Matrices Agricultura

8/8/2019 Matrices Agricultura

1/17

The Nature of Agricultural SystemsAuthor(s): J. E. Spencer and Norman R. StewartSource: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Dec., 1973), pp.529-544Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American GeographersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562058

Accessed: 11/10/2010 21:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association of American Geographers and Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAnnals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2562058?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2562058?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/17

THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMSJ. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART

ABSTRACT. Manyproblems s to theorigins f,anddifferencesn, agriculturalpractice round he earth re stillunsolved.A persistentuestion oncerns he num-ber of differentindsofagriculture. aried approaches nd conceptual ormulationshave been employed,but these oftenmix together he bases for categorization,whereasthere re markeddifferencesetween onceptsaimed at grouping y re-gions,typologies, nd systems. ifferencesn the conceptsare clarified,nd nineprimary riteriahavingsecond-order lements re set up to distinguishhirteenagriculturalystemshathave evolved incethebeginningfprimary roductionatein the MesolithicEra. KEY WORDS: Agriculture, gricultural egions,Agriculturalsystems, griculturalypologies, lassification f agriculture.

W[THIN thebroadsubject f agriculturegeographershave assumed a share ofresponsibilityordescribing nd explaining hevariablenature f agriculturalractice. rimaryproduction f plantand animal commoditiessamong he mostvariable nd complicated f allhuman endeavors, nd it is hardly surprisingthat we cannotyet claim full comprehensionof the patterns nd processes of agriculturaldifferentiation.nquiry still tends to resolvearound such fundamental uestions s:

1) How essentiallydissimilar are the di-verse griculturalandscapesofthe arth?2) Do dissimilar griculturalandscapesre-flect eneric orms f agriculture?3) What kinds of criteriabest serve toisolategenericdifferencesn agriculture?4) Where,how, and underwhat conditionsdid variouskindsof agricultureriginateanddevelop?5 What changes are taking place in thenature nd practice fworld agriculture?In essence these questions are directed o thecentral but unresolved ssues of how manyspecific kinds of agriculture xist (or haveexisted), and how the observedfactsof vari-able agriculturalractice an be most ffectivelyand realisticallyrganized o distinguishhem.Accepted for publication11 March 1973.Dr. Spencer is Professor of Geography at the Univer-sity of California in Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Dr.Stewart is Associate Professor of Geography at theUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in Milwaukee,WI 53201.

Despite the fundamentalnature of thesequestions and the relatively arge literaturearound hem, o completelyatisfactorynswershave beenforthcoming.ur atlas and textbookmaps, because they represent particularizedinterpretationsf basic agricultural rrange-ment, are commonly used with reservation,qualification, r outright issatisfaction. hesearch for the most logical and meaningfulstructure y which to categorize nd representvariations f agricultural racticecontinues ochallengegeographers egardless f generationor persuasion.Gregorhas reviewed nd com-mentedon a large numberof importanton-tributionso thisgeneral heme, nd Grigghasreviewed many of the concepts dealing withagricultural egionalization.'Both the signifi-cance and complexityf theproblem re sug-gested n persistent fforts y the InternationalGeographical Union to evolve uniform ndacceptable bases for spatial comparison ofvarious attributes n a global scale. Commis-sions established o map worldagriculture c-cording to a standard egend, to standardizeagricultural omenclature,nd to constructtypologyfor world agriculture re workingtowardcommonobjectives.2 his paper is in-

1 Howard F. Gregor, Geography of Agriculture:Themes in Research (Englewood Cliffs,N. J.: Pren-tice-Hall, 1970); and David Grigg, "The AgriculturalRegions of the World: Review and Reflections,"Eco-nomic Geography,Vol. 45 (1969), pp. 95-132.2 The three commissions of the International Geo-graphical Union are: Commission on World Land UseSurvey, No. 3, Hans Boesch, Chairman; Commissionon International Geographical Terminology, No. 5,Emil Meynen, Chairman; and Commission on Agri-ANNALS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS Vol. 63, No. 4, December 1973? 1973 by the Association f AmericanGeographers. Printed n U.S.A.529


3/17

530 J. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART Decembertended s an argumentativeontributiono thiseffort. ur studyhas tangentialmplications orall theproblemsraised,but is morepointedlyaimed at therecognition f genericforms ndkindsofagriculturendtheir otential alue asa basis fordifferentiationf worldagriculturalpatterns.

BASES FOR APPROACHESOne basic objectiveofgeographical nalysisofagricultures the dentificationndclassifica-tionof tsareally ariable omponents. traight-forward s this issue may appear, therehasbeen a persistent ivergence f opinionon themost appropriateends and means, and ap-proaches o theproblem ary n relation o thewide rangeof perspectiveswithingeography.It has been argued,for example,that theonly effectivepproachto thestudy f agricul-ture s the' xamination f theindividual arm,that s, theanalysis f an explicit lot ofgroundon which some kind of primary griculturalproductiontakes place. The precise nature,kind, evel,quality, ndproductivityfagricul-ture an onlybe discerned ydetailed xamina-tion of theelements hatgo into anyone caseof primary roduction,hereby llowingdirectand accurate omparisonwithother ases of adifferentature.Such an approach poses for-midable f not insolubleproblems.Farms arenot aid out and operated yuniversal pecifica-tions; no two farmsare ever identicalsincetheyvaryin the microecological ttributes fsite, situation,quality, and size; since theiroperators re neverfully ontrolled o ensureidenticalproductionproceduresaccording tovariantmodes; and since their perators rob-ably never have identicalfundsof knowledge,equipment,capital, and skills. Furthermore,

notwithstandingonsolidationn modern cor-porateor collectivizedontexts,heremust tillbe close to 250,000,000 "farms" cattered verthe earth.Obviously some formof sampling,grouping, r generalizationmust be sought norder to arriveat any understandingf thenatureof agricultural ndeavor.It has been argued that any groupingofmodesof primarygriculturalroductionmustconcentraten theforms nd kindsofprimaryproduction arried on within the plots andranges of land that makeup thefarms f thecultural Typology, No. 15, Jerzy Kostrowicki, Chair-man.

earth. urely t s thenature fprimary roduc-tion, itself, that we are trying o describe,analyze, and categorize. To those concernedwith oth hevarietyftypes nd their esultantlandscapestheoperation fthefarms ecomesthe focus of study.Land, plants and animalsas "crops," technology, nd productivenputsofenergyndresources ll determine he evelsof production nd create cultural andscapes.Man is important n this contextonly as anagent,theoperator f the farmwho normallymaximizes roduction. ecisions aremechanis-tically rrived t,and can onlybe accounted orby the concept of "economicman." This ap-proach an be followed oits ogicalends so thatvarieties f categories esult, ut thehauntingquestion s the degreeof reality chievedbyconsideringman a disembodiedpiritmechanis-tically riggeringroduction rocesses.Successin this pproachdependson accurate nd com-pletedata on thefull ange foperational ctivi-ties n all partsof theearth.The acquisition fthe basic data, preferablyn some quantifiedformfor effectiveomparison, s a laboriouschorenotyetcompleted.It can also be arguedthattheworldmap isthe basis on which any characterization fagricultural roductionmust hinge. A cleardepiction f dominantmodesof agricultureyseparate spatial units becomes the objective.Depictionof thewiderangeoftypes n any oneregionmustgiveway to majority omponentsthatcan be shown in unitary erms n arealdimensions ictatedby the scale of the map.The usual atlas map should then presentasimple and clear set of regionalpatterns nwhich elementsare shown at unitary evelswithout omplexoverlap of manyelements nthesame unitof area. Whereas the student findividual arms nd thestudent foperationalrankingsre "splitters," hecartographerillinginhismapbyunitaryomponentss a "lumper,"seeking hedominantmodeforanyone spatialuniton hismap.Unfortunatelyhere rewidelydifferingiews on appropriate riteriadistin-guishing ominantmodes,andtheir epresenta-tion s dependent n mattersuchas scale, thathave little directly to do with agriculturalpractice.Fourthly, t has been persuasively rguedthat hecontemporary orldmustbe thetheaterin whichagriculture ustbe ordered, ince allmodesmustbe examined n the same way topermit omparative nalysis. ince the agricul-


4/17

1973 NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 531turepracticed odayoccupiesthe andscapesofprimary roduction, here s no call for theinclusionn any listof categories f theformspracticedn any historic ast era. Exclusionofremnantal orms f primary roduction, hosethatno longer ontributeignificantolumesofproduce,would greatly implify roblemsoffield examination f world farmscapes.Thisapproach neglectsthe facts that progressivechange was not only characteristicf earlierpracticebutthatchange s taking lace rapidlytoday to produce new formsnot yet widelyaccepted and not yet occupying arge areas.Anyschemethat ttemptsull-scale ategoriza-tion must allow the inclusionof relict (butidentifiable) orms f agriculturalractice,ustas it must allow forthe inclusionof evolvingformsnot yet widelydistributed.Finally, t can be arguedthatgeographicalanalysisof agriculture as been undulycom-pressedto fit herelatively estrictiveequire-mentsof moderneconomic theory-as if thesole aim of all primary roduction ad alwaysbeen the maximizing f materialreturns, ndthe only significanteterminantsf itspracticehad been the forces f themarketplace.n factfornearly en thousandyearsagriculturalrac-tice has been more of a sociocultural han amechanistic rofit-makingndeavor.Thus thesearch for genericdistinctionsn agriculturalpracticemust not only examine operationalelementsbut must inquire into the culturalmilieuwithinwhichagricultures carriedon.Particularlyhe elements f historic hange nagriculturalractice annotbe dissociated romreciprocalchange in social organization ndpoliticalnstitutions.Processes developingnew agriculturaland-scapesandoperational echnologiesccurwithinevolving ulture ystemsnwhichhuman nitia-tive is the intrinsic riving orce. During thelate MesolithicEra primary roduction eganas an alternativend collateral orm facquisi-tionofthosefoodstuffsecessaryo thebiologi-cal subsistencefsmallworking andsofpeoplewho collected nd ate as theygrewhungry. s"agriculture" volved and spread, many ofman's (by then) wellhabituated ctivities er-sisted.Despite the gradual acquisitionof in-creasingly omplex technologies, eople havecontinued to surround "economic" behaviorwith forms f noneconomicbehavior thatbe-came stylized nto distinctiveulture patternsin the varied ocal environments aking p the

culture ealms f the earth.At no time hort ftheeighteenthentury id agricultural an everabandonthecultural erformanceshat nvestedprimaryproductionwith elementswe distin-guishas peasant systems nd a "way of life."3The marketplace nd purely ecular trade didslowly develop in the early world, but withinthe frameworkf ntergroupociopolitical ela-tionshipsnwhich he establishmentnd main-tenance f peaceful rading ontactswithnearbysocial groupswas a primary bjective. n onlycertainpartsof the earth, fter he eighteenthcentury, as agricultureven now been "secu-larized"of tssociocultural ignificanceyeco-nomicconcepts fmaximized rofitmaking.nmany parts of the earth the sociocultural n-volvementshat still nfluence r directopera-tions n agricultural roduction orm he verynoneconomic nvolvementhat s thedespairofthose who seek to "modernize" the culturesof theunderdeveloped orld.The inclusion f sociocultural riteria n theassessmentof forms of agricultural racticepresentsthornyproblems.4The isolation ofeffectiveriteria n social organization nd in-stitutionaltructuringmongdifferentocietieshas consistently affledagriculturalgeogra-phers, eadingmoreoften hannotto therejec-tion of such matters s nongeographic. heheartof the problem ies in identificationfthose elementsof sociocultural tructurehatpossess validity n operational erms, nd thatcan be equated withtechnological nd strictlyinput-outputriterian order o satisfy ecular-ized theory. t is necessary o comprehend heoperational mpactson agriculturalracticeoftheevolving ulturalnstitutionalismshatonceweresimply rranged ocioeconomic nd socio-

3 "Peasant societies"had/have nstitutionalizedo-ciopolitical ontrolshat xert trong nfluencen thelocal agriculturalystem. he earlymodernizationfpeasant agricultural ystemsn Europe, as well aselsewhere, ad as much to do withchange n thesecontrols s withtechnology; eorge Dalton, "Peas-antries n Anthropologynd History,"CurrentAn-thropology,Vol. 13 (1972), pp. 385-415; and S. H.Franklin, The European Peasantry, the Final Phase(London:Methuen& Co., 1969).4 ClarenceW. Olmstead, The Phenomena, unc-tioning nits, nd Systems f Agriculture,"nJ.Kos-trowicki nd W. Tyszkiewicz, ds., Essays on Agri-cultural Typology and Land Utilization, GeographiaPolonica,Vol. 19 (1970), has a numberfconceptualprinciples hatcarry sociopoliticalmplications,ndthe diagrams re suggestive,ut the accompanyingtextfalls short f spelling utthose mplications.


5/17

532 J. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART Decemberpoliticalcontrols. nvolvedare such aspectsasthe transformationf usufructoryontroloverresource anges nto systems f feudal control,then nto systems f private wnership-tenancycontrols and, recently,nto systemsof statecontrols; r involved re the transformationfobligationalgift-givingnto the myriadformsof socially nfluenced arterdealings, hen ntoexactedtribute nd requisitionedupply,theninto secularizedbarter ackingsocial involve-mentand, finally,nto modernnonsocialcom-mercial trade relying n supply-demandon-trols.Such sociocultural lementshave playedpowerful oles in creating perationaldiversityin agriculturalracticefromNeolithic o mod-erntimes, nd thetransformationf nstitution-alized systems laysa role in alteringhe agri-culturalsystem.These are complex elementswithwhich o deal, but geographers ho wouldfully understandvariations n the form andarticulation f agricultural racticemust findways to incorporate ulturalfactors nto theiranalyses along with the simple technologicaland crop criteriawith which theyhave beenlongfamiliar.Other bases for approachesto the under-standing f agriculturean be argued,but it isquiteapparent hatfollowing nyone approachwill lead to a categorizationuitedonly to aparticular bjective.Examination f these ap-proachesleads to the conclusionthat severaldifferent inds of classificationsre possible,although n muchof the currentiterature llapproaches seem to be considered almostsynonymousariants.n the sections hat ollowwe have attempted o distinguish learlybe-tweenkinds of categorizations, ithparticularconcern or heconcept fsystemss a realisticbasis for differentiationf world agriculturalpatterns.

THE NATURE OF CATEGORIZATIONSThe differentiationfagriculturen a globalscale presupposes classificationf basic ele-mentsgeneralized n some internally ogicaland coherentway. Systems fcategorizationodate have been organizedwithin ne of threealternativerameworks: ) systems, ) typolo-gies, nd3) regions.For purposes of clarity, nformalworking

definitionsre necessary.The termsystem sheretaken o refer o a recognizablessemblageof agriculturalroceduresnd activitieshat anbe distinguisheds a functionallyntegrated

patterncharacterized y geneticand genericcohesionof elements, raits, echnologies, ro-cedures, nd activities.ndividual ystems ifferin the nnovative evelopment nd employmentof dissimilar ociocultural, echnological, ndoperationalmethodsbroughtto bear on theproduction nd disposition f assemblagesofplantand animal commodities.n plural usage,agriculturalystemsrefers o an orderly ndloosely evolutionary, ierarchicalgroupingofkinds of agriculturalracticesdistinguishednthe basis of a smallnumber funiversal, enceprimary,enetic/genericriteria. he groupingforms n open-ended tructuringhat ncludesboth the earliestprocedures f theinitial gri-cultural ystem once plantand animal domes-tication adbeenachieved), nd themostrecentproceduresnow undergoing ormulationntodifferentnd more omplexlyrganized atterns.In agricultural sage the term ypologys aplural concept in which the identificationfspecific arieties fagriculturalctivitys basedupon theapplication f numerous ut selectivecriteria hosen arbitrarilyrom widerangeofdefinable haracteristics.he establishmentfa typology nvolves distinguishingissimilar"types of farming"withoutestablishing nydevelopmentalor genetic structuringf theresultantypes, nd without ecessarily lottingall types n anyspatialunit ess thanthewholeearth.The termregion s here taken to be a con-tiguousarea of lands, on the cultivated artsof which recognizably ominant assemblagesof crops/animalsharacterize griculturalro-duction. The termagricultural egionsrefersto some orderlygrouping r arrangementfunits of area by theirdefinitions. egionaliza-tionmaybe based on systemicnd/or ypologi-cal distinctionsnderthe rubrics predominanteconomies," land use associations," r "typesof farming," ut the central objectiveis theunitary haracterizationf the organization fagricultural roduction ver large areas.

AgriculturalystemsAmongthefirstmodern ttemptso general-ize the volving ature fagriculturen a globalscale was an effort o distinguish roductivesystems hrough he geneticcharacteristicsf

their echnologies. he conceptual asis for hisview is customarilyredited o Eduard Hahn,whorecognized hefundamentalmportance foriginsnd evolutionaryequencesto an under-


6/17

1973 NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 533standingf thedifferentiationndvariable realexpression f agriculturalctivity.5or his timeand the stateof knowledge f theearth,Hahnmade a significantnd lastingcontributionothe consideration f agricultural roductionnthe geneticand genericsenses. Unfortunatelyhis rationalehas not been widely accepted,partlybecause it has not been fully xtendedin the English anguageworld, nd particularlybecause discussions oo oftenfounder n thecomplexities f modern and use. In any casea contemporaryystematic ategorization fagriculturencorporatinghe geneticprocessesresponsible or ts variety as yetto evolve.Implicit in the approach to agriculturethroughheconceptof systemss the recogni-tionthat n thelongevolutionaryevelopmentof agricultureherehave been manyseparateobjectivesforproduction, ach of whichmaybest be understood rom culturalviewpoint.This holds as truefor he"money"objective sfor the seasonal feastor the underwritingf areligious estival, ince thedevelopmentf themoneyeconomy s a matterpeculiar to thegrowth f particular ulturecomplexeswithinone culture system.A geneticseparationofdifferentindsof agriculturento agriculturalsystemsmust include some criteria hat takeinto accountthesociocultural rives s well asthe economic and technological nes.Categorizationy systemsnvolves he den-tificationf basic genetic lements s primarycriteria,withtheirgenerically ssociatedvari-ants as secondaryor tertiaryriteria. n thesystemic iew there re relatively ewprimarygeneticcomponentsbut innumerablegenericvariants.Hahn, forexample,proposedas pri-maryseparationsthe genetic distinctions e-tween hoe culture" nd "plow culture."7 his

5 For a convenientreview of the evolution of con-cepts in the categorizationof agriculture, ee Fritz L.Kramer, "Eduard Hahn and the End of the 'ThreeStages of Man,'" Geographical Review, Vol. 57(1967), pp. 73-89. The first resentationof the ideaswas in Eduard Hahn, "Waren die Menschen der Urzeitzwischen Jagerstufeund der Ackerbaus Nomaden?"Die Ausland, Vol. 64 (1891), pp. 481-87. The presentpaper makes no effortto trace all concepts hereindiscussed.6 Most German authors follow Hahn's lead in pre-sentingbroadly categorized economies. Maps in En-glish language atlases have adopted a similar broadtreatment under such headings as PredominantEconomies.7 Hahn employedthe termsHackbau and Ackerbau,and the distinctionwas that of human versus animal

differentiationouldappear tohavebeenbasedsolelyon the source of energy mployed,butimplicit n thedistinctions a broad spectrumofculturally eterminedactorsncludingools,technologies,ocial organizationf aborforces,cropcombinations,nd mechanisms or hedis-position fproducts.The objective of systemicanalysis is theisolation of a relatively mall set of geneticcriteria pplicable to all formsof agriculture,each criterionhaving an ordered subset ofsecondarycriteria,dependenton its inherentcomplexity. he resultshould be a relativelysmall hierarchical ist of agricultural ystemshavingan almost imitless eriesof local andsubordinate ariants.The spatial organizationof systems nd theirvariants hould showlesscorrelationwithclimatic ones thandid manyearlier frameworks or classification, ut itwould emphasize relationships o geographicpatterns f cultural volution nd technologicalchange. Such a structuringf agriculturalys-temswould permit ecognitionftheevolution-arydevelopment fagriculture,ncludingecentmodernphases in whichproductionhas beenincreasingly ivorced from the socioculturalmatrix.The list of agriculturalystemsmustprovideforthe inclusionof intermediatendtransitionalormswhentheir tructuresecomeknown, for there well may be archaic andremnantal ariantsabout whichwe currentlyhave ittle nowledge,ust as modern volution-ary movements re obscuring he traditionalattributes f old systems.On a map utilizingmoderncartographic echnology he distribu-tion of systems eed not be shown n unitarypatternsby dominant modes only, thus ac-knowledgingheessential omplexityf modernreal-world griculture.

Agricultural egionsThe concept of spatialsimilarityn patternsof agricultural roductionhas a considerable

energy, Hahn, op. cit., footnote 5. Hahn clearly rec-ognized the confusion inherent n "hoe culture," andalternated between defending the term and seekingways to refine nd clarify t; Kramer, op. cit.,footnote5. The full categorization developed by Hahn was setforth in "Die Wirtschaftsformen er Erde," Peter-mnann'sMitteillngen, Vol. 38 (1892), pp. 8-12, inwhich the primary forms were: huntingand fishing,hoe culture,plantation culture, European-WestAsiaticagriculture, animal husbandry, and horticulture.Amodified version of his map is reproduced in Grigg,op. cit., footnote 1.


7/17

534 J. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART Decemberhistory,he tracing f which s notan objectiveof thispaper. Many mapswereproduced n thenineteenthnd early twentiethenturies om-biningdifferentlementsof agricultural ro-duction and showing their relationships oaspectsof environment.8ne of themosteffec-tive was the compositemap createdby Bakerwhich stablished he basic patterns orall suc-ceedingmaps ofthe agriculturalegions f theUnited tates."This examplehas beenfollowedin many ater constructsor otherparts of theearth,and has been elaborated upon in laterworkthattrended n thedirection f typology.In the constructionf a set of agriculturalregions,whether ora local territoryr fortheworldas a whole, t is necessary o selectthedominantmode of agricultural roduction oreach areal unit. Subordinateproductionpat-ternsmustbe excluded, nd all local variancemustbe suppressed.The map of agriculturalregions can present comparativedata in auseful manner and, whenproperly sed, is avaluable tool, but it cannot effectivelyepictlocalized variationor zones of complexmix-tures.The numberof regions nto which anylargearea can be divided s critically ependenton the scale of the map. The selective riteriaemployedn choosing hedominantmodemustbe grossand generalized.Ostensiblyexemplaryof the regional ap-proach s the worldmap of Major AgriculturalRegionspublished n 1936 by Whittlesey,ndstill carried in essentiallyunrevisedform nmany publications.10 he map covered theworldwithregionalized atterns ased on thenatureof agriculturalperations hemselves.11

8Grigg, p. cit.,footnote , reproducedhecriteriaand worldmaps for many f theregionalizations,utdid not deal explicitly ithcriteria/mapsor smallerunits.90. E. Baker, A GraphicSummary fAmericanAgriculture, ased Largelyon the Census of 1920,"'in United States Depatament ofAgriculture,Yearbook,1921 (Washington, .C.: Governmentrinting ffice,1922). The map is entitled Agricultural egionsofthe United tates," nd appearson p. 146.10 Goode's World Atlas, thirteenthedition (Chi-cago: Rand McNally, 1970), pp. 34-35. Comparisonof the currentmap with the original n DerwentWhittlesey,MajorAgriculturalegions f theEarth,"Annals,Associationf American eographers, ol. 26(1936), pp. 199-240,reveals very ew mallchangesin details.11Whittlesey's ordingwas: "In the classificationherepresentedegions re recognizedndgroupedntotypes n theexclusive asis of the nherent roperties

Whittleseymployed he terms systems" nd"regions" nterchangeably,nd his map com-bines the two concepts.12 Shifting ultivationwas mapped,systematically,hereverWhittle-sey'sknowledge eld itoperativewithout uali-tative ommentn itsorigin, utmediterraneanagriculturewas accepted as the classical andunique product f theMediterraneanasin,analmostperfectxpression fregionalism.Medi-terranean griculture as portrayedn similarclimaticregionsbecause recentEuropean set-tlerspresumably ad carried n identicalkindof agriculture iththem.'3 n contrast o hisenchantment ith theMediterranean,Whittle-sey'swritinguggests hat he was discouragedbywhathe could learnofsouthern nd easternAsia, and could notview theOrient s a sys-tematist.14 n effect e broke the Orient ntooftheagricultureracticed,"Whittlesey,p. cit.,foot-note 10, p. 200.12Whittlesey rote one sentence mploying othterms: In thispaperan attempt s made to furthercomparativetudy f agriculturalegions y rangingon a singlemap all the agriculturalystems f thefirst egree f magnitude,nd to clarify la'ssificationby restrictingt to propertiesnherentn theagricul-ture tself,"Whittlesey,p. cit.,footnote 0, p. 200.Elsewhere e alternated region" nd "system"n re-ferringo thesame ssue. The title f the paperusedtheterm region," hereas he argest umber fcate-gories laced on themap weremoreproperlyystemsthanregions, lthough he depictionwas forregionsas such.13 The text eads:"From hegeographictandpoint,Mediterraneangricultures the most atisfactoryfall the ypes. robably ecause trepresentsn ancientand stable collaboration etweenman and theland.So vitalhas thisprovedthat t stoutlymaintainstscharactern the region f itsorigin, espite uffetingsof theworldwide hift rom solation o interdepen-denteconomics. he settlementyEuropeans n thenew continents as only emphasized he integrityfthetype,by developingn each newcontinent re-gionapproximatingtsprototypen the Old World,"Whittlesey,p. cit.,footnote 0,pp. 226-27. The textthenpointsout some featuresn the Mediterraneanculturalandscape ndconcludes: Yeteven hepoorerpeasants ossesshousehold oodsmorenumerous ndmore valuable than the low-latitude rientalfarmercanboast,"p. 228.Themapas originallyrepared idnot includeparts of southern ustralia s zones ofMediterraneanlimate,ndfew dapters fthe Whit-tleseymap have added thisomission.14 After oting hecharacteristicsf the cultivationsystemWhittleseyommented: In spiteof indefati-gable abor,percapitaproductions nothigh nd thepeople are abjectlypoor. They live in close-set ndclose-packed illages rowdeduponthe smallest os-sibleacreage, o preserve recious andfortillage, nsand spits, ongues f unirrigableand,or other n-


8/17

1973 NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 535two regions: Intensive ubsistence illagewithricedominant, nd Intensive ubsistence illagewithoutpaddy rice. Further,he adopted theregionaltechniqueof placingunitary atternson the mapwithout llowing hepossibilityhatmore hanone systemould be practiced n anyone region.15hese twomattersfmixed xecu-tion have always discomfitedmany users oftheWhittlesey ap.

AgriculturalypologiesThe third pproachto the differentiationfagricultures theconstructionftypologieshatcan distinguishtypesof farming."Many dif-ferentlyontrived roupings elonging o thisfamily ave been produced, eeking o classify

agriculturalonditionsn somepartof the earthwithoutconstitutingormaltypologies.16 hesimpler onstructs ften loselyresemblemapsof agriculturalegions.The simpler riteria ordiscriminationfthe spatialunits n a typologyare the frequently rowncrops and animals,either ingly r in somerangeofcombinations,and the cartographic roduct s a compositedistributionmap. The true typology eeks alargerrange of criteria, ddingto crops, ani-mals, and crop/animalratiossuch criteria sfarm ize, and productivity,arket rientation,labor application, perating echnology,owerinput, nd fertilization.he searchfora typol-ogy employs he "splitter" echniquen a num-ferior oils. In deltadistricts holepopulationsmaydwell on houseboats.The furnishingsf the homesare meager,"Whittlesey,p. cit.,footnote 0,p. 221.These qualitative ommentsre not primary o theidentificationf the operative griculturef southernChina. Whittleseyelatedthe secondtype (withoutpaddyrice) to northernhina,but then ied t to thearidmargins,o somedesert ases,and finallyo Egyptas an example.He found ome ikenessn livingpat-terns n the Sudan and in theMexicanHighland, utremarked that ". . . it would not do to press the paral-lelismtoo far. True 'oriental'agriculture oes notextendwestwardnd southwardeyond heSahara,"p. 223.15The originalWhittleseymap was contained ntwo fold-in heetsn black and white t a levelof car-tographynd reproductionomewhat elow thatofothermaps thenbeingpublished. he economicsofpublicationmayhavedictatedimple artographicre-sentation,ndWhittlesey ight ave preferredmorecomplex enditionndermorefavorable onditionsfpublication.

16One of the strictly echnical ecent ypologicalconstructionss A. N. Duckham nd G. B. Masefield,Farming Systems of the World (New York: PraegerPublishers, 969), in which he operational lementsofcategorizationre almostwholly conomic.

berof ways.The selection f first-orderriteriaattempts o diagnosethose operational spectsthat an bemeasuredn somefinite ay.Rangesof valuesmaybe established or ach first-orderelementto provide discriminatorybility nthose criteria or whichadequate quantitativedata can be secured.Second- and third-ordercriteriamaythen llowfine egrees f discrimi-nation of farming ypes that can set apartlocalizedpatterns f agriculturalractice.The typologicalpproachhas beenemployedbythe UnitedStatesDepartment fAgriculturein its differentiationffarmingypes.Normallycartographicepresentations byfirst-orderri-teria only, but detailed studies employingsecond-and third-orderriteria ivideagricul-tural practice n theUnited Statesinto a verylarge numberof localized patterns.17Third-order criteria ftenrelate to culturalvariablesso faras thesecan be distinguished.There have been few attempts t the con-structionf a universal ypologyf agricultureapplicable to the whole earth;it is easier toreprint slightlymodified ersion ftheWhit-tleseymapor to construct generalizedmap ofpredominantconomies.A commission f theInternational eographicalUnion has been atworkon a formal ypology or some yearsandis makingprogress.sThe search s fora rea-sonably imitednumber f variablesbothsyn-

17 Severalpublicationsf theUnited tatesDepart-ment fAgriculturendtheBureauof theCensushavepresentedifferentumbers f third-orderrealunits.Perhaps hemostdetailedwas F. F. Elliott,RegionalProblems in Agricultural Adjustment (Washington,D.C.: Agriculturaldjustmentdministration,935),in which12 major type-of-farmingegionswere di-vided into 100 subregions nd 514 type-of-farmingareas. The study mployed restrictedist of typo-logical criteriamappedon a regionalbasis. A laterpublicationwithfirst-orderaps of farmingypes sGeneralized Types of Farming in the United States,Agriculturenformation ulletinNo. 3 (Washing-ton:BureauofAgriculturalconomics, 950), whichhas nine major agricultural egions, 1 subregions,and 165 generalized ype-of-farmingreas. The Na-tionalAtlas of the UnitedStates of America (Washing-ton, D.C.: United StatesGeological Survey,1970)contains new map presentingand use by sixteenfirst-orderriteria,utwhetherhis s supportedyanavailable studydepictingmore detailed econd-ordersubregionalizationsnd third-orderype-of-farmingareas s notknown t thiswriting.

18JerzyKostrowicki as publishednumerous re-liminaryapers nthe ssues nvolved. everal f thesewere mimeographedworkingpapers distributednconnectionwiththe I. G. U. Commission n Agri-cultural ypology, ut see thepapers n Geographia


9/17

536 J. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART Decemberthetic nd universallypplicablethat may beutilized s first-orderiagnostic haracteristics.The aim is to find ariables orwhich here resufficientata to rank evelswithin ach vari-able. Whereasobjectivelyuantifiableariableshave been sought, here s recognitionhatcer-tain highly ignificantriteria annotbe quanti-fied,but can only be separated nto classes bytype.A practical ypologyf this ort ould beoftremendousaluein comparativetudies, utit sunlikelyhat heproduct ouldbe translatedinto simplemap.

PROBLEMS IN WEIGHTING CRITERIAThe problem f effective eightingfcriteriahas been common o all methods f classifying

agricultural perations and landscapes. Thenonequivalence f the criteria n any one listis an almost nsolubleproblem n any method.No clearlyestablished ets of known valuesmaybe equatedby simple procedures, nd nosets of effectiveverages an be used in multi-variate nalysis.The problem fweightingoesnot disappearwhen using only the operativecharacteristicsf agriculture n which somedata canbe secured.In setting own criteria orthemap of agri-cultural egions herelative ropdominance asbeen theusual criterionor he dominantmodeto be assigneda spatialunit.This dominancecan normally e estimated airly eliably, ndsignificantomplementaryropsmaybe addedwhere ppropriaternecessary.'9 imilarly,herelative mportance f livestock ver croppingpatternsmayalso be estimatedwithreasonableaccuracy.A farmorethorny roblem acesthetypologist ho seeksto discriminatemongtherelativelyarge numbersof criteriahe is in-clinedto prefer. inceaverages hangethroughPolonica, Vol. 1 (1964), pp. 111-46; Vol. 2 (1964),pp. 159-67; Vol. 14 (1968), pp. 265-74; and Kos-trowicki nd Tyszkiewicz,op. cit., footnote4.19 Perhaps one of the best examples of a map ofagriculturalregionsby straightforwardrop patterns sthe classic "Agricultural Regions of China" in JohnLossing Buck, Land Utilization of China (Chicago,University f Chicago Press, 1935). This map was re-produced in slightlymodifiedform in J. E. Spencer,Asia, East by South (New York: JohnWiley, 1954),p. 322, and in stillmore modifiedform n J. E. Spen-cer and W. L. Thomas, Asia East by South: A Cul-tural Geography, 2nd edition (New York: JohnWi-ley, 1971), p. 528; Buck's original version s on p. 413of Harry Robinson, Monsoon Asia: A GeographicalSurvey, revised edition (New York: Praeger Pub-lishers, 1967).

time, nd mean little n the face of poor data,the range in values appears to presentmoreeffective uidelines hando averages,for ap-proximationsf rangecan, if necessary, emaindescriptive. or some criteria he typologistsforced o use purelydescriptive ata thatcan-not be equated in any meaningfulway withthose generated in numericallymeasurableterms.The approach to theformulationf a set ofagricultural ystemsfaces questions that areessentially onquantitative.he distinctione-tweenthe conceptsof usufructnd individualproprietorshipn land is generic, nd thesameis true f thedistinctionetween he applicationof human andnonhuman nergy s the sourceofagricultural ork.The systematist'sroblemsrelate to the identificationf critical geneticcriteria hat originate s operational spectsofdifferent odesofcultural evelopment. nfor-tunately,ittle progresshas been made sinceHahn first et down his small list of genericterms. f a relativelymallnumber f critical,generic riteria ouldbe agreedupon, itwouldseem practical o assign them equal weightingin generalapplication.This could thenplacethefocusof conceptualizationroperlynselec-tion of the criteria hemselves ather han onsome mechanical caling procedure.

CRITERIA IMPORTANT TO SYSTEMSOF AGRICULTUREAny system f agriculture ill bear strongrelation o the structural akeupof thecultureof the society hatemploysthatsystem.Thispremisemay appear tautological,but it hasbeen almost otally gnored ythosewho insiston examination f onlythe inherent lementsof agriculturetself, nd who thereby roduce

typologies r regionalisms. t least three ttri-bute complexesof culture ystems tronglyn-fluencethe evolutionary evelopmentof anagricultural ystem:organizational onstructs,economic conceptualisms,and technologicalassemblages.Each complexmanifeststself ndifferentaysas a society doptsspecificmeth-ods in, and objectivesfor, arrying n agricul-turalproduction. hese culture omplexeshaveplayed historicalroles in the initialdevelop-ments ndsubsequent lterations fagriculture,and each is critical o thecategorizationfsys-tems of agriculture.We have set down ourelaboration fthe ignificantirst-orderlementsof each set of attributesnd those aspects of


10/17

1973 NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 537TABLE 1.-TENTATIVE STRUCTURING OF FIRST-ORDER CRITERIA FOR

DIFFERENTIATION OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS

Set/ Aspects/Element Activities resultingI. Organizational matrices OrganizationalfocusA. Societalmatrix Social stratificationB. Tenurialmatrix Occupance/landenureC. Institutional atrix Societal nputs/subsidiesD. Labor matrix Forms/groupingsf aborII. Economic processes Decision-makingE. Producer oncentration Choices fcrops/animalsF. Dispositional rocess Allocation fproductsG. Redistributivelow SocioeconomicostsIII. Operational applications Mechanics of productionH. Energynputs ApplicationsfenergyI. Technological omplementation Additiveechnologies

Source: Prepared by authors.

agriculturalconomy ontrolled y each (Table1). The elaborationof the second-order is-tinctions,ecause of its ength, s placed at theend (Table 4).Several significantriteriawhichderivefromessential formsof human organizationhavebeen placed under OrganizationalMatrices(Table 1). The interrelationsetweenhumanorganizationnd agriculturalractice re acute,mutual,and even symbioticn a sense, sinceexistingorganizationmay direct features ofagricultures it initially ecomes partof a cul-ture ystem,ust as later hanges n theagricul-tural systemmay lead to alterationsn phasesof human organization societal matrix). Asearly social elaborationtook place, culturegroups placed individuals n separaterankingpositionsin society. Small groups of socialequals, such as lineagegroups, ould not haveattempted gricultural roductionn the samemanner s socialgroups hat anged heirmem-bers from nprivilegedlavesto privilegedris-tocrats, nd a complexdemocraticocial groupvaguelybased on wealth and educationneces-sarily would arrange ts agriculturalctivitiesdifferentlyhan ither.Land formed he basis for all agriculturaloperations uring arlier ras (although t neednotdo so today),andtenurial rinciplesf con-trolling arm and (de facto ratherthan dejure) become critical o thedistinguishmentfseparate griculturalystems,s seen n usufructamongtribal hiftingultivators s opposed toprivate ownership among advanced societies

(tenurialmatrix).All societies how some nsti-tutional ormshat mpinge n the nature f theagricultural ystem,rangingfrom "no-work"days amongshiftingultivators o experimentalbreeding stations operatingunder formalizeddepartments f agriculture institutionalma-trix). The organizational rinciplesby whichany societyhandles ts agriculturalaborforceshelps in shaping its agricultural ystem, towhichthe historic lterationsn labor practicesin the United States Cotton Belt speak veryeloquentlylabor matrix).Three criteria hat re primarilyconomic nnature ndfunction avebeenplacedunder heheadingofEconomicProcesses.All students fagricultural lassificationmake a place for thefirst riterion,he crops or animalsproduced(producer oncentration). nderdisposition fproductstwillappearthatwe havenot rrangedthe second-order lements n a waycommon othe "subsistenceversus commercial"pattern(dispositionalprocesses). The thirdcriteriontoo often orgottenn thediscussion f agricul-ture s often he societalequalizer n theflowof wealth (redistributivelow). Any form ofagricultural roduction as socioeconomic oststhat re exactedby nonagriculturalnstitutions.Such costsare elements n patternsfredistrib-utive flowofwealthwithin society, nd theytake manydifferentorms.However theyarearranged,ndwhatever heir orms,hese costsmanifest hemselvess integrallements fagri-cultural ystems hat cannot be ignored.Thatsome culturegroups of eastern Africa keep


11/17

538 J. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART Decembercattlewithwhichmen buy wives who willworkin gardens o grow crops s an institutionalismaffectinggriculture n that region,althoughmarriage ystems er se have no place in classi-fying ystems fagriculture. he southernMex-icanfarmermustdevotepart of his agriculturalproduction o thesupport f the villagefestival,since this s a social responsibilitye bears inreturnfor his high status withinhis culturegroup.Social status-rankingf certain grariancommunitymembers, nd the village festival,are bothnonagriculturalomplexes erving e-distributive-flowunctions y placing a socio-economic cost on agriculture. n the UnitedStates the "school tax" portionof the tax onland was a well-hidden lement n the factorsthatmotivated gricultural hange in the latenineteenthnd earlytwentiethenturies, ut italso amounts o a socioeconomic ost imposedon agriculture.The two remaining riteria re placed to-gether nder OperationalApplications ecausetheynclude hestrictly orking-operationech-nologies that carryout productiononce theorganizational nd decisional processes havebeenestablished. he first elates o the flow fenergy nto agricultural roduction, nd theonlydistinctive eature s the particularman-ner in whichthe second-order lementshavebeendistinguishedenergy nputs). In thesec-ond criterion e take whatmaybe consideredan unusualprocedure n grouping ogether lltechnologies y whichfarmersmprove n theedaphic and bioticenvironmentstechnologicalcomplementation).Although these elementsmay appear superficiallyuite unlike n formsandproperties,hey regenericallyimilar ech-nologies additive o naturalbioticprocesses nboth plants and animals. The timingof theorigin fmanyof thetraditionaldditive ech-nologiesvariesgreatlyn differentarts of theearth, nd through ariablediffusionheearlierforms ave becomequite rregularlyistributedaround theearth, hereby reatly omplicatingordinary lassificationrocedures.n our viewno singleone of thesetechnologiesirrigation,fertilization,rop protection,oil building, heapplication fpesticides,r thefeedingfbioticsupplements) hould be elevatedto a primarycriterionn theidentificationf an agriculturalsystem.We have attemptedo arrange hefullassemblage f additive echnologies ytherangeof ncrease n qualitative ower nstead frais-

ing each or any singleelementto a primarycriterion.We would assert that our primary riteriacan be weighted qually n the dentificationfagriculturalystems. he second-orderlementshave been carefullyelected o express lementsof range n characteristics ithin he frameworkof each primary riterion. o uniform atternof rangehas been set up, as is customary ndevelopinga typology, ecause the develop-ment f culture as not alwaysfollowedmathe-maticalprogressions new conceptshave comeinto being.The second-orderriteria ave beenchosen with n eye to significanteneric iffer-ences thatclearly eparate evels of activity ntheworking perations f agriculture.

It may be charged hatwe have overloadedour primary riteria from the culturalside,therebyndulgingn a patternof circularity;that s,we have setup so many ultural riteriathatby equal weighting e could only producea structurehat s culturallyound. Considera-tion of this point returns o thedifferencee-tweenthe typological onceptand thatof thesystem. hosewhoinsist hat hecategorizationofagriculture ustbe based onlyon the nher-ent characteristicsf agriculturetselfheavilyoverloadtheircriteriawith working-operationand technological eatures.Most elements hatderive rom heorganizationalspectsofsocietyareomitted, hereby ecessarily roducingwhatis hereconsidered o be a typologyf typesoffarming.Brief descriptive nd explanatoryphrasesattempto clarifyhenature ftheclassificatorycriteria sed in the full etoffirst-nd second-order criteria (Table 4). The second-ordercriteriahave been arranged n an ascendingorder of complexityfrom the rudimentarytoward he morecomplex patterns f thecon-temporaryra. For the sake of simplicityhecollectivistprinciplesof Communistagricul-turalorganization re placed last. In identifica-tionofspecificttributesfagriculturalystemswehave notnecessarilydhered o terminologi-cal convention.We have made no overt ttemptatavoidanceof termsustbecausetheirmultipleusages have led to misunderstandingsas inreferenceo thewordpeasant), butneither avewe been tied to terms f generally nderstoodmeaning ftenused in classifications. here istemptationnframing new constructo create


12/17

1973 NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 539TABLE 2.-HIERARCHICAL LIST OFAGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS

Number System1. Shifting ultivation2. SedentaryGardening3. Primitive low Culture4. FormativeCommercial Gardening5. Developed General Plow Culture6. SemimechanizedCommercial General Farming7. Developed Mechanized Farming8. Traditional Pastoralism9. Commercial LivestockRanching

10. Traditional Latifundia11. Modern CorporatePlantation12. IndustrializedAgriculturalProduction13. CollectivizedManagerial AgricultureSource: Preparedby authorsfromTables 1 and 3.

a jargon-loaded ocabulary,utwe haveresistedin the nterestsfsimplicityndclarity.A TENTATIVE HIERARCHY

We have assumedthatcriteriamustpermitany list of agriculturalystems o allow theinclusionof relictand evolvingsystems.Wepretend ono omniscience egardinghehistoryof agriculture,utwe believewe can tentativelyidentifyhirteenystemsn a looselyevolution-ary sequencethathavebeenpracticed incetheonset of the Neolithic, ncludingdevelopingcontemporaryystems Table 2).We assume, frompresentknowledge, hatShiftingCultivation, ncludingthe dooryardgarden plantingsites, was the beginningofcrop growing.The first even membersarearrangedn a possiblehierarchicalrder n theassumptionhat ropshave been the ong-termdominantelement and that farmer-operated"agriculture"onstitutes continuously evel-oping series. We believe that permanent-fieldSedentaryGardening nitiated he tradition f''private" and controlwell beforeformalizedprivate and ownershipwas made possible bydevelopingpolitical institutions. PrimitivePlow Culturemarkedthe initial ntegrationfplants nd animals n a productionystem.Webelieve, lso, that hebeginningsf commercialexchange in agricultural roducts are mucholder than moderneconomic historiansgen-erally ssume as in theearliest picetradeoutoftheEast Indies and,possibly,n themarket

garden vegetableproduction n chinampas nthe Valley of Mexico). These developmentsmay have arisen out of SedentaryGardeningcoupled with arly xchange o produceForma-tive Commercial Gardening.Developed Gen-eral Plow Culture, s an advance over ts primi-tive predecessor,we would date relativelyate,to be alteredby the modernizationrends hathave yielded Semimechanized CommercialGeneral Farming and Developed MechanizedFarming; regional variants of both of thesesystems are maturing s the modernizationprocessesdiffuse roundthe earth.Animal husbandry, s an early probablealternativeo crop growing,s placed separatelyas an alternate equence, with full recognitionthatdraft nimalsbecame ntegratedntocrop-growing ystems t the evel of Primitive lowCulture.The earliest nimalhusbandry ppearsin our list as TraditionalPastoralism, o besucceededby Commercial ivestockRanching.We believethat hebeginningsfTraditionalLatifundia,n some ofmanyregionalvariants,followed the development f political institu-tionsproviding erivative ontrols ver territoryof the sort often termedfeudal (recognizingthat herewere manyearlyforms f feudalismbeyond heclassicalEuropeanvariant),butthatthis was a divergent rend.The Modern Cor-porate Plantation, ften ending o produce arange of products,we view as a successor tothe classical monocrop traditional lantation,in developmental erms,but we also believethat modernization s producingconvergencein several f theadvanced nd complex gricul-tural ystems.An immaturecontemporary evelopment,Industrialized gricultural roduction,s pres-ently appearing n severalpartsof the earth.CollectivizedManagerial Agriculture,lso stillundergoing volutionary evelopment,s tenta-tively lacedas thefinalmember f our ist.We have matchedour interpretation,aultyas thatmay be, of specificfirst-nd second-order riteriagainst he istofagriculturalys-tems Table 3). Inevitablymorethan one ele-mentwithin ny givenprimaryriterionmaybediagnostic, articularlyhen ystemsre transi-tional n nature. pecific ystemsmayshare ub-sets,but are distinguishable y theiraggrega-tionsof secondary lements. ystems , 7, 11,and 12 havemarked imilaritiesn second-ordercriteria, hich s expectablenview ofthecon-vergence rocesses ctive n many partsof the


13/17

TABLE 3.-APPLICABILITY OF CRITERIA TO SPECIFIC SYSTEMSI ~~~~~I

Number Agricultural ystem A B C D E F1. Shifting ultivation 1 1 1 1-2 1-2 1-22. Sedentarygardening 2 2 2 2 1-2 1-23. Primitiveplow culture 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 4 34. Formative commercial gardening 3 3 3 2, 4 2 2-35. Developed general plow culture 3 3-4 3-4 4-5 4-5 46. Semi-mechanizedcommercial general farming 4 4 4 5 4, 6 57. Developed mechanizedfarming 4 4-5 4-5 5 4-5-6 58. Traditional pastoralism I I I 1 3 1-29. Commercial livestockranching 4 4-5 3-4 4-5 6 4-5

10. Traditional latifundia 3 3 3 3 2, 5-6 3-411. Modern corporate plantation 4 5 4-5 5 6 512. Industrializedagricultural roduction 4 5 4-5 5 7 513. Collectivizedmanagerial agriculture 5 6 6 6 3-4-5-6 6Source: Compiled by authors from Tables 1, 2, and 4.


14/17

1973 NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 541TABLE 4.-CRITERIA DETERMINING

AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS

I. ORGANIZATIONAL MATRICESA. Societal matrix

(Involves all aspects of societal organizational struc-turing of social groupings,classes, ranks in bondage,status patterns s freeman, nd memberships n group-ings permitting ssignment o labor/productioncorps.)1. Communal, lineage, and clan social organization/structuring.ncludes voluntary living groups" asso-ciated through membership in lineages, ramages,clans, or other communal groupings n simpler so-cietal structures.2. Nonstratifiedbut structured societal organization.Includes all forms of simpler groupings of inde-pendent prepeasant populations having structuredforms of organization but not forms codified and

institutionalized hroughsociopolitical controls.3. Stratified and socially structured agrarian organi-zation. Includes forms by which populations canbe held in chattelbondage as labor forces; includesstatus patterns holding populations in bondage/vassalage throughderivativecontrols; ncludes free-holders subject to obligational services; includespopulations holding derivative controls over anybonded elements.4. Complex "capitalistic" and "democratic" social or-ganization. Includes all socially organized patternsby which agrarian populations essentially are notsubject to derivative controls creating forms ofbondage/vassalage/territorial restriction; includessocial forms in which agrarian populations formrecognized classes of "freeman".5. Complex collective "Marxist" social organization.Includes all socially organized patterns by whichpopulations are in any way subject to assignmentto structuredorganizations that carry on agrarianproduction of any kind.

B. Tenurial matrix(Involves all formsof rights o usage of land, termsofoccupance, forms of ownership,concessions to man-agement,and patterns f restriction/reversionf rightsto land.)1. Collective usufructuary ontrols. ncludes all formsof specifiedterm-occupanceof productionsites un-der collective ownership but denies alienation byindividuals.2. Permanentoccupance controls via mutual authority.Includes incipient/evolvingpermanent occupance/allotmentof production sites under concession bymutual social action in the absence of organizedpolitical controls and institutions.3. Derivative rights ontrolsvia formalizedstructures.Includes all forms of derivative territorialrightsthrough confermentand derivative entailment ofland in fief; includes all forms of vassalage andlanded/chattel bondage of land occupants/pro-

ducers/agrarian populations holding reciprocal/vested "rights" n cultivable land.4. Allodial rights controls via concessions to indi-viduals. Includes individualized allodial rights toland per occupance/production; includes all forms

of direct/relegative sage of land in whatever ten-ancy; includes institutionalizedpatterns of title/forfeiture nd conceded rightsof alienation by/toindividuals.5. Allodial controlsvia concessions to corporate struc-tures. Includes all forms of accumulatory assem-blage of allodial rights/large-scale leasings bycorporate structuresfor mass production patterns;includes all formsof direct/relegative sage of landin whatevertenancy; includes institutionalized at-ternsof title/forfeiturend rightsof alienation.6. Collective rightsvia centralized state controls. In-cludes all formsof reversion/recession f rightsofoccupance/usage of land to collective managementof land/production; includes variable permissionsto use of "privateplots" for individualized produc-tion; includes all patterns of incomplete recessionof any pre-existing ightswith implicationstowardeventual completion of recessionprocess.

C. Institutionalmatrix(Involves all societal structures and institutionalmechanisms within which individuals and organiza-tions adopt practices affecting gricultural perform-ance.)1. Group/communitydeterminants. nvolves partici-pation in group-sanctioned ite selections, planting-harvesting operations, and product disposition; in-cludes individual roles in diverse group/specialistritual sequences fosteringproduction and affectingdisposition.2. Incipient "community"determinantswithoutformalcontrols. ncludes voluntary/incipientcommunity"improvementsthat increase control over naturallandscapes, but involves relatively free rein inchoice of actual agricultural perationssince formalinstitutional ontrols are lacking.3. Authoritarian operational determinants. Includesdevelopment of improvementsto productive land-scapes on behalf of community,regional, and ter-ritorial populations by sociopolitical mechanisms,but involves imperativecontrols over agrarian pop-ulations carryingon actual agricultural operations.4. Competitive "marketplace" operational determi-nants. Includes minimal developments performedfor agrarian populations by sociopolitical mecha-nisms, but involves individuallydeterminedopera-

tions under the influences/effectsn individual/group decisions by economic forces generated bythe competitive "marketplace" institution.5. Complex governmentdirected-agency eterminants.Includes all formsof capital inputsdesignedto con-troland improveproductive andscapes; involvesallforms of governmentagency experimentalbreed-ing/supportiveactivities carried on on behalf ofagriculturalproducers; involves all formsof sanc-tioned "cooperatives" and all forms of governmentsubsidy arrangements supportive of agriculturalproducers.6. Centralized collective-management determinants.Includes all forms of government operationalmechanisms controlling management directive ofproduction sequences; includes all variants ofwholly/partially ollectivized operations and toler-ated "private plot" patterns.


15/17

542 J. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART DecemberD. Labor matrix(Involves ll forms f organizing he abor/workn-puts n developmentf productiveandscapes nd inall agriculturalperations nd activities.)1. Voluntaryworking-grouptructures.ncludesvol-untary ssociation arying rom ndividualshroughsmall working artiesto "garden family" truc-tures; ncludes bligational enderingf commodi-ties/serviceso leadership lements.2. Independent community"ooperative tructures.Includes familyoperationsper nuclear/extendedfamilywith arrangeddivisionof labor; includespeak-season eciprocal ommunityooperationnlabor groups under varied organizational truc-tures; nvolves bligational enderingf commodi-ties/serviceso "community"/leadershipnder n-cipiently eveloping olitical nstitutions.3. Labor-gang rganizationaltructuresnderderiva-tivecontrols.ncludes ll forms f organizedaborperformance y chattel-bonded ersons/groups/gangs hat re housedbutusually rovide wn foodproduction atternsn local lands. ncludes trati-fied supervisory/managementules by holdersofpower.4. Peasant-communitytructuresunder derivativecontrols.nvolvesfamilyworking atternsn di-rectagricultural roduction ut includes oopera-tive operations y variably rganized ommunity"groups"; includes all organizational ormsbywhich derivativecontrols exact services/labor(apartfromdirectproduction ctivities) y strati-fied ociopoliticaltructures.5. Freeholdproducer-hiredabor structures.ncludes

direct produceroperations by freeholder nde-pendents/tenantshomay/may ot hirewage la-boronsomecontractualatternsndmay/may otcontractorperformancefsomeaspect fproduc-tionoperations.6. Collectivizedirected/managedabor tructures.n-cludesall forms f organized tructuresywhichagrarianpopulationsre wholly/partiallyssignedto agriculturalooperatives/collectives/statearmsin which labor/work s by organizedunits instate-plannedatternsn state-controlledands; in-cludes all patternsn which ncompletetructuringof and/labor orces as notyet rrivedtcompletecollectivization/management.II. ECONOMIC PROCESSESE. Product orientation(Involves ll plant crops and all animal productsnany setsof combinations,ncluding ny rangeof con-centrationn primaryroducts;ncludes nycomple-mentaryssociationfsubordinate,uxiliary,r minorcrops/products.)1. Multiple atch rops. ncludes ll patternsf mixedcropping n "patch plots"/dooryard ardens; n-volves omeappropriationf wildproducts.2. Patchcrops-smallnimals. ncludes ll patternsf

mixed cropping f major/minor rops on smallholdings ombinedwithkeeping f small animalsaroundhomesteadssuch as pigs,dogs,and poul-try s foodsources); involves ome appropriationof wildproducts.

3. Herd animals. nvolves all handling f herdani-mals on extensive anges,ncluding ranshumance;includes varied simple forms of complementinganimal feed supplies; sometimesncludes minorfood crop growings seasonalcomplement.4. Mixed crops/livestock/poultryroduced n stablefieldpatterns.ncludes any assemblage f crops/animals produced on stable,permanent-fieldat-terns f land use.5. Mixed crops/livestock/poultryroducedon rota-tional fields. ncludes any assemblageof crops/animals produced on lands involving otationalpatterns f anduse.6. Specialized crop/animal roduction atterns.n-cludes any degreeof concentrationn any singlecrop/narrowangeof cropsand/or ny degree fconcentrationn any single nimal/narrowangeof animalswhenproduced and sold offfarms/ranges s "products."7. Integrated ndustrial roduction.nvolves provi-sion of concentrationf facilities reating con-trolledenvironments"hat intensifiesroduction;includes integration f processingf "product"from roductiontage nto endproduct" onsumercommodities.

F. Dispositional processes(Involves ll forms f socioeconomicndsociopoliticalmechanisms hat transfer gricultural ommoditiesfrom roductionites o consumer opulations.)1. Localized subsistenceatterns.nvolvesdirect p-propriative se of agricultural ields s consumercommoditieswithout ignificantransfer eyondneighboringocial units.2. Intraregional ommunity xchange patterns. n-volves varied socially controlledand ritualizedformsof gift-giving;ncludesfestival-supportingand othersanctioned ransfer rocedureswithinlocal regions; ncludessociopoliticalmechanismsfor ntraregionalbarter"ndceremonial xchange.3. Incipient entral-marketingunctions/patterns.n-volvesevolutionary echanisms/patternsf rural-hinterlandrovisioningftown-cityonagriculturalconsumersn intraregionalatterns;ncludes ocio-politically rranged eriodic ransferscross nter-regional boundaries betweenseparate societies/populations.4. Organized entral-marketatterns.nvolvesvariedorganized mechanisms of intraregional/interre-gional ransferfvolumes fcommodities estinedfor upport fnonagriculturalopulations;ncludesmechanismsy whichprimary roducers ecomedetached rom erminalmarketingperations.5. Commercial, ompetitivemarketing atterns.n-cludesvariedcomplexchain mechanisms or in-traregionalinterregionalransfer f commoditiesunder competitive upply-demandmarketplace"determinants.6. Centralized ollection nd allocationpatterns.n-cludes all formsof state-controlledollection fagricultural ields and disposition o consuming

populations hroughiversemechanismsrationing,allocation, controlledmarkets,supply against"work oint" quivalents);ncludes oleratedminoramounts f "black market"/freexchangeby in-dividuals.


16/17

1973 NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS 543G. Redistributive low(Involves ll obligational lements ncidentalo agri-cultural roduction hatplace costson primary ro-duction; ncludes ll socioeconomic rrangementshatutilize griculturalesources n establishment/mainte-nance of agrarian ocieties;ncludes ll forms f po-

liticoeconomicssessmentn landas productionites).1. Sharing bligational o leadership/community.n-cludes the rendering f commodities/servicesoleadership/communityroup n support f groupsolidarityn absenceof formalizednstitutionsorassessment n persons/products/land.2. Ritualizedequalizationpatterns. ncludes institu-tionalized orms ordisposalof surpluseshrough-out generalpopulations ceremonial estivals ndbenevolences); includes ritualizedterminal dis-posals for purposes f economic evellingburial,sacrifice,eparations,ndemnity,nd reapportion-ment).3. Societally anctioned ompensatoryost patterns.Includesall forms f obligational xpenditure fprimary roductionn establishmentf familiesand maintenanceof socioeconomic solidarity(bride-price,owry,mutual id, and other upportpatterns).4. Levy exaction atterns.ncludes ll forms nd pat-ternsby which abor/commoditiesre exactedbyauthoritarian/derivativeoliticalcontrols o formdirect/indirectssessments n agrarianproducers.5. Specific axation atterns.ncludes ll forms f di-rect/indirectaxation on lands/productionol-umes/netncomesvia agenciesfundinggovern-ments/rulers.6. Indirect axationsystems.ncludes all forms ofwithdrawalrom roduction/producershosecom-modity/laborincome" yields considered nstitu-tional investmentapital/governmentunding iacollectivemanagementontrols.

III. OPERATIONAL APPLICATIONSH. Energy applications(Involves ll sourcesof energy xpenditurey types;includestool kits in grouped patternsper energysources; ncludesvariable ratiosof power generallyapplicableto productive perationsn fields nd atfarmsteads.)

1. Human abor hand tool kit. ncludes ll groupingsof hand tool assemblages;nvolves mall volumesof energyper workingunit intensivelyppliedthroughime.2. Transhumantnimalenergy.nvolves animalen-ergy expended n transhumance/grazing;ncludesrelativelymallvolumes f human abor employ-ing simpletool kits applied extensively hroughtime.3. Animal-poweredimple ool kits. nvolvesmoder-ately ow volumesof energy er unitappliedex-tensivelyhroughime o small andunits; ncludeshumanenergy orsharesof populations otpos-sessing nimalenergy;ncludeshumanenergy x-pended nmany asksnotsubject o animalpower,theserequiringntensivepplication hrough imein fields/farmsteads.

4. Organized nimal-poweredomplextool kits. n-volvesmoderatelyighvolumes f energy ppliedextensivelyhrough ime to large land units; n-cludes nimal nergy pplied ntensivelyo particu-lar tasks; ncludes uman nergy pplied ntensivelyto particular onmechanizedield/farmsteadasks.5. Semimechanized ixed ool systems.nvolves ari-able degrees f conversion o mechanized ool kitsand variable ratios of older and newer energysources/tool its; ncludes ariable atios f humanenergy pplied intensivelyt assortedfarmsteadtasks.6. Mechanizedhigh-poweredomplextool systems.Involveshigh-level echanizationmployingarge,complex ool kits; ncludes xtensivenergy ppli-cations hroughimewith ntensivepplications nspecializedtasks, nvolvesrelativelyow volumesofhuman nergynoperationalspects ftoolkits.

I. Technological complementation(Involves ll thosetechnologicalrocedures nfluenc-ingproductionhatmanipulatend improve he man-ageabilityf the rop/animalnvironmentnd therebyenhanceproductivity.)1. Rudimentarycceptance of the natural environ-ment. nvolves ll perceptions f theenvironmentthat esultnritualized upplicationftheforces fproduction ut affect o formal ntervention ithnature except for simpleclearing/preparationfplanting ites.2. Primitiveomplementationf theproduction nvi-ronment.nvolvesall primitive ut directlynter-ventionalprocedures hat improveplanting ur-faces,grazingranges,management f water, ndproductivityfsoils; ncludes learingndburning,simplefield erracing,iverted ravity low rriga-tion, imple election f planting/breedingtocks,and low-level application of composts/naturalmanures.3. Intermediateomplementationf environmentsfproduction.nvolves dvanced-but-traditionalormsof interventionalroceduresmproving roductiv-ity; ncludes uchfeatures s complex errace ys-tems with ntegrated atercontrol, rganized e-lective reedingf crop plants/animals,allowing/greenmanuring/rotationffields, rganized rovi-sion for rrigation,nd other elated orms f com-

plementationn an intermediateevel of tech-nology.4. Scientificomplementationf productionnviron-ments. nvolves ll the complexmodern/scientificformsof augmentingroductivity;ncludessuchfeaturess breedingfplant/animalorms o spec-ification f need in selectiveenvironments,e-terrent nd additive hemicalpesticides-fertilizers-biologicalsubstances, nvironmentaleating-frostcontrols,and levelling nd otherformsof fieldcontrol/reconstruction,omplexwaterprovision/control ystems,nd related cientificrocedures.5. Constructed/controlledrtificial roduction nvi-ronments.nvolves reation fmade-to-ordernvi-ronmentalonstructshatfacilitatendustrial ro-ductionof agricultural ommodities nder fullymanipulated factory"onditions.

Source: Prepared by authors.


17/17

544 J. E. SPENCER AND NORMAN R. STEWART Decemberearth, feature ointedout by Gregor.20ys-temtwelve s stillemergent nd occupiesonlysmall amountsof space, but the similaritynthe other hreemembers uggests hatcurrentdistinctionsn world agricultural roduction

20 H. F. Gregor, "The Changing Plantation," An-nals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 55(1965), pp. 221-38; and Gregor, op. cit., footnote 1,pp. 102-03.

are blurring, nd thatseveral may be destinedto disappear.Whittlesey,n his 1936 paper,suggested hathis isting fagriculturalegionswas a tentativeone, subject o critical eview nd modification,and our presentations offeredn the samevein.We wouldhope that his ist s givenmoreprompt nd more criticalreviewthan that setforth y Whittlesey.

Matrices Agricultura

Documents

Transcript of Matrices Agricultura