Fieldwork experience: Relived and reconsidered. The Agrarian society of Uttar Pradesh∗

Abstract

Fieldwork is currently regarded as basic to the anthropologist's method of studying rural communities. Though I studied social anthropology as a student, my interest in fieldwork in U.P. villages in the early 1950s came from different sources ‐from the tradition of fieldwork‐based rural studies initiated by R.K. Mukerjee in my university and from my contact with the writings of Mao Tse‐Tung in the course of my brief involvement in revolutionary politics. What gave special significance to my fieldwork was my theoretical interest in exploring the relevance of the concept of class as a tool for understanding the dynamics of predominantly agrarian, ex‐colonial countries. Fieldwork helped me to gain an insight into the peculiarities of the agrarian structure in an ex‐colonial country which showed rural‐urban antagonism more sharply than internal class polarisation. It is through fieldwork that I became aware of the role played by ecological and geographical factors in determining the peculiarities of the agrarian structure in each region. Field experience also made me aware of the conflicting pulls of class conflict and community solidarity operating simultaneously in Indian villages. The inadequacy of fieldwork as a method was also revealed to me sharply inthe course of fieldwork itself. When I tried to explore how the evolution of the agrarian structure in a region was shaped not merely by the natural factors specific to a region but the political‐economic forces operating from outside the region, I found I had reached the limits of field work. In the absence of a broader perspective of a macro theory of social change, fieldwork yielded only a bewildering mass of facts and information but no meaningful insights.