Mind and Labor on the Farm in Black-Earth Russia, 1861-1914 by David s> Kerans (review)

Abstract

150 SEER, 8i, I, 2003 Kerans, David. MindandLaborontheFarmin Black-Earth Russia,i86I-I9I4. Central European University Press, Budapest and New York, 2001. xx + 49I pp. Maps. Illustrations.Tables.Notes. Appendix. Bibliography. Index.C3495THIS is an important and highly provocative book based on considerable research into the history of agriculturein Tambov province in late imperial Russia. The book is divided into five parts. The firstis a detailed analysisof the implements and techniques employed in peasant grain-farming. The discussion is down-to-earth. The author explains how peasants grew grain, and enlivenshis account with his own experience of ploughingwith a sokha. In a paragraphon 'distractions'we learn that: 'The furthest-flyingliquid from a strongsprayof diarrhea[fromthe horse] willjust reach the tillers[']armsand shirt (I have never experienced worse, anyway)' (p. 20). Peasant farming is subjected to rigorous criticism from an agronomist's point of view. Kerans argues that peasants had limited competence as farmers and made rudimentary mistakes, for example, in the selection of seed and the timing of sowing and reaping. He accepts that peasants were able to grow more grain by intensifying their production within the existing system of farming in response to the pressure of the growing population. But, by the early twentieth century, he argues that they had gone as far as they could in this direction. Part two is the most controversial. The author argues that peasants were unable to move beyond their existing systems of farming because they had limited mental capacities. He presents his case in opposition to the argument that peasants were rational decision makers seeking to maximize their utility ('the optimizing peasant' model). For Kerans, the peasants' mental capacities were largely a result of the cultural environment in which they lived. He focuses on the 'intellectual consequences of the magico-religious world' of Russian villages as well as peasant child-rearing practices, but also to a physical environment (an abundance of fertile land in the recent past) that had long encouraged extensification rather than intensification of agricultural production. He concludes that 'village culture produced relatively few individuals with an inclination to technological exploration and experimentation ' (p. I84). In part three, the peasants' continued reliance on the three-field system is analysed. Kerans argues that intensification of production beyond the threefield system was not possible until peasants became aware of, and were capable of understanding, scientific advances and more complex multi-field systems. But, this part of the book is more balanced and the author pays attention to other factors inhibiting the adoption of different systems, in particular: the growing fodder crisis, which required other solutions; the limited development of transport networks and urban markets; and the weaknesses of the multi-field systems that were proposed at the time. The final two parts of the book consider attempts by the authorities to address the growing problems in rural Russia. Part four discusses the Stolypin land reform in Tambov province. After carefully weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of open fields (in the process arguing that McCloskey's arguments on medieval England are not applicable to late imperial Russia), REVIEWS 15I and analysing the consequences of the reform in the province, Kerans concludes that 'thegovernment'splan to reorganizepeasantagriculturealong the lines of individualized farming was not an appropriate solution to the agrarian problem in most of central and southern Russia' (p. 368). In a frustratinglyshort part five, Kerans analyses what is clearly his favoured solution: the programme of agronomic aid sponsored largely by the zemstva that began in Tambov province in I9I0. He presentsa strongargumentthat, afterinitialproblems,agronomistswere makingsome headwayin overcoming the vast cultural gulf that separated them from the mass of the peasantry. Kerans engages forcefullywith Kotsonis'srecent book (reviewedin SEER,79, 200I, I, pp. I65-66). Thus, rather than 'making peasants backward', as Kotsonisargued,Keransseessomeprospectsforagronomistsmakingpeasants 'advanced'. However, their efforts came to a halt, before much had been achieved, with the end of imperialRussia. The book itselfcomes to a haltwith a briefand inconclusive analysisof 'The Future,as of I9I4'. There is much more to engage with in this trenchant, combative and at timesjudgmental book than ispossiblein a shortreview.Two points standout to this reviewer. Kerans has consciously chosen to write about a period in which...