Meillassoux on
Foraging as a Mode of Production
Passages out of the 1973 paper by Claude Meillassoux
"On the Mode of Production of the Hunting Band", from W.P. Alexandre (ed.)
French
Perspectives in African Studies. It's
a remarkably audacious, and useful, essay in which, after building
a general picture of gathering-hunting "band" societies, Meillassoux contrasts
it with a general picture of farming societies. The Marxian inspiration
of these depictions should be obvious: he's sketching two different modes
of production and figuring out their contrasting effects throughout the
rest of the social system of relationships and cultural understandings:
on reproduction, gender, kinship, family, time and more. All that in these
few paragraphs. Probably no other short piece illustrates so effectively
the energy which Marxism provided to anthropology from the late 1960's
on. It's not just the packaging that's new: so were many of these ideas.
The social organization of production which develops
around this [gathering-hunting] mode of exploitation presents, as a result,
a certain number of features. Co-operation between the group of hunters
and gatherers is only effective and necessary for the duration of an expedition.
It ends with the dividing of the spoils. The partners, if they wish, could
immediately leave the group concerned and join another -- without being
deprived or depriving the others. In other words co-operation may be impromptu
(it brings together each time the partners willing to participate) and
ad
hoc (it groups members and agents necessary for an enterprise in a
circumstantial fashion). Since co-operation is sporadic and precarious,
the composition of the productive groups is not definite.... In other words,
the mode of production does not require a continued membership of the same
group. Nor does it create a dependence between partners since each one
owns his own tools and the sharing of the produce absolves them of all
reciprocal obligations. Relations of production do not therefore result
in any long-lasting social cohesion as far as the band is concerned. Bands
are, indeed, reported to be unstable and composite.
The circulation of goods takes place within a limited
and diffuse circuit; within the co-operative group of hunters the collective
produce is divided and handed over to each of the partners individually
through the institution of sharing. Unlike the situation in agricultural
societies, there is no redistributive system, i.e. no centralization of
the product and
deferred distribution -- the act of circulation,
as of production, is instantaneous.
The shortness and sporadic repetition of activities
lead to a way of life which is tied to the present, without any
duration or continuity. The way of life is 'instantaneous'.... The preoccupations
of hunters and foragers are directed towards day-to-day production far
more than towards reproduction. Within the band there are no durable ties
binding young people to their elders, no material dependence obliging them
to remain close to them. Children do not provide a form of insurance in
the sense of their being future providers for non-productive old people;
nor are they the future recruits of an ancestral cult. Social control over
procreating women is therefore unimportant, if not non-existent, and women,
as a result, enjoy a freedom which is apparently only limited by their
physical constitution.... The mode of production also offers opportunities
for individual freedom which is revealed by the sexual attitudes, the weakness
of the marital ties, individual mobility, the fragility and instability
of social institutions, both within the band and the nuclear family.
The social organization of production does not provide
the basis for the development of a centralized, lasting political power....
there is no basis here for dispossessing [the producer] of his product.
The leadership of a productive activity never lasts any longer than the
duration of the enterprise itself; each time it is discussed anew.... Sharing
as an institution provides no opportunities by means of which power may
be asserted or made to endure since, like hunting itself, it is a discontinuous
and repetitive process. Power has no chance to find its justification in
a permanent and necessary economic and social function....
...[A] farming economy is differentiated [from foraging]...
by the incorporation into the land of a sum of labour whose output is deferred.
The duration of the productive process and the delayed acquisition of the
product lead to a prolonged and continuous co-operation in carrying out
agricultural activities. The distribution of the tasks as well as the durability
of the product, its storage and consumption over an extended period --
at least equal to a complete farming cycle -- the need to resume work while
still consuming the previous harvest, this constantly renewed cycle entails
an indefinite prolongation of the ties binding together all those people
who co-operate in a same farming enterprise. In such societies, where duration,
expectation, and cyclical repetition -- that is, time -- are paramount,
the future becomes a concern and, along with it, the problem of reproduction:
reproduction of the total strength of the productive unit, both in number
and in quality, in order to ensure continued supplies for its members;
reproduction of the structures of the unit in order to preserve the hierarchy
which ensures its functioning. Descent -- which provides for group membership
and renews the relations of production -- and marriage -- which renews
the hierarchical structures -- become major concerns. Children are viewed
as the natural dependants of man, procreation as the most direct means
of obtaining dependants, and the family as a divine and natural institution.
Relations of production assume the appearance of kinship. Women, as producers
of the producer, become the most potent of the means of production oriented
towards the future and therefore are subjected to coercion and restrictions.
Women, in farming societies, are subject persons, and the subjection they
endure on account of their reproductive capacities leads to an even more
complete subjection in the field of production. Preoccupations with the
future also imply a return to the past: geneologies become longer and the
ancestors emerge as political and religious figures.
Relationships between man and Nature change. The
farmer has to toil ceaselessly to keep his land against the invasion of
vegetation and the depredation of the animals. He must engrave his life
on the soil and prevent its erasure.... Instead of being a protective force,
Nature becomes hostile. Distinctions between the village and the bush become
clearly expressed in the topography as well as in the language. The bush
is now a strange and dangerous place, peopled by evil spirits... fearful
beings, representations of the overwhelming forces of Nature which have
to be vanquished, mastered, or won over....
@back to
list of readings