One Innovation: Hybrid Maize

U ovoj minucioznoj a istodobno jednostavnoj analizi širenja hibridnog kukuruza na jugozapadu Francuske, Mendras izlaže rijetko složene psihičke i socijalne mehanizme širenja inovacija u selo - čak i kada je, s agrotehničkog stajališta, prijelaz s domaćeg kukuruza na hibridni vrlo jednostavan a ekonomska superiornost očita. Autor je, temeljem rezultata ankete na seljacima u dolini Nay 1960. i drugih izvora, dokazao da su seljaci hibridni kukuruz prihvatili nakon pet do šest godina koliko je bilo potrebno da se on tu aklimatizira, a seljaci uvjere u njegovu prednost nad domaćim »biskajskim krupnim riđim« kukuzom. Jer seljak odluku ne donosi na osnovi puke tehničke i ekonomske racionalnosti kao agronomi i stručnjaci nego drugog tipa racionalnosti: seljak oklijeva zbog nesigurnosti, jer on mora napustiti zatvorenu seljačku ekonomiju i ući u tržišnu, a kako tržišna donosi promjenu načina života, za njega je to ravno upuštanju u avanturu. Seljak pri odlučivanju koristi i kriterije moralnog vrednovanja, a to je drugi sustav racionalnosti i vrijednosti: od (seljaku oćitih) estetskih i nutritivnih kvaliteta domaćeg kukuruza za uzgoj peradi i svinja (on je i ljepši i bolji), različite mjere količine uroda, činjenice da hibrid potječe iz Amerike iz koje su dolazila i druga zla, manihejskog moraliziranja o tome je li strano bolje od domaćeg i potrebe da se hibrid pokaže u istim uvjetima uzgoja kao i domaći kukuruz, pa do sarkazma i ironije susjeda zbog toga što seljakov hibrid kasni u vegetaciji i berbi, te prihvaćanja vlastite dekvalifikacije i neodraslosti. Seljaci su hibrid prihvatili kad se on integrirao u sistem kultura, a on je svoje mjesto u rasporedu kultura, u sistemu proizvodnje i komercijalizacije dobio kad je nastupila promjena u tradicionalnom korištenju kukuruza. Tek je 1959. prestao biti unosan tov svinja, jer su se one slabo prodavale. Jednostavna i ograničena promjena u sistemu proizvodnje koju je hibridni kukuruz značio bila je protivna seljakovom »duhu« jer je on - umjesto »gotovog proizvoda«, masne svinje koja je zahtijevala rad i njegu - trebao prodavati »sirovi« biljni proizvod, kukuruz. Seljak je majstor svog zanata a kukuruz nije nikakvo »remek-djelo« koje bi se na jednak način trebalo pripisati sposobnosti i iskustvu njegova »stvaraoca«. Drugo, seljaci su vidjeli da je hibrid prethodnica cijelom nizu promjena. Nakon nekoliko godina morali su uvesti druge skupe promjene: uzgoj je ekonomičan na većim površinama, što zahtijeva skupu mehanizaciju (traktor, berač itd.) i intenzifikaciju, sadnju na najboljim zemljama i zamjenu strnih žita kukuruzom (svođenje livada za kojima su žudjele generacije na obična polja, i to pod kukuruzom koji nije niti za kruh kao pšenica, izaziva sveopće zgražanje, posebice jer se potom opet pretvaraju u livade), pojavu savjetnika koji zamjenjuje oca s nužnošću da seljak čitav život uči, jer više nema prokušanog postupka na kojega bi se mogao osloniti, kao i ovisnost o zadruzi, o kreditima o kojima odlučuju oni isti koji su o seljaku i ranije odlučivali. Sve u svemu, krajnja posljedica te, na prvi pogled, male promjene jest gubitak seljakove samostalnosti i promjena njegova načina života. Hibridni kukuruz ubija domaću zemljoradnju, ako pod njom razumijevamo tradicionalno seljaštvo i seljačko društvo, jer uništava sitne zemljoradnike i time cijeli sustav socijalne slojevitosti i oblika društvenog života. Nekadašnje bearnsko selo umire i ono je toga svjesno. Zato su zabrinutost i strah seljaka opravdani. Iza uvođenja toga novog kukuruza postoje neke političke zadnje namjere, koje su oni vidjeli. Autor je obradio i različit odnos »crvenih« (komunista) i »ispravnih« (katolika) prema ovoj novini te pokazao da je i crkva sklopila savez s tehničkim napretkom i ekonomskim uspjehom. Autor je analizu proveo sa stajališta seljaka i zato njegova raščlamba dinamike uvođenja hibridnog kukuruza, ovisno o imetku obiteljskih gospodarstava, spada među rijetke svrhovito, metodologijski, kategorijalno i interpretativno besprijekorne sociologijske studije širenja inovacija. Jednostavno, razvidno je koju ulogu u odlučivanju, osim tehnoloških i ekonomskih, imaju socijalni, demografski, kulturni i drugi čimbenici, primjerice velika poticajna uloga potomstva, utjecaj odnosa između oca i sina (posebice u obitelji patrijarhalnoga tipa), kao i rascjep koji je hibridni kukuruz stvorio između onih koji ga mogu prihvatiti i kojima je to unosno, i onih koji ga odbijaju ili pak, prihvaćajući ga, samo privremeno popravljaju svoj već načet ekonomski položaj.This minutial and at the same time simple Mendras\u27s analysis of the diffusion of hybrid maize in the south-west France shows rarely complex psychic and social mechanisms of the diffusion of innovation into the village - even then when, from the agro-technological point of view, the transition from the domestic to hybrid maize is very simple one and the economic superiority obvious. Taking the results of the inquiry made among the peasants in the Nay valley in 1960 as well as other sources as the basis for his analysis, the author proved that the peasants accepted hybrid maize after some five or six years - the period needed for hybrid maize to acclimatize in the area and for peasants to make sure of its advantage over the domestic »Biscayan bulky rusty« one. For, peasants do not make decisions upon the mere technical and economic rationality like the agronomists and other experts do. The peasants follow another type of rationality: the peasant hesitates because of insecurity, as he has to give up closed peasant\u27s economy and to enter the market economy, and since the market economy brings along the change of the way of life, for peasant it is equal to an adventure. When making decision the peasant also uses the criteria of moral valuation, and it is completely different system of rationality and values: from the domestic maize\u27s (to peasant obvious) aesthetic and nutritive qualities for breeding of poultry and pigs (domestic maize is nicer and better), different measures of the quantity of yield, the fact that the hybrid is originally from America where from other bad things came, Manichaean moralizing that the foreign is better than the domestic andthe need for the hybrid to be tested in the same growing conditions as the domestic one, to the neighbour\u27s sarcasm and ironic remarks because an individual peasant\u27s hybrid has late vegetation and harvest, as well as the acceptance of one\u27s own de-qualification and immaturity. The peasants have accepted the hybrid upon its integration in the system of cultures, and with the change of the traditional use of maize it found its place in the arrangement of cultures, the production system and commercialization. It was only in 1959 that the breeding of pigs ceased to be lucrative, because of the poor sell, Hybrid maize meant simple and limited change within the production system that was opposite to the peasant\u27s »spirit« since instead of the »final product« - a fat pig that required work and care, he had to sell the »raw« vegetal product, maize. The peasant is a master of his trade and maize is no sort of a »master-piece« that should be attributed to its »creator\u27s« ability and experience in equal way. Secondly, the peasants realized that the hybrid was showing the way to a whole series of changes. Several years later they had to introduce other expensive changes: growing hybrid is economical only on large areas and that requires expensive mechanization (tractor, picker etc.) and intensification, seeding on the best grounds and replacing stubble grains with maize (reducing meadows - that generations were longing for - to mere fields, and the fields under maize which isn\u27t good for making bread as wheat is, arises general detestation, in particular because the fields are then again being turned into meadows), the introduction of advisor who replaces the father with the necessity for peasant to learn the whole life as there is no more a tested procedure he can rely on, as well as the dependence on the co-operative, on the loans that are decided about by the very same people who even earlier made decisions about the peasants. All in all, the final consequence of this apparently small change is the peasant\u27s deprivation of independence and the change of his way of life. If domestic farming is understood as the traditional peasantry and peasant\u27s society, hybrid maize kills it because it destroys small farmers and through this the whole system of social stratification and forms of social life. The former Bearnaise village dies and it is aware of that. For that reason the peasants\u27 worry and fear are justified. Behind the inauguration of that new maize there are some real\u27 political intentions that the peasants did not see. The author also elaborated different attitude of »the red« (communists) and »the righteous« (Catholics) towards this novelty, and showed as well that the Church formed an alliance with technical progress and economy success. The author made the analysis from the peasant\u27s point of view and for that reason in terms of purpose, methodology, category and interpretation his examination of the dynamics of introduction of hybrid maize - depending on the family smallholdings\u27 assets belongs among the rare impeccable studies of the diffusion of innovation. Simply, it reveals the role of social, demographic, culture and other factors, like the great stimulating role of the offspring, the impact of the father and son relationship (in particular in the patriarchal type of family) - along with technological and economic ones - in the decision making, as well as the gap that hybrid maize made between those who can adopt it and who find it lucrative and those who refuse it or who, adopting it, only temporarily mend their already shaken economic situation