Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4 December 1988
ISSN 0952- 1909
WILLIAM ROSEBERRY
For the domestic groups of primitive society have not yet suffered demotion to a mere
consumption status, their labor power detached from the familial circle and,
employed in a n external realm, made subject to a n alien organization and purpose.
The household is as such charged with production, with the deployment and use of
labor-power, with the determination of the economic objective. Its own inner
relations. as between husband and wife, parent and child, are the principal relations
ofproduction in society. The built-in etiquette of kinship statuses, the dominance and
subordination of domestic life. the reciprocity and cooperation, here make the
‘economic‘a modality of the intimate. How labor is expended. the terms and products
of its activity, are in the main domestic decisions. And these decisions are taken
primarily Wth a view toward domestic contentment. Production is geared to the
family’s customary requirements. Production is for the benefit of the producers.
(Sahlins 1972: 76-77)
This is not to say that all has been lost: throughout the world
peasants and primitives constitute a remnant of this past life. Among
them, use value still predominates, the household still serves as the
central unit of economic, social and political life, and production is
424 Issues and Agendas
show that pre-coffee seciety was essentially town and village based,
that the smallholding, property-owning peasantry was a product of
coffee cultivation rather than a survival of past time or a victim of
commodity economy.
In this, Costa Rica may not be so different after all. A similar process
of peasantization in association with a coffee economy occurred in
regions of Venezuela (Rosebeny 19831, and Gudmundson suggests
that it is much more common in Latin America than is generally
supposed. In a commentary on cases from early modern European
history, 1 have suggested that the very image of the family economy.
based in ancient smallholding peasantries and reproducing itself in
early modem proto-industrial settings, should be revised, that
'family economy' might be a product of proto-industrial activities
themselves and of the early modern era and that it might be
intimately connected with the rise of merchant capital and absolutist
states, both of which depended upon smallholders for revenue
(Roseberry 1986).
If such a contention can be sustained, two kinds of question are
raised for future research:
Notes
I This project examines different regions of early modem England and
colonial Mexico and will eventuate in a book with the working title, Family
Economy in Anthropology and History. Early and provisional statements of
the project can be found in Roseberry 1986. 1989.
These points are developed in greater detail in O’Brien and Roseberry
1989. See especially the introduction.
Bibliography
Chayanov, A.V. 1966 The Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood. I L
Richard Irwin.
Gudmundson, Lowell 1986 Costa Rica before Coffee. Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press.
M a n , Karl 1858/ 1973 Grundrisse. New York: Viking.
1867/ 1977 Capital, vol. 1. New York: Viking.
Mintz, Sidney 1953 The Folk-Urban Continuum and the Rural Proletarian
Community’. American Journal of Sociology 59: 136-143.
1973 ‘A Note on the Definition of Peasantries’. Journal of Peasant
Studies 1: 9 1- 106.
1974 The Rural Proletariat and the Problem of Rural Proletarian
Consciousness’. Journal of Peasant Studies 1: 290-325.
1979 ‘Slaveryand the Rise of Peasantries’. HistoricalReJZections6: 2 13-
242.
1985 Sweetness and Power. New York: Viking.
OBrien. Jay and William Roseberry. eds. 1989 Imagining the Past. In
preparation.
Redfield. Robert 1940 The Folk Culture of Yucatan Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Roseberry. William 1983 Coffee and Capitalism in the Venezuelan Andes.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
1986 The Ideology of Domestic Production’. Labour. Capital and
Society 19: 70-93.
1989 ‘Potatoes, Sacks and Enclosure in Early Modem England’. In
O’Brien and Roseberry, eds.. Imagining the Past.
Sahlins, Marshall 1972 Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.
Smith, Gavin 1979 ‘Socioeconomic Differentiation and Relations of
Production among Rural-Based Petty Producers in Central Peru, 1880-
1970’.Journal of Peasant Studies 6: 286-310.
1989 Livelihood and Resistance. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Steward. Julian et a1 1956 The People of Puerto Rico. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Strickon, Arnold 1965 ‘Hacienda and Plantation in Yucatan’. America
Indgena XXXV( 1): 35-63.
Wolf, Eric 1955 Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary
Discussion’. American Anthropologist 57: 452-471.
1956 ‘Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society: Mexico’.
American Anthropologist 58:
1957 ‘Closed Corporate Peasant Communities in Mesoamerica and
Central Java’. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13: 1- 18.
1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Wolf, Eric and Sidney Mintz 1957 ‘Haciendas and Plantations in Middle
America and the Antilles’. Social and Economic Studies 6: 380-4 12.