Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
"Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority

  Asia's Green Revolution and Peasant Distinctions
Between Science and Authority

David Frossard


  Introduction

Those of us who carried out social-science fieldwork among peasants in the late
1980s had at our disposal an eclectic mélange of theoretical paradigms for
understanding peasant life: For the progressive scholar, Stavenhagen (1967) and
Frank (1966) offered dependencia while Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1989) dissected
the economic world-system in several volumes; various iterations of Rogers'
(1969) adoption-of-innovation and communications models attracted a
development-minded crowd; Foucault (1980) was knocking over the intellectual
house of cards in favor of a postmodern archaeology of knowledge; Popkin
(1979) and colleagues even spoke of peasants in terms of classical economic theory
(which, to reflect a putative increase in our understanding over time, we now
called neo-classical economics).

Yet, arguably, among the most influential theoretical frameworks in this period
was a far more ground-level view of peasant life, summarized by the phrase
"weapons of the weak." Yale political scientist James Scott's seminal 1985 work of
that name - subtitled "Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance" - loosed a flood of
research on day-to-day survival techniques of poor peasants (among many others,
see Carney and Watts 1990; Esteva 1987; Kerkvliet 1986, 1990; Scott 1986, 1987;
Turton 1986; Watts 1988) and the concept of "resistance" in general (Abu-Lughod
1990; Mitchell 1990; Scott 1989, 1990).

This new focus on the everyday, usually covert, ways that peasant farmers resisted
the demands of patrons and politicians was a useful antidote to previous peasant
research that tended to focus on dramatic revolutionary activities (see, for
example, Wolf 1969, Paige 1975, Scott 1976, and Kerkvliet 1977). Scott was able
to validate the apparently mundane ways peasants make it through the day in
economically and socially hostile situations. "The fact is," wrote Scott, "for all their
importance when they do occur, peasant rebellions, let alone peasant revolutions
are few and far between. Not only are the circumstances that favor large-scale
peasant uprisings comparatively rare, but when they do appear the revolts that
develop are nearly always crushed unceremoniously" (1985:29).

As significant, if less flashy, according to Scott, is the prosaic but constant
struggle between the peasantry and those who seek to extract labor, food, taxes,
rents, and interest from them, a battle fought by peasants with the weapons of the
weak, including foot-dragging, dissimulation, desertion, false compliance,
pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander, arson, sabotage, and so on (Scott 1985:xvi).

As Abu-Lughod notes, "the most interesting thing to emerge from this work on
resistance is a greater sense of the complexity of the nature and forms of
domination." But in retrospect, did we perhaps find resistance a more universal






  Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
  "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority       32

  panacea for our theoretical needs than was warranted? Abu-Lughod thinks so: "In
some of my own earlier work, as in that of others, there is perhaps a tendency to
romanticize resistance, to read all forms of resistance as signs of the
ineffectiveness of systems of power and of the resilience and creativity of the
human spirit in its refusal to be dominated. Doing so may make us feel better
about the world, she says, but it also leads us to collapse distinctions between
forms of resistance and foreclose certain questions about the workings of power"
(all quotes from Abu-Lughod 1990:41-42).

For example, curiously absent from most of the resistance literature is any hint
that a "modern" form of knowledge-making like science - conducted by peasants
themselves - could form part of an effective response to relations of domination.
Peasants seem to have a number of "weapons", but virtually all of them "traditional"
ones. Even "indigenous knowledge" - often pictured by progressive theorists as a
peasant analog to Western science - is presumed to be a traditional, experiential
rather than empirical, kind of knowledge. This view can be sustained logically
only if farmers can be constructed as essentially traditional - not modern (or,
indeed, postmodern) - people, but backwards folk, trapped in an earlier time and
resisting vainly the steamroller of history.

In my own research with peasant rice farmers in the Philippines, described briefly
below, I undoubtedly found "resistance" to various aspects of the larger political
economy, but not in the form I was given to expect by Resistance Theory. Instead
of impoverished farmers struggling against forces they scarcely understood, I
found one group of farmers with a sophisticated understanding of the larger
political economy and a cogent agenda by which to make their way in it. In the
case of  one Philippine farmers organization, a group called MASIPAG (mah-
SEE-pagh), resistance to the rising costs and environmental damage of Green
Revolution chemical inputs beginning in 1986 was based not on ideas of moral
economy - on an idealized version of communal relations and traditional agriculture
to which farmers wanted to return - but on a recognizably modern and scientific
vision of crop development.

These particular farmers, unlike other "resistors" typically described in social-
science literature, deliberately sought out the knowledge of professional crop
science (symbolized for them by the International Rice Research Institute in
nearby Los Baños, Laguna) and began to perform scientific hybridizations on
rice, while developing alternative, organic pest- and weed-control strategies.
(Hybridization by peasants is virtually unknown in the literature; farmers tend to
select promising plants as seed sources, but hybridization, as performed by the
crop-development institutes, is generally unheard-of.)

In taking up the tools of the crop-development industry, MASIPAG farmers were
able effectively, and ironically, to use the weapons of the strong to their
advantage. By recognizing that authority in the larger Philippine political arena
comes, at least in part, from control of nature - from a command of science - these






  Asia's Green Revolution and Peasant Distinctions Between Science and Authority
         David Frossard       33

  peasant rice farmers were able to challenge the usual view of themselves
"backwards" and "anti-modern" people being dragged kicking and screaming into
the late 20th century. Instead, in a very real sense both practically and politically,
these farmers became, demonstrably, peasant scientists. How they arrived at this
place, and what peasant science means for them - and for Western notions of the
modern, the traditional, science, and authority - is seen below.

Origin of MASIPAG

The origin of MASIPAG ("industrious" in Tagalog, and an acronym for a Tagalog
phrase meaning "Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Agricultural Development") is a
long and complex story that I have detailed at length elsewhere (Frossard 1994).
In brief, the organization came about as a partnership between (1) a select group
of Philippine smallholders dissatisfied with the economics of Green Revolution
rice agriculture and the environmental costs associated with these chemical-
intensive technologies; (2) dissident, nationalist, crop scientists from the
University of the Philippines, Los Baños, the country's premiere crop-research
institute; (3) social scientists from an community-organization NGO that
facilitated introductions between the farmers and scientists.

The groups met on the UPLB campus in a week-long conference held in June
1985. After many hours of discussion with farmers and a detailed analysis of the
larger political economy of Philippine rice-growing, the UPLB scientists were at a
loss how to proceed. How could their knowledge - intimately tied to their own
scientific education and work in the Green Revolution paradigm - help farmers?
Replied the farmers: "Teach us to do what the crop institutes do. Teach us to
hybridize rice."

That the scientists could do, and thus the MASIPAG organization was born.
MASIPAG organizers were offered not one but three different plots of land by
farmers, finally settling on a site in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, in part because of an
existing deep well suitable for irrigation (necessary at times because MASIPAG
varieties have varied maturation times and cannot be counted on to follow
government irrigation schedules). The site of what became the MASIPAG Central
Station also had the advantage of proximity to a major road, for purposes of
demonstration to farmers.

Initial seed stocks came from a variety of sources. Various farmer groups
throughout the country donated seeds collected in their areas. Academic friends of
MASIPAG collected small stocks of seeds when they traveled to conferences. The
organization received seeds from tribal communities afraid that their preGreen
Revolution varieties would soon "die out," replaced by new IRRI-type strains.
(MASIPAG farmers claimed that most of these last varieties had not yet been
collected by IRRI  "Once IRRI collects from farmers [the seeds] become extinct,"
maintained one.)






  Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
  "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority       34

  From 1986 to 1988, 140 varieties, including 21 "advanced lines" from the UPLB
Department of Agronomy, were gathered from throughout the country (Briones
et al. 1988). By 1992, MASIPAG had collected at least 210 rice varieties. One
hundred twenty-seven were "traditional" or pre-Green Revolution varieties, mostly
found only in remote islands and upland areas, the rest were Green Revolution
strains (Salazar 1992:21).

Finally, after initial training by the UPLB scientists, the hybridizing, segregating,
selecting, and record-keeping tasks - all those processes that help to characterize
"scientific" plant breeding - were mastered by trained farmers, who were still able
to call on MASIPAG scientist-experts for guidance on difficult choices of selection
or hybridization.

I wish to expand on this statement, since the assertion that MASIPAG farmers
hybridize rice often brings looks of incredulity to the faces of mainstream rice
scientists. "You're not really talking about hybridization are you?" asked one
American crop scientist at IRRI. Another, a professor at a major American
agricultural university, wanted to know, "You mean the farmers select the
varieties they prefer, right?" One crop scientist frankly asserted that it was
"impossible" for farmers to hybridize new varieties, although he would concede
that "natural hybridization" took place in farmers fields.

Mang Marciano, land donor to the MASIPAG Central Station and MSF-trained
plant hybridizer, has this straightforward response for the doubting scientists:

  You are wrong. You are underestimating the ability of small farmers.
Scientists are limiting the capabilities of farmers. Because they are
learned and studied, they belittle small farmers. Now the little
farmers are trying to prove they can do the work. They are
encouraged by the example of MASIPAG in producing varieties. If
farmers are really interested, they can easily learn.

  Mang Marciano then offers to demonstrate the process. His simple tools: small,
sharp scissors, a pair of tweezers, a paper bag, a piece of cardboard. Plain wires
and pieces of bamboo can also be used if these tools are unavailable, he says. With
them, he can open the rice husk, remove the male part, and insert the pollen of
another rice plant.

While the plant breeders of MASIPAG were at first content with "simple" crosses,
they planned a "phase two" to begin in 1993, a more elaborate breeding program
utilizing multiple parentages, back-crossing, or top-crossing of the organization's
best F1 hybrids. The ongoing objective is a diverse array of rice varieties, adapted
to particular climatic zones, and grown by a variety of MASIPAG-type
organizations throughout the country.

But cross-breeding is only a small part - perhaps 10 percent by one farmer's
estimate - of the work involved in rice propagation. Most of the work involves the






  Asia's Green Revolution and Peasant Distinctions Between Science and Authority
         David Frossard       35

  methodical tasks of caring for the rice, selection and evaluation of promising
varieties, and keeping track of all these choices. In the new experimental farm,
farmer-breeders now found that they needed to separate different experimental
rice varieties from each other and make careful records of the characteristics of
each variety. This record-keeping, previously rare, was, again, taught by the
UPLB agricultural scientists to those who worked at the MASIPAG experimental
station. Now when farmer-breeders go into the experimental rice fields, they have
available to them index cards listing the various rice varieties before them, and
then crosses that were required to produce them.

Volunteer MASIPAG farmer-technicians begin by segregating the "best" varieties
resulting from planned crosses. In one three-year period, over 100 varieties were
single-crossed and evaluated. At MASIPAG, says Mang Pec Vicente, a UPLB
agricultural graduate who is himself a farmer and chief MASIPAG extensionist,
seed selection is based on "radical belief in farmers" - the farmers, not a
government agency, not the UPLB scientists, certify the seeds. The strains judged
superior by the volunteer MASIPAG Seed Selection Board are "farmed out" to
trial farmers in Nueva Ecija and at other MASIPAG projects in different climatic
zones and with different soil types. Fifty Nueva Ecija farmers participated in the
first year's trials, and within four years 175 had grown MASIPAG seeds there
(many more experimented with the seeds elsewhere). The policy of MASIPAG,
according to Mang Pec, is to give seed freely to farmers who actively volunteer in
the maintenance or management of the Central Station trial farm. "That is one of
the goals of our seed distribution.... There is a rule to follow: participate."

Varieties are evaluated not only - or even primarily - for yields. Farmers look for
homogeneity, disease resistance, good milling quality, tolerance for low fertilizer-
application rates, good taste, particular straw lengths (not so tall as to be
susceptible to typhoon damage, not so short as to provide insufficient organic
material for mulching)  and a host of other criteria, specific to local conditions.

Favored varieties are then segregated over many generations (some had reached
the F20 generation by 1996) for eventual widespread distribution to participants
in the MASIPAG organization. To date, the varieties most favored by MASIPAG
plant breeders are the pest-resistant and aromatic preIRRI rices. Their yields are
relatively low, breeders say, but they provide good stock for hybridization with
other varieties, including Green Revolution ones. Other facets of the MASIPAG
technology include time-honored practices like mulching, composting, and
recycling rice straw to build soil organic content (as opposed to the now-common
practice of burning rice straw); the use of the floating plant azolla as a nitrogen-
rich "green manure"; and utilization of large flocks of ducks to control snails.
MASIPAG farmers also experiment with potentially "safe" pesticides based on
laundry soap or other low-toxicity household materials, and on the propagation of
beneficial predator insects.






  Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
  "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority       36

  In short, from the MASIPAG experiment farmers learned basic, but powerful,
riziculture techniques in order to better grow rice to their own, local
specifications. They began to develop complementary, sustainable technologies for
producing that rice. And they suggested to anyone who happened to be watching
just what farmers may be capable of in the right circumstances.

Images of Peasant Farmers

The international agriculture development industry in which the Green Revolution
plays such an important role has had mixed results in improving the economic
lives of peasant farmers of the South. On the other hand, some of the most
profoundly successful products of development since World War II are images of
these peasant farmers, images that inform debates about development and lead to
particular political and economic consequences for farmers.

Given the proper picture of a peasant farmer, development specialists and policy-
makers are able to explain to their own satisfaction (1) why peasants aren't
"developed"  i.e., why they're "not like us"; (2) why they seem often to resist
development; and most importantly (3) how they may, with enough outside
intervention, eventually become "developed."

In a speech at a Philippine research institute, sustainable-development
specialist Robert Rhodes outlined two dominant and powerful images of peasant
farmers (Rhoades 1992): One picture, he said, is of "traditional" farmers,
ignorant of modern agricultural techniques, and a barrier to agricultural
development. The other picture, of more recent invention, is of farmers as
veritable ecological wizards, chock-full of "indigenous knowledge." Rhodes'
characterization is apt, and these two images of peasants - "traditionalist" on one
hand, "ecologist" on the other - serve to guide the actions of different policy
makers at various nodes of the development web.

The first view, of peasants as "backward traditionalists," is, of course, closely
intertwined with modernization theory. In this view, the main thing wrong with
peasant farmers is that they're not "more like us." When farmers resist an
(unimpeachably scientific) development project apparently without reason  or at
least without "good reason"  this image of peasants supplies an explanation: They
are simply too "traditional," "backwards," "irrational," "ignorant," or "illiterate"
for their own good.

When this image of the peasant smallholder holds sway, the remedy for farmers'
"traditional" thinking is clear  education in the ways of the modern world, and
incorporation into the larger (market) society. If peasants can be shown the
benefits of science and modern attitudes (it is said), they will no longer be so
essentially anti-science and anti-modern, and will then be better able to "develop"
economically, and to help their country to do so as well.






  Asia's Green Revolution and Peasant Distinctions Between Science and Authority
         David Frossard       37

  That's one image of peasants, discredited in anthropological circles, to be sure, but
arguably still en vogue among some policy-makers and development-industry
bureaucrats. On the other hand, there is the image of peasants as "ecological
wizards," an image often promoted by anthropologists working in more "farmer-
centric" development paradigms such as Farming Systems Research and
Participatory Action Research. In this view, peasants are priceless repositories of
"indigenous knowledge," gained through trial-and-error experimentation over
centuries (if we think of farmers as "scientific" in any sense, it is this informal
experimentation to which we usually refer). If this image of peasants holds, the
best development is participatory development. Here, peasants should be
incorporated somehow into mainstream development projects, where their
knowledge can be put to use for development. At least, we should study them for
lessons in how to improve the sustainability of our own agricultural practices.

The view of peasant farmers as "environmental wizards" is no doubt a necessary
corrective to the simplistic picture of peasants as "backward traditionalists." It is
arguably a more empirically accurate picture in many parts of the world. But it is
also a suspiciously nostalgic picture of farmers, with more than a hint of
"peasants-as-noble-savages" built into it. Curiously, this "environmentalist" view
of peasants seems to suggest that farmers in places like Malaysia or the Philippines
may have remained somehow aloof from the larger world, hoarding and
maintaining their traditional knowledge, despite almost three decades of intense
Green Revolution development and the radical reorganization of peasant life it has
brought about.

Alternatively, isn't it more likely to be the case that these peasant farmers have
developed new perceptions and practices about rice farming in the past generation  
some formed as resistance to the perceived problems of Green Revolution, others
developed in response to perceived advantages of the new methods? Is farmer
knowledge necessarily always old knowledge?

Despite the logical failings of the usual images of peasants, it is difficult to avoid
the kind of image-making described above. As long as the "developers" are not the
people undergoing development, mental approximations of peasants will continue
to inform development discourse. Indeed, the development industry would stop
dead in its tracks if there was no image of "the peasantry" available to legitimize
and explain its intervention. The question is: What image will hold sway and what
will be the consequences of it?

There are, in fact, more than two ways to think about peasants (two ways that,
significantly, tend to agree on the split between a "modern," "scientific" world
view and the peasant's world view, which is said to be essentially antagonistic to
modernist values). The image presented by the farmers of MASIPAG - a
conceptual picture that we might call the "image of the peasant scientist" - short-
circuits development-industry notions of resistant, "traditional" peasants who need
to "be developed" ... for their own good. "Peasant science" replaces the image of






  Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
  "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority       38

  "peasant traditionalist" with a different kind of farmer, a farmer aware of the
efficacy of science in controlling and manipulating nature  but with a different
sense of what a "useful" product of science might be.

In the development industry, and in academia, the possibility of peasant science (as
I have defined it) is not often recognized. In fact, the very term "peasant science"
seems to be a towering oxymoron by Western academic standards  something on
the scale of "low-yield thermonuclear device" or "baseball free agent." This is not
surprising. In the various competing views of rural people from which we all may
draw, peasants are portrayed as many things, but certainly, even self-evidently,
not as "scientific" or "modern" beings. Inevitably, a world view that sees
"peasant" and "science" as essentially antagonistic notions will inevitably pit
"modern," "rational," "scientific" kinds of people against supposedly "anti-
modern," "irrational," "millenarian," and "anti-scientific" peasants.

The farmers of MASIPAG don't fit neatly into such a world view. These farmers
are not particularly "traditional" in the sense seen in, say, Kerkvliet's (1977) Huk
Rebellion, or Scott's (1976) Moral Economy of the Peasant. They speak less about
the loss of communal labor exchanges (bayanihan) and more of the problem of
breaking even in a capitalist marketplace. There's little discussion about "the good
old days" we've come to expect from accounts of millenarian peasant movements,
but a lot of talk about the possible carcinogenic effects of pesticides and soil
degradation by chemical fertilizers.

This shift in emphasis is not necessarily surprising, since after three decades of
Green Revolution few farmers continue to find relevance in those long-ago,
preGreen Revolution days  or in the terribly more-distant pre-capitalist days.
These farmers are in fact not only "modern" people (of this day and time), but are
"pro-science" (in some sense), and are in fact themselves practicing science in a
recognizable, Western fashion. It is the objectives of their "peasant science"
(rather than the methods) that differentiate this project from the projects of
mainstream agricultural-research institutes like IRRI.

Conclusion

Peasant science is a powerful tool that may allow trained MASIPAG farmers to
produce better, more appropriate rice seeds and rice technologies, geared to local
social and environmental conditions. But peasant science is also a profoundly
transformative theoretical notion, with potent strategic and rhetorical components,
of use to both MASIPAG farmers and scientists. Peasant science inverts
commonsense images by juxtaposing "traditional peasants" with "modern science."
Peasant science blurs categories  progressive scientists, with the blessings of their
rural partners, may assert with some authority that they "speak for the peasants"
in matters of nationalism and farm policy; farmers, with the affirmation and
endorsement of the MASIPAG scientists, may claim to produce scientific
knowledge as real and valid as anything produced by IRRI. Peasant science may,






  Asia's Green Revolution and Peasant Distinctions Between Science and Authority
         David Frossard       39

  in fact, also suggest a new and radically farmer-centered development strategy in
which the usual flow of knowledge and technology from crop institute to farmer
is reversed.

In the Foucaultian view, power is not only an instrument of repression, but is a
potent productive force as well. Power, says Foucault, "secretes" knowledge  and
in fact produces whole hegemonic regimes of knowledge. We may well ask what
peasants believe that is different from the beliefs of the more powerful. But it is
also important to identify what each can agree on  how each comes to believe
certain "commonsense" principles that limit the alternative possibilities that can be
conceived (in other words, how power comes to make certain ideas "obvious" and
others, almost literally unthinkable).

In this framework, the MASIPAG attempt to practice mainstream science is at
once hegemonic (validating the power of science and claiming its mantle of
legitimacy) and counter-hegemonic, seeking to rethink and remake science (as
when farmers "scientifically" search for ways to eliminate some of the products of
science, like pesticides). Is the MASIPAG scientific effort thus an affirmation of
science or a subversion of it; is it an affirmation of modernist views of science, or
a postmodern tweaking of such views - or perhaps all of the above?

In the end, such questions are less important to farmers than the practical benefits
to be found in the use of their intellects, and backs, to help themselves. As
Lakshman Yapa (1993:271) puts it: "Frustrated by failed development projects,
groups of poor people in many parts of the Third World are changing their life
circumstances through their own praxis of organized social movements."

 The MASIPAG experience certainly has much to say about what farmers can add
to development theory. As Bebbington has noted in his own search for an
alternative indigenous-development paradigm in Ecuador, through practice and
over time, peasant groups may generate new, unexpected, and eclectic alternative
paradigms (Bebbington 1993). The peasant poor (such as MASIPAG farmers),
utilizing self-generated technical knowledge, pursue strategies in which they
rework, update, and change their knowledge within the often prejudicial environments
in which they fashion their livelihoods. [Such knowledge] is a dynamic response to
changing contexts constructed through farmers' practices as situated agents:
agents because they are actively engaged in the generation, acquisition, and
classification of knowledge; and situated agents because this engagement
occurs in cultural, economic, agroecological, and sociopolitical contexts that are
products of local and nonlocal processes, and that influence how and why farmers
manage resources in particular ways (Bebbington 1993:275).

 






  Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
  "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority       40


  In an ironic way, MASIPAG farmers are showing development-industry
specialists that science can be (as the scientists have long claimed) of subjective
social, economic, and ecological benefit to peasants - at least if peasants are the
ones doing the science.






  Asia's Green Revolution and Peasant Distinctions Between Science and Authority
         David Frossard       41

  References

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1990. "The Romance of Resistance: Tracing Transformations
  of Power through Bedouin Women." American Ethnologist 17(1):41-55.

  Bebbington, Anthony. 1993. Non-Governmental Organizations and the State in
  Latin America: Rethinking Roles in Sustainable Agricultural Development.
New York: Routledge.

  Carney, Judith, and Michael Watts. 1990. Manufacturing Dissent: Work, Gender
  and the Politics of Meaning in a Peasant Society. Africa 60(2):207-241.

  Esteva, Gustavo. 1987. Regenerating Peoples Space. Alternatives XII:125-152.

Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
  Writings, 1972-1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.

  Frank, André Gunder. 1966. "The Development of Underdevelopment." Monthly
  Review (September).

  Frossard, David. 1994. Peasant Science: Farmer Research and Philippine Rice
  Development. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

  Kerkvliet, Benedict J. Tria. 1977. The Huk Rebellion: A Study of Peasant Revolt
  in the Philippines. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  ----1986. "Everyday Resistance to Injustice in a Philippine Village." Journal of
  Peasant Studies 13(2):107-123.
  ----1990. Everyday Politics in the Philippines: Class and Status Relations in a
  Central Luzon Village. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  Mitchell, Timothy. 1990. Everyday Metaphors of Power. Theory and Society
  19:545-577.

  Paige, Jeffrey M. 1975. Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export
  Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World. New York: The Free Press.

  Popkin, Samuel L. 1979. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural
  Society in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  Rhoades, Robert. 1992. "Sustainable Agricultural Systems: The Farmer's
  Perspective." Presented June 16, 1992 at the Southeast Asia Regional Center
for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture, Los Baños, Laguna,
Philippines.

  Rogers, E.M. 1969. Modernization Among Peasants: The Impact of
  Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.






  Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
  "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority       42


  Salazar, René. 1992. "MASIPAG: Alternative Community Rice Breeding in the
  Philippines." Appropriate Technology 18(4):20-21.

  Scott, James C. 1976. The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and
  Subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  ----1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New
  Haven: Yale University Press.
  ----1986. "Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance." Journal of Peasant Studies
  13(2):5-35.
  ----1987. Resistance without Protest and without Organization: Peasant Opposition
  to the Islamic Zakat and the Christian Tithe. Comparative Study of Society
and History 29(3):417-452.
  ----1989. Prestige as the Public Discourse of Domination. Cultural Critique
  12:145-166.
  ----1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven:
  Yale University Press.

  Stavenhagen, Rodolfo. 1967. "Seven Erroneous Theses about Latin America."
  New University Thought 4(4).

  Turton, Andrew. 1986. Patrolling the Middle-Ground: Methodological
  Perspectives on Everyday Peasant Resistance.\rdblquote  Journal of Peasant
Studies 13(2):36-48.

  Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System. New York: Academic
  Press.
  ----1980. The Modern World-System II. New York: Academic Press.
----1989. The Modern World-System III. New York: Academic Press.

Wolf, Eric R. 1969. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper
  & Row.

  Yapa, Lakshman. 1993. "What Are Improved Seeds? An Epistemology of the
  Green Revolution." Economic Geography 69(3):254-273.



Return to David Frossard   Contents

Return to Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia

Return to the CSAC Ethnographics Gallery