英文摘要 |
This paper investigates the transformation of capitalism from the Sediq viewpoints of production. Economic anthropology is concerned with how the different mechanisms of exchange, production and consumption work to integrate different aspects of society. In regard to the issue of production, this research deals with the capitalist mode of production, domestic mode of production, peasant economy, and the articulation of different modes of production. The meaning of production in local contexts should be considered firstly; especially, how production connects and transforms the relationships among different levels. Further questions follow, including how the locals perceive the process of production and measure the value of objects, and whether the images of work, land and money synthesize several meanings and embody history itself in Sediq society. The Sediq began to grow cash crops and were incorporated into the capitalist market system in 1960s. In deciding whether to become involved in growing new crops, they were not solely influenced by questions of market price and stability, but also had to take into account how new crops fit into their traditional understanding of work and the values they placed on it. In addition, traditional social relationships continued to influence the planting of commercial crops, for example, in the exchange of labour and the lending of land. The use of money, like the choice of new crops and exchange of labour, reflects the fact that the Sediq have not been alienated from each other and from their products by these changes. This research, further, reveals how cultural production and transformation involve each other. On the one hand, the Sediq's key cultural concept-waya, which is thought to constitute a person's identity-still influences their acceptance of new crops and the transfer of new agricultural technology. On the other hand, a person's identity and social relationships changed when the community was drawn into the capitalist system and cash crop production Objective social structure and subjective individual consciousness then become related dialectically. |