Advertisement

From Confusion to Common Sense: Using Political Ethnography to Understand Social Mobilization in the Brazilian Northeast

  • Wendy Wolford

The decade of the 1990s was a difficult one for the sugarcane region of northeastern Brazil. Local producers were hurt by falling international prices for sugar: from a high of almost one dollar per pound in the early 1980s, the price fell to an average of 10–12 cents a pound throughout the 1990s (World Bank Report No. 20754-BR 2002, p. 34). Price decreases were exacerbated by changes in the nature of state support: in 1989, the newly democratic Brazilian government began dismantling and progressively withdrawing its generous safety net for northeastern sugarcane producers (de Andrade and de Andrade 2001). Subsidies that had previously (since 1975) allowed northeastern producers to compete with their more efficient counterparts in the South were cut by more than 60% in 1989 (Buarque 1997). By 1995, 15 of 26 sugarcane distilleries in Pernambuco – the state responsible for a majority of the total sugarcane produced in the Northeast at that time – were either shut down or on the verge of bankruptcy (Lins 1996, p. 2). Production in the state had fallen from 20 million tons in 1989 to 14 million in 2000–2001 (de Andrade and de Andrade 2001, p. 147), and plantation and distillery owners were leaving their land for healthier industries elsewhere (particularly tourism on the coast). Common laborers were badly hurt by the crisis: in an industry heavily dependent on manual labor, an estimated 350,000 workers were unemployed in 1996 and considered unlikely to find work even during the harvest season.

Keywords

Collective Action Common Sense Social Movement Land Occupation Agrarian Reform 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abu-Lughod, L. (2000). Locating ethnography. Ethnography, 1, 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auyero, J. (2003). Contentious lives: Two Argentine women, two protests, and the quest for recognition. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1991). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society. Translated by Pricilla Parkhurst Ferguson. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Branford, S., & Rocha, J. (2002). Cutting the wire: The story of the landless movement in Brazil. London: Latin American Bureau.Google Scholar
  5. Buarque, S. C. (1997). Proposta de reestruturação do setor sucro-alcooleiro e negociação de divida por terra para assentamentos de reforma agrária. Paper prepared for the workshop, Reestruturação do Setor Sucro-Alcooleiro e Reforma Agrária na Zona da Mata de Pernambuco, Recife.Google Scholar
  6. Burdick, J. (1995). Uniting theory and practice in the ethnography of social movements: Notes toward a hopeful realism. Dialectical Anthropology, 20, 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cazella, A. A. (1992). Assentamentos rurais e cooperação agrícola: Políticas conflitantes. Master’s Thesis in the Center for Research in Agriculture and Development with the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
  8. de Andrade, M. C. (1988). Área Ddo sistema canavieiro. Recife: Superintendencia do Desenvolvimento do Nordeste.Google Scholar
  9. de Andrade, M. C., & de Andrade, S. C. (2001). As usinas de pernambuco e a crise atual. Recife: UNTEPPE.Google Scholar
  10. De Soto, H. (1989). The other path: The invisible revolution in the third world. London: I.B. Tauris and Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Diani, M., & McAdam, D. (2003). Social movements and networks: Relational approach to collective action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Edelman, M. (2001). Social movements: Changing paradigms and forms of politics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenberg, P. (1974). The sugar industry in São Paulo: Modernization without change, 1840–1910. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fernandes, B. M. (1999). MST, movimento dos trabalhadores rurais sem terra: Formação e territorialização. São Paulo: Editora Hucitec.Google Scholar
  15. Freyre, G. (1978). The masters and the slaves. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, G., & Jasper, J. (1999). Caught in a winding, snarling vine: The structural bias of political process theory. Sociological Forum, 14, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta, A. (1998). Postcolonial developments: Agriculture in the making of modern India. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1997). Anthropological locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jasper, J. (2004). A strategic approach to collective action: Looking for agency in social movement choices. Mobilization, 9(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  20. Julião, F. (1972). Cambão–the yoke: The hidden face of Brazil. Translated from the Portuguese by John Butt. Hammondsworth: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, G. (2004). Geography and development: Critical ethnographies. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kurzman, C. (2004). Can understanding undermine explanation? Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34, 328–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lins, C. (1996). Programa de ação para o desenvolvimento da Zona da Mata do Nordeste. Recife, PE: Superintendent for the Development of the Northeast.Google Scholar
  24. Martins, J. D. S. (1998). O cativeiro da terra. São Paulo: Editora Hucitec.Google Scholar
  25. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. MEPF (Ministério Extraordinário da Política Fundiária). (1998). Programa integrado de reforma na Zona da Mata Nordestina. Recife.Google Scholar
  27. Navarro, Z. (2000). Breaking new ground: Brazil’s MST. NACLA Report on the Americas, 33, 36–39.Google Scholar
  28. Ortner, S. B. (1995). Resistance and the problem of ethnographic refusal. Comparative Studies of Society and History, 37, 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paige, J. (1975). Agrarian revolution: Social movements and export agriculture in the underdeveloped world. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Paulilo, M. (1996). Terra a vista.…e ão longe. Florianopolis, SC: Editora da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
  31. Pereira, A. (1997). The end of the peasantry: The rural labor movement in northeast Brazil, 1961–1988. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  32. Petras, J. (1997). Latin America: The resurgence of the left, New Left Review, 223, 17–47.Google Scholar
  33. Robles, W. (2001). The landless rural workers movement MST in Brazil. Journal of Peasant Studies, 282, 146–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubin, J. (2004). Meanings and mobilizations: A cultural politics approach to social movements and states. Latin American Research Review, 39(3): 106–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sigaud, L. (1979). Os clandestinos e os direitos. São Paulo: Editora Duas Cidades.Google Scholar
  36. Stedile, J. P., & Fernandes, B. M. (1999). Brava gente: A trajetória do MST e a Luta Pela Terra no Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Fundação Perseu Abramo.Google Scholar
  37. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watts, M. (2001). Development ethnographies. Ethnography, 2, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolford, W. (2003). Families, fields, and fighting for land: The spatial dynamics of contention in rural Brazil. Mobilization, 8, 201–215.Google Scholar
  40. Wolford, W. (2005, January 21). Every monkey has its own head: Rural sugarcane workers and the politics of becoming a peasant in northeastern Brazil. Paper presented at the Yale Agrarian Studies colloquium.Google Scholar
  41. Wood, E. (2003). Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. World Bank Report No. 20754-BR. (2002). Growth and poverty reduction in Pernambuco: Developing a sustainable policy framework. Brazil Country Management Unit of the World Bank.Google Scholar
  43. Wright, A., & Wolford, W. (2003). To inherit the earth: The landless movement and the struggle for a new Brazil. Oakland, CA: Food First! Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy Wolford
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of North Carolina-Chapel HillNorth Carolina

Personalised recommendations