Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession/Comments/Reply

Focusing mainly on Asia, this article tracks a link between the collective, inalienable land-tenure regimes currently associated with indigeneity and attempts to prevent piecemeal dispossession of small-scale farmers through land sale and debt. Collective landholding is sometimes imposed by local gr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current anthropology 2010-06, Vol.51 (3), p.385
Hauptverfasser: Li, Tania Murray, Amita, Baviskar, Cramb, Rob, Ghosh, Kaushik, Idrus, Rusaslina, Peters, Pauline E, Postero, Nancy, Rata, Elizabeth, Wenk, Irina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page 385
container_title Current anthropology
container_volume 51
creator Li, Tania Murray
Amita, Baviskar
Cramb, Rob
Ghosh, Kaushik
Idrus, Rusaslina
Peters, Pauline E
Postero, Nancy
Rata, Elizabeth
Wenk, Irina
description Focusing mainly on Asia, this article tracks a link between the collective, inalienable land-tenure regimes currently associated with indigeneity and attempts to prevent piecemeal dispossession of small-scale farmers through land sale and debt. Collective landholding is sometimes imposed by local groups on their own members as they act to defend their livelihoods and communities. More often, however, it has been imposed from outside, first by paternalistic officials of the colonial period and now by a new set of experts and advocates who assume responsibility for deciding who should and who should not be exposed to the risks and opportunities of market engagement. From the perspective of their proponents, however, attempts to institutionalize collective landholdings are not impositions at all. They simply confirm a culturally distinct formation naturally present among "tribal" or "indigenous" people. Yet rural populations have repeatedly failed to conform to the assumptions embedded in schemes designed for their protection. They cross social and spatial boundaries. Some demand recognition of individualized land rights as they respond to market opportunities. Others are unable to escape the extractive relations that visions of cultural alterity and harmonious collectivity too often overlook. Meanwhile, dispossessory processes roll on unrecognized or unobserved. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_366315968</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2055128851</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_3663159683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNyrsOgjAUgOHGaCJe3qFxhtBSuc2o0RgX406acMASaCunDLy9mvgATv_w_TPi8VikQSyyaE48xjgPRMT2S7JCbBljecxTj1wvulINaFBu8mkhrXKyU9j7VOqKuifQm9SygR60o6amB4XWIAKiMjosTP8FDO9gu2lDFrXsELa_rsnudHwU58AO5jUCurI146A_VIokETzOk0z8Nb0BfTU-Aw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>366315968</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession/Comments/Reply</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Li, Tania Murray ; Amita, Baviskar ; Cramb, Rob ; Ghosh, Kaushik ; Idrus, Rusaslina ; Peters, Pauline E ; Postero, Nancy ; Rata, Elizabeth ; Wenk, Irina</creator><creatorcontrib>Li, Tania Murray ; Amita, Baviskar ; Cramb, Rob ; Ghosh, Kaushik ; Idrus, Rusaslina ; Peters, Pauline E ; Postero, Nancy ; Rata, Elizabeth ; Wenk, Irina</creatorcontrib><description>Focusing mainly on Asia, this article tracks a link between the collective, inalienable land-tenure regimes currently associated with indigeneity and attempts to prevent piecemeal dispossession of small-scale farmers through land sale and debt. Collective landholding is sometimes imposed by local groups on their own members as they act to defend their livelihoods and communities. More often, however, it has been imposed from outside, first by paternalistic officials of the colonial period and now by a new set of experts and advocates who assume responsibility for deciding who should and who should not be exposed to the risks and opportunities of market engagement. From the perspective of their proponents, however, attempts to institutionalize collective landholdings are not impositions at all. They simply confirm a culturally distinct formation naturally present among "tribal" or "indigenous" people. Yet rural populations have repeatedly failed to conform to the assumptions embedded in schemes designed for their protection. They cross social and spatial boundaries. Some demand recognition of individualized land rights as they respond to market opportunities. Others are unable to escape the extractive relations that visions of cultural alterity and harmonious collectivity too often overlook. Meanwhile, dispossessory processes roll on unrecognized or unobserved. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0011-3204</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-5382</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CUANAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: University of Chicago, acting through its Press</publisher><subject>Agricultural economics ; Capitalism ; Colonialism ; Farmers ; Land settlement ; Land tenure ; Native peoples</subject><ispartof>Current anthropology, 2010-06, Vol.51 (3), p.385</ispartof><rights>Copyright University of Chicago, acting through its Press Jun 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,33761</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Li, Tania Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amita, Baviskar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cramb, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh, Kaushik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Idrus, Rusaslina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Pauline E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Postero, Nancy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rata, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wenk, Irina</creatorcontrib><title>Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession/Comments/Reply</title><title>Current anthropology</title><description>Focusing mainly on Asia, this article tracks a link between the collective, inalienable land-tenure regimes currently associated with indigeneity and attempts to prevent piecemeal dispossession of small-scale farmers through land sale and debt. Collective landholding is sometimes imposed by local groups on their own members as they act to defend their livelihoods and communities. More often, however, it has been imposed from outside, first by paternalistic officials of the colonial period and now by a new set of experts and advocates who assume responsibility for deciding who should and who should not be exposed to the risks and opportunities of market engagement. From the perspective of their proponents, however, attempts to institutionalize collective landholdings are not impositions at all. They simply confirm a culturally distinct formation naturally present among "tribal" or "indigenous" people. Yet rural populations have repeatedly failed to conform to the assumptions embedded in schemes designed for their protection. They cross social and spatial boundaries. Some demand recognition of individualized land rights as they respond to market opportunities. Others are unable to escape the extractive relations that visions of cultural alterity and harmonious collectivity too often overlook. Meanwhile, dispossessory processes roll on unrecognized or unobserved. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Capitalism</subject><subject>Colonialism</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Land settlement</subject><subject>Land tenure</subject><subject>Native peoples</subject><issn>0011-3204</issn><issn>1537-5382</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNyrsOgjAUgOHGaCJe3qFxhtBSuc2o0RgX406acMASaCunDLy9mvgATv_w_TPi8VikQSyyaE48xjgPRMT2S7JCbBljecxTj1wvulINaFBu8mkhrXKyU9j7VOqKuifQm9SygR60o6amB4XWIAKiMjosTP8FDO9gu2lDFrXsELa_rsnudHwU58AO5jUCurI146A_VIokETzOk0z8Nb0BfTU-Aw</recordid><startdate>20100601</startdate><enddate>20100601</enddate><creator>Li, Tania Murray</creator><creator>Amita, Baviskar</creator><creator>Cramb, Rob</creator><creator>Ghosh, Kaushik</creator><creator>Idrus, Rusaslina</creator><creator>Peters, Pauline E</creator><creator>Postero, Nancy</creator><creator>Rata, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Wenk, Irina</creator><general>University of Chicago, acting through its Press</general><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100601</creationdate><title>Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession/Comments/Reply</title><author>Li, Tania Murray ; Amita, Baviskar ; Cramb, Rob ; Ghosh, Kaushik ; Idrus, Rusaslina ; Peters, Pauline E ; Postero, Nancy ; Rata, Elizabeth ; Wenk, Irina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_3663159683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Capitalism</topic><topic>Colonialism</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Land settlement</topic><topic>Land tenure</topic><topic>Native peoples</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Tania Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amita, Baviskar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cramb, Rob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh, Kaushik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Idrus, Rusaslina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, Pauline E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Postero, Nancy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rata, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wenk, Irina</creatorcontrib><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Current anthropology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Tania Murray</au><au>Amita, Baviskar</au><au>Cramb, Rob</au><au>Ghosh, Kaushik</au><au>Idrus, Rusaslina</au><au>Peters, Pauline E</au><au>Postero, Nancy</au><au>Rata, Elizabeth</au><au>Wenk, Irina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession/Comments/Reply</atitle><jtitle>Current anthropology</jtitle><date>2010-06-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>385</spage><pages>385-</pages><issn>0011-3204</issn><eissn>1537-5382</eissn><coden>CUANAX</coden><abstract>Focusing mainly on Asia, this article tracks a link between the collective, inalienable land-tenure regimes currently associated with indigeneity and attempts to prevent piecemeal dispossession of small-scale farmers through land sale and debt. Collective landholding is sometimes imposed by local groups on their own members as they act to defend their livelihoods and communities. More often, however, it has been imposed from outside, first by paternalistic officials of the colonial period and now by a new set of experts and advocates who assume responsibility for deciding who should and who should not be exposed to the risks and opportunities of market engagement. From the perspective of their proponents, however, attempts to institutionalize collective landholdings are not impositions at all. They simply confirm a culturally distinct formation naturally present among "tribal" or "indigenous" people. Yet rural populations have repeatedly failed to conform to the assumptions embedded in schemes designed for their protection. They cross social and spatial boundaries. Some demand recognition of individualized land rights as they respond to market opportunities. Others are unable to escape the extractive relations that visions of cultural alterity and harmonious collectivity too often overlook. Meanwhile, dispossessory processes roll on unrecognized or unobserved. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>University of Chicago, acting through its Press</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0011-3204
ispartof Current anthropology, 2010-06, Vol.51 (3), p.385
issn 0011-3204
1537-5382
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_366315968
source Sociological Abstracts; Jstor Complete Legacy
subjects Agricultural economics
Capitalism
Colonialism
Farmers
Land settlement
Land tenure
Native peoples
title Indigeneity, Capitalism, and the Management of Dispossession/Comments/Reply
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T12%3A04%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Indigeneity,%20Capitalism,%20and%20the%20Management%20of%20Dispossession/Comments/Reply&rft.jtitle=Current%20anthropology&rft.au=Li,%20Tania%20Murray&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=385&rft.pages=385-&rft.issn=0011-3204&rft.eissn=1537-5382&rft.coden=CUANAX&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2055128851%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=366315968&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true