Page 34 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 34
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
er the peasant economy in general, and the integrated peasant economy
in particular was directed only towards reaching subsistence and grant-
ing survival to the household, or perhaps it allowed something more, too,
as in the integrated peasant economy hypothesis. We may find a confirma-
tion of the latter in Cafagna’s opinion that the “subjective aims, the inspi-
rative strategies” of pluriactivity may be twofold: given by “defensive ne-
cessities” (in relation to the survival possibilities or to the living standard
of the family) or by “aspirations of change/improvement.” The peasant de-
cision may well take place in a “strategic perspective of acquiring proper-
ty […], a pluriactivity choice for ‘independence,’ as Hubscher would say”
(Cafagna 1989, 79, 81).
French historians dedicated their attention to the issue of the social
and economic goals of the pluriactive peasant. Ronald Hubscher expressed
the opinion that besides admitting the existence of a “penury or subsistence
pluriactivity” (pluriactivité de pénurie ou de subsistence), “it is necessary
to question other destinations of capital [earned through pluriactivity],
which point to concerns of social mobility” (Hubscher 1988, 9). This opin-
ion resisted further research tests in France, considering that also Jean-Luc
Mayaud a decade later stated that “peasant pluriactivity is not only a pluri-
activity out of necessity.” From the point of view of “the poorest wanting to
rise, the recourse to pluriactivity appears a possible, if not a necessary route
to the maintenance and improvement of the small peasant farms” (Mayaud
1999, 233–5).
Without masking the reality of pluriactivity as a ‘solution for mar-
ginalised farmers’, one should not neglect that it is an ‘art de vivre’
and discloses itself as structurally linked to the peasant farm. Re-
vealed in the long term, pluriactivity finds its place both during the
idle periods of agricultural work and within the family’s division of
tasks, fixed or variable, temporary or permanent. It is extremely
flexible and adaptable in both the short and the long term. Various
typologies have thus been drawn up, taking into account the more
or less strong constraints of agricultural activity, of the rhythms of
work in the various crafts, in proto-industry or industry, but also
of the opportunities offered by surrounding society. No limit has
the list of examples of pluriactivity, in the last century, which don’t
spare any rural area [of France]” (Mayaud 1999, 236–7).
32
er the peasant economy in general, and the integrated peasant economy
in particular was directed only towards reaching subsistence and grant-
ing survival to the household, or perhaps it allowed something more, too,
as in the integrated peasant economy hypothesis. We may find a confirma-
tion of the latter in Cafagna’s opinion that the “subjective aims, the inspi-
rative strategies” of pluriactivity may be twofold: given by “defensive ne-
cessities” (in relation to the survival possibilities or to the living standard
of the family) or by “aspirations of change/improvement.” The peasant de-
cision may well take place in a “strategic perspective of acquiring proper-
ty […], a pluriactivity choice for ‘independence,’ as Hubscher would say”
(Cafagna 1989, 79, 81).
French historians dedicated their attention to the issue of the social
and economic goals of the pluriactive peasant. Ronald Hubscher expressed
the opinion that besides admitting the existence of a “penury or subsistence
pluriactivity” (pluriactivité de pénurie ou de subsistence), “it is necessary
to question other destinations of capital [earned through pluriactivity],
which point to concerns of social mobility” (Hubscher 1988, 9). This opin-
ion resisted further research tests in France, considering that also Jean-Luc
Mayaud a decade later stated that “peasant pluriactivity is not only a pluri-
activity out of necessity.” From the point of view of “the poorest wanting to
rise, the recourse to pluriactivity appears a possible, if not a necessary route
to the maintenance and improvement of the small peasant farms” (Mayaud
1999, 233–5).
Without masking the reality of pluriactivity as a ‘solution for mar-
ginalised farmers’, one should not neglect that it is an ‘art de vivre’
and discloses itself as structurally linked to the peasant farm. Re-
vealed in the long term, pluriactivity finds its place both during the
idle periods of agricultural work and within the family’s division of
tasks, fixed or variable, temporary or permanent. It is extremely
flexible and adaptable in both the short and the long term. Various
typologies have thus been drawn up, taking into account the more
or less strong constraints of agricultural activity, of the rhythms of
work in the various crafts, in proto-industry or industry, but also
of the opportunities offered by surrounding society. No limit has
the list of examples of pluriactivity, in the last century, which don’t
spare any rural area [of France]” (Mayaud 1999, 236–7).
32
