ANTH 320 Notes: 3/1/16-3/3/16
ANTH 320 Notes: 3/1/16-3/3/16 ANTH 320
Popular in Anthropology of Development
Popular in ANTH
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Hadley Ashford on Thursday March 3, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to ANTH 320 at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill taught by R. Colloredo-Mansfeld in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 12 views. For similar materials see Anthropology of Development in ANTH at University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.
Reviews for ANTH 320 Notes: 3/1/16-3/3/16
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 03/03/16
ANTH 320 Notes 3/1/16-3/3/16 3/1/16 - Benefits of messiness- What can be learned from it o Use past findings as base of next success Ex. teacher puts old student work on wall for examples o Common tools for common needs, recycle leftovers Ex. keep out commonly used tools on work bench o Allows creativity, ideas build on each other Ex. all research and ideas in organized chaos on desk o Respond to surroundings Ex. all ingredients out when cooking so can be creative - Practical reason: o Combines experience and habits in skilled execution o Unconsciously take right steps toward success- don’t have to think about it o Action= idea - “Metis” (from Scott reading) o Responding to dynamic environment- learn that way o Difficult to teach without actually doing o Need for hands on experience - Modernization: ideology of break with past to create something completely new o Rejects practical reason - Development and growth: o Technology increases human production o Knowledge systems available in all sectors o Apply knowledge to create growth - Scott says development can only be achieved with practical reason o Experience necessary o Match tools to task o Imagination necessary o Respond to surrounding environment - Ferguson says failure of development happens when state intervention forces one way of progress - State power makes illegible understandable o Ex. give first and last names, don’t recognize nicknames o Simplification to better implement control o Ignore history and experience of how people actually live their lives - Scott’s view of modernist state: o Societal simplification Classification Legibility Eliminate culture and uniqueness o Science and technology to solve problems o Back solutions to problems with force Increased police, weapons, surveillance o Pro-state civil society: difficult to speak against state, opposition of state equated to opposition of progress - Video of 1968 news supporting World Bank Report (of Lesotho) o Matches World Bank perspective of Lesotho - Ferguson asks what is role of inaccurate descriptions in World Bank development programs - Scott and Ferguson agree that state cares more about maintaining power than actual success of development projects - Developmental state (by Ferguson) o Discourse used to maintain/increase state power Use narrative to make intervention and development seem natural Easier to think about commodity economy Expert language becomes commonplace o Failure of projects maintains state authority Embedded discourse encourages community to blame themselves instead of state for development failures 3/3/16 - Lesotho: o Was once productive granary of South African (1800’s) o Ferguson disputes World Bank Report o 1930’s= decline in agricultural production and increase in migrant labor Much work in mines o Mining careers: Began with most men participating for short periods of time with low wages- almost like rite of passage (mid 1900’s) 1980’s: less job opportunities in Lesotho, mining career lengthens, higher wages o Farming: Ferguson refutes idea that Lesotho is primarily farming communities Not subsistence farmers because can’t support themselves with what they grow Migrant labor necessary for survival o Cattle raising practices: Not raised for family consumption- only killed for ceremonies and sacrifices Not good milk producers because don’t get enough food/nutrients Used for plowing Dung for fuel Cows store wealth, don’t create wealth Bought when cash available, only sold when desperate need for cash - Different intimate relationships with cattle: o Sudan (Nuer): present in many aspects of life o Maasai: warriors slaughter bull and drink blood to become man, use dung for house, dowry includes cows, symbiotic relationship o Ethiopia/Horn of Africa: provide cattle on market for other countries, save surpluses to ensure cattle productivity - Lesotho cattle as a development problem: o National government and international agencies want to improve standard of living Want to increase cash earnings from farms o Issue arises when current economic practice seems irrational Dedication to cattle that give no economic return Drought further shows irrationality: Community knew cattle would die Made no effort to capitalize on investment and sell before they die - World Bank reasoning for irrationality around cattle: o Dual economies: mix of traditional and modern Cattle example of traditional aspect Cash economy is modern, hasn’t completely spread Future= cattle as commodity Present/past= too focused on prestige/kinship o Utilitarian: cattle are only possible investment Forced to choose between rock and hard place- no other options - Bovine Mystique: o Cattle is a low market intensity product (not easily bought and sold on market) o Relationships between cattle and cash Bridewealth: exchange of wealth/value goes to bride’s family Bridewealth used to make marriage stick- incentive for bride to stay with new family or has to give all bridewealth back Cattle and cash used for bridewealth Cattle cost M400, equivalent cash value M150 Prefer to receive cash even though has less value o One-way barrier: cash can always be converted to cattle, but cattle cannot be transferred to cash unless desperate Man with cattle: successful in mines, can provide for family and community Man selling cattle: emergency Man without cattle: almost certain future failure, can’t provide for family or community o Household relationships: Many men absent, women are subsistence farmers Household property: main cash earnings, men and women both make decisions Men’s property: grazing animals Complete control, women have no way in these Women’s property: pigs, poultry, special trade goods In control of own wages until converted into men’s property o Social uses for cattle: Creates social connections- lend cattle to friends/family Helps community- provides some employment and benefits (milk, wool, plowing, etc.) o Different interests in cattle: Men: cattle as placeholder in house/community, store of wealth for hard times when no longer migrant laborer, only part of wealth they have complete control over o Women: want limited cattle for basic needs, more focus on family needs (less on prestige) o Older men: know cattle necessary for bridewealth, promote acquisition of cattle to younger generation - Bovine Mystique can be explained through social relations, personal ambitions, and economic logic o Explain cultural practice- need to explain reasoning - Should be recognized as one moral good among many o Must be justified in community for it to continue