A Test of the Concept of Backwardness: a Case Study Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A TEST OF THE CONCEPT OF BACKWARDNESS: A CASE STUDY OF DIGO SOCIETY IN KENYA A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Cynthia Gillette January 1978 A TEST OF THE CONCEPT OF BACKWARDNESS: A CASE STUDY OF DIGO SOCIETY IN KENYA Cynthia Gillette, Ph.D. Cornell University 1978 The concept of backwardness is explored in both its theoreti cal dimensions and its empirical applications to Digo society in Kenya. As an idea, backwardness is shown to be associated with the historical development of Western notions of progress and change which have produced a dichotomy between tradition and modernity. As a condition, backwardness is identified in a number of theoreti cal models which variously locate the sources of backwardness in history, natural laws, and tradition. It is shown that there is a predominant tendency to link tradition and backwardness with resistance to change in these models. In separate chapters, the role of history and tradition are explored as potential explanations for the image of Digo backward ness followed by an analysis of the Digo economy and a discussion of Kenya's rural development policies as expressed in the Swynner- * ton Plan and the Special Rural Development Program. It is argued that the role of history lies in the structure and quality of inter group relations as much as in culture contact, diffusion and exter nal events. The role of tradition, discussed in terms of Digo cultural values and attitudes as well as structural features that channel access to resources, is seen as ambiguous with respect to development. It is also argued that tradition is not simply homo geneous, consistent and changeless. Analysis of the econorny shows that subsistence agriculture is only a limited segment of economic activity and that the Digo econo my is already quite cortmercialized. A comparison of Digo and Kamba investments in farming indicates that reputedly more progressive Kamba settlers are converging toward Digo patterns of production, which would seem to show that Digo patterns are constrained by local conditions rather than backwardness per se. In analyzing the "modern sector," the Swynnerton Plan is viewed as a program of the colonial government designed to introduce Euro pean farming practices by instituting structural changes in man-land relationships. After independence the Special Rural Development Program was devised in an attempt to achieve an innovative approach to rural development. However, it is argued that the SRDP has re mained consistent vfith the Swynnerton Plan in many important respects. _ J Rigidities and obstacles to development are thus seen as being located in the "modern" as well as the "traditional" sector. The principal conclusions of the study are that the idea of backwardness has become encrusted with Western ethnocentrism, with stereotypic and inaccurate images of traditional societies, and with an obstacle approach to tradition which automatically links backward ness with resistance to change. It is argued that such encrustations prevent sound conceptualizations of small-scale societies, obscuring the real issues involved in modernization. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH CYNTHIA GILLETTE is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Texas A & M University. She received her B.A. in anthropology at UCLA in 1965, her M.A. in anthropology at Washington University (St. Louis) in 1970, and her Ph.D. in anthropology at Cornell University in 1978. During the summer of 1969 she conducted research in Ecuador for her Master's Thesis, PROBLEMS OF COLONI ZATION IN THE ECUADORIAN ORIENTE. From August 1974 through August 1975, she conducted research in Kenya for her Ph.D. dissertation, A TEST OF THE CONCEPT OF BACKWARDNESS: A Study of Pi go Society in Kenya. She has also co-authored a monograph with Norman Uphoff, SMALL FARMER CREDIT: Cultural and Social Factors Affecting Small Farmer Participation in Formal Credit Programs published as Occasional Paper No. 3 by the Rural Develop ment Committee at Cornell University. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The fieldwork on which this study is based was funded by a National Institute of Health Traineeship and by a grant from the Center for International Studies at Cornell University. I am endebted to the Department of Sociology at the Univer sity of Nairobi for helpful support during my stay in Kenya, but particularly to Dr. Philip Mbithi and Dr. 0. Okoth-Ogendo who offer ed much personal advice and encouragement. Without Dr. Mbithi's gracious and persistent aid, I should never have been able to wend my way through the necessary procedures for conducting research in « the first place. I am grateful to Sub-Chief Salim Suleiman Ngareh for his kind assistance in getting me settled into the village of Kikoneni and my deepest gratitude goes to my assistant, Jumaa Swalehe Suya, for his diligent and conscientious work. To all the professors and students who helped me at various stages, I also extend my gratitude. Special thanks go to Professors Milton Barnett, Norman Uphoff, and A. Thomas Kirsch for their thoughtful comments and criticisms, but I am also endebted to Professors Davydd Greenwood and R. Brooke Thomas for early guidance and support. Finally, I wish to express my very great appreciation to the people of Kikoneni for their warm hospitality and patience in answering my numerous and sundry questions; especially those fami lies who spent so much time providing me with daily records. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Biographical Sketch ....................................... ii Acknowledgements .......................................... iii Table of Contents............................................ iv List of T a b l e s .............................................. vi List of Illustrations...................................... viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 Choice of Field Site and Research Questions . 3 Methodology ..................................... 6 II. THE PROBLEM OF BA CK WA RD NE SS..........................12 Backwardness as an I d e a ............................13 Backwardness as a C o n d i t i o n ....................... 23 Some Critical Assessments ....................... 48 III. THE SETTING AND THE PE O P L E ............................ 55 V The En vi r o n m e n t ............................. .. 55 ^ The Wadi go .......................................... 66 « IV. THE ROLE OF H I S T O R Y .................................. 77 Early Development of the Indian Ocean Trade . 77 The Rise of Zanzibar............................... 81 The Slave T r a d e ....................................85 European Colonization ........................... 88 iv Page The Role of Foreign Influences .............. 96 The Digo Place in History ................... 102 ^ V. 1HE ROLE OF TRADITION ......................... 107 v — Cultural Attitudes and Values- ............... 108 ^-Social Organization and Access to Resources . 122 ^VI^ THE E C O N O M Y ................................... 150 The Local Economy ........................... 152 Investment in Farming ....................... 175 VII. THE MODERN SECTOR ............................. 185 Land and Development Policy in Kenya ........ 187 The Special Rural Development Program . 202 Continuities in Policy ....................... 224 VIII. CONCLUSION ..................................... 231 APPENDIX A: Climatic Data ........................... 240 APPENDIX B: Soil Analysis ........................... 241 APPENDIX C: Land Tenure ............................. 242 APPENDIX D: Digo Agriculture ......................... 259 References Cited ..................................... 299 V LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Rainfall in Kikoneni, 1971-1974 ................... 58 2. Rainfall Variability in Kikoneni, 1971-1974 .... 59 3. Rainfall at Two Sites in Kikoneni: Microclimatic Va ri a b i l i t y ..................... 61 4. Agricultural Potential of Makin's Soil Types . 63 5. Comparison of Makin's and Digo Soil Categories . 64 6. Access to L a n d ...................................... 125 7. Daily Activities ................................. 154 8. Sources of Non-Farm Incomes ....................... 158 9. Business versus Farm Investment ................... 161 10. Net Returns to Farming and Business................. 162 11. Consumption Expenditures ......................... 168 12. Consumption Expenditures Itemized ................. 169 13. Farm Investment: Non-Labor Cash Inputs .......... 176 14. Farm Investment: Hired Labor Inputs ............ 178 15. Farm Investment: Planting Trees ................. 179 16. Projected Number of Trees ......................... 183 17. Allocation of Labor to Non-SRDP Crops ............ 221 18. Access to Land (same as Table 6 ) ................... 245 19. Ali's Wives and C h i l d r e n ............................255 20. Ratios of Owned to Cultivated Land A r e a s ...........264 21. Income Available for Farm I n p u t s ................... 266 22. Percent of Acreage Devoted to Subsistence and Cash C r o p s ........................................ 267 Page 23. Hired Labor Inputs ................................. 269 24. Potential Work D a y s ..................................271 25. Average Farm Labor I n p u t s ........................... 272 26. Distribution of Family Labor by Cr o p .................. 275 27. Hired Labor Activities by C r o p ....................... 277 28. Hired Labor Activities by Operation .............. 277 29. Hired Labor by Crop as Percentage