Government institutions related to agricultural credit, agriculture companies,
introduction of agricultural technologies, and the transformation of production
were all strengthened. All this led, over 20 years, to a period in Mexico called
stabilizing development or the Mexican miracle, which, according to different
authors (Gollás 2003; Garrido 2003) occurred between the 1950s and the 1970s.
‘‘In general, ‘‘stabilizing development’’ shared the dynamics and limitations of the
strategies focused on industrialization, under conditions of protectionism and
guided by the dynamics of the economic action of the Government’’ (Garrido
2003, p. 256).
One of the intervention programs that was most representative of this ideal was
the Green Revolution.
1 The Government and its institutions involved in agricultural development established a wide range of activities, strategies, and methods in
order to establish modernity in different regions of the Mexican countryside. This
intervention established that technology (the use of chemical fertilizers and
genetically modified seeds), new machinery, and the knowledge of experts (mainly
agronomists, agricultural-livestock technicians, and veterinarians) were the most
effective ways to bring rural Mexico and its inhabitants out of the backwardness
and poverty in which they were immersed.
In this Revolution, technology created the imaginary of the triumph of reason
and science over the local knowledge and techniques of both mestizo peasants and
indigenous people. The modernity model began to change the relationship of the
peasants with nature, introducing into their language ideas such as productivity,
supplies, consumption, appreciation, market, competition, investment, profit, and
loss. Descola points out in his numerous studies
2 how the agricultural societies
change their modes of relationship with nature, some of them passing from a
reciprocal connection involving the reintegration of biopsychosocial balances to
one that is characterized by the rapaciousness typical of the extractive postcapitalist agricultural societies.
The establishment of these languages of development and modernity as a
structural means to achieve an economic benefit began to create a standard
regarding the use of the environment: nature as a means of production and marketing
as well as a form of monetary interaction.
3 In this scenario, one of the characters
who, with the passing of the years, became a central figure within the processes of
social intervention was the technician or the extension agent. This was a person sent
by institutions, whose immediate responsibilities included the extension of the light
of science and techniques in the pueblos and communities where the empire of
customs and traditions had ruled.
This person would focus his or her efforts, during visits and in field work, on the
transformation of all ideas and activities that were outside the parameters of
1 Barkin (1998), Boege (1996), Leff (2004), Díaz-Cerecer (1989), and Warman (2001), among
others.
2 See Descola (1994, 1996).
3 The next section elaborates on the relationship between nature and poverty.
460
A. Vázquez-Estrada and A. Terven-Salinas
introduction of agricultural technologies, and the transformation of production
were all strengthened. All this led, over 20 years, to a period in Mexico called
stabilizing development or the Mexican miracle, which, according to different
authors (Gollás 2003; Garrido 2003) occurred between the 1950s and the 1970s.
‘‘In general, ‘‘stabilizing development’’ shared the dynamics and limitations of the
strategies focused on industrialization, under conditions of protectionism and
guided by the dynamics of the economic action of the Government’’ (Garrido
2003, p. 256).
One of the intervention programs that was most representative of this ideal was
the Green Revolution.
1 The Government and its institutions involved in agricultural development established a wide range of activities, strategies, and methods in
order to establish modernity in different regions of the Mexican countryside. This
intervention established that technology (the use of chemical fertilizers and
genetically modified seeds), new machinery, and the knowledge of experts (mainly
agronomists, agricultural-livestock technicians, and veterinarians) were the most
effective ways to bring rural Mexico and its inhabitants out of the backwardness
and poverty in which they were immersed.
In this Revolution, technology created the imaginary of the triumph of reason
and science over the local knowledge and techniques of both mestizo peasants and
indigenous people. The modernity model began to change the relationship of the
peasants with nature, introducing into their language ideas such as productivity,
supplies, consumption, appreciation, market, competition, investment, profit, and
loss. Descola points out in his numerous studies
2 how the agricultural societies
change their modes of relationship with nature, some of them passing from a
reciprocal connection involving the reintegration of biopsychosocial balances to
one that is characterized by the rapaciousness typical of the extractive postcapitalist agricultural societies.
The establishment of these languages of development and modernity as a
structural means to achieve an economic benefit began to create a standard
regarding the use of the environment: nature as a means of production and marketing
as well as a form of monetary interaction.
3 In this scenario, one of the characters
who, with the passing of the years, became a central figure within the processes of
social intervention was the technician or the extension agent. This was a person sent
by institutions, whose immediate responsibilities included the extension of the light
of science and techniques in the pueblos and communities where the empire of
customs and traditions had ruled.
This person would focus his or her efforts, during visits and in field work, on the
transformation of all ideas and activities that were outside the parameters of
1 Barkin (1998), Boege (1996), Leff (2004), Díaz-Cerecer (1989), and Warman (2001), among
others.
2 See Descola (1994, 1996).
3 The next section elaborates on the relationship between nature and poverty.
460
A. Vázquez-Estrada and A. Terven-Salinas