Subsistenzkrise und Rebellion: Eine Kritik der "Moral Economy" bäuerlicher Gesellschaften

Abstract

The critique of the 'Moral Economy' of peasant societies continues a controversy within the Economic Anthropology of the fifties and sixties between 'Substantivists' and 'Formalists' , although on a slightly different level: the present contradiction is centred on the effectiveness of social norms versus the strength of individual decision-making in peasant societies. This controversy is represented by two authors: James C. Scott, the 'Moral Economist' and Samuel L. Popkin, the Political Economist. Both approaches focus on the relationship between economic and social institutions and the impact of change in peasant societies. Popkin, however, emphasizes the difficulties faced by village communities in maintaining and (re-)enforcing these institutions during times of rapid social and economic change. He challenges the effectiveness of norms of equilibrium which are thought to be based on a 'Subsistence Ethic' and defined by requirements of reproduction within the whole village community. He states that modern capitalist market forces, as they have been experienced by peasant societies for quite some decades now, are not always, and not by all members of the community, seen as threatening their social and economic well-being and security, in other words their ' subsistence' . Peasants are, in fact, frequently responding to modem market forces in perfectly modern, 'rational' ways, calculating and balancing risks and benefits. Furthermore, threats on subsistence margins, that is, the danger of being forced below a 'subsistence floor' , do not neccessarily lead to peasant rebellion because such forms of collective action are difficult to organise where personal interests, gain or loss are at stake. Popkin suggests that in rapidly changing rural societies, much more attention should be given to mechanisms of individual decision-making.