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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Current anthropology 2010-06, Vol.51 (3), p.385 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
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 |