Page 37 - 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. 37
the integrated peasant economy as a concept in progress
of activities may in fact be a way to lose out of sight the fundamental ac-
knowledgement that income integration in peasant economy constitutes
one system only, despite its (different) forms of appearance. Nevertheless
the distinction between activity combinations as “forms of pluriactivity”
represents one of the possible paths to a comparative approach, as Luigi
Lorenzetti has recently shown in the example of two Alpine valleys in Ita-
ly and Switzerland between the last decades of the 19th and first of the 20th
centuries (Lorenzetti 2012–13).
This brings us to an interesting divergence between the two concepts,
related to the somehow different time-frame in which they are applied.
While ‘Italian school’ pluriactivity research focuses mainly on the 18th and
19th century, with possible projections into the 20th, ‘French school’ pluriac-
tivity is more focused on the latter two centuries, with Yves Rinaudo even
deeming that, “omnipresent, peasants’ ‘pluri-activity’ functioned as a for-
mula for adaptation to the modem world (from 1830 to 1950).” Indeed also
a different scenario was possible: peasants remaining attached to old and
declining activities would decrease in number, while others would find in
new activities “the means to last without changing.” (Rinaudo 1987, 296–7).
Continuing on the same interpretative line, Mayaux identifies in pluriac-
tivity the reason why small peasant farms in France endured the 19th cen-
tury, notwithstanding the expectation that they should have been con-
demned to join the proletariat and give way to big capitalistic farms. That’s
also the reason why he claims that “the acknowledgement of pluriactivity
by rural historians is one of the important acquisitions in recent historiog-
raphy,” making it possible to speak of an “agro-industrial” space and econ-
omy (Mayaud 1999, 232).
Recognising the versatility of the small-scale rural farm, one can
understand its resistance, its maintenance, its reproduction and,
overall, its triumph. Being pluri-active, it is confronted with the
risks of the market in which it is inserted. More exposed than the
alimentary tenure, it is nevertheless better equipped to face the sur-
rounding economy. It draws its strength from a high level of flexi-
bility and strong reconversion capacities: depending on market op-
portunities, ‘extra work’ can temporarily become the main activity
or disappear in anticipation of better times (Mayaud 1999, 242).
Although this interpretation is perfectly in line with the integrated
peasant economy concept, as we have seen and still will notice, at the same
35
of activities may in fact be a way to lose out of sight the fundamental ac-
knowledgement that income integration in peasant economy constitutes
one system only, despite its (different) forms of appearance. Nevertheless
the distinction between activity combinations as “forms of pluriactivity”
represents one of the possible paths to a comparative approach, as Luigi
Lorenzetti has recently shown in the example of two Alpine valleys in Ita-
ly and Switzerland between the last decades of the 19th and first of the 20th
centuries (Lorenzetti 2012–13).
This brings us to an interesting divergence between the two concepts,
related to the somehow different time-frame in which they are applied.
While ‘Italian school’ pluriactivity research focuses mainly on the 18th and
19th century, with possible projections into the 20th, ‘French school’ pluriac-
tivity is more focused on the latter two centuries, with Yves Rinaudo even
deeming that, “omnipresent, peasants’ ‘pluri-activity’ functioned as a for-
mula for adaptation to the modem world (from 1830 to 1950).” Indeed also
a different scenario was possible: peasants remaining attached to old and
declining activities would decrease in number, while others would find in
new activities “the means to last without changing.” (Rinaudo 1987, 296–7).
Continuing on the same interpretative line, Mayaux identifies in pluriac-
tivity the reason why small peasant farms in France endured the 19th cen-
tury, notwithstanding the expectation that they should have been con-
demned to join the proletariat and give way to big capitalistic farms. That’s
also the reason why he claims that “the acknowledgement of pluriactivity
by rural historians is one of the important acquisitions in recent historiog-
raphy,” making it possible to speak of an “agro-industrial” space and econ-
omy (Mayaud 1999, 232).
Recognising the versatility of the small-scale rural farm, one can
understand its resistance, its maintenance, its reproduction and,
overall, its triumph. Being pluri-active, it is confronted with the
risks of the market in which it is inserted. More exposed than the
alimentary tenure, it is nevertheless better equipped to face the sur-
rounding economy. It draws its strength from a high level of flexi-
bility and strong reconversion capacities: depending on market op-
portunities, ‘extra work’ can temporarily become the main activity
or disappear in anticipation of better times (Mayaud 1999, 242).
Although this interpretation is perfectly in line with the integrated
peasant economy concept, as we have seen and still will notice, at the same
35
