Chapter 12 Sociocultural Factors in Multiple Cropping
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 12 Sociocultural Factors in Multiple Cropping Stillinan Bradfield A computer-assisted library search on "sociocultural factors in multiple cropping" produces no results. Even changing "multiple cropping" to "cropping systems" doesn't improve the yield. Yet, in fact, there is a large ameunt of literature in the social sciences having to do with sociocultural factors in multiple cropping. In anthropology, one can find ethnographies of societies all over the world that are engaged in multiple cropping. Some of the most interesting include studies by Cameiro (1961), Conklin (1957), and Rappapoit (198) on slash-and-bum horticulture in the tropics. One of the advantages of reading ethnugraphies of peoples in an area of interest to agricultural researchers is they not only provide descriptions of the farming systems, but attempt to provide a functional analysis of different aspects of the system. Usually, the ethnographer tries farmer's to get the point of view as to why he or she makes certain decisions. There is another large body of literature in the behavioral scitnces with peasant cultures that deals in many parts of the world. Peasants are usually considered to be a differert population from slash-and-bum horticulhuralists, in that peasants by definition ate part of a larger state and produce a surplus for market and are subject to taxation by outsiders. While sociologists and anthropologists have predominated in their descriptions of peasant societies, others such as the polit;cal scientist Banfield (1958) have also provided valuable descriptions of peasant 267 268 MULTIPLE CROPPING SYSTEMS SOCIOCULTURAL FACTORS IN MULTIPLE CROPPING 269 6ocietv. The relatively small number of behavioral scientists working in this area successful and consistent collaboration in this century has led them between social scientists and agricultural to spread out to many different areas of the world scientists in order has been at the International Potato Center (CIP) in Peru, where Horton to record indigenous cultures before they have been radically altered by (1984) has recently summarized the impact of the social sciences on contact with the rest of the agricultural world. One unfortunate side effect of this tendency research. is that we do not have many cases where we have either continuous observation In addition to reports and recording published at the various centers where multiple crop or repeated revisits to the same village. Exceptions to this rule ping research is going on, reports by social scientists can also are Foster's (1967) work in Tzintzuntzan in Mexico, be found in some and Robert Redfield (1930) of the newerjournals and and his student Oscar L.ewis newletters, suth as CultureandAgriculture, published (1960) who studied Tepoztlan in Mexico some years by the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona, and apart and provided very different interpretations of the village, a new journal. MountainResearchand Development. One of the key differences Topics of special interest to social between behavioral sciences and physical sci- scientists ences are now being collected into edited volumes such as that by lies in the inability of br-havioral scientists to keep any type of controlled Barlett (1980) on agricultural decision making. Other volumes such as those experiments with people going over a considerable period of time. Therefore, by Whyte and Boynton (1983), Wagley (1974), and Moran (1981) pull tog,.ther we will never be able to produce a social science equivalent of the the work Rothamsted of both social scientists and agricultural scientists Experimental Station (1981) experiments working on the same project in England where, every year since or in !he same area. 1843. Similarly. there are a number of detailed accounts of some wheat (Triticun sp.) has been sewn and harvested on all or part of the of the better-Lnown development programs such as Comilla, the Puebla same field. Their continuous evaluation of organic Project, vs. inorganic fertilization and and the Caqueza Project. other treatments simply has no parallel in social science. Perhaps the most important pioneer work in multiple cropping where we have good descriptive BACKGROUND OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN SOCIAL accounts as well as photographs is that contained in F. H. King. Fernersof I AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS Fort" Centuries (1911). King toured China, Manchuria, Korea. and Japan in I 1908 and recorded his observations on multiple cropping at that time. Apparently, I There appear to be two main forces responsible for this book is ancestrai to all modern multiple cropping the ilcorporation of social research. It would be scientists into agricultural development fascinating if a team since the 1970s. The first of these is the consisting of an agronomist and a social scientist were to i Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, variously known as "New Directions" retrace King's journey and bring his descriptions up to or date. "Congressional Mandate." whi'ch Most of the early collaboration requires the Agency for International Devel between behavioral scientists and agricul- opment (AID) to "conduct its programs as if poor people mattered." to paraphrase turalists was achieved through the extension services of various countries. Since E. F. Schumaker (Steinburg, 1980-1981). the extension services were focused mainly AID is now required to consider on monocrop agriculture, there was the effects of little its programs on the lives of the people in the affected area. if anv impact of this collaboration on multiple cropping work. After World Social analyses are required of every project, and social science War II. there was a considerable movement to integrate both cropping participation research in the Country Development Strategy Statement and the work of social scientists interested in cultural and Project Evaluation is change through what was also built in. Apparently, by then called the community law, social scientists will have to be involved from development programs, particularly in the 1950s and the earliest planning stages of a project night through to evaluation. In 1960s. Systematic research in multiple cropping was started at the International the past, social scientists were frequently brought in to do a Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the 1960s and has subsequently postmortem after spread to some everything had gone wrong with ot the other international center a project,. or at best to help write the final such as Centro Agron6mico Tropical de In- reports and recommendations that had already been decided by specialists in vestigacidn N Ensefianza (CATIE) and some of those in the Consultative Group biological sciences. in International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network. By the 1970s, some The second main thrust has been a Rockefeller national research orgarizations such as ICTA Foundation postdoctoral in Guatemala had also moved in research program in this direction. agricultural and rural development for the social sciences. also started in 1974. After completing their Once multiple cropping program, some of these fellows have research was moved from the experiment stations accepted employment at the CGIAR centers but few, if any, are in core to farmers' fields, social scientists began to be incorporated staff into the research I positions which are permanently funded. process. In sonic places, this emphasis has been dropped. and in others has been expanded a a result of the successful collaboration betw een social scientists and DIFFICULTIES OF COLLABORATION agricultural scientists BETWEEN SOCIAL in these teams. For exampie. Hiidebrand's (1978) work at AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES ICTA in Guatemala yielded a :,.irber of novel approaches to research with farmers. inluding the sondeo. ajoint reconnaissance survey carried out by teams At first blush, it would appear consisting of one agricultural that all sciences shoutd be able to collaborate scientist and one social scientist. Perhaps the most easily with one another since they are all concerned with the same two basic INMULTIPLE CROPPING 271 270 MULTIPLE CROPPING SYSTEMS SOCIOCULTURAL FACTORS sorts of questions. The first of these could be called static analysis, having to have a much wider and less specific area of focus, and are inclined to see more do with issues of structure and function. That is, all sciences are concerned with problems than other members of the team really want to hear about. Moreover, explaining the relationship between different parts of a system, and all are the most intractible of these problems frequently are in the areas of social in concerned with cxplaining how any given part contributes to the maintenance stitutions, where a research team has little or no influence. Quantitatively oriented of the system. The second question has to do with dynamic analysis, or how scientists are particularly frustrated when many of the most serious problems systems or phenomena change over time. However, in the real world multidis- prove difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in terms of their existing models ciplinary research teams have a great deal of trouble starting with the most basic pgpproceduresor computer find programs. Scientists used to having tight control over experimental problem of defining it difficult to deal with all of the factors that affect a farmer's the role and purpose of the team. decisions with respect to technology. Similarly, the considerations a farmer has en such apparently simple goals as increasing productivity can have many to keep in mind with respect to all of his or her various crops and animals are Cs osteta-ws oices routvt e nto ad hsi far more numerous than the considerations occupying the mind of a usually readily attainable by lavishing more labor on small plots of land. Although a y s t who i s ccuping o n of avaiaemaize (Zeata economists may argue that it pays to increase the amount of labor until the mays L.) specialist who is accustomed to thinking only of the variables that marginal product falls to zero, most people don't want to earn zero wages for affect the physical production of one crop of interest.