Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:23:27.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The silika: a co-operative labour institution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2012

S. R. Charsley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a type of labour agreement encountered in agrarian societies, which almost inevitably gets labelled ‘traditional’. This is the arrangement, occurring in a variety of styles which I discuss elsewhere (Charsley 1974a), whereby members of a rural community co-operate to perform collectively tasks which belong to them individually. The use of such a label has often, as will be seen, some justification in that these arrangements typically form parts of institutional complexes embedded in the diffuse and multiplex social relationships of small-scale communities. They usually imply a lack of specialization both of task and of skill.

Résumé

LE SILIKA: ORGANISATION DU TRAVAIL SUR UN MODE COOPÉRATIF

L'usage du terme ‘traditionnel’ appliqué à certains types de dispositions de travail en groupe dans le domaine agraire tend à obscurcir le fait que celles-ci continuent d'être adaptées à des économies modernes de marché. Des fermiers immigrants venus du Kenya dans le cadre d'un plan de réinstallation Ougandais ont adapté leur forme traditionnelle de groupes de travail, appelée silika, à une économie qui destine ses cultures à la vente. Mais la persistance du groupe de travail silika ne saurait être expliquée par des critères économiques rationnels selon lesquels cette persistance serait déterminée par un rendement accru et par des bénéfices plus élevés. En réalité, il semblerait que des méthodes d'exploitation agricole où l'accent est mis davantage sur l'entreprise individuelle soient plus rentables. En fait, le silika persiste parce qu'il consolide le fondement religieux de la communauté d'immigrants, qu l'on appelle inexactement Maragolis, fondement qui est lui-même lié à leur individualité ethnique. Cette identité et cette solidarité particulières ont eu pour effet d'encourager le Maragoli à réaliser un important progrès économique pour perpétuer le bien de la communauté. Les groupes de travail dits ‘traditionnels’ peuvent donc accélérer la production et le développement économiques. Ce que l'on appelle la ‘modernisation’ et qui fait entrer en jeu des modes de production plus individualistes n'est pas une condition première nécessaire.

Type
Research Article
Information
Africa , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 34 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © International African Institute 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allan, W. 1965. The African Husbandman. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Charsley, S. R. 1968. ‘Population Growth and Development in Northeast Bunyoro’. East African Geographical Journal, 6.Google Scholar
Charsley, S. R. 1973. ‘Dreams in an Independent African Church’. Africa xliii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charsley, S. R. 1974 ‘The Formation of Ethnic Groups’, in Cohen A. Urban Ethnicity, A.S.A. 12. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Charsley, S. R. 1974a. Labour and economic development in a rural immigrant community in Uganda. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Epstein, T. S. 1973. South India: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erasmus, C. J. 1956. ‘Culture Structure and Process: the occurrence and disappearance of reciprocal farm labour’. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, xli.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friends Africa Mission. 1940. Luragoli-English Vocabulary. Kaimosi, Kenya: F A.M. Press.Google Scholar
Guthrie, M. 1948. The Classification of the Bantu Languages. London: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Mayer, P. 1951. ‘Agricultural Co-operation by Neighbourhood Groups among the Gusii’, Two Studies in Applied Anthropology in Kenya. London: H.M.S.O. for the Colonial Office.Google Scholar
Mellor, J. W. 1970. ‘The Subsistence Farmer in Traditional Economies’, in Wharton, C. R. (ed.) Subsistence Agriculture and Economic Development. London: Cass.Google Scholar
Nadel, S. F. 1947. The Nuba. London: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Painter, L. K. 1966. The Hill of Vision. Kaimosi, Kenya: East African Yearly Meeting of Friends.Google Scholar
Sangree, W. H. 1966. Age, Prayer and Politics in Tiriki, Kenya. London: O.U.P. for E.A.I.S.R.Google Scholar
Uchendu, V. 1970. ‘Traditional Work-groups in economic development’. Proceedings of the U.E.A. Social Science Conference, Dar es Salaam, 1970. Vol. 5. Kampala: Makerere Institute of Social ResearchGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G. 1949 & 1956. The Bantu of North Kavirondo, Vols. I and II. London: O.U.P. for I.A.I. Republished in one volume (1970) as The Bantu of Western Kenya.Google Scholar
Watson, W. 1958. Tribal Cohesion in a Money Economy. Manchester: M.U.P. for Rhodes-Livingstone Institute.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: O.U.PGoogle Scholar
Were, G. S. 1967. A History of the Abaluyia of Western Kenya. Nairobi: East African Publishing House.Google Scholar
Worsley, P. 1971. Two Blades of Grass: rural co-operatives in agricultural modernization. Manchester: M.U.P.Google Scholar