development and productivity, such as those relating to nature and reciprocity. In
this logical scheme, the subject intervened upon was seen as a passive recipient
who was obligated to reproduce the wisdom that was being imparted thereto.
The [Green Revolution] RV programs made progress by means of analogies
that held development as a synonym of modernity, and modernity meant economic
improvement, thus generating the perfect formula for the solution of economic
problems and the achievement of a better quality of life. In the mid-1950s and the
1960s, it was possible to see economic results; for example, in the production of
‘‘corn, since it contributed significantly to the generation of foreign currency for
the country, due to the availability of exportable balances that allowed for technological innovations’’ (Garrido 2003, p. 235).
It is important to note that during the first years of the application of the RV,
favorable results were seen in production growth. There was an increase of the
yield per hectare sown, as well as the entry of new crops and their successful
distribution and sale in markets. What in the end might seem to have been an
increase in productivity and an improvement in the quality of life for the peasants,
resulted in indebtedness on loans for the acquisition of new technologies, in the
division and dissolution of community networks, in the progressive erosion of land
due to the use of fertilizers, and in a sharp plunge in corn prices. These are factors
which currently make it impossible for Mexico to achieve food self-sufficiency as
regards corn.
One of the important issues raised by proponents of this program was the reason
for the failures. If there had been availability of financial, human, and material
resources, along with agents specializing in technical knowledge, how could the
pre-established goals of the intervention not have been met? Numerous answers
were posed in multiple forms and with various subtleties; those that were heard
most often held the farmers responsible for the failure, placing the blame for the
situation on them and their cultural peculiarities. Hence the creation of the following institutional discourse, a symbolic construction with respect to the people
of the Mexican rural sector: field workers are poor because they want to be and
because they cling to their customs which do not let them move forward.
In subsequent decades and under these kinds of arguments, there was a severe
crisis in the Mexican countryside, which translated directly into the increasing
poverty of its inhabitants. In many rural regions of the country, the situation
became extremely alarming, generating national and international migration as a
means of subsistence.
What we want to highlight with this experience is that this ‘‘revolutionary’’
process of the modernization of rural Mexico served as one of the main bastions
for the justification in the social imaginary
4 of the Government’s suggestion that
farmers are dependent because they have no intellectual and cultural capacity to
4 The social imaginary is a concept created by the Greek philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis,
commonly used in the social sciences to designate social representations embodied within
institutions. In Castoriadis’ work (1975), it has a precise meaning, since it implies a conceptual
effort by materialism to relativize the influence that materiality has on social life.
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
461
this logical scheme, the subject intervened upon was seen as a passive recipient
who was obligated to reproduce the wisdom that was being imparted thereto.
The [Green Revolution] RV programs made progress by means of analogies
that held development as a synonym of modernity, and modernity meant economic
improvement, thus generating the perfect formula for the solution of economic
problems and the achievement of a better quality of life. In the mid-1950s and the
1960s, it was possible to see economic results; for example, in the production of
‘‘corn, since it contributed significantly to the generation of foreign currency for
the country, due to the availability of exportable balances that allowed for technological innovations’’ (Garrido 2003, p. 235).
It is important to note that during the first years of the application of the RV,
favorable results were seen in production growth. There was an increase of the
yield per hectare sown, as well as the entry of new crops and their successful
distribution and sale in markets. What in the end might seem to have been an
increase in productivity and an improvement in the quality of life for the peasants,
resulted in indebtedness on loans for the acquisition of new technologies, in the
division and dissolution of community networks, in the progressive erosion of land
due to the use of fertilizers, and in a sharp plunge in corn prices. These are factors
which currently make it impossible for Mexico to achieve food self-sufficiency as
regards corn.
One of the important issues raised by proponents of this program was the reason
for the failures. If there had been availability of financial, human, and material
resources, along with agents specializing in technical knowledge, how could the
pre-established goals of the intervention not have been met? Numerous answers
were posed in multiple forms and with various subtleties; those that were heard
most often held the farmers responsible for the failure, placing the blame for the
situation on them and their cultural peculiarities. Hence the creation of the following institutional discourse, a symbolic construction with respect to the people
of the Mexican rural sector: field workers are poor because they want to be and
because they cling to their customs which do not let them move forward.
In subsequent decades and under these kinds of arguments, there was a severe
crisis in the Mexican countryside, which translated directly into the increasing
poverty of its inhabitants. In many rural regions of the country, the situation
became extremely alarming, generating national and international migration as a
means of subsistence.
What we want to highlight with this experience is that this ‘‘revolutionary’’
process of the modernization of rural Mexico served as one of the main bastions
for the justification in the social imaginary
4 of the Government’s suggestion that
farmers are dependent because they have no intellectual and cultural capacity to
4 The social imaginary is a concept created by the Greek philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis,
commonly used in the social sciences to designate social representations embodied within
institutions. In Castoriadis’ work (1975), it has a precise meaning, since it implies a conceptual
effort by materialism to relativize the influence that materiality has on social life.
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
461