Sharashkin, Leonid. The socioeconomic and cultural significance of

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Russian self-provisioning phenomenon, especially the subsidiary plot cultivation by rural residents, has been recognized as an important part of the country’s agriculture and studied for several decades (Wadekin 1973; Hedlund 1989). As early as in 1973, Wadekin was already describing the backbone of Soviet agriculture as “fifty million small-scale producers” (1973:81) — but dacha gardening has been rarely even mentioned in agrarian reform debates and generally ignored by both agricultural policy-makers and by most scholars. Despite the prominence of food gardening, it has largely been viewed only as a mere addition to the nation’s industrial agriculture. Instead, great attention has been laid on the “modern” sector of agriculture, including large-scale grain production, industrial crops (such as flax) or confinement livestock operations — as if those represented the whole of agriculture. This bias is largely due to decades of modernization and industrialization philosophies being applied to agriculture and to the fact that historically the production of grains and flax provided the bulk of cash crops and export commodities — and was therefore of greater importance to the state than subsistence-oriented food gardening. Indeed, the conflict between the tradition of self-provisioning and the requirements of the state has a history that can be traced back for at least a thousand years. When the industrial, heavily subsidized, large-scale agriculture experienced a sharp decline in the early 1990s but no famine ensued, researchers turned more attention to food gardening. Even though several attempts to explain Russian food gardening practices as only a survival strategy during the times of economic hardship have failed (Clarke et al. 1999), up to the present day researchers have primarily focused on the economic significance of household agriculture and the political and legal frameworks that enabled this small-scale private production even under the Soviet regime. 7
Recently, it has been increasingly recognized that subsistence growing in Russia, apart from its economic and social importance, has deep historic roots that go back to the peasant economy (Seeth et al. 1998) and that present-day food gardening bears similarities to the peasant household production of the late 19th – early 20th centuries (Clarke et al. 1999; O’Brien, Wegren, and Patsiorkovsky 2005). At the same time, researchers have continued to focus on the economic dimension of self-provisioning, and treat it as a response to poverty and survival strategy (Seeth et al. 1998), as an indication of economic distress in rural areas (O’Brien et al. 1996) or as merely a useful “fix” to Russia’s social conflicts (Rutkevich 2001). However, recent studies also suggested that the mass food self-provisioning by Russian households cannot be explained as a response to poverty (Berman 2005; Clarke et al. 1999), that food gardening is a highly diverse, sustainable and culturally rich mode of food production it its own right (Berman 2005), and that a proper understanding of this practice requires the study of its cultural characteristics (Bonanno and Lyman 1999). This recent recognition of the cultural dimension of food gardening is not surprising, since almost a century ago Russia’s most prominent agricultural economist Alexander Chaianov maintained that the significance of agriculture grounded in century-old traditions of peasant living goes well beyond food production alone (Kremnev 1920; Sharashkin, Gold, and Barham 2005). Lovell’s (2003) ethnographic and social history research of Russian dacha contributed to the understanding of its cultural significance, but self-provisioning, especially by urban households (who form the majority of micro-scale producers), continues to be under-researched. To date, no interdisciplinary studies of the economic, natural resource and socio-cultural characteristics of food gardening in Russia (or in any of Russia’s regions) have been carried out. Researchers themselves recognize the scarcity of research on the topic (Varshavskaya 1998; Yaroshenko 1998). This study will help to partially fill this gap. 8
Page 1 and 2: THE SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL SIGN
Page 3 and 4: To Anastasia and to millions of Rus
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When I started res
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Page 9 and 10: CHAPTER 2. HOUSEHOLD GARDENING IN T
Page 11 and 12: Agri-cultural values . . . . . . .
Page 13 and 14: 14. Views of Marxists and Chaianov
Page 15 and 16: 52. Distribution of responses to cu
Page 17 and 18: 13. Peasant-like households in the
Page 19 and 20: THE SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL SIGN
Page 21 and 22: Dacha. The term dacha, dating back
Page 23 and 24: farming in reference to gardening,
Page 25: In this dissertation, I use the Lib
Page 29 and 30: in the region in 2006 (with a repre
Page 31 and 32: largely due to the proliferation of
Page 33 and 34: 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 67% 33% 48%
Page 35 and 36: Table 2. Land usage by different gr
Page 37 and 38: garden-plots is certainly intention
Page 39 and 40: Finally, the gardening practices ar
Page 41 and 42: That household gardening is a highl
Page 43 and 44: Table 6: Distribution of land under
Page 45 and 46: Table 7. Distribution of land under
Page 47 and 48: Table 8. Number of households ownin
Page 49 and 50: Table 10. Employers’ requests for
Page 51 and 52: Table 11 shows that of the 80,342 g
Page 53 and 54: household subsistence comes first,
Page 55 and 56: Household production plays an impor
Page 57 and 58: the country’s agricultural output
Page 59 and 60: • Subsidy-free: This mode of agri
Page 61 and 62: was not only “beautiful,” but i
Page 63 and 64: for several decades, Kurdiumov (200
Page 65 and 66: Organic husbandry minimizes agroche
Page 67 and 68: have recently been vindicated by sc
Page 69 and 70: oth Russia and the U.S. Indeed, as
Page 71 and 72: another important factor shaping th
Page 73 and 74: Community development In the U.S.,
Page 75 and 76: THE CULTURAL DIMENSION Culture and
Page 77 and 78:
First, a study of agriculture witho
Page 79 and 80:
All of these questions suggest that
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 10. Old Russian distaffs dec
Page 83 and 84:
A related danger arises when differ
Page 85 and 86:
to the same extent as the human bod
Page 87 and 88:
the sacredness of the human-earth c
Page 89 and 90:
My interest here is not so much in
Page 91 and 92:
introduction of a new ideology that
Page 93 and 94:
from cereal crops and beans, vegeta
Page 95 and 96:
lit. “the bearing of fruit”), r
Page 97 and 98:
As the society was composed of fami
Page 99 and 100:
As we see, subsistence growing stoo
Page 101 and 102:
While the princes themselves could
Page 103 and 104:
Since pagan lifestyle and beliefs p
Page 105 and 106:
and “sinful” for Christians —
Page 107 and 108:
adopted from the pagan religion and
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 15. A peasant being whipped,
Page 111 and 112:
However, the emancipation of serfs
Page 113 and 114:
• nationalization of land ownersh
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 17. “October 25 [date of t
Page 117 and 118:
But, in addition to agriculture bei
Page 119 and 120:
Peasant economy is the most perfect
Page 121 and 122:
the way of the builders of a new so
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 18. “Raise vegetables!”
Page 125 and 126:
in areas around major cities and in
Page 127 and 128:
But times have changed: the new lea
Page 129 and 130:
uilding project explained that he h
Page 131 and 132:
CHAPTER 2 HOUSEHOLD GARDENING IN TH
Page 133 and 134:
• What cultural values do gardene
Page 135 and 136:
cultivate? How did the volume of pr
Page 137 and 138:
Value and limitations of the region
Page 139 and 140:
METHODOLOGY Research Design This is
Page 141 and 142:
190 km east of Moscow. Fifteen thou
Page 143 and 144:
Economy. In 2005, the Gross Regiona
Page 145 and 146:
Another group that is excluded from
Page 147 and 148:
period lies outside both the tradit
Page 149 and 150:
• Stage 4 — systematic sampling
Page 151 and 152:
[Table 16 continued.] (1) (2) (3) (
Page 153 and 154:
average size of households evolve s
Page 155 and 156:
Instrumentation Description of inst
Page 157 and 158:
values (including the notion that r
Page 159 and 160:
in everyday life. Also, Stern et al
Page 161 and 162:
Notes to Table 17: 1) Items 2 and 1
Page 163 and 164:
have experience in conducting rural
Page 165 and 166:
All interviewers without exception
Page 167 and 168:
Once a schedule was completed (incl
Page 169 and 170:
News from the field Accustomed to c
Page 171 and 172:
Data entry After each schedule pass
Page 173 and 174:
GENERAL SURVEY RESULTS Demographics
Page 175 and 176:
is a household, not an individual).
Page 177 and 178:
The reasons for not participating i
Page 179 and 180:
A number of studies (notably Clarke
Page 181 and 182:
Percent of households 45% 40% 35% 3
Page 183 and 184:
Average garden size, ha 0.18 0.16 0
Page 185 and 186:
Gardeners use a variety of legal fo
Page 187 and 188:
Percent of households 35% 30% 25% 2
Page 189 and 190:
It should be noted that the amount
Page 191 and 192:
Note that even the machinery used o
Page 193 and 194:
e regarded as rough approximations
Page 195 and 196:
less important than many other expe
Page 197 and 198:
Sharing with relatives or friends c
Page 199 and 200:
ee products offer the largest avera
Page 201 and 202:
The income sellers derived from the
Page 203 and 204:
Number of households, percent 50% 4
Page 205 and 206:
Table 41. Number of gardening house
Page 207 and 208:
in Chapter 1 on the basis of nation
Page 209 and 210:
The next common practice is crop ro
Page 211 and 212:
Seed sources Gardeners play an impo
Page 213 and 214:
Table 48. Uses of garden-plots by h
Page 215 and 216:
Table 49. Households’ rankings of
Page 217 and 218:
Agri-cultural values As we have see
Page 219 and 220:
• age of respondent, • gender o
Page 221 and 222:
Finally, there is a small differenc
Page 223 and 224:
[Table 52 continued.] [14] Agricult
Page 225 and 226:
The five items with the lowest scor
Page 227 and 228:
very imperfect measures of the actu
Page 229 and 230:
Information and skills From 2001 on
Page 231 and 232:
Interaction with others and persona
Page 233 and 234:
major problem for many urbanites du
Page 235 and 236:
CHAPTER 3 THE INVISIBLE GARDENS The
Page 237 and 238:
“STRETCH YOUR BRAINS” An early
Page 239 and 240:
However, we have a millennial recor
Page 241 and 242:
However, the idea that micro-scale
Page 243 and 244:
This observation has important impl
Page 245 and 246:
of Chaianov the vast majority of Ru
Page 247 and 248:
(including fruits and berries), whi
Page 249 and 250:
claims over what was once people’
Page 251 and 252:
In addition, there is a growing con
Page 253 and 254:
that could result in a wholesale tr
Page 255 and 256:
e known by the name of Anastasia (w
Page 257 and 258:
In the vision of Megré and the new
Page 259 and 260:
Figure 41. A maintenance-free apple
Page 261 and 262:
Thus, Vasilii Dokuchaev, after deca
Page 263 and 264:
Figure 42. “Dig for victory now!
Page 265 and 266:
Figure 43. A community garden near
Page 267 and 268:
industry, master gardener programs,
Page 269 and 270:
Chaianov, A.V. 1991. Osnovnye idei
Page 271 and 272:
Jones, E. 2002. Social responsibili
Page 273 and 274:
O’Brien, D.J., Wegren, S.K., and
Page 275 and 276:
Sharashkin, L., Gold, M., and Barha
Page 277 and 278:
Yaroshenko, S. 1998. Domashnie khoz
Page 279 and 280:
6. HOW MANY GARDEN-PLOTS DO YOU OWN
Page 281 and 282:
4. landscaping 5. travel to the plo
Page 283 and 284:
3 - stay about the same 4 - decreas
Page 285 and 286:
12 poultry 97 other___________ 36.
Page 287 and 288:
Maintaining our connection to the e
Page 289 and 290:
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Page 291 and 292:
61. WHERE HAVE YOU SPENT MOST OF YO
Page 293:
VITA Leonid Sharashkin was born on
show all

Sharashkin, Leonid. The socioeconomic and cultural significance of

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?