{"id":61232,"date":"2025-02-01T02:24:40","date_gmt":"2025-02-01T02:24:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/anthropology\/peasant-and-peasantry-in-anthropology\/"},"modified":"2025-02-01T02:24:40","modified_gmt":"2025-02-01T02:24:40","slug":"peasant-and-peasantry-in-anthropology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232","title":{"rendered":"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Contents<\/span><\/h3>\n

Peasant: <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

History of the usage:<\/span> <\/span><\/span>1<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Anthropological attention to Peasant
\nstudy:<\/span> <\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Continuum vs social category:<\/span> <\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Characteristics of peasants in
\ncontinuum model<\/span> <\/span><\/span>3<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Characteristics of peasants in
\npeasant as a social category model:<\/span> <\/span><\/span>3<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Approaches: <\/span><\/span>3<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Economic approach: or the
\nspecific economy approach<\/span>. <\/span><\/span>3<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Cultural approach:<\/span> <\/span><\/span>4<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Political approach:<\/span> <\/span><\/span>4<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Sources used:<\/span> <\/span><\/span>5<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Further readings<\/span>. <\/span><\/span>6<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Peasants
\nare small-scale agricultural producers organized into households that rely on
\nfamily labor in a subsistence-oriented economy that is nevertheless a part of a
\nlarger state system that extracts various forms of rent from the communities it
\ncontrols.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In
\npeasant communities households are the basic units of production and of
\nconsumption. Such households depend overwhelmingly on members of the household,
\nboth adults and children, to provide the labor needed to run a peasant farm and
\nparticipate in a variety of reciprocal labor arrangements during peak labor
\nperiods. Peasants try to avoid hiring regular outside laborers except during
\nperiods of planting or harvesting, when they serve to supplement the labor
\nprovided by household members. Characteristically, outside helpers are often
\ntreated as if they were members of the household, particularly in the case of servants
\nor adopted children (Chayanyov 1966). <\/span><\/p>\n

Teodor
\nShanin, defined peasantry as having \u201cfour essential and inter-linked facets\u201d: The
\nfamily farm as the basic multi-functional unit of social organisation, land
\nhusbandry \u00a0<\/span>and usually animal rearing as
\nthe main means of livelihood, a specific traditional culture closely linked
\nwith the way of life of small rural communities and multi-directional subjection
\nto powerful outsiders.[i]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nword \u201cpeasant\u201d appears in English in late medieval and early modern times, when
\nit was used to refer to the rural poor, rural residents, serfs, agricultural
\nlaborers, and the \u201ccommon\u201d or \u201csimple\u201d people. As a verb in that period, \u201cto
\npeasant\u201d meant to subjugate someone as a peasant is subjugated. Earlier Latin
\nand Latinate forms (French, Castilian, Catalan, Occitan, etc.) date as far back
\nas the sixth century and denoted a rural inhabitant, whether or not involved in
\nagriculture. Very early on, both the English \u201cpeasant,\u201d the French \u201cpaysan\u201d and
\nsimilar terms sometimes connoted \u201crustic,\u201d \u201cignorant,\u201d \u201cstupid,\u201d \u201ccrass\u201d and
\n\u201crude,\u201d among many other pejorative terms.[ii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nword could also imply criminality, as in thirteenth-century Germany where \u201c\u2018peasant\u2019
\nmeant \u2018villain, rustic, devil, robber, brigand and looter.\u201d[iii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> According
\nto anthropologist George Dalton, \u201cPeasants were legal, political, social, and economic
\ninferiors in medieval Europe. The structured subordination of peasants to non-peasants
\nwas expressed in many ways, de jure and de facto, from restraints on their
\nphysical movement to sumptuary restrictions on what kinds of weapons, clothing
\nand adornments they could wear and use, and foods they could legally consume.\u201d[iv]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Although
\nRobert Redfield\u2019s fieldwork in Mexico as early as 1926 is considered to be the
\nfirst attempt to see peasant as an analytical category, the study of peasant or
\nthe use of the term peasant is quite old. Historians of medieval Europe,
\njurists and political theorists, Russian economists and ‘rural statisticians’
\nwho carried out sophisticated peasant studies on a national scale, Eastern
\nEuropean ethnographers of folk-life, rural sociologists stimulated by LePlay to
\nrecord family budgets, and others. These scholarly traditions produced a wealth
\nof theory and data that has been discovered by<\/span><\/p>\n

contemporary
\nanthropology, but they do not constitute the historical back ground of the anthropology
\nof peasantry. To the extent that they dealt with peasants, the point of
\nreference of such traditions was specific peasant groups, usually the
\npolitically problematic peasantry of particular nations. The roots of the
\nanthropological interest in peasants were elsewhere, in the comparative study
\nof the human condition.<\/span><\/p>\n

This
\ncomparative interest led anthropologists to do field studies in settlements of
\nsmall-scale agriculturalists within civilized, state societies\u2014and sometimes to
\nrefer to their subjects as ‘peasants’\u2014long before they treated peasants as an analytic
\ncategory. The central issue to which the early studies were addressed was the
\nnature of human communities; they were, first of all, village studies, and only
\nincidentally studies of peasants. The earliest of these village descriptions, Redfield’s
\nTepoztlan (1930), emerged out of a concern with the ‘human ecology’ of
\ncommunities, which marked the school of urban sociology developed at the
\nUniversity of Chicago under the auspices of Redfield’s father-in-law, Robert E.
\nPark. During the 1930s this school, along with Robert and Helen<\/span><\/p>\n

Lynd’s
\nground-breaking work on Middletown (1929, 1937), and W. Lloyd Warner’s early
\ninitiatives stimulated a number of studies of ‘communities’\u2014 from metropolitan
\nghettoes to whole American towns and, small communities in other societies.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

During
\nthe 1960s and 1970s, peasants excited new interest among social scientists.
\nOver the previous half century, peasant wars and revolutions\u2014in Mexico, China,
\nAlgeria, and Vietnam, among other places\u2014indicated that peasantries had become
\nimportant political protagonists.[v]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Development
\nimperatives in what was then widely termed the \u201cThird World\u201d required in-depth understanding
\nof rural populations. East-West geopolitical competition and spreading anti-colonial
\nstruggles also fuelled concern about the peasantry, which was at the time and
\nby almost any definition the majority of humankind.<\/span><\/p>\n

Continuum vs social category:<\/span><\/a><\/h3>\n

Anthropologists\u2019
\nearly efforts to define peasants emphasized that peasantries emerged in order
\nto provision the first cities and market towns. The category \u201cpeasant\u201d was thus
\nonly meaningful in relation to a larger society that included non-peasants.
\nSuch definitions tended to be ample, often including rural artisans,
\nfisherfolk, pastoralists and small-scale miners in addition to
\nagriculturalists. Some scholars emphasized generic cultural or \u201cfolk\u201d
\ncharacteristics of peasants.[vi]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> These
\nscholars are the generations of researchers inspired most notably by Robert
\nRedfield\u2019s Folk Urban Continuum. <\/i>Redfield’s
\nformal statement on ‘the folk society and culture,’ as a comparative type apart
\nfrom any specific cultural setting, appeared first in 1940\u2014 appropriately
\nenough, in a volume edited by Louis Wirth. Publication of ‘The Folk Society’ in
\nthe American Journal of Sociology<\/i> in
\n1947 then stimulated a<\/span><\/p>\n

large
\nliterature (much of it critical) on folk-urban and rural-urban types and continua
\nboth in anthropology and in sociology. Later scholars would find a shift in
\nterminology from ‘folk’ to ‘peasant’ an easy step to take; for instance, Foster
\ncommented in 1967 that when he had talked about ‘folk’ in his 1953 article
\n‘What is Folk Culture?’, in fact he was talking about ‘peasants’ [1967:4].
\nHowever, the term ‘folk’ addressed a specific set of interests, which are not
\nidentical to the range of interests encompassed by ‘peasant’ studies.
\nRedfield’s corpus of writing reveals consistent themes: recurrent references to
\n‘life in’ a place, ‘the way of life,’ and ‘the good life’; a stress on values,
\nmeanings, and understandings; and a view of social relations primarily as a
\nvehicle of communication of ideas. When he devotes himself specifically to
\nsocial dimensions, he reveals an evaluative framework. The reader is left with
\nno doubt about his preferences as between ‘the folk society’ and ‘urbanism as a
\nway of life,’ and the social polarities in the folk-urban continuum carry
\nexplicit evaluations\u2014clearly, organization is more valued than disorganization,
\nsacred ways more than secular, group relationships more than individualized
\nones. The central interest of Redfield’s work appears to be in the quality of
\nlife and the quality of human relations, as these are shaped in communities of
\ndifferent kinds and in different phases of the human career.<\/span><\/p>\n

Characteristics of peasants in continuum model<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n

Characteristics
\nof peasants therefore according to Redfield include severalconsistent themes: recurrent
\nreferences to ‘life in’ a place, ‘the way of life,’ and ‘the good life’; a stress
\non values, meanings, and understandings; and a view of social relations primarily
\nas a vehicle of communication of ideas.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Other
\nscholars, notably Eric R. Wolf, sought to delineate social structural \u201ctypes,\u201d based
\non whether they had secure land rights or, alternatively, were tenants,
\nsharecroppers or resident laborers on large properties. \u201cPeasants\u201d tended to be
\ndistinguished from \u201cfarmers,\u201d since the former were said to aim at
\n\u201csubsistence\u201d and produced cash crops primarily for survival and to maintain
\ntheir social status rather than to invest and expand the scale of their
\noperations, as was allegedly the case with the latter.[vii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> In
\nseveral widely separated zones of the world, such as in much of Latin America
\nand Indonesia, peasants were found to be living in territorial \u201ccorporate communities\u201d
\nthat barred membership to outsiders, held exclusive rights to land and systematically
\nredistributed surplus wealth through obligatory ritual expenditures. Indeed, as
\nDavid Mosse points out, \u201c[a]lmost every region of the world that experienced
\ncolonial rule had some form of \u2018government through community.\u2019\u201d[viii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nThese \u201cclosed\u201d communities contrasted with others elsewhere in which residence
\nwas more open, property and market relations more fluid, and cash crop
\nproduction more extensive.[ix]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Characteristics of peasants in peasant as a social
\ncategory model:<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n

Wolf
\nfurther argued that peasants characteristically had to produce a \u201creplacement
\nfund\u201d that provided a caloric minimum and assured biological reproduction; a
\n\u201cceremonial fund\u201d to support weddings, community festivals and other social responsibilities;
\nand a \u201cfund of rent\u201d that consisted of wealth in labor, produce or money transferred
\nto superordinate sectors, such as landlords, moneylenders, intermediaries,
\nreligious specialists, and tax collectors.<\/span><\/p>\n

The
\nmost fundamental point about peasantry is the structural relationship between
\nit and the rest ofsociety. This relationship, and the prevailing economic
\nforces that impinge upon the countryside, have stamped certain qualities on the
\npeasants and largely determine the underdog position in which they continue to
\nlive. We need, however, to move beyond this broad structural relationship to
\nconsider more closely both peasant culture and peasant economy. Following is a
\ndiscussion of the major approaches to the study of peasantry.<\/span><\/p>\n

This
\napproach views peasant social structure as being characterised by a specific type
\nof economy, which is a kin-based small farm enterprise, highly autonomous and
\nconsumption-based. This in turn generates a typical peasant social structure
\nand a \/non-peasant dualism at the national level,” The roots of this
\napproach go back to Marx, but its main proponents are Chayanov (originally
\n1925, this edition 1966), and more recently the anthropologists Firth (1951)
\nand M. Nash (1966), and the<\/span><\/p>\n

geographer
\nFranklin (1969) . In economic anthropology, some scholars have adopted a ‘substantivist’
\napproach which rejects the claim of ‘formalists’ that the conceptual framework
\ndeveloped by modern economics can be used to study any form of economy (to know
\nmore on formalist substantivist debate click
\nhere<\/a>). In contrast, they emphasise that the economies of non-Western
\npeasant or tribal societies have to be studied in their own right and that
\nprocesses such as production, distribution and exchange should be seen in the
\ncontext of these particular societies and their peculiar institu[1]<\/span><\/span>tions
\n. As Firth has noted, a ‘production relationship is often only one facet of a
\nsocial relationship. .. . Economic relations can be understood only as a part
\nof a scheme of social relations.” This is clearly true of the Andean
\npeasantry: a number of scholars, such as Alberti and Mayer (1974) and Murra
\n(1972) have shown how important the roles of reciprocity and redistribution are
\nfor understanding Andean peasant society over time and as it continues to
\nfunction today. Reciprocity is of vital importance not only for understanding
\nrelations among peasants themselves.!” but also between peasants and
\nmestizos’! and be[1]<\/span><\/span>tween
\npeasants and their deities.” <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover,
\nas the analysis of Gonzalez de Olarte (1984) shows clearly, the production and
\nconsumption behaviour of Andean peasants is explained partly by the
\nsemi-mercantile and non[1]<\/span><\/span>capitalist
\ncharacter of communal production as well as the extreme poverty of the
\npeasants. A ‘communal economy’ is characteristic of the peasantry, with the
\norganisation of production and work being affected by a system of family interrelations
\nthat has a ‘communal effect’. While economic benefits in production, income and
\nwell-being are gained that are higher than would accrue to peasant families
\nthat operated entirely individually, it is also true that the comunidad
\n(community) as an organisation induces through its poverty a series of
\nindividual and collective behaviours and survival strategies (such as levelling
\ndevices) which reinforce tradition and the subsistence priorities of the family
\ncomponents. A logical consequence is the formation of restricted markets
\ncharacterised by small volumes of merchandise traded.<\/span><\/p>\n

This
\napproach treats peasants as representatives of an archaic rural social order,
\nthe heirs of an earlier national tradition. Such societies, inherently
\nconservative and traditional, are characterised by inertia and acculturate only
\nslowly to Western and urban standards of rationality. Such an analysis often
\narises from developmentalists who focus on traditional obstacles to industrialisation
\nand ‘modernisation’. A number of well-known studies of peasantry use this approach.
\nErasmus (1968) concluded that peasantry disappeared only because great changes
\noccurred in infrastructure and technology, permitting a transition from a
\n‘paleotechnic ecotype” to a neotechnic (machine age) ecotype. In this
\ntransition process, the encogido personality syndrome (the timid and withdrawn personality
\nof the ‘passive peasant’ who avoids persons of higher status except those who
\nserve as culture or power brokers) becomes less common as a prominent type
\namong rural lower classes; and the contrasting syndrome of the entron
\npersonality becomes more common. The entron person is aggressive, con[1]<\/span><\/span>fident,
\nachievement-oriented, extroverted and not opposed to making contacts with
\nhigher status individuals whose friendship will be to his advantage.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another
\nvariant of this approach was offered by Foster (1965) as an explanation for the
\nreluctance of peasants of Tzinzuntan, Western Mexico, actively to follow
\ndevelopment-oriented strategies. In this corporate peasant community, the
\ndesirable things in life – whether land, money, livestock or women – existed
\nonly in finite quantities, and one could obtain the desired goods only at the
\nexpense of someone else. One person’s gain is another’s loss, and the person
\nwho appropriates more than his fair share of the ‘limited good’ is strongly
\ncriticised and condemned. This concept helps to explain the reluctance of
\npeasants to innovate, to become achievement-oriented or to show more
\nentrepreneurial spirit than their neighbours.” Rogers’s model of the
\n‘sub-culture of peasantry’,” derived from the work of various social
\nscientists, also exhibits this approach. A sub-culture contains many elements
\nof the broader culture of which it is a part, yet it is also characterised by
\nother qualities that separate it from other sectors of the general culture.
\nPeruvian peasants share many national characteristics with other , but as
\nprimarily subsistence farmers who have experienced poverty and exploitation
\nover a long period, the Southern Andean people possess certain traits that make
\nthem members of a ‘peasant culture’ which transcends national boundaries.<\/span><\/p>\n

This
\nschool ofthought, which usually employs a two-class model of society , studies
\nthe peasantry in terms of power relationships. Peasants are viewed as the
\nsuppressed and exploited producers of pre-capitalist society, and contemporary
\npeasantry appears as a leftover from an earlier social formation, with its
\nmembers being powerless to climb out of their position since they remain at the
\nbottom of the social pyramid. In this approach the state is usually seen as
\nrepresenting and maintaining the position of the dominant class; state
\ninstitutions fetter the majority of the masses, including the peasantry, in the
\nhistorical development of the pre-capitalist and capitalist sys[1]<\/span><\/span>tems.
\nPowerlessness and productivity are the two key aspects of peasantry under such
\na definition. The peasants are dominated by powerful outsiders or minorities
\nand their agricultural sur[1]<\/span><\/span>pluses
\nare expropriated by the ruling class, leading to repeated attempts at peasant
\nrevolt. The process of expropriation leads to accumulation of capital and
\ncreation of new class structures, culminating, it is believed, in the
\ndisappearance of both the old rural aristocracy and the peasantry as
\nsuch.”<\/span><\/p>\n

In
\nPeru the Marxist approach to the peasantry has been used to explain the
\nexploitation of the Andean peasant by the local hacendados (estate owners), middlemen,
\ngovernment employees and the state bureaucracy. Many approaches in Peru and in Latin
\nAmerica draw on the seminal work of Wolf (1957 and 1966), which emphasises the
\nstructural position of the peasantry in relation to the rest ofsociety rather
\nthan dwelling on peasant culture. Wolf’s analysis is not characteristically
\nMarxist, but in identifying and emphasising the importance of power relationships
\nin peasant societies he has made a major contribution. The relationship between
\nthe hacendado and the peasants is not purely economic: the patron is also a
\npower broker who is expected to reciprocate with certain social obligations,
\nfrom helping ‘his people’ avoid the draft to the armed services, to baptising their
\nchildren. In the same way the economic surplus of peasants, whether in labour,
\nproduce or cash, is siphoned off by the local power structure in return for
\nsome small acts of reciprocity. Although peasants are quite aware of their
\ndependency on the local power structure and the extreme asymmetrical nature of
\nmany such relationships, there is little they can do about it as they have few
\noptions available.<\/span><\/p>\n

A
\nvariant of class domination and exploitation is the ‘internal colonialism’
\nthesis. This view suggests that relationships between regions such as the Andes
\nand the dominant coastal region are similar to those between a colony and its
\nmetropolis. <\/span><\/p>\n

Another
\nvariant is the ‘triangle without a base’ approach.” The apex of each
\nbaseless triangle is the patron. He is not only sovereign in the local area
\nbecause of the power he wields over his subordinates (peasants or serfs), but
\nhe also represents the essential link with the outside world from which all
\ninformation is likely to come that might be used by the subordinates towards their
\nown emancipation.<\/span><\/p>\n

In
\nsuch a baseless triangle the subordinate peasants are isolated and atomised. It
\nis only where the base of the triangle is closed by alliances (when the
\nsubordinate populations become aware of their conditions of subordination and
\ncommon class) that they achieve the means to enable them either to challenge the
\npower of the patron, or to establish links with new , more beneficial patrones.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Sydel
\nSilverman (1979) The peasant concept in anthropology, The Journal of Peasant Studies<\/i>, 7:1, 49-69<\/span><\/p>\n

Marc
\nEdelman (2013). What is a peasant? What
\nare peasantries? \u00a0<\/span>A briefing paper on
\nissues of definition. <\/i>Graduate Centre, City University of New York<\/span><\/p>\n

Watters,
\nR.F. (1994). Approaches to the Peasantry. In: Poverty and Peasantry in Peru\u2019s Southern Andes, 1963\u201390. <\/i>Palgrave
\nMacmillan, London. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-1-349-12319-3_2<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Barfield,
\nT. (1997). The Dictionary of
\nAnthropology. <\/i>New York: Blackwell.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n
\n

<\/p>\n

\n

[i]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Teodor
\nShanin, \u201cThe Nature and Logic of the Peasant Economy 1: A Generalisation,\u201d
\nJournal of Peasant Studies 1, no. 1 (October 1973): 63\u201364<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[ii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Oxford
\nEnglish Dictionary, \u201cPeasant, N. and Adj.,\u201d Oxford English Dictionary, 2005,
\nhttp:\/\/www.oed.com\/view\/Entry\/139355?result=1&rskey=F232n4&<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[iii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Jacques
\nLe Goff and Edmund King, \u201cThe Town as an Agent of Civilisation, C. 1200-c.
\n1500,\u201d in The Fontana Economic History of Europe: The Middle Ages, ed. Carlo M.
\nCipolla (London: Collins\/Fontana, 1972), 71.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[iv]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> George
\nDalton, \u201cPeasantries in Anthropology and History,\u201d Current Anthropology 13, no.
\n3\u20134 (October 1972): 391.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[v]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Eric
\nR. Wolf, Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper & Row,
\n1969)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[vi]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Sydel
\nSilverman, \u201cThe Peasant Concept in Anthropology,\u201d Journal of Peasant Studies 7,
\nno. 1 (1979): 49\u201369.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[vii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Eric
\nR. Wolf, \u201cTypes of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion,\u201d
\nAmerican Anthropologist 57, no. 3 (June 1955): 452\u2013471.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[viii]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nDavid Mosse, \u201cCollective Action, Common Property, and Social Capital in South
\nIndia: An Anthropological Commentary,\u201d in The Contested Commons: Conversations
\nBetween Economists and Anthropologists, ed. Pranab K. Bardhan and Isha Ray
\n(Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2008), 83.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[ix]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Eric
\nR Wolf, \u201cClosed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and Central Java,\u201d
\nSouthwestern Journal of Anthropology 13, no. 1 (Spring 1957): 1\u201318; Eric R.
\nWolf, \u201cThe Vicissitudes of the Closed Corporate Peasant Community,\u201d American
\nEthnologist 13, no. 2 (May 1986): 325\u2013329.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 Contents Peasant: 1 History of the usage: 1 Anthropological attention to Peasant study: 2 Continuum vs social category: 2 Characteristics of peasants in continuum model 3 Characteristics of peasants in peasant as a social category model: 3 Approaches: 3 Economic approach: or the specific economy approach. 3 Cultural approach: 4 Political approach: 4 Sources […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11767],"tags":[3735,33931,33932],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-61232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anthropology","tag-anthropology","tag-peasant","tag-peasantry"],"yoast_head":"\nPeasant and Peasantry in Anthropology - Som2ny Network<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology - Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"\u00a0 Contents Peasant: 1 History of the usage: 1 Anthropological attention to Peasant study: 2 Continuum vs social category: 2 Characteristics of peasants in continuum model 3 Characteristics of peasants in peasant as a social category model: 3 Approaches: 3 Economic approach: or the specific economy approach. 3 Cultural approach: 4 Political approach: 4 Sources […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-02-01T02:24:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\"},\"headline\":\"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-01T02:24:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232\"},\"wordCount\":3184,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"anthropology\",\"Peasant\",\"Peasantry\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Anthropology\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232\",\"name\":\"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology - Som2ny Network\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-01T02:24:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"description\":\"Daily Deals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":86,\"caption\":\"Som2ny Network\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology - Som2ny Network","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology - Som2ny Network","og_description":"\u00a0 Contents Peasant: 1 History of the usage: 1 Anthropological attention to Peasant study: 2 Continuum vs social category: 2 Characteristics of peasants in continuum model 3 Characteristics of peasants in peasant as a social category model: 3 Approaches: 3 Economic approach: or the specific economy approach. 3 Cultural approach: 4 Political approach: 4 Sources […]","og_url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232","og_site_name":"Som2ny Network","article_published_time":"2025-02-01T02:24:40+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371"},"headline":"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology","datePublished":"2025-02-01T02:24:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232"},"wordCount":3184,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"keywords":["anthropology","Peasant","Peasantry"],"articleSection":["Anthropology"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232","name":"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology - Som2ny Network","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-02-01T02:24:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61232#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Peasant and Peasantry in Anthropology"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","name":"Som2ny Network","description":"Daily Deals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization","name":"Som2ny Network","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","width":300,"height":86,"caption":"Som2ny Network"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/fivemor.com"],"url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=61232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61232"},{"taxonomy":"dealstore","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fdealstore&post=61232"},{"taxonomy":"offerexpiration","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fofferexpiration&post=61232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}