BCPs and Boundary Work in Madagascar 259
further work of negotiation and translation should look like. The centrality of
ancestry in peasants’ cosmovisions cannot be overstated and is confirmed by one
thorny issue our ethnographical workshop revealed, but which remains unaddressed in the protocol: “‘Sakafo ve dia asiana contrat?’ – Do we really need to have
a contract for food?”. As the Malagasy people say: “sakafo masaka, tsy mba manantompo” – “prepared food has no owner”; this is about sharing.
The “sakafo” is embedded in a system of complex idea which interweaves
numerous aspects: tomb, filiation and ancestry, with the tomb being, as Bloch
demonstrated, “the ultimate criteria of membership” (Bloch, 1994). Identity stems
from this hub and continues to be linked to the tanindrazana (the land and soil of
the ancestors) where the family tomb is located. The land of the ancestor is the
legacy (lova) of the deceased, which comes with responsibilities in perpetuity and
the famadihana (“double funerals” or the ceremony of the turning of the bones). A
range of obligations include an obligation to plant the “angady” (a traditional spade)
in the ancestral rice fields to ensure the family’s food security and, above all, to
rapidly collect wealth to worship the ancestor (Deliége, 2012, p. 132). However,
the ritual never wipes out the debt, because the descendants are not satisfied simply
with giving it back. They have to “re-give”, so to speak, by calling for a new gift
and then tracing a never-ending circle, which ensures the continuity of the vital
flow or aina, focused on the razana (the ancestor) (Deliége, 2012, p. 202).
This echoes the importance of the “growth process” which, as Eva Keller
recalls, is the first criterion of success for the Malagasy farmer (Keller, 2008,
p. 659). Farm, cultivate and grow, in the hope of being able to fastidiously honour the razana and thus capture additional vitality. Yet, this vitality can only
be achieved by following the “normal course of things” which is set by God
(Zanahary), i.e. by scrupulously and manifestly respecting the intermediate divinities (the “lolon-kazo” or the “tree spirit”, the Chthonian powers, etc.) and the
razana themselves (Beaujard, 1995, pp. 251, 255; Rakoto Ramiarantsoa & Lemoigne, 2014, p. 99). This is the subject of offerings, prayers and even ody andro or
ody avandra, i.e. spells against (poor) weather (“andro”) or hail (“avandra”) which
aim to ward off climatic risks (Grandidier, 1932, p. 161).
In such a system, which constantly weaves together the origin of death and
that of crops, fecundity, the world of the dead (Beaujard, 1995, p. 260), agricultural production and ancestry, some exchanges necessarily bring into question
the continuity of the group and constitute supports for identity (Gudeman, 2012,
p. 27). They respond to their own logic, as is the case of seeds-food. When
foodstuffs are shared (raw or prepared), the Analavory farmers say this means
that there is trust among the guests. If a “contract” has to be signed, this means
that the trust is in doubt, and trust has not been acquired, which changes the
status of the food (the “safako” is also a vector for poison or witchcraft “vorika”)
(Rakotomalala, 2006). Any negotiation or commitment ( fifanekena, fifampiraharahana, fifandaminana, fifanarahana) takes place orally. No written contract is
prepared. Belief in the “tsiny” (“blame” or the “readiness to answer” – Genard,
1999) and “tody” (the retaliation brought by fate) is enough to guarantee that each
further work of negotiation and translation should look like. The centrality of
ancestry in peasants’ cosmovisions cannot be overstated and is confirmed by one
thorny issue our ethnographical workshop revealed, but which remains unaddressed in the protocol: “‘Sakafo ve dia asiana contrat?’ – Do we really need to have
a contract for food?”. As the Malagasy people say: “sakafo masaka, tsy mba manantompo” – “prepared food has no owner”; this is about sharing.
The “sakafo” is embedded in a system of complex idea which interweaves
numerous aspects: tomb, filiation and ancestry, with the tomb being, as Bloch
demonstrated, “the ultimate criteria of membership” (Bloch, 1994). Identity stems
from this hub and continues to be linked to the tanindrazana (the land and soil of
the ancestors) where the family tomb is located. The land of the ancestor is the
legacy (lova) of the deceased, which comes with responsibilities in perpetuity and
the famadihana (“double funerals” or the ceremony of the turning of the bones). A
range of obligations include an obligation to plant the “angady” (a traditional spade)
in the ancestral rice fields to ensure the family’s food security and, above all, to
rapidly collect wealth to worship the ancestor (Deliége, 2012, p. 132). However,
the ritual never wipes out the debt, because the descendants are not satisfied simply
with giving it back. They have to “re-give”, so to speak, by calling for a new gift
and then tracing a never-ending circle, which ensures the continuity of the vital
flow or aina, focused on the razana (the ancestor) (Deliége, 2012, p. 202).
This echoes the importance of the “growth process” which, as Eva Keller
recalls, is the first criterion of success for the Malagasy farmer (Keller, 2008,
p. 659). Farm, cultivate and grow, in the hope of being able to fastidiously honour the razana and thus capture additional vitality. Yet, this vitality can only
be achieved by following the “normal course of things” which is set by God
(Zanahary), i.e. by scrupulously and manifestly respecting the intermediate divinities (the “lolon-kazo” or the “tree spirit”, the Chthonian powers, etc.) and the
razana themselves (Beaujard, 1995, pp. 251, 255; Rakoto Ramiarantsoa & Lemoigne, 2014, p. 99). This is the subject of offerings, prayers and even ody andro or
ody avandra, i.e. spells against (poor) weather (“andro”) or hail (“avandra”) which
aim to ward off climatic risks (Grandidier, 1932, p. 161).
In such a system, which constantly weaves together the origin of death and
that of crops, fecundity, the world of the dead (Beaujard, 1995, p. 260), agricultural production and ancestry, some exchanges necessarily bring into question
the continuity of the group and constitute supports for identity (Gudeman, 2012,
p. 27). They respond to their own logic, as is the case of seeds-food. When
foodstuffs are shared (raw or prepared), the Analavory farmers say this means
that there is trust among the guests. If a “contract” has to be signed, this means
that the trust is in doubt, and trust has not been acquired, which changes the
status of the food (the “safako” is also a vector for poison or witchcraft “vorika”)
(Rakotomalala, 2006). Any negotiation or commitment ( fifanekena, fifampiraharahana, fifandaminana, fifanarahana) takes place orally. No written contract is
prepared. Belief in the “tsiny” (“blame” or the “readiness to answer” – Genard,
1999) and “tody” (the retaliation brought by fate) is enough to guarantee that each