ThirdWorld Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 89± 108, 1996 TheTanzanian peasant and Ujamaa: a studyin contradictions NANCYSPALDING Tanzania,more than most countries, has beenshaped by the vision of oneman, thecountry’ s ®rst President,Julius Nyerere. He is reveredand respected there andabroad for his intelligence, his integrity and his devotion to his people. He was unusualamong African leaders, and personal respect has persistedsince he leftof® ce. However, Tanzania has madelittle economic progress since indepen- dence,many of Nyerere’ s policieswere failures, and the country is still desperatelypoor, despite high levels of aid.It has beensuggested that `never was therea morenoble social experiment, and never was therea moremiserable failure.’ 1 Nyerere’s programmestemmed from his speci® c visionof what Tanzaniacould and should become, which was basedin part on his perception ofthenature of pre-colonialTanzanian society. Did his vision re¯ ect Tanzanian societyand historical reality? What was thepolitical culture of Tanzania, and howdid it ® twithNyerere’ s policyagenda? How much can or should political agendasand rhetoric be measured against historical reality? I willuse culture theory,as developedby Mary Douglas, 2 toaddress thesequestions. While Tanzania’s failurehas beenanalysed extensively, culture theory provides a new wayof seeing the data which can add to an understanding of the cultural bases ofpoliciesand of policy failures. Cultural analysis suggests that, while ways of lifevaried, many Tanzanian communities were quite individualist, relatively unconstrainedby prescriptions,and equality of conditionseems tohavebeen the resultof the limits imposed by technology, environment and the vagaries of subsistenceagriculture rather than a philosophicalpreference. The social formsof pre-colonial Tanzania Tanzaniais ethnicallyvaried and fractionalised, without dominant groups. Little canbe said in an overarching manner concerning the pre-colonial social and politicalforms inthe area whichcomprises present day Tanzania, except that therehas beenlittle tradition of centralised rule or authority, even in the more hierarchicalsystems. 3 Overall,the economy was predominantlysubsistence, with widevariation in rainfall and land productivity. The family was theprimary focusof loyaltyand economic activity. 4 Socialforms variedwidely, as didlocal geographicaland climatic conditions. Even the more hierarchical societies (egWahaya and Wachagga) had numerous cross-cutting cleavages, reducing leaders’ability to command obedience. NancySpalding is attheDepartment of Political Science, EastCarolina University, Greenville NC27858,USA 0143-6597/96/010089-20$6.00 1996Third World Quarterly 89 NANCY SPALDING MaterialContext Thesubsistence economy was basedon rain-fed agriculture, characterised by smallscale productionusing family labour and rudimentary technologyÐ which was simple,including hoes and digging sticksÐ with no draft animals. 5 Erratic rainfalland the possibility of famine led to a varietyof adaptations, based on localconditions, and different crops would be grown to ensure that some crops wouldsurvive in case therains failed. In addition to subsistence agriculture, therewere crafts (oftenwith regional specialties), providing a basis foreconomic specialisationand regional trade. Pastoral peoples who ranged across the territoryadded to theeconomic and cultural variety. Tanzanian peoples were not isolated,or in a stateof tribal war; especiallyin the well watered eastern highlands,there were lively exchanges between contrasting environments and cultures,and antagonism coexisted with lively exchanges of goods.The Swahili languageand culture also facilitated exchange. The language began as acoastal languageand became a linguafranca, lowering barriers to travel, interaction and trade,and eventually facilitating nationalist organisation. 6 Thevarieties of pre-colonial political organisation ranged from complete statelessness tochiefdoms. Tanzania was acolonisingsociety. 7 Untilrecently, landhad been freely available for the effort of clearing it. Groups and individualscould independently begin or join new communities, suggesting limitedcontrol over members, or a viable`exit’ option. In these colonising efforts,survival depended on individual effort as wellas cooperation. 8 Theeast consistedof well-watered, fertile, cool, densely populated highlands alternatingwith dryer, warmer lowlands. These communities had minimal tribal orethnic identity, in part because of the dynamic interactions, movements and colonisingactivities; people identi® ed themselves with their geographical loca- tion(eg from the hills, or thelowlands) rather than with any ethnic group. 9 There werehighly articulated political systems, fairlywell organised to resist incur- sionsfrom the plains. Varying authority systems facilitatedinteractions and arbitrateddisputes among the mix of peoples with different customs. Thewest was amoreundifferentiated plateau, with low population density andsmall political units. Chiefs were often ritual, with minimal executive or judicialpower, 10 powerbeing vested in councils. However, there was avariety ofsocial forms, including states suchas theFipa. 11 The19th century brought with it tremendous economic and social shocks, whichaccelerated social and economic change. The major changes were the rise ofcommercebetween the coast and the interior, the invasions of theNgoni from southernAfrica, and the shift from traditional, religious or ritual bases to militarybases forrule. 12 Intensesocial disruption, dynamic economic changes andgreater attempts to centralise governments resulted. Materialistexplanations spring easily from the preceding discussion; peculiar- itiesof geography, the requirements of rain-fed subsistence agriculture, dif- fusion,or migration patterns might have created a needfor certain social forms. 13 Theseexplanations are logicaland certainly important, but inadequate. If we coulddemonstrate that each rain-fed subsistence agriculture system developed similarsocial structures, then an agriculturally or climatedetermined explanation 90 TANZANIAN PEASANT AND UJAMAA wouldbe suf® cient.That is clearlynot the case. Eventhe migration does not explainvaried social forms, except insofar as theoriginal migrants who popu- latedeastern Africa brought with them their own social forms. 14 Once the broadermigrations had ended, migration and colonisation were choices made withinspeci® c waysof life and social structures. While shifting cultivation and poorsoils led to migration,they did not require it; migration was asocialchoice, nota necessityof the environment, or inevitable because of marginal land. Thoughthese material in¯ uences or variables were important, I arguethat theyinteracted with cultural factors, and that cultural factors are fundamental determinantsof the varied forms thatsocieties take, even within similar environments.These cultural factors are thefocus of this study. Culture theory Culturetheory suggests that preferences (eg for policies, goals) are consistent, andstem froma wayof life which is acongruentcombination of social relationshipswith the values which reinforce, reproduce and explain those relationships. 15 Acoherentway of life requires that the people’ s beliefsystem andsocial relations support each other, so awayof lifeis morallycoherent and internallyconsistent, with a world-viewwhich outlines morality, the good life, andthe good society. `These distinctive ways of life have systematic frames of referencefor interpreting similar facts andmoral issues indifferent ways,’ 16 so themeaning of behaviours, values and events will vary across cultures,as will perceptionof problems, risks andthreats. Adherents believe that theirs is the correctway to see theworld, not a matterof convenienceor ideology.Therefore, cultureis noteasily malleable. 17 Culturetheory organises and explains varied social constructions of reality, makingthem comparable and comprehensible across societiesand contexts. This modelcan be used to understand societies, and learn something useful concern- ingtheir functions and the natures of their cultures quickly and comparatively. Geertz’s `thickdescription’ is valuablebut `a methodologywhich requires its users tobe brilliantly perspicacious was nota methodthat had much to recommendit to most of the rest ofus’ . 18 Collectionof ethnographic data is a long,slow meticulous process, beset by manyobstacles, and these data are often notused for any analytical purpose beyond that of the original researcher. While thisprocess providesessential data, is therea wayto use thosedata more fully? Furthermore,`can one learn something useful about cultures more quickly?’ 19 Forpolicy analysis and development planning, models which can provide readily usableand sound indications of socialrealities, based on available ethnographic andhistorical data, would be bene® cial. Culturetheory categorises ways of life along two dimensions, as shownin Figure1: `theextent to which the individual is incorporatedinto bounded units’ (or`group’ ), and`the degree to which an individual’ s lifeis circumscribedby externallyimposed prescriptions. The more binding and extensive the scope of theprescriptions, the less oflife that is opento individual negotiation’ (or `grid’ ).20 Highgroup suggests strong inclusion into groups which sustain the individual’s lifeand provide purpose and identity; low group suggests weak 91 NANCY SPALDING Group Low High FATALISM/ High DESPOTISM HIERARCHY Grid Low INDIVIDUALISMEGALITARIANISM FIGURE 1.Dimensions