American Anthropologist [72, 19701

Agricultural Practices of the Manobo in the Manobo lack modern technology and con-
Interior o j Southwestern Cotabato (Min- sumer goods. Productivity of principal
danao). ROGELIOM. LOPEZ.Series a: crops, or some similar index, might well be a
Humanities, 7. Cebu City, Philippines: more relevant measure of the standard of
University of San Carlos (Divine Word living of relatively isolated swidden farmers.
University), 1968. (Distributed by Cellar Aside from the lack of agricultural technol-
Book Shop, Detroit). vii + 94 pp., fig- ogy, the author condemns the agricultural
ures, tables, bibliography, 3 appendices. system for being inefficient and requiring
$2.75 (paper). too much land per person. Given the general
Reviewed by RENATOROSALDO Philippine population increase, the produc-
tive swidden system is declared wasteful, yet
Harvard Universiiy
no effort is made to calculate local figures of
Popular Philippine writings characterize population density or critical land-carrying
slash-and-burn agriculture as wasteful, ineffi- capacity.
cient, even a “menace to society” (p. 32). Chapter Two outlines Manobo agricultural
Happily this report demonstrates that Ma- practices, which do not comprise a “pioneer
nobo integral swidden agriculture is highly integral system” (p. 21), as the author
productive-even more so than neighboring claims, but simply an integral system of
Christian “wet rice” cultivation. Yet the au- shifting cultivation with a fifteen- to twenty-
thor cannot free himself from popular preju- year fallow cycle (p. 82). The chief crops
dice: his data to the contrary, he insists the are rice, corn, and root crops. The outline of
Manobo are “culturally stagnant” compared farming includes selection of site, clearing,
to “superior groups” at their sides (p. 80). and cropping (planting, crop protection, and
The data are most impressive in the third storage); it omits a description of burning
chapter, an enquiry into the productivity of (a mysterious omission in light of the often-
the Manobo swidden system. From a sample mentioned-pp. 17, 22, 27, 78-weed prob-
of five farms, the author estimates rice and lem) and information on the fallow cycle.
corn yields; he includes ample and explicit In general, the report suffers from a sur-
information on the method of computation prising provincialism. The first chapter con-
(summarized in tables). The rice yield is 85 cludes with a historical note on “battles”
cavans per hectare (compare with the na- waged “against the aggressive Magindanao”
tional average of 27.4 cavans per hectare (p. 16) that forced the Manobo from
and the Cotabato average of 60-80 cavans coastal regions to the central plains-a proc-
per hectare), and the corn yield is 153 ca- ess the author euphemistically calls being
vans per hectare. Further, consumption is replaced “by the pressure of cultural superi-
calculated (assuming 3.5 persons per hec- ority” (p. 17). In a less fortunate lapse he
tare and two rice meals per day), and a sur- follows Beyer’s dated migration hypotheses in
plus for each hectare cultivated of 74 cavans characterizing the Manobo as “Indonesian”
of rice and 107 cavans of corn per year is while referring to their Christian and
found. This result is surprising: there is a (some) Moslem neighbors as more ad-
theoretical surplus, yet the Manobo run out vanced “Malays.” In the author’s view, these
of rice and corn and rely on root crops for “Malays” were late arrivals, racially distinct,
part of the year (p. 54). Whether or not and “culturally superior,” with a relatively
there is a surplus, the system is obviously well-developed “wet rice” system of agricul-
productive and the reader wonders in what ture.
sense the Manobo are considered agricultur- In sum, the report fails in its incomplete de-
ally inferior to their Christian neighbors. scription of the agricultural system and its
In the final chapter the author repeats his biased characterization of Manobo society;
claims of surplus production of rice and its chief value lies in the quantitative data on
corn (p. 74) at the same time that he calls corn and rice production.
Manobo agricultural techniques backward
(p. 82) and shows concern over the low Loosely Structured Social Syst:,ms: Thailand
standard of living (pp. 78, 80). By low in Comparative Perspective. HANS-DIETER
standard of living the author means that the EVERS, ed. Cultural Report Series, 17.
 Book Reviews 909
New Haven: Yale University Southeast was a scientific revolution (in Kuhn’s sense)
Asia Studies, 1969. (Distributed by Cellar is at least slightly mind-boggling. Punyod-
Book Shop, Detroit). x + 148 pp., bio- yana starts by expressing his neutrality-but
graphical notes on contributors, figures, goes on to point out that Embree’s view
tables, chapter notes, bibliography. $6.50 ceases to make sense when we raise our
(paper). sights from the village level. Cunningham’s
Reviewed by GEHANWIJEYEWARDENE
paper is the main justification for the phrase
“comparative perspective” in the title. It is
Arrstralicrn Ntrtional University
highly allusive, covers a great deal of theo-
The essays in this volume deal with cer- retical ground, and is sometimes cryptic. Its
tain notions presented by John F. Embree in main concern appears to be to sort out the
a paper entitled “Thailand-a loosely-struc- notions underlying the loose/tight dichotomy
tured social system” published in this jour- and to relate it to the dichotomies used by
nal ( A A 52:181-193) and reprinted here. sociologists/ anthropologists/ historians and
The other essays are by J. A. Niels Mulder, those used by Southeast Asians. There are
Herbert P. Phillips, A. Thomas Kirsch, Ste- some intriguing comments on the relation-
ven Piker, Boonsanong Punyodyana, Clark ship of Southeast Asian “structures” to In-
E. Cunningham, Hans-Dieter Evers, and dian ones (based on the work of F. K. Leh-
Michael Moerman. man), but generally the length of the article
Embree’s concept of loose structure has (eight pages) and the peg on which it is
dominated the sociological writing on Thai- hung (Embree’s concept) cannot support the
land during the last two decades and has had issues that are raised. Moerman’s contribu-
a certain currency in other ethnographic ar- tion is a brief, highly condensed (and
eas. One must admit that at a very superfi- slightly skeptical) summary of the main is-
cial level the notion may be a useful way of sues raised by the other papers.
characterizing a society, or certain aspects Cunningham is surely right when he sug-
of a society, if we wish to point to the ab- gests that the symposium concerns long-
sence of well-defined corporate groups and standing interests of the discipline (p. 106),
rigid rules of ascription to such groups. Be- not only because the attempt to characterize
yond this, Embree’s essay does not convince societies and cultures and modal personali-
me at all, nor on the whole d o any of those ties is always with us, but also because Em-
who have extended the use of the concept. I bree’s central dichotomy rehashed a number
would even suggest that the debate on the of other dichotomies that have been much
issue has deflected attention from more more skillfully treated in the history of soci-
fruitful aspects of Thai sociology. ological theory. Reading through Embree’s
The contributors line up on the issue as paper, we see that he is pointing to aspects
follows: Mulder and Evers are generally of Thai society and culture, or specific
hostile to the characterization of Thai social events, that may be much more meaning-
structure as ‘‘loose,’’ Mulder from a rather fully characterized in terms of some other
positivistic view of social structure, and dichotomy-Gemeinscha f t vs. Geselschaf t
Evers from the consideration of empirical (e.g., Thai bar girls, p. 8 ) , individual vs. col-
data on group formation and social mobility. lectivity (p. 9 ) , open vs. closed groups, and
Piker and Phillips defend the notion, from so on. That the loose/tight dichotomy
the view of psychological anthropology. touches on all these implies that the issue is
They both point out that the users of the central to our concerns, but it does not nec-
concept have not, on the whole, been con- essarily imply that it is reasonably formu-
cerned with social structure at all. Kirsch’s lated. The writings of Weber, Parsons, and
contribution is probably the most ambitious beyond should have taught u s at least one
of the lot. It is part defense (of Embree), thing, if we are to use dichotomous variables
part exegesis, and part history of science. to characterize a society or a culture, the
There is much that is of interest in the pa- characterization must be a complex function
per, and if Embree’s essay is worth a volume of a number of variables and not an identifi-
of discussion, it is worth a few pages of exe- cation with a polar type. Perhaps on this is-
gesis. But to suggest, as Kirsch does, that it sue most of us who have in any way been
910 American Anthropologist
concerned with the controversy are blame-
worthy.
The post-Embree controversy is beset
with misunderstandings and oversimplifica-
tions. Kirsch and Piker point out that con-
trary to the assumption of some of his critics
(this reviewer included), Embree was not
writing from a culture and personality
standpoint. He was rather trying to account
for what seemed to him a discrepancy in
Radcliffe-Brownian structuralism. Piker
however claims that Embree’s paper was of
importance in the subsequent development
of culture and personality theory (pp. 71-
72). Embree’s theoretical position is by no
means obvious on the internal evidence of
the paper, and, seeing that his critics for the
most part have been sociologically inclined
and his supporters mainly psychological an-
thropologists, some doubt must remain as to
the clarity of his intentions. Kirsch rather
neatly suggests that Embree’s critics have
accepted his (unfounded) assumptions that
a loose structure has to be explained away-
that Thai social structure is problematic.
Kirsch is not entirely accurate. As I see it,
the objections to Embree’s formulation are
( 1 ) The essay is muddled and the denotation
of the concept is unclear. ( 2 ) As applied to
Thai social structure it is inaccurate and may
be defended only through an unjustifiable
selectivity. ( 3 ) To say Thai social structure
is ‘‘loose’’is as unproductive as to say Japa-
nese social structure is “tight.” The socio-
logical task is to determine the organizing
principles in each case. If the psychological
anthropologist finds the term “loosc” an ac-
curate and useful description of Thai per-
sonality, that is his privilege, and no one not
competent in the field can complain. That
this is not always the position may be seen by
looking briefly at two of the essays that are
largely directed at each other.
Mulder takes an extreme sociological
view.
In all social interaction, in Thailand as in
any place else, people meet as occupants of
social positions, or roles, that can be clearly
defined in structural-functional terms; there
is nothing “loose” about that. If it were
otherwise in Thailand, sociologists and so-
cial anthropologists might better avoid Thai
society as an object of study [p. 201.
[72, 19701
Mulder’s general point is well taken, but I
am not so sure that conventional role theory
is the best approach to Thai social structure.
We may conveniently talk about social inter-
action anywhere in terms of roles, but we
should also recognize that the development
of role theory in Western sociology may it-
self have a sociological explanation. The
growth of a society based on a rational bu-
reaucracy focuses attention on the need to
separate public from private roles. Sociologi-
cal role theory seems inextricably linked to
the ideology of this rational, bureaucratic
society. It may well be that in those societies
dominatcd by the Indian cultural tradition it
is not so easy, ideologically or otherwise, to
separate a “social person” into his constitu-
ent roles. The exploration of this approach
to Thai social structure seems to be suggested
in Cunningham’s paper.
If Mulder overemphasizes sociological
theory, Phillips misunderstands it. Citing an
earlier work of his, he writes:
In short, most face-to-face Siamese peasant
situations approximate a sociologist’s model
of behavior: highly patterned, predictable
and conservative. Yet when these same peo-
ple leave each other’s presence they behave
in a strikingly different manner. No longer
occupants of a particular social role with its
associated definitions and constraints, they do
very much as individuals wish to do [p. 291.
If, as the passage implies, public situations
are ritualized and private situations infor-
mal, ‘‘loose’’ is hardly the word to describe
the social system. But there is more to it than
that. In his 1965 monograph (Thai Peasant
Personality, Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press) he writes,
The typical Bang Chaner excels at the art of
indicating agreement with people-respon-
siveness, co-operativeness, and compliance
with their verbal requests and orders-and
then once the situation has been concluded,
doing precisely what he wants, often the exact
opposite to that which he had agreed [p. 791.
These views may be impeccable as a descrip-
tion of Thai personality, but it raises the
question “If this description of Thai behav-
ior is generally true how does commerce
thrive and the economy burgeon, as they
have done in recent years?” If we can forget
 Book Reviews 911
about “looseness,” perhaps we may ask Developing Societies, 8. Assen, Nether-
some highly pertinent questions-e.g., what lands: Royal VanGorcum, 1968. xii +
are the devices that the Thai use to convey 128 pp., illustrations, maps, tables, 3 ap-
fixed intentions within the context of overall, pendices, glossary, notes, bibliography.
meaningless agreeableness? In the absence Hfl. 19.40 (cloth).
of obvious sanctions, how does the entrepre-
neur, or similar person, enforce compliance? Reviewed by PAULINE M. KOLENDA
It is a pity that my comments have largely University of Housron
been negative, for there is material here that
This short book touches upon a number
is of considerable interest to the social scien-
of topics connected with parda and the life
tist concerned with Thailand. The central in-
of Muslim women in northern India. Purda
terest is, however, Embree’s paper, and this
must be considered a mistake. Underlying means “curtain” in Urdu and Hindi and re-
fers to the curtain separating the women’s
the position of those who would retain the
quarters from the entrance and reception
concept of loose structure is a notion that in
rooms of a Muslim house. More broadly, it
“tight social structures” roles and collectivi-
refers to the strict segregation of the sexes
ties define, or nearly define, all behavior; in
among Muslims and Hindus in areas that
“loose” ones the individual may escape from
were formerly under Muslim rulers, to the
the few collectivities and roles that may ex-
veiling and cIoaking of women when in the
ist. This is a gross reification of our analytic
presence of men, to the insulation of women
concepts. Individuals are individuals in all
from the public world, and to their confine-
societies, though they may be freer in some
ment to the home. A well-off orthodox Mus-
than in others. Freedom of action, however,
does not necessarily have anything to do lim woman is married shortly after puberty
and spends most of her life in zendna (the
with the structuring of collectivities or the
women’s quarters) of the house of her hus-
definition of roles. The concept of role may
band’s family.
be applied to the “elder uncle” in Thailand
or the “mother’s brother” in South India. Cora Vreede studied Muslim women for
four months in 1959/60 in three places-a
That the latter will be defined in terms of
Muslim section of Delhi (Matia Mahal), a
specific obligations backed by the relations
Muslim educational institution near Delhi
existing between collectivities, and the for-
and the village near it, and the Muslim uni-
mer in terms of generalized obligations, op-
versity in Aligarh. She also spent some short
tative in nature and without the backing of
periods in India in 1964 and 1966. Her
formal sanctions or collective relations, is a
book includes brief chapters entitled “Mus-
matter of great interest and may be diagnos-
lims of Northern India,” “Kinship Terminol-
tic for the social structure and for the degree
ogy,” a longer chapter on “Ashrgf
of individual autonomy in each society-but
on the other hand, it may not. Marriage,” and three chapters on parda.
In contrast, sociologists have often ig-Vreede says “the idea of parda . . . preoc-
cupies the entire Muslim society of northern
nored the fact that the proponents of loose
structure have not been mainly concerned India” (p. 6 3 ) . She holds that psychological
paida is less changing than the outward visi-
with social structure at all. It seems more
ble forms and is basic in the mentality of
fruitful to forget Embree’s paper and pursue
other ends-e.g., even well-educated Muslims. Her main point
the cultural-historical-
is that parda is a symbol of respectable sta-
cognitive interests set out by Cunningham,
tus. Practiced by the Muslim aristocracy
or the macrosociological interests of Pun-
yodyana-for (the A s h r a f ) , it is emulated by the middle
it is becoming increasingly
and lower classes to the extent that their
clear that Thailand is not to be understood
economic conditions allow. Another process
as a collection of villages or villages manque‘.
supporting and reestablishing parda seems to
Parda: A Study of Muslim Womcn’s Life in be an intense Islamization among these
Northern India. CORAVREEDE-DE STUERS. Muslims, who are but a remnant of the pre-
Foreword by W. F. Wertheim. Studies of viously large Muslim population living in