Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
/ 4 n V A 13/< <-
D. (?.
f. C. W,
z e iii? (
. As5?r?:
px*>v\
>f> f - - F P
The publication of two documents giving results of the Ceylon University
Socio-Economic Survey of Pata Dumbara (Sarkar andTambiah 1957; Tambiah
1957) clearly represents a landmark in Ceylon social studies. Whatever
criticisms may be levied against particular details of this pioneering wor^ its
importance cannot be questioned. It has two particular virtues which I should
like to stress. Firstly, the field of study (58 Pata Dumbara villages) is precisely
delimited and the method of study exactly described. Secondly, the facts
are presented in such a way that they can be subjected to reasoned criticism.
These are simple but by.no means common merits; all too often sociological
writers, both in Ceylon and elsewhere, indulge in. sweeping and specious
generalisations without offering any detailed evidence in support of their
conclusions.
The bulk of my present paper is taken up with criticisms of certain features
of one of the Pata Dumbara publications. I should like to emphasise from the
start that this criticism does not imply that I feel any personal antipathy to the
document in question (Sarkar and Tambiah 1957); indeed the contrary is the
case. I myself am at present preparing for publication an account of a small
village in the North Central Province which I studied by anthropological
methods in 1954. Although my orientation and interests were quite different
from those of the University of Ceylon Socio-Economic Survey team, a good
deal of my data is strictly comparable, and I am struck by the wide extent to
76
which I find myself in general agreement with Drs. Sarkar and Tambiah.
But I cannot regard this as a demonstration that the methods of the two types
of investigation are equally satisfactory. On the contrary I believe that Drs.
Sarkar and Tambiah have really arrived at their conclusions by intuitive
methods, and that it is only because they are both by instinct first class anthro
pologists that their conclusions are fundamentally correct. The numerical
apparatus in which these conclusions are embedded seems to me to be very
largely a complicated piece of self deception.
The issue is a general one and is not confined to the particular case of the Pata
Dumbara survey. The book under discussion, The Disintegrating Village,
strikes me as being a particularly true to type specimen of a certain kind of
sociological report. In criticising this book, I am not criticising the authors,
who have accomplished an exceptionally able piece of analysis, but the prin
ciples of method on which the book is based. The purpose of my criticism
is to display, by a process of negation, the crucial points atwhich contemporary
sociological and anthropological investigations differ, and hence to imply
that social anthropology has a special contribution to make to Ceylon social
studies such as is not at present provided by conventional sociology.
77
78
79
8o
81
82
84
one hand there is the vigorously asserted cultural prejudice that diga (virilocal)
residence is respectable and binna (uxorilocal) residence ignominious. This
automatically makes it respectable for a man to claim that he works land
inherited from his father while denying or minimising similar claims on the
part of his wife or his sister. The other bias, which operates in the opposite
direction, derives from the common adult assertion that we treat all our sons
and daughters exactly alike. Again and again in my own preliminary questionnaire-style enquiries I found the same man maintaining the intrinsically contra
dictory propositions that, while he himself had inherited far more than any
of his married sisters, he proposed to divide up his own property equally
among all his sons and daughters.
The true facts in my North Central Province case were that there was a ge
nuine, though moderate, bias of inheritance in favour of male heirs but that this
bias came to be heightened by a tendency on the part of male heirs to buy out
the shares of their dga-married sisters.
As an aspect of this I found, just as did Dr. Tambiah (pp. 60-62), that the ratio
of land received by daughters when compared with sons was slightly smaller
for daughters of poor parents than for daughters of rich parents. This bias
I found was not due to any variation in application of the rules of inheritance;
it was simply that when a /^-married daughter (or for that matter a binnamarried son) inherited a very small share of a very small plot in a village remote
from that in which she (or he) was living, she (or he) often neglected to assert
a claim and consequently the land remained in effective control of some heir
who had remained at home.
I doubt whether tendencies such as these can ever usefully be converted into
numerical statistics, but certainly precise quantification of the kind of pre
liminary information which can be obtained by means of a simple questionnaire
and interview technique seems to me to have no meaning at all. To my mind
it is inconceivable that the Ceylon University research team, working under
the conditions stated, could have obtained data which might merit the kind
of mathematical analysis which Dr. Tambiah has applied. In effect, the
decimal points and the percentages serve only as a smoke screen to mask from
the author the important ambiguities inherent in his information.
This perhaps reads like a personal attack on Dr. Tambiah but that is not at all
85
86
parents of the youngest group. It would then immediately strike the eye that
the property status of any particular individual with respect to the rest of the
sample depends primarily upon his position in the age cycle. A young man
starts with nothing; a young adult may possess some acquired property and
some inherited property but he is probably still accumulating; in contrast, an
older adult has probably passed the peak and has begun to dissipate his proper
ty; a very old man may once again be landless.
As soon as we consider the facts in this light the concept of fragmentation
begins to lose shape. Clearly certain statistics remain relevant. If the total area _
of cultivable land is limited and the population increases, and there are no
alternative avenues of employment, then the availability of land per unit of
population must decrease, and this is an important economic fact. But this has
no logical connection with fragmentation through inheritance5. Dr. Tambiah
(p. 79) asserts explicitly that one of the causes of fragmentation in the Kandyan
area has been the existence of laws and customs of succession which compel
the division of land among heirs on a fair division basis. But this is not the
case, and if Dr. Tambiah had not been distracted by his figures he could never
have supposed that it was; for the effect of Kandyan inheritance rules is quite
clear. It is not merely that in each generation there tends to be a division of
property between sons and daughters; there is also and simultaneously, a
recombination of holdings in the children of husbands and wives. If the
population is stable, then the rate of division is no greater than the rate of
recombination, and the average size of holdings will remain constant through
out, even though some estates will decrease in size and some increase. This is
not simply a theoretical proposition; it is demonstrable. An anthropologist
by concentrating his attentions on the population of a single small area over
a limited period, and making full use of the excellent documentary records
available to Ceylon research workers can show very precisely what really
happens as a consequence of Kandyan inheritance rules. It is a complicated
sequence of events that emerges from such enquiries, and the result is not easily
described in words, let alone numbers; but what is quite clear is that it is not
a self-destructive system. Taken by itself the inheritance system tends to
perpetuate a stable structure of moderate inequality ; it inhibits extreme
accumulation and also extreme poverty.
87
88
d . g . m a c r a e (1957) Social theory : retrospect and prospect, The British Journal of Sociology 8 : 9 7 -io j.
s. j. t a m b i a h (1958) The structure o f kinship and its relationship to land possession and residence in
Pata Dumbara, Central Ceylon, j r a i 88 (# i) : 21-44.