C h a n K o m ,
 th e co n s tru ctio n of n a t u r a l econom y 2 15

is replaced by a historical sketch that shows that each of the

different c o m m u n it ie s is a product of a u n if ie d social process.

Because that process affects particular regions differentially—

due to geographical plac em e n t of core a n d p eriph era l zones,

cyclical m o v e m e n t s , different sets of social relations a n d histori­

cal m o v e m e n t s w it h in each region, a n d so on— a v a r ie t y of “ folk”

and “ u r b a n ” c o m m u n it ie s emerges (see Joseph 19 8 6 ).

T h is im p l ie s a profoundly different w a y of looking at anthro­

pological subjects th an that suggested by oppositional models,

one that has b e e n most interestingly d evelo ped by anthropolo­

gists such as W o lf a n d M in t z . F r o m their initial field research in

Puerto R ic o (Steward et al. 19 5 6 ) thro ugh their typological es­

says of the 1950 s (Wolf 1 9 5 5 ; 1 9 5 6 ; 1 9 5 7 ; W olf a n d M in t z 19 5 7 )

to m o re recent work (Wolf 19 8 2 ; M in t z 19 7 3 ; 19 7 4 ; 19 7 9 ;

19 8 5 ), they h a v e a tte m p te d to v ie w a variety of types of rural

folk as the differential products of a u n if ie d but u n e ve n l y devel­

oping world-historical process.

T h e ir work points toward an u n d e r s tan d in g of peasants,

their histories, a n d their connection w it h o u r history that differs

from that of oppositional models. A s in Strickon’s essay, the

position of various types of c o m m u n it ie s in a historical process

is practically reversed. A s id e from attention to local a n d global

processes, a central feature of the u n d e r s tan d in g of peasants in

the context of world history is a concept of u n e v e n d evelo p­

m e n t . U n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t has one of its most im p o r ta n t ef­

fects w it h in the capitalist m o d e of pro duction in a process that

can be called u n e v e n p r o l e t a r ia n iz a t io n . T h is takes its most o b v i­

ous form in labor-market segm entatio n (see G o rdo n 1 9 7 2 ; E d ­

wards et al., eds. 19 7 5 ; Go rd o n et al. 19 8 2 ; cf. Meillassoux

1 9 8 1 ; W o lf 1 9 8 2 : 3 5 4 — 383), w h ic h m e a n s the d e v e l o p m e n t of a

labor force s e g m e n ted into skilled a n d unskilled branches w it h

sexual, e th n ic , racial, a n d national characteristics serving as pro­

visional a n d c o n v e n ie n t markers for r ec ru itm e n t into particular

segments. S u c h segm entatio n can be seen as part of the process
of capital a c cu m ulatio n itself. For e x a m p l e , M arx provides a
pen etratin g analysis of the creation of skilled a n d unskilled w it h
the d e v e l o p m e n t of capitalism ( 19 7 7 : Chapters 10 — 1 5 ) . H is
treatment of po pulatio n a n d surplus population as part of his
216 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

model of capital a ccu m ulatio n is also helpful in a ppro a ching an

u n d e r s ta n d in g of such segm entatio n ( ib id .: 7 8 1- 8 0 2 ) . B u t u n ­

e ve n d e v e l o p m e n t also im plicates the history of nonproletarian

populations. If Strickon’s analysis of Yu ca tan is correct, it

m e an s that w e can e x a m in e the creation of a variety ot types of

toiler (proletarian, peasant, tenant, a n d so on), at least in part,

in terms of a u n if ie d a n d u n e v e n l y d eve lo p in g capitalist system

(Roseberry 19 8 3 : C h a p t e r 7). T h u s , instead of an oppositional

model that sees a m o v e m e n t from folk to u rb an , natural econ­

omy to c o m m o d it y econo my, or peasant to proletarian, both

poles would be seen as the contradictory products of the cre­

ation of the m o d e r n world.

S u ch assertions m u s t be m a d e w it h care. In a n y consideration

of specific situations, one m u s t a tte m p t to grasp the u n eve n

nature of capitalist d e v e l o p m e n t , the ebb a n d flow of c o m m o d ­

ity markets, the b o o m a n d bust cycles of expan s io n a n d retrac­

tion, a n d th e ir differential im p a c t on particular regions and

social strata. W e need to investigate the extent to w h ic h the

history of specific w o r k in g populations is directly connected

w it h capital in ve s t m e n t (e.g ., slaves or wage laborers on planta­

tions, peasants w h o m o v e into frontier areas in direct response

to e x p a n d in g c o m m o d it y markets), a n d the extent to w h ic h

such peoples h a v e a social existence that precedes capital invest­

m e n t (e.g ., peasant a n d artisan c o m m u n it ie s in nuclear areas of

L a t in A m e r ic a ) . Pro per u n d e r s ta n d in g of the latter group re­

quires that w e analyze those aspects of the ir social relations that

can be traced to a g e n u in e ly precapitalist past a n d cannot be

s u b s u m e d w it h in a capitalist d y n a m ic . It also requires that we

consider those aspects that can be v ie w e d as a “ r e m a d e past”

(e.g., corporate c o m m u n it ie s in M e s o a m e r ic a that built u po n
and preserved an in d ig e n o u s past thro ugh the im p o s itio n of
institutions for colonial a d m in is tra tio n a n d labor mobilization).
In each case, rural toilers are to be seen, at least in part, as the
precipitates of historical processes that invo lve the intersection
of regional a n d global d y n a m ic s .
Clearly, e m p h a s is on u n e v e n proletarianization does not close
discussion but opens a c o m p le x set of questions. If w e return to
the pro blem of class fo rmatio n, c o m m u n it y , a n d consciousness
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 217

w ith w h ic h w e began our consideration of T h o m p s o n , w e see

that certain k ind s of association a n d consciousness that w ere

taken for granted are no w ren d ered pro blematic. T h e very

nature a n d constitution of the “ c o m m u n it y ,” tied to precapital­

ist social relations a n d e xperiences a n d seen as the basis for

values a n d traditions that in f o r m e d a n evaluative conscious­

ness, are thro w n into question. A t the sam e t im e , ho wever, cer-_

tain n e w kind s of association a n d consciousness b e co m e possible

that could not h a v e b e e n co nceived g iv e n oppositional theories

(e.g., associations of peasants, proletarians, a n d other types of

workers, seen now as differentiated b u t lin ked products of u n ­
e ve n proletarianization rather th a n actors w it h in fundam en­

tally distinct m o des of pro duction).

T h e s e two problems suggest two areas for discussion in our

consideration of culture a n d politics a m o n g w o rk in g people.

T h e first pro blem im p l ie s a critique of those models that treat

precapitalist e x p e r ie n c e a n d the existence of a political or cul­

tural c o m m u n it y as u n pr o b le m a tic . T h e second requires a discus­

sion of the politics of cultural creation a n d c o m m u n it y formation

in the context of u n e v e n proletarianization.

Most of our theories, M a r x is t a n d n o n -M arxis t, of the politics

of peasant populations, or of proletarians w it h recent ties to

such populations, c o n tin ue to ignore the sort of co m ple x his­

tory sketched abo ve. H o w e v e r m u c h in d iv id u a l theorists m ig h t

disagree w it h Lu k ac s , most would share two of his basic a s s u m p ­

tions about peasant consciousness a n d politics: they are tied to a

precapitalist past a n d are backw ard looking.

Bourgeoisie and proletariat are the only pure classes in bour­

geois society. T h e y are the only classes whose existence and
development are entirely dependent on the course taken by
the modern evolution of production and only from the van­
tage point of these classes can a plan for the total organization
of society e v e n be im a g in e d . T h e outlook of the other classes
(petty bourgeois or peasants) is ambiguous or sterile because
their existence is not based exclusively on their role in the
2 18 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

capitalist system of production but is indissolubly linked with

the vestiges of feudal society. T h e ir a im , therefore, is not to
advance capitalism or to transcend it, but to reverse its action
or at least to prevent it from developing fully. T h e ir class
interest concentrates on symptoms of developm ent and not on
development itself, and on elements of society rather than on
the construction of society as a whole. ( 1 9 7 1 [19 22]: 59)

B u t if the peasant is a historical product a n d is, in significant

respects, a product of the pres en t, then this basic assumption

m u s t be r e e x a m in e d .

We ha ve already encountered one p r o m in e n t model of

backward-looking politics in the moral eco n o m y literature, espe­

cially in Jam es Scott’s applicatio n of moral eco no m y ideas to the

politics of peasants in colonial settings (see C h a p t e r 3). T h is is

but one e x a m p l e of a range of theoretical expressions that share

a c o m m o n , oppositional, historical vis io n . W e m ig h t consider

another expression in the work of M ic h a e l Taussig.

Tau s s ig ’s well-received book, T h e D e v i l a n d C o m m o d it y F e t is h is m

in S o u t h A m e r ic a (19 8 0 ), offers a sophisticated M a rxis t analysis

of ideology a n d consciousness a m o n g populations recently in ­

corporated w it h in a capitalist political economy. A basis for his

analysis is a n opposition be tw e e n use-value a n d exchange-value

economies, the former characterized by reciprocal transactions

a n d relationships a n d the latter characterized by nonreciprocal

transactions- a n d relationships. In use-value economies, these
relationships are represented, a n d fetishized, as personal and

superpersonal, or natural a n d supernatural. In exchange-value

economies, social relations are represented, or fetishized, as

relations b e tw e e n things, or c o m m o d itie s . Taus sig’s a dvan ce is

to place c o m m o d it y fetishism in relation to the natural and
supernatural fetishism of use-value economies a n d consider the
m a n n e r in w h ic h capitalis m is understood a n d represented by
people w it h roots in precapitalist social relations. H e applies this
analysis to d evil im a g e r y a n d beliefs a m o n g rural proletarians
in C o l o m b ia a n d tin m in e r s in B o livia , concluding his intro­
d uctio n to the case studies w it h the clearest statement of his
interpretatio n:
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 219

T h u s , the devil-beliefs that concern us in this book can be

interpreted as the indigenous reaction to the supplanting of
this traditional fetishism by the new. As understood w ithin the
old use-value system, the devil is the mediator of the clash
between these two very different systems of production and
exchange. T h is is so not only because the devil is an apt sym­
bol of the pain and havoc that the plantations and mines are
causing, but also because the victims of this expansion of the
market economy vie w that economy in personal and not in
commodity terms and see in it the most horrendous distortion
of the principle of reciprocity, a principle that in all precapital­
ist societies is supported by mystical sanctions and enforced by
supernatural penalties. T h e devil in the mines and cane fields
reflects an adherence by the workers’ culture to the principles
that underlie the peasant mode of production, even as these
principles are being progressively un derm in ed by the every­
day experience of wage labor under capitalist conditions. But
until the capitalist institutions have permeated all aspects of
economic life and the revolution in the mode of production is
complete, the lower classes will persist in vie w in g the bonds
between persons in their modern economic activities for what
they really are— asymmetrical, non-reciprocal, exploitative,
and destructive of relationships between persons— and not as
natural relations between forces supposedly inherent in po­
tent things. (Ibid.: 37, 38)

Taus s ig ’s demonstration of this p o in t is im p r e s s ive , espe­

cially in his discussion of the e m er g e n ce of devil im a g e r y in

the context of colonial Catholicism a n d the c o n d e m n a tio n and

transformation of in dig en o us and slave beliefs. Nonetheless,

w e m ig h t briefly consider the two cases discussed by Taussig in

light of his opposition betw een use-value a n d exchange-value

economies. Of the use-value end, Taussig tells us, “ In the
precapitalist m o d e of production there is no m a r k e t a n d no

c o m m o d it y d e f in itio n of the value a n d function of a good”

( ib id .: 36) a n d , “ In precapitalist societies, c o m m o d it y e xcha n g e
and the m a r k e t are absent” ( ib id .: 1 2 7 ) . Yet w hat is most in te r ­
esting about this book is that both of Taus sig’s case studies
contradict such assertions a n d the opposition u p o n w h ic h they
220 PO LITICA L ECO NO M Y

rest. In the case of rural proletarians in the C a u c a Valley of

C o lo m b ia , b y far the better d o c u m e n te d and realized of his

two studies, the peasantry is, as Taus sig observes, of recent v in ­

tage. T h is is hardly a deeply rooted precapitalist eco no m y for

w h ic h capitalis m a n d a “ m a r k e t e c o n o m y ” are newly introduced

from outside. Peasant villages w ere begun by runaw ay and

freed slaves in the n in e t e e n t h century, a n d the people who

fo un d ed t h e m already h a d a n in t im a t e a n d pain ful e xper ienc e

of one part of the world eco no m y. N o doubt they valued and

d e f e n d e d th e ir in d e p e n d e n c e , as Taus sig shows, a n d no doubt the

valuation of in d e p e n d e n c e has especially critical things to say

about proletarian labor in the cane fields. T h e devil im a g e r y

a n d the notion of d evil contracts strike the reader as a n u n d e r ­

standable set of beliefs for such a po pulatio n. B u t the peasant

villages, in d e p e n d e n t as they were, w ere n e ve r so r e m o ve d from

c o m m o d it y markets— from a “ m a r k e t e c o n o m y” — as Taussig

suggests in his m o r e rhetorical pro n o un cem en ts . Instead, they

m o v e d q uite quickly to c o m m o d it y pro duction— especially co­

coa a n d coffee ( ib id .: 7 8 , 79)— w it h in a fram ew o rk of peasant in ­

d e p e n d e n c e b u t outside the fram ew o rk of a use-value economy

in w h ic h “ c o m m o d it y e xc h a n g e a n d the m a r k e t are absent.”

Clearly, w e need a m o r e careful consideration of reciprocity

a n d nonreciprocity, c o m m o d it y pro duction a n d e xcha n g e , and

ideology w it h in precapitalist m odes of pro duction, or a m o n g

workers in capitalist m o des, th a n the opposition allows. In d ee d ,

it m a y be that w e can understand devil im a g e r y of the sort

Taus sig is talking about w ith o u t recourse to a concept of use-

value e c o n o m y or to r e m e m b e r e d reciprocities. W e m ig h t be

able to understand such im a g e r y a n d practices in terms of v a r i­

ous experienc es of w ag e labor. For e x a m p l e , ideas about devil

contracts m ig h t not be unrelated to the e x p e r ie n c e of piece
wages in the fields (cf. Trouillot 19 8 6 ) .8
The B o l iv ia n tin m in e r case presents a different pro blem .
U s in g the Buechlers’s ( 1 9 7 1 ) work a n d that of Bastien (19 7 8 ) ,
Taussig traces the conceptualizations of nature a n d reciprocity
a m o n g A n d e a n villagers. A s h e considers the contrast w it h m i n ­
ers’ ideology, h e claims:
 th e co n s tru ctio n of n a tu r a l econom y 221

Peasant rites of production mediate the interplay of in d iv id u ­

ality with co m munity, and in so doing they reflect the princi­
ple of inalienability in the constitution of rural life. Miners
either come directly from this life or have a background in its
dictates and sentiments. Yet the situation they encounter in
the mines is one predicated on alienation and the denial of
reciprocity. T h e ir rites of labor and of production reflect the
contrast. (1980: 2 14 )

T h e statement that “ m in e r s eith e r co m e directly from this life

or h a ve a b ackg ro und in its dictates a n d sentim ents” is s im ply

asserted. It is u n t r u e .9 T i n m in e r s in B o livia are not a first-

generation proletariat; rather th e y constitute a m ultigenera-

tional proletariat. Serious splits b e tw een peasants a n d m in e r s

have b een successfully exploited b y the B o l iv ia n state in repress­

in g strikes. A n d a most im p o r t a n t eth no g rapher of B o l iv ia n tin

m iners fo und that they lacked basic knowledge of s im ple gar­

d e n in g (N a s h 19 7 9 ) . I n d e e d , as N a s h ’s eth n o g r ap hy (not to

speak of the m in e r s ’ o w n well-known actions) substantiates, this

proletariat is one of the most conscious a n d m ilita n t in all of

La t in A m e r ic a , w it h a u n io n m o v e m e n t of long standing a n d a

history of p a r tic ip a tio n in revolutionary m o v e m e n t s . T h a t this

multigenerational proletariat can c o m b in e m ilita n t left-wing

politics w it h d evil im a g e r y , in d e e d , that the unions themselves

can encourage d evil pro pitiatio n rites along w it h m o r e practical

political programs, offers an interesting pro blem that cannot be

reduced to the m e d ia t io n of peasant/proletarian, reciprocity/

nonreciprocity, or use-value/exchange-value oppositions. We

need to look m o r e carefully at a proletariat that has severed its

connections w it h a p e a s a n t past but a tte m pte d to m a in t a in its

connections w it h a n in d ig e n o u s past a n d present. A n d w e n eed

to look m o r e carefully at the culture a n d political eco n o m y of

organization a n d repression. U s e of devil im a g e r y as an e th n ic
m a rk e r w it h in a class politics suggests the im p o r ta n c e of e x a m i m
in g such practices w it h in the politics of the present rather than
the invo catio n of an epochal history.
W e see that the social relations at both the use-value a n d the
222 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

e xhang e-value e n d of Tau s s ig ’s opposition are m o re complex

than he im p l ie s and that, as a consequence, the problem of

cultural creation a n d politics is m o re m ultifaceted. T h e com­

plexity is h is to r ic a l; the a tt e m p t to collapse an u n e v e n historical

process into an u n pr o b le m a tic set of oppositions removes our

u n d er s tan d ing of culture a n d politics from social b e in g , where

it belongs, a n d places it in an im p o s e d set of theoretical opposi­

tions, w h e r e it is m is plac ed . Contradictions are r e m o ve d from

e x p e r ie n c e and placed in the circumlocutions of an author’s

model.

There are two basic problems w it h models of backward­

looking politics, models that place their e m ph a s is on an u n pro b ­

lematic precapitalist e x p e r ie n c e . First, they consider peasants

or first-generation proletarians a n d the social orders in w h ic h

they live as historically prior to capitalism . If, ho wever, peas­

ants, in a w id e variety of settings, are the products of the past

a n d the present— the products, perhaps not of “ capitalis m ” but

of the sam e historical m o v e m e n t that created a capitalist m ode

of pro duction in one sector a n d region a n d noncapitalist modes

in other sectors a n d regions, that created, in short, the m o dern

world in all its u n e ve n l y develo ped c o m ple xity— the n this s im ­

ple v ie w of past e x p e r ie n c e d e t e r m in in g present consciousness

m us t be discarded. T h e past is constitutive of consciousness, but

it is not as u n a m b ig u o u s as the models suggest.

Second, although attention to precapitalist values a n d tradi­

tions serves as a corrective to certain crude formulations e x­

pressed in the name of M a r x , it tends to ro m anticize class

relations in precapitalist settings. Surely the peasant’s or prole­

tarian’s e x p e r ie n c e of those relations, in contrast w it h n e w rela­

tions intro d uced by the a d ve n t of capitalist d e ve lo p m e n t of a

strictly co nceived sort, will e m p h a s iz e certain aspects of those
relations that c o m pa r e favorably w it h the n e w forms of class
d o m in a t io n . B u t is it unreasonable to assume that peasants will
also be aware of certain aspects of the n e w relations that co mpare
favorably w it h the past? It is quite probable that peasants’ and

proletarians’ e x p e r ie n c e of past a n d present is contradictory and

that contradictory b e in g d e te r m in e s a contradictory conscious­
ness. The past, as a storehouse of experiences that info rm
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 223

consciousness, would therefore p r o vid e raw material for both

protest a n d a c c o m m o d a tio n . Unfortunately, the politics of n a tu ­

ral e co n o m y sees only the n e g ative contrasts a n d therefore leads

us to m a k e unreasonable a n d , ultimately, d e m e a n in g a s s u m p ­

tions about the consciousness of w o r k in g p e o p le .10

We c o m e , t h e n , to a conclusion that has already b e e n sug­

gested. If natural e co n o m y is a historical product, it is also an

ideological pro duct of the present. As the moral economists

ha ve shown us, it can serve as the basis for a powerful critique

of the present. It is a c o m m o n e le m en t in socialist critiques,

especially as the capitalist present is contrasted w it h the im a g e

and possibility of a socialist future w it h im p o r t a n t roots in the

h u m a n past. It can also serve as the basis for a critical response

to the first e m e r g e n c e or introductio n of capitalist social rela­

tions. B u t that critique can be a constitutive aspect of the con­

sciousness of w o r k in g people or (or m o r e accurately, a n d ) an

elem ent in a n aristocratic critique of bourgeois society (W illiam s

19 6 0 ; 19 7 3 ) . A reflection on the rural past m a y also be in cluded

in bourgeois consciousness, as in the m o v e from u n f r e e d o m to

freedom , from serf to citizen, a n d so on. Finally, a simultaneous

ro m anticizatio n a n d critique of a rural past is present in m a n y

statist ideologies, from a fascist e x t r e m e (cf. M oo re 19 6 6 : 4 9 0 -

508) to less viru lent forms, such as the Ve n e z u e l a n e x a m p l e

presented in C h a p t e r 3. In all of these forms, the peasant, or a

set of im a g e s of the peasant, is an object of contention in the

ideological construction of the present.

B u t w e cannot conclude our e x a m in a t io n of the culture a n d

politics of w o r k in g people at this n e g ative level. If w e cannot

sim ply call u p p r e e xis tin g c o m m u n it ie s , values, a n d traditions,
we n e ed to consider the problems a n d processes associated w it h

c o m m u n it y fo rm atio n. Referen ce to a process of u n e v e n prole­

tarianization im p l ie s the creation of a heterogeneous, fraction­
ated w o r k in g people that e x p e r ie n c e enormous difficulty in
fo rm in g themselves as a w o r k in g class. T h is raises a series of
problems, discussion of w h ic h can contribute to a m o re careful
consideration of culture a n d politics. W e n e ed to e x a m in e , first,
224 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

a n u m b e r of e m p ir ic a l questions: into w hat kinds of political

c o m m u n it ie s ha ve such heterogeneous w o r k in g people been

inserted? A r o u n d w h a t im a g e s of c o m m u n it y have they co­

alesced? T h is would necessarily lead to a discussion of hege­

m o n y , of the connection b e tw e e n proletarianization a n d state

formatio n, a n d of a variety of e th n ic , religious, a n d regional

m o vem ents . A second set of questions is both e m p ir ic a l and

n o r m a t iv e : w h a t are the weaknesses of such h e g e m o n ic political

c o m m u n it ie s ? H o w a n d u n d e r w h a t circumstances are alterna­

tive , c o u n te r h e g e m o n ic political c o m m u n it ie s formed? W it h in

the range of such c o u n te r h e g e m o n ic c o m m u n it ie s , w h a t are the

prospects for horizontal, or class-based forms of action? Stated

in m o r e cultural terms, T h o m p s o n correctly e m p h a s iz e d the

im p o r t a n c e of a feeling of c o m m u n it y in the formation of class

consciousness. B u t h o w is the feeling of c o m m u n it y or ho mo ge­

neity generated w it h in social relations that are n e ith e r co m ­

m u n a l nor ho mo geneo us? T h e s e questions d e p e n d u p o n the

historical u n d e r s ta n d in g outlined in this essay. Oppositional his­

torical models lead to epochal treatments of culture a n d poli­

tics, w h ic h in turn lead to the expectatio n of forms of cultural

a n d political resistance based u p o n the e x p e r ie n c e of a natural

or moral econo m y, of use value a n d reciprocity. A historical

m odel that rejects such oppositions a n d stresses u n e v e n develop­

m e n t a n d u n e v e n proletarianization leads to an understanding

of the culture a n d politics of h e g e m o n y as well as the culture

a n d politics of resistance.

W e m ig h t b e g in w it h the pro blem of h e g e m o n y . W e n e ed to

r e m e m b e r that proletarianization occurs in the context of pro­

cesses of state fo rm atio n a n d consolidation. Theorists of both

proletarianization a n d the bourgeois state stress the im po rta n ce

of an e m e r g e n t in d iv id u a l iz a t io n in both processes. For proletar­

ia n iz a tio n , M arx e m p h a s iz e d the separation of the producer

from a p r o d u c in g c o m m u n it y as well as his or her separation
from m e a n s of pro ductio n . T h is was, of course, a starting point
for m a n y oppositional histories, M a r x ’s in c lu d e d . W e m a y h a ve
a m o r e c o m p le x m o del a n d still see the im p o r ta n c e of this as­
pect of proletarian e x p e r ie n c e . I n d e e d , the e m p h a s is on u n ­
e ve n proletarianization extends it to other groups of w o rkin g
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 225

people such as peasants a n d tenants.11 O u r e m ph a s is on a het­

erogeneous a n d fractionated w o r k in g people carries w it h it an

e x p a n d e d u n d e r s ta n d in g of the lack of p r im o r d ia l c o m m u n it y

e x p e r ie n c e a n d sentiments a n d stresses the fractionated char­

acter of w o r k in g lives.

L ik e w is e , theorists of the capitalist state stress the dissolution

of political c o m m u n it ie s a n d orders a n d the creation of a direct

relationship (or the ideology of a direct relationship) betw een

state a n d citizen, in w h ic h all citizens face the state as equal

in d ivid u a ls , w it h o u t the m e d ia t io n of estates, orders, or the like.

B u t the state also creates the institutional space for organiza­

tion, for the creation of n e w types of political c o m m u n it y . In a

series of notes on Italian history, A n t o n io G r a m s c i ( 1 9 7 1 [ 19 2 9 —

35]) looked at the bourgeoisie in terms similar to those I h a v e

used to analyze the proletariat. H e saw a fractionated bourgeoi­

sie that could not fo rm itself as a ho mo geneo us force, could not

develop a political a n d cultural h e g e m o n y , a n d therefore was

late in following the Fr e n c h a n d English exam ples in the cre­

ation of a nation-state. It was nonetheless the state through

w h ic h a fractionated bourgeoisie could form itself a n d act as a

class.

The capitalist state, Poulantzas r e m in d s us ( 19 7 3 ) , serves to

organize the bourgeoisie a n d disorganize the proletariat. B u t

this functionalist in sight, w h ile telling, is insufficient. Poulant­

zas does not ren d er the organization of the bourgeoisie suffi­

ciently pro blematic a n d thus misses G r a m s c i’s im p o r t a n t p o in t;

nor does h e explore the extent to w h ic h the state organizes

w o r k in g people in a certain w a y (but see his 1 9 7 8 : 6 3 — 76). W e

h a ve already seen some aspects of that organization in V e n e z u ­

ela thro ugh the activities of A c c io n D em o cr atica (see C h a p t e r

3). In that discussion, I stressed the role of a state-building,

multiclass political party in b r in g in g together disparate sections

of an indus trializin g bourgeoisie a n d a fractionated w o r k in g

people co m po sed of industrial laborers, agricultural laborers,
and peasants. T h a t organizational activity was tied to a process
of cultural creation, a process in w h ic h a particular k in d of
c o m m u n it y feeling, based on key im ag e s of Ve n e z u e l a ’s past,

was generated. H e r e it is useful to recall B e n e d ic t A n d e r s o n ’s

226 PO LITICAL ECO NO M Y

d efin itio n of nationalism as a n “ im a g in e d c o m m u n it y ” — the

state as nation a n d the nation as c o m m u n it y — “ im a g in e d because

the m e m b e r s of e v e n the smallest nation will n e ve r k n o w most

of their fellow-members, m e e t t h e m , or e ve n hear of t h e m , yet

in the m in d s of each lives the im a g e of their c o m m u n io n ”

( 19 8 3 : 1 5 ) . An d e r s o n continues: “ all c o m m u n it ie s larger that

p r im o r d ia l villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even

these) are im a g in e d . C o m m u n it ie s are to be d is tin g uis hed , not

by their falsity/genuineness, b u t b y the style in w h ic h they are

im a g in e d ” ( ib id .) .

T h e state, t h e n , m a y serve to organize both bourgeoisie and

proletariat, both thro ugh its o w n structure a n d the structure of
the parties that contend for power, a n d thro ugh the creation of

im ag e s a n d traditions of a national c o m m u n it y . It is im po rta n t

to grasp the po w er of these structures a n d im ag es , w h ic h re­

quires us to e x a m in e particular tim es a n d places, particular

conjunctures of e co n o m ic d e ve lo p m e n t, class formation, and

political d o m in a t io n . O n e place to b e g in is w it h typologies of

the sort that An d e r s o n suggests. T h u s w e m a y look at the new

nations in n in eteen th -c en tu ry L a t in A m e r ic a , or the national­

isms that e m e r g e d in east a n d central E u r o p e in the n in e te e n th

century, as particular types of im a g in e d c o m m u n it y . T h is takes

us b eyo n d epochal markers like proletarianization a n d “ the”

bourgeois state a n d forces us to e x a m in e m o re l im it e d a n d sug­

gestive sets of c o m m o n experiences and structures. But we

m ust, of course, go further a n d explore the history of specific

states. T h e oppositions of country a n d city or backwardness and

d e v e l o p m e n t thro ugh w h ic h I e x a m in e d Ve n e z u e l a n politics in

Cha pter 3 cannot be understood as generalized oppositions.

T h e y acquire their particular significance, their cultural m e a n ­

in g a n d power, in specific experiences a n d projections.
As w e look at specific histories, w e see that political c o m m u n i­
ties are not fo rm ed aro und im ag e s of “ the state” itself but
aro und particular social a n d cultural oppositions that create a
group or c o m m u n it y feeling a m o n g heterogeneous folk. T h e y
invo lve m o v e m e n t s f o r our people, our culture, our region, the
true faith, progress, or d em o cracy; a g a in s t the intruders, the
English, the infidels, the agro-exporting bourgeoisie, the dicta-
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L E C O N O M Y 227

tors. T h e im a g e s , a n d the m o v e m e n t s they in s pir e , are products

of a n d responses to particular forces, structures, a n d events—

colonialism a n d its d e m is e , the im p o s it io n of a state religion, the

autocratic rule of a dictator, the rise or d e m is e of a region— and

they d e r iv e th e ir c o m m u n it y - f o r m in g pow er from the ir a p p a r ­

ent relationship to those forces a n d events. T h e y involve, in

their classic fo rm , vertical or multiclass coalitions.

But full u n d e r s ta n d in g of the h e g e m o n ic pow er of such

im ages of c o m m u n it y requires an e x a m in a t io n of their institu­

tional elaboration a n d expression. T h is is w h e r e the state ac­

quires its central role. M o v e m e n t s for a region or the faith or

democracy b e c o m e m o v e m e n t s for the state; it is thro ugh con­

trol of the state that im a g in e d c o m m u n it ie s can be g iv e n m a t e ­

rial fo rm . If, as R a y m o n d W il l ia m s contends, a basic c o m po n e n t

of a n y culture is a selected tradition, one of the most im p o r ta n t

m eans for selecting a n d d is s e m in a t in g that tradition is through

the institutions of the state itself— schools, p r in t a n d other m e ­

d ia , a n d the like. T h r o u g h these forms, the forces a n d events

that gave rise to the im a g in e d c o m m u n it y can be constantly
recreated e v e n after the actual events h a v e passed or the forces

are no longer active. T h e political c o m m u n it y that begins as a

regionalist, religious, populist, or anticolonial project, turns to a

struggle for the state, a n d m a in t a in s itself through control of

the state.

Nonetheless, as has b e e n stressed thro ughout this book, our

un d e r s tan d in g of structures of po w er should be sensitive to

sources of weakness a n d contradiction, to the presence or possi­

bility of resistance, of e m e r g e n t a n d perhaps alternative political

c o m m u n it ie s . B u t w e m u s t also resist two powerful temptations.

O n e would be to place our u n d e r s ta n d in g of resistance w it h in an

oppositional historical m o del, to counterpose a g e n u in e popular

culture to the spurious h e g e m o n ic culture. W e h a ve already e n ­

countered such attempts in this essay. A second would be to m o v e
too quickly to a discussion of working-class culture a n d politics.
W e shall engage in such a discussion, b u t most forms of co un­
te r h e g e m o n y or alternative culture do not take a class-specific
form. O u r u n d e r s ta n d in g of both h e g e m o n ic a n d counterhege-
m o n ic cultural m o v e m e n t s should be placed in the context of
228 PO LITICA L ECONOMY

class divisions b u t should not be red uced to specific class posi­

tions. I n d e e d , g iv e n the perspective on u n e v e n proletarianiza­

tion outlined in this essay, w e should be surprised w h e n such

m o v e m e n t s do take such a fo rm . W e h a v e im p o r ta n t historical

e xam ples of such m o v e m e n t s , a n d a grow ing literature in social

history is e x p a n d in g our u n d e r s tan d in g of the e xp er ie n c e and

culture of w o r k in g people e v e n in “ u n h er o ic decades” (Williams

1 9 7 9 : 1 3 5 ) . B u t w e n e e d to place these experiences a n d m o ve­

m ents in a larger context of those forms of h e g e m o n ic a n d coun-

ter h e g e m o n ic culture a n d politics that are not class specific.12

G iv e n the nature of h e g e m o n ic political c o m m u n it ie s and

the political a n d eco n o m ic structures in w h ic h they are in ­

serted, most alternative m o v e m e n t s and im ag e s take a form

(and may in vo lve contents) similar to the d o m in a n t culture.

The d o m in a n t im a g in e d c o m m u n it y m a y in vo k e the equality

of regions, religions, a n d persons, but state policies will favor

certain regions, classes, or projects. Feelings of disquiet or dis­

content m a y take religious or regionalist forms, perhaps eve n ­

tuating in political m o v e m e n t s . T h e s e feelings a n d m o vem ents

will also in vo lve im a g e s of c o m m u n it y that can serve as alterna­

tives to the h e g e m o n ic .
The n e w c o m m u n it ie s e m e r g e in political contexts but need

not h a v e political a im s . The protestant conversion of Colta

In d ian s in E c u ad o r (M urato rio 19 8 0 ; see above, C h a p t e r 4),

for e x a m p l e , needs to be understood in terms of the Indians’

response to the e x p e r ie n c e of exploitation, the state, a n d the

d o m in a n t Catholic faith. It in vo lved a rejection of certain as­

pects of the d o m in a n t culture and an a tte m pt to m a in t a in

e th nic id e n t it y thro ugh the paradoxical (and fundamentally

contradictory) m e d i u m of an in d ivid u a l is tic religious faith. In

certain contexts, ho w ever, these alternative c o m m u n it ie s m a y
take a political fo rm , o rganizing along religious, e th n ic, re­
gionalist, or class lines. Central to our analysis of counter-
h e g e m o n ic c o m m u n it ie s , th e n , should be an e x a m in a t io n of
the cultural forms a n d symbols aro und w h ic h alternative i m ­
ages of c o m m u n it y can be built, a n d an exploration of the
organizational or institutional forms through w h ic h such i m ­
ages can be g iv e n political expression.
 T H E C O N S T R U C T IO N OF N A T U R A L E C O N O M Y 229

As should be clear from our discussion so far, alternative

political c o m m u n it ie s will often be vertical, multiclass coalitions

similar in form to h e g e m o n ic c o m m u n it ie s . T h e y n e e d not nec­

essarily take this fo rm, ho w ever. W e m ig h t close our discussion

w ith a b rief consideration of e xa m ples of horizontal c o m m u n i­

ties that link various segments of a heterogeneous w o rk in g peo ­

ple. L e t us consider, first, the H u a s ic a n c h in o s of Peru ( S m it h

19 8 9 ; see above, C h a p t e r 7). T h e r e the id io m of c o m m u n it y

served as a powerful material force in H u a s ic a n c h in o s ’s strug­

gle for land a n d livelihood. Rooted in g e n u in e ly precapitalist

experiences a n d e x t e n d e d into a present in such a w a y that it

could e m b r a c e m igrants to L i m a a n d H u a n c a y o , the im a g e of

c o m m u n it y served to m o b iliz e the H u a s ic a n c h in o s in a sophisti­

cated a n d successful struggle against h a c ie n d a a n d state. A l ­

though the language of c o m m u n it y u n it e d a heterogeneous

population of pastoralists a n d fruit vendors, it was an im a g e

that was rooted in a specific place a n d set of conflicts. It could

not be e x te n d e d to e m b r a c e pastoralists or m igrants from other

places.
Yet such extension is often possible. T h o m p s o n ’s M a k i n g o f the

E n g l is h W o r k in g Class is a consideration of the eco no m ic, political,

a n d cultural processes by w h ic h a w o r k in g class was fo rm ed a n d

fo rmed itself. T h e book ends just as the politics of w o rk in g peo ­

ple is b e g in n in g to take a class fo rm. L ik e w is e , W il l ia m Sewell, in

W o r k a n d R e v o l u t io n i n F r a n c e (198 0 ), e x a m in e s the c h a n g in g “ lan­

guage of labor” from the Old R e g im e to 18 4 8 , detailing the

eco no m ic transformations a n d political a n d cultural processes by

w h ic h various types of trades m en w e n t b eyo n d trade boundaries

and divisions a n d began to see themselves, a n d to act, as a class.

O th e r e xa m ples from the social-historical literature on working-

class e x p e r ie n c e in E u r o p e a n d N o r th A m e r ic a could b e offered

at considerable le n g th .1 '
W e m ig h t consider m o re recent exam ples from L a t in A m e r i ­
can e x p e r ie n c e . H e r e it would be useful to explore the use of
devil im a g e r y a n d the practice of p ro pitiatio n rites a m o n g tin
m in e r s in B o l iv ia in light of this essay’s preoccupations. First, let
us note that the tin m in e r s are but one (highly m ilitant) fraction
of the B o l iv ia n w o r k in g po pulatio n. T h e u n io n serves as an
230 PO LITICAL ECONOM Y

effective organizational locus for that fraction a n d can reach

out toward other groups thro ugh oppositional political parties.

B u t such connections require cultural im ag e s as well as political

organization. If our earlier suggestion that pro pitiatio n rites

h a d less to do w it h r e m e m b e r e d reciprocities than w it h a con­

scious a tt e m p t to connect w it h a n d m a in t a in an in dig en o us id e n ­

tity, th e n the u n io n ’s d e m a n d m a y represent an a tte m pt to link

working-class politics w it h e th n ic politics, an a tte m pt to create

an alternative, horizontal political c o m m u n it y .

O t h e r exa m ple s m a y invo lve the creation of n e w traditions.

T h e u n io n of liberation theology, base c o m m u n it ie s , a n d mass

organizations in N ic a r a g u a , El Salvador, a n d other parts of L a ­

tin A m e r ic a offers an especially interesting e x a m p l e . H e r e it is

im p o r t a n t to recall Carlos Cabarrus’s (19 8 3 ) study of the forma­

tion of the C h r is t ia n Peasants U n io n (f e c c a s ) out of Chris tian

base c o m m u n it ie s in Aguilares, El Salvador (see above, C h a p te r

7). T h e eco n o m ic process in Aguilares created a highly fraction­

ated semiproletariat, some m embers of w h ic h turned to the

par a m ilitar y o r d e n a n d some m e m b e r s of w h ic h joined feccas .

T h e transformation of feccas from a local to a national organi­

zation, a n d its increasing m ilita n c e in the face of political repres­

sion, are in m a n y ways a classic story of political mobilization

a n d organization. W h a t m akes this story u n iq u e , a n d w h a t gives

organizations like feccas such p ro m is e, is their basis in a pro­

cess of c o m m u n it y fo rm atio n. T h e s e organizations present an

im p o r t a n t a n d in n o v a t iv e resolution of the dialectic of cultural

creation a n d political organization, one that m ig h t transcend, if

g iv e n the o ppo r tun ity their opponents are d e t e r m in e d to d e n y

t h e m , earlier forms of socialist organization d e r ive d from E u r o ­

p e a n e x p e r ie n c e .
S u ch organizations carry their o w n contradictions, however.
O n e of the most powerful elements of liberation theology is its
iden tificatio n w it h “ the peo ple” and their liberation from a
group of earthly oppressors. In a heterogeneous w o rkin g p o p u ­
lation of peasants, tenants, semiproletarians, industrial workers,
a n d the like, the message of liberation theology is one that creates
an oppositional im a g in e d c o m m u n it y . In an actual political m o v e ­
m e n t , ho w ever, “ the peo ple” can include a w id e variety of groups
 T H E C O N S TR U C TIO N OF N A T U R A L EC O N O M Y 231

a n d projects. In N ic a r a g u a , for e x a m p l e , the struggle against

Somoza h a d b e en carried out by the relatively small group of

Sandinista guerrillas for almost two decades. A s go vernm ental

repression b e c a m e m o r e exten s ive a n d violent in the m id - 19 7 0 s ,
ho wever, they w ere joined by n e w mass organizations that were

tied to C h r is t ia n base c o m m u n it ie s , often fo rm ed in d e p e n d e n tl y

of the Sandinistas but en te r in g into strategic alliances w it h t h e m .

In the final m o n ths of the revolution, the decisive events con­

sisted of a series of large-scale popular insurrections in vo lvin g

large n u m b e r s of people w h o h a d no connection w it h Sandinista

and other organizations. T h e fall of Somoza represented a v ic ­

tory for a “ peo ple” that in c lu d e d Sandinistas, other organized

groups, a n d u n o r g a n ize d masses in towns a n d cities, u n it e d by

their opposition to So m oza. A t the t im e of the t r iu m p h , the n , the

revolution in c lu d e d , in contrast to some of the other exam ples

discussed in this essay, a large, relatively uno rganized vertical,

multiclass im a g in e d c o m m u n it y , a n d a m u c h smaller, im p r e s ­

sively organized, horizontal, class-specific im a g in e d c o m m u n it y .

The contradiction b etw een these two was carried over to the

revolutionary state.

We h a v e b e g u n w it h culture, turn ed to history, a n d e n d e d

w it h politics. T h is progression should not surprise. Even at

their most esoteric, anthropological ideas about culture involve

a series of (often unstated) ideas about history, capitalism, the

state, political action. B y m o v in g in this essay from ideas about

natural e co n o m y to a consideration of political m o v e m e n t s in El

Salvador a n d N ic a r a g u a , I h a v e a tte m pte d to m a k e those con­

nections e xp lic it. W e r n e r S o m bart was not alone in using the

M id d l e Ag es , or the past, or cultural others, in order to m a k e

points about the present. He was s im p ly m o re explicit than

others h a v e b e e n . T h is does not m e a n , of course, that w e cannot

m a k e a statement about culture until w e h a ve reached a posi­
tion on the S an d in is ta g o ve r n m e n t or their U .S .-b a c k e d o p p o ­
nents. It does m e a n that cultural texts are c o m m e n tar ies . T h e y
h a ve authors a n d audiences , a n d the actions they inscribe h a ve

consequences.
232 PO LITICAL ECONOMY

W h e n w e link the sym bo lism of L a S a n tis im a w it h the symbol­

is m of the loudspeakers, w e b e g in to engage a world of politics

a n d privile g e , po w er a n d po s itio ning . Most of us would reject as

too vulgar Fr e d e r ic k J am es o n ’s cla im that, “ T h e underside of

culture is blood, torture, d eath a n d horror” ( 19 8 4 : 5 7 ) . But

p erha ps w e should reconsider. Geertz was aware of the connec­

tion w h e n h e c o m m e n t e d in a footnote to his Balinese cockfight

article that b e tw e e n 40,000 a n d 80,000 Balinese w ere killed

d u r in g the 19 6 5 counterrevolution in Indonesia (Geertz 19 7 3 c :

4 5 2 ) . A s Geertz noted, the cockfight d id not “ cause” the blood­

shed. B u t one should not isolate cultural form or content from

political process. Unfortunately, most readers of Geertz’s essay

r e m e m b e r the self-effacing character of his description of the

police raid on a cockfight or his e r u d ite elucidation of cocks and

m e n . T h e y seldom r e m e m b e r or read the footnotes. M y p u r ­

pose in this book has b e e n to m a k e the political footnote an

integral part of the cultural text, to see the politics in culture.

In t r o d u c t i o n

1 . For other surveys an d co mmentaries on anthropology and history, see

C o h n 19 8 0 ; 1 9 8 1 ; D a vis 1 9 8 1 ; M e d ic k 19 8 7 ; T h o m p s o n 1 9 7 2 ; Recent studies

that contribute to an “ intersection” of the two disciplines include B e h a r 19 8 6 ;

Chance 19 7 8 ; Co m aro ff 19 8 5 ; de la Pena 19 8 2 ; Farriss 19 8 4 ; Fox 19 8 5 ;

F r y k m a n an d Lofgren 19 8 7 ; Lo m n itz -A d le r 19 8 2 ; M in t z 19 8 5 ; Muratorio

19 8 7 ; Price 19 8 3 ; Rosaldo 19 80 ; Roseberry 19 8 3 ; Sewell 19 80 ; Sider 19 8 6 ;

S m it h 19 8 9 ; Stoler 19 8 5 ; Trouillot 19 8 8 ; V in c e n t 19 8 2 ; W a r m a n 1 9 8 1 . In m y

view , the most im po r ta n t recent co m m e n ta ry is an extraordinary essay by

H e r m a n n Rebel (19 8 9 a ; 19 89 b ).

2. M y thanks to Lin d s a y D u B o is for noticing this.

Chapter 1

1 . D u r in g the 1980s, co m m entaries on the Balinese cockfight essay h ave

become quite c o m m o n , developing, for the most part, in apparent in d e p e n ­

dence (see, for e x a m p l e , Clifford 19 8 3 ; Crapanzano 19 8 6 ; Lieberson 19 8 4 ).

A t the t im e the original version of this chapter was published, in 19 8 2 , this

ac adem ic industry was und evelo ped . U n lik e some of the m o re recent c o m m e n ­
taries, this essay is directed toward a more political understanding of culture.

2 . In Negara, Geertz seems to take a more cautious stand on cockfights as a

major source of public re ve nu e. T h e book is an analysis of fractionated “ theatre

states” in precolonial Bali, in w h ic h a series of lords and princes is able to build
followings but in w h ic h the followings themselves are geographically dispersed.
T h o u g h h e analyzes the dispersed tax areas of lords and the activities of the tax
234
NOTES

and rent collectors, or sedahan, Geertz refers to the cockfight only in a footnote

to another section on co m m e rce . T h e r e he remarks: “ T h e marketplaces were

co m m only set u p in the space in front of one or another lord’s h o u s e .. . . And

as w ith e verything else— land, water, people, and so on— the id io m had it that

the lord ‘o w ned ’ the m arket. In any case, h e levied taxes on it, as he d id on the

cockfights, w h ic h , in the afternoon of the market day, were often held in the
cockring near the marketplace” (19 8 0 : 19 9 ).

3. I thank R ic h a r d Blot for this po int.

4. It should be understood that the difference is not that between text and

performance. Such a distinction takes us back to the structuralist opposition

between language and speech, to w h ic h Geertz would hardly be sympathetic.

Rather, the very notion of culture as text must be radically questioned.

5 . Marshall Sahlins, who also recognizes the antino mies of anthropological

thought an d has built his career at both poles of the one between materialism

and idealism, makes the opposite criticism of Geertz, seeing Geertz’s cultural

theory as too closely tied to the social. B u t Sahlins makes this criticism as part

of an ar g u m e n t for the symbolic construction of the social ( 19 7 6 : 1 0 6 - 1 1 7 ;

see also S chn eid er 19 8 0 : 1 2 5 - 1 3 4 ) .

6. In a reference to the present, Geertz tells us that status cannot be changed

in the cockfight and that an in d iv id u a l cannot clim b the caste ladder in any case
( 19 7 3 a : 443). Geertz also relates folk tales from the classical period in which

cockfighting serves either as a m e tapho r for political struggle or as a means by

w h ic h profound political and social changes m ig h t occur ( ib id .: 4 1 8 , 4 4 1 , 4 4 2 ) .

In one, a k in g accepts a cockfight w ith a c o m m o n e r who has no means to pay

should he lose. T h e k in g hopes to force the co m m o n e r to become his slave

should h e lose, but the c o m m o n e r ’s cock kills the kin g , the c o m m o n e r becomes

king, and so on ( ib id .: 442). Such tales support Geertz’s assertion that status

differences are a “ matter of life an d d e a th .” T h e y m a y also pro vide material for

a textual analysis of the sort Taylor and Rebel undertake.

Chapter 2

1. For a good analysis of the formation of a “ working-class culture” that was

not “ co unterhegem o nic,” that was profoundly conservative in its values and
effects, see Jones’s ( 19 8 3 : 1 7 9 — 238) e x a m in a tio n of late-nineteenth-century
Lo n d o n . H is study offers an im po r tan t response to those writers who too

quickly and confidently ascribe a semiautonomous space to politics and cul­

ture a m o n g working-class people. O n e im plicatio n of Jones’s work is a re­
m in d e r that working-class culture, consciousness, an d politics are shaped by
the same political and economic forces that create working classes (or “ a
working people that has [yet] to become a class” [Williams 19 7 7 : 1 1 1 ] ) ; that
“ counterhegemonies” are necessarily shaped w it h in a he g e m o n ic process. See
as well S te e d m a n (19 8 6 ). For a related, insightful, and suggestive analysis of
working-class culture and experiences, as well as a consideration of how histo-
 NOTES 235

rians and others reconstruct an d write about culture and experience, see

Popular M e m o r y G r o u p (19 8 2 ) .

Chapter 3

1. T h e field research was conducted in the m id -19 7 0 s in the m idst of an

un e ve n economic boom d u e to the rapid expansio n of petroleum prices. M y

knowledge and understanding of Venezuela is very m u c h rooted in m y e x p e r i­

ence of that m o m e n t . T h e symbolic oppositions and the uses and valuations of

past and present were active in the political discourse of the m id - 19 7 0 s . M u c h

has h a p p e n e d since, most importantly the collapse of oil prices and , conse­

quently, of public revenues. T h e discourse of “ d e velo pm en t,” and of the

linkage of democracy and develo pm ent, has taken on a darker, less confident

tone an d im ag ery. T h e field research was supported by an nsf Graduate

Fellowship, a Do herty Fellowship for L a t in A m e r ic a n Studies, and an N S F

Dissertation I m p r o v e m e n t Grant.

2. O n the petroleum transformation, see Bergquist 19 8 6 : 1 9 1 - 2 7 3 ; Co r­

dova 19 7 3 ; M ala ve M a ta 19 7 4 ; Rangel 19 7 0 ; Tugwell 19 7 5

3. See Baloyra and Martz 19 7 9 ; Bergquist 19 8 6 : 1 9 1 — 2 7 3 ; Ellner 19 80 ;

1 9 8 1 ; L e v in e 1 9 7 3 ; Martz 19 6 6 ; Martz, e d . 1 9 7 7 ; Petras, Morley, and S m it h

19 7 7

4. For a representative history written from an a d perspective, see Salcedo

Bastardo 19 7 2 .

5 . For a representative socialist history, see M ala ve M ata 19 7 4 .

Chapter 4

1. T h e reference here is to M a r x ’s observation at the b e g in n in g of Th e

Eighteenth B rum air e: “ Hegel remarks somewhere that all the great events and

characters of world history occur, so to speak, twice. H e forgot to a d d : the first

t im e as tragedy, the second as farce” 19 7 4 [ 18 5 2 ] : 14 6 ). Note as well the

observation of the editors to the R a n d o m Ho us e/Vin tag e edition that, “ It is

doubtful w hether Hegel ever wrote these words” ( ib id .: 14 6 ).

2. A n early version of this essay was presented to a group of historians at

Rutgers Un iver s ity in the spring of 19 8 7 , as part of a series of lectures on

“ cultural e m p ir e s .” 1 a m grateful to John Gillis for prevailing on m e to un d e r ­

take the impossible.

3. See, for e x a m p le , Redfield 19 3 4 ; Redfield, Lin to n , and Herskovitz 19 3 6 ;

SSRC Sum m er S e m in a r in Acculturation 19 5 4 ; Spicer, ed. 19 6 1; T a x , ed.

19 5 2

4. For classic anthropological accounts of this difference, see B en ed ict

19 4 3 ; Service 1 9 5 5 .

5 . For historical an d anthropological accounts of and controversies concern­

ing the creation of indigeno us c o m m u n it ie s , see Clin e 19 4 9 ; Gibson 19 6 4 ;
Ro w e 1 9 5 7 ; Wolf 1 9 5 5 ; 19 5 6 b ; 19 5 9 a . M o re recent statements can be found
236 no tes

in Farriss 19 7 8 ; 19 8 4 ; Gibson 19 8 4 ; Greishaber 19 7 9 ; Spalding 19 7 4 ; Stern

19 8 2 ; 19 8 3 . On dem o g raphy, see Cook and Borah 19 7 2 - 7 9 ; Sanchez

Albornoz 19 7 4 . For an excellent critical survey of the social history of colonial

and nineteenth-century L a t in A m e r ic a , see Taylor 19 8 5 .

6. T h e best treatment of the association of M e x ic a n liberalism w ith French

intellectual trends can be found in H a l e 19 6 8 . See as well H ale 19 7 3 ; Palacios

19 8 3 ; Safford 19 7 6 ; 19 8 5 .

7 . T h e literature on coffee in n ineteenth-and early-twentienth-century L a ­

tin A m e r ic a is e x p a n d in g rapidly. See Bergad 19 8 3 ; Bergquist 19 7 8 ; 1986;

Cardoso 19 7 5 b ; 19 8 6 ; Carvallo and H e r n a n d e z 19 7 9 ; D e a n 19 7 6 ; Font 19 8 7;

G u d m u n d s o n 19 8 6 ; H e r n a n d e z 19 8 8 ; Holloway 19 80 ; Lo ve 19 80 ; McCreery
19 7 6 ; 19 8 3 ; Palacios 19 8 3 ; Pico 19 7 9 ; 1 9 8 1 ; Roseberry 19 8 3 ; S a m p e r 19 8 5 ;

Stolcke 19 8 8 . In the fall of 19 8 8 , m a n y of these authors m e t at a conference

sponsored by the ssrc an d the U n iv e r s id a d Nacional de Co lom bia to move

toward a co m parative analysis of L a t in A m e r ic a n experiences w ith coffee in

the world economy. A vo lum e representing the results of that conference is

tentatively scheduled for 1990 .

8. For an introduction to this period and to these issues, see Glade 19 8 6 ; R .

F. S m it h 19 8 6 . T h o r p 19 8 6 . See as well Le w is 19 3 8 ; D . C . M . Platt, ed . 19 7 7 ;

Seidel 19 7 2 . T h e bibliographical essay in V o l u m e 4 of the C a m b r id g e H is t o r y of

L a t i n A m e r i c a provides further help.

9. O n the liberalism an d po sitivism of this period, see H ale 19 8 6 and the

relevant sections of the bibliographical essay in the C a m b r id g e H is t o r y o f L a t i n

A m e r i c a , V o l u m e 4 . Wo o d w ard ( 19 8 5 : 8 3 -20 7) provides a good discussion of

ideology an d politics in Central A m e r ic a . For Co lom bia, see Palacios 19 8 3 ; cf.

Bergquist 19 7 8 .

10 . See as well A r ie l (Ro d6 19 8 8 [1900]), the quintessential statement of this

opposition an d rejection (cf. H a l e 19 8 6 : 4 1 4 - 4 1 7 ) .

11. T h e a r g u m e n t here is Cardoso an d Faletto’s (19 7 9 ). For surveys of the

experience of particular countries, see Gonzalez Casanova, ed. 19 8 4 ; S kid ­

more an d S m it h 19 8 4 . T h e essays in V o l u m e 5 of the C a m b r id g e H is t o r y o f L a t i n

A m e r ic a offer surveys of the e xp er ie n c e of particular countries u p to 1930,

w h ic h are relevant to an understanding of the differential experience of

subsequent years. See as well T h o r p , ed . 19 8 4 for a survey of the differential
experiences of the 1930s, one that challenges m a n y received historiographical
assumptions concerning the Depression a m o n g e c l a and d e p en d e n c y theo­
rists. T h e most provocative recent study is Bergquist 19 8 6 , w h ic h offers a
co m parative history of twentieth-century Ar g e n tin a, C h il e , Venezuela, and
Co lo m bia in terms of their distinct export sectors and the working classes that
em erg ed w it h in t h e m . A t the very least, the study gives greater specificity to
the types of social groups an d experiences l u m p e d together in the phrase

“ m id d l e classes.” M o re significantly, the study challenges m a n y long-popular

historiographical schemes.
 NOTES 237

12 . O n the contradictions of im p o r t substitution, see Cardoso and Faletto

19 7 9 ; de Janvry 1 9 8 1 ; 19 7 0 Furtado.

13 . Cardoso and Faletto 19 7 9 ; Collier 19 7 9 ; Johnson 19 6 4 ; Malloy 1 9 7 7 ;

O ’Donnell 19 7 3 ; Stepan 19 7 8 .

Chapter 6

1 . As this book was going to press, an im po rtant article by Steve Stern

appeared that offers an im pres s ive appraisal of Wallersteinian perspectives in

the literature on L a t in A m e r ic a (see Stern 19 8 8 a ; 19 8 8 b ; Wallerstein 1988 ).

Readers interested in the issues raised in this chapter should consult Stern,
both for his excellent bibliography and his sophisticated ar g um e nt.

2. Banaji ( 19 7 7 ) refers to two usages, more or less corresponding to the first

two m e n tio n e d by Cardoso.

3. In this sense, Steward’s cultural ecology, though its understanding of

economics was l im ite d to som ething like productive forces, was m u c h more
active and d y n a m ic than H arris ’s cultural m aterialism. For Steward, hu­

mans were not acted up o n by nature; they acted up o n nature through work

(Steward 19 5 5 ; 19 7 8 ; M urphy 19 7 0 ; 19 7 8 ; 19 8 1; Silverm an 19 7 9 ; Wolf

19 7 8 ).

4 . For Althusser, see his 19 6 9 ; 1 9 7 1 ; 19 7 6 ; an d Althusser and Balibar 19 7 0 .

I
T h e best kno w n French follower of Althusser was Poulantzas. H is structuralist

approach to class an d politics can be found in his 19 7 3 ; 19 7 4 ; and 19 7 5 ; but

see as well his 19 7 8 . For English applications, see Hindes s and Hirst 19 7 5 ;
1 9 7 7 ; Taylor 19 7 9 . T h e most stinging criticism c a m e from E . R Th o m p s o n

19 7 8 a ; but see as well his critics: Anderson 19 80 ; Hall 19 8 1; Hirs t 19 7 9 ;

Johnson 1 9 8 1 ; N ie l d and Seed 19 7 9 ; cf. T h o m p s o n 19 8 1. T h e best history

and critique of anthropological structural M a r x is m in France is K a h n and

Llobera 1 9 8 1 .

5 . T h is is one of the areas in w h ic h I differ w ith Rey. L ik e other structural

Marxists, h e conceived of modes of production in pure, abstract terms. T h e

presence of apparently anomalous groups w it h in a social formation (e.g.,

nobility in Eng land, peasants in France) was taken as e vid en ce of the contin­

ued existence of prior modes of production. T h is makes sense in terms of a

structuralist logic, but not in terms of m u c h else.

6. See footnote 7, C h a p t e r 4.

7 . For related readings of this section of Capital, see G . W illiam s ’s 19 7 9

criticism of R . Johnson, and Johnson 19 8 2 .

Chapter 7

1 . See De er e 19 8 6 for an excellent critical survey of the literature.

2 . See H e w it t d e Alcantara 19 8 4 for a survey of the literature in M e x ic o and

the m a n y variations on basic positions.

238 NOTES

3. T h is s u m m a r y mentions only a few aspects of a book that attempts to

address a n u m b e r of theoretical and political issues regarding agrarian struc­

ture, poverty, and food production in L a tin A m e r ic a . T h e book’s scope is

more broad than the question that motivates the present essay, and its content
is more rich than a s u m m a r y and critique of a model can suggest.

4. In additio n, his analysis of the removal of peasants from positions as

basic c o m m o d ity producers reflects an aspect of a process that has affected

peasants I have studied in Venezuela. And, in considering politics in

twentieth-century Venezuela, I reluctantly agree w ith de Janvry that “ the

locus of class struggle is increasingly b ein g displaced away from the country­

side and into the cities” 1 9 8 1 : 2 6 7 ; cf. Roseberry 19 7 8 c ; 19 8 2 ; 19 8 3 ).

5 . U n im o d ality , w h ic h is s im ply asserted in de Janvry’s book, is open to

question on other grounds as well. E r ik O lin W r ig h t (19 78 ) postulates the

generation of “ contradictory class locations” as a result of the process of

capital accumulation itself rather than as survivals from previously existing

modes of production.

6. It does not take us beyond the th e m e of the book, however. D e Janvry

considers different class allignments w h e n discussing his model ( 1 9 8 1 : 40 -45)

and devotes the last half of the book to agrarian policy.

7 . For Morelos, see M a r t in 19 8 5 ; de la Pena 19 8 2 ; W a r m a n 1 9 8 1 ; Melville

19 7 9 ; for O axaca, see Taylor 19 7 2 ; 19 7 4 ; 19 7 6 ; C h a n c e 19 7 8 ; Waterbury

19 7 5 ; for Yucatan, see Farriss 19 7 8 ; 19 8 4 ; Joseph 19 8 6 ; Patch 19 8 5 . I have

developed the ar g u m e n t of these paragraphs in a wo rking paper, Roseberry

19 8 7 . O n the whole subject of regional differentiation of rural social relations

in M e x ic o , the starting po int is Katz 19 7 4 .

8. Roseberry 1983.. Small-scale coffee production was and is im po rtan t else­

where in L a t in A m e r ic a as well (see Bergquist 19 8 6 and Palacios 19 8 3 on

Co lo m b ia; G u d m u n d s o n 19 8 6 an d S a m p e r 19 8 5 on Costa R ic a . T h e final

chapter of G u d m u n d s o n ’s book offers an im po rtan t survey an d arg um ent

regarding the extent and im po rtance of small-scale production in L a t in A m e r ­

ica’s rural history.

C hapter 8

1 . T h e connection between an oppositional history (from p r im it iv e to c iv i­

lized, from natural economy to m o n e y economy, from use value to exchange
value, etc.) a n d evolutionist th in k in g is one m a n y latter-day oppositional t h in k ­
ers m ig h t choose to deny. Nonetheless, the basic premises and the epochal
approach to history, culture, and politics are quite similar.

2. Interestingly, Marshall Sahlins notes the following while postulating his

“ domestic m o d e of pro ductio n:”

Interesting that almost all the philosophers w ho ha ve felt the need to go back
there— granted not one of t h e m ever m a d e it— saw in that condition a specific
 NOTES 239

distribution of population. Almost all sensed some centrifugal tendency.

Hobbes sent back ethnographic report that the life of m a n was solitary, poor,

nasty, brutish and short. U nderline (for once) the “ solitary.” It was a life apart.

A n d the same notion of original isolation appears ever and again, from Her-
odutus to K . Bucher, in the schemes of those who dared speculate on m a n in

nature. ( 19 7 2 : 96)

B u t B u c h e r ’s discussion of “ in d e p e n d e n t domestic economy” comes i m m e d i ­

ately after two chapters on p r im it iv e economics and explicitly excludes p r i m i ­

tive “ m a n in nature” from the discussion.

3. Despite obvious formal similarities, there were im po rtant differences

between M arxis t an d non-Marxist conceptions of natural economy. Non-

Marxist oppositions were generally rooted in exchange: natural economy was

characterized by a lack of exchange and m o n e y economy was characterized by

the prevalence of exchange. Altho ugh B u c h e r does not use such terms, the

idea is clearly expressed. “ T h e standpoint is none other than the relation

w h ic h exists between the production and the co nsumption of goods; or, to be

more exact, the length of the route w h ic h the goods traverse in passing from
producer to consumer” ( 19 6 7 [1900]: 8 8 -89 ). For Marxists, however, the

em phasis is on production an d the orientation of production, w h ic h m a y not

correspond exactly w ith the destination of the product. T h u s , products can be

exchanged w it h in natural economy, but as long as production is oriented

toward the co nsum ptio n needs of the direct producer, regardless of w hether

the product is directly consumed by the producer or placed in exchange for

other products to be consumed, the boundaries of natural economy h ave not

been transgressed. C o m m o d it y economy, on the other h a n d , im plies a situa­

tion in w h ic h the product has been objectified through exchange, the product

b eco m in g a c o m m o d it y w ith a definite exchange value. E xch an g e can then be

oriented not s im ply toward the co nsumption needs of the producer but to­
ward the circulation and accumulation of value. T h u s , both the product and

the producer can beco m e objectified or alienated. Ca pitalis m is seen as a

particular k in d of c o m m o d it y economy in w h ic h co m m o d ity production has

so perm e ate d social relations that a value can be attached even to the labor

power of the producer.

T h e basic opposition for the M arxist distinction between natural an d co m ­

m o dity economy, then, is not production for use versus production for e x ­

change but production for use value versus production for exchange value.

Both distinctions d e p e n d , however, up o n a consideration of the role of e x ­

change w it h in a society, and the difference is subtle enough to h ave confused

a n u m b e r of Marxists, some of w h o m seem to be closer to Karl B u c h e r than to

Marx.

4. Before e x a m in in g M a r x ’s work in detail, however, it must be pointed out

that just as h e was subject to c o m m o n social, political, and intellectual influ­

ences of the n in e te en th century, he in turn contributed to th e m , especially in
240
n o tes

G e r m a n y . H e r e one m ig h t consider, in particular, the work of Toennies and

Weber, but a careful consideration of the influence of M a r x on non-Marxist
thinkers is well beyond the scope of this essay.

5 . For elaboration on these historical questions, see Roseberry, forthcom­

ing.

6. T h is discussion of Redfield can also be found in Roseberry 19 8 8 .

7. T h a t Redfield was looking critically at the urban end caused some discom­

fort for those m o dernizatio n theorists who actually bothered to read h im .

W ilbert Moore, for e x a m p l e , c o m m e n t in g on the three results of urbanism

alluded to by Redfield (disorganization, secularization, and individualization),

was most disturbed by Red field ’s em phas is on disorganization. H e wondered

if Redfield really thought the urban e n d could never show organization— by

w h ic h we m ig h t understand “ functional integration” ( 1 9 5 1 ) .

8. O r at least it is not true in the simple way that Taussig suggests. M a n y of

the peasants and children of peasants who went into the m in e s were not from

the Altiplano but from the C o c h a b a m b a Valley. As Brooke Larson notes in

her excellent study, a commercially oriented mestizo peasantry had emerged

in the valley by the eighteenth century (19 8 8 ). Taussig’s assertions regarding

indigenous reciprocities and use-value orientations are misplaced. For an ex­

cellent study of B o livian peasant politics over the past thirty-five years, see
Albo 19 8 7 .

9. See the Social Analysis s ym p o s iu m on Taussig’s book (da Matta 1986 ;

Gregory 19 8 6 ; M c E a c h e r n and M a y e r 19 8 6 ; Post 19 8 6 ; Trouillot 19 8 6 ; and

especially T u r n e r 19 8 6 .) See as well Taussig’s bizarre response, 19 8 7 .

10 . Th e s e two problems (the assumption that peasant life is historically

prior to capitalism and the idealization of noncapitalist class relations) are not

unlike the two problems noted in our earlier discussion of some of M a r x ’s

texts: the peasant as starting po int and the em phasis on the free peasantry at

the expense of a consideration of serfdom.

11. For e x a m p le , it can be argued that in England, the classic terrain of

capitalist develo pm en t, the erosion of peasant c o m m u n itie s in the open fields

regions long preceded the process of proletarianization per se. Rather, it was

associated w ith the d e m is e of serfdom and the responses of peasants and

lords to the d e m o g r a p h ic collapse of the fourteenth century, in w h ic h in d iv id ­

ual tenants m igrated an d sought better deals. In d ivid u a l activity am o ng liber­
ated peasants, then, was central to the emergence both of a n ew k in d of
peasantry and of a proletariat in the enclosure m o vem ents (Roseberry, forth­
co m ing).

12 . If it is insufficient to assume a relationship between class and culture, it

is equally insufficient to assume a lack of relationship, to simply assert the
im po rtance of ethnicity or of other “ subcultures” that cross-cut class lines.
Such assertions simply take reified entities (“ class,” “ culture,” “ ethnicity” ) and
propose unpro blematic relationships (sometimes labeled “ dialectical” ) am o ng
 NOTES 241

t h e m rather than v ie w in g each of the terms as interconnected w it h in contra­

dictory historical processes. In the process the terms become essences rather

than relations. W e need to carefully consider why in this t im e and place politi­

cal c o m m u n it ie s take a class form while in another t im e and place they take

ethnic or other forms.

13 . Fu n d a m e n ta l to such processes was an economic transformation that

created the basis for a wo rking class— the process of proletarianization in the
classic sense. If I h a ve e m p h a s iz e d the heterogeneity and fractionalization of

working people— divisions between peasant and proletarian, skilled and u n ­

skilled, em plo yed and u n e m p lo y e d , factory an d craftshop— it must also be

recognized that the economic process creates a k in d of heterogeneity at one

level and a k in d of ho m o gen eity at another level. Despite e vid e n t differences

there are also e vid e n t similarities. All workers are b ein g placed— in England
and France in this period— in a c o m m o n position in relation of capital, and

this can serve as a basis for working-class action in classic forms through

u n io n , parties, an d the like. T h u s , e ven as the economic process dissolves

certain kinds of relationships, it creates the basis for other kinds.
R E F E R E N C E S
*

A dam s, R ic h a r d N .
19 70 C r u c if ix io n b y P o w e r . A u s t in : Un ivers ity of Texas Press.

A d as , M i c h a e l
1980 “ ‘Moral E c o n o m y ’ or ‘Contest State’? Elite D e m a n d s and the O r i­
gins of Peasant Protest in Southeast A s ia . " J o u r n a l o f S o c ia l H is t o r y

13 :5 2 1- 5 4 6 .

A l b 6, X a v i e r
19 8 7 “ Fro m M N R is t a s to Kataristas to K a ta r i.” In R e s is t a n c e , R e b e l l io n ,

and C o n s c io u s n e s s in th e A n d e a n W o rld , 18 t h to 2 0 t h C e n t u r ie s , ed.

Steve J. Stern, 3 7 9 — 4 1 9 . M a d is o n : Un ivers ity of Wisconsin Press.

A l t h u s s e r , L ouis
19 6 9 F o r M a r x . N e w York: Pantheo n.

19 7 1 L e n in a n d P h il o s o p h y a n d O t h e r E s s a y s . N e w York: M onthly R e v ie w

Press.

19 7 6 Essays i n S e l f - C r it ic is m . Lo n d o n : N e w Left Books.

A l t h u s s e r , L ouis , a n d E t i e n n e B a l i b a r
19 7 0 R e a d i n g C a p i t a l . N e w York: Pantheo n.

A m i n , Sa m ir
19 7 6 U n e q u a l D e v e l o p m e n t .N e w York: Mo nthly R e v ie w Press.

A nderso n, B e n ed ic t
19 8 3 I m a g i n e d C o m m u n i t i e s . Lo n d o n : Verso.

A n d e r s o n , Pe r r y
1980 A r g u m e n t s w i t h i n E n g l is h M a r x i s m . Lo n d o n : Verso.
24 4 REFERENCES

A r c h e tti, Eduardo
19 8 1 Campesinado y estructuras agranas en Am erica L atin a. Q u ito : ceplaes

Editores.

A s s a d o u r ia n , C arlo s Se m p a t , C iro F. S. C a r d o s o , H o racio C ia fa r d in i ,

Ju a n C arlos G a r a v a g l i a , a n d E r n e s t o L a c l a u
19 7 3 Modos de produccion en Am erica La tin a . Cordoba: Cuadernos de
Pasado y Presente 40.

B a l o y r a , E n r i q u e , a n d Jo h n M a r t z
19 7 9 Political Attitudes in Venezuela. A u s t in : Univers ity of Texas Press.

B anaji , Jairus
19 7 7 “ Modes of Production in a Materialist Co nceptio n of History.”
Capital and Class 3: 1 — 4 4 .

B a r a n , Pa u l A .
19 5 7 T h e Political Economy of Growth. N e w York: Mo nthly R e v ie w Press.

B a r n a b a s , Josep M .
19 8 4 “T h e Catholic C h u r c h in Colonial Spanish A m e r ic a .” Cambridge

History of L a t in Am erica 1 : 5 1 1 — 540.

B a r t r a , R o g er
19 7 4 Estructura ag r anay closes sociales en Mexico. M e x ic o , D . F .: e r a .

B a s t i e n , Jo seph
19 7 8 M o un tain of the Condor. A m e r ic a n Ethnological Society Monograph

# 6 4 . St. Paul: West.

B a z a n t , J.
19 7 7 A Concise History of Mexico from Hidalgo to Cardenas, 18 0 5 — 19 4 0 .

C a m b r id g e : C a m b r id g e Un iver s ity Press.

Behar, R u t h
19 8 6 Santa M a r ia del Monte: T h e Presence of the Past in a Spanish Village.
Princeto n: Princeton Un iver s ity Press.

Ben ed ic t, R u t h
19 4 3 “Tw o Patterns of I n d ia n Acculturation.” American Anthropologist

4 5: 2 0 7 - 2 12 .

B e r g a d , L a ir d
19 8 3 Coffee and the Growth of Agrarian Capitalism in Nineteenth Century
Puerto Rico. Princeton: Princeton Un iver s ity Press.

Berg q uis t, C ha rles

19 7 8 Coffee and Conflict in Colombia, 1 8 8 6 — 1 9 1 0 . D u r h a m : D u k e U n iv e r ­

sity Press.
19 8 6 Labor in L a t in Am er ica : Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezu­
ela and Colombia. Stanford: Stanford Un ivers ity Press.

B o c k , P h il ip K .
1980 “ Tepoztl&n Reconsidered.” Journal of L a t in American Lore 6 (1) :
12 9 - 15 0 .
 REFERENCES 245

Bradby, B arbara
19 7 5 “T h e Destruction of Natural Eco no m y.” E c o n o m y and S o c ie ty 4:

12 7 - 16 1.

Bucher, K arl
19 6 7 I n d u s t r ia l E v o l u t io n , 3d ed . N e w York: B urt Franklin.

[1900]

B u e c h l e r , H a n s , a n d Ju d i t h M . B u e c h l e r
19 7 1 T h e B o l i v i a n A y m a r a . N e w York: Holt, R in e h a r t and Winsto n.

C a b a r r Os, C arlos R .
19 8 3 G e n e s is de una r e v o l u c io n : a n a l is is d e l s u r g im ie n t o y desarrollo d e la

o r g a n iz a c io n c a m p e s in a e n E l S a l v a d o r . M e x ic o , D . F .: Ediciones de la

Casa C h a t a .

C a r d o s o , C iro F. S.
19 7 5 a “ O n the Colonial Modes of Production of the A m e r ic a s .” C r it iq u e

o f An thro po lo g y 4 & 5 : 1 — 36.

19 7 5 b “ Historia eco ndm ica del cafe en Centro am erica: Estudio c o m para­

t iv e .” E s t u d io s S o c ia l e s C e n t r o a m e r ic a n o s 4(10 ): 9 - 5 5 .

19 8 6 “ Central A m e r ic a : T h e Liberal Era, c. 18 7 0 — 19 3 0 .” C a m b r id g e H i s ­

tory o f L a t i n A m e r i c a 5 : 1 9 7 — 2 2 7 .

C a r d o s o , F e r n a n d o H e n r iq u e
19 7 2 “ D e p e n d e n c y and D e ve l o p m e n t in L a tin A m e r ic a .” N e w L e f t R e ­

v ie w 74 : 8 3 -9 5.
19 7 3 a “ Associated D e p e n d e n t D e v e l o p m e n t: Theoretical and Practical

Implicatio ns.” In A u t h o r it a r i a n B r a z il , ed . Alfred Stepan, 1 4 2 - 1 7 6 .

N e w H a v e n : Yale Un iver s ity Press.

19 7 3 b “ Co m e n ta r io : Althusserianismo o M arxis m o ? A proposito del con-

cepto de clases en Poulantzas.” In L a s closes sociales e n A m e r i c a L a t i n a ,

ed. Florestan Fernandes, 1 3 7 - 1 5 3 . M e x ic o , D . F .: Siglo x x i .

19 7 7 a “ T h e C o n s u m p tio n of D e p e n d e n c y T h e o r y in the U n it e d States.”

L a t in A m e r ic a n R e s e a r c h R e v ie w 12 (3 ) : 7 - 2 4 .

19 7 7 b “ T h e O riginality of a C o p y : c e p a l and the Idea of D e v e l o p m e n t.”

C E P A L R e v i e w , 2 d half of 19 7 7 , 7 — 40.

C ard o s o , F e r n a n d o H e n r i q u e , a n d E nzo Fa l e t t o
19 7 9 D e p e n d e n c y a n d D e v e l o p m e n t in L a t in A m e r ic a . Berkeley: Univers ity

of California Press.

C a r v a l l o , G a s t o n , a n d JoseA n a R ios d e H e r n a n d e z
19 7 9 A g n c u l t u r a y s o c ie d a d : Tr e s ens ayo s h is to ric o s . Caracas: c endes .

C h a n c e , Jo h n
19 7 8 Race and Class i n C o l o n ia l O a x a c a . Stanford: Stanford Univers ity

Press.

C hayan o v, A . V.
19 6 6 T h e T h e o r y o f P e a s a n t E c o n o m y . H o m e w o o d , I L : R ic h a r d Irw in .

[ 19 2 5 ]
246 REFERENCES

C h i n c h i l l a , N o r m a , a n d Jam es D ietz
19 8 1 “ To w ard a N e w Unders tanding of D e ve l o pm e n t and Underdevel­
o p m e n t .” L a t i n A m e r i c a n P e r s p e c t iv e s 8(3 8c 4): 13 8 — 1 4 7 .

C l a r k e , Ju l i a n
19 8 1 “ ‘Capital in General’ and Non-Capitalist Relations.” C r it iq u e of

Anthro po lo g y 16 : 3 1 — 4 2 .

C l i f f o r d , Jam es
19 8 3 “ O n E thno g raphic A u th o r ity .” R e p r e s e n t a t io n s 1(2 ): 1 1 8 - 1 4 6 .

C l i f f o r d , Ja m e s , a n d G e o r g e M a r c u s , eds .
19 86 W r it in g Cu ltu re: The P o e t ic s and P o l it ic s of E th n o g r a p h y . Berkeley:
Un ivers ity of California Press.

C line, H o w a rd
19 4 9 “ C iv il Congregations of the Indians in N e w S p a in , 15 9 8 - 16 0 6 .”
H i s p a n i c A m e r i c a n H is t o r ic a l R e v i e w 29 : 349 — 369.

C O A TS W O R TH , JO HN

19 8 1 G ro w th A g a in s t D evelo pm en t: The E c o n o m ic Im pact o f R a il r o a d s in

P o r f ir ia n M e x ic o . D e Kalb: Northern Illinois Univers ity Press.

Co h n , Bernard
1980 “ History and Anthropology: T h e State of Play.” C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d ­
ies i n S o c ie t y a n d H is t o r y 2 2 : 19 8 — 2 2 1 .

19 8 1 “ Anthropology and History in the 1980s. To w ard a Rappro che­

m e n t . " J o u r n a l o f I n t e r d is c ip l in a r y H is t o r y 1 2 : 2 2 7 — 2 5 2 .

C o llier , D a v i d
19 7 9 T h e N e w A u t h o r it a r i a n i s m i n L a t i n A m e r i c a . Princeton: Princeton U n i­

versity Press.

C o m a r o f f , Je a n
19 8 5 B o d y o f P o w e r , S p i r i t o f R e s is t a n c e : T h e C u l t u r e a n d H is t o r y o f a S o u t h

A f r i c a n P e o p l e . Ch ic ag o : Un iver s ity of Chicago Press.

C o n r a d , Joseph
1960 N o s t r o m o . N e w York: N e w A m e r ic a n Library.

[1904]

C o o k , Sc o t t
19 7 3 “ Production, Ecology, and Eco no m ic Anthropology: Notes To ­

ward an Integrated F r a m e of Reference.” S o c ia l S c ie n c e I n f o r m a t io n

12 ( 1) : 2 5 - 5 2 .
19 8 2 Z a p o t e c S t o n e w o r k e r s : T h e D y n a m i c s o f R u r a l S im p l e C o m m o d it y P r o d u c ­

t io n in M o d e r n M e x ic a n C a p i t a l is m . Washingto n, D . C . : University

Press of A m e r ic a .

C o o k , Sc o t t , a n d M a r t i n D iskin , eds .
19 7 6 M a r k e t s i n O a x a c a . A u s t in : Un ivers ity of Texas Press.

C o o k , Sh e r b u r n e F., a n d W o o d r o w B o r a h
19 7 2 — 79 E s s a y s i n P o p u l a t io n H is t o r y : M e x ic o a n d th e C a r i b b e a n , 3 vols. Berke­

ley: Un iver s ity of California Press.

 REFERENCES 247

C O Q U ER Y-VID R O VITCH , C A TH E R IN E

19 7 8 “ Research on an African M o d e of Pro ductio n.” In Relations of

Production, ed . D a v id Seddon, 2 6 1- 2 8 8 . Lo n d o n : Frank Cass.

C6 r d o v a , A r m a n d o
19 7 3 Inversiones extranjeras y subdesarrollo. Caracas: Un ive r s id a d Central.

C rapan zano , V in c en t
19 86 “ H e r m e s ’ D il e m m a : T h e M a s k in g of Subversion in Ethno graphic

Des criptio n .” In W riting Culture, ed . James Clifford an d George

Marcus, 5 1 — 76 . Berkeley: Un ivers ity of California Press.

C u e v a , A g u s tin
19 7 7 E l desarrollo del capitalismo en Am erica Latina. M e x ic o , D . F .: Siglo

xxi .

da M a t t a , R o b e r to
19 8 6 “ R e v ie w of C h e valie r and Taus sig .” Social Analysts 19 : 5 7 — 63.

D a v e n p o r t , W il lia m
19 6 9 “T h e H a w a iia n ‘Cultural Revo lution’: S o m e Eco no m ic and Politi­

cal Considerations.” Am erican Anthropologist 7 1 : 1- 2 0 .

D a v is , N a t a l i e Z e m o n
19 8 1 “ Anthropology and History in the 1980s: T h e Possibilities of the

P a s t Journal of Interdisciplinary History 1 2 : 2 6 7 - 2 7 6 .

D ean , W arren
19 7 6 R io Claro: A Brazilian Plantation System, 18 2 0 — 19 2 0 . Stanford: Stan­

ford U n iver s ity Press.

D e e r e , C a r m e n D ia n a
19 8 6 “ T h e Peasantry in Political E c o n o m y : Trends of the 1980s.” Paper

presented at the A n n u a l M e e t in g of the L a tin A m e r ic a n Studies

Association. Boston.

D e e r e , C a r m e n D i a n a , a n d A la in de Ja n v r y
19 7 9 “A Conceptual Fram ew o rk for the E m p ir ic a l Analysis of Peas­

ants.” Am erican Journal of Agricultural Economics 6 1 : 6 0 1— 6 1 1 .

19 8 1 “ D e m o g r a p h ic and Social Differentiation am o n g Northern Peru­

via n Peasants. ''Journal of Peasant Studies 8: 3 3 5 — 366.

de Ja n v r y , A la in
19 8 1 T h e Agrarian Question and Reformism in L a t in America. Baltimore:

T h e Johns H o p k in s Univers ity Press.

de Ja n v r y , A l a i n , a n d C arlo s G a r r a m o n
19 7 7 “T h e D y n a m ic s of Rural Poverty in L a tin A m e r ic a .” Journal of
Peasant Studies 4 : 206— 2 1 6 .

de la Pe n a , G u i l l e r m o
19 8 2 A Legacy of Promises. A u s t in : Un iver s ity of Texas Press.

D o bb, M a u r ic e
19 6 3 Studies in the Development of Capitalism, 2d ed. N e w York: Interna­
tional Publishers.
248 REFERENCES

D o n h a m , D o nald
19 8 1 “ B eyo nd the Domestic M o d e of Production.” M a n 16 : 5 1 5 - 5 4 1 .

D u p r £ , G eo rg es , a n d P ie r r e -Ph il ip p e R e y
19 7 8 “ Reflections on the Relevance of a T h e o r y of the History of E x ­

ch an g e .” In Relations of Production, ed. D a v id Seddon, 1 7 1 — 208.

Lo n d o n : Frank Cass.

D u r r e n b e r g e r , E. P a u l , e d .
19 8 4 Chayanov, Peasants, and Economic Anthropology. N e w York: A c a d e m ic .

E d w a r d s , R i c h a r d , M i c h a e l R e i c h , a n d D a v i d M . G o r d o n , eds .
19 7 5 Labor Market Segmentation. Le x in g to n , M A : D . C . H e a t h .

E l l n e r , St e v e n
1980 “ Political Party D y n a m ic s in Venezuela and the O utbreak of Revo ­
lutionary W a r fa r e.” Interamerican Economic Affairs 34(2): 3— 24.

19 8 1 “ Factionalism in the Venezuelan C o m m u n is t M o v e m e n t , 19 3 7 —

19 4 8 .” Science and Society 4 5 : 5 2 - 7 0 .

E n g e ls , F r e d e r i c k
19 7 2 “ T h e M a r k .” In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, 7 7 — 93. N e w York:

[18 8 2 ] International Publishers.

E v a n s , Pe t e r
19 7 9 Dependent Development: T h e Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local

Capital in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton Univers ity Press.

F arriss , N a n c y
19 7 8 “ Nucleation versus Dispersal: T h e D y n a m ic s of Population M o v e ­

m e n t in Colonial Y u c a ta n .” H is p a n ic Am erican Historical R e v ie w 58 :

18 7 - 2 16 .
19 8 4 M a y a Society under Colonial R u le : T h e Collective Enterprise of Survival.

Princeton: Princeton Un iver s ity Press.

F a v r e , H enri
19 7 7 “T h e D y n a m ic s of I n d ia n Peasant Society and M igratio n to

Coastal Plantations in Central P e r u .” In L a n d and Labour in Latin

America, ed . K e n n e t h D u n c a n and Ian Rutledge, 8 3 - 10 2 . C a m ­

bridge: C a m b r id g e Un iver s ity Press.

F o n t , M au r ic io
19 8 7 “ Coffee Planters, Politics, an d D e ve l o p m e n t in Brazil.” L a t in A m e r i­
can Research R e v ie w 22(3): 69— 90.

Fo r m a n , Sh e p a r d
19 7 5 T h e Brazilian Peasantry. N e w York: C o l u m b ia Univers ity Press.

F o s ter -Ca r t e r , A id a n
19 7 8 “T h e Modes of Production Controversy.” N e w Left R e v ie w 10 7 :

47-77.

Fo x, R i c h a r d
19 8 5 Lions of the Punjab: Culture in the M a k in g . Berkeley: Univers ity of
California Press.
 REFERENCES 249

Fr a n k , A n d r e G u n d e r
19 6 7 Capitalismand Underdevelopment in L a t in America. N e w York: Monthly

R e v ie w Press.
19 6 9 L a t in Am er ica : Underdevelopment or Revolution? N e w York: M onthly

R e v ie w Press.

Fr i e d m a n , Jo n a t h a n
19 7 5 “ Tribes, States, and Transformations.” In Marxist Analyses and So­
cial Anthropology, ed . M a u r ic e Bloch, 1 6 1 — 202. Lo n d o n : Malaby.

19 8 7 “ Generalized E x c h a n g e , Theocracy, and the O p i u m T r a d e .” C r i­

tique of Anthropology 7 ( 1 ) : 1 5 — 3 1 .

F r y k m a n , Jo na s , a n d O r v a r L o fg r e n
19 8 7 Culture Builders: A Historical Anthropology of Middle-Class Life. N e w

B r u n s w ic k : Rutgers Un iver s ity Press.

Fu r t a d o , C elso
19 7 0 T h e Economic Development of L a t in America, 2d ed . C a m b r id g e : C a m ­

bridge U n iver s ity Press.

G a r c Ia M A r q u e z , G a b r i e l
19 8 3 19 8 2 Nobel Prize Acceptance S peec h. N e w York Times, 6 February

19 8 3 , O p E d page.

G e e r t z . C liffo rd
19 7 3 a T h e Interpretation of Cultures. N e w York: Basic.

19 7 3 b “ T h i c k Description: To w ard an Interpretive Th e o r y of C u ltu re.”

In T h e Interpretation of Cultures, 3— 30. N e w York: Basic.

19 7 3 c “ D e e p Play: Notes on the Balinese Co ckfight.” In T h e Interpretation

of Cultures, 4 1 2 - 4 5 3 . N e w York: Basic.

1980 Negara: The Theatre state in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton:

Princeton Un iver s ity Press.

19 8 3 “ Blurred Genres: T h e Refiguration of Social T h o u g h t .” In Local

Knowledge, 1 9 — 3 5 . N e w York: Basic.

G e r m a n i , G in o , T o r c u a t o S. di T e l l a , a n d O c t a v i o Ia n n i
19 7 3 Populismo y contradicciones de close en Latinoamerica. M e x ic o , D . F .:

ERA .

G ibson , C h a r l e s
19 6 4 T h e Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford: Stanford Univers ity Press.

19 8 4 “ I n d ia n Societies U n d e r Colonial R u l e .” Cambridge History of L a t in

Am erica 1 : 3 8 1 - 4 1 9 .

G id d e n s , A n t h o n y
19 7 1 Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: A n Analysis of the Writings of
M a r x, D urkheim , and M a x Weber. C a m b r id g e : C a m b r id g e Univers ity

Press.

G l a d e , W il lia m
19 8 6 “ L a t in A m e r ic a and the International Economy, 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 1 4 . ” C a m ­

bridge History of L a t in America 4 : 1 — 56 .

250 REFERENCES

G o d elie r , M a u r i c e
19 7 2 Rationality and Irrationality in Economics. N e w York: M onthly Re-
v ie w Press.

19 7 7 Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. N e w York: C a m b r id g e U n iv e r ­

sity Press.

19 7 8 “T h e Co n ce pt of the ‘As iatic M o d e of Production’ an d Marxist

Models of Social Evo lutio n.” In Relations of Production, ed . D a v id

Seddon, 20 9 -2 8 8 . L o n d o n : Frank Cass.

G o n z Ale z C a s a n o v a , P a b l o , e d .
19 8 4 Am erica L a t in a : Historia de Medio Siglo, 2 vols. M e x ic o , D . F,: Siglo

x x i.

G o nz A lez L e 6 n , A d r i a n o
19 6 7 Pais portatil. Barcelona: S e ix Barral.

G o rdo n, D avid M .
19 7 2 Theories of Poverty and Unemployment. Lexin g to n , M A: D. C.

He ath.

G o r d o n , D a v i d M ., R i c h a r d E d w a r d s a n d M i c h a e l R e ic h
19 8 2 Segmented Work, D iv id e d Workers. N e w York: C a m b r id g e University

Press.

G r a m s c i , A n to n i o
19 7 1 Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed . and trans. by Q u in t in Hoare

[ 19 2 9 — 35] and Geoffrey Nowell S m it h . N e w York: International.

G r e g o r y , C hris
19 8 6 “ O n Taussig on Aristotle an d C h e valie r on E ve r y o n e .” Social Analy­

sis 1 9 : 6 4— 69.

G r e is h a b e r , E r w i n P.
19 7 9 “ H a c ie n d a - I n d ia n C o m m u n it y relations and I n d ia n Accultura­

tion: A n Historiographical Essay.” L a t in American Research R e v ie w

14 (3 ): 1 0 7 - 1 2 8 .

G udm undso n, L o w ell

19 8 6 Costa R ic a Before Coffee: Society and Economy on the E v e of the Export

Boom. Baton Ro u g e: Lo uis ian a State Univers ity Press.

Gu tm a n , H erbert
19 7 6 Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America. N e w York: R a n ­
d o m Ho use.

H a l e , C harles
19 6 8 M e xic a n Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1 8 2 1 - 1 8 5 3 . N e w H a v e n : Yale
U n iver s ity Press.
19 7 3 “T h e Reconstruction of N in e te e n th - C e n tu r y Politics in Spanish
A m e r ic a : A Case for the History of Ideas.” L a t in American Research
R e v ie w 8(2): 5 3 - 7 3 .
19 8 6 “ Political an d Social Ideas in L a t in A m e r ic a , 18 7 0 — 19 3 0 .” C a m ­
bridge History of L a t in America 4 : 3 6 7 — 4 4 1 .
 REFERENCES 251

H a l l , St u a r t
19 8 1 “ In Defense of T h e o r y .” In People’s History and Socialist Theory, ed.

R a pha el S am uel, 3 7 8 - 3 8 5 . Lo n d o n : Routledge an d K e g a n Paul.

H a l p e r i n , R h o d a , a n d Jam es D o w , eds .
19 7 7 Peasant Livelihoods. N e w York: St. M a r t in ’s.

H a rb s m eie r , M i c h a e l
19 7 8 “ C r itiq u e of Political Economy, Historical M aterialism and Pre-

Capitalist Social Fo rm s.” Critique of Anthropology 1 2 : 3— 3 7 .

H arris , M a r v i n
19 6 4 Patterns of Race in the Americas. N e w York: W alker an d C o m p a n y .
19 6 8 T h e Rise of Anthropological Theory. N e w York: Crowell.

19 7 9 Cultural Materialism: T h e Struggle for a Science of Culture. N e w York:

R a n d o m H o u s e.

H a r r is o n , M a r k
19 7 5 “ C h a y a n o v a n d the Economics of the Russian Peasantry.” Journal
of Peasant Studies 2 : 389— 4 1 7 .

19 7 7 “T h e Peasant M o d e of Production in the W o rk of A . V . C h a y a ­

no v.” Journal of Peasant Studies 4 : 3 2 3 — 336.

19 7 9 “ C h a y a n o v an d the Marxists .’’ Journal of Peasant Studies 7 : 8 6 - 10 0 .

H e n f r e y , C olin
19 8 1 “ Dependency, Modes of Production, and the Class Analysis of
L a t in A m e r ic a .” L a t in Am erican Perspectives 8 (3 & 4): 1 7 - 5 4 .

H e r n a n d e z , JoseA n a Rio s d e
19 8 8 L a hacienda Venezolana. Caracas: Fondo Editorial Tropykos.

H e w i t t d e A l c An t a r a , C y n t h i a
19 8 4 Anthropological Perspectives on Rural Mexico. Lo ndo n: Routledge

an d K e g a n Paul.

H il to n , R o dney, e d .
19 7 6 The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. Lo n d o n : New Left

Books.

H indess , B a r r y , a n d P a u l Q. H irst
19 7 5 Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. Lo n d o n : Routledge and K e g a n

Paul.

19 7 7 Mode of Production and Social Formation. Atlantic Hig h lan d s : H u ­

m an ities Press.

H ir s t , P a u l Q.
19 7 9 “ T h e Necessity of T h e o r y .” Economy and Society 8: 4 1 7 — 4 4 5 .

H o b s b a w m , E ric
19 5 9 P r im it iv e Rebels. N e w York: Norton.

H o llo w a y, T ho m as
1980 Immigrants on the L a n d : Coffee and Society in Sao Paulo, 1 8 8 6 - 1 9 3 4 .
C h a p e l H ill : Un ivers ity of North Carolina Press.
252 REFERENCES

H o lm es , D o ug las
19 8 3 “A Peasant-Worker Model in a Northern Italian Co n te xt.” Am er i­
can Ethnologist 10 : 7 3 4 - 7 4 8 .

H u m b o l d t , A l e x a n d e r vo n
18 18 Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New
Continent during the Years 1 7 9 9 - 1 8 0 3 . Lo n d o n : L o n g m a n , Hurst,

Rees, O r m e , and B ro w n .

Ja m e s o n , F r e d e r i c k
19 8 4 “ Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Ca p ita lis m .” New
Left R e v ie w 14 6 : 5 3 — 92.

Jo h n s o n , Jo h n
19 6 4 T h e Military and Society in L a t in America. Stanford: Stanford U n iv e r ­

sity Press.

Jo h n s o n , R i c h a r d
19 8 1 “ Against Absolutism.” In People’s History and Socialist Theory, ed.

R a pha el Sam uel, 3 8 6 -3 9 6 . Lo n d o n : Routledge and K e g a n Paul.

19 8 2 “ R e a d in g for the Best M a r x : His to ry-W riting and Historical A b ­

straction.” In M a k in g Histories: Studies in History-Writing and Politics,

ed. R ic h a r d Johnson, Gregor M c L e n n a n , Bill Schwarz, and D a v id

Sutton, 1 5 3 — 2 0 1. M inn e apo lis : Univers ity of Minnesota Press.

Jones , G a r e t h St e d m a n
19 8 3 Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History, 1 8 3 2 -

1 9 8 2 . C a m b r id g e : C a m b r id g e Un iver s ity Press.

Jo s e p h , G i l b e r t M .
19 8 6 Rediscovering the Past at Mexico’s Periphery: Essays on the History of

Modern Yucatan. Un iver s ity: Un iver s ity of A l a b a m a Press.

K a h n , Jo el
19 8 1 a “ M arxis t Anthropology and Segmentary Societies: A R e v ie w of

the Liter atu re .” In T h e Anthropology of Pre-Capitalist Societies, ed.

Joel' K a h n a n d Joseph R. Llobera, 5 7 — 88. Atlantic Highlands :

H u m a n it ie s Press.
19 8 1b “ M ercantilism and the E m er g e n c e of Servile Labo ur in Colonial

Indo nesia.” In T h e Anthropology of Pre-Capitalist Societies, ed. Joel

Kahn and Josep R . Llobera, 1 8 5 — 2 1 3 . Atlantic H ig hlan d s : H u ­
m an ities Press.

K a h n , Jo e l , a n d Josep R. L l o b e r a
19 8 1 “ Towards a N e w M a r x is m or a N e w Anthropology?” In Th e Anthro­
pology of Pre-Capitalist Societies, ed . Joel K a h n and Josep R . Llobera,
2 6 3 — 329 . Atlantic H ig h la n d s : H u m a n it ie s Press.

K a t z , Fr i e d r i c h
19 7 4 “ Labor Conditions on H a cie n d as in Porfirian M e x ic o : S o m e Trends
and Te n d e n c ie s .” H is p a n ic American Historical R e v ie w 5 4 : 1 — 4 7 .

K a t z , N ao m i, a n d D a v id K e m n itz e r
19 7 9 “ M o d e of Production and the Process of D o m in a t io n : T h e Classi­
 REFERENCES 253

cal K in g d o m of D a h o m e y .” In N e w Directions in Political Economy,

ed. M a d e l in e Barbara Leons and Frances Rothstein, 4 9 - 7 9 . West-

port, C T : Greenwo od Press.

K ees ing , R o g er
19 8 7 “ Anthropology as Interpretive Q ues t.” Current Anthropology 28(2):

16 1- 17 6 .

K i r k p a t r i c k , Je a n n e
19 7 9 “ Dictatorships an d Double Standards.” Commentary 68(5): 3 4 - 4 5 .

K o rsch, K arl
19 7 1 M a rxis m and Philosophy. N e w York: Mo nthly R e v ie w Press.

[19 2 3 ]

L a c l a u , E r n e s to
19 7 1 “ Feudalism an d C a p italis m in L a t in A m e r ic a .” N e w Left R e v ie w 6 7:

19 - 3 8 .
19 7 7 Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory. Lo n d o n : Verso.

L a r s o n , B ro o ke
19 8 8 Colonialism and Agrarian Transformation in B o livia : Cochabamba,

1 5 5 0 - 1 9 0 0 . Princeton: Princeton Un iver s ity Press.

Leach, Edmund
19 6 4 Political Systems of H ig h la n d B u r m a : A Study of K a c h in Social Struc-

[19 5 4 ] ture. Boston: Beacon.

L ea rs , Jacks o n
19 8 5 “ T h e Co ncept of Cultural H e g e m o n y : Problems and Possibilities”

Am erican Historical R e v ie w 90: 5 6 7 — 5 9 3 .

L ea vis , Fr a n k R ., a n d D e n vs T h o m p s o n
19 7 7 Culture and Environment. Westport, C T : Greenwood Press.

[19 3 3 ]

L e h m a n , D avid
19 8 2 “ After C h a y a n o v an d L e n in : N e w Paths of Ag r ar ian C a p it a lis m .”

Journal of Development Economics 1 1 : 13 3 — 1 6 1 .

L e n i n , V . I.
19 6 4 Th e Development of Capitalism in Russia. Moscow: Progress Publish-

[1899] ers.

L e vi n e , D a n ie l
19 7 3 Conflict and Political Change in Venezuela. Princeton: Princeton U n i ­

versity Press.

L ew is , C l e o n a
19 3 8 Am er ica’s Stake in International Investments. Washingto n, D. C .:

Brookings Institution.

L ew is , O s car
19 5 1 Life in a M e xic a n Village: Tepoztlan Restudied. U r b a n a : Univers ity of

Illinois Press.
254 REFERENCES

L iebers o n , Jo n a t h a n
19 8 4 R e v ie w of Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology
by Clifford Geertz. N e w York R e v ie w of Books 3 1 : 39— 46.

L l a m b I, L uis
19 8 1 “ Las un id ad es de produccidn c a m pe s ina en el sistema capitalista:
U n intento de teorizacidn.” Estudios Rurales Latinoamericanos 4(2):

12 5 - 15 3 .

L o m b a r d i , Jo h n , a n d Jam es H ans o n
19 7 0 “ T h e First Venezuela Coffee Cycle, 1 8 3 0 - 1 8 5 5 .” Agricultural H is ­

tory 4 4 : 3 5 5 - 3 6 7 .

L o m n i t z , L arissa
19 7 7 Networks and Marginality. N e w York: A c a d e m ic .

L o m n i t z -A d l e r , C l a u d i o
19 8 2 Evolucion de un a sociedad rural. M e x ic o , D . F .: Fondo de Cultura

E c o n d m ic a .

L o v e , Jo seph
1980 Sao Paulo in the Brazilian Federation, 1 8 8 9 - 1 9 3 7 . Stanford: Stan­

ford Un iver s ity Press.

L u k A cs , G eo r g
19 7 1 History and Class Consciousness. C a m b r id g e : M I T Press.

[19 2 2 ]

L u x e m b u r g , R osa
19 6 8 T h e Accumulation of Capital. N e w York: Monthly R e v ie w Press.

[ 19 13 ]

M aine, H e n r y
19 7 0 Ancient La w . Gloucester, M A : Peter S m it h .

[ 18 6 1]

M a l a v£ M a t a , H ecto r
19 7 4 “La formacidn histdrica del antidessarrollo de Ve n e z ue la.” In

Venezuela: Crecimiento sin desarrollo, D. F. Maza Zavala, Hector

M a la ve M a ta , Celio S. Orta, Orlando Araujo, M ig u e l Bolivar

Chollet, a n d Alfredo Ch ac o n , 3 3 — 1 9 7 . M e x ic o , D . F .: Editorial

Nuestro T i e m p o .

M a l l o y , Ja m e s , e d .
19 7 7 Authoritarianism and Corporatism in L a t in America. Pittsburgh: U n i ­

versity of Pittsburgh Press.

M a n d e l , E rnest
19 7 8 Late Capitalism. L o n d o n : Verso.

M anners, R o bert
1960 “ M etho ds of C o m m u n it y Analysis in the C a r ib b e a n .” In Caribbean
Studies: A Symposium, 2d e d ., e d . Ve ra R u b in , 80— 92. Seattle: U n i ­

versity of W as hing to n Press.

 REFERENCES 255

M a r c u s , G eo r g e
19 86 “ C o n tem po rary Problems of Eth no g r aph y in the M o d e r n World

System.” In W riting Culture, e d . James Clifford and George M a r ­

cus, 1 6 5 - 1 9 3 . Berkeley: Un ivers ity of California Press.

M a r c u s , G e o r g e , a n d M i c h a e l F is ch e r
19 8 6 Anthropology as Cultural Critique. Ch ic ag o : Un iver s ity of Chicago

Press.

M a r i n e z , Pa b l o
19 8 1 “ Acerca de los modos d e produccion precapitalistas en A m e r ic a
L a t in a .” Estudios Sociales Centroamericanos 10(29): 1 2 1 - 1 4 0 .

M a r t i n , C h e r y l E n g lis h
19 8 5 Rural Society in Colonial Morelos. Albuquerque: Univers ity of N e w

M e x ic o Press.

M a r t z , Jo h n
19 6 6 Accion Democratica: Evolution of a M o d e m Political Party. Princeton:

Princeton U r : «sity Press.

M a r t z , Jo h n , e d .
19 7 7 Venezuela: T h e Democratic Experience. N e w York: Praeger.

M a r x , K arl
19 6 4 a Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. N e w York: International.

[18 4 4 ]
19 6 4 b 1 4 M a r c h 18 6 8 Letter to Engels. In Pre-Capitalist Economic Forma-

[18 6 8 ]; tions, ed . Eric H o b s b a w m , 13 9 . N e w York: International.

19 6 7 a Capital, Vol. 2. N e w York: International.

[1888 ]

19 6 7 b Capital, Vol. 3. N e w York: International.

[18 9 4]
19 70 “ Preface.” In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1 9 —

[18 5 9 ] 2 3 . N e w York: International.

19 7 3 Grundrisse. N e w York: R a n d o m Ho us e/Vin tag e .

[ 18 5 7 - 5 8 ]
19 7 4 T h e Eighteenth B rum aire of Louis Bonaparte. In Surveys from Exile, ed.

[ 18 5 2 ] D a v id Fernbach, 14 3 - 2 4 9 . N e w York: R a n d o m H o us e/Vin tag e.

19 7 7 Capital, Vol. 1 . N e w York: R a n d o m H o us e/Vin tag e.

[18 6 7 ]

M a r x , K a r l , a n d F r e d e r i c k E ngels
19 70 T h e Germ an Ideology. N e w York: International.

[18 46 ]

M c C reery, D avid
19 7 6 “ Coffee and Class: T h e Structure of D e ve l o pm e n t in Liberal G u a ­
tem ala.” H is p a n ic Am erican Historical R e v ie w 56 : 4 3 8 — 460.
19 8 3 “ D e b t S ervitude in Rural G u atem ala, 1 8 7 6 - 1 9 3 6 .” H is p a n ic A m e r i­

can Historical R e v ie w 6 3: 7 3 5 — 7 5 9 .
256 REFERENCES

M c E a c h e r n , C h a r m a i n e , a n d Pe t e r M a y e r
19 8 6 “ T h e C h il d r e n of Bronze and the Ch il d r e n of Gold: T h e Apo liti­

cal Anthropology of the Peasant.” Social Analysis 19 : 70— 7 7 .

M e d i c k , H ans
19 8 7 “ Missionaries in a Rowboat? Ethnological Ways of K n o w in g as a
Challenge to Social History.” Comparative Studies in Society and H is ­

tory 2 9 ( 1) : 7 6 - 9 8 .

M e il la s s o u x , C l a u d e
19 7 2 “ Fo rm Repro ductio n to Production,” Economy and Society 1 : 9 3 - 1 0 5 .

19 7 8 “T h e ‘E c o n o m y ’ in Agricultural Self-Sustaining Societies: A Pre­

lim in a r y Analysis.” In Relations of Production, ed. D a v id Seddon,

1 2 7 - 1 5 7 . Lo n d o n : Frank Cass.

19 8 1 Maidens, M eal and Money. N e w York: C a m b r id g e Un ivers ity Press.

M e l v i l l e , R o b erto
19 7 9 Crecimiento y rebelion: E l desarrollo economico de las haciendas Azucare-

ras en Morelos ( 1 8 8 0 - 1 9 1 0 ) . M e x ic o : Editorial N u e v a I m a g e n .

M i n t z , Sid n e y
19 5 3 “ T h e Folk-Urban C o n t in u u m and the Rural Proletarian C o m m u ­

n ity.” Am erican Journal of Sociology 59(2): 1 3 6 - 1 4 3 .

19 7 3 “ A Note on the D e fin it io n of Peasantries.” Journal of Peasant Studies

1 : 9 1- 10 6 .

19 7 4 a Caribbean Transformations. Chic ag o : A l d in e .

19 7 4 b “ T h e Rural Proletariat and the Problem of Rural Proletarian C o n ­

sciousness.” Journal of Peasant Studies 1 : 290— 3 2 5 .

19 7 8 “T h e Role of Puerto Rico in Mo dern Social Science.” Revista/

R e v ie w Interamericana 8: 5 — 16 .
19 7 9 “ Slavery an d the Rise of Peasantries.” Historical Reflections 6:

2 13 - 2 4 2 .
19 8 2 “ Culture: A n Anthropological V i e w . ” Yale R e v ie w 7 1 : 4 9 9 - 5 1 2 .

19 8 5 Sweetness and Power: T h e Place of Sugar in Modern History. N e w York:

V ik in g .
19 8 7 “ A u t h o r ’s Rejoinder.” Food and Foodways 2 : 1 7 1 - 1 9 7 .

M i n t z , Sid n e y , a n d E ric W o lf
19 50 “ A n Analysis of Ritual Co-Parenthood (Co m padrazgo ).” Southwest­
ern Journal of Anthropology 6: 3 4 1 — 368.

M o n t o y a , R o drig o
19 7 8 A Proposito del cardeter predominantemente capitalista de la economia
Peruana actual ( 19 6 0 - 19 7 0 ) . L i m a : Mosca Az ul Editores.

M o o re , B a r r i n g t o n
19 6 6 T h e Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon

Press.

M o o re , W i l b e r t
19 5 1 Industrialization and Labor. Ithaca: Cornell Un ivers ity Press.
 REFERENCES 257

M o r g a n , L ewis H e n r y
19 7 4 Ancient Society. Gloucester, M A : Peter S m it h .

[ 18 7 7 ]

M urato rio , B lanca

1980 “ Protestantism an d Ca pitalis m Revis ted, in the Rural Hig hlan d s
of Ecuador.” Journal of Peasant Studies 8 ( 1) : 3 7 — 60.

19 8 7 Rucuyaya Alonso y la historia social y economica del Alto Napo, 18 5 0 —

19 5 0 . Q u it o : Ediciones Abya-Yala.

M u r p h y , R o bert
19 70 “ Bas in E th n o g r ap h y an d Ethnological T h e o r y .” In Languages and

Cultures of Western North America, ed . E . H . Swanson, Jr., 1 5 2 — 1 7 1 .

Pocatello: Idaho State Un iver s ity Press.

19 7 8 “ Introduction.” In Evolution and Ecology, Julian Steward, 1 — 39.

U r b a n a : Un iver s ity of Illinois Press.

19 8 1 “Julian Steward.” In Totems and Teachers, ed . Sydel Silverm an, 1 7 1 -

206. N e w York: C o l u m b ia Un iver s ity Press.

N a s h , Ju n e
19 7 9 W e E a t the M in e s and the M in e s E at Us. N e w York: C o l u m b ia U n iv e r ­

sity Press.

N e r u d a , Pa b l o
19 5 5 Canto General, Vol. 1 . A r g e n tin a : Losada.

N i e l d , K e i t h , a n d Jo h n Se e d
19 7 9 “ Theoretical Poverty or the Poverty of T h e o r y : British Marxist
Histo rio graphy an d the Althusserians."Economy andSociety 8: 3— 3 2 .

N u g e n t , D avid
19 8 2 “ Closed Systems and Co ntradiction: T h e K a c h in in and out of

History.” M a n 1 7 : 508— 5 2 7 .

O ’B r i e n , Ja y , a n d W il l ia m R o s eb e rry , eds .
Fo rthco ming “ I m a g in in g the Past: Critical Reflections on Anthropology and

History.” U n p u b lis h e d m anus cript.

O ’D o n n e l l , G u i l l e r m o
19 7 3 Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in La tin
Am erican Politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, U n i ­

versity of California.

O r l o v e , B enjamin
19 7 7 Alpacas, Sheep and M e n . N e w York: A c a d e m ic Press.

O r t n e r , Sh e r r y
19 8 4 “ Anthropological T h e o r y since the Sixties.” Comparative Studies in
Society and History 2 6 ( 1) : 1 2 6 - 1 6 6 .

P al a c io s , M a r c o
19 8 3 E l cafe en Colombia, 1 8 5 0 - 1 9 7 0 : U n a historia economica, social y po-
litica. M e x ic o , D . F .: El Colegio de M e x ic o .
258 REFERENCES

19 8 6 U n p u b l is h e d C o m m e n t s . Roundtable Discussion of Coffee in the

History of L a t in A m e r ic a , Plaza de Cultura, San Jose, Costa R ic a.

Pa l e r m , A n g e l
19 7 6 a Sobre la formacidn del sistema colonial en Mexico : Apuntes para una

discusion. M e x ic o , D . F .: L a Casa Ch a ta .

19 7 6 b Modos de producciony formaciones socioeconomicas. M e x ic o , D . F .: E d i­

torial Edicol.
1980 Antropologia y Marxismo. M e x ic o , D . F .: Editorial N u e v a Im a g e n .

Pa t c h , R o b e r t
19 8 5 “ Ag rarian Change in E ig h te e n th C e n tu r y Yu c a ta n .” His panic
Am erican Historical R e v ie w 6 5 : 2 1 - 4 9 .

Pe r l m a n , Ja n i c e
19 7 6 T h e M y th of Marginality. Berkeley: Un ivers ity of California Press.

Pe t r a s , Ja m e s , M orris M o r l e y , a n d St e v e n Sm i t h
19 7 7 T h e Nationalization of Venezuelan Oil. N e w York: Praeger.

Pic6, F e r n a n d o
19 7 9 Libertad y servidumbre en el Puerto Rico del siglo X I X : Los jomaleros
Utuadehos en visperas del auge del cafe. R io Piedras: Ediciones

Huracan.

19 8 1 Amargo cafe (los pequehos y medianos caficultores de Utuado en la

segunda mitad del siglo X I X ) . R io Piedras: Ediciones H u r a c a n .

Pl a t t , D . C . M . , e d .
19 7 7 Business Imperialism, 18 4 0 — 19 3 0 : A n Inquiry Based on British Experi­
ence in L a t in America. N e w York: Oxford Univers ity Press.

Po p k i n , Sa m u e l
19 7 9 T h e Rational Peasant. Berkeley: Un ivers ity of California Press.

Po p u l a r M e m o r y G r o u p
19 8 2 “ Popular M e m o r y : Th e o r y , Politics, M e t h o d .” In M a k in g Histories:

Studies in History-Writing and Politics, ed. R ic h a r d Johnson, Gregor

M c L e n n a n , Bill Schwarz, and D a v id Sutton, 2 0 5 - 2 5 2 . M in n e a p o ­

lis: Un iver s ity of M inneso ta Press.

Po s t , K en
19 8 6 “ C a n O n e H a v e an Historical Anthropology? Some Reactions to
Taussig an d C h e valie r .” Social Analysis 19 : 7 8 — 84.

P o u l a n t z a s , N icos
19 7 3 Political Power and Social Classes. Lo n d o n : Verso.
19 7 4 Fascism and Dictatorship. Lo n d o n : Verso.

19 7 5 Classes in Contemporary Capitalism. Lo n d o n : Verso.

19 7 8 State, Power, Socialism. Lo n d o n : Verso.

P r ic e , R i c h a r d
19 8 3 Firs t-Tim e: T h e Historical Vision of an Afro-American People. Balti­
m o re: T h e Johns H o p k in s Un ivers ity Press.
 REFERENCES 259

Q u intero R ive r a , A n g el
19 7 3 “ Background to the E m er g e n c e of Imperialist Ca pitalis m in

Puerto R ic o .” Caribbean Studies 1 3 : 3 1 — 63.

R a n g e l , D o m in g o A l b e r t o
19 6 8 Elproceso del capitalismo contemporaneo en Venezuela. Caracas: U n ive r -

sidad Central.

19 6 9 Capital y desarrollo: L a Venezuela agraria. Caracas: Un iver s id a d

Central.
19 70 Ca pitaly desarrollo: E l rey petroleo. Caracas: Un iver s id a d Central.

R ebel, H e r m a n n
19 8 8 “ W h y N o t ‘Old M a r ie ’ . . . O r Someone V e r y M u c h L ik e H e r ? A

Reassessment of the Question A b o u t the G r im m s ’ Contributors

from a Social Historical Perspective.” Social History 1 3 : 1 - 2 4 .

19 8 9 a “ Cultural H e g e m o n y and Class E x p e r ie n c e : A Critical R e a d in g of

Recent Ethnological-Historical Approaches (Part \ ) ." Am erican E th ­

nologist 1 6 ( 1) : 1 1 7 — 13 6 .
19 8 9 b “ Cultural H e g e m o n y an d Class E x p e r ie n c e : A Critical R e a d in g of

Recent Ethnological-Historical Appro aches (Part 2 ).” American E th ­

nologist 16 (2 ): 350 — 3 6 5.

R ed fie ld , R o b e r t
1930 Tepoztldn, A M e xic a n Village: A Study of Folk Life. Ch ic ag o : U n iv e r ­

sity of Chic ag o Press.

19 3 4 “ Cultural Changes in Y u c a ta n .” Am erican Anthropologist 36 : 5 7 - 6 9 .

1940 Th e Folk Culture of Yucatan. Ch ic ag o : Univers ity of Chicago Press.

19 5 3 T h e P r im it iv e World and its Transformations. Ithaca: Cornell U n iv e r ­

sity Press.

R e d f i e l d , R o b e r t , R a l p h L i n t o n , a n d M e l v i l l e H e r s k o vi tz
19 3 6 “ M e m o r a n d u m for the Study of Acculturation.” American Anthro­

pologist38: 14 9 — 1 5 2 .

Renacimiento, El

190 4 Bocono, Trujillo (Venezuela) N ew spaper.

R ey , P i e r r e -Ph il ip p e
19 7 5 “T h e L in e a g e Mo de of Production.” Critique of Anthropology 3:

27-79.
19 7 6 Las alianzas de classes. M e x ic o , D . F .: Siglo x x i .

19 7 9 “ Class Contradiction in Lin e a g e Societies.” Critique of Anthropology

13 & 14 : 4 1- 6 0 .

R ibeiro , D a r c y
19 7 2 T h e Americas and Civilization. N e w York: Dutto n.

R ic ar d , R o b ert
19 6 6 Th e Spiritual Conquest of Mexico. Berkeley: Univers ity of California

[19 3 3 ] Press.
260 REFERENCES

R o d 6, Jose E.
19 8 8 Ariel. A u s t in : Un iver s ity of Texas Press.

[1900]

R o saldo , R e n a t o
1980 Ilongot Head hunting , 1 8 8 3 — 1 9 7 4 : A Study in Society and History. Stan­
ford: Stanford Un iver s ity Press.

R o s eb e rry , W il lia m
19 7 8 a “ Historical M aterialism an d T h e People of Puerto R ic o .” Revistal
R e v ie w Interamericana 8: 2 6 - 3 6 .

19 7 8 b “ Peasants in P r im it iv e A c c u m u la tio n : Western E uro p e and V e n e ­

zuela C o m p a r e d ." Dialectical Anthropology 3 : 2 4 3 -2 6 0 .

19 7 8 c “ Peasants as Proletarians.” Critique of Anthropology 1 1 : 3 - 1 8 .

1980 “ Capital and Class in N in e t e e n t h Ce n tur y Boconb, Venezuela.”

Antropologica 5 4 : 1 3 9 — 16 6 .

19 8 2 “ Peasants, Proletarians, an d Politics in the Venezuelan Andes,

18 7 5 — 19 7 5 .” In Power and Protest in the Countryside, ed. Robert

Weller an d Scott G u g g e n g e im , 1 0 6 - 1 3 1 . D u r h a m : D u k e U n iv e r ­
sity Press.

19 8 3 Coffee and Capitalism in the Venezuelan Andes. A u s t in : Un ivers ity of

Texas Press.
19 8 6 a “ H a c ia u n an£ lisis comparativo de los paises cafetaleros.” Revista de

Historia 1 4 : 2 5 - 3 0 .

19 8 6 b “ T h e Ideology of Do mestic Production.” Labour, Capital and Society

19 : 70 -93.

19 8 7 “ Household an d C o m m u n it y Structure in the History of M e x ic a n

Peasantries.” P ap e r presented at the Annual M e e t in g of the

A m e r ic a n Ethnological Society.

19 8 8 “ Do mestic Modes, Domesticated Models ."Journal of Historical Soci­

ology 1(4 ): 4 2 3 - 4 3 0 .

Forthcoming “ Potatoes, Sacks, an d Enclosures in Early M o der n Eng lan d .” In

“Im a g in in g the Past: Critical Reflections on Anthropology and History,”

ed. Jay O ’B r ie n an d W il l ia m Roseberry. U n p u b lis h ed manuscript.

R o s eb e rry , W i l l i a m , a n d Ja y O ’B rien
Fo rthco ming “ Introduction.” In Im ag in in g the Past: Critical Reflections on A n ­
thropology and History, ed . Jay O ’B r ie n and W il l ia m Roseberry. U n ­

published m anus cript.

R o w e , Jo h n
19 5 7 “ T h e Incas U n d e r S panish Colonial Institutions.” H is p an ic A m e r i­
can Historical R e v ie w 3 7 : 1 5 5 — 19 9 .

R ubin , V e r a , e d .
1960 Caribbean Studies: A Symposium, 2 d ed. Seattle: Univers ity of W a s h ­
ington Press.
 REFERENCES 261

R u d £ , G eo r g e
19 6 4 T h e Crowd in History. N e w York: W iley .

Sa f f o r d , F r a n k
19 7 6 T h e Ideal of the Practical: Colombia’s Struggle to Form a Technical Elite.
A u s t in : Un iver s ity of Texas Press.

19 8 5 “ Politics, Ideology, and Society in Post-Independence Spanish

A m e r ic a .” Cambridge History of L a t in America 3 : 3 4 7 — 4 2 2 .

Sa h l i n s , M a r s h a l l
19 7 2 Stone Age Economics. Ch ic ag o : A l d in e .

19 7 6 Culture and Practical Reason. Chic ag o : Un ivers ity of Chicago Press.

19 8 1 Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early H is ­

tory of the Sandwich Islands Kin g d o m . Ann Arbo r: Un ivers ity of

M ic h ig a n Press.

19 8 5 Islands of History. Chic ag o : Un ivers ity of Chicago Press.

Sa l c e d o B a s t a r d o , J. L .
19 7 2 Historia fundamental de Venezuela. Caracas: Un iver s id a d Central.

Sa m p e r K u t s c h b a c h , M ario
19 8 5 “ L a especializacibn mercantil-campesina en el noroeste del Valle

Central: 18 5 0 - 19 0 0 . Elementos microanalfticos para u n modelo.”

Revista de Historia, N u m e r o Especial, 4 9 - 8 7 .

Sa n c h e z A l b o r n o z , N ico l As
19 7 4 T h e Population of L a t in Am erica : A History. Berkeley: Univers ity of

California Press.

Sanoja , M a r io , Ir a i d a V arg a s
19 7 4 Antiquas formaciones y modos de produccidn Venezolanos. Caracas:

M o n te A vil a Editores.

Sc h n e i d e r , D a v i d
19 80 Am erican K in s h ip : A Cultural Account, 2 d ed. Ch ic ag o : Univers ity of

Ch ic ag o Press.

Sc o t t , C . D .
19 7 6 “ Peasants, Proletarianization an d the Articulation of Modes of

Production: T h e Case of Sugar-Cane Cutters in Northern Peru,

19 4 0 — 69. "Journal of Peasant Studies 3 : 3 2 1 — 342 .

Sc o t t , Ja m es C .
19 7 6 T h e Moral Economy of the Peasant. New Haven: Yale University

Press.
19 7 7 “ Protest an d Profanation: Ag r ar ian Revolt and the Little T r a d i­
tio n.” Theory and Society 4 : 1 — 38; 2 1 1 — 246 .
19 8 5 Weapons of the W eak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New
H a v e n : Yale Un iver s ity Press.

Sc u d d e r , T h a y e r
19 6 2 T h e Ecology of the Gwembe Tonga. Manchester: Manchester U n iv e r ­
sity Press.
26 2 REFERENCES

Se i d e l , R . N .
19 7 2 “ A m e r ic a ’s Reformers A b ro a d : T h e K e m m e r e r Missions in South

A m e r ic a , 1 9 2 3 - 1 9 3 1 . ” Journal of Economic History 32(2): 5 2 0 - 5 4 5 .

Se r v i c e , E l m a n
19 5 5 “ I n d ia n -E u r o p e a n Relations in Colonial L a t in A m e r ic a .” American

Anthropologist 5 7 : 4 1 1 - 4 2 5 .

Se w e l l , W il lia m
1980 Work and Revolution in France: Th e Language of Labor from the Old,

R e g im e to 18 4 8 . N e w York: C a m b r id g e Univers ity Press.

Sh a n i n , T eo d o r
19 7 2 T h e Awkward Class. O xfo rd: Oxford Un iver s ity Press.

19 7 9 “ D e f in in g Peasants: Conceptualizations an d Deconceptualiza­

tions— Old an d N e w in a M arxis t D e b a te .” Peasant Studies 8(4):

38 -6 0 .
19 8 3 Late M a r x and the Russian R o ad : M a r x and the Peripheries of Capital­

ism. N e w York: Mo nthly R e v ie w Press.

Sider , G e r a l d
19 8 6 Culture and Class in Anthropology and History: A Newfoundland Illustra­

tion. N e w York: C a m b r id g e Un iver s ity Press.

Sil k , M a r k
19 8 7 “T h e Hot History D e p a r t m e n t .” N e w York Tim es Magazines, 19

A p r il , 4 2 - 6 3 .

Si l v e r m a n , Sy d e l
19 7 9 “ T h e Peasant Co ncept in Anthropology.” Journal of Peasant Studies

7 : 4 9 -6 9.

Sis kind , Ja n e t
19 7 8 “ K in s h ip and M o d e of Pro ductio n.” Am erican Anthropologist 80:

8 6 0 -8 7 2 .

Sk i d m o r e , T h o m a s , a n d P e t e r Sm i t h
19 8 4 Modern L a t in America. N e w York: Oxford Un ivers ity Press.

Sm i t h , C a r o l A . , e d .
19 7 6 Regional Analysis, 2 vols. N e w York: A c a d e m ic .

Sm i t h , G a v i n
19 7 9 “ Socio-Economic Differentiation an d Relations of Production
am o ng Rural-Based Petty Producers in Central Peru, 18 8 0 —

19 7 0 ."Journal of Peasant Studies 6: 1 7 6 — 206.

19 8 9 Livelihood and Resistance. Berkeley: Un ivers ity of California Press.

Sm i t h , R o b e r t F r e e m a n
19 8 6 “ L a t in A m e r ic a n , T h e U n it e d States, an d the E uro p e an Powers,
18 3 0 — 19 3 0 .” Cambridge History of L a t in America 4 : 8 3 - 1 1 9 .

So m b a r t , W e r n e r
19 6 7 T h e Quintessence of Capitalism. N e w York: H o w a r d Fertig.

[ 19 15 ]
 REFERENCES 263

Sp a l d i n g , K a r e n
19 7 4 D e indio a campesino: Cambios en la estructura social del Peru colonial.

L i m a : Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

Spicer , E d w a r d H . , e d .
19 6 1 Perspectives in Am erican In d ian Culture Change. Ch ic ag o : Univers ity

of Ch ic ag o Press.

S S R C Su m m e r Se m i n a r in A c c u l t u r a t i o n
19 5 4 “ Acculturation: A n Exploratory Fo rm ulatio n.” American Anthro­

pologist 5 6 : 9 7 3 - 10 0 2 .

St a v e n h a g e n , R o dolfo
19 7 5 Social Classes in Agrarian Society. G a r d e n C it y : Doubleday/Anchor.

19 7 8 “ C a pita lis m an d the Peasantry in M e x ic o .” L a t in Am erican Perspec­

tives 5 : 2 7 — 3 7 .

St e e d m a n , C a r o l y n K a y
19 8 6 Landscape for a Good W o m an : A Study of Two Lives. N e w B runs w ick:
Rutgers Un iver s ity Press.

St e p a n , A l f r e d
19 7 8 T h e State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective. Princeton:

Princeton Un iver s ity Press.

St e r n , St e v e J.
19 8 2 Peru’s In d ian Peoples and the Challenge of Spanish Conquest: H u a m a n g a

to 16 4 0 . M a d is o n : Un iver s ity of Wisconsin Press.

19 8 3 “T h e Struggle for Solidarity: Class, Culture, and C o m m u n it y in

H ig h l a n d I n d ia n A m e r ic a .” Radical History R e v ie w 2 7 : 2 1 - 4 5 .

19 88 a “ Fe udalis m , C a p italis m , and the World-System in the Perspective

of L a t in A m e r ic a and the C a r r ib e a n .” American Historical R e v ie w

9 3: 8 2 9 - 8 7 2 .
19 8 8 b “ Reply: ‘E v e r M o re Solitary.’ ” Am erican Historical R e v ie w 93:

88 6 -8 9 7.

St e w a r d , Ju l i a n
19 5 5 Theory of Culture Change. U r b a n a : Un iver s ity of Illinois Press.

19 7 8 Evolution and Ecology. U r b a n a : Un ivers ity of Illinois Press.

St e w a r d , Ju l i a n , R o b e r t M a n n e r s , E ric W o lf , E l e n a P a d i l l a , Sid n e y
M i n t z , a n d R a y m o n d Sc h e e l e
19 5 6 T h e People of Puerto Rico. U r b a n a : Un ivers ity of Illinois Press.

St o l c k e , V e r e n a
19 8 8 Coffee Planters, Workers, and W ive s : Class Conflict and Gender Rela­
tions on Sao Paulo Plantations, 18 5 0 — 19 8 0 . N e w York: St. M a r t in ’s.

St o l e r , A n n L a u r a
19 8 5 Capitalism and Confrontation in Sumatra’sPlantation Belt. N e w H a v e n :

Yale Un iver s ity Press.

264 REFERENCES

St r i c k o n , A r n o l d
19 6 5 “ H a c ie n d a and Plantation in Yu c a ta n .” America Indigena 2 5 (1);

35-6 3.

T aussig , M i c h a e l
1980 Th e D e m i and Commodity Fetishism in South America. C h a p e l Hill:
U n iver s ity of North Carolina Press.

19 8 7 “T h e Ris e an d Fall of M arxist Anthropology.” Social Analysis 2 1 :

10 1- 113 .

T a y l o r , Jo h n
19 7 9 From Modernization to Modes of Production. Atlantic H ig h lan d s : H u ­

m an ities Press.

T a y l o r , Pe t e r , a n d H e r m a n n R e b e l
19 8 1 “ Hessian Peasant W o m e n , T h e i r Families, and the Draft: A Socio-

Historical Interpretation of Four Tales from the G r i m m Collec­

tion.^"Journal of Family History 6: 3 4 7 — 378 .

T a y l o r , W illia m
19 7 2 Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca. Stanford: Stanford U n iv e r ­

sity Press.

19 7 4 “ L a n d e d Society in N e w S p a in : A V i e w from the S o uth.” Hispanic

Am erican Historical R e v ie w 5 4 : 3 8 7 - 4 1 3 .

19 7 6 “ T o w n and Co untry in the Valley of Oaxaca, 1 7 5 0 - 1 8 1 2 . ” In Prov­

inces of Early Mexico: Variants of Spanish Am erican Regional Evolution,

ed. Ida A l tm a n an d James Lockhart, 6 3 - 9 5 . Los Angeles: U C L A

L a t in A m e r ic a n C en ter Publications.

19 8 5 “ B etw e en Global Process and Local Kno wledge: A n Inquiry into

Early L a t in A m e r ic a n Social History, 150 0 — 1900.” In R e l ivin g the

Past, e d . O livie r Z u n z , 1 1 5 - 1 9 0 . C h a p e l Hill: Univers ity of North

Carolina Press.

T a x , So l , e d .
19 5 2 Heritage of Conquest. Glencoe, I L : Free Press.

T erray, Em m a n u e l
19 7 1 M a rxis m and “ P r im it iv e ” Societies. N e w York: Monthly R e v ie w Press.

19 7 4 “ Lo n g Distance Tr a d e and the Formation of the State.” Economy

and Society 3 : 3 1 5 — 3 4 5 .
19 7 5 “ Classes and Class Consciousness in the Abro n K in g d o m of
G y a m a n ” In Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology, ed. M a u r ic e
Bloch, 8 5 — 1 3 5 . Lo n d o n : Malaby.
19 7 9 “ O n Exploitation: Elements of an Auto critiq ue.” Critique of Anthro­

pology 1 3 & 14 : 29 -39 .

T h o m p s o n , E. P.
19 6 3 T h e M a k in g of the English Working Class. N e w York: Pantheo n.
19 6 7 “ T i m e , Wo rk-D is cipline, and Industrial C a p it a l is m .” Past and Pres­
ent 38: 5 6 — 9 7.
 REFERENCES 265

19 7 1 “T h e Moral Eco no m y of the English Cro w d in the E ig h te e n th

C e n tu r y .” Past and Present 50: 76 — 13 6 .

19 7 2 “ Anthropology and the Dis ciplin e of Historical Co n text.” M id la n d

History 1( 3 ) : 4 1 - 5 5 .

19 7 4 “ Patrician Society, Plebian C u ltu re .” Journal of Social History 7 :

38 2-40 5.
19 7 8 a Th e Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. N e w York: Mo nthly R e v ie w

Press.
19 7 8 b “ E ig h te e n th -C e n tu r y English Society: Class Struggle W it h o u t

Class?” Social History 3(2): 1 3 3 — 1 6 5 .

19 8 1 “ T h e Politics of T h e o r y .” In People’s History and Socialist Theory, ed.

Ra pha el S am uel, 39 6 -40 8 . Lo n d o n : Routledge and K e g a n Paul.

T h o r p , R o sem ary
19 8 6 “ L a t in A m e r ic a an d the International Eco no m y from the First

World W a r to the World Depression.” Cambridge History of La tin

Am erica 4: 5 7 — 8 1 .

T h o r p , R o sem ary, e d .
19 8 4 L a t in Am erica in the 1930 s: T h e Role of the Periphery in World Crisis.

N e w York: St. M a r t in ’s.

T o ennies , F e r d i n a n d
19 5 7 Co mmunity and Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). East La ns ing :

[18 8 7 ] M ic h ig a n State Un ivers ity Press.

T o kei , Fe r e n c
19 6 6 Sur le mode de production Asiatique. Paris: c e r m .

T r o u i l l o t , M i c h e l -R o l p h
19 8 6 “ T h e Price of Indulgence.” Social Analysis 19 : 85-9 0 .

19 8 8 Peasants and Capital: D o m in ic a in the World Economy. Baltimore: T h e

Johns H o p k in s Un iver s ity Press.

T u g w e l l , Fr a n k l i n
19 7 5 T h e Politics of Oil in Venezuela. Stanford: Stanford Univers ity Press.

T ur n er , T erence
19 8 6 “ Production, Exploitation, and Social Consciousness in the ‘P e r ip h ­

eral S ituatio n .’ ” Social Analysis 19 : 9 1 — 1 1 5 .

V en ez u ela, B anco C e n tr a l
19 7 1 L a economia Venezolana en los ultimos treinta ahos. Caracas.

V e n e z u e l a , M inis terio d e F o m e n t o
19 7 1 X censo de poblacion y v iv ie n d a : Resumen general. Caracas.

V i n c e n t ,Jo a n
19 8 2 Teso in Transformation: T h e Political Economy of Peasant and Class in

Eastern Africa. Berkeley: Un iver s ity of California Press.

19 8 9 Anthropology and Politics: Visions, Traditions and Trends. Tucson: U n i ­

versity of A r izo na Press. In press.

266 REFERENCES

W a g l e y , C h a r l e s , a n d M a r v i n H arris
19 5 5 “ A Typology of L a t in A m e r ic a n Subcultures.” Am erican Anthropolo­

gist 5 7 : 4 2 6 - 4 5 1 .

W a l l e r s t e i n , Im m a n u e l
19 7 4 T h e Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of

the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York:

A c a d e m ic .

19 7 9 The Capitalist World-Economy. New York: C a m b r id g e University

Press.
19 8 8 “ C o m m e n t s on Stern’s Critical Tests.” American Historical R e v ie w

9 3: 8 7 3 - 8 8 5 .

W arm a n , A rturo
19 8 1 W e Come to Object: T h e Peasants of Morelos and the National State.

Baltim o re: T h e Johns H o p k in s Un ivers ity Press.

W as s e r s tr o m , R o b e r t
19 8 3 Class and Society in Central Chiapas. Berkeley: Univers ity of Califor­

n ia Press.

W a te r b u r y , R o nald
19 7 5 “ Non-Revo lutio nary Peasants: O axaca C o m p a r e d to Morelos in

the M e x ic a n Revo lutio n .” Comparative Studies in Society and History

17 :4 10 - 4 2 2 .

W illia m s , G a v i n
19 7 9 “ In Defense of History.” History Workshop 7 : 1 1 6 - 1 2 4 .

W illia m s , R a y m o n d
1960 Culture and Society. N e w York: C o l u m b ia Univers ity Press.
19 6 1 T h e Long Revolution. N e w York: C o l u m b ia Univers ity Press.

19 7 3 Th e Country and the City. N e w York: Oxford Univers ity Press.

19 7 7 M a rxis m and Literature. O xfo rd: Oxford Univers ity Press.

19 7 9 Politics and Letters. Lo n d o n : N e w Left Books.

1980 Problems in Materialism and Culture. Lo n d o n : N e w Left Books.

19 8 2 T h e Sociology of Culture. N e w York: Schocken.

W o lf , E ric R .
19 5 5 “ Ty pe s of L a t in A m e r ic a n Peasantry: A Pre lim in ary Discussion”

Am erican Anthropologist 5 7 : 4 5 2 — 4 7 1 .
19 5 6 a “ San Jose: Subcultures of a ‘Traditio nal’ Coffee M u n ic ip a l it y .” In
T h e People of Puerto Rico, Julian Steward, Robert M anners, Eric
Wolf, Elena Padilla, S id n e y M in t z , and R a y m o n d Scheele, 1 7 1 —
26 4. U r b a n a : Un iver s ity of Illinois Press.
19 5 6 b “ Aspects of G r o u p Relations in a C o m p l e x Society: M e x ic o .” A m e r i­
can Anthropologist 5 8 : 10 6 5 — 10 7 8 .
19 5 7 “ Closed Corporate C o m m u n it ie s in M esoamerica and Central
Java” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1 3 : 1 — 18 .

19 5 9 a Sons of the Shaking Earth. Ch ic ag o : Un iver s ity of Chicago Press.

 REFERENCES 267

19 5 9 b “ Specific Aspects of Plantation Systems in the N e w World: C o m ­

m u n it y Subcultures and Social Class.” In Plantation Systems of the

New World, ed . Vera R u b in , 13 6 - 14 7 . W ashingto n, D . C .: Pan

A m e r ic a n U n io n .

19 6 6 Peasants. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

19 6 9 Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. N e w York: H a r p e r and Ro w .
19 7 8 “ R e m a r ks on The People of Puerto Rico. ” Revista/Review Inter-

americana 8: 1 7 - 2 5 .

19 8 1 “ T h e Mills of Inequality.” In Social Inequality: Comparative and D e ­

velopmental Approaches, ed . Gerald B e r r e m a n , 4 1 — 5 8 . N e w York:

A c a d e m ic .

19 8 2 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: Un ivers ity of C a li­

fornia Press.

W o lf , E r i c , a n d Si d n e y M in t z
19 5 7 “ H a c ie n d a s a n d Plantations in M id d l e A m e r ic a and the Antilles.”

Social and Economic Studies 6: 386— 4 1 2 .

W o o d w a r d , R a l p h L e e , Jr.
19 8 5 Central Am erica : A Nation D iv id e d . N e w York: Oxford Univers ity

Press.

W r i g h t , E r ik O lin
19 7 8 Class, Crisis and the State. Lo n d o n : Verso.
I N
Accion Democratica (a d ), 7 2 - 7 5 ,
7 6 - 7 7 , 78, 106, 2 2 5 - 2 2 6
acculturation studies, 8 4 -8 5, 1 1 8
Adas, Michael, 55
a f l -c i o , 113
Africa, slave trade in, 1 1 , 1 2 7 —
12 8 , 13 7 , 16 4
agency, 1 4 1
agrarian history, 203-204
agrarian reforms, 73, 77
Aguilares, El Salvador, 19 4 , 230
Althusser, Louis, 12 9 ; and mode
of production, 1 4 5 — 146 , 15 7 ,
170 ; and theory and history,
17 0 - 17 4
Am erican Anthropologist, 84
Am erican Institute for Free L a ­
bor Development (a i f l d ), 1 1 3 ,
118
Am erican Smelting and Refin­
ing, 102
A m in , Samir, 13 2 , 14 9 , 17 9 , 18 2
Anderson, Benedict, 33— 34, 53,
225-226
D E X
Andes, 60, 68, 92. See also Latin
Am erica
Anglo-Dutch Shell, 65
antinomies in anthropology. See
oppositional ideas in anthro­
pology
Antioquia, Colombia, 103
Argentina, 103
articulated accumulation, 17 8 —
180, 18 4 - 18 6
articulation, 160, 1 6 1 ; as histori­
cal process, 1 6 2 - 1 7 4
Bali: colonialism and, 23; and
Clifford Geertz, ix, 6 -7 , 1 7 ,
20-29, 232; sexual differentia­
tion in, 2 2 - 2 3
Baran, Paul A ., 14 9
barrio festival, 1 - 2 , 3 - 5 , 10
Bartra, Roger, 1 7 5 — 17 6 , 18 2
Bazant, J., 1 0 1 , 102
B entham , Jeremy, 2 1
Betancourt, Romulo, 7 2 - 7 3
Boas, Franz, 5, 18
270
Bock, Philip K ., 10
Bolivia, devil imagery in, 2 18 ,
2 2 0 - 2 2 1, 229-230, 240n
Bradby, Barbara, 163
Brazil, 83, 97, 10 3; coffee pro­
duction in, 16 9 ; multinationals
in, 1 1 0 - 1 1 1
Bucher, Karl, 204, 205, 2 1 1 , 2 12 ,
239n
Burm a, 5 0 - 5 1
Cabarrus, Carlos R ., 19 4 - 19 6 ,
230
capitalism: and historicists, 203-
204; in Latin A m er ic a , 99,
10 1- 10 2 , 1 0 7 - 1 1 1 , 15 0 - 15 1 ,
15 4 , 16 8 ; and mode of produc­
tion, 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 , 1 3 7 - 1 3 9 , M O -
14 4 , 1 5 3 - 1 5 4 , 16 4 - 1 6 5 , 17 0 —
17 4 , 239n; and moral econ­
omy, 5 6 - 5 7 , 58; and peasants,
17 8 ; and uneven develop­
ment, 12 9 , 13 7 , 1 4 0 - 1 4 1 , 198,
2 1 5 , 2 16 , 2 2 3 - 2 2 4 ; and world
history, 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 2 8 - 1 2 9
Caracas, 60, 62, 67, 68, 69, 7 1
Cardoso, C .F .S ., 98, 16 7 , 169
Cardoso, Fernando Henriq ue,
7 4 - 7 5 , 103, 108, 109, 1 1 1 ,
1 1 3 , 1 1 7 , 12 6 , 14 9 - 15 0 , 160,
1 8 4 - 1 8 5 ; and internalization
of the external, x, 14 , 83-84,
88— 89; and M arx, 1 1 5 — 15 6
Caribbean: c o m m u n ity studies,
1 4 6 - 1 4 7 ; sugar plantations,
3 4 - 3 5 ; and U nited States, 1 1 2
Carvallo, Gaston, 60
Caste War, 189, 2 1 4
Castro, Cipriano , 100
catastrophism, 12 6
caudillos, 1 1 1 - 1 1 2
INDEX
Central Am erica, 92, 96; expan­
sion of, 98; and United States,
1 1 2 . See also un der in d iv id u a l
countries
C h a n K o m , Mexico, 2 13 , 2 14
Chayanov, A . V ., 1 7 6 - 1 7 8
Chiapas, Mexico, 12 9 , 13 9 - 14 0
Chile, 99, 103
C h in a , 5 1
circulationism, 1 5 3 - 1 5 5
Clifford, James, 2
Coatsworth, John, 1 0 1 , 102
coffee economies, 97, 10 3 -10 4 ,
16 8 — 169 ; and Guatemala,
16 9 ; and Venezuela, 58, 60-
65, 70, 7 2 ,8 9 , 97, 1 0 1, 103,
16 2 - 16 8 , 169, 190
Cohn, Bernard, 14 2
Colombia, 96, 97, 99, 103; coffee
production in, 169 ; devil im a g ­
ery in, 2 18 - 2 2 0
colonialization: and accultura­
tion, 84-86; and Bali, 23; and
Latin Am erica, 84-86, 9 1- 9 6 ,
1 2 7 ; and world history, 5 1
Colta Indians, 1 1 9 , 228
Co m m ittee for Political Organiza­
tion and Independent Elec­
tions (c o p e i ), 72, 7 6 - 7 7
commodity economy, 204, 20 5-
206, 207-208
commodity form of labor power,
13 9 ,2 0 7- 2 0 8
community, 14 , 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 ; alterna­
tive, 2 2 8 -2 2 9 ; M arx and, 2 10 -
2 1 1 ; and nationalism, 226; and
precapitalist societies, 200;
studies, 1 4 6 - 1 4 7 , 1 5 2 , 2 1 5
Conrad, Joseph, 8 1
consciousness: and cultural mate­
rialism, 39-49; and history,
 IND EX
3 9 - 4 1, 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 ; and M arx,
3 9 -4 2 ; and modernization,
5 6 - 5 7 , 58; working-class, 46
consumption goods sector, 17 9 ,
18 5
Coquery-Vidrovitch, Catherine,
13 6
Costa Rica, 97, 98, 1 0 1 , 103,
104; coffee production in , 169
crowd behavior, 19 8 — 199
Cuba, 98, 99, 104, 106
cultural accounts and anthropol­
ogy, 2 - 3
cultural differentiation, 1 3 — 14 ,
25
cultural dominance, 45, 7 5 - 7 7 ;
and power, 2 5, 87— 88; and tra­
dition, 2 6 - 2 7 . See also hege­
mony
cultural ecology, 18
cultural evolution. See evolution­
ism
cultural materialism, 2, 7 - 8 ; and
consciousness, 3 9 -4 9 ; and Clif­
ford Geertz, 1 8 — 20, 2 5 — 29,
42, 4 5 ; and M a r v in Harris,
18 - 19 , 20, 26; and history,
3 8 - 4 1 ; versus idealists, 2, 18 ,
19 - 20, 26, 30, 3 1 , 160; and
M arx, 3 7 - 4 2 , 1 5 6 - 1 5 7
Cu n d in m ar ca , Colombia, 103
Dance of the Millions, 99
Davenport, W il lia m , 9
deep play, 2 1
Deere, C a r m e n D ia n a , 17 8 , 18 4
Dejanvry, Alain, 1 1 7 , 1 7 8 — 196
dependency theory, 12 6 — 12 7 ,
14 8 — 14 9 ; and development,
7 4 - 7 5 , 15 0 ; and Latin A m e r ­
ica, 8 3-8 4, 1 4 9 - 1 5 1 , 1 5 5
271
development: and democracy,
7 3 — 74; dependent, 7 4 - 7 5 ,
150 ; and import-substitution
policies, 65-66, 73, 10 9 - 110 ,
180, 1 8 5 — 18 6; and Latin
A m er ica, 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 , 1 0 7 - 1 1 4 ,
14 9 - 15 0 ; uneven, 12 8 , 12 9 ,
13 7 , 1 4 0 - 1 4 1 , 1 9 8 , 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 ,
2 2 3 — 224; in Venezuela, 7 4 -
7 5 , 7 6 -7 8
devil imagery, 2 18 - 2 2 2 , 2 2 9 -
230
Diaz, Porfirio, 100, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 ,
10 5
disarticulated accumulation,
17 8 - 18 0 , 18 2 , 18 4 - 18 6 , 18 7 ;
and politics, 1 9 2 - 19 3
Dobb, Maurice, 13 3 , 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 ,
15 4
dominance. See cultural d o m i­
nance; hegemony
D o m in ic a n Republic, 98, 106
D u r k h e im , Em ile, 203
Dzitas, Mexico, 2 13 , 2 1 4
Ecuador, 96, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 , 228
ejidos, 18 9
El Salvador, 97, 103, 109, 230,
2 3 1 ; coffee production in,
16 9 ; peasants in, 19 4 — 196
enclave economic sectors, 10 2 —
10 5, 109, 180
Engels, Friedrich, 38-39, 40, 4 1 ,
44, 5 1 , 15 7 , 206-207
Evans, Peter, 1 1 0
evolutionism, 1 2 , 18 , 50 -54, 1 3 1 ,
202-203; and M arx, 206-207;
versus particularism, 30, 3 1 ,
36, 50; and Eric Wolf, 1 3 4 -
13 5
exchange value, 2 18 - 2 2 2 , 239n
272
Faletto, Enzo, x, 7 4 - 7 5 , 103,
108, 109, 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 , 150 ;
and internalization of the ex­
ternal, x, 14 , 88-89
Favre, H e n r i, 1 9 1
Federation of Christian Peasants
(f e c c a s ), 19 4 - 19 5 ,2 3 0
feudalism, 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 , 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 ,
14 5 , 1 5 5 , 166, 204-205
Fischer, Michael, 32— 33
Foster-Carter, A id a n , 15 9 - 16 0 ,
16 3
France, 34, 4 1
Frank, A n d r e Gunder, 12 6 , 12 7 ,
12 9 - 13 0 , 14 9 , 15 3 , 15 4 , 1 5 5
Friedm an, Jonathan, 50— 5 1
functional dualism, 18 0 - 18 2 ,
18 4 , 18 7 , 190, 196
fur trade, 1 1 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 1 3 1
Gabaldbn family, 10 5 - 10 6
Gallegos, R6mulo, 72
Garcia Marquez, Gabriel, 80, 8 1
Garramon, Carlos, 17 8
Garth, D a v id , 1 1 3
Geertz, Clifford, 2, 13 , 34; Bali­
nese cockfight essay, ix, 1 7 ,
20-29, 2 3 2 ; and cultural mate­
rialism, 18 - 2 0 , 2 5 - 2 9 , 42, 4 5;
and history and anthropology,
6 - 7 , 8, 10 — 1 1 ; influence, 1 7 ;
Interpretation of Cultures, x, 5,
18 - 2 0 ; N e g a r a , 23, 24, 2 8 -2 9 ;
texts, cultural products as, 20,
22, 2 3 - 2 5 , 2 8 -2 9 ; and M a x
Weber, 13 , 18 , 20, 2 1
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, 203
Giddens, Anthony, 203
Godelier, Maurice, 13 3 , 1 6 1 ,
16 9 ,2 10
IN D EX
G 6 m ez, Juan Vincente, 7 1 - 7 2 ,
100, 1 0 1 , 104, 105
Gompers, Samuel, 1 1 3
Gramsci, Antonio, 1 5 , 170 ; and
cultural hegemony, 45, 46, 88
225
G r im m ’s folk tales, 2 7 - 2 8
Guatemala, 97, 98, 1 0 1 , 104; cof­
fee production in, 169
G u tm a n , Herbert, 56
G w e m b e Tonga, 14 3
hacienda economies, 18 2 , 18 7 —
18 8
H a it i, 98, 106
Hale, Charles, 96, 97
Hanson, James, 60
Harbsmeier, Michael, 170
Harris, M a r vin , 2, 3, 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 ;
and cultural materialism, 1 8 -
19 , 20, 26; R is e of Anthropologi­
cal Theory, 1 8
H a w a ii, 9
hegemony, 27, 35, 4 5- 4 9 , 8 7 -
88, 2 2 4 -2 2 8 , 234n; and con­
sciousness, 4 7 - 4 8 ; and Anto­
nio Gramsci, 45, 46, 88, 2 2 5 ;
and inscription, 4 5 - 4 9 ; and
proletarianization, 224. See also
cultural dominance
hermeneutics, 20
Hernandez, Josefina Rios de, 60
hierarchical organizations, 2 1 -
22, 24, 2 8 -29
Hilton, Rodney, 13 3
historical determinism, 54
historicism, 160; and capitalism,
203— 204; in Germany, 18 ,
203-204
history: agrarian, 203-204; and
anthropological subjects, 5 - 1 3 ,
 IN D E X
1 2 5 - 1 4 4 ; and consciousness,
3 9 - 4 1 , 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 ; and cultural
materialism, 3 8 - 4 1 ; and cul­
ture, 7 - 8 ; and dominant cul­
ture, 76— 7 7 ; and Clifford
Geertz, 6 - 7 , 8, 10 — 1 1 ; and
ideas, 4 0 - 4 1; and Latin A m e r i­
can peasants, 18 7 - 19 0 ; and
M arx, 3 8 -4 2 , 1 7 0 - 17 4 , 208-
2 1 1 ; and mode of production,
1 6 2 - 1 7 4 ; and political econ­
omy, 4 9 - 5 4 ; and structuralism,
7, 8-9, 12 9 , 160; and theory,
1 7 0 - 17 4
Hobsbawm, Eric, 56
Holmes, Douglas, 1 9 1
Honduras, 10 1
Huancavelica, Peru, 1 9 1
Huasincancha, Peru, 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 ,
19 3 - 19 4 , 196 , 229
H u m a n Relations Area Files, 1 1 —
12
Humbo ldt, Alexander von, 94 -
95
idealists and cultural materialists,
2, 18 , 19 -2 0 , 26, 3 0 ,3 1, 160
import-substitution policies, 6 5 -
66, 73, 10 9 - 1 1 0 , 180, 1 8 5 —
186
Industrial Revolution, 5 5 - 5 6 ,
13 7 - 13 8
inscription, 25, 42, 4 5 - 4 9
Institute for Advanced Studies,
1 7 , 34
Inter-American Foundation, 1 1 3
internalization of the external, x,
14 , 8 3-8 4, 88-89
International Harvester, 102
Italy, 1 9 1
273
Jameson, Frederick, 232
Java, 1 7
Jesuits, 19 4
Joseph, Gilbert M ., 2 1 5
Juarez, Benito, 100
Kapitallogik formation, 170
Keesing, Roger, 22
K in g , Martin Luther, 4 5-4 6 , 4 7 -
48
Korsch, Karl, 170
labor market segmentation, 12 8 —
12 9 , 1 4 0 - 1 4 1 , 2 1 5 - 2 1 6
Laclau, Ernesto, 1 5 3 - 1 5 4 , 1 5 5
latifundia, 62
Latin A m e r ic a : Americanization
in, x, 8 0 - 1 2 1 ; and capitalism,
99, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 , 1 0 7 - 1 1 1 , 15 0 -
1 5 1 , 15 4 , 16 8 ; and caudillos,
1 1 1 - 1 1 2 ; Christianization in,
93— 94, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 ; coffee econo­
mies in, 58, 60-65, 70, 72, 89,
97, 1 0 1 , 10 3 - 10 4 , 16 2 - 16 8 ,
169, 190; colonialism in, 8 4 -
8 6 ,9 1- 9 6 , 12 7 , 16 4 ; and de­
pendency theory, 83-84, 14 9 -
1 5 1 , 1 5 5 ; and development,
10 1- 103, 1 0 7 - 1 1 1 , 14 9 - 15 0 ;
enclave economic sectors in,
10 2— 10 5, 109; and internaliza­
tion of the external, x, 14 , 8 3 -
84, 88— 89; liberalism in, 96-
97, 10 0 - 10 1, 10 4 - 10 7 ; m id ­
dle classes in, 1 1 3 - 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 ;
and migrants, 68-69; m in in g
in, 102, 103; missionaries in,
93-94, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 ; modes of
production in, 1 4 5 - 1 5 5 , 1 6 1 ,
1 6 4 - 1 6 5 ; and multinationals,
87, 9 0 - 9 1, 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 , 1 1 6 ; na-
274
Latin A m e r ic a (continued)
tion building in , 9 5 - 9 7 ; out­
ward expansion of, 9 7 - 10 7 ,
108; and petroleum, 58, 6 1 —
62, 6 4-6 7, 7 2 - 7 3 , 78, 83, 104,
16 8 ; politics in , 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 —
1 1 8 , 229— 2 3 1 ; railroads in,
1 0 1 - 1 0 2 ; and world history,
51
laws of motion, 16 9 - 17 0 , 19 2
Leach, E d m u n d , 5 0 - 5 1
Lears, Jackson, 48, 87— 88
Leavis, Frank R ., 58
L e n in , V . I., 1 7 7 , 1 8 1 - 1 8 2 ; and
commodity economy, 205—
206; Development of Capitalism
in Russia, 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 , 17 6 , 20 5-
206; and landed proletariat,
19 0 - 1 9 1
Leon, Adriano Gonzalez, 10 5
Lerdo de Tejada, Sebastiano, 100
Lesser, Alexander, 30
Levi-Strauss, Claude, 8, 20
Lewis, Oscar, 2, 4
liberation theology, 1 1 8 , 1 1 9 ,
19 4 - 19 6 , 2 3 0 - 2 3 1
lineage societies, 13 6 , 13 7
Lo m bardi, John, 60
Lomnitz, Larissa, 68
Lomnitz-Adler, Claudio, 4
Luddites, 198
Lukacs, Georg, 170
Lu xe m b ur g , Rosa, 205, 206
McCreery, D a v id , 98
M a in e , Henry, 202
Mandel, Ernst, 12 9
Manners, Robert, 14 6 — 14 7
Maracaibo, Venezuela, 60, 62,
67, 89, 104
Marcus, George, 2; and anthro­
IN D EX
pology, critiques of, 3 2 - 3 3 ; on
the essay and anthropology, x
Marinez, Pablo, 14 5
M arx, Karl, 5 1 , 203, 220, 224;
Capital, 39-40, 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 , 210 ,
2 1 2 ; on capitalism, 2 0 7 - 2 12 ,
2 1 5 — 2 16 , 239n; and commod­
ity labor power, 207-208; and
commodity production, 20 7-
208; and community, 2 10 -
2 1 1 ; and conquest, 16 7 ; and
consciousness, 3 9 -4 2 ; Contribu­
tion to the Critique of Political
Economy, 3 7 - 3 8 ; and cultural
materialism, 3 7 - 4 2 , 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 ;
and culture, 30 -54, 89; E ig h ­
teenth Brum aire, Th e , 4 0 - 4 1;
and evolutionism, 206-207;
“ Formen,” 209, 2 1 2 ; G erm an
Ideology, T h e , 38— 39, 40, 4 1 ,
44, 207; Grundrisse, 1 7 1 , 207,
2 1 2 ; and history, 38 -42, 17 0 —
17 4 , 2 0 8 - 2 11 ; and labor m ar­
ket segmentation, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 ;
and natural economy, 206-
2 1 2 ; and peasants, 1 7 7 , 17 8 ,
18 2 , 208-209, 2 1 2 ; and Eric
Wolf, 12 9 , 130, 1 3 2 - 1 3 3
materialism. See cultural materi­
alism
Mazulu, 14 3
Meiggs, Henry, 10 1
Meillassoux, Claude, 13 4 , 1 3 5 —
13 8 , 2 1 5
Melanesia, 5 1
M erida, Mexico, 2 13 , 2 14
Mesoamerica, 92
Mexico, 13 9 - 14 0 , 1 6 1 ; develop­
ment, 103; and liberalism, 96-
97, 100, 10 5; peasants, 1 7 5 —
17 6 , 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 , 18 8 - 19 0 ; rail-
 IND EX
roads in, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 ; revolution
and, 18 9 ; Spanish colonialism
in, 92, 93, 18 8 ; and U nited
States, 98, 99
Mintz, Sidney, 5, 3 3 - 3 5 , 53, 14 2 ,
14 7 , 19 5 , 2 14 , 2 1 5
modernization: and conscious­
ness, 5 6 - 5 7 , 58; and culture,
67, 69-70, 120 ; and Ven e z u ­
ela, 6 4 -6 7 ; and Eric Wolf, 129 ,
13 1- 14 4
modernization theories, 200-
2 0 1, 2 1 3 ; and tradition, 5 6 - 5 7
modes of production, 1 4 5 — 17 4 ;
and Althusser, 1 4 5 — 146 , 1 5 7 ,
170 ; ancient, ix , 2 10 ; and an­
thropology, 14 6 , 1 5 2 - 1 5 3 ,
1 5 5 ; and articulation, 1 5 8 —
160, 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 - 1 7 4 ; Asiatic, ix,
13 2 - 13 3 , 14 5 , 1 5 5 , 2 10 ; and
capitalism, 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 , 1 3 7 - 1 3 9 ,
14 0 - 14 4 , 1 5 3 - 1 5 4 , 1 6 4 - 1 6 5 ,
1 7 0 - 1 7 4 ; feudal, 1 3 2 - 1 3 4 ,
1 3 7 - 1 3 8 , 14 5 , 1 5 5 , 166, 204-
205; and history, 1 6 2 - 1 7 4 ;
kin-ordered, 1 3 1 — 13 2 , 1 3 4 -
13 7 ; and Latin A m er ica, 1 4 5 —
1 5 5 ; 1 6 1 , 1 6 4 - 1 6 5 ; and laws
of motion, 16 9 - 17 0 ; and
M arx, ix, 37, 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 , 1 5 3 -
15 4 , 1 5 5 - 1 7 4 ; and peasants,
1 7 5 - 1 7 6 , 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 , 1 8 3 ; and
precapitalist cultures, 14 5 ,
204, 2 19 - 2 2 0 ; and social for­
mation, 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 , 160, 1 6 1 ;
and state, 1 3 2 - 1 3 3 ; and struc­
turalists, 160— 1 6 1 ; tributary,
12 7 , 1 3 1 - 1 3 4 , 13 5 , 13 8 , 14 5
Monroe Doctrine, 99
Moore, Barrington, 223
moral economy, 5 5 - 5 8 , 7 5 - 7 6 ,
275
200, 2 18 ; and peasants, 5 5 -
56, 63-64, 7 5 - 7 6 , 78 -7 9
Morelos, Mexico, 18 8 - 18 9
Morgan, Lewis Henry, 202, 206
multinationals, 70, 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 ; and
Americanization, 87, 9 0 -9 1,
1 1 0 - 1 1 1 ; and Latin A m erica,
87, 9 0 - 9 1, 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 , 1 1 6 ; and
state, 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 ; and Ven ezu­
ela, 67, 73
Muratorio, Blanca, 1 1 9 , 228
Narodniks, 1 7 6 - 1 7 7
Nash, June, 2 2 1
nationalism, 3 3 -3 4 , 53, 226
natural economy, 19 7 - 2 3 2 ; and
M arx, 2 0 6 - 2 12
neopopulists, 1 7 6 - 1 7 7
Neruda, Pablo, 105
Newfoundland fisheries, 35
Nicaragua, 97, 99, 106, 109, 230,
231
North Am er ican fur trade, 1 1 ,
12 7 - 12 8 , 1 3 1
North A m er ican Gospel Mission­
ary Un io n , 1 1 9
Nuer, 56
Nugent, D a v id , 5 1
Oaxaca, Mexico, 18 8 - 18 9
O ’Brien, Jay, 14 2
Ojibwa, 1 1
oppositional ideas in anthropol­
ogy, 2 - 3 , 3 0 - 3 1, 2 13
o rden, 19 4 - 19 5
Organization of Petroleum E x ­
porting Countries (o p e c ), 64,
73
Ortner, Sherry, 10, 13 , 5 2 - 5 3 ,
14 2 , 16 4
276
Pais Portdtil (Leon), 10 5
Palacios, Marcos, 97
Panam a, 99, 106
peasants, 12 6 ; and capitalism,
17 8 ; and M arx, 1 7 7 , 17 8 , 18 2 ,
208-209, 2 1 2 ; in Mexico,
1 7 5 - 1 7 6 , 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 , 18 8 - 19 0 ;
and modes of production,
14 5 - 15 5 , 17 5 - 17 6 , 17 7 - 17 8 ,
18 2 , 1 8 3 - 18 4 , 18 6 - 19 6 ; and
moral economy, 5 5 - 5 6 , 63-64,
7 5 - 7 6 , 7 8 - 7 9 ; and natural
economy, 2 0 1, 204-205, 208-
209, 2 1 2 , 2 18 - 2 2 2 ; and poli­
tics, 1 9 2 - 1 9 5 , 2 1 7 - 2 1 8 , 2 2 1 —
222; and precapitalist cultures,
63- 64, 204-205, 2 18 - 2 2 3 ;
Russian studies of, 1 7 6 - 1 7 8 ,
1 8 1 - 1 8 2 ; in Venezuela, 5 8 -
7 9 ,19 5 - 19 6
peripheral capitalism, 18 2 - 18 3 ,
18 4
Perlman, Janice, 68
Peru, 93, 1 6 1 , 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 , 229
petroleum industry, 58, 6 1- 6 2 ,
64- 67, 7 2 - 7 3 , 78, 83, 104
physiocrats, 202
plantation societies, 18 2 ; and
sugar economy, 3 4 - 3 5 , 94
political economy: and anthropol­
ogy, 3, 1 4 - 1 5 ; and history, 4 9 -
54; and inequality of wealth
and power, 44, 46, 48
politics: and culture, 2 7 ; and
disarticulated accumulation,
1 9 2 - 1 9 3 ; and Latin Am erica,
111- 113 , 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 , 2 2 9 - 2 3 1;
and peasants, 1 9 2 - 1 9 5 , 2 1 7 —
2 18 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 ; in Venezuela,
67, 7 1 - 7 5 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 100, 10 1,
10 5 - 10 6 , 2 2 5 - 2 2 6
IND EX
Polynesia, 9
Popkin, Samuel, 55
populists, 12 6
Portugal, 89, 92
positivism, 6, 8, 18
Potosi mines, 93
Poulantzas, Nicos, 15 9 , 160, 22 5
power; and culture, 8 7-8 8 ; and
history, 8 5 -8 7, 12 5
praxis and culture, 8
Prebisch, Raul, 14 9
precapitalist cultures, 5 5 - 5 6 , 90;
and modes of production, 14 5 ,
204, 2 1 9 — 220; and peasants,
63-64, 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 ,2 18 - 2 2 3 ;
and underproduction, 1 4 2 —
14 3
print capitalism, 33
“ Project Democracy,” 87, 1 1 3
proletariat, 1 8 1 ; and moral econ­
omy, 202; and precapitalist tra­
dition, 198-200; in Venezuela,
5 8 -7 9
Puerto Rico, 98, 99, 104, 12 6 ;
co m m un ity studies, 1 4 7 - 1 4 8 ;
and United States, 106
Q uintana Roo, Mexico, 2 1 4
Rangel, Domingo Alberto, 59,
6 0 ,6 1
Rebel, H e r m a n n , 2 7 - 2 8 , 35, 1 4 1
Redfield, Robert, 2, 4, 148 , 2 13
regional studies, 15 2 ; and class,
16 8 - 16 9 , 1 7 3 - 1 7 4
republica de indios, 93
Rey, Pierre-Philippe, 136 , 160,
16 3 - 16 4 , 166
Ribeiro, Darcy, 66-67, 8 0 -8 1,
82, 120
Roosevelt, Theodore, 98, 99
 IN D E X
Roseberry, W il lia m , 59, 60, 6 1,
1 0 1 , 14 2 , 14 7 , 15 6 , 168, 169
Rud e, George, 56
ruling class and consciousness,
4 4 - 4 5 , 47
Sahlins, Marshall, 2 - 3 , 13 , 3 1 ,
38, 43, 2 3 8 -2 3 9 n ; on culture
and history, 7 — 1 1 ; Culture and
Practical Reason, 7 — 8; Historical
Metaphors and M ythical Realities,
9 - 10 ; Islands of History, x, 8 -9 ;
Stone Ag e Economics, 1 4 2 - 1 4 3
Sandinistas, 2 3 1
Sao, Paulo, 103
science versus history, 18 , 36
Scott, James, 5 5 , 56, 1 4 1 , 2 18
Scudder, Thayer, 14 3
semiotics, 2
seniors and juniors, 13 5 , 13 6
Sewell, W illiam , 33, 34, 36, 139 ,
229
Shanin, Teodor, 1 7 7 , 17 8
Sider, Gerald, 33, 35, 36
Silk, M ark, 5
Silverman, Sydel, 14 6 , 14 8
slave trade, 1 1 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 13 7 ,
164
S m ith , Carol A ., 1 5 2
S m ith, G a vin , 1 9 1 — 19 2 , 19 3 — 19 4
social formation, 15 2 , 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 ,
160, 1 6 1
Sombart, Werner, 19 7 , 204, 2 3 1
Southerners, cultural experience
of, 4 2 - 4 3 , 48 -4 9
Spain and Latin A m e r ic a , 89,
92-96, 12 6
Spanish-American War, 98
S S R C S u m m e r Sem inar in Accul­
turation, 84, 85
Standard Oil Corporation, 65
277
state formation, 2 2 4 - 2 2 8 ; in
Bali, 23; and culture, 2 2 4 -
228; and lineage societies, 13 7
Steward, Julian, 18 , 14 2 , 146,
14 7
Stolypin Reforms, 17 6
Strickon, Arnold, 2 14
structural M arxis m , 1 5 7
structuralism: and history, 7, 8 -
9, 12 9 , 160; and mode of pro­
duction, 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 ; and texts,
20
structure of the conjuncture, 43
Sudras, 24
sugar, 94, 104; economic im pact
of, 3 4 - 3 5 ; and M exican peas­
ants, 18 8 - 18 9
surplus value, 1 7 1 - 1 7 3
Sweezy, Paul, 1 3 7 - 1 3 8
symbolic anthropology, 3 2 - 3 7
systems theory M arxism , 50 -52
Taussig, Michael, 2 1 8 - 2 2 1 , 239n
Taylor, Paul, 2 7 - 2 8
Tepoztkin festival, 1 - 2 , 3 - 4
Terray, E m m a n u el, 13 6
textile industry, 12 8
texts, cultural products as, 20,
22, 2 3 - 2 5 , 28 -29
Tho m ps o n, Denys, 58
Tho m ps o n, E . P., 55, 56,' 139,
146 , 229; and history, 17 0 —
17 2 , 2 1 7 ; and precapitalist val­
ues, 198-200, 201
Toennies, Ferdinand, 203
Tokei, Ferenc, 2 10
trade networks, 12 8
trade organizations, 34
tributary relationships, 1 3 1 - 1 3 4 ,
13 5 , 13 8 , 14 5
Tusik, Mexico, 2 13 , 2 14
278
underdevelopment, 150
underproduction, 1 4 2 - 1 4 3
uneven development. See devel­
opment, uneven
uneven proletarianization, 2 1 5 —
2 17 , 2 23 -225
Un ited Fruit, 1 0 1 , 104
Uruguay, 103
use-value, 2 18 - 2 2 2 , 239n
Venezuela, 96, 103, 109, 1 6 1 ;
agrarian reform in, 73, 7 7 ; cof­
fee economy in , 58, 60-65, 70,
72, 89, 97, 1 0 1 , 103, 16 2 - 16 8 ,
169, 190; colonialism in , 94;
development in , 7 4 - 7 5 , 7 6 -
78; folk music in, 7 0 - 7 1 ; m id ­
dle class in , 6 5-6 6 ; peasants
in , 5 8 - 7 9 , 1 9 5 - 1 9 6 ; petro­
leum industry in , 58, 6 1 — 62,
6 4-6 7, 7 2 - 7 3 , 78, 83, 104;
politics in , x, 67, 7 1 - 7 5 , 7 6 -
7 7 ,7 8 , 100, 1 0 1 , 10 5 - 10 6 ,
2 2 5 - 2 2 6 ; proletariat in , 5 8 -
79; Puerto-Ricanization of,
66-67, 8 0 - 8 1, 8 2 -8 3 ; urban­
ization in 6 7 - 7 1
Vin cen t, Joan, 5
voluntarism, 160, 170 , 17 3
wage-good production, 18 6, 1 9 1
Wallerstein, Im m an u e l, 1 2 , 12 6 ,
12 7 , 12 9 - 13 0 , 14 9 , 15 3 , 15 4 ,
16 2
W ar of the Pacific, 19 3
W a r m a n , Arturo, 17 6 , 17 8
Wasserstrom, Robert, 12 9 , 13 9 -
MO
IND EX
Weber, M a x , 8, 13 , 203; and Clif­
ford Geertz, 10, 13 , 18 , 2 1
West Africa, 1 3 5 - 1 3 7 , 16 4
W h it e , Leslie, 18 , 30
Williams, Raym o n d, x, 223, 228;
Country and the City, T h e , x v i,
2 6 - 2 7 , 57, 5 8 - 5 9 , 19 7 ; and
cultural dominance, 45, 7 5 -
76, 88; and cultural material­
ism, 26— 27; and moral econ­
omy, 5 7 - 5 8 ; M a r x is m and Litera­
ture, 7 5 — 76
Wolf, Eric, 3, 50 ,9 5, 1 5 6 , 2 1 5 ;
Europe and the People Without H is ­
tory, 12 5 , 12 6 ; and evolution­
ism, 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 ; on history and
anthropology, 1 1 - 1 3 , 1 2 4 -
14 4 ; and Latin A m er ic a n peas­
ants, 18 7 ; and M arx, 12 9 , 130,
1 3 2 — 13 3 ; and modes of pro­
duction, 12 9 , 1 3 1 - 1 4 4 ; Peasant
Wars of the Twentieth Century,
1 4 0 - 1 4 1 , 14 8 ; Peasants, 14 8 ;
and politics, 1 3 9 - 1 4 4 ; and
world history, ix-x, 5 1 - 5 2 , 12 5
Woodward, Ralph Lee, Jr., 98,
101
working class, 1 7 2 - 1 7 3 ; and con­
sciousness, 46, 234n; roman-
ticization of, 46
world history, 5 1 - 5 3 , 1 2 8 - 12 9 ;
and colonialism, 5 1
world-system theory, 12 , 12 6 —
12 7 , 130, 13 7 , 1 5 1 ; and capital­
ism, 16 2 , 16 5
W right, Erik, 15 8
Yucatan, Mexico, 18 8 - 18 9 , 2 1 3 -
2 15
 “E le g a n tl y w r itte n e s s a y s . . . Ro s eberry is the real g e m , a n anthropologist

w it h e x t e n s iv e L a t in A m e r ic a n field e x p e r ie n c e a n d a n im p r e s s iv e scholarly

grasp of the histories of anthropology and M a rxis t theory.”— M ic a e l a di

Leo nardo , T h e Natio n

“A n e x t r e m e l y s t im u l a t in g v o l u m e . . . rich a n d p r o vo c a tive , a n d codifies a

n e w departure p o in t .”— C h o ic e

“A s a critic . . . Ro seberry w rites w it h s u s t a in e d force a n d clarity. . . . h is

p r in c ip a l points e m e r g e w ith a directness that will m a k e this book attractive to

a w id e r a n g e of r ead ers .”— A m e r ic a n Anthropologist

"R o s eb err y is a m o n g the m o s t astute, careful, a n d theoretically c o g en t of the

anthropologists of h is generatio n. . . . [ T h is book] illustrates well the b r e a d th

a n d c o h e r e n c e of h is th in k in g a n d g u id e s readers through the c o m p l ic a t e d

intersections of anthropology w ith history, political e c o n o m y , M a r x is m , and

L a tin A m e r ic a n s t u d ie s ."— J a n e S c h n e id e r , C U N Y

In Anthropologies a n d Histories, W il lia m Ro seberry explores s o m e of th e cultural

a n d political im plicatio ns of an anthropological political e c o n o m y . In his vie w , too

few of thes e im plicatio ns h a v e b e e n explored, b y authors w h o d is m is s th e very

possibility of a political e c o n o m ic unders tanding of culture. W it h in political e c o n ­

o m y, readers are offered sophisticated treatments of u n e v e n d e ve l o p m e n t, but

w h e n authors turn to culture a n d politics, they place contradictory social e x p e r i­

e n c e s w it h in simplistic class or epochal labels. W it h in cultural anthropology,

history is often little m o re th an n e w terrain for e x te n d in g anthropological practice.

Ro seberry places culture a n d history in relation to e a c h other, in the context of

a reflection on the political e c o n o m y of u n e v e n d e v e l o p m e n t. In th e first half of this

book, h e looks at a n d critiques a variety of anthropological understandings of

culture, arguing for an a p p r o a c h that sees culture as socially constituted a n d

socially constitutive. B e g in n in g w ith a c o m m e n t a r y on Clifford G e e r t z ’s s em inal

essay on the Balines e cockfight, Ro seberry argues that G eertz a n d his followers

pay insufficient attention to cultural differentiation, to social a n d political in ­

equalities that affect actors' different understandings of th e world, other people,

a n d of them selves .

Sufficient attention to s uc h questions, Ro seberry argues, requires a concern

for political e c o n o m y . In th e seco nd half of th e book, Ro seberry explores the

as s um ptio ns a n d practices of political e c o n o m y , ind icates th e kinds of problems

that should b e central to s uc h an a p p r o a c h , a n d reviews s o m e of th e in a d e ­

q uacie s of anthropological studies.

W il l ia m Ro seberry is a professor of anthropology at the New School for

Social R e s e a r c h .

ISBN 0 - 8 135-144 1,-0

90000

9 780813 51 4468
C o ve r de s ig n b y John R o m e r