Between Quiescence and Rebellion Among the Peasantry

Abstract

This essay is a theoretical and empirical test of two major theories of peasant political action, James Scott's Moral Economy of the Peasant and Samuel Popkin's The Rational Peasant. The essay draws primarily upon testimony taken from peasant activists involved in a wide range of different forms of political action. The essay goes on to operationalize core elements from each of these two theories and to compare them statistically to determine which is stronger in explaining different types of peasant political action. The qualitative and quantitative findings show that Scott's theory is stronger when explaining choices of extreme action such as rebellion whereas Popkin's theory is primarily important with respect to tactics of collective nonviolence. Both theories and both kinds of motivation are needed to provide an explanation for the full range of possible peasant political actions. The conclusion points toward a need for a more comprehensive and inclusive theory of political motivation incorporating both self-interested and community-oriented types of motivation.