At 10:09 AM 1/5/98 -0800, Michael Eisenscher wrote, in response to Louis
Proyect questioning the accuracy of the "rural idiocy" phrase:
>Second question: Is our objection as critics of capitalism (and dare I say,
>proponents of socialism) to urbanization per se or to capitalism and its
>consequences under circumstances of urbanization? Should we celebrate
>(romanticize) rural life for its own sake, ignoring the intellectually and
>culturally stultifying charateristics of rural life under conditions of
>capitalism and it predecessors?
The perception of "rural idiocy" is probably an urban myth. The Russian
economist A.V. Chayanov (_The Theory of Peasant Economy_, Madison: The U. of
Wisconsin Press, 1986) condicted empirical studies of Russian peasantry
before the Revolution and concluded that their system was more sustananle
than that proposed by Stalin's reformers. A big part of that sustainability
was the autonomous control of the means of production and work by the
producers (the peasant household) - which allowed great flexibility in
adjusting to outside conditions. From that standpoint, the peasant farmer
can be described as a decision-making entrepreneur - by contrast to most
urban-style employment (blue and white collar alike) which is largely
mindless following the rules.
The superstition and stupidity of peasantry might be the product of literary
fiction fed to Western urban audiences (cf. _The Painted Bird_ by J.
Kosinski). Ethnographic accounts of pre-industrial societies show
otherwise. For example, Malinowski's ethnographic work on Triobriand Island
clearly shows that magic has definite function -- as a ritualistic control
of the environmemnt that beyond control given the level of technology.
Malinowski contrasts lagoon fishing (a fairly predictable and controllable
operation) and deep-sea fishing (highly risky and unpredictable) and notes
that while the latter is surrounded by a host of magic rituals, such rituals
are absent from lagoon fishing. he concludes that magic serves as a
symbolic substitute for technology.
Claude Levi-Strauss (_The Savage Mind_) argues that the "primitive" people
were capable of producing classification systems as sophisticated as those
found in "advanced" sciences - yet based on a different logic that that
found in European thought. Noam Chomsky argues along similar lines pointing
that the universal human ability to master a language, the most complex
system of expression known, suggests that all people have essentially the
same cognitive capacity, regardless of their social class or origins.
Of course, modern urban organizations do precisely the same thing -- magic
rituals (aka emergency plans, risk management, etc.) to deal with situations
the management cannot predict or fully control. This is what Dilbert
cartoons are all about, although my favorite example is the continegncy plan
prepared by the US Postal Service how to deliver mail after a nuclear attack
on the US.
The bottom line is that "idiocy" lies not in urban or rural society per se,
but in the relative level of decision-making autonomy people have in their
everyday lives. By this criterion, the TV-driven American society with
taylorised workplaces relegating the solution of minute everday life
problems to some form of authority - might be the highest form of idiocy yet
known.
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
