 

 

. run—“.4
. 2: .

 

.‘;-

runs

.1
.‘(i ‘4; .1 r
. a; 21?:
. .4

E . .

‘L... ......,..1

r......J fa.
.:

(Wyn. u..- «‘1.—

 

t .
1.... :...: . .
2.x :. :J
i:
.1

Twﬂuvw

a. 7-w-

.3».

.

~ I .—

z..:. .
, a . .rr

Suva},
.5 3. :
.

“.r,.\

t.

x .x. ..

“Ac. . V , . ‘

: é. : _ ‘ r s
, x... (2:, L 7,. u...“ A. ‘

, . . A . ”Z

 

 

THEBlS
4.
zool

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

From Adaptive to Critical Learning Organization:
Participatory Research and the Evolution of a Grassroots
Organization in Southern Mexico

presented by

Diane Lee Ruonavaara

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Resource Development

 

I’LéW

Major professor

 

Date 41/15/60
/ /

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

a ““696

J ,
' L

8

2806
2 0 2007

 

11m mm.“

FROM ADAPTIVE TO CRITICAL LEARNING ORGANIZATION:
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND THE EVOLUTION OF A GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION IN SOUTHERN MEXICO

By

Diane Lee Ruonavaara

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Resource Development

2000

ABSTRACT

FROM ADAPTIVE TO CRITICAL LEARNING ORGANIZATION:
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND THE EVOLUTION OF A GRASSROOTS
ORGANIZATION IN SOUTHERN MEXICO

By

Diane Lee Ruonavaara

This participatory research endeavor describes and analyzes the organizational
change of the Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural Development in
Oaxaca, Mexico. The Seminar is a unique collaboration of scholars and peasants
joined in the search for answers to a variety of economic, inter— and intra-
community and cultural challenges emerging during the latest stages of structural
adjustment and globalization in Mexico. The Seminar and its modes of
collaboration provides a model for fostering local alliances and coalitions of
peasant communities who, with development professionals, learn together and
support each other in innovative social and economic research and development
initiatives. This research occurs as Seminar members come to the realization
that successful strategies and frameworks of the past may no longer be
adequate to meet the demands of a changing Mexican political economy. In
response, Seminar members seek to increase the organization’s diversity. The

“logic of the milpa”, a seminal concept of the Seminar, predicts that increased

diversity will enhance the Seminar’s creative problem solving potential. The
Seminar invites peasant leaders from the state of Nayarit and a graduate student
from the United States to join in their endeavor. As the diversity of the Seminar
increases, participants begin to reflect upon themselves as an organization. This
research analyzes the Seminar as it changes from an “adaptive organization” to
a “critical learning organization” (CLO). As a CLO, Seminar members reflect
upon and reconstruct the social relationships within the organization. This
research develops the concept of a critical learning organization and compares
the organizational learning of the Seminar to organizational learning in other PR
approaches. Additionally, the research presents the Seminar as a 2"“l generation
of PR that transcends the temporal, spatial, and conceptual boundaries that may

restrict the collective learning processes of other PR approaches.

Copyright by
Diane Lee Ruonavaara
2000

In memory of my grandmother, Mary Ida Cornelius.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of the Permanent Seminar of
Resources for Rural Development for inviting me to join them in their search for
answers to problems emerging from an increasingly complex and globalizing
world. A special thanks goes to Dr. E. Miguel Szekely. Dr. Szekely's friendship,
guidance, and advice were instrumental in the success of this research
endeavor. I would also like to thanks Juan Oscar Tovar, his thoughtful analyses
contributed to further critical reflect on the theories that emerged from this work.
My friends from the state of Nayarit, the upper Mixe region, and the Huatulco
area opened their homes to me and helped me to see the world through their
eyes. I take to heart what my Nayarit friends advise, "Do not forget what we have
taught you."

I would also like to thank Dr. Frank Fear who supported me through out
the three years of this research. His council was invaluable. Drs. Mary Andrews,
Anne Ferguson, Scott Witter and Scott Whiteford supported me by respectfully
giving me space to work, yet providing valuable advice when needed. A special
thanks goes to my husband Brian Ruonavaara, who encouraged me throughout
the years of this research. His love and understanding as I focused on this work
were truly remarkable. I would also like to thank the lnterAmerican Foundation
and Michigan State University for generously funding this work. Without this

support, this research would not have occurred.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Development as Modernization ...................................................................... 1
1.1 Participatory Action Research as an Alternative to Development ................... 4
1.2 Focus of the Study: Regional Development in Oaxaca, Mexico ...................... 5
1.3 Overview of the Mexican Context ................................................................... 7
1.4 Responses from the Mexican Peasantry ........................................................ 9

1.5 The Study Site: The Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural

Development ....................................................................................................... 1 0
1.5.1 The Logic of the Mi/pa ................................................................................ 11
1.6 The Purpose of the Study ............................................................................. 13
1.7 Research Questions .............................. 14
1.8 The Methodological Framework .................................................................... 15
1.8.1 Data collection ........................................................................................... 16
1.8.2 Multiple Methods ........................................................................................ 16
1.8.3 Sharing Findings with Seminar Participants ............................................... 17
1.9 Overview of the Study ................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................ 19
2.0 Development as Modernization .................................................................... 20
2.0.1 Rural Development .................................................................................... 22
2.1 Alternative Development ............................................................................... 24
2.2 Alternatives to Development ......................................................................... 26
2.3 A New Paradigm of Research and Development .......................................... 30

vii

2.4 Participatory Research .................................................................................. 31

2.4.1 Three Approaches to PR ........................................................................... 32
2.5 Action Research ............................................................................................ 33
2.5.1 Theory of Society from an Action Research Perspective ........................... 35
2.6 Participatory Action Research ....................................................................... 36
2.6.1 A Theory of Society from a Participatory Action Research Perspective ..... 38
2.6.2 Challenges for Participatory Action Research ............................................ 40
2.7 Autonomous Development ............................................................................ 42
2.8 Summary of PR Approaches ........................................................................ 44
2.9 Organizational Change: A Point of Convergence? ........................................ 45
2.10 Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations ................................. 46
2.10.1 Adaptive Organizations ............................................................................ 46
2.10.2 Leami‘ng Organizations ............................................................................ 48
2.11 Moving Beyond Action Research ................................................................ 50
2.12 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 51
CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................ 53
3.1 Research Paradigms .................................................................................... 54
3.2 Three Research Paradigms .......................................................................... 56
3.3 Methodological Context of this Study ............................................................ 59
3.4 The Methodology of this Study ..................................................................... 60
3.4.1 Bracketing .................................................................................................. 62
3.4.2 Praxis ......................................................................................................... 63
3.4.2.1 Conscienctizacéo .................................................................................... 64

viii

3.4.2.2 Dialogue .................................................................................................. 66

3.4.3 Critical Learning Systems Approach .......................................................... 68
3.5 Employing Praxis as Research Methodology ................................................ 69
3.5.1 Planning: Identifying an Organization and Negotiating Entry ..................... 70
3.5.2 The Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural Development ................. 72
3.5.3 My Role ...................................................................................................... 73
3.5.4 Identifying Questions ................................................................................. 75
3.5.5 Reﬂection and Analysis .............................................................................. 78
3.5.6 Community Visits ....................................................................................... 82
3.5.7 Recording Information ................................................................................ 83
3.6 Rhetoric and Narrative .................................................................................. 84
3.7 Vignettes ....................................................................................................... 85
3.8 Validity .......................................................................................................... 86
3.9 Research Constraints ................................................................................... 88
CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................ 90
4. 0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 90
4.1 Modern Mexico ............................................................................................. 92
4.1.1 The 19208 and 19303 ................................................................................ 96
4.1.2 The 19405-19705 ....................................................................................... 98
4.1.3 The 1982 Crisis ........................................................................................ 101
4.1.4 The 19905 ................................................................................................ 102
4.1.5 NAFTA ..................................................................................................... 103
4.1.6 The Constitutional Reform of Article 27 ................................................... 104

4.2 A Proﬁle of Oaxaca -- The Study Area ........................................................ 107

4.21 Geogaphy ................................................................................................... 107
4.22 Dernog‘apl'iy ................................................................................................. 109
4.2.3 Socioeconomics ....................................................................................... 109
4.2.4 lntra-Community Relationships ................................................................ 110
4.2.5 Local Political Structure ........................................................................... 112
4.2.6 Inter-Community Relationships ................................................................ 114
CHAPTER 5 ...................................................................................................... 116
5.0 The History and Institutional Afﬁliation of the Seminar ................................ 116
5.1 Funding ....................................................................................................... 120
5.2 Seminar Participants ................................................................................... 121
5.2.1 Gender and Participation ......................................................................... 124
5.3 Goals of the Seminar .................................................................................. 126
5.4 Theory of Society ........................................................................................ 127
5.5 Communication through Dialogue ............................................................... 128
5.5.1 The Logic of the Milpa .............................................................................. 129
5.5.2 The Bitécora ............................................................................................. 134
5.5.3 Community Visits ..................................................................................... 137
5.6 Learning in the Seminar .............................................................................. 141
5.7 Joining the Seminar .................................................................................... 143
5.8 Issues Addressed by the Seminar .............................................................. 149
5.9 Summary ..................................................................................................... 155

 

CHAPTER 6 ...................................................................................................... 156

6. 0 Themes ...................................................................................................... 158
6.1 Theme 1: The Seminar as a Learning Process ........................................... 162
6.2 Theme 2: Obstacles to Learning ................................................................. 164
6.3 Internal Social Organization ........................................................................ 169
6.4 Theme 3: Mandaderos & Community Leadership ....................................... 172
6.5 Theme 5: Escaping Relationships of Dependency ...................................... 176
6.6 Theme 6: The Tecnico of the Future ........................................................... 181
6.7 Theme 7: Envisioning the Future ................................................................ 185
6.8 Theme 8: Regional Diagnostics .................................................................. 187
6.9 The Issues of Truth and Transparency ....................................................... 190
6.9.1 Theme 9: Saturday — the Day of Truth ...................................................... 191
6.10 Re-visioning the Seminar .......................................................................... 194
6.11 Theme 10: Lack of Participation ................................................................ 195
Figure 16. Lack of Participation ........................................................................ 196
6.12 Theme 11: The Ronda .............................................................................. 200
6.13 Theme 12: The Transformation of the Seminar ........................................ 204
6.14 The Diagnostic of the Seminar .................................................................. 213
6.14.1 Don Salomon’s Diagnostics ................................................................... 215
6.14.2 The Diagnostic of Valle del Norte ........................................................... 217
6.14.3 Diana’s Diagnostic ................................................................................. 221
6.14.4 ODDDECO’s Diagnostic ........................................................................ 226

xi

6.14.5 Sergio’s Diagnostic ................................................................................ 227

6.14.6 Summary of the Diagnostics .................................................................. 228
6.15 Community Case Studies Continue .......................................................... 229
6.16 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................... 230
CHAPTER 7 ...................................................................................................... 234
7.0 A Review of Organizational Change in the Seminar ................................... 235
7.1 A Critical Learning Organization ................................................................. 237
7.2 Power in a Critical Learning Organization ................................................... 239
7.3 Leadership in a Critical Learning Organization ........................................... 242
7.4 Participation in a Critical Learning Organization ......................................... 246
7.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 247
7.6 Summary ..................................................................................................... 248
7.7 Contributions of this Research .................................................................... 251
7.8 Directions for Future Research ................................................................... 257
7.9 Final Thoughts on this Research ................................................................ 259

Bibliography 263

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Philosophical Dimensions of Research Paradigms ............................... 55
Table 2. Three Main Research Paradigms & Assumptions ................................. 57
Table 3. Forms of Validity in Participatory Research .......................................... 87
Table 4. Themes of the Seminar ....................................................................... 159

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Mexico and Oaxaca ................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Bracketing Myself as an Outside Researcher ...................................... 62
Figure 3. Expanding Praxis with a Critical Learning Systems Approach ............. 69
Figure 4. Municipalities ..................................................................................... 108
Figure 5. The Overall Structure of the Seminar ................................................ 120
Figure 6. Moving towards a Learning Organization .......................................... 160
Figure 7. Reﬂecting on the Seminar .................................................................. 161
Figure 8. The Seminar Reflects on Itself as a Learning Process ...................... 162
Figure 9. Obstacles to Learning ........................................................................ 164
Figure 10. Mandaderos ..................................................................................... 173
Figure 11. Escaping Relationships of Dependency .......................................... 177
Figure 12. Tecnicos & Experts of the Future ..................................................... 181
Figure 13. Envisioning the Future ..................................................................... 186
Figure 14. Regional Diagnostics ....................................................................... 188
Figure 15. Saturday - the Day of Truth .............................................................. 192
Figure 16. Lack of Participation ........................................................................ 196
Figure 17. The Ronda ....................................................................................... 201
Figure 18. The Transformation of the Seminar ................................................. 205

xiv

LIST OF VIGNETTES

Vignette 1. Susto ................................................................................................ 79
Vignette 2. The Origins of the Seminar ............................................................. 11.7
Vignette 3. “Camote de Venado” ...................................................................... 131
Vignette 4. Chi liza - Envisioning the Future ..................................................... 138
Vignette 5. San Carlos — Joining the Seminar ................................................... 146
Vignette 6. Internal Community Struggles in Santa Maria ................................ 150
Vignette 7. In Search of a Project ..................................................................... 152
Vignette 8. Obstacles to Learning in Tierra Piedra ........................................... 166
Vignette 9. Samuel ............................................................................................ 170
Vignette 10. The Case of San Mateo ................................................................ 178
Vignette 11. The Case of Cerro Niebla ............................................................. 179

XV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AD: Autonomous Development.

AR: Action Research.

BANRURAL: Banco Nacional de Credito Rural. National Bank of Rural Credit
CLO: Critical Learning Organization.

CONASUPO: Compania Nacional de Subsistencias Populares. National
Company of Popular Subsistence.

EZLN: Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacién Nacional. Zapatista Army of National
Liberation.

INEGI: Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas Geograﬁa e Informacién. National
Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Information.

LO: Learning Organization

ODDDECO: Organicacidn para la Defense de los Derechos y Desarro/lo
Comunitan'o. Organization for the Defense of Community Rights and
Development. '

NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement

PAR: Participatory Action Research.

PR: Participatory Research

PRI: Partido Revo/ucionario Institucional. Institutional Revolutionary Party.

PROCAMPO: Programa de Apoyo a/ Campo. Program of Assistance to the
Countryside.

PROCEDE: Programa de Certiﬁcacién de Derechos Ejidales y Titulacién de
Solares Urbanos. Ejido Land Certiﬁcation and Urban Parcel Program.

UNAM: Universidad Nacional Autonomo de Mexico. National Autonomous
University of Mexico

xvi

Glossary of Spanish Terms

Agencia: A small settlement administratively subordinate to a municipio.

Alcalde: Highest village authority during the colonial period. In modern times the
member of the ayuntamiento who judges intra-village land disputes.

Amigismo: Acquaintances that serve to gain access to governmental resources.
Amparo: Legal restraining order to protect an individual or a community from
legal action until a deﬁnitive judicial decision can be reached. In agrarian matters,
“amparos” are usually invoked against a presidential grant of land.
Ayuntamiento: The municipal government composed of the presidente municipal,
sindico, alcalde, secretary, and regidores (councilmen); also refers to the
municipal government building.

Bitacora: Logbook

Cacique: Local political boss.

Campesino: Peasant.

Cargo: An ofﬁcial post in either the civil or religious hierarchies of the municipio
and its agencies.

Comisirado de bienes comuna/es: The committee or individual in charge of
communal resources. The authority in an indigenous community formally elected
by the comuneros according to terms stipulated by law.

Comisirado ejidal: The committee or individual in charge of communal resources
in an ejido. The authority in an ejido formally elected by the ejidatan’os according
to terms stipulated by law.

Comunero: Member of an indigenous community that constitutes a speciﬁc and
legally recognized land possession.

Costumbres: Micro-cultural differences between villages.

Coyote: A speciﬁc type of cacique or other agent who operates within the sphere
of commercial intermediate.

Curandero/a: A folk healer.

Distrito: A territorial and administrative unit comparable to a county.

XVii

Ejido: Land expropriated from heciendes after the Mexican Revolution and given
to peasant groups to be held in communal title.

Ejidatario: Member of an ejido.

Finca: Rural property. Estate.

Hectare: A unit of land surface equal to 2.47 acres.
lnspecién ocular or vista de ojo: Visual inspection.

Mechismo: Refers to strongly masculine characteristics, especially courage,
pride, and sexual prowess.

Maiz: Corn (Zea mays.)
Mandi/6n: An insulting term for a man who is dominated by women.
Mestizo: Mixed race.

Mestizeje: The process of creating the mix race of indigenous and Spanish
blood. '

Milpe: The traditional corn-based agroecological system typical through out
Mesoamerica.

Municipio: A territorial and administrative unit intermediate between an agencia
and a distrito. A municipio normally consists of one large village and any smaller
surrounding settlements (agencies or ranchen'as); also the building in which
municipio affairs are conducted.

Peones acesilledos: Peasants who lived on large landholdings as paid or unpaid
laborers.

Regidores: Councilmen.
Topiles: Community policemen.

Usos y costumbres: Traditions based on uses and costumes that determine how
a community is governed.

xviii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

This research falls within the purview of “Alternatives to Development.”
These alternatives are a response to a growing dissatisfaction and
disillusionment with the dominant conceptualization of development as
modernization (Escobar 1995; Esteva and Suri 1998; Fals Borda 1998; Max-Neef
et al.1989; Rahmen 1993; Rahnema 1995; Sachs 1995). Modernization is seen
as a linear process of “growth” and “progress” from “underdeveloped” to
“developed” and from poverty to afﬂuence. Alternative approaches to
development, in contrast, share the idea that modernization is part of the
problem, rather than the “solution,” to the challenges facing the majority of the
world’s population (Carmen 1996: 64; Chambers 1997; Escobar 1995; Latouche
1991 ; Max-Neef et al.1989; Mueller 1991; Norgaard 1994; Rahmen 1993; Sachs
1995).

1.0 Development as Modernization

The concept of development as modernization was introduced by US.
President Harry Truman in his inaugural address on January 20, 1949 (Sachs

1995),

More than half of the world’s population is living in conditions
approaching misery... What we envisage is a program of
development based on the concepts of democratic fair
dealing... Greater production is the key to prosperity and

peace. And the key to greater production is a wider and more

vigorous application of modern scientiﬁc and technical

knowledge (Truman 1949 cited in Escobar, 1995: 3).

According to Truman, development was both a political and economic activity
supported by scientiﬁc investigation. Truman’s speech followed on ideas
expressed at the earlier Bretton Woods conference held in 1944. Bretton Woods
established institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund, that were instrumental in shaping the world’s economic activities (Korten
1996). The policies begun during Truman’s administration and the institutions
created through Bretton Woods were intended to foster development
characterized by democratic governance, economic growth, industrialization,
urbanization, and ever-expanding consumption of material goods (Esteva 1995;
Korten 1996).

Under this doctrine of development, remarkable measures of success
have been achieved. Economic growth has expanded ﬁve-fold, while
international trade has increased twelve-fold (Korten 1996). World grain
production increased from 620 million tons in 1950 to 1,660 million tons in 1985
(Wolf 1999: 9). Farmers with access to new seeds, technologies and markets

have prospered around the world and produced enough food to feed the world’s

growing population (Wolf 1986). In fact, by 1999, the number of overfed people in.

the world was estimated to be approximately 600 million (Brown 1999: 117). It
appeared that Truman’s model of development was a success.

On closer examination, however, it became obvious that large sectors of
the world’s population were excluded from this model. Despite development
efforts, the gap between the “rich” and the “poor” was twice as great in 1992 than
it was in 1950 (Korten 1996). The United Nations reports that the disparity of
wealth between the richest nations in the world and the poorest nations had
increased from a ratio of 44:1 in 1973 to 727:1 in 1997 (Salopek 2000). The
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Report for
1992 states that twenty percent of the world’s population receive 82.7 percent of
the world’s income, while the poorest twenty percent receives only 1.4 percent
(Korten 1996: 24). In 1996, the World Bank reported that 1.3 billion people
earned $1.00 US. or less per day and were considered to be living in absolute
poverty (World Bank 1996 cited in Brown et al. 1999: 119). In the same year, the
FAO estimated that 834 million people were undernourished (FAO 1999) and 1.2
billion did not have access to safe drinking water (Brown et al. 1999: 116).1 Many
of these poor and undernourished people live in rural areas or have migrated
from the countryside to slums surrounding large urban areas (Brown et al. 1999:

119—120). From these statistics, it appears that development has been successful

1 Omawale ( 1984) notes the Wortd Bank and FAQ have reported vastly different numbers of
'hungry" people. In the early 19805, the FAO estimated 460 billion undernourished people in the
wortd, while the World Bank reported 1.1 billion. These disagreements are based on
methodological differences.

for some, but not for others. Moreover, the very judgement of success may
depend on the standpoint of the observer.

The proponents of development as modernization respond that the
solution is to promote “more of the same” but with increased economic and social
discipline, i.e., structural adjustment and population control by the developing
world. However, a wide range of individuals and groups -- academics,
development professionals, community organizers and people negatively
impacted by development -- are beginning to question this assertion (Chambers
1997; Esteva 1995; Kothari 1988; Latouche 1991; Schon 1995). This rejection
focuses on the nature of development and the myriad constructs that accompany
the development as modernization paradigm, i.e., poverty vs. afﬂuence,
traditional vs. modern, livelihoods vs. production (Braidotti et al. 1994). These
individuals and groups are dedicated to inventing new strategies for change and
creating new visions of the future informed by socio-culturally speciﬁc notions of
improvement (Kearney 1996; Wignaraja 1993).

1.1 Participatory Action Research as an Alternative to Development

An “Alternative to Development” approach is actually a collection of
various approaches that challenge development as modernization on various
fronts (Escobar 1995; Esteva and Suri 1998; Norgaard 1994; Shiva 1989).

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is one such approach (Fals Borda 1985b;

Fernandez and Tendon 1981; Freire 1985; Gaventa 1991; Hall, Gillette, and
Tendon 1982; Maguire 1987; Park 1993; Rahmen 1993). As an alternative to
development, PAR re-unites research and development activities, re-
conceptualizes these activities in terms of knowledge generation and change. In
PAR, the relationship between knowledge generation and gigglgg appears as an
iterative and recursive process — each activity informing the other. Knowledge is
seen as a contested resource. Control over knowledge - its generation and use -
- are understood as fundamental to creating and maintaining relationships of
equality. Development in the context of PAR is understood primarily in terms of
an informed movement towards social transformation. In summary, PAR
recognizes the political nature of both research and development while holding
emancipation as its horizon (Fals Borda 1985b; Gaventa 1991; Hall 1979;
Kemmis and McTaggart 2000; Maguire 1987; Rahmen 1991).

1.2 Focus of the Study: Regional Development in Oaxaca, Mexico

This research entails participation in, and examination of, a particular
Participatory Research endeavor with a regional organization called the
Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural Development2 (Seminerio de Gestién
sabre Recursos para el Desarro/lo Rural) (see Szekely 1995b). The Seminar is a

collaborative research effort uniting academics and representatives from twenty-

2 The term the “Seminar“ will be used from this point forward to denote the Permanent Seminar of
Resources for Rural Development.

some ethnically distinct peasant communities.3 The Seminar participants4 —- both
local people and academics — meet monthly in the city of Oaxaca, Oaxaca,
Mexico (see Figure 1) and are dedicated to resolving community problems

identified by the community members themselves.

Figure 1. Map of Mexico and Oaxaca

 

 

Bald- do
Cu annec he

 

 

hyhtﬂ-Mnmhm
jun-W
ramm
Ian-mm
‘am
|
’9'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 The names of all communities and participants presented in this work have been changed in
accordance with the wishes of Seminar participants. Some of the details of vignettes have been
changed to ensure that communities and individuals can not be identiﬁed.

4 The term participant/s and member/s will be used interchangeably.

 

The Seminar evolved to its current form approximately eight years ago
(Szekely 1995b). During these past eight years, the Seminar successfully
assisted and advised member communities in struggles with large landholders
and caciques.5 The Seminar also helped develop socioeconomic projects based
on opportunities emerging from these land struggles. Yet, more recently, the
Seminar participants have begun to question the efﬁcacy of their organizational
framework and developmental strategies. These strategies had been devised to
confront more powerful actors in the region. Now, however, it seems that these
frameworks and strategies are incapable of addressing community challenges
emerging from a globalizing economy and changing political situation (see
Szekely 1994).

1.3 Overview of the Mexican Context

In the early to mid-19903, Mexican government policy and international
trade agreements designed to integrate Mexico into the world economy
undermined an already tenuous economic situation in the countryside (Barkin et
al. 1997; Cornelius and Myhre 1998; Randell 1996). As Collier (1994: 8) explains,

In 1992, the government of President Salinas de Gortari brought
land reform - the issue on which his party had originally risen to
power - to a halt, he signaled an abrupt end to a traditional
covenant with the peasantry and deprived many peasants not just

of the possibility of improving their livelihoods, but of their power as
a constituency.

5 Local power bosses.

The national government declared that there were no lands left to redistribute,
which virtually brought an end to agrarian reform. Amendments to Article 27
provided the legal framework to create a market in communally-held lands,
threatening already economically vulnerable peasants with the potential loss of
their ejidose or comunares7 (Schartz and Walker 1995). Additionally, the
government reduced both direct subsides and credit to small producers. Finally,
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) lowered agricultural trade
barriers on basic grains, thereby exposing small farmers to competition from US.
farmers.

In general, modernization theory favors private individual land holdings and
the commodiﬁcation of land. Communal land holdings are seen as an obstacle to
a modern market society (Mander and Goldsmith 1996; Polanyi 1944). Mexican
agricultural policies appear to be informed by a modernization theory of
development that favors the introduction of "modern" social forms and
technologies, and views traditional technologies and cultures as essentially
backward and dispensable. This theory does not directly acknowledge the active
and adaptive response of indigenous8 communities to the crisis, and it fails to

recognize the validity of people’s knowledge in the search for alternative visions

6 Lands distributed to peasants communally after the revolution of 1910.

7 Lands held by indigenous communities “since time immemorial” and recognized as such after
the revolution of 1910.

3 According to Collier (1994: 155), indigenous people in Latin America “generally speak one of the
native American languages as their ﬁrst tongue, though many of them learn to speak Spanish.
Many indigenous people identify themselves as members of ethnic communities that were

of the future (Barry 1995; Bonﬁl Batalla 1996; Braidotti et al. 1994; Esteva and
Suri 1998). Instead, the general tendency is to foster social simpliﬁcation
(extinction of language, urbanization, etc.) by market forces of areas previously
protected by various mixes of tradition and isolation (Bookchin 1978).

1.4 Responses from the Mexican Peasantry

In Mexico and other Latin American countries, many of these marginalized
people view the current challenges confronting them as a continuation of the
Conquest9 (Bonﬁl Batalla 1996). In Mexico, as in much of Latin America, the
Spaniards divided, conquered, and isolated indigenous populations. In response
to this, indigenous people took advantage of these “closed, corporate
communities” (Wolf 1966) to separate and defend themselves from outsiders.
These strategies of survival and maintenance of tradition were not and are not
static; they are dynamic processes. Contemporary indigenous peoples’
connection to the lend, their skepticism toward modernization, their abiding
sense of community, and their diverse “traditional” lives appear as continuing
survival strategies of “accommodation, rejection and innovation” (Barry
1995;Bonﬁl Batalla 1996).

Currently, there are several examples of accommodation, rejection and
innovation emerging from the Mexican countryside. On January 1st, 1994, the

Zapatista Front for National Liberation (EZLN) staged an uprising in Chiapas,

 

classiﬁed as “Indigenous” rather than “Spanish” or mestizo (mix race) under the period of colonial
rule.

Mexico to protest the govemment’s signing of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and to demand just treatment for the indigenous people of
Mexico (Collier 1994). In northern Mexico, a group of small and medium
producers known as e/ Brezén organized to protest the govemment’s economic
restructuring, its international trade agreements and attempts to collect on their
defaulted loans (Barkin et al. 1997). In response, rural people, in ever increasing
numbers, are leaving their communities -— migrating or emigrating in search of
wage labor. They follow the harvests, head to urban centers, move to mequile
zones, or enter the United States (Kearney 1996). Increasing numbers of those
who stay behind turn to the cultivation of illegal crops that are one of the few
proﬁtable agricultural ventures still available. These actions, both individual and
collective, are among the most dramatic responses arising from the rural sector --
but they are not the only ones.

1.5 The Study Site: The Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural

Development

Peasants are also responding organizationally to the changing political and
economic situation in Mexico through their community assemblies and peasant
organizations (Barkin et al. 1997; Bonﬁl Batalla et al. 1995; Esteva and Suri
1998). The Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural Development has

evolved from such responses (see Szekely 1997). The Seminar was born in the

 

9 Indigenous people in southern Mexico & Guatemala have also shared this viewpoint with me.

10

unique conditions of the 19705. The Seminar is both an innovation of traditional
and legally recognized community assemblies and an elaboration of peasants’
strategies to ally themselves with influential outsiders. Several assemblies
established collaborative relationships with sympathetic university-trained
development specialists10 to deal with the legal, political, and social problems
relating to land problems, coyotes,11 and the complex and bureaucratic Mexican
agrarian reform system. The Seminar assisted in the successful resolution of
land tenure problems of its member communities and initiated several effective
economic activities associated with agrarian reform efforts.

Participation now includes some twenty Oaxacan communities comprising
at least nine culturally distinct groups -- Zapotec, Mixe, Chiriguiri, Chontal,
Mixteco, Masateco, Chinanteco, Triqui, and mestizo -- and several academics.
Although the Seminar still addresses land conﬂicts, it is beginning to grapple with
complex community socioeconomic development issues associated with
globalization and the accompanying changes in the political economy (Szekely
1998)

1.5.1 The Logic of the Milpa

In such a diverse organization, one of the most difﬁcult challenges is that of

communication. In the Seminar, participants must communicate across ethnic,

1° The attitude these academics brought to their work with the peasantry was informed by
traditions of Maoism (Alexander 1999), French Marxism (Althusser 1976; Callari and Ruccio
1996), and liberation theology (Ecumenical Association 1986).

‘1 Intermediaries who purchased from peasants at low prices and sold to them at high prices.

11

class, and gender differences to effectively address the problems emerging from
the countryside. Communication between “situated” participants12 has given
impetus to the creation of a new “language” based on metaphors. These
metaphors are used to develop, rationalize, explain and communicate many of
the themes of the Seminar. This use is similar to Freire’s “generative words” that
contain relevant and existential meaning for people (Freire 1970). These words
are ﬁlled with emotional content and reveal the social, cultural and political
realities of a situation. These words can be codiﬁed according to conceptual
themes and then re-codiﬁed to generate a deeper understanding of “reality”
(Dickinson 1988; Freire 1985).

A key metaphor of the Seminar is the “the logic of the milpe.” This “logic”
emerges from reflection on the local milpe, the traditional corn-based
agroecological system of Latin America (Robert 1995). A reflection by the
Seminar upon the milpe leads participants to understand it as a system
composed of multiple and diverse species that interact to produce outcomes that
are not predictable by the presence of individual plants, e.g. maintenance of soil
fertility, resistance to pests, and increased yields.

Further reﬂection on, and discussion of this “logic” as a social
phenomenon leads to the idea that a socially diverse Seminar - composed of

people from distinct groups — may be more likely to devise creative and

12 “Situated” refers to the idea that individuals are an intersection of complex identities including
gender, class, ethnicity and related experiences. This complex of identiﬁes permit a unique and

12

successful solutions to common problems than any one individual or
homogeneous group. This “logic” forms one of the conceptual foundations of the
Seminar and helps participants justify uniting individuals and groups with different
experiences and distinct ways of knowing the world.

1.6 The Purpose of the Study

The Seminar has been successful in resolving complex and potentially
violent land tenure issues and devising economic ventures associated with these
struggles for the land. However, the political and economic setting of NAFTA and
the globalization era in which Mexican peasants currently ﬁnd themselves
present new challenges. Participants feel that the past problem-solving strategies
associated with the Seminar and their communities are no longer sufﬁcient. In
the Seminar and in communities they ask, “What are we up against? Is this an
intensiﬁcation of what we’ve always faced or is this something new?” More
urgently they ask, “How can we respond? What can we do?” At times, they feel
there are no answers. In response, the Seminar has again turned to the ‘logic of
the milpa’ to expand the diversity of the Seminar and to enrich its potential. In
accordance with this “logic,” the Seminar has extended an invitation to several
community organizers from the state of Nayarit and to a few academics” from

the United States. This invitation followed the model created by community

 

located viewpoint (Haraway 1991; Harding 1991).

13 In all, three Michigan State University graduate students participated with the Seminar and/or
with member communities in various research activities (see lshida 1999; Rivers-Rozdilsky,
2000).

13

 

assemblies in the mid-19705 when the ﬁrst academics were asked to collaborate
with communities as a bridge to an outside world. As a campesino said to one of
these earlier academics, “You are not the best card to play, but you’re the only
one we've got.” With this humbling aphorism in mind, I began my participation
with the Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural Development.

This research is formulated to coincide with two primary concerns of PR:
1) how social relationships are constructed in research and 2) how knowledge
generation and action are connected. Addressing these issues contributes to the
organizational evolution of the Seminar and to the theoretical and methodological
development of PR.

1.7 Research Questions

Three questions are addressed in this research:
1) How are the social relationships within the Seminar constructed

along class, ethnic and gender lines; between the Seminar and
communities; and between participating communities?

2) What framework and strategies are used in the Seminar to
recognize, understand, and resolve problems facing participating
communities? How are these framework and strategies changing in
response to the changing socio/economic context?

3) How is the Seminar responding organizationally to changing
internal and external factors?

Questions one and two emerged during pre-dissertation involvement with

the Seminar. These two questions were formulated to be broad, and were reﬁned

14

through an interative and emergent process during my engagement with the
Seminar. The third question emerged from this process, and arose as Seminar
members (including myself) sought to understand and create a new vision of the
future for the Seminar and its member communities.

1.8 The Methodological Framework

This research was both experiential and participatory. The experiential
nature of this research required that I maintain ﬂexibility, drawing upon existing
methodologies and combining them in new ways when necessary. Combining
the critical reﬂection14 of PR enriched with the reflection of a critical learning
systems approach is one example. The participatory nature of the research
required that I remain sensitive to the needs and interests of the Seminar and its
members.

In this research, I integrate elements of praxis (Fals Borda and Rahmen
1991), Freirian Adult Education (Freire 1970, 1990; 1998) and a critical learning
systems approach (Bawden 1997). Praxis forms the overarching methodological
framework. Praxis is a process of reﬂection and action that occurs among and
within participants as they seek to understand and generate solutions to
problematic situations while at the same time creating the conditions for social

transformation. The principle component of Freirian Adult Education used in this

14 I follow McLaren and Tedue Da Silva (1995) who deﬁne critical reﬂection as “a social act of
knowing undertaken in a public arena as a form of social and collective empowemient...[and]
which unmasks the social and cultural mechanisms of power as a basis for engagement in
emancipatory action.”

15

research is that of conscientizece'o. Conscientizece'o is a learning process that
people experience as they begin to recognize and reject oppression -- both
oppressive situations and the “oppressor within.” Finally, a critical learning
systems approach expands the notion of reﬂection in praxis. A critical learning
systems approach encourages the researcher to reﬂect upon the creation of
knowledge, the process of knowledge creation, and on factors that contribute to
how individuals and groups understand the process of knowledge creation itself.

1.8.1 Data collection

I engaged in ﬁeld research for approximately two years, attending 22
monthly Seminar meetings from June 1997 to May 1999. For the ﬁrst year and a
half, I traveled back and forth from my home in Michigan to Mexico, attending
Seminar meetings on a monthly basis. From October 1998 to May 1999, I lived in
Oaxaca, attending Seminar meetings, visiting communities, and carrying out
other research activities.

1.8.2 Multiple Methods

An integrated methodology as utilized in this research, does not preclude
the use of multiple methods. In this research, multiple methods include dialogue
(Bohm et al. 1991; Fals Borda and Rahmen 1991), participant observati_on_ (Pelto
and Pelto 1978; Thorne 1983), and open-ended interviews (Burgess 1991; Pelto
and Pelto 1978) with Seminar participants and community members. Ar_c_ﬂi_v_a_l

materials (the Seminar library and tape recordings of each Seminar session)

16

 

were also drawn upon. Opportunities to carry out participant observation and
interviews occurred during the Seminar and community visits. During my visits to
and stay in Oaxaca, I accompanied the Seminar on seven community visits.15
These visits enabled me to observe relationships within communities,
relationships between the Seminar and communities. In addition, I was invited to
stay in three communities outside of organized Seminar activities. During these
visits, I was able to attend assembly meetings, interview community members
outside the context of the Seminar, and observe and participate in several small
community development projects.

1.8.3 Sharing Findings with Seminar Participants

Sharing ﬁndings was an ongoing and iterative process that contributed to
the evolution of the Seminar and included a form of research validation. In
September 1999 and again in June 2000, at the invitation of the Seminar, I
returned to the Seminar to present my ﬁndings. These presentations contributed
to the Seminar participants’ reﬂection on their own activities and their comments
helped me further reﬁne my ideas.

1.9 Overview of the Study

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the study. Chapter 2 is a review of
pertinent literature beginning with a brief introduction to development as

modernization and alternative development approaches and a discussion of

15 My ﬁrst community visit is detailed in \ﬁgnette 4: Chi liza - Envisioning the Future.

17

Alternatives to Development. The chapter then moves to PR as an emerging
research paradigm. Chapter 3 introduces the methodological framework of the
study drawing on elements of praxis, Frerian adult education, and a critical
Ieaming systems approach. I present the research methodology, including a
description of praxis as planning, acting, observing and reflecting. In this chapter,
I also discuss the criteria for validity of the study.

Chapter 4 covers the context of the study at a national and local level.
This chapter introduces the basic political, economic and cultural elements
necessary to understand the research ﬁndings. Chapter 5.is an analysis of the
Seminar including organizational issues of institutional afﬁliation, membership,
goals, roles, and rules. Chapter 6 is an analysis of the Seminar as it confronts the
turbulent world of a globalizing environment. In this chapter, the concepts of
adaptive organization and learning organization are used as heuristic devices to
understand the organizational change occurring in the Seminar. Chapter 7
contains a working model of a “2"d generation of PR” as a critical Ieaming
organization. This chapter also summarizes the contributions and main

conclusions of the research.

18

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

Pertinent literature from a number of related development perspectives
are reviewed in this chapter: development as modernization, alternative
development, Alternatives to Development, participatory approaches to rem,
and Ieaming organizations. This review provides a point of departure16 for the
further development of theory relating to learning organizations within an
Alternatives to Development framework (see Creswell 1998: 179). The idea of
development as modernization and its major assumptions are introduced in this
chapter. The chapter then turns to “Alternative Development,” While offering
corrections to perceived problems, the various approaches within the rubric of
Alternative Development are seen to be basically reformist in nature. The
discussion then turns to “Altematives to Development” and highlights the basic
tenets of this approach. An overview of Participatory Research follows, which
notes the various approaches within this emerging paradigm -- Action Research,
Participatory Action Research, and Autonomous Development.

The chapter culminates with an overview of the learning organization
literature and distinct forms of organizational learning. Two organizational types

are identiﬁed -— adaptive orgapizations and Learning orggnizations. These two

'6 Following an emergent methodology, this chapter is not meant to be an exhaustive
presentation of development theories, rather it presents an overview of the literature for the
further elaboration of theory.

19

concepts will be later drawn upon as tools to further understand the
organizational changes taking place in the Seminar.

2.0 Development as Modernization

Development is an elusive term. Black (1991: 1) points out that,
development “has no precise meaning, no generally accepted deﬁnition... Like
other terms that have acquired a positive connotation, development is user-
friendly: It means whatever one wants or needs it to mean.” Despite this lack of
clarity, on a general level, development has been identiﬁed with modernization.

Modernization, at the most general level, refers to the transformation of
society from being essentially “traditional” to “modern” (Mander and Goldsmith
1996; Ullrich 1995). This means replacing traditional ways of doing things with
modern ways, is replacing social networks with markets, traditional legal
systems with modern legal systems, communal landholdings with private land
ownership, and community membership with citizenship. It is through the local
application of this model that modernization occurs. However, the most inﬂuential
idea of development tends to focus on economic issues with the emphasis on
creating the pre—conditions for rapid export-lead growth. This kind of growth has
been promoted as the driving force for successful developing economies and

seen as essential for modernization.

20

The idea of “pre—conditions for growth” is based on early theories of
economic development from Lewis, Rostow, Nurske and Rosentstein-Rodan.17
Lewis (1955 cited in Escobar 1995: 77-78) originated the concept of the “dual
economy.” According to this theory, a country’s economy was divided into two
sectors - one modern, the other traditional. For Lewis, the traditional was
analogous to backwardness and contributed nothing to a country’s development.
From this perspective, the modern money economy should and would overcome
the traditional subsistence economy. Rostow (1960) contributed the concept of
“stages of economic growth” identifying a “take-off” point at which an
undeveloped country would begin to progress through various stages of
sustained growth. The stages of growth theory emerged from observations made
about the British industrial revolution. However, it was assumed that it could be
applied to non-Westem undeveloped nations as well. Nurkse and Rosentstein-
Rodan (1953 cited in Escobar 1995: 75-77) added the concept of “balanced
growth,” arguing that countries had to develop a wide range of industries
simultaneously if they were to succeed in achieving sustained growth. Nurkse
elaborated the idea of balanced growth by developing the concept of “the vicious
circle of poverty.” The means to break out of this vicious circle was by “enlarging

the size of the market and creating inducements to invest.” While many of these

‘7 The following summary is based on the viewpoint of several critics of the development as
modernization model (Escobar 1995; Esteva 1995; Latouche 1991; Norgaard 1994; Shiva 1989).
These critics are proponents of Alternatives to Development. These authors point out
shortcomings & damages of development as modernization from the point of view of those who
have suffered from it.

21

theories were not conﬁrmed in practice, they still permeate current policies and
practices of development.

2.0.1 Rural Development

In rural areas, modernization has confronted “pre—modern” social, political
and cultural forms of being and acting. In the rural context, development as
modernization includes those activities that “modernize” agricultural production.
Modern in this context means an agricultural production system that is large-
scale, mechanized, and utilizes chemical inputs and improved seed varieties or
animal stock. Production is destined for regional, national, and international
markets. Objectives of this form of rural development are to eliminate traditional
production techniques, privatize non—modern land tenure forms, increase food
supplies for the urban sector, and free surplus labor for industry (Gillis et al.
1983). Traditional production techniques as practiced by small farmers
throughout the developing world are seen to be less efﬁcient and less productive
per unit of input, despite evidence to the contrary (see Alcorn 1984; Alvarez-
Buylla Roces et al. 1989; Torres-Lima et al. 1994). These techniques are also
negatively construed because they are labor intensive (Netting 1993). While
modern authorities concede that traditional production techniques have been
adequate in the past, they are seen as barriers to the production of sufﬁcient
amounts of food to feed the world’s current and future population (Netting 1993).

Proponents of development as modernization portrayed the Green

Revolution of the 19605 and 19705 as the foremost example of how to transfer

22

the methods of modern agricultural production from developed to
underdeveloped nations. Scientists and technologists developed and tested
improved varieties and production practices at universities, laboratories, and trial
sites around the world. These technologies were then "transferred" to the

” u

countryside by extensionists. Farmers were termed “innovators, earlier
adopters,” “slow adopters” or “laggards” depending on the speed at which they
began to utilize technologies developed by scientists and technologists (Rogers
and Shoemaker 1971 ).

Farmers’ “propensity” to adopt “improved technology” packages was not

the only determinant of whether agricultural productivity would increase. A
country’s land tenure system -- the various ways people own and use land -- was
also seen as critical. The four basic forms of land ownership common in Latin
America are:

. Large-scale modern farming and ranching: Privately-owned large
acreage where crops or cattle are raised. The production system is
high input and utilizes paid, skilled labor.

. Lafifundie: Privately-owned large landholdings with low-input
production systems that utilize manual labor. Workers may receive
monetary wages, but are often compensated with use of land, housing
and access to other services such as health care, schools, etc.

. Minifundia: Private smallholdings where traditional agricultural
practices are typically utilized. Labor is typically performed by family
members.

. Communal ownership: Collectively-owned lands that are used jointly.
Individuals gain access through mechanisms regulated by custom.
Traditional agricultural practices are typically utilized and labor is often

based on relationships of reciprocity. Communal landholdings usually
can not be legally bought or sold.

23

In the development as modernization paradigm, the optimal form of land
ownership and use is privately-owned large—scale modern farming and ranching.
This form of land ownership is viewed as optimal based on the notion of
economies of scale and the need for a market in lands. Economies of scale in
agriculture refers to the belief that larger agricultural production units can
produce more than smaller economic production units because of more efﬁcient
use of machinery and other inputs (Gillis et al. 1983). Private land ownership
allows for legal sale of land, a condition that is seen as necessary for an
economy to be fully “modern.”

The successes and failures of the Green Revolution have been amply
discussed (Cleaver 1973; Krishna et al. 1997). It is the responses to some of the
perceived shortcomings of the Green Revolution, which are of interest here.
Advocates of alternative development approaches sought to improve and expand
upon the practices advocated by the Green Revolution and modernization
(UNDP 1990; World Bank 1991a). Some of the staunchest critics under the rubric
of Alternatives to Development sought to retake development and fashion
something more in the image of their own cultures and communities (Escobar
1995; Esteva 1983; Rahmen 1993; Shiva 1989).

2.1 Alternative Development

During the 19805, several alternative development approaches emerged
with the goal of addressing perceived shortcomings of the development as

modernization paradigm. Shortcomings were seen as privileging scientiﬁc

24

knowledge over local knowledge, excluding minority groups and women from the
process, professionalizing development work, and destroying the environment.
For example, “Farmer First” and proponents of indigenous knowledge
encouraged professionals to listen to rural people and take their “local
knowledge” into account (Bronkensha et al.1980; Chambers at al. 1989).
“Women in Development” (WID), as its name implied, was primarily concerned
with incorporating women into the process of development (Braidotti et al. 1994;
Sen and Grown 1988). Rapid Rural Appraisal sought to increase the efficiency of
research and development activities in the countryside and include input from
rural people (Chambers 1983). Sustainable Development focused on
incorporating the criteria of environmental soundness and social equity into
development (Adams 1990).

Advocates for these and other alternative development approaches
sought to improve the practice of development by “including the excluded” —
farmers, women, and indigenous people. The knowledge of excluded groups was
to be incorporated into scientiﬁc research and development activities. These
same advocates argued that economic growth must be balanced with
environmental and social needs. The terms “laggards” and “slow adopters” were
replaced with less derogatory terms, such as stakeholders, clients or participants.
“Experts” and “professionals” were called facilitators, initiators or catalysts

(Thompson and Scoones 1994). Development was to take place through “an

25

active and equitable partnership between rural people, researchers and
extensionists” (Thompson and Scoones 1994: 60.)

Some critics argue that these altemetive development approaches ignored
the political and social complexity of development and research activities
(Rocheleau 1994; Thompson and Scoones 1994: 61). Others argue that the
basic hierarchical relationships implicit within scientiﬁc knowledge generation,
development and transfer remained unchanged (Carmen 1996; Escobar 1995;
Esteva 1995; Esteva and Suri 1998; Fals Borda and Rahmen 1991; Hall et al.
1982; Kothari 1988; Wignaraja 1993). Consequently, the basic tenets underlying
the development as modernization paradigm were left unquestioned by
alternative development approaches.

2.2 Alternatives to Development

Proponents of Alternatives to Development approaches argue that it is not
enough to “improve” development. Proponents of Alternatives to Development
advocate an appraisal, rejection and the replacement of the development as
modernization model. From this perspective, development as modernization is
seen as both a cultural construct and an historical discourse that create and
present the concepts of underdeveloped and developed as if they represented
some kind of natural phenomena (Escobar 1995). Esteva (1995: 12) explains,

The very discussion of the origin or current causes of

underdevelopment illustrates to what extent it is admitted to be

something real, concrete, quantiﬁable and identiﬁable: a

phenomenon whose origin and modalities can be the subject of

investigation. The word deﬁnes a perception. This becomes, in
turn, an object, a fact. No one seems to doubt that the concern

26

does not allude to real phenomenon. They do not realize that it

is a comparative adjective whose base of support is the

assumption, very Western but unacceptable and

undemonstrable, of the oneness, homogeneity and linear
evolution of the world. It displays a falsiﬁcation of reality
produced through dismembering totality of interconnected
processes that make up the world’s reality and, in its place, it

substitutes one of its fragments, isolated from the rest, as a

general point of reference.

According to Esteva, that fragment is economics. For Alternatives to
Development, the most general aim is to “re-member” (the opposite of dis-
member) reality as a whole, to re—embed the economic in the social and to re-
recognize and re-introduce the people’s excluded from (or by) the development
as modernization paradigm (Esteva and Suri 1998).

The Alternatives to Development approaches seek ways to regenerate a
process of change that reclaims ownership and control by and for those who
have been excluded or have been viewed as excluded. Alternatives to
Development are grounded, to varying degrees, in theoretical frameworks as
presented by feminism (Millman and Kanter 1975; Westkott 1979), Freirian Adult
Education (Freire 1970, 1990; Freire 1985; Freire 1998; Freire and Macedo
1987), Gramsci (1979), liberation theology (Gutierrez 1975), and Marxism (Fals
Borda and Rahmen 1991). In the realm of practice, groups such as Bhoomi Sena
adivasi (indigenous peoples) in Maharastra, India (Rahmen 1993), the Zapatistas

in Chiapas, Mexico (Collier 1994), and the women rubber tappers of Acre, Brazil

(Campbell 1996) are struggling to create a space in which their voices are heard,

27

and their rights to fashion their own process of change are fully recognized and
supponed.

The notion that these excluded groups can participate actively in their own
history contrasts with conventional notions of these people as essentially reactive
and backward, fated to disappear into modern factories or their agricultural
counterparts. Contrary to these expectations, historically excluded people have
survived, demonstrating notable resilience and creativity when confronting forces
of modernization.

Scott (1986) documents examples from Southeast Asia citing peasant
efforts to thwart designs to capture resources that formerly belonged to the
peasant sector. This struggle appears in both everyday economic and cultural
forms, eg. theft, pilfering, and misrepresenting harvest yields, as well as in
struggles over meanings and symbols. Bonﬁl Batalla (1996) recognizes a similar
phenomenon in indigenous Mesoamerica where the communal struggle with
modernity “involves rejection, innovation and appropriation.” Bonfil Batalla (1996)
states that:

Through its autonomous culture [indigenous Mexico] establishes
relationships with the new world, adapting to new circumstances,
resisting in order to preserve its social spaces in all areas of life,
appropriating foreign cultural elements that prove useful and
compatible. It invents new solutions and ideas and strategies of
accommodation that allow the group to survive as different
distinguished collectivities. . ..

In the struggle between the “modern” world and the “traditional” worlds, the

proponents of modernity assume the moral, the practical, and the intellectual

28

 

high ground. These proponents advocate that, in the long-run, traditional people
will be happier as consumers, better off as wage labors, and freer as individuals
than if they had remained committed to “non-modern” ways of living and being.
But traditional people do not agree. Sites of resistance, innovation, and
accommodation are emerging around the world as local groups confront forces of
development as modernization (Appfel-Marglin 1997; Rahmen 1993; Rocheleau,
Thomas-Slayter, and Wangari 1996; Shiva 1989).

These struggles are also gathering an intellectual force. The Alternatives
to Development approach allow development professionals and non-
professionals to talk about development in new ways and to re-examine what
marginalized groups are doing. When the dis—aggregated pieces of development
are put back into the “whole” and the economic is reintegrated into and
subordinated to the more general social sphere, then the innovations and actions
of the peasantry again become visible (Chambers 1990; Escobar 1995; Esteva
and Suri 1998).

These re-conceptualizations of development open the way for new forms
of dialogue, and help forge change processes and systems that transcend the
dominant model of development as modernization. PR is a collection of research
and development approaches, many of which can be understood as Alternative
to Development approaches. In general, PR approaches attempt to examine and

reconstruct both the social relationships in research and development, and the

29

relationship between knowledge generation and change (Fals Borda and
Rahmen 1991; Fernandez and Tendon 1981; Francis 1996).

2.3 A New Paradigm of Research and Development

Participatory Research (PR)18 is more than a new set of research and
development tools or techniques (Maguire 1987: 9). PR can be understood as an
emerging paradigm of research and development. A paradigm can be deﬁned as,
“a world view, a general perspective, a way of breaking down the complexity of
the real world” (Patton 1975 cited in Maguire 1987). Research paradigms are
based on different assumptions about the nature of society, the ways which
society should be investigated, and the kinds of knowledge that is possible to be
acquired about the world (Popkewitz 1984 cited in Maguire 1987).

PR is a paradigmatic response to the development as modernization

paradigm and the accompanying approach to research”. Conventional scientiﬁc

‘8 l have chosen to use Participatory Research as the general term to referto this form of
research. However, there is no one term that has been agreed upon by all PR practitioners to
refer to this emerging paradigm. In part, this reﬂects the political nature of PR and the ongoing
debate over terms and their deﬁnitions (Esteva and Suri 1998; Fals Borda 1998).

19 It should be noted that practitioners of PR were not the ﬁrst or only group to challenge the
conventional approach to scientiﬁc research; original critiques lie in sociology of knowledge and
feminist critiques of science (see Harding 1991).

30

research (Gaventa 1993; Maguire 1987; Whyte 1991) assumes that:
. the world exists as a system of distinct, observable “facts";

. objectivity is achieved only when the researcher is detached from the
phenomenon being observed or investigated;

. the knowledge produced is impartial;
. the application of this knowledge should be left to others; and

0 communication of this knowledge is a top-down and linear process.

The conventional scientiﬁc research paradigm separates reality into discrete
“knowable” parts, divides knowledge from practice, and removes the researcher
from the phenomenon under investigation. Elements outside the phenomenon of
study “are held constant.” The knowledge generated from these endeavors
serves to enhance academic understanding of a given social phenomenon, but
does not seek to change it.

2.4 Participatory Research

PR is based on a set of assumptions about the nature of society and
about research that differ signiﬁcantly from the conventional approach. These
assumptions are expressed in two basic and interconnected themes:

1) the relationship between the generation of knowledge and change is a
fundamental aspect of research, and

2) social relationships within research are re—conceptualized in theory and
in practice, each PR approach doing so in a different way.

In contrast to conventional research, PR argues that knowledge is a resource to

be shared and that the application of this knowledge is an integral and iterative

31

part of the research process itself. PR also assumes that the social world is a co-
created or subjective phenomenon (Reason 1994). The participatory researcher
is not detached from the “phenomenon being observed,” but rather is a co-
participant in the research process along with local people. The dichotomy of
subject/object found in conventional social science research is replaced by a
relationship between subject/subject (Fals Borda 1985b).

2.4.1 Three Approaches to PR

PR can be understood as three distinct approaches: Action Research (AR)
(see Torbert 1991; Whyte 1991); Participatory Action Research (PAR) (see Fals
Borda 1998; Fals Borda and Rahmen 1991; Fernandez and Tandon 1981 ); and
Autonomous Development (AD) (see Carmen 1996; Esteva, 1998).20 Each of
these approaches departs from the conventional approach to research and
development and emphasizes distinct aspects of the PR paradigm. The primary
distinctions, pertinent for this research, are the ways each approach constructs

1) the relationship between knowledge generation and change,

2) the social relationships between the expert (the outside researcher)

and participants (local people), and

3) the relationship between distinct groups of local participants engaged
in a participatory research process.

20 This is a simpliﬁcation that may overlook some of distinctions in the numerous approaches to
PR. At the Worid Congress of Participatory Convergence in 1997, over 40 terms were used to
refer to different PR approaches.

These distinct responses can in part be understood by examining the context in
which AR, PAR, and AD occur.

2.5 Action Research

Action Research originated in the industrialized countries as a new
approach to addressing scientiﬁc questions and solving practical problems
associated with the management of complex organizations, such as factories and
schools (Brown and Tendon 1983; Whyte 1991). In the industrialized countries,
Action Science was a precursor to AR (Argryis and Schon 1989; Reason 1994).
In the developing countries, AR appeared in modiﬁed forms as Farmer
Participatory Research, Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA)(Kumar 1993) and the more
recent Participatory Rural Appraisal (Chambers 1993; Chambers 1997).

A singular achievement of AR is to provide an altemetive to what is
termed the "professional expert model" (PEM) (Whyte 1991),21 "external expert
stance" (World Bank, 1996), or "normal professionlism" (Chambers 1993) of
conventional applied social science research. As Whyte claims, the expert is
engaged in studying a speciﬁc problem, recommending solutions or laying out
altemetive courses of action for the client. In PEM, the “researcher is completely
in control of the research process except to the extent that the client organization
limits some of the research options” (Whyte 1991). Whyte contends that such an

approach is unsuitable for addressing real-world problems where “we need to

21 While Whyte calls the PR he is engaged in PAR, it is well within an AR approach as deﬁned in
this paper. In classifying Whyte in this respect, I follow Hall et al. (1982), who point out the
distinctions between PAR as practiced by Whyte and PAR as it appears in its emancipatory form.

33

develop a process of change, resulting in organizational learning, over a
considerable period of time” (Whyte 1991).

AR seeks to reconstruct the link between research and change, how
research is conducted, and who participates in the research process (Fear and
Lichty 1990; Whyte 1991). Research and change are seen as complementary,
each inﬂuencing the other (Edwards and Jones 1976). AR is also conceptualized
as a collaborative process (Rapoport 1970). Argyris and Schon (1978) note that
AR brings together professionals with local change agents with the goal of
producing research that is guided by, as well as contributes to, the knowledge
base. These authors also contend that AR seeks to solve local problems while
training local people in the problem-solving process. To successfully address
both the practical and the scientiﬁc, non-professional and professional
researchers must engage in the research process together.

Brown and Tandon (1983) list the goals of AR as: 1) research should
generate useful knowledge, 2) the application of this knowledge should lead to
developmental change, and 3) developmental change is designed to increase
efficiency and productivity. In summary, AR emphasizes the scientiﬁc
researchers responsibility to help solve practical problems while at the same
time contributing to social science theory. Through collaboration, professional
and non-professional researchers, aim to bring about social change that is driven

by both practical and scientiﬁc concerns.

34

2.5.1 Theory of Society from an Action Research Perspective

It becomes apparent, however, that AR’s departure from conventional
applied social science research and PEM is incomplete when its social
assumptions are examined. According to Brown and Tendon (1983), AR posits a
consensus theory of society and tends to address problems already framed by
organizational authorities. These two positions -- one theoretical and the other
practical -— allow action researchers to assume that all participants in the
research process (both professional and non—professional) share common
interests, at least in solving the problem at hand (Brown and Tendon 1983).

This procedure tends to mask important societal and organizational
inequalities and divergent interests based on them. Meanwhile, the researcher
still appears as an expert - not as a co-learner -- and certainly not as a co-
consultant on an equal footing with participants. Participants are viewed as
means to an end. They may lend their knowledge, their opinion, and even their
judgment to the research. They may be involved at various stages. However,
participants do not have - nor do they acquire - control of the development
process. Both in theory and in practice, a hierarchy is established between
experts and others engaged in the research that is portrayed as “participation.”
Ultimate control remains in the hands of experts and their patrons (Selener 1997;
Thompson and Scoones 1994).

AR also makes the assumption that the "participating group" is

homogenous. Differences based on class, gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc. are

35

masked. Potentials for problem solving emerging from distinct viewpoints within
the participant group/s are not realized, and possible issues of learning,
cooperation, and communication among diverse and distinct participants groups
are generally ignored.

AR has an additional shortcoming. Given its problem—speciﬁc approach,
AR activities are bounded in time and space. When the research is completed,
the expert leaves while the “participants” remain. Experts write up their ﬁndings,
management submits their reports, but consideration is rarely given to
institutionalizing AR activities to create a continuous learning process or system.

Although AR moves beyond applied social science research by focusing
on useful knowledge in the context of organizational change, action and change
remain at least conceptually under control. “Participation" is accordingly
“instrumental” - not designed to lead to a continuous process of shared learning
and true collaboration. Yet, action researchers have sometimes exceeded their
own restrictive assumptions and have helped produce forms of collaboration
which anticipate more emancipatory approaches of PR (see Elden and Levin
1991; Englestad and Gustavsen 1993; Greenwood and Levin 1998).

2.6 Participatory Action Research

Participatory action research (PAR) may be deﬁned as “a research
process in which the community participates in the analysis of its own reality in
order to promote a social transformation for the beneﬁt of the participants, who

are the oppressed” (Hall, 1981). PAR developed from social change efforts in the

36

Third World, where poverty, conﬂict, and oppression are commonplace. In the
Third World, where power and resources are concentrated in the hands of a few,
knowledge and its generation is subject to control by elites. As one PAR
researcher/practitioner explains:
In their desire to dominate and control people, the Latin American
governments have worked to make us believe that we are separate
and cannot work together. They would have us believe that we
cannot establish common goals and objectives, make use of
common resources, or do common work. The governments have
worked to destroy ‘community.’ Community means common unity,
common goals, common work (Smith 1997: 15).
PAR seeks to loosen the control of elites and return it to oppressed and
marginalized groups of people.
Brown and Tendon (1983) summarize the main goals of PAR:
. research should generate practical knowledge,

. application of this knowledge should result in developmental change
which changes power relationships, and

. the long term goal of PAR is social transformation.

While PAR shares AR’s general goals regarding the generation of practical
knowledge through research, PAR explicitly recognizes the political implications
of knowledge production (Fals Borda 1985a; Fals Borda and Rahmen 1991).
PAR views knowledge as a resource - issues of access, ownership and control
become open issues. According to Rahmen (1991), domination involves not only

the control of the means of material production, but the means of knowledge

37

 

production, including the social power to determine how practical knowledge is
deﬁned.

PAR intends to generate new knowledge that eludes elite control and
recognizes the knowledge of local people as participants. As a PAR researcher
in Latin America explains, “Participatory-action research permits us, little by little,
to ‘discover’ the reality of our lives... [and] in knowing that reality, taking action in
order to transform the reality for the better” (Debbink and Omelas 1997).
Ultimately, this "knowledge" and "participation" combine to contribute to real
social and political change.

2.6.1 A Theory of Society from a Participatory Action Research Perspective

PAR rejects AR’s instrumental and restrictive construction of
“participation” and its basic theory of society. Generally, PAR views society, as it
currently organized, as unjust and therefore, essentially conﬂictual. Accordingly,
the main goal of PAR is to create a process of social change in which
participants are empowered to bring about positive social transformations (Fals
Borda and Rahmen 1991; Fernandez and Tandon 1981; Hall 1981).

Empowerment occurs in praxis. Praxis is understood as an iterative and
expanding process of reflection and action between and within participants as
they seek to understanding and resolve not only the problem at hand, but also to
create the conditions for social transformation. In the course of this process,

participants reﬂect upon and analyze facts and phenomenon as part of a

38

constantly changing reality. The knowledge generated by this reﬂection and
analysis is drawn upon when implementing both personal and societal change.

Conscientizacao is a process of empowerment that occurs in praxis.
Conscientizace'o (F reire 1970, 1990), according to Freire, occurs when “people
achieve a deepening awareness both of the sociocultural reality that shapes their
lives and of their capacity to transform that reality.” Individuals learn to see
existing social, political and economic contradictions more clearly and to take
action against unjust relations and structures (Smith et al. 1997). This
strengthens people’s conscious existence “in and with the world” (Freire 1970,
1990).

Conscientizega'o is a learning process that marginalized people
experience as they began to recognize and reject both the oppressive situation
and the “oppressor within.” In other words, they recognize and reject the
internalization of the oppressor’s construction of the marginalized groups (eg.
the poor are lazy and backward). Yet, in more current PAR theory and practice,
the concept of conscientizece’o is applied equally to all partners in the action, i.e.,
to the outside researcher as well as to local participants. Additionally, the idea of
"situated identities" has begun to influence how participants -- both "outsiders"
and "insiders" — are viewed. When all participants are seen as complex
intersections of class, gender, culture, race, work and education, they can all be
understood to contain elements of both the oppressed and oppressor (Smith

1997). An outside researcher, in a process of conscientizecao, is more likely to

39

 

learn with, from, and about the diversity of fellow participants and is more likely to
see the potentialities emerging from these differences. This learning depends on
the outside researcher’s ability to recognize, rather than appropriate, the
knowledge that emerges from the communication in the collaborative learning
process.

2.6.2 Challenges for Participatory Action Research

PAR does not completely escape the hierarchical relationship between
“expert” and “participant”(Rahnema 1995). Although the words “catalyst” and
“facilitator” have replaced PEM’s “experts” and earlier PAR “vanguards” to
describe the roles of outside experts, these terms seem to imply that outside
researchers have privileged knowledge that allows them to see what local people
need. While, in theory, the problem under investigation is identiﬁed by local
people, it is the outsider who recognizes the need for “liberation.” These same
researchers purport to know how this emancipatory process should occur, and
the point at which local people are empowered to such an extent that the outside
researcher can depart (Sethi 1993). This departure or “redundancy” seems to
imply that the expert transfers knowledge to participants teaching them how to
act and organize. This transfer of knowledge appears unidirectional. When local
people have acquired the necessary skills, the expert leaves. Here again there

appears at least an element of instrumentalizing of the local people by "experts"

(Colburn 1989; Scott 1986; Thompson and Scoones 1994).

40

Another potential difﬁculty in PAR is recognizing outsiders as co-leamers.
While the concept of conscientizagao is said to apply equally to all partners, in
practice it often appears that only the “marginalized” participants experience this
phenomenon. Outside researchers engage in “self-reﬂexivity,” a process of
examining personal assumptions and biases. The concept of self-reﬂexivity adds
a much needed element to PAR. Self-reflexivity suggests that humans, as social
actors, have the capacity to think about their own thought, speech and action
while they are engaged in them. This self-reﬂexivity serves as a guide for
thought, speech and action while, at the same time, incorporating the reality of
other co-participants (Schartz and Walker 1995; Schon 1983). However, at times
this self-reflexivity resembles more a process of personal growth (see Smith et al.
1997). While not negative in and of itself, care must be taken that a focusing on
the individual does not displace co-leaming — that is, sharing knowledge among
equals using dialogue (Freire 1970). This dialogical process, and not self-
reﬂexivity, is the key to conscientizacao.

PAR appears to share a further trait with AR. Both AR and PAR overlook
how groups of participants may be internally differentiated. With a few notable
and promising exceptions (see Carmen 1996; Maguire 1987), there is no serious
recognition of internal differences among the mix of actors and social groups in
the PAR process (Escobar and Alverez 1992; Esteva 1995; Kearney 1996).
Important and possibly decisive avenues of cooperation and creativity may be

buried under generic terms such as "peasant" and "workers" (Carmen 1996). Yet,

41

PAR is not static or monolithic — it is an evolving approach (Smith 1997). PAR is
beginning to go beyond a class analysis of oppression to incorporate an
appreciation of the multiple identities of complex actors and social groups to see
research and development as “people’s own research and praxis” (Carmen 1996;
Hall et al. 1982; Maguire 1987; Rahmen 1993).

2.7 Autonomous Development

Autonomous development (AD), sometimes referred to as people’s or
grassroots development, is not usually considered a PR approach. AD emerges
from efforts of marginalized groups to solve collective problems and involves
both an envisioning of the future and a response to modernization (Carmen
1996; Esteva 1994; Rahmen 1993). AD may range from solving everyday
problems to engaging in major social change (Wrgnaraja 1993). AD differs from,
and contributes to, other PR approaches in the way it conceptualizes “research”
and “development” as activities that are initiated by local people and rooted in
local knowledge, culture, and ways of organizing.

The goals of AD (Carmen 1996; Chambers 1997; Escobar 1995; Esteva
1995; Rahmen 1993) can be summarized this way:

. Research, as practiced by local people, should generate practical
knowledge;

. The application of this knowledge should lead to “developmental”
change;and

. Developmental change is deﬁned and controlled by local people‘

42

Escobar explains:

the organizing strategies of these groups begin to revolve more

and more around two principles: the defense of cultural differences,

not as static but as transformed and transformative force; and the

valorization of economic needs and opportunities in terms that are

not strictly those of proﬁt and the market. The defense of the local

is a prerequisite to engaging in the global... (Escobar 1995: 226).

This is a clear departure from the apparent outsider-expert bias of AR and
PAR. The assumption of AR and PAR is that research and development take
place when experts are present. Therefore, if there are no experts, it follows that
there is no research or development taking place. Indeed, many AD activities are
"invisible" to outsiders. Farmers’ experimentation, transfers of knowledge within
and between groups, and community development efforts often go unnoticed
(Chambers 1990; Ruonavaara 1996).

Hoping to become more visible and viable, marginalized groups in both
urban and rural settings are beginning to organize regional, national, and even
international networks to exchange information, create new knowledge, and bring
about social change (see Forest, Trees, and People No. 18 Sept. 1992; Honey
Bee; Cultural Survival Quarterly; Chiapas95; and Rocheleau 1996.) AD is an
ongoing, expanding process of investigation and analysis of “real world”
problems by “real world” people who devise independent and culturally
appropriate solutions to build their own futures.

There is no one theory of society presupposed by practitioners of AD.

Rather, the actors involved determine a vision of society based on their

43

worldviews, inter— and intra—community relationships and placement in the local
and global arena. Life -- social or otherwise -- may be viewed as conﬂictual,
consensual, or in entirely different terms. For example, indigenous groups in the
Andes deﬁne “development” as wellbeing not only of the individual, but also of
the world around them. Development in this sense, is a search for harmony
between communities, with nature, and with the Andean deities (Saravia 1992).

Internal relationships in AD are formed as people come together around
mutual concerns. While differences (and even conﬂict) may exist, ideally a
collective identity emerges. Horizontal relationships are established in which all
participants in the research process are treated as equals and contribute to the
generation of knowledge that leads to resolution of shared problems. At the
invitation of local people, an expert becomes a “participant” in the “collective
construction of alternatives.” But an expert’s presence is not essential or even
necessary (Escobar 1995). The outside researcher is one participant among
many who shares what he or she knows, but is not allowed to dominate.

2.8 Summary of PR Approaches

AR, PAR, and AD differ signiﬁcantly from each other in the way they
construction social relationships within research. AR retains a hierarchical
relationship between outside researchers and the client group. PAR, while
advocating equality, distinguishes between outside researchers and local people
who need to be “liberated.” AD stipulates that control of change begins with, and

remains in the hands of, local people. Outsiders may participate in, but not

44

control, the research and development activities. These various constmctions of
social relationships range from vertical to horizontal.

Despite these different constructs of social relationships in research, each
of the PR approaches homogenizes the “participant” group as clients, as the
oppressed, or as communities. Little attention is give to the complexity of the
various participant groups in the PR process. In fact, this homogenization seems
to repress the voices of subordinate sectors within participant groups.

2.9 Organizational Change: A Point of Convergence?

AR, PAR, and AD generally agree that the generation of knowledge
should have useful application. AR, PAR, and AD advocate the notion that
research should generate useful knowledge that integrates research and social
change. However, each approach focuses on change at a different level. AR
advocates organizational change. PAR promotes individual and societal
transformation. AD focuses on problem resolutions and empowerment at a
community or group level. Given PAR’s concentration on empowerment and
social transformation and AD's outcome focus, little attention is given to change
at an organizational level. Yet, this lack of focus may hamper PAR and AD
attempts to bring about community empowerment and long-term social change.

AR does not share these organizational shortcomings. Action Research in
Organizations and Action Research in Education focus on organizational change
in formal organizational settings, such as businesses and schools (Deshler 1995;

Selener 1997). Organizations in AR (whether in businesses or schools) appear

45

as complex bureaucratic entities with hierarchically structured social
relationships, a specialized division of labor, and differentiated rewards regulated
by formal rules and procedures (Collins 1998). In general, AR in organizations
and education aims to produce knowledge to improve professional capacitates
and to bring about organizational change.

2.10 Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations

One form of organizational change that has gained considerable attention
in recent years is that of organizational learning. Addleson (1999) deﬁnes
organizational Ieaming as “the process of gaining knowledge and developing
skills which empower us to understand, and thus to act effectively within social
institutions such as businesses, government departments, schools, or charities.”
Argyris and Schon (1978) deﬁne organizational Ieaming as “the detection and
correction of errors ” at an organizational level.

Organizational Ieaming appears through the creation of a “continuous
learning process” known as a “learning organization” (LO). There are several
forms of learning that occur in organizations - adaptive learning, generative
learning and critical learning. The ﬁrst two forms are explored within the
organizational Ieaming literature. The third will be elaborated in this paper.

2.10.1 Adaptive Organizations

In the literature on organizational learning, the “learning” organization is
contrasted with an “adaptive” organization. Argyris suggests that this Ieaming

allows the organization to “discover sources of error, invent new strategies

46

designed to correct error, produce those strategies, evaluate and generalize the
results” (Argyris and Schon 1978). An adaptive organization is deﬁned as an
organization that employs adaptive or single-loop learning to detect and correct
errors in a way that allows the organization to continue its present activities,
maintain its current policies, and achieve its identified objectives (Argyris and
Schon 1978).

Adaptive learning is aimed at changing the rules of an organization
(Macdonald et al. 1997). The underlying assumptions, theories or principles of
the organization are not under discussion in an adaptive organization. Solutions
are at the level of improvements - the same, but better. In particular, questions
that ask “hoW’ rather than “why” are raised. Learning appears as a process of
consensus making about organizational rules that deﬁne what people are
allowed or obligated to do (Macdonald et al. 1997). Adaptive Ieaming does not
encourage members of an organization to reﬂect on the organization’s goals,
policies, values, or underlying assumptions. In addition, adaptive learning does
not encourage members of organizations to question issues of leadership,

management, or the social structure of the organization itself.

47

According to Lassey (1998), several assumptions underlie the
conceptualization of learning in an adaptive organization:

Learning develops individuals.

Learning is for beginners.

Learners are recipients.

Staff and their development are viewed as a cost.

Memory is individual.

Management and/or professionals are the source of new ideas.

(Adapted from Lassey 1998)
From this perspective, learning is individualistic, exclusionary and limited. Argyris
and Schon (1978) suggest that an adaptive organization’s learning response may
even reinforce conditions that created errors in the ﬁrst place.

2.10.2 Learning Organizations

According to Malhorta (1996), a Ieaming organization is an organization
“with an ingrained philosophy for anticipating, reacting, and responding to
change, complexity and uncertainty.” Senge (1990) suggests that the learning
organization is a “group of people continually enhancing their capacity to create
what they want to create.” Addleson (1999) suggests that “a Ieaming
organization builds collaborative relationships in order to draw strengths from the
diverse knowledge, experiences, capacities, and ways of doing things that
people and communities have and use.” A learning organization, as a community
of individuals, takes a reﬂective stance towards change that not only incorporates
the ability to respond, but includes a commitment to analyses and learning from

the response experience.

48

A Ieaming organization uses double-loop or generative learning (Addleson
1999; Argyris and Schon 1978; Lassey 1998; Limerick, Passﬁeld, and
Cunnington 1995). Generally, this type of learning is understood as a “process
for enhancing an organization’s capacity for effective change (Limerick et al.
1995). Argyris and Schon (1978: 24) deﬁne double-loop learning as “those sorts
of organizational inquiry which resolve incompatible organizational norms by
setting new priorities and weightings of norms, or by restructuring the norms
themselves together with associated strategies and assumptions.” Macdonald et
al. (1997) suggests that double-loop learning is about changing not only the rules
but also the underlying insights. Thus, it concerns Ieaming involving “why”
questions at the level of collective knowledge and understanding. Double-loop
learning typically addresses problems of conflicts and controversies between
departments and/or individuals. Double-loop or generative Ieaming does not,
however, encourage an organization to question underlying principles upon
which the organization is based (Macdonald et al. 1997) or its hierarchical social
structure.

Lassey elaborates the underlying assumptions of a learning organization:
Learning develops the organization.
Learning is for everyone.
Learners are co-creative.
Learning occurs through training and staff development.
Staff is a resource.

Memory is organizational.
The work force is the source of new-ideas.

(Adapted from Lassey 1998: 9)

49

Learning in a Ieaming organization is both an individual and a collective
endeavor (Argyris and Schon 1978; Lassey 1998). Argyris and Schon (1978: 20)
state that “there is no organizational learning without individual learning, and that
individual Ieaming is a necessity but insufﬁcient condition for organizational
learning.” Individual learning mutually reinforces appropriate responses and
changes at an organizational level. However, learning as conceptualized through
a learning organization perspective appears to be directed towards management.
Senge describes a leader’s role in a L0 as that of “designer,” “teacher” or
“steward” who is responsible for challenging organizational assumptions and
creating a shared organizational vision (Senge 1990). To do so, leaders must
encourage and afﬁrm a sense of community and collaboration in members of the
organization.

2.11 Moving Beyond Action Research

Adaptive and generative forms of learning may improve organizational
efficiency and effectiveness. Adaptive learning may help resolve organizational
problems and may even lead to new appreciation and respect for workers.
Generative learning may create a shared organizational vision and a sense of
community. However, organizational learning does not automatically embrace an

emancipatory position nor do adaptive and generative forms of Ieaming call into

50

question existing hierarchical relationships within the organization itself or in the
larger social environment”.

2.12 Conclusion

An exchange between AR, PAR and AD focusing on organizational
change has the potential to expand PAR's and AD’s ability to promote
organizational change in an emancipatory framework. However, in their seminal
article on PAR and AR, Brown and Tendon (1983: 293-293) suggest that the
ideologies and political economic differences between the two approaches
present barriers to “productive exchange between action researchers and
participatory [action] researchers.” Thus, the potential for improving theory and
practice may be hampered by the inability of PR academics and practitioners to
learn from each other. The underlying social theories held by AR and PAR
researchers -- a consensus theory of society and a conﬂict theory of society --
may be barriers to establishing a dialogue between all research participants. AR
researchers may find it difﬁcult to hear the voices of marginalized groups, while
PAR researchers may ﬁnd it difﬁcult to accept the legitimacy of consensus.

Despite Brown and Tandon’s assertion, a convergence within PR may be
occurring. At the 1997 World Congress of Participatory Convergence in
Knowledge, Space and Time in Cartagena, Colombia, proponents of various

forms of PR engaged in dialogue to share common concerns and experiences.

22 Some of the Ieaming organizational literature has appropriated terms typically associated with
radical theoretical frameworks, i.e. revolution and transformation, but this does not signify
emancipatory intent (see Limerick, Pessﬁeld, and Cunnington 1995; Senge 1990).

51

They explored and sought to overcome differences (Fals Borda 1998). The time
appears ripe for an exchange of ideas between AR, PAR and AD. One such
potential for cross-fertilization is in the area of organizational change and
organizational Ieaming. AR has a rich theoretical and practical understanding of
organizational change and organizational learning. An opportunity may exist to
enhance PAR and AD’s emancipatory goals by drawing on AR’s understanding
of organizational change and organizational learning. Examining the Seminar as
it begins to reﬂect upon itself organizationally may contribute to our

understanding of what it means to be a “critical learning organization.”

52

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The methodological framework for this study is presented in this chapter.
The chapter begins with a general introduction to research paradigms and then
moves to a discussion of three major research paradigms: empirical-analytic,
interpretive, and liberatogy. A review of PR methodological approaches follows,
including an overview of praxis and an introduction to both Freirian adult
educational theory and elements of the critical learning systems approach. The
methodology utilized in this study is then shared. Praxis at an individual level
provides the methodological framework for the study. Bracketing (see Denzin,
1989; Denzin and Lincoln 1994b; Husserl 1970; Moustakes 1994) -- a concept
utilized in phenomenology — is adapted for PR. Once the outside researcher is
bracketed, the individual process of praxis is then elaborated as a cyclical
process of planning, observing, acting and reﬂecting.

This study focuses on a particular organization, the Permanent Seminar of
Resources for Rural Development. The study of the Seminar falls between what

Stake (1994) calls an intrinsic case study and an instrumental case study. As

 

Stake points out, “Because we simultaneously have several interests, often
changing, there is no line distinguishing intrinsic case study and an instrumental;

rather a zone of combined purposes separates them.” An intrinsic case study is

53

one that has inherent or unusual interest. An instrumental case study provides
insight into a speciﬁc issue or the reﬁnement of theory.

The Seminar is an intrinsic case in the ways it transcends the temporal
and spatial boundaries of PR. The Seminar overcomes the temporal boundaries
by creating an ongoing organizational entity and the spatial boundaries by
creating an organization that unites individuals across community, regional, and
national boundaries. The Seminar is also unique in that it reconstructs the
relationship between research collaborators. It celebrates the diversity of
participants, rather than homogenizing them into separate categories of
community, the “oppressed,” peasants, workers, or outsiders. In these
reconstructed relationships, participants are no longer either insiders or
outsiders. All participants are insiders and outsiders — insiders to their own
speciﬁc problematic situations, and outsiders to those who are not members of
their respective community or group.

Studying the Seminar as an instrumental case study presents an
opportunity to reﬂect on and to develop theories of a “2"“ generation of PR.” On
doing so, we are able to identify and to develop the idea of a critical learning
organization and examine some of its key attributes.

3.1 Research Paradigms

PR is an emerging research paradigm. Research paradigms are based on

a set of assumptions about the nature of society, the ways that society should be

54

investigated, and the kinds of knowledge that are possible to acquire about

society (see Table 1) (Popkewitz 1984).

Table 1. Philosophical Dimensions of Research Paradigms

 

 

Ontology refers to the nature of being. Ontological questions ask about the
nature of reality.

Epistemology pertains to questions about the nature of knowledge and the
relationships between the “knower” and that which is “known.”

Methodology refers to how we know the world or gain knowledge about it.
Methodological beliefs shape how the researcher sees the world and acts on it.

Rhetoric refers to the terms and narrative form utilized to document a study.
Axio/ogy refers to the role of values in research. Values are deﬁned as
“preferences for courses of action and outcomes; relative values shape choices

among perceived altemetive actions” (Brown and Tendon 1983: 280).

Ideology refers to a body of ideas with reference to a certain political or cultural
plan.

Practice refers to the application of knowledge generated through research.

 

Adapted from (Brown and Tendon 1983; Creswell 1998; Denzin and Lincoln
1994b: 12-15)

Guba and Lincoln (1994: 105) deﬁne a research paradigm as, “the basic
belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of
methods but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways.” These
belief systems include choices about rhetoric, practice, and the role of values.
Brown and Tandon (1983) suggest that paradigms also include an ideological

dimension. However, the ideological dimensions of research paradigms are

55

 

usually not addressed (Brown and Tendon 1983; Creswell 1994; Creswell 1998;
Denzin and Lincoln 1994a). Maguire (1987: 11) notes the power of paradigms to
shape “in nearly unconscious and thus unquestioned ways, perceptions and
practices within disciplines. It shapes what we look at, how we look at things,
what we label as problems, what problems we consider worth investigating and
solving, and what methods are preferred for investigation and action.” Maguire
contends that paradigms also inﬂuence what we choose not to see or investigate.

3.2 Three Research Paradigms

Distinct research paradigms have been identified and elaborated by
Creswell (1998), Kemmis and McTaggart (2000), Maguire (Maguire 1987) and
Smith (1997). Following Smith23 (1997), these paradigms can be labeled as
miricai-analytic, interpretive and liberatogj. Maguire (1987) cautions that
categorization in itself can be seen as a particular way of representing the world.
Despite this caveat, ﬁnd in Table 2 an overview of three major research
paradigms.

The empirical-analytic paradigm is currently the dominant paradigm of
social research (Maguire 1987). In this paradigm, “the detached scientist asks

questions or proposes hypothesis, formulates a research design, and observes

23 Many of Smith’s ideas are based on Haberrnas, but as represented by Kemmis (Kemmis
1991). Although Smith tends to dilute Haberrnas’ (Habermas 1984) ideas, it is a useful way to
summarize some of Haberrnas’ ideas regarding empirical-analytic, hermeneutics, and
emancipatory forms of knowledge.

56

Table 2. Three Main Research Paradigms 8: Assumptions

 

 

 

Assumptions Empirical-analytic Interpretive Liberatory
Ontological - A unique, real social Pluralistic 8 relativist. The social world is
What is the nature world exists to be People make collectively constructed
of reality? studied by purposeful acts based within a historical
independent on their perceptions of context.2 People are
observers. feelings & events active subjects in the
Recognition is given shaping their realities world 8 are understood to
to distinct, positive by their behavior. be in relationships of
facts & observable power with self, with
phenomena.1 others & with nature.
Epistemological - Objective tnlth Knowledge is a social Objectivity does not exist.
What is the exists. Objectivity 8. a construction. People can change their
relationship value-free science is Language levels of consciousness
between the possible & desirable. contextualizes the through Ieaming.
researcher 8 that Logical, deductive, meaning of data. The Fundamental human
being researched? rational ﬁndings. methods used justiﬁes needs drive the process
Knowledge is an end the knowledge of inquiry.
in itself. produced.

 

Axiological -
What is the role of
values?

Research is value-
free.

The researcher is
open about the value-
laden nature of study
8 reports biases as &
the value-laden nature
of data gathered.3

The researcher is open
about political nature of
research & reports biases
as well as the value— &
political- -laden nature of
data gathered.3

 

 

 

 

 

Methodological - Experimental. Begins Dialogical process Praxis within a historical

What is the with a hypothesis. between researcher & & social context.

process of Validity 8. reliability subjects to obtain Participants as owners of

research? are important. meaningful data & research process.
Deﬁned time frame. insights into human Multiple, often creative,
Quantitative data.1 behavior. Qualitative. methods.

Ideological"s - Academics are solely Control over research The research process

What are qualiﬁed to be is granted to multiple itself is intended to

underlying ideas researchers and agents speaking from question and change

about power therefore control the their own social power relationships in

relationships in research process.7 locations.7 research.

research?

Rhetorical - Formal style, using Informal style using Engaging style of

What is the the third person, past the personal voice, narrative. May use

language of tense 8. quantitative qualitative terms, 8. personal voice. Employs

research? terms. limited deﬁnitions. (Lalitative language. ‘

Practice - Technical control. 4 Practical knowledge. Actionable knowledge.

What is the Maintenance or Broaden Transform social

purpose of the evolutionary change communication 8 relationships. Fair

research? of status quo. 8‘2 understanding among distribution of knowledge

 

 

social groups.

 

 

as a resource. 1

 

Adapted from: Smith (1997); Maguire (162987); Creswell (1998), Kemmis and McTaggart (2000),
Wolf (1999f, Brown and Tendon (1983) Harding (1991).

57

people from a distance, taking note of observable phenomena and veriﬁable,
distinct facts. The underlying assumption is that “truth” is represented by these
observations and facts. The intent is to produce replicable, technical information
that causally explains and predicts human behavior" (Smith et al. 1997: 179).
From this perspective, the world is seen as “a system of distinct, observable
variables, independent of the knower” (Maguire 1987: 13). The knowledge
derived within an empirical-analytic paradigm is technical in nature and
formulated as laws and theories. The horizon of the empirical-analytic paradigm
is technical control of relationships within society and with nature.

The interpretive jaradigm of research seeks to understand the meanings
of a given social phenomenon from the perspective of those involved. As Smith
(1997: 118) explains, researchers doing interpretive research

hold that different people have different, subjective perceptions of

reality, and that there are therefore multiple realities and multiple

truths... Generally speaking researchers want to deepen their
understanding of the phenomena - what do people think, feel, and

do during this event? What are their individual perceptions and

interpretations of reality and how do these relate to and inﬂuence

their subsequent social actions? The production of this
interpretative knowledge is intended to strengthen understanding
within and between people in the existing society.

The knowledge emerging from an interpretive paradigm seeks to illuminate how

“human interaction produces rules governing social life, rather than discovering

universal truths of human interaction” (Maguire 1987: 14).

58

Accordingly, the horizon of the interpretive paradigm is to expand communication
and understanding through dialogue.

The liberatory paradigm of research seeks to support personal and social
transformation. As Maguire explains, research conducted within a liberatory
paradigm, "help[s] people see themselves and social situations in new ways in
order to inform further action for self-determined emancipation from oppressive
social systems and relationships” (Maguire 1987: 14). Maguire (1987) suggests
that from a liberatory perspective the social world is seen as “humanly and
collectively constructed within a historical context.” Knowledge from a liberatory
perspective serves to “uncover the systems of social relationships and
the contradictions which underlie social tensions and conﬂicts” (Maguire 1987:
14). Consequently, the horizon of the liberatory paradigm is social transformation
leading to liberation.

3.3 Methodological Context of this Study

The primary PR approaches drawn upon in this study are Action
Research, Participatory Action Research and Autonomous Development. The
various approaches of the PR paradigm fall within interpretive and liberatory
paradigms. Most AR falls within an interpretive paradigm, while PAR and AD are
more consistent with the liberatory paradigm. From a methodological
perspective, the approach taken in this study most closely resembles PAR’s

methodological framework -- grounded in praxis or praxiology, yet borrows from

59

praxis as practiced in AR. Praxis in this research is elaborated with elements of
a Freirian approach to adult education (Freire 1970, 1990; Freire 1985; Freire
and Macedo 1987) and a critical Ieaming systems approach (Bawden 1997) and
AR’s cycle of praxis (Dick na-a; Dick na-b). The melding of these elements
creates a more complex presentation of praxis as a means to better explicate the
reﬂective process associated with this PR effort.

3.4 The Methodology of this Study

The methodology of this study is experiential and participatow. By
experiential, I mean that the research is inductive based on experience in the
field and reﬂection on that experience (Fals Borda and Rahman 1991: 4; Reason
1994: 327, 333). By participatory, I mean that I am engaged in research as an
active participant to help bring about informed change. The experiential nature of
this research occurs through personal experience, shared experiences, and
reﬂection. This approach is consistent with other PR approaches that are based
on experiential ways of knowing arising from participation with others (Reason
1994:333)

In general terms, C. Wright Mills (1959: 24) advises any researcher to “be
a good craftsman [sic]: Avoid any rigid set of procedures... Seek to develop and
use the sociological imagination. Avoid the fetishism of method and technique...
Let every man [sic],” he says, “be his own methodologist.” In more speciﬁc terms,

Clandinin and Connelly (1994: 416) note that there is “an inevitable redeﬁnition of

60

purpose, as new, unexpected and interesting events and stories are revealed” in
experiential studies. These authors also note that “shifting interests and
intentions of many participants need to be kept in rhythmic balance” in
collaborative experiential studies (Clandinin and Connelly 1994: 416). The
experiential nature of this research requires that I maintain ﬂexibility, drawing
upon existing methodologies, combining them in new ways, and innovating when
necessary. The participatory nature of the research requires that I remain
sensitive to the needs and interests of the Seminar. Accordingly, I approach this
work as a methodological pragmatist drawing upon elements of praxis, F reiriap
concepts of adult education, and a critical Ieaming systems approach.

Such an eclectic methodological framework invites the use of multiple
methods. The use of multiple methods helps counter inherent “weakness and
limitations” by “deliberately combining different types of methods within the same
investigation” (Brewer and Hunter 1989: 11). The primary methods used during
this research include dialogue (Fals Borda and Rahmen 1991; Freire 1998;
McLaren 1995), participant observation (Pelto and Pelto 1978; Thorne 1983),
unstructured interviews (Burgess 1991; Pelto and Pelto 1978), and gpmv_al
research (Brewer and Hunter 1989). Denzin and Lincoln (1994a: 2) describe this
approach as bico/ege research that is a “pieced-together, close-knit set of
practices that provide solutions to a problem in a concrete situation.” Nelson et

al. (1992) cited in Denzin and Lincoln 1994a) uses the term bicoleur to describe

61

research that is a “choice of practice, that is pragmatic, strategic, and self-
reﬂexive.” This study adopts such an approach.

3.4.1 Bracketing

A dialectal relationship exists within PR between the individual as a
member of a group and the group itself. A dialectical relationship occurs when
two elements or forces act in relation to one another (Smith et al. 1997). In this
research, wracket the methodologcal process of one individual- myself as an
academic -- from that of the grogp (see Figure 2)(Denzin 1989; Holstein and

Gubrium 1994).

Figure 2. Bracketing Myself as an Outside Researcher

Epistemology ”a reﬂection ‘
Methodology if” a‘ _-‘
Reality 3 dialoguei r. ‘7

 

 

e ‘ 5 l '.l
l I
:i. I . l.,

- -‘b

 

Other Participants - Outside researcher

Nl,2,3.... 3

This allows me to present the individual methodological process, while

 

 

 

problematizing the methodological process of the group. This is an artiﬁcial

62

separation; the individual process does not exist apart from the group process.
Additionally, the methodological processes of the individual and group are
dynamic. The evolution of both the group and individual process form part of the
“findings” of the research.

Bracketing suggests that “all ontological judgements about the nature and
essence of things are suspended. The observer can then focus on the ways in
which members of life world themselves interpretively produce the recognizable,
intelligible forms they treat as real” (Holstein and Gubrium 1994: 263). In PR,
bracketing can be utilized to create a simultaneously objective and subjective
stance. This stance allows the outside researcher to objectively observe the
collective process of praxis while being engaged in it.

3.4.2 Praxis

Praxis, as deﬁned earlier in this work, is an iterative and expanding
process of reﬂection and action. Praxis takes place between and v_vi_tpi_n
participants as they seek to understand and resolve the problem at hand and to
create conditions for social transformation (Freire 1970, 1990; Smith et al.1997).

In praxis, reflection and action can be understood as being in a dialectic
relationship. The activities of reﬂection and action do _n_ot occur as discrete and
separate activities. Rather, they appear as reﬂection—in-action and knowing-in-
m (Schon 1983). Knowing-in-action is a type of tacit knowledge that requires

the knower to understand what he or she does. In reﬂection-in-action, the knower

63

critically analyses what occurs in an action and makes explicit assumptions about
action strategies, the practice context, and personal worldview. Knowing- and
reﬂecting-in-action give rise to actionable theory and new forms of knowledge.
Argyris (1993: 3) describes knowledge that is actionable as a series of if-then
statements. “Knowledge that is actionable... contains causal claims. It says, if
you act in such and such a way, the following will likely occur. That means that
actionable knowledge is produced on the form of if-then propositions that can be
stored in and retrieved from the actor’s [researchers] mind under conditions of
everyday life.” From an emancipatory perspective, the reﬂection and action of
praxis leads to increasing awareness of social realities and their historical origins
(Freire 1970, 1990; Freire 1998). Freire names this increasing awareness
conscienctizece'o.

3.4.2.1 Conscienctizacao

Conscienctizeca'o, as proposed by Freire, helps move people through
three levels of consciousness — magical, naive, and @3ch (Freire 1970, 1990;
Freire 1985). Freire (1998: 44) describes the process in this way: “As they [the
oppressed] begin to apprehend a phenomenon or a problem, they also
apprehend its causal links. The more accurately men [sic] grasp true causality,
the more critical their understanding of reality will be.” Through this critical
understanding, people will be better able to organize to bring about social

transformation (Fals Borda 1998: 159-160).

64

A person’s understanding will be magical “to the degree that they fail to
grasp causality” (Freire 1998: 44). At a magical level of consciousness,
individuals do not question either their internalized image of inferiority based on
relationships of oppression or resulting behavioral patterns. As Freire (1998: 44)
explains, “Magic consciousness... simply apprehends facts and attributes to
them a superior power by which it is controlled and to which it must submit.” As a
result, people at a magical level of consciousness accept the status quo and
seek to blame themselves for their conditions of poverty, ignorance and the like.

At a naive level of consciousness, individuals see oppressive relationships
as individual failings rather than as a system of domination. The system itself is
seen to be “sound and viable” (Smith et al. 1997: 194). At this level, individuals
may reproach themselves for not conforming to societal norms and/or blame
individual or groups of individuals for problematic situations. At a naive level of
consciousness, individuals tend to seek reformist changes rather than critically
analyze issues and take action.

At a critical level of consciousness, people expand their sphere of
awareness and become increasingly capable of reﬂecting upon and taking action
to alter their conditions. As Smith (1997: 215) explains, “people reach a critical
level of consciousness where they see their relationships to each other and to
their world and its structures in a revealing and new light. Individual knowledge

accumulates to become social knowledge as the group veriﬁes what it knows and

65

understands. Conscientization creates new energy within and between group
members.” This energy is directed towards actions of social transformation.

3.4.2.2 Dialogue

Praxis occurs through dialogue. As Freire (1970, 1990: 75,78) writes:
As we attempt to analyze dialogue as a human
phenomenon...Within the word, we find two dimensions,
reﬂection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is
sacrificed - even in part - the other immediately suffers... When
a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reﬂection
automatically suffers as well; and the world is changed into idle
chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating ‘blah’....
On the other hand, if action is emphasized exclusively, to the
detriment of reﬂection, the word is converted into activism. The
latter action for action’s sake negates the true praxis and makes
dialogue impossible.

In this research, dialogue is deﬁned as horizontal communication among people
engaged in a critical inquiry in order to solve the problems that jointly concern
them (Freire 1998).

In this sense, dialogue does not begin with a set agenda or goal. It is a
conversation, allowing participants to uncover unknown or unacknowledged
concerns. Therefore, dialogue is not a discussion or a debate where individuals
seek to win or impose their own viewpoints (Bohm et al. 1991) or is its goal to
arrive at consensus. Rather, the aim of dialogue is to seek mutual understanding
for emancipation.

Dialogue as practiced in PAR draws upon Freirian Adult Education (Freire

1970, 1990). In this context, dialogue gives rise to problematizing, a particular

66

way of presenting the “situation” as a puzzle to be solved or a problem requiring
and suggesting action. More speciﬁcally, questions are formulated and answers
are sought to both immediate problematic situations and long-term issues of
social transformation.

Once a “problem” is established, “coding” is utilized by educators to share
information with participants engaged in the learning experience. In Freirian adult
education, this means that educators code teaching material in a manner
appropriate to the group engaged in the Ieaming experience. Coding gives rise to
thematic investigation or generative themes through which learners can begin
critical self-reﬂection and self—appraisal. By examining generative themes,
learners may begin to revise their previous views of their world. They may then
achieve a higher level of understanding about their previous knowledge and in
doing so extend the limits of that knowledge (Freire 1970, 1990; Freire 1998;
Freire and Macedo 1987). Variations of coding and generative themes are used
in the Seminar to establish common understanding and for the basis of social
change.

In PAR, people engage in dialogue to reﬂect and act upon problematic
situations while holding emancipation as a horizon. However as, some
participants at the Cartagena Conference on PR24 pointed out, some definitions
of PAR focus on action as the “essence of participatory research” (F als Borda

2‘ The Worid Congress of Participatory Convergence in Knowledge, Space and Time. May 31 -
June 5, 1997.

67

1998: 165). Consequently, conferees argued that reﬂection was not always
elaborated and tended to remain an enigmatic term. In this research, elements of
a critical Ieaming systems approach are drawn upon to explicate the reflective
process of PR.

3.4.3 Critical Learning Systems Approach

A critical learning systems approach directs researchers to simultaneously
reﬂect upon cognitive, epistemic, and meta-levels of knowledge generation (see
Figure 3) (Bawden 1997). In other words, research involves reﬂecting upon the
creation of knowledge, the process of knowledge creation, and on factors that
contribute to how individuals and groups understand the process of knowledge
creation itself.

According to Bawden(1998), viewing research from a critical learning
systems perspective can help researchers recognize “community” as a space in
which people enter into a conversation about “rationality at the same time that
they are applying reason to their situational analyses. At a practical level,
researchers “explore the nature and signiﬁcance of their most basic ideas and
values at the same time as they are exploring the matter at hand” (Bawden
1998). The researcher can grasp that the focus of change shifts from the “thing
out there,” and from the “individual person” to the learning relationships between

people and the world about them (Bawden 1998). Researcher reﬂexivity

68

contributes a self-critical aspect and directs the researcher to problematize his or

her activities and relationship to the research (Schartz 1995).

Figure 3. Expanding Praxis with a Critical Learning Systems Approach

 

C ritical Learning System s

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 

PAR A h
Praxis pproac
E plstemlc System
Reflection Meta-level System

‘ystem

Comm unity
Comm unity

Questions basis assumptions about

how we understand and know reality.

System = The Content
Meta-level = Methodology
Epistemic Level = Worldview

 

 

 

3.5 Employing Praxis as Research Methodology

Praxis, bracketed at an individual level, is carried out through a cyclical
process that consists of four elements - ﬁrming, acting, observing and
reﬂecting (Dick na-b; Kemmis and McTaggart 2000). This cycle resembles the
praxis of PAR, but emphasis is given to individual reﬂection rather than group
reﬂection through dialogue.

During the ﬁrst cycle of praxis, planning consists of identifying an

organization or community interested in solving problems in a participatory

69

fashion, gaining acceptance, and negotiating a role. In consecutive cycles,
planning includes formulating questions, identifying whom to ask, and deciding
how to ask them. “Acting” entails engaging with the organization or community
and asking the questions identified during the planning stage. Observations
made during the PR engagement are used to gather further information.
Reflection is a two-part process that takes place on multiple levels. First, the
researcher compares and contrasts the information gathered during interviews
with information gathered during observations. This information is then compared
to the relevant literature. The second part of the reflective process is
interpretation. In subsequent cycles, questions — based on reﬂection -- are
reﬁned and ways to test emerging interpretations are devised. Each cycle is
intended to improve the researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon and to
reﬁne the methodological skills needed to carry out further stages of research
(Dick na-a).
3.5.1 Planning: Identifying an Organization and Negotiating Entry

Dick uses the term “planning” to refer to the ﬁrst stage of the cyclical
process (Dick na-a). In this research however, planning took on a rather
serendipitous nature. I began considering where and with whom I could do
dissertation research as I ﬁnished up my Ph.D. course work. I was interested in
doing research with a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Latin America

that worked with marginalized rural communities using a participatory approach.

70

Ideally, I wanted to work with an NGO that appreciated and built on rural people's
knowledge. At that point in my development as a participatory researcher, I
defined “participatory” research as a form of research where local people
determined the research goals and methods, while outsider researchers served
as advisors, catalysts, and/or facilitators of the research process.

I was primarily interested in continuing my Master's thesis research --
documenting Mayan and mestize women‘s knowledge relating to traditional
household gardens (Ruonavaara 1996). A model of traditional gardens emerged
from this research - putting local gardeners on an equal footing with NGO
garden project “experts.” However, that research had taken place in Guatemala.
Given the difﬁculties and dangers of working there, I hoped to ﬁnd another
location to continue my work. Southern Mexico seemed a good choice given its
large indigenous population, relative calm, and the apparent prevalence of
traditional household gardens.

In June 1997, I received predissertation funding for a pilot study in
southern Mexico. I visited various NGOs in the states of Quintana Roo, Oaxaca,
and Chiapas. The NGOs in Oaxaca and Chiapas offered intriguing research
opportunities. However, community leaders at the most promising site in
Quintana Roo had just asked my NGO contacts to leave the area. The
community no longer wanted outsiders to participate in m development
process. Another organization — an NGO in Chiapas -- had proposed a

participatory organic garden project and was interested in my collaboration.

71

However, the political situation in Chiapas was problematic, especially for a
researcher interested in PR. The government had interrogated, jailed, and
canceled the visas of several foreign visitors who had “participated” in particular
development efforts taking place in the region.

3.5.2 The Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural Development

In Oaxaca, I attended the June meeting of the Seminerio de Gestién sobre
Recursos para el Deserrollo Rural (the Permanent Seminar of Resources for
Rural Development). My first impressions were positive. The organization worked
with marginalized rural communities, many of them indigenous. While the
organization did not speciﬁcally focus on agricultural development, the
academics showed their respect for the knowledge and traditions of the rural
people with whom they worked. There also appeared to be a degree of equality
between the academics and the campesinos that I had not witnessed in other
projects.

I was intrigued by a seemingly contradictory relationship between what the
Seminar members said about the organization and how the organization
appeared in practice. While the academics appeared to accept the campesinos
(peasants) as equals, they spoke more often and longer than the campesinos.
Additionally, the few women who were present sat on benches against the walls
behind the tables where the men sat. They listened, but did not join the

conversation until it was their turn to present their concerns.

72

l was familiar with the non-homogenous nature of indigenous groups and
“oppressed” peoples from previous research experiences. Given its impressive
ethnic diversity and underlying philosophy, the Seminar seemed to be a unique
opportunity to further develop this understanding. In addition, while the Seminar
participants dedicated their time investigating and analyzing speciﬁc community
and group problems, they seemed less concerned about the Seminar’s
development as an organization. The Seminar seemed willing to accept my
participation. l was intrigued by the research possibilities presented by the
Seminar, but I was unsure what my “participation” would entail or contribute.

3.5.3 My Role

When I raised this issue with the coordinator, he suggested that I could be
a participante de otre experiencie (a participant with different experiences and
perspective) who could help the Seminar participants see themselves more
clearly. Following the “logic of the milpe,” my presence would increase the
diversity of Seminar and enlarge its problem-solving potential. At the time, neither
of us fully understood the implications of his suggestion.

The participants themselves soon problematized the very notion of my role
as an outside researcher. This was done informally at ﬁrst as participants tried to
figure out what I was good for, and then formally as I asked them to think about
my place in the Seminar. After approximately six months of participating in the

Seminar, we openly discussed my role. This occurred during a conversation

73

about outside experts, extension workers, and academics. One member said that
my very presence had changed how he viewed women. My presence and
participation helped him realize that, “si, Ies mujeres pueden” (yes, women can.)
Several other members identiﬁed various roles for me, saying I was:

. a “mirror”
. an“echo”

. a“bndge”

As a m_irr_g_r_, I could reﬂect back to them their own image, but through my own
cultural lens and experiences. As an £110. I could carry their voices to my "world"
telling others of their concerns and their attempts to confront the changing times.
As a Mg, I could connect both participants and communities to a world that
was at times inaccessible and/or incomprehensible to them and help initiate a
dialogue between the "two worlds." Although I did not feel prepared to carryout
these roles, my abilities expanded as my language skills and capacity to
communicate increased, I earned a deeper level of participants’ trust, I gained
further experience, and I better comprehended the problems member
communities were facing.

Initially, the newness and strangeness of the whole situation overwhelmed
me. At the first meeting of the Seminar I felt surrounded by nameless and
expressionless faces and voices in Spanish, Mixe and various dialects of
Zapotec. I was whiter and taller than anyone in the room. I was also one of only a

few women and the only gn’nge. How was I supposed to participate in this? I was

74

struck by the way the group worked together, but it was an impression based on
images that I did not fully understand, and a campesino Spanish that I did not
fully comprehend. Despite this partial understanding, one thing was clear - l was
not in control of this research process.

3.5.4 Identifying Questions

At this step of the research process, my initial research questions tended

to be rather general:

. What is the Seminar?

. What does it do?

. How does it accomplish these things?

. In what context is the Seminar operating?
Over time, my questions became more focused and speciﬁc. As I acquired a
better understanding of the Seminar and my role in it, I categorized the questions
into two general types. One type focused on questions designed to increase my
own understanding and further my dissertation work. The second type pertained
to questions that I asked to advance the Seminar’s development as an
organization -- to challenge members to be more self-reﬂexive. As my
understanding of, and commitment to, the Seminar increased -- and as I gained
the conﬁdence of Seminar participants - my individual goals and the goals of the

Seminar members merged.

75

Initially, I asked “naive” questions — at times out of my need to learn more
and at other times designed intentionally to move the Seminar members to
reﬂect. To Freire (1970, 1990) “naive” thinking refers to an uncritical stance
towards the world, an acceptance of and an accommodation towards what is
perceived to be “normal.” F reire (1970, 1990: 81) explains, “to naive thinkers, the
goal is precisely to hold fast to this guaranteed space and adjust to it.” When I
used “naive” questions to move the Seminar to reﬂect, it was to draw attention --
in a non-threatening manner - to what I considered unquestioned assumptions.
This is reminiscent of a comment made by a reviewer of Corbin and Strauss’s
work (Strauss and Corbum 1994: 284 footnote) who said, naive questioners
“may be even more likely to see things that don’t make sense, and therefore ask
questions why? or may be more likely to ask why don’t you think about it (do it)
this way?” At ﬁrst, I asked questions not to push members to take a critical
stance, but rather to implicitly present the idea that there were other ways to talk
and think about the world. Only after I considered myself a full participant in the
Seminar (based on my own commitment and the trust of other members) did I
begin to ask questions that resembled what F reire would call critical questions -—
questions that encourage participants to reﬂect on their own answers and the
“answers” given to them by society at large (Shor 1995).

When I asked “naive” questions to expand my own understanding, they
also served to help Seminar members reﬂect on their own perceptions and

actions in order to respond to me in a way I could understand. This form of

76

questioning is in some ways similar to what Schein (na) refers to as the work of a
process consultant:

A process consultant acknowledges that [he or she] is not an expert

on anything but how to be helpful, and starts with total ignorance of

what is actually going on in the client system. One of the skills,

then, of process consulting is to ‘access one’s ignorance,’ to let go

of the expert... role, and get attuned to the client system as much

as possible.

While the terms, “consultant” and “client” do not describe my relationship
with the Seminar, I did try to use my ignorance in a way that contributed to the
overall Ieaming process of the Seminar. My lack of knowledge on the speciﬁc
issues brought before the Seminar did not limit my ability to ask questions and
even, at times, to make suggestions. More importantly, my ignorance did not
allow me to assume that l was an “expert,” arriving with ready-made answers.

Gradually, as I went through numerous cyclical iterations, naive questions
gave way to questions of a more critical stance. I began to ask questions about
1) the social relationships in the Seminar; 2) how these relationships might be
related to the construction of social relationships in member communities and in
Mexican society at large; 3) the apparent dissonance between Seminar
strategies and the needs of communities and groups; and 4) the apparent
discord between the ideals of the Seminar and some of its practices. In the final
stages - my last two months with the Seminar - the questions I asked merged

with the questions that most of the Seminar participants were asking. The focus

of those questions was on the Seminar itself, and what it had to be as an

77

organization to meet the needs of its members in the rapidly changing world of
southern Mexico.

3.5.5 Reﬂection and Analysis

Reflection and analysis were an integral part of the overall research
design and occurred throughout data collection. As I became more fully engaged
in the process of the Seminar, I began to analyze answers to the questions that I
was asking. I developed categories and concepts, and looked for emergent
patterns and themes. During the development of these categories and concepts,
I compared what participants had said about the Seminar and the issues they
had raised in Seminar meetings with the actual practice of the Seminar. I also
drew upon the bitacora library, the tape recordings of past meetings, and informal
interviews of individuals not afﬁliated with the Seminar but working with rural
communities in Oaxaca. I also made comparisons to pertinent literature.
However, some of the literature was not available in Oaxaca, so I could not
access it until my return to the United States.

As research progressed, my skills in reﬂection and analysis become more
acute, and l incorporated a critical Ieaming systems approach. I began to analyze
“data” at a cognitive, epistemic and meta-level. The ability to reﬂect and critically
analyze became clear to me during a difﬁcult meeting with the Seminar

coordinator. The following vignette is an example of my emerging reﬂective skills.

78

Vignette 1. Susto25

At the September seminar meeting, the medicinal plant group - a group of Mixe
women from San Carlos - presented their bitecore about an illness known as
susto. The word susto means fright. Susto is also an illness common throughout
indigenous Central America. The illness is caused by a sudden and frightening
event usually resulting in a form of paralyses or inability to function normally.
During the previous month’s Seminar, the women had been asked how they
diagnosed susto. In their September bitacora, the women gave their response.

After the women’s presentation, Manuel (a mestizo from the state of Nayarit)
challenged the women’s diagnostic techniques implying that his knowledge as a
curendero (healer) was superior to that of the indigenous women. When he was
done speaking, a long silence ensued. The coordinator broke the silence by
asking the women a few questions about how they did their diagnostics, but he
did not challenge the way Manuel had framed the issue. Juan, the husband of
one of the women from San Carlos, responded for the women as he attempted to
explain why and how they diagnosed susto. Again, Manuel imposed his
“superior” knowledge about the disease and its diagnosis.

The women were already dispirited because of the negative treatment they had
received in their own community. Even though the women had won a national
contest for their medicinal plant knowledge, the community had responded to the
women’s attempts to recapture the communities medicinal plant knowledge by
calling them witches and punishing them. The group described their feelings in
the Seminar as “a candle whose ﬂame is about to go out.” In an attempt to move
the discussion from what seemed to be an attack on the women, I tried to direct
the conversation to a more general and, I hoped, more useful look at susto and
its diagnosis.

In the Seminar, we had discussed the situation of rural Mexico in an era of
globalization, we had asked what free trade meant to rural communities and we
had asked why the price of corn had fallen. I tried to turn the focus of the
discussion in that direction by asking, “This makes me wonder if a country or a
community can suffer from susto?” I receive blank looks from everyone. I tried
again by being more specific, “For example, could Mexico be suffering from susto
and are we trying to cure the sickness with modern medicine instead of

25 From my notes of September 1998.

79

traditional medicine?”26 In a way, I succeeded in what I was attempting to do. |
diverted attention away from the women from San Carlos, but only to have the
anger redirect towards me. The coordinator later told me it was like throwing
gasoline on a ﬁre. Manuel puffed out his chest and stood erect responding, “Are
you saying Mexico is afraid?” The coordinator tried to help me out of the dilemma
I had inadvertently created asking if I only meant Mexico. I responded, “no many
countries appear to be suffering from an illness like susto, the United States and
Japan. May be we are trying to cure the illness with modern medicine instead of
traditional medicine.” No one responded. It appeared from their faces that several
other participants’ had reactions similar to Manuel. After a brief silence, the
discussion turned to other topics.

Later in the month during a meeting with the coordinator, he brought up the
incident. He shared an interaction he had with Sergio at lunch right after the
bitecora presentations and discussion on susto. It appeared that Sergio, the
anthropologist of the group, had an even stronger reaction towards my questions
than Manuel. He accused me of being paternalistic and, as proof, referred to a
remark I had made three months earlier to the women of San Carlos. At that
time, the coordinator was mapping out a complicated discussion about traditional
medicine on the board, creating a systems-type diagram. I copied the diagram in
my notebook and asked if the women of the medicinal plant group would like a
copy. I was sitting next to them and they were not taking notes. In fact, they had
no paper or pencils with which to take notes. I offered to share what I had copied
adding that I wasn’t sure they would be able to understand my notes. Sergio
must have thought I was implying that the women were not capable of
understanding the diagram. So, this remark made him angry. Instead of talking to
me or anyone else about his anger, he let it fester. By the time of the September
Seminar, he was so angry after the susto discussion that he would not even talk
to the coordinator about it.

When the coordinator told me about Sergio’s reaction, my response was a
mixture of anger, hurt feelings, and tears. I felt anger because I was offended
that Sergio, of all people, could assume that I would intend anything that implied
superiority in any form. After all, he was an anthropologist and should be more
sympathetic to the challenges of communicating across cultures. I felt anger and
hurt because it was so difﬁcult to engage in this work. I was trying so hard to
understand and contribute in a way that was positive and unassuming. l was
trying so hard and yet lfailed.

26 Or at least that’s what I intended to say. My less than perfect competence with verb tenses
could have confused and compounded the supposed insult.

80

At the same time as these thoughts were racing through my mind and tears were
running down my face, I was thinking - this raises a tremendous number of
theoretical issues. What does it mean to apply Behar’s (1996) concept of the
vulnerable observer to my own situation? Am I willing to put myself emotionally at
risk? Is this worth it? What about this perception of paternalism? Where does that
come from? What does it mean for the Seminar? How can an outsider engage in
PR when insiders have such feelings which appear to be repressed most of the
time, but emerge in almost a knee-jerk reaction? What does this do to the
concept of equality between insiders and outsiders? In the Seminar, everyone is
an insider and outsider at the same time. What happens to Freire's concept of
the “oppressor” and the “oppressed” here?

The coordinator and I began to talk. He described Manuel and Sergio as Mexican
machos. As I reﬂected, I could understand to some degree the nationalism, but
was not sure about the gender issue. Did the fact that I was a women make my
comments more offensive? Did they see me, the North American woman,
challenging the masculinity of Mexicans as such a “horrible offense”? The
coordinator pointed out that these interactions called into question the very
foundations upon which the Seminar was based. The logic of the milpe could not
exist in an atmosphere were participants became angry with each other over
misunderstandings and cultural differences.

Later that night I wrote in my notebook, “So now, I have to ﬁgure out how to
respond. I can quit - my first reaction. Who needs this! I have very little to gain
from participating in the Seminar and a lot to lose given the mess some of the
communities have gotten themselves into and the uncertain future of the
Seminar... After a moments reflection, l divided my reaction in three parts: 1)
my emotions, that I knew would mellow over time; 2) the ontological, ideological,
epistemological, and methodological issues raised by this event, and 3) figuring
out how to deal with the situation on a practical level.

My closing entry, “Fascinating stuff this PRI”

 

Bawden’s (1997) presentation of reﬂection from a critical Ieaming systems
approach became much clearer to me through this event. Schon (1983: 241-242)
terms this type of reﬂection as reﬂection-in-action. He describes this form of

reﬂection as it occurs in an organizational settings. “[l]t consists in on-the-spot

81

surfacing, criticizing, restructuring, and testing of intuitive understanding of
experienced phenomenon; often it takes the form of reflective conversation with
the situation.” While not all (thanks goodness) my reflections took place in such
on-the—spot situations, overtime my reflective abilities improved with practice.
This vignette also illustrates some of the barriers to dialogue as it takes
place in the Seminar -- gender biases and nationalism, being but two. These
barriers to communication entwine with complex constructions of identify and
oppression. The women from San Carlos are vulnerable as women and as
indigenous people. I am vulnerable as a woman, but also am attacked because
of my national identify from the “imperialistic” North. It is possible that Manuel
and Sergio felt like I, as a North American, was acting like an oppressor and
denigrating their country. They may also have felt that it was not “my place,” as a
woman, to question them or their country. The exchange both in the Seminar and
with the coordinator served to reinforce my own commitment to acquiring the
communication skills and understanding to participate more fully in the Seminar.

3.5.6 Community Visits

During ﬁeld research, I visited three communities that I had identiﬁed as
the more “advanced communities” in resolving land tenure problems (is. they
had begun community development efforts.) These communities included two
Oaxacan communities, San Carlos, a Mixe community; and San Mateo, a

mestizo community; and one community in the state of Nayarit. These stays

82

allowed examination of enterprise development strategies, relationships within
communities, between communities; and between the Seminar and communities.
It also allowed me to attend community assembly meetings.

3.5.7 Recording Information

During ﬁeld research, I kept a notebook that included notes of each
Seminar meeting, ﬁeld notes, and my reflections. During the Seminar meetings, I
recorded important aspects of the dialogue and my reﬂections on them. Taking
notes in the Seminar was not intrusive. It was an integral part of participating in
the Seminar. Most group and community representatives took notes of the
meetings as a means to report back to their communities. After reviewing and
analyzing my notes, I went back to the tape recording of speciﬁc Seminar
meeting for verbatim transcriptions of pertinent sections

Taking notes also offered an opportunity to further strengthen the bonds
that l was forming with Seminar participants. At ﬁrst, my notes were recorded
mostly in English. Some participants, especially some of the women, were
interested in the English I was writing. They asked if I would teach them a few
words in English. I did so, and they taught me Mixe and Zapotec words. For
several months, an interesting dynamic was set up in the odd minutes of free
time during the Seminar meetings. Several of us exchanged words in English,
Mixe and Zapotec amongst much laughter and with Spanish as the universal

language. This exchange presented a mini-milpe logic for some to participate in,

83

and for everyone to observe, without many of the complicated social
relationships that hindered the full potential of the logic of the milpe in the
Seminar.

3.6 Rhetoric and Narrative

PR has a unique rhetorical approach relating to three issues -— the voice of
the researchers, the verb tense utilized, and an inclusive style. In PR, the voices
of research participants are heard. In this research, I utilize the ﬁrst person
m to represent my voice and the ﬁrst person M to represent the voice of
all of the Seminar participants together. This is an appropriate rhetorical form for
qualitative research (Creswell 1994). In sections of the presentation, I have
sought to suppress my own voice to some degree, especially in Chapter 5 (see
Clandinin and Connelly 1994; Geertz 1988). This is, in part, a response to recent
PR research that seems to over-emphasize the individual experience of the
outside researcher, that can overpower the voice of local participants (see Smith
et al.1997). I want to represent myself as one voice among many. After all, this
research is not my story -- it is a story of the Seminar and all its participants. I
also make a value-based decision in presenting the voice of the campesinos
(peasants) with whom I worked. Frequently, accounts from the countryside
represent peasants as less capable, less articulate, and less intelligent than their

more “sophisticated” urban neighbors. I attempt to counter this impression by

84

presenting the voices of Seminar participants through their own words and in
vignettes.

Verb tense is another rhetorical issue. In quantitative literature, use of past
tense is used to establish and maintain a distance between the researcher and
the object of research. In contrast, in qualitative research present tense is often
used to express a different social relationship. When the work is participative, the
verb tense also may be used to imply a continuity of social relationships, is the
outside researcher is a part of an ongoing process without temporal boundaries.
In this work, I use various verb tenses. I use the past tense to refer to events that
happened in the past and have ended. I use the present tense to refer to things
that are ongoing or that do not change signiﬁcantly over time.

I have chosen to use an inclusive style of writing, rather than an
exclusionary style. This approach seeks to avoid the use of jargon or excessive
technical terms. When a term is used that pertains to a speciﬁc theoretical
framework and may be unfamiliar to the reader, I seek to deﬁne it at its first use.
This approach is appropriate for participatory research in which the potential
audience is broader than for most research report.

3.7 Vignettes

I have chosen to use vignettes in this work as a way to convey feelings,
events, and the setting that form the foundation for this study. Clandinin and

Connelly (1994) provide support for using this type of narrative approach. These

85

authors differentiate between field text and research text. Field texts are more
commonly thought of as data - journal entries, ﬁeld notes, photographs, etc.
These authors prefer to think of this data as “constructed representations of
experience.” Field texts are constructed around experience, tend to be
descriptive, and are shaped around speciﬁc events. The vignette, as utilized in
this study, is a form of field text. The ﬁeld text however is not an analytic
presentation of meaning and social signiﬁcance. Therefore, each vignette is
followed by an analysis that points to “patterns, narrative threads, tensions and
themes either within or across individuals’ personal experiences” (Clandinin and
Connelly 1994: 422).

3.8 Validity

Smith (1997), following Lather (1986), suggests that the validity of PAR is
built into the methods employed and includes triangulation, construct validity,

face validity, and catalytic validity (see Table 3).

86

Table 3. Forms of Validity in Participatory Research

 

 

Triangulation: The incorporation of multiple methods and sources of information
and various theoretical schemes to cross-check information and strengthen the
trustworthiness of data.

Construct validity: Reﬂexivity that builds in systematic ways to critically
question actions and practice and thereby construct knowledge.

Face validity: The return of data to the participants for analysis and
interpretation to increase credibility of data.

Catalytic validity: The use of a process that reorients, focuses, and energizes
participants to take actions for transformation.

 

(Smith 1997: 242)

In this research, these forms of validation are utilized throughout the
research process. Triangulation occurs through the use of multiple methods.
Construct validity takes place through self-reﬂexivity, which is an integral part of
the research methodology. According to Olesen (1994: 165), self-reﬂexivity can
be used as a guide to data gathering and for understanding a researcher’s
interpretations and behaviors in the research. Self-reﬂexivity helps the
researcher, “uncover what may be deep-seated but poorly recognized views on
issues central to the research and a full account of the researcher’s views,
thinking, and conduct” (Olesen 1994: 165). Face validity acts as a check on the
imposition of a researcher’s biases and beliefs in interpretation and analysis. In

this research, face validity occurs informally throughout the research process as l

87

 

present emerging categories, concepts and patterns to various Seminar
participants. Face validity occurred formally when preliminary ﬁndings were
presented to the Seminar and I sought feedback from Seminar participants.
Catalytic validity is a central focus of my involvement in the Seminar as the
organization seeks to understand its present situation and transform itself to
meet new challenges.

3.9 Research Constraints

Participatory researchers, with a commitment to work with marginalized
and oppressed groups of people, may find themselves in a research setting
fraught with political tensions. In this research, my travels in rural Oaxaca were
somewhat constrained by the economic and political situation in the countryside.
The political situation in southern Mexico is becoming increasingly tense with
military or paramilitary attacks on communities or groups who are “sympathetic”
to revolutionary groups (Hilbert 1997). In Chiapas, the government continues to
cancel visas of foreigners engaged in “political” activities such as teaching
indigenous groups how to use video equipment (Hanson 1999). There has not
been the same intensity of military activity in Oaxaca or has there been an
attempt to remove foreigners working with indigenous communities. However, in
this research, my decisions about modes of inquiry, lines of questioning, and
relationships with individuals and communities were guided by an awareness of

these kinds of issues.

88

Political and economic tensions at a community level may impact research
as well. I was sensitive to the negative impact the presence of an outsider could
have on communities already embroiled in internal divisions. I tried to minimize
the negative impact of my presence when ever possible. So, for example, before
visiting San Carlos, I asked the community representative if there were any
issues that I should be aware of so that I would not inadvertently say something
that would increase the difﬁculties the group from the community already faced.
He replied, “No, there’s nothing to worry about. Just don’t say anything that has
to do with God.” This did not come as a complete surprise to me. In Seminar
discussions, it had emerged that the main political divisions in this community
currently ran along religious lines. A second set of circumstances caused me to
cancel a trip to another community. I had considered visiting this community as
part of a comparative study of craft production, but was cautioned by local people
that it was a community that an outsider “could get into, but would not come out

of.” I decided to visit a craft project in another community.

89

CHAPTER 4

THE MEXICAN CONTEXT”

To understand the Seminar and the complexities that the organization is
confronting, it is important to understand the sociopolitical context in which it
operates. This understanding includes the historical dimensions of the
transformation occurring in the national economic and political arena, and
speciﬁc cultural and political dynamics of rural communities in Oaxaca. This
chapter is divided into two main sections. The ﬁrst section is a brief historical
account of Mexico beginning with the Revolution through the present day. The
' second section provides a short description of the socio-cultural and economic
situation in the Oaxacan countryside.

4. 0 Introduction

The socioeconomic transformation that is currently taking place in Mexico
can not be separated from the country’s turbulent and contested history.
According to Barkin (1990: 3):

Mexico’s transformation is the history of the country’s progressive
integration into the world economy. In the process, the people were
wrenched from their local communities and regional cultures into a
new national polity and were increasingly subjugated to the designs
of an international market.

27 Those familiar with Mexico may ﬁnd this chapter an oversimpliﬁcation or superficial. However,
this chapter is intended for readers unfamiliar with Mexico, in general, and Oaxaca, speciﬁcally.
For more in-depth coverage of the history of Mexico see Ruiz (1992).

90

The struggle between cultures and the global economy can be understood as a
ongoing struggle between two distinct and conﬂicting Mexicos -- Mexico moderno
and Mexico profundo (Bonﬁl Batalla 1996; Collier 1994; Hilbert 1997: 117).

Mexico moderno is characterized by a market—driven and export-focused
economic system, and a state-dominated political system. Mexico profundo is
indigenous Mexico, “the basic nation that lies beneath the modernizing surface”
(Botey 1996: 16). Bonﬁl Batalla (1996: 2) describes Mexico profundo:

Mexico profundo is formed by a great diversity of peoples,

communities, and social sectors that constitute the majority of the

population of the country. What unifies them and distinguishes
them from the rest of Mexican society is that they are bearers of
ways of understanding the world and of organizing human life that
have their origins in Mesoamerican civilization and that have been
forged here in Mexico through a long and complicated historical
process. The contemporary expressions of that civilization are quite
diverse: from those indigenous peoples who have been able to
conserve an internally cohesive culture of their own, to a multitude

of isolated traits distributed in different ways in urban populations.

The civilization of Mesoamerica has been denied but it is essential

to recognize its continuing presence.

Those who populate the modern Mexico tend to view indigenous Mexico
as antithetical to the national project of modernization, a project that entails the
imposition of a national identity upon the culturally diverse indigenous world.
Mexico profundo includes the idea that the national project is a continuation of

the Conquest. This view does not, however, reject all the elements of the modern

world. It recognizes to varying degrees the right to select and adapt elements,

91

and combine them in new ways with the traditions and cultures of the indigenous
world (Bonﬁl Batalla 1996; Esteva and Suri 1998).

4.1 Modern Mexico

The history of modern Mexico begins with the Mexican Revolution. The
Mexican Revolution of 1910 was a reaction to the vastly uneven distribution of
wealth in the country and a lack of responsiveness of the national government to
the demands of the peasantry. On the eve of the Mexican revolution, less than 1
percent of the country’s population owned 97% of the land (Esteva 1983: 28).
Nearly half of the rural population worked as peones (laborers) on large
haciendas under stark conditions (Simon 1997: 31). The mortality rate was 32.5
per 1000 (Beltran and Arciniega 1954: 152). Eighty-four percent of the population
was illiterate, and the vast majority of these people resided in the countryside
(Cockcroft 1998: 82). The unequal distribution of the nation’s wealth, the dualistic
social structure, and the unresponsiveness of the government made the country
ripe for revolution.

The Revolution, however, was not simply a struggle between the elites
and the rural poor. Three factions opposed the rural elites - the Zapatisitas, the
Villistas and the Constitutionalists. During the course of the Revolution, these
forces not only fought against the elites, but also against each other in a bloody

civil war.

92

Emiliano Zapata who came from the indigenous community of
Anenecuilco, Morelos, led the Zapatisitas. Zapata acquired his position of
leadership in a time-honored fashion. Simon (1997: 30) recounts:

Almost every one of the hundred towns in Morelos was feuding with

some nearby hacienda over land, water, or timber rights. Village

councils elected delegates, ﬁled petitions, and hired lawyers, but to

no avail. The Proﬁrian regime, the courts, and the state government

invariably sided with the haciendas. José Merino, who had been

representing the town of Anenecuilco in its battle with an
encroaching hacienda, had traveled to Cuemavaca and Mexico to
make his case. In the summer of 1909, Merino convened a village
meeting in Anenecuilco at which he said that at seventy years of

age he was too tired to continue the ﬁght. The two hundred men of

Anenecuilco - hired hands, small farmers, and merchants for the

most part - elected a thirty-year-old part-time mule skinner, small

farmer, and share cropper to represent them. His name was

Emiliano Zapata.

Under the banner of “Land and Liberty,” Zapata and his peasant followers fought
for social justice through land reform. Ironically, Zapata’s Plan de Ayala - written
in 1911 — did not call for the elimination of the hacienda system, but rather for
expropriation of only one-third of large land holdings and, then, only with
compensation (Esteva 1983). Zapata and his peasant followers seemed more
concerned with recovering lands stolen from them by large landholders than
eliminating the hacienda system (Esteva 1983: 29).

Pancho Villa led a faction in the north. Villa began his public career as a
thief and cattle rustler. Later he was persuaded to take up arms against the legal

authorities (Ruiz 1992: 329). Villa’s followers were a mixed lot that crossed class

lines -- workers, ranchers, shop owners, and day and migrant laborers. Given the

93

make-up of his followers, employment issues were more important to Villa than
land ownership (Cockcroft 1998: 100-101). Villa’s stand on agrarian reform was
ambiguous, but, in general, he favored small producers and private properties.
Villa also advocated free elections and a purge of the judicial and political
system.

Carranza (a planter and member of the Sonoran aristocracy) and Alvaro
Obregon (his ﬁeld marshal) led a third faction. Ruiz (19922332) describes
Carranza as a conservative who believed in law and order, and in ﬁrm and
vigorous leadership. The Carranza forces became known as the
Constitutionalists because of their professed defense of the constitution and
democracy. The Constitutionalists were composed primarily of professionals,
prosperous farmers, ranchers, and large landholders. The Constitutionalists
advocated capitalism based on competition and free trade. However, recognizing
the need for popular support, Carranza announced progressive labor and
agrarian reform laws.

In 1915, Carranza received support from the industrial workers union. In
addition, the United States backed the Constitutionalists with ﬁnancial and
military support. Support from the union and the United States swung the
growing civil war in favor of the Constitutionalists. By 1916, Carranza and the
Constitutionalists claimed victory. The triumphant Constitutionalists convened the
Constitutional Convention of Querétero, where the Constitution of 1917 was

drafted and approved (Cockcroft 1998: 101; Ruiz 1992: 333-335).

94

The 1917 Constitution appeared to incorporate the multi-class nature of
the Mexican Revolution. Carranza was forced to adopt Article 27 by the more
radical elements of the Convention. Article 27 established the legal framework for
redistribution and governance of the land, and gave the state the authority to
regulate private property and the use of natural resources. It also gave the state
responsibility for the equitable distribution of the national wealth. Certain types of
landless communities, or those with insufficient land, had the right to petition for
lands from neighboring haciendas. Large landholdings were subject to
expropriation to be redistributed either as smallholdings or as communal lands.
The owners were to be compensated with government bonds based on the tax
value of the property -— a value that greatly understated its market value -- over a
twenty-year time period (Katz 1996; Ruiz 1992). Katz believes the land
distribution elements of the Mexican Constitution make it one of the most radical
constitutions ever implemented (Katz 1996: 32).

Carranza, however, did little to implement the agrarian reform. Only
132,000 hectares were redistributed to 38,000 peasants during his presidency. In
some states, a few large landholdings were redistributed. In other states, pacts
were made with local elites (Sanderson 1981). In still other areas, expropriated
lands were returned to former hacienda owners (Katz 1996).

Land that was redistributed to the peasantry took two communal forms:
ejidos, created from lands expropriated from large landholders or from unclaimed

lands; and comunidedes, formed from indigenous land holdings that had been in

95

possession of indigenous groups “since time immemorial” and now were formally
recognized by the revolutionary government (Randall 1996). In addition, new
areas of the country were open to settlement. The majority of the peasants,
however, were excluded from the reform (Esteva 1983). Peones acesil/ados
(peasants who lived on large landholdings as paid or unpaid laborers) could not
receive lands under the new agrarian reform laws.

In summary, while the power of the large landholders had been
weakened, the revolution did not fulfill its promises to the Mexican peasants and
workers (Katz 1996). Industrial and agricultural elites continued to dominate
Mexican society (MacEwan 1991: 17). Yet, the peasants emerged from the
Revolution with a new consciousness and recognition of the legitimacy of their
demands (Katz 1996).

4.1.1 The 19203 and 19308

During the 19205 and 19305, the peasantry gained possession of some of
the land, but it gained neither political power nor succeeded in eliminating the
hacienda system. By the mid- to late-19305, land redistribution had virtually come
to an end. Government support for ejidos gave way to support for small private
holdings utilizing modern agricultural production methods and producing for the

market (Esteva 1983: 39). The government promoted massive infrastructure

96

development, primarily targeting the North where large landholdings were
concentrated.”

In 1929, Calles established a new political party, the Pertido Necionel
Revolucionen’o (PRN) - the precursor to the Pertido Revolucionan'o Institutional
(PRI). The PRN united the most powerful political actors in the country.
According to Centeno (1994), Calles (and his successor Cardenas) established
several policies that would deﬁne political life for the next seventy years. These
policies were as follows. The prohibition on the reelection of the president,
combined with an immense concentration of power in the presidency, meant that
no one individual could dominate the political system. The party established
control over both the military and the state bureaucracy. In addition, revolutionary
nationalism became the ideology of the state. This last effort involved the
creation of a new national identity.

A central notion of the new national identity was that of the Mestizo -- the
“cosmic race” produced through the mixing of Indian and Spanish races. The
notion of mestizo contained a sense of revolutionary valor and sacriﬁce while, at
the same time, romanticizing the Mexican indigenous civilizations of the past. In
contrast, the indigenous present was seen as an obstacle to the project of
modernization (Novela 1995). Government programs actively promoted
mestizeje by encouraging indigenous assimilation into Mexican society and by

2“ Between 1940 and 1970, 60% of public investment for irrigation projects went to the North and
North Paciﬁc zones (Esteva 1983: 40)

97

fostering the creation of cultural works that depicted Indian heritage as a “central
pillar” of modern Mexico (Bonﬁl Batalla 1996: 117; Hilbert 1997).

When Cardenas came to power, only 6 percent of the nation’s land had
been redistributed. Between 1934 and 1940, Cardenas redistributed another 20
million hectares to over one million peasants. This added another 12 percent to
the amount of land given out to peasants in earlier years -- more than had been
redistributed during any other previous administration (Gunder Frank 1969;
Thiesenhusen 1996). To support the ejido sector, the government established
the Banco Necionel de Crédito Ejide/ (National Bank of Ejido Credit) and rural
education became a priority. The government viewed and promoted rural
community development as an integral component of the educational program.

Wlth the Camacho presidency, many of the gains of the peasantry were
lost (Ruiz 1992). The national government returned to a contradictory policy
towards the ejido system. On the one hand, the ejido sector was seen as a “pillar
of the political project of national development with social justice.” On the other
hand, the creation of the ejido sector was seen as a temporary political tactic or
as a source of reserve labor (Fox 1994).

4.1.2 The 19408-19708

Fueled by a post-war boom, Mexico experienced high economic growth as
it became increasingly integrated into the world market system (Barkin 1990: 3).

This expansion was supported by foreign investment, government loans, and

98

growing oil production. Gross national product expanded at about 6 percent a
year (MacEwan 1991). The later part of this period became known as the
“Mexican miracle.”

This period was characterized by the internationalization of industry and
agriculture. However, industrialization efforts were concentrated in the North and
in the Federal District. Production centered on consumer goods primarily for
upper and middle-class Mexicans. Most Mexicans could not afford to purchase
the goods -- primarily "luxury items such as processed food, appliances,
cosmetics and later, automobiles" (Barkin 1990).

In the agricultural sector, the state provided credit, crop insurance, and
fertilizer. However, most of this investment was again directed toward the
Northern states. Gunder Frank (1969: 305) notes that, between 1947 and 1958,
60 percent of all funding for irrigation went to three northern states of Baja
California del Norte, Sonora and Tamaulipas. Additionally, the majority of
agricultural credit and all mechanized farm equipment were distributed in the
same area. Agricultural output of industrial crops rose 309 percent and food crop
output rose 113 percent between 1939 and 1954. The industrial crops were
grown primarily for export to US. markets (Gunder Frank 1969). In the mid-
19605, the Green Revolution with an emphasis on hybrid rice, wheat, and corn
varieties further stimulated food crop production. The increased production of

food crops kept food prices low, providing a hedge against wage inﬂation, while

99

the export of industrial crops provided foreign exchange to further fuel
industrialization (Warnock 1995).

By the end of the 19605, it was apparent that the prosperity of the Mexican
miracle had not translated to increased wellbeing for all. As Ruiz (1992: 418)
notes, “...by the end of the 19605, the inequality in the distribution of income and
wealth was alarming, ranking among the worst in Latin America.” Cockcroft
(1998: 183) notes that by the 19705, half of Mexico’s farms were so miniscule
as to represent not so much landholders as landless farmers with access to
subsistence plots for supplementing whatever income they could obtain from
selling their labor power to others.” In the 19605, 3 million peasants had migrated
from the countryside to urban areas in search of work. Between the late 19605
and early 19705, average caloric intake per Mexican declined by 10 percent
(Cockcroft 1998). By the 19805, schooling in rural areas averaged only 1.3 years,
medical services were minimal, 62 percent of households lacked safe drinking
water, 80 percent of adult workers suffered from malnutrition, and 75 percent of
the workforce received a total annual income far below the equivalent of the legal
minimum wage. The poorest of the poor were indigenous people and women
(Cockcroft 1998: 196).

Several governmental efforts sought to address the needs of the peasant
sector, with the expectation that the peasantry would then support the PRI, which
it did. These efforts included (but were not limited to) price supports, marketing

programs, farm credit, input programs, etc. The Compenie Necionel de

100

Subsistencies Populares (CONASUPO), formulated in 1961, was charged with
the export of surplus grains, the setting of guaranteed prices, the storage system,
and the wholesale and retail distribution of basic goods to rural communities. By
the early 19705, there were 10,000 CONASUPO stores operating in the poorest
rural and urban areas (Warnock 1995). For a brief period (1980—1982) the
government also implemented the Mexican Food System (SAM) in response to
rising food imports. The program was designed to support rainfed agriculture to
stimulate maize and bean production. SAM provided guaranteed prices on basic
grains These programs, although felling far short, did provide a certain level of
support and social insurance for the peasantry.

4.1.3 The 1982 Crisis

In the early 19805, Mexico’s success came to an abrupt end. In 1982, a
world depression hit, demand for Mexican exports fell, inﬂation scared, and
Mexico’s foreign debt multiplied. Oil prices collapsed, leading to the loss of
billions of dollars in government revenue. Mexico could not meet its foreign debt
payments. By the summer of 1982, Mexico was bankrupt (Ruiz 1992: 455).

As a result of the crisis, the government changed its rural policy by
restructuring the nature of state intervention. The state withdrew from most of its
regulatory and productive activities. SAM was abandoned, state subsidies to
agriculture were drastically reduced, and many research institutes and technical

assistance programs were terminated (Warnock 1995). As Fox (1994) recounts,

101

the government dismantled its “revolutionary nationalism” and replaced it with
“neoliberalism”.

4.1.4 The 19905

According to its proponents, neoliberalism meant privatization,
deregulation and the free market. Opponents said that such policies meant
sacrificing the majority to enrich the minority, while undermining national
sovereignty (Barkin 1990; Esteva 1998).

In any case, the process of maintaining political support and control in the
countryside has become more complicated. It appeared that at best the Mexican
government would be able to mitigate the page of change that it was promoting.
Polanyi (1944: 36-37), analyzing the devastating effects of industrial revolution
on the rural sector in nineteenth century England suggests that “the rate of
change is of no less importance than the direction of the change itself... .” Polanyi
suggests that the dislocations in the English countryside could have been much
worse if the state had not implemented policies speciﬁcally aimed at slowing the
pace of change. It remains to be seen if the Mexican government can ameliorate
the negative effects of its new agrarian policies. It is possible, however, that the
declining mix of rural programs will be increasingly accompanied by security
forces, paramilitary groups, and military intervention. The states of Guerro and

Chiapas are already experiencing heavy militarization and violence.

102

In a way, there is a kind of “continuity" in the countryside. As Centeno
(1994) explains, agricultural policy in Mexico was never determined by
economic criteria as much as by political rationales. The ejido vote was and is
the most secure electoral base of the PRI.” Peasants responded to the reduced
state support, their protests forcing the state to maintain subsidies on maize and
beans. The government, however, intends to phase out these subsidies over a
fifteen-year period. Most subsidies, however, were still directed to the better-off
third of the ejido sector (Harvey 1998). The government continued some social
programs, principally PROCAMPO, CONASUPO, rural clinics, village level work
programs, and the new National Solidarity Program. The continuation of these
programs did not indicate support for the peasantry as producers, but rather as a
political or even security problem to be managed (Fox 1994: 248).

4.1.5 NAFTA

On January 1, 1994, the United States, Canada and Mexico signed the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This agreement removed all
nontariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico. In
addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others to be phased out
over a period of 5 to 15 years.

The pro-NAFT A stance towards the peasantry is as follows - peasant
producers are not able to compete with US. agricultural producers, so their

numbers should be reduced. Policy makers predicted that the NAFTA, through a

103

combination of subsidy cuts, trade opening, and privatization of the agrarian
reform sector, would reduce the rural population by half within one to two
decades. In fact, Undersecretary of Agriculture, Luis Télez predicted that the
economically active population in agriculture would fall from 26 percent to around
16 percent in the coming decade (Golden 1991). The worst case scenario was
seen to be in the short run. It was predicted that 850,000 heads of households,
12% of the rural labor force, would leave agriculture (Fox, 1994). Of this number,
policymakers predicted that 600,000 of these displaced peasants would emigrate
to the US. (Fox, 1994). The principle disagreement was over how many jobs
would be created in the Mexican export agriculture sector.

4.1.6 The Constitutional Reform of Article 27

In preparation for NAFTA, the government attempted to “modernize” the
country’s land tenure system. Article 27 came under scrutiny. The reform of
Article 27 of the Constitution had inter-related economic and political goals.
Efforts to stimulate economic growth sought to accelerate the modernization of
the peasantry and strengthen existing commercial, export-oriented agricultural
production. As a political strategy, the reforms were devised to strengthen both
the role of the government and the inﬂuence of the Institutional Revolutionary
Party (PRI) in the countryside (Pisa 1994).

The reform of Article 27 brought an end to the agrarian reform

implemented after the Revolution. Speciﬁcally, the reform ended the

104

redistribution of land and provided a mechanism to individually certify, title, and
subsequently privatize ejido and communal lands. Pisa (1994) notes that these
changes “ofﬁcially shift[ed] property relations from [the] collective to individual
dominion.” The reform directly affected over 10 million men, women, and children
who live on ejidos and indigenous communal land holdings. These land holdings
represent approximately 103 million hectares of land -- 50 percent of all arable
land in Mexico (INEGI 1998; Pisa 1994).

These changes also mandated major changes in the institutional structure
of the ejido community. The ejido was now recognized as a legitimate form of
tenancy allowing inter-ejido land transfer. The powers of the ejido “commissar’
(comisan'o or comisen'ado) were weakened, while the community assembly was
strengthened. Government intervention in internal ejido affairs was reduced.
Finally, ejidos and comunidedes were permitted to engage in joint ventures with
domestic or foreign companies (Procuraduria Agraria 1993).

The process of titling property was given to the Programa de Certiﬁcecion
de Derechos Ejide/es y Titulecion de Solares Urbanos (PROCEDE). PROCEDE
was charged with granting land certificates to individuals with usufruct rights to
plots in ejidos or comunidedes and titles for house plots (Pisa 1994: 273).

PROCEDE inherited a tremendous backlog of cases, largely a creation of
the agrarian reform itself. This was, in part, because only 2,000 of the 28,000
ejidos in the country had clearly deﬁned internal boundaries between parcels. A

second issue slowing the certiﬁcation and titling process was the numerous

105

conflicts between communities over competing claims to land. Earlier efforts to
resolve these conﬂicts had met with bureaucratic obstacles and political
maneuvering. Warman (1980) describes the agrarian bureaucracy that
confronted campesinos as they sought clear title to their lands:

All the petitions or demands were lost from sight. They passed from

hand to hand and climbed the hierarchical ladder until they were

lost in the heights and descended again, not infrequently in some

other direction; the apparatus swallowed them. It was necessary to

wait, to apply again and go on waiting, to get support and inﬂuence,

to seek out circuitous routes, and again, to wait.

Initially, PROCEDE chose to work with comunidedes. Officials soon found
that comunidedes had many unresolved land tenure conﬂicts, complex cultures,
and distinct sociopolitical organizational structures. In addition, comunidedes had
gained a higher level of political autonomy from the federal government than
ejidos, further complicating federal and local interactions (Pisa 1994: 277).
PROCEDE changed its policy to a focus on ejidos. In practice, PROCEDE chose
to work with ejidos that had relatively few internal or external land conﬂicts.
Despite PROCEDE’s efforts to focus on ejidos rather than the more complex
comunidedes, ofﬁcials found that the ejidos in Oaxaca had similar problems of
unresolved land tenure disputes and political complexities as comunidedes.29 By

1993, only two ejidos had completed the PROCEDE process. Pisa (1994) notes

that the two ejidos “were handpicked by the government as pilot communities...

2“ INEGI (1998) reported that by 1998, 432 of 761 Oaxacan ejidos started, but had not ﬁnished,
the PROCEDE process.

106

and were not representative of regional diversity and conﬂict-ridden landscape of

rural Oaxaca.”

4.2 A Proﬁle of Oaxaca -- The Study Area

The complexity facing PROCEDE in Oaxaca is not surprising. Oaxaca is
the most ethnically and geographically diverse state in Mexico -- it is also one of
the poorest. The state of Oaxaca is located in the southeastern part of Mexico
bounded by the states of Puebla and Vera Cruz on the north, Guerrero to the
west, Chiapas to the east and the Paciﬁc Ocean to the south. Oaxaca covers
95,364 square kilometers and is divided into eight regions: the Mixteca, the
Car‘iada, Papalopan, Sierra Norte, the Sierra Sur, the Central Valleys, the Coast,
and the Isthmus. Regions are divided into thirty districts each with a district
capital. Regions are further divided into territorial and administrative units called
municipios (similar to a county). There are 2000 municipalities in all of Mexico,
570 of them in Oaxaca (see Figure 4) (INEGI 1998). The large number of
municipalities in Oaxaca is an indication of the historic autonomous nature of
indigenous communities in Oaxaca.

421 Geogmhy

TheSiaraSuaidSierraNateouwegeintestatepumibuﬁngtoamlﬁmeof
migoeeromertsﬂhemomtainsdlshtesenigoerwionrneris, Imvever, aefrag’lemd
higilyslsmpﬁbletoerosion. OaramhasﬁnﬂledlhemostdevastatedlmdswehMeﬂoo

(Simon 1997: 36). The United Nations predicts that in “less that thirty yeas this region

107

 

Figure 4. Municipalities

 

7.-

N
KW?“
IQ
d5.
tees

V V.
.13;- .
. ugh {ﬂuxes
r IL»!-
1. a! .

.2 e.
as,

C
Q
. at .n
(
o ,1” .
O
v C ‘5

 

 

 

108

(INEGI 1997)

[Oaxaca] will become an arid zone with desert vegetation, in which exists small
communities in the middle of mountains wasted by wind and water” (Simon 1997:
36). The federal Ministry of Social Development (SEDASOL) reports that two
million or 21 percent of Oaxaca’s soils are already totally eroded. This is the
highest percentage of erosion of any state in the country.

4.2.2 Demography

The total population of Oaxaca is 3,228,895 (INEGI 1997). In 1995, 43.5
percent of the population lived in communities with populations between 500 and
5000, while 26 percent of the population lived in communities with populations of
less than 500 inhabitants (INEGI 1997). Approximately one-fourth of the state’s
population is indigenous (712,006) with 16 distinct ethnic groups (INEGI 1995).
Ethnic groups native to Oaxaca include: Zapoteco, Mixteco, Mazateco,
Chinanteco, Mixe, Chatino, Triqui, Amuzgo, Chochopoloco, Chontal, Cuicateco,
Huave, Nahuas, Nuaves, Ixcateco, and Zoque. Of this population, 15.4 percent
are monolingual in their native language. Adding to the high level of ethnic
diversity in Oaxaca is a tremendous diversity based on community identity
(Bartolome and Barabas 1996; Diaz Hernandez 1986).

4.2.3 Socioeconomics

In Oaxaca, as in much of indigenous Latin America, households have
historically engaged in diversiﬁed socioeconomic strategies to maximize self-

sufficiency (Bonﬁl Batalla 1996). These strategies include a mix of agricultural

109

production, artisan production, wage labor, exchange of goods and services
based on reciprocity, loans, etc. Agriculture is one of the central elements of this
survival strategy. Approximately 50 percent of the total population -- 70 percent
of the indigenous population in Oaxaca -— work as agriculturists, primarily for
subsistence (INEGI 1995).

Traditionally, the milpe is the mainstay of Mesoamerican agriculture. The
milpe is generally complemented by a household garden, wild plant gathering,
hunting, ﬁshing, and domestic animals. Often family members are also skilled
artisans. Family income comes from the sale of surplus agricultural crops and
crafts. When the market value of agricultural crops falls, or in communities where
there is no artisan production to supplement family income, people often work as
migrant laborers in Mexico and the United States.30 The efﬁcacy of the
socioeconomic strategies available to rural households is changing with the
increasing pressures of globalization and the penetration of market forces.
Families are ﬁnding it increasingly difﬁcult to compete with international prices for
basic grains and with cheap imports from other areas of the world.

4.2.4 Intra-Community Relationships

Social relationships within indigenous communities are, in large part,

based on relationships of reciprocity (Barebas and Bartolome 1999: 21). lntra-

30 Cook (Barebas and Bartolome 1999) notes that between 1960 and 1984 more that 500,000
Oaxacans between ﬁfteen and sixty-ﬁve left Oaxaca in search of wage labor. This out-migration
continues and has negatively impacted communities’ ability to maintain political and cultural
conﬁnuny.

110

community relationships are often formed through exchange of labor, goods, and
cash among households (Cook 1984; Diskin 1986; Stephen 1991). Stephen
(1991) notes in her study on Zapotec women that relationships of reciprocity are
particularly important for women as they form support and mutual aid networks
throughout the community. These networks are important for both men and
women, and serve as an account to be drawn upon at some future time for
various activities such as ﬁnancing a ritual or ﬁesta, carrying out a productive
activity, or advancing a political activity.

Intra-community relationships are also established and maintained
through the cargo system. Males of the community are required to participate in
official community positions as a service to the community. An individual gains
prestige and status as he progresses from the lower level cergos to the highest
level -- that of majordomo who is responsible for organizing the community ﬁesta.
As an individual progresses through the system, he gains experience and
respect. Participation in the cargo system also indicates an individual’s
acceptance of the basic norm that determines group membership. As Bonﬁl
Batalla (1996: 37) explains:

...participation is an indispensable condition for being recognized

and admitted as a member of the group. And it is the group that is

the exclusive repository of the cultural patrimony that has been

inherited. To gain legitimate access to cultural patrimony and to be

able to participate in decisions about it one must be a member of

the group. To be a member...one must prove that he accepts the

collective norms. Participation in the cargo system, with all it implies

in terms of fundamental orientation toward life, is one of the basic
norms that identiﬁes group members.

111

Yet, increasingly the traditional system of cargos and relationships of reciprocity
are being eroded. The authority of traditional leaders is weakening, while that of
the civil authorities grows (Dennis 1987; Stephen 1991). Relationships based on
reciprocity are waning, while relationships established through the market
increase.

4.2.5 Local Political Structure

The community assembly is the highest decision-making body at the
community level in Oaxaca. Membership in community assemblies is generally
limited to males of the community over ﬁfteen years of age. The community
assembly elects ofﬁcials to three authoritative bodies sanctioned to govern at the
local level. These three parallel authority systems are the constitutional authority
or town council (the ayuntemiento), the agrarian authority (comite de bienes
comunales in indigenous communities or the comite ejidal in ejidos), and the
traditional authority or council of elders.

The speciﬁc duties of each of these authorities vary from community to
community and ethnic group to ethnic group based on usos y costumbres”. The
ayuntemiento typically consists of the municipal president, a sindico (legal
advisor), an alcalde (mayor), a secretary, a treasurer, regidores (councilmen) and
topiles (policemen)(Dennis 1987; Kearney 1972; Stephen 1991). In general, the

constitutional authorities provide services and promote development projects,

112

except those that pertain to land and agricultural development. The agrarian
authority or bienes comunales concern themselves with communally held
resources, such as land, irrigation, forest, etc. and development projects that
relate to natural resources. The bienes comunales is headed by a comisariedo,
his sup/ante (second), a secretary and treasurer. The traditional authority refers
to the council of elders. It appears that in some communities the inﬂuence of the
traditional authorities has waned (Stephen 1991) while in others the agrarian and
traditional authorities are one and the same.

Community authorities are charged with the task of resolving internal
community conﬂicts through persuasion to maintain community unity and/or
through ﬁnes and sanctions. Peaceful intra-community relationships are
imperative to the preservation of community. Yet, Dennis (1987: 129-132)
recounts that intra-community conﬂict is common in Oaxaca. Dennis lists the
issues that may disrupt the communal “we”: religious differences, struggles
between local caciques (power bosses), different political allegiances, jealousy
and love affairs, envy of another’s economic success, and/or suspicion of
witchcraft (Dennis 1987: 127). Despite the propensity for internal conﬂicts to
emerge, there is strong social pressure to conceal them and present a united

front to outsiders.

 

3‘ Traditions developed at a community level pertaining to how the community governs itself.

113

4.2.6 Inter-Community Relationships

A primary reason for presenting a united front to outsiders is the
widespread inter-community conflict in Oaxaca (Dennis 1976; Kearney 1972).
Inter-community conﬂicts are usually long and may entail bloodshed. Disputes
over community boundaries are one of the major causes of inter-community
conflicts. There may be diverse reasons for these boundary conﬂicts. In some
cases, boundaries between communities were not clariﬁed when lands were
distributed by the Spanish crown. In other cases, boundaries were large and
relatively undeﬁned markings such as a ﬁeld or low lands. At other times, there is
disagreement over the location of markers designated as boundaries. Given
these irregularities, a community may be involved with several communities in
boundary disputes at any given time.32

Dennis speculates that historically inter-community conﬂict has beneﬁted
the state. With communities divided against each other, it is difﬁcult to organize
against the state. There have been instances when inter-community animosities
have been forgotten and coalitions formed to unite against a common enemy
(Diaz Hernandez 1986; Martinez Luna 1995). However, in 1976, Dennis (1976,
1987: 181-182) noted that communities had not yet come together in cooperation
with each other to resolve their problems;

A permanent, umbrella-type political organization among villages,
organized and run by them, would be without precedent in

32 The federal government now claims that all land disputes in Oaxaca have been settled, yet
newspapers in Oaxaca continue to report conﬂicts over boundaries on a daily basis.

114

Oaxaca... I believe the best possibility for resolution of the long-
lasting rivalries is not for a future, more efficient government
bureaucracy to resolve conﬂict for villagers. In any paternalistic
system the elements of dependence and control will remain.
Instead, I believe resolution must come from the villagers
themselves, who decide that there is more to be gained from
cooperation than from conﬂict and who then act accordingly. Strong
intervillage organizations are a positive step in that direction.

Rural Oaxacan communities still face the challenge of intra-community conﬂict.
However, increasing pressures of globalization have added to the complexity of
conflict. Now communities not only face the enemies of the neighboring

community or caciques, but the more amorphous forces of modernization.

115

CHAPTER 5

THE PERMANENT SEMINAR OF RESOURCES FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

This chapter presents an analysis of the Seminar. The organization, its
membership, the types of issues addressed and some of the problems faced by
the Seminar and its participants are highlighted. The analysis is based on
Seminar meetings, community visits, conversations and interviews with Seminar
participants, and materials available in the Seminar library. This presentation is
interspersed with quotes and vignettes to provide a sense of the ethos, culture,
and beliefs of the Seminar and its participants, and to allow the voice of
participants to be heard. This chapter, with its quotes and vignettes, is designed
to help the reader to understand the “essence” of the Seminar.

Several important relationships are a focus of attention in this chapter: the
relationship between communities and outsiders, the relationship between
leaders of the Seminar and other participants, the relationship between
participant diversity and creativity, and the relationship between new proﬂems
facmcommunities and changes in the Semina_r. These ideas appear again in
Chapter 6, and contribute to a discussion of the "transformation” of the Seminar.

5.0 The History and Institutional Afﬁliation of the Seminar

When I arrived in Oaxaca for the ﬁrst time, I was overwhelmed by what I
had to learn before I could participant fully in the Seminar. I wanted to

understand how the Seminar began, why it existed, what it was, and what its

116

members were currently trying to do. I also needed to better understand the
context in which the Seminar was enveloped - Mexican politics, rural policy and
the impacts of globalization. I began piecing together features until a picture
emerged. The Seminar coordinator and other members began to teach me, and
the "library" held a wealth of information in reports, tapes, and past bitécoras.
Stories told by people involved in "establishing collaborative relationships"
present a turbulent and colorful picture of the origins of the Seminar as revealed
in Vignette 2.

Vignette 2. The Origins of the Seminar

A young and rather naive upper class Mexican who had recently returned
from graduate studies in the US. took a job in a rural indigenous area of
the country. He soon realized that, despite many years of schooling, he
knew little about indigenous Mexico and his rural countrymen. His
ignorance was obvious to the campesinos, but he was tolerated and even
befriended. They slowly began sharing their concerns with him.

The region was in the midst of an intense political upheaval -- a violent
struggle for the land that had begun some twenty years earlier. A
community leader was shot far from his home. His family and community
feared he was dead. No one was safe to travel, as they were all under
suspicion. Only the newly returned academic could move about without
attracting unwanted attention. He slipped away and rode on horseback
through the mountains to reassure the family and community that the man
was alive and under a doctor's care.

As time passed, a relationship of trust was established between the young
academic and the community organizers. As the organizers negotiated the
Mexican agrarian reform system, they sought relationships with individuals
who had access to a world they could not enter - a world of power, status,
amigismo and money. They told their new friend, "you are not the best
card to play, but you are the only card we’ve got." They sent him off to
Mexico City to ﬁnd a lawyer and government officials who could assist

117

them. He returned to the community, but had to admit he had returned
with no answers. He said, “Those who have the knowledge are the
"enemies" and will not help you.” After a period of contemplation, the
community leaders responded, “We have the knowledge, but it is
scattered throughout our people.” When the coordinator of the campesino
confederation went to meet with government agrarian reform officials
several people attended, but always different ones. “You are an academic.
You know how to collect knowledge. Talk to all of these people and ﬁnd
out what they know. Help us put our knowledge together. “

This story in some ways serves as a “foundation” myth for the
organization. The fundamental relationships in the Seminar between academics
and communities are expressed in terms of academics at the service of
communities and their leaders. It also establishes the presence and legitimacy of
community knowledge and the role academics have in helping to consolidate and
clarify that knowledge.

The story also serves to express the degree of commitment that academics and
community leaders have, and the risks that they are willing to take for each other
and their communities. This story also provided a guide for me as I began to
participate in the Seminar.

Official documents of the Seminar leave out the details of this early period,
and present an abbreviated narrative. In the mid-1970s, several community
assemblies established collaborative relationships with university-trained

development specialists working in their communities. They hoped to devise non-

118

violent strategies to combat large landholders and caciques” and to tackle the
complex and bureaucratic Mexican agrarian reform system. This commitment to
nonviolence was based on a practical position, rather than on a principled one --
the campesinos knew, if they resorted to violence, they would lose.

In 1989, the Seminar for the Protection of Rights of Agrarian Communities
was created with the objective of institutionalizing a “shared Ieaming process.”
During this period, the Seminar focused primarily on land tenure and related
issues. The academics provided access to a world to which the campesinos
could not enter and to knowledge they did not have. Community leaders
contributed years of experience in the struggle for the land.

At the same time, the Seminar afﬁliated with the National Autonomous
University of Mexico (UNAM) through the Institute for Social Research (US). The
coordinator position of the Seminar became a permanent appointment with IIS.
The campesino participants were named co-consultants to “special projects.”
These participants were community and group representatives. The special
projects refered to issues identiﬁed by communities or groups and brought before
the Seminar by the representatives.

Communities and groups were connected to the Seminar by these
representatives who were elected by the community assemblies or selected by
their respective groups to participate in the Seminar. In 1991, the organization

evolved to become the Seminario de Gestién sobre Recursos para el Deserrollo

33 Local power brokers.

119

Rural (the Permanent Seminar of Resources for Rural Development). This
change was primarily a response to the shifting socioeconomic context of
peasant communities and the concurrent issues being raised in the Seminar (see
Szekely 1997). The overall structure and the main relationships of the Seminar

are illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The Overall Structure of the Seminar

 

  

9.0

 

[Local Organization I

\
w‘. .,....,,........

MSU = Michigan State University

RD = The Department of Resource Development

IIS = The Institute of Social Research

UNAM = The National Autonomous University of Mexlco

 

 

 

 

5.1 Funding

The Seminar, as an ofﬁcial organization afﬁliated with MS, received

funding through grants and contracts for consulting work from national and

120

international development agencies. These funds covered the Seminar's
expenses and fellowships for peasant participants administrated through MS. The
fellowships ranged from $300-35O Mx., depending on the availability of funds and
covered expenses for the trip to and stay in Oaxaca.

Recently, llS agreed that peasant participants would receive funds on a
contract basis -- rather than as fellowships - for the work that they would do as
co-consultants in the Seminar. The coordinator continued to receive his salary
from IIS, other academics associated with the Seminar received support through
various grants and fellowships. Current funding is problematic, as the coordinator
has asked that the Seminar be given a sabbatical year from contract work to
analyze and reﬂect upon what socioeconomic and political changes in Mexico
mean for the Seminar. In 1999, funding came from individuals interested in
supporting the work of the Seminar.

5.2 Seminar Participants

Seminar participants include community representatives, small group
representatives, and individuals. In principle, any community or group can send
representatives to the Seminar and any individual can attend. However, the
majority of participants are representatives elected by community assemblies.
Typically, representatives from eight to ten communities attend the Seminar at
any one time. Normally, two to three small groups send several members every

month. In addition, three to four campesinos and three to four academics attend

121

 

on their own. These campesinos, however, seek permission from their
community assembly to attend.

The community representatives are usually respected and experienced
community leaders who see themselves as leaders ”at the service" of their
communities. The small group representatives are a mix of experienced leaders
and individuals new to leadership roles. The campesino participants attend as
individuals, rather than as representatives of a community or group. They come
from communities that have resolved their land tenure problems through the
Seminar and have stopped participating in Seminar activities. These participants
explain that they are motivated by a desire to learn so that they can better serve
their communities. Academics who attend the Seminar include three Mexicans
and two US. graduate students. The Mexican academics include the
coordinator, who is an engineer by training, an anthropologist, and an agricultural
engineer -- two men and one woman, respectively. The US. academics,
including another graduate student and myself - both women - are from the
Department of Resource Development at Michigan State University.

The Mexican academics are motivated by an abiding commitment to the
peasantry. Several are veterans of the "struggle for the land." The other graduate
student and l are motivated by the need to fulﬁll degree requirements certainly,
but also by our interests in alternative approaches to development and

collaborative forms of research (Carmen 1996; Escobar 1995; Sachs 1995).

122

Each Seminar participant has a particular identity, based primarily, on the
intersection of culture, class, and gender (Kaufman 1997; Rocheleau, Thomas-
Slayter, and Wangari 1996). Campesino participants, whether attending as
representatives of communities or small groups or as individuals, see themselves
primarily as members of distinct communities and secondarily as members of
broad cultural groups, eg. Mixe or Zapotec. The communities and small groups
that participated in the Seminar during the two years of my engagement
represent nine culturally distinct groups. However, each rural community in
Oaxaca can be seen as having a distinct cultural identity based on distinct usos y
costumbres (broadly deﬁned as traditions) (Dennis 1976; Kearney 1972). Thus,
the cultural diversity of the Seminar is even greater than it might at ﬁrst appear.

The major class distinctions in the Seminar are represented by the
categories of academic and campesino. In rural Mexico, academics are typically
seen as "upper class," while campesinos are seen as rural working class. In
principle, all participants are leaders of the Seminar. In practice, the leadership of
the Seminar consists of the coordinator, the other Mexican academics, and
several veteran campesino members.

Gender also plays an important role in member participation. While the
majority of the Seminar participants are men, a number of women participate
(approximately 25 women attended the Seminar, including the US. academics,
during the two years of my engagement.) This cultural, class and gender diversity

of the Seminar contributes signiﬁcantly to the dynamic nature of the Seminar as

123

the organization, and its members, seek to address the rapidly changing world of

rural Mexico.

5.2.1 Gender and Participation

Women's participation is a problematic issue for the Seminar. Despite a
commitment to diversity, women typically participate differently from men.
Women who attend the Seminar usually do so as members of small groups.
Three of the small groups are composed solely of women - the medicinal plant
group from San Carlos, the young Triqui women, and the young women from
San Juan. Only on one occasion did women attend the Seminar as community
representatives and that was before my arrival.

The lack of women as community representatives can be explained, in
part, by the nature of community assemblies. In Oaxaca, community assemblies
tend to be male domains. In some communities, women are not allowed to attend
assembly meetings. In others, they are allowed to attend, but typically they sit to
the side and do not join in discussions. In addition, land tenure is seen as a
man’s issue. Community representatives are typically elected to address land
tenure problems in the Seminar. Not surprisingly, the community assemblies
elect men to represent them at the Seminar meetings. The women, who attend
the Seminar come, as wives, daughters, or in moments of community crisis.

The women from the Mixe community of San Carlos follow this pattern.

Pablo is the elected representative of the community, and his wife is a member of

124

the medicinal plant group. The other women from the medicinal plant group can
attend because they accompany Pablo, a male member of the community. A
group of young women from Tierra Piedra attend regularly, but they come with
their fathers. Several years ago, l was told, a group of women came from the
community of Nuevo Santa Ana when the community was on the verge of a
violent confrontation with a neighboring community. The role of peacemaker
appears to be an accepted one for women in the indigenous communities of
Oaxaca. Ribeiro (a women and church activist in Acre, Brazil) observes that the
role of peacemaker is a typical one for women (Rocheleau et al. 1996: 33). It is
not unusual for women to acts as mediators in potentially violent situations in an
attempt to deescalate tensions. In this instance, as soon as the situation in
Nuevo Santa Ana was resolved, the women returned to their communities and
ceased participating in the Seminar.

The Triqui students are an exception to the rule of attending with a male
community member. The young women have left their communities because of
endemic violence in the Triqui region. They are now attending the university in
the city of Oaxaca. The young women cannot return home because they are at
risk, e.g. being kidnapped or killed in retaliation against their fathers who are
leaders in their home communities. A male community member does not
accompany these women to the Seminar. However, before the ﬁrst meeting the
group attended, the leader of the group was introduced to the Seminar

coordinator by her father -- a past participant in the Seminar.

125

The Seminar seeks to encourage women's attendance and participation in
the Seminar. It has even positively impacted women in how they view
themselves and their own abilities. When I visited her community, Silvia told me,

You might not believe this now, but before I was very quiet. My

husband is a teacher in our community and he would invite people

over to our house. As is our custom, I would ask them if they would

like something to eat or drink, but I would never speak with them. I

felt afraid and ignorant. Now I come to the Seminar. I am the only

woman in our group. In the Seminar, I listen and sometimes I think

about giving my opinion. I have conﬁdence in myself. But I don't
speak yet because I am still afraid I might say something foolish or
make a mistake. But in my own house and in our group I am not
afraid to speak and I say what I think.
Despite this positive impact, the patriarchy of Mexican society is reﬂected in
women's limited ability to participate in the Seminar (Stephen 1993 Stephen
1998). Furthermore, no special effort is taken to seek out women’s groups that
are dealing with land tenure or other community issues and invite them to

participate in the Seminar.

5.3 Goals of the Seminar

The Seminar seeks to invent and deploy strategies to solve problems
portrayed by participants. To be successful, these strategies need to overcome
obstacles associated with communication, cooperation, and learning that are
normal features of rural Mexican life. Speciﬁcally, the Seminar aims to assist and

empower rural communities and peoples by:

126

0 Establishing a process of communication between individuals and
communities where situations, experiences, and ways of viewing the
world differ,

0 Creating useful knowledge that helps groups and communities address
concrete problems and recognize mutual concerns, and

o Assisting member communities in applying knowledge informed by a
collective vision of the future.

These specific goals suggest why the Seminar cannot be neatly categorized
within any one PR schema. The Seminar shares AR’s commitment to generating
useful knowledge. It coincides with PAR’s political analysis of knowledge
generation and control. As in PAR, dialogue among equals is the norm for
participation. Like AD, it has a pragmatic view of society and places "popular"
knowledge on an equal footing with scientific knowledge. Yet, the Seminar goes
beyond these other PR approaches in its premise that communication between
"situated" individuals can result in new and creative solutions to the problems
facing rural communities (Braidotti et al. 1994; Haraway 1991; Harding 1991).
These issues will be discussed in the "logic of the milpa," a key concept of the
Seminar.

5.4 Theory of Society

Unlike AR and PAR, there appears to be no acknowledged or hidden
theory of society. Instead, there is a pragmatic and eclectic image of society
composed of complicated, and often conﬂictual, relationships that directly impact

member communities, internally and externally. This conflict theory does not

127

depend on a class analysis. There appears to be a complex and shifting list of
ingroup—outgroup conﬂicts. The concept of the "enemy," often the neighboring
community, is a central theme in discussions of land tenure problems, while the
"enemy within" or the division of the communal "we," is at the heart of many
discussions relating to community economic and political development (see
Szekely 1995a).

The Seminar is attempting to teach campesino members to be community
leaders — persons who can develop effective strategies to mitigate powerful
forces in their political-economic environment. The Seminar also intends to
create a space where social differences are not allowed to be an obstacle to
communication, and where it is assumed that dialogue can lead to resolution of
conflict.

5.5 Communication through Dialogue

Ideally, communication occurs in the Seminar through dialogue. The
dialogue in the Seminar is used in a way similar to what Bohm (1989) describes:
dialogue may well be one of the most effective ways of
investigating the crisis which faces society, and indeed the whole of
human nature and consciousness today. Moreover, it may turn out
that such a form of free exchange of ideas and information is of
fundamental relevance for transforming culture and freeing it of
destructive misinformation, so that creativity can be liberated.
Using dialogue as a means to communication is no easy matter, especially in an

organization comprised of members who speak several different languages,

128

represent nine different ethnic groups, and includes academics, peasants and a
North American women all holding differing worldviews.

Given its diverse membership, the Seminar confronts challenges to
dialogue by creating a new "language" based on metaphors. The use of
metaphors is similar to Freire’s “generative words” (Freire 1973). In Freire adult
education, generative words help adult learners to examine their world in new
ways, and to recognize oppressive social relationships. Dickinson (1988) refers
to the ability of generative words to revel the social, cultural, and political realities
of a situation.

In the Seminar, metaphors not only reveal, but also conceal important
realities. The dual nature of the metaphoric language of the Seminar allows
participants to understand each other, and to speak about things that do not or
can not normally be discussed. Topics in “hidden realms” can be alluded to, but
do not need to be explicated, for understanding to occur. Metaphors also serve to
develop, rationalize, and explain many of the key themes of the Seminar. Finally,
metaphors provide a conceptual bridge between different ways of knowing the
world (Sfard 1998). These words promote dialogue and contribute to the
synergistic capacity of the Seminar.

5.5.1 The Logic of the Milpa

An important and seminal metaphor of the Seminar, the one that

rationalizes its very existence, is the “the logic of the milpa” (see Szekely 1997).

129

This "logic" emerges from a melding of academic and indigenous reﬂection upon
the local milpa, the traditional corn-based agroecological system found
throughout Latin America. While the core crops of a traditional milpa are com and
beans, a milpa may also include squashes, tomatoes, peppers, an occasional
fruit or forage tree, herbs, medicinal plants and ornamentals. Some "weeds" are
also allowed to grow if they “have use.” Some traditional milpas contain as many
as 40 species. These species all have distinct properties and growth patterns
that complement, rather than compete, with each other if properly managed -- a
sort of 'fertility-in-diversity" (see Szekely 1997).

The campesino who introduced the "logic of the milpa" to the Seminar
explained that you need to know "what to plant, when to plant and how to plant,
but even more you need to know what goes with what and when they go
together." Reﬂection on this biologically diverse system leads Seminar
participants to understand the value of biological diversity and interaction.
Reflection on this agroecological system is then applied to social phenomena,

leading to the idea of an "amarre soda/'34

- a socially diverse Seminar that is
more likely than an homogeneous social group to devise creative and successful
solutions to common problems. These dynamics are illustrated in Vignette 3 and

reveal the essence of the emergent properties of the logic of the milpa.

3‘ The Seminar has struggled to ﬁnd a word to describe the logic of the milpa (e/ amarre milpero)
when applied to a social group. In one of my bitecora presentations, I used the term amarre
social. This term has now entered the language of the Seminar. The verb amarrar means to bind
or tie together diverse elements.

130

Vignette 3. “Camote de Venado”

The representatives from the Mixe community of San Carlos asked in the
Seminar how to deal with a group of Italians buying up supplies of a wild
plant known as “camote de venado” which grows on their communal
lands. The plant is said to have strong curative powers, but the community
has all but lost any medicinal knowledge relating to the plant. The Italians
will not say whom they represent or why they want the plants. As an
outcome of discussion in the Seminar and in the community group, the
group launched a study to observe the plant's growth habits and preserve
the plant in areas they have designated as protected. Specimens of the
plant were brought to the National Autonomous University of Mexico for
identification and chemical analysis. The community began subtle
questioning in the area to ascertain the identity of the visitors and their
intentions.

The discussion provided a point of departure to address another issue.
While the group expressed a need for additional income, they did not want
to accept the money offered by the Italians. Through a long and thoughtful
process of dialogue within the group and between the Seminar and the
group a small project focusing on coffee cultivation was started. A coffee
project was primarily seen as an opportunity or “pretext" to invent
themselves as a social organization rather than as an economic
endeavor.35

San Carlos has never been a coffee-growing community. In fact, they
were the "human mules" who carried the 45 kilo sacks of coffee on their
backs from producers to local collection points. However, when the road
system was finished, the "human mules" were no longer needed. The
group from San Carlos was uncertain if their area was suitable for growing
coffee, nor were they conﬁdent in their own abilities to develop an
economic enterprise. They turned to the Seminar participants for advice.
The Seminar participants readily volunteered their advice and material to
the coffee project. The coffee-growing Zapotec and Mixe communities in
the Seminar donated seeds and contributed advice on cultivation
practices. The workers from a coffee ﬁnca agreed that they could share

35 One of the challenges that the group confronted in “creating” itself was the religious division in
the community. The coffee group carefully formulated its membership to unite both Catholic and
Evangelicos in a joint activity.

131

their knowledge on how to care for the coffee trees. Through discussions
on coffee cultivation, a new concept entered the vocabulary of the
Seminar — the "cafe milpero.” The question was asked, "Can you plant
coffee como si fuera un amarre milpero36 - as if it were a biologically
diverse milpa? Although an abundance of "experts" exist who could
answer this question in all its technological dimensions, the group from
San Carlos decided to invite the Seminar participants - academics, coffee
communities from the coast, and laborers from the coffee ﬁnca - to visit
San Carlos and share their knowledge and experience.

During the Seminar’s visit to San Carlos, the group was asked why they
had not grown coffee before. They responded, “Our soil is not rich
enough.” Ernesto, from a rich coffee—growing region to the east,
responded, “But your soil is better than ours.” The group added, “It is too
cold for coffee here.” Jose, from a coffee ﬁnca on the coast reminded
them that the best coffee grows in cool climates like that of San Carlos.
The group then replied, “But we do not get enough rain.” When asked how
much rainfall the area got the visitors pointed out that it was more than
sufficient to grow coffee. The group was silent for a moment. Then one
young man replied with chagrin and a shy smile, “We did not grow coffee,
because we did not grow it.” He had recognized that the choice to grow
coffee was theirs.

 

Based on the logic of the milpa, Seminar participants understand that the
point of coming together is not only to ﬁnd answers, but to engage in the social
process of searching for them. This methodological focus of the Seminar is
similar to the “methodology of symbolic sites” practiced by the Network Culture in
Morocco (Zaoual 1992 in Carmen 1996: 153). Carmen describes the
methodology of the Network as one that recognizes cultural diversity and
multiplicity of practices in a listening process leading to speciﬁc understandings

and procedures to cope with speciﬁc problems. These “symbolic sites” can be

36 This is an example of "naive" questions that I asked in the Seminar.

132

"thought of as a cultural mold, which is constantly being shaped and reshaped
by the actors who inhabit that particular site" (Carmen 1996: 154). In symbolic
sites, beliefs, knowledges, skills, modes of behavior, attitudes and practices
come together and interact. In the Seminar, the metaphor, fertility-in-diversity,
adds the idea of synergy to social interactions - an alchemistic—type interaction
among distinct parts that produces something greater than the original elements.
Participant diversity appears to make major contributions to the
emergence of innovative ideas — more than any one individual could bring to the
mix. Fertility-in-diversity is similar to Haraway’s (1991) discussion of the need to
recognize and combine “situated knowledges.” She postulates that the “power of
partial perspectives” joins many "knowers on the basis of afﬁnities" to build a
joint, expanded understanding of social transformation (cited Rocheleau 1996:
5). Haraway suggest that “struggles over what will count as rational accounts of
the world are struggles over how to see“ (Haraway 1991: 194). The Seminar
answers the question of “how to see” through the logic of the milpa and fertility-
in-diversity. In the Seminar, the success of the milpa logic and the idea of
synergistic convergence depend on an active form of communication both within

the Seminar and between the Seminar and communities.

133

5.5.2 The Bitacora

Communication is established between the Seminar and communities or
groups through the bitécora or logbook.37 The bitécora was the idea of one of
the campesino participants to help representatives transmit ideas that emerge
both in Seminar and community assembly meetings. During each Seminar
meeting, the representatives of communities or groups take notes of Seminar
discussions. In the Seminar, each bitécora is given a title that describes and
summarizes experiences or steps of the problem-solving process that emerged
from Seminar discussions. The title of the bitécora is designed to arouse curiosity
in the community assembly or group meetings and to stimulate questions and

dialogue. Examples of bitécora titles include:

. El camino viable es dos caminos (The viable road is two roads),
. Que se muevan las artistas (Let the actresses begin to act), and

. La tecnica al servicio de las comunidedes (Technology at the service of
communities).

When the representatives return home, they read their bitécoras as part of their
reports to their respective community or group. Issues are discussed in the
assembly, decisions are made, and actions are carried out, all of which are

recorded in a new bitecora entry that is read at the following Seminar meeting.

37 The bitecora also served as a form of archive, documenting the history, knowledge and
strategies of a given problem or issue.

134

Dialogue within the Seminar -- and between the Seminar and communities --
continues until the problem under discussion is resolved satisfactorily.

At the monthly Seminar meetings, the bitécora readings are meant to
inform participants and to stimulate dialogue among them. Details are often
added by other members of the group -- to help Seminar participants understand
the issue under discussion. Others participants ask questions to clarify issues of
the bitécora presentation that they did not understand or to acquire additional
information. A dialogue ensues in which knowledge, experiences, and concerns
are shared.

Some participants even learn to read and write Spanish so that they can
keep a bitéccra. This achievement does not come easily for many of the
participants. Gabriel, a twenty-ﬁve year old Mixe apologized for the quality of his
first bitecora, a 1l2 page document. He presented it to the Seminar explaining it
took him over an hour to write. Camilo, an older coffee laborer suffering from
tuberculoses, shared how difﬁcult it was for him to write his bltécora saying, "My
bita'cora is not very good. I write slowly and I don’t see well. Sometimes I fall
asleep while I am writing after working in the coffee plantation all day." Despite
these difﬁculties, the participants struggle to "make themselves literate,"
motivated by their desire to serve their communities and improve themselves.

Literacy in Spanish also allows participants to discover, interpret and write
a history of their communities and the problems they are experiencing. It gives

them access to official documents, laws, and news. Participants see that

135

obtaining literacy in the dominant language of the country as more than a means
to facilitate communication. It is viewed as a means of empowerment, as well
(see Freire 1985). However, in Freirian forms of adult education, an enlightened
(radical) outsider intervenes. In the Seminar, on the other hand, the impetus for
literacy comes from (and is achieved by) the participants themselves. This model
of literacy training may not have the same elements of Freire’s education for
emancipation. It appears to be motivated by an autonomous and independent

expression to improve individual and community conditions.

136

5.5.3 Community Visits

During my first trip to Oaxaca, I found that communication between
communities and the Seminar also occurs through Seminar visits. Community
visits frequently take place at a crucial moment in a community's life, i.e., when
violence threatens or when an outside stimulus is needed to overcome a
particularly difﬁcult impasse. These visits also help to establish and maintain
relationship between the community and the Seminar, and to create a sense of
solidarity among the Seminar members who go on the trips. In addition, these
visits serve to expand the world of the Seminar participants - a world that is often
limited to their own restrictive communities. As Samuel explains, community
visits serve as a means "to see the outside world better and to understand and

value what each of us has."

On my first trip to the Seminar, a community visit had been planned to
Cerro Niebla. Eight members of the Seminar volunteered to go, and I was invited
to go along. The group included Zapotecs, Mixes, mestizos, two academics from
UNAM and myself. On our way out of town, we joked paraphrasing what is said
of Oaxaca”, "Here we have the most ethnically diverse population per combi39 in

the world."

38 Oaxaca is popularty said to be the have ”the most ethnically diverse population per hectare in
the world."
3“ Microbus

137

The community assembly had invited the Seminar to attend an assembly
meeting to help the community resolve an impasse relating to the government's
suspicions regarding alleged community members' support of a guerilla group,
governmental demands relating to that suspicion, and the community’s lack of
response. This visit, while unique in its focus, exempliﬁes the responsiveness of
the Seminar to community requests, the attitude that Seminar participants bring
to these visits, and the dynamic nature of the dialogue that exists between and

within the Seminar and communities. The visit is described in Vignette 4.

%
Vignette 4. Chi liza - Envisioning the Future

Nine of us left Oaxaca in the early morning to visit Cerro Niebla at the invitation
of the community assembly. We had been invited by the community assembly to
discuss with them the last requirement imposed by the government - to remove
suspicion of the community's involvement with a revolutionary group operating in
Oaxaca.

The problem began several years ago when the community allowed a family of
outsiders to settle on their communal lands. The family took over some of the
community’s best lands during a period when the community was internally
divided. The struggle with this family was long and turbulent. Cerro Niebla sent
representatives to the Seminar. Through lengthy discussions within the Seminar,
and between the Seminar and the community, several strategies were devised to
regain the land. The issues were resolved peacefully in favor of the community --
or so the community thought.

Shortly after the court settlement, the military invaded Cerro Niebla accusing
twenty men of being guerrilla supporters. Women were threatened, homes were
broken into and several men were arrested, imprisoned and tortured. The men
signed confessions. Through discussion with Seminar participants and the
community assembly, a strategy known as caras limpias or clean faces was
devised to secure the men’s release and remove suspicion from Cerro Niebla.
The rest of the men who had been accused but were not caught, presented
themselves to the government authorities and demanded that they be

138

interrogated to uncover any wrong doing. The only stipulation put forth by the
community was that there be an outsider present during the interrogation to
prevent further torture.

The Seminar sent a representative to be present during the three-hour
interrogations. After hours of questioning, the men were declared innocent and
released. The governor published a retraction in the regional newspaper.
However, the governor requested that Cerro Niebla participate in a governmental
educational program and submit an educational plan drawn up by the community
assembly. The community did not comply. The community suspected the motives
of the government. The military looked on with suspicion as the month passed
and no move was made to complete this ﬁnal requirement. Some members of
the community feared the military's reprisal, and invited the Seminars opinion.

The Seminar members, who volunteered to visit Cerro Niebla, left the valley of
Oaxaca following the winding roads though the Sierra Madres del Norte. It was
an eight-hour trip by road, and four hours walking over mountainous trails of hard
red clay. We walked down the mountain slopes, crossed the river in a boat
christened Noah's Ark, and headed up the last part of the trail to a village that sits
in the clouds - Cerro Niebla. When we arrived, Reynaldo greeted us and brought
us to an adobe building where the comisan'ado and his advisors were waiting.
Reynaldo formally introduced us. Outside once again, the Zapotec members of
the Seminar tried talking to some of the men from Cerro Niebla, but there are
four Zapotec dialects and they are not mutually intelligible. The conversation had
to take place in Spanish.

The assembly meeting was to begin the next day at 11:30 am. with
representatives from all anexos or villages within the comunidad. However, there
seemed to be some doubt whether they would all attend. According to law, the
assembly could not take place without representation from each anexo. Slowly,
people began to arrive following trails through the forest. Finally, representatives
from all of the villages were there, totaling about 150 men. No women were
allowed to attend the assembly meeting. I wondered what they thought of me,
this gn’nga in their midst.40 The assembly members decided that the meeting
would be conducted in Spanish and translated to Zapotec for the monolingual
Zapotecs.

The comisan'ado opened the meeting and explained that the Seminar had been
invited to the assembly meeting to talk to them about the community's inquietud
(uneasiness) in complying with the government's request and the possible risks
associated with non-compliance. The men of Cerro Niebla listened to the history

4° This was my ﬁrst community visit with the Seminar.

139

with stoic faces. A long silence ensued, broken only by a few quite voices in
Zapotec as men spoke to each other. Finally, the coordinator of the Seminar
broke the silence and asked, ‘How do you say ten years in Zapotec?’ Several
community members responded, ‘chi iiza.’ He repeated the word amongst smiles
at his mis-pronunciation. "Chi iiza, what do you want to be in chi iiza? Do you
want to be a community of only old people and children? Or do you want to be a
community of old people and young people, of men and women, a community
that is alive and well? The men broke their silence and began to converse. The
coordinator sat down and lit up a cigarette as voices swelled around us in
Zapotec. Men turned to each other to discuss what had been said.

After several minutes he stood up again and in a quiet voice, "I just realized, if I
make this pledge to you to help you arrive at chi iiza and I smoke I may not be
here in ten years. If I want to be sure that I am here, I must give up smoking --
now." He threw down his cigarette and ground it out on the floor. There was a
momentary silence followed by applause and nodding of heads from the men of
Cerro Niebla.

After a few moments, another seminar participant -— from San Pablo - a Zapotec
community in the south of Oaxaca, slowly stood up to share his community’s
story. "I made a similar commitment, but mine was to quite drinking. I made a
commitment to the Virgin that I would not take a drop of liquor for ﬁve years while
I dedicated myself to solving my community's problem. Ninety-six years ago, my
community found itself with a similar problem that divided us. Our grandfathers
would not deal with it; our fathers would not deal with it. Now, we have inherited
the problem and we must deal with it. Do not be like my community. Do not make
your children ask, Why do we have this problem? Why didn’t our grandfathers or
our fathers resolve it?’" Samuel’s eyes ﬁll with tears as he recounted his story.41

Sergio stood up, "Solving community problems is a little like playing basketball."
The community basketball court was right behind us, and the young men had
been playing a game during the meeting. 'When you make a few baskets the
game doesn't end." The coordinator explained, 'This is the Seminar, this is what
we do, we talk and we move ahead. We ask what is there like this cigarette that
could harm Cerro Niebla so that it might not be here in ten years... We have to
invent a new path...like the care limpias." Don42 Salomon added, '1' he Seminar
gives support to campesinos. We are not trying to scare anyone, but we are
trying to point out the risks to Cerro Niebla." A man from Cerro Niebla responded,

4‘ I found out later that 20 men were killed in the land struggle between caciques and the
community, including the father of a young man who had accompanied us to Cerro Niebla.

42 Don is used as a term of respect in the Seminar for Sebastian who has been a committed and
tireless leader in his community and in the Seminar.

140

'We need time to discuss this among ourselves. We need to ask, did we make a
mistake and what should we do...." Don Salomon replied, "You have the
answers. We're here only to advise you. You are the ones who can do things. If
you have made an error recognize it and move ahead." The Seminar participants
realized that it was time to leave for Oaxaca while the assembly continued the
discussion. The next month Cerro Niebla carried its decisions back to the
Seminar through its bitécora.

This vignette presents a community visit illustrating the Seminar’s attempts
to establish and maintain a relationship with the community that places the
Seminar at the service of the community. The experience and expertise of the
Seminar is there to draw upon when needed. The original problem in Cerro
Niebla has not been completely resolved, but for many months following the visit
to Cerro Niebla the words chi iiza centered in Seminar discussion. The words
came to symbolize an envisioning of the future, not only to the Zapotecs of Cerro
Niebla, but to all Seminar participants.

5.6 Learning in the Seminar

The concept of learning in the Seminar is an experiential and dynamic
process. Participants learn not only from their own experiences, but also from the
problems and discussions relating to other communities, groups or individuals.
These learning experiences evolve over time as a more in-depth understanding
of issues and problems is achieved through dialogue and reﬂection.

The Seminar members understand this learning in terms of “fertility-in-

diversity.” As the Seminar coordinator explains:

141

We were never concerned with how we learned until we realized

we didn’t have the answers for the new problems we were faced

with. So, we began to look back on our history to ﬁgure out how we

actually learned to do what we did so successfully. We realized that

we didn’t have the answers then either, but we found them. We had

to ask ourselves how, and came up with the idea of the logic of the

milpa. We became conscious of how we learned what we didn’t

know. We started to exchange stories about our joint actions that

had been born out of necessity and our diversity.

This lead to the ‘fertility-in-diversity’ idea.

The learning process of the Seminar can also be understood as a form of
praxis. Smith (1997) conceptualizes praxis as having three open—ended phases.
The ﬁrst phase appears as an analytical and educative phase of naming and
defining reality. The second phase is an investkgative phase of ﬁnding out more.
The third phase is an action phase of working for change. In the Seminar, praxis
appears as three phases as well. The ﬁrst phase encompasses community
representatives presenting issues, and participants asking questions of each
other to help clarify the situation. The second phase includes participants
recognizing that answers are not readily available and further information,
investigation, and refelction is needed. The third phase consists of each
community making decisions to act by either carrying out further investigation or
implementing solutions.

In order for learning to occur through praxis, participants must be able to
communicate with each other through dialogue. As Freire explains:

Dialogue requires an intense faith in human beings; their power to

make and remake, to create and recreate... Founded on love,
humility and faith, dialogue becomes a horizontal relationship of

142

mutual trust... [that] cannot exist unless words of both parties
coincide with their actions. Nor can dialogue exist without hope.
Hope is rooted in our human incompleteness, from which we move
out in constant search, a search which can be carried out only in
communication with other people... Finally, true dialogue cannot
exist unless it involves critical thinking which sees reality as a
process, in transformation...[and] constantly involves itself in the
real struggle without fear of the risks involved (Freire 1970, 1990).

In the Seminar, learning through dialogue occurs at an individual level, at an

organizational level, and at the community level.

5.7 Joining the Seminar

Communities do not necessarily join the Seminar to learn. There appear to
be multiple and intersecting reasons that motivate communities and groups to
join the Seminar: 1) problem-solving skills are sought; 2) the Seminar is
perceived to be an avenue to expand contacts and to gain leverage; and/or 3)
other avenues of support do not meet their needs, are closed to them, or can not

be trusted.

The ﬁrst reason stems from the changing situation in rural Mexico. In the
past, communities employed a wide array of strategies to counter the common
"enemy”. The concept of "enemy" united community members against a more
powerful foe - the caciques. But that struggle, known as la Iucha heroica or the
heroic struggle for the land is over. Now the peasants ask "despues de la tierra
que?" - Now that we have the land, what do we do? Mateo explained 'We used
to have a clearly identiﬁed enemy, but that enemy has disappeared" and

everyone agrees it is difﬁcult, if not impossible, to unite against the "enemy" of

143

neoliberalism. The external force that helped maintain community unity has all

but disappeared.

The second reason relates to the hierarchical nature of Mexican society, in
general, and the institutionalization of amigismo. 43 Peasants recognize that it is
important to have friends in high places in order to receive favorable legal
judgements, to procure information and services, or to secure governmental
resources. Accordingly, they seek relationships with sympathetic and well-
connected individuals. The Seminar to a limited extent can play such a role. This
is in part due to the identity of the Seminar coordinator. He comes from an elite
family, has attended the best schools, and is a professor from UNAM (the most
prestigious university in Mexico). He can call upon govemment officials, friends,
and acquaintances when he or the Seminar members need advice, information,
or a favor. Additionally, in Oaxaca the Seminar has a reputation for the
successful mediation of community conflicts. The presence of Seminar members
at meetings between campesinos and government officials appears to inﬂuence

government officials to treat campesinos with more respect.

Communities and small groups view the third reason - the lack of trusted
contacts - differently. Communities are concerned with frustrations in dealing

with governmental and non-governmental ofﬁcials and other outsiders. Small

43 Amigismo has its roots in colonial Mexico in the role of the patron, typically a local elite
member, who assisted the community in the resolution of disputes. The patron could inﬂuence
high ofﬁcials in a way that the community could not (Stephen 1991).

144

groups encounter similar difﬁculties, but also run into problems with their own

fellow community members. At times, they seek mediation through an outsider.

In the Seminar, members recount their experiences with governmental
officials who were reported to have dismissed communities' representatives.
Officials told one group from a Zapotec community, ’You are only indios“, come
back when you have a lawyer."’ One community representative shared his
perspective of government officials’ attitudes. He said, “We're Mixes and the
officials no nos hacen caso (they do not pay any attention to us)“ Another
community representative spoke of a government project that had been
promoted in his community, "The government gave us chickens for an egg laying
project, ten chickens to each family. But the chickens didn't lay eggs; most of

them were roosters! Es tcdo mentiras (It's all lies)"

The case of San Carlos illustrates the dynamic and complicated reasons
that communities and small groups decide to participate in the Seminar. In
Vignette 5, internal divisions in the community force a small group to join the
Seminar in search of support, while the newly elected comisariado seeks advice
to resolve boundary disputes with ﬁve of its six neighboring communities. This
vignette also introduces some of the gender-related issues that confront

participants in the Seminar and generally throughout southern Mexico.

4" India is a derogatory term for indigenous people in Mexico.

145

g
Vignette 5. San Carlos - Joining the Seminar

San Carlos is a small Mixe community six hours from the city of Oaxaca.
With a population of about 150 families, the community was relatively
isolated until the early 1990’s when a regional system of all-season roads
was completed. As in most rural Latin American communities, a gender—
based division of labor prevails in this community. Women’s primary
responsibilities are to care for the family and home, while men tend the
milpas. Women often assist in agricultural production by planting,
collecting seeds, weeding, harvesting, and storing harvested crops.
Women also provide for the household wellbeing through the cultivation of
plants near the house and the collection of medicinal plants. Before the
roads arrived, the men and some women of San Carlos were also the
‘human mules’ who carried the region’s coffee production on their backs
from remote coffee growers to local collection points. Today, their labor is
no longer needed, and the men have begun to leave the community in
search of work. Many women are left behind for long stretches of time to
fend as best they can.

A group of women from the community began to organize in search of
activities to improve their own, their families’ and their community’s
wellbeing. They decided to work together to collect and revitalize the
community’s knowledge of medicinal plants. As one women explained, “I
was a young mother and I did not know how to cure my children’s
illnesses. There were no doctors here and medicine was very expensive.
My husband was away when one of my babies became very sick and
died. I began to learn what I could to keep my remaining children healthy
and care for them when they were ill. I asked my neighbors, my family and
my friends and slowly I began to learn.” She and several other women
began to pool their knowledge and seek out others in the community with
special knowledge of medicinal plants.

An elderly man, a curandero“, from the community was willing to share
what he knew with the women. In addition, several of the women were

experienced midwives. Together they went to the forest to identify and
collect plants, sharing what they found with others in their group and in the

45 A curandero (male) or curandera (female) is a healer.

146

community. They slowly began to recover the community’s medicinal plant
knowledge and practices.

The government sponsored a national contest for groups of indigenous
women working with medicinal plants and traditional medicine. The
women of San Carlos entered the contest and won. They received a
monetary award, a small clinic with a space for a traditional pharmacy was
built for them, and a demonstration garden started. The women continued
to share their knowledge and medicines with the community at a nominal
cost to patients. The group received local, national and international
attention for their medicinal knowledge particularly on midwifery and the
traditional Mixe sweat baths. However, the women’s fame and benefits
were short-lived.

The community did not respond with pride at the women’s achievements,
but rather imposed severe social sanctions and physical punishment on
the women. They were accused of being witches, they were thrown out of
their clinic, their prize money taken away, and their garden was destroyed.
I later learned that the main impetus behind these sanctions came from
the evangelicos“, community members who had established a protestant
church in this formerly Catholic community. The evangelicos in San Carlos
saw themselves as more ‘modern’ than the Catholics and took a ﬁrm
stance against ‘superstition.’ Traditional plant knowledge and medicine
were viewed as witchcraft.

Not only were the women punished. The reprisal extended to the husband
of one of the curanderas for supporting his wife and the other women. The
other men of the community branded him a mandilén (an insulting term for
a man who is dominated by women). He was then elected to head the
community assembly. While this may appear to be an honor to outsiders,
in the cultural context of indigenous Mexico it can also be seen as a
burden or even a punishment. The Ofﬁceholder may not engage in
employment for the three years he holds ofﬁce and therefore has few
means to support his family. To penalize him further, two women were
elected as his secretary and treasurer. This was the ﬁrst time in the history
of the community that a woman had ever held an elected position. The
community was embroiled in five land tenure disputes with neighboring
communities. Pablo, the new comisan'ado, and his female secretary and
treasurer turned to the Seminar; with them came the women from the
medicinal plant group.

 

“6 The term evangelicos, in Latin America, typically refers to people of any protestant religion.
Most groups are of an evangelizing nature and hence the term, evangelicos.

147

The motivations that bring communities, groups and individuals to the Seminar
usually have long and complex histories that involve personal, interfamily,
political, and cultural elements. At times, an issue seems to be resolved only to
reappear years later. The Seminar offers a space where problems can be
discussed, where advice can be sought and given, and increasingly, where
concerns and fears can be expressed.

There are time, however, when the advice of the Seminar does not suit a
community's or group's needs. There have been cases when the advice given
out in the Seminar seemed irrelevant or contradictory to what communities feel is
in their best interest. These communities often stop coming to the Seminar. Such
was the case with two communities that were involved in boundary disputes with
their neighbors. The Seminar’s advice to both the communities was to re-
examine the veracity of their claims and to analyze whether pursuit of these
claims was warranted. The communities did not agree with this advice and
presumably continued to press their claims, but without the help of the Seminar.
A few communities ceased attending because they had solved their immediate
problems. San Pablo is an example. With the help of the Seminar, the community
has resolved its land tenure struggles with the neighboring large landholders.
The original reason the community joined the Seminar is resolved, so the
community no longer sends an ofﬁcial representative to the Seminar meetings.

However, an individual from the community continues to attend. On several

148

occasions, communities quit attending only to reappear several years later when
an old problem resurfaces or new problems emerge.

There are also occasions when a community or individual has brought an issue
before the Seminar that Seminar members prefer not to address or cannot
address (for political or other reasons). Such was the case with Pancho, a past
participant in the Seminar. He returned after several years' absence to report that
a large sum of money that had been donated to his community by an
international NGO had "disappeared." His presentation seemed less than
forthright. While the Seminar gave him advice, he was not encouraged to attend
unless the community itself became involved in the resolution of the problem. He
has not yet returned.

5.8 Issues Addressed by the Seminar

The San Carlos vignette presents a complex example of issues that are
brought to the Seminar. The issues addressed by the Seminar revolve primarily
around community land tenure struggles and socioeconomic issues. Typically,
communities deal with land tenure issues, while small groups address
socioeconomic issues. The land tenure issues center on a mixture of disputes
with neighboring communities, internal struggles relating to land, and/or
disagreements with the government. The more typical struggle is between a
community and its neighbors -- as in the case of San Carlos - and its dispute

with five of the six communities with which San Carlos shares boundaries.

149

Vignette 6 illustrates internal struggles relating to land tenure issues. Santa
Maria is a Zapotec community located a few hours from the city of Oaxaca.
Given this location and its access to Oaxacan markets, it is relatively more
affluent than other communities that participate in the Seminar. However, relative
affluence has not protected it from land tenure problems. In fact, it may have

exacerbated the problem.

 

Vignette 6. Internal Community Struggles in Santa Maria

In 1996, the comisariado of Santa Maria went to the Agrarian Reform to submit a
request to the government for additional lands for his comunidad. He
encountered much more than he expected. He found that when the comunidad
was reorganized in 1938, it had been declared an ejido rather than a comunidad
without the community's knowledge. Of the 324 families that made up the
community, only 37 of them had been recognized as ejidatan'os. Vlﬁth this act 287
families and their descendents were excluded as ejidatan'os and thereby
prohibited from voting in the community assembly, the primary ruling body of
rural communities. The comisariado, fearing reprisals from community members,
fled to the United States without notifying the community of the situation.

The community only became aware of the problem when an ofﬁcial denial for
additional lands arrived. In early 1997, four community members were selected
to serve on the newly created comision de gestoria agraria (committee of
agrarian investigation) to investigate and suggest solutions to the problem. The
committee contacted government ofﬁcials who responded that the community
was unimportant and the ofﬁcials couldn't be bothered with this minor problem.
The committee sought out the Seminar. At the suggestion of the Seminar, the
four members of the committee initiated a census to ﬁnd out who had rights to
ejido lands based on their pre-1938 status. They found that the original 37
families had grown to include 1067 individuals while those who were excluded
now numbered 8387 individuals. A relatively simple solution appeared to exist -
call a community assembly to vote on the issue. The community assembly could
vote to include the excluded individuals as ejidatarios creating one large ejido.
When this was accomplished, the ejido members could vote to become a
comunidad - once again returning them to the status they had originally held.

150

Unfortunately, the new comisariado was a member of the families recognized as
ejidatarios. He and a small group controlled the assembly and they refused to
allow a vote to be called. Thus, the rights of those who had been excluded were
denied. The threat of violence in Santa Maria was high. In a neighboring
community, several community leaders had been lynched a few years earlier.
Some community members looked to this example as a means to solve their own
problem. However, most of the excluded community members in Santa Maria did
not want the problem to be resolved through violence saying, "A problem created
with paper should be resolved with paper, not with blood." But the government
refused to intervene and the comisariado refused to give in.

 

The struggle in Santa Maria, while unique in its details, is one variant of the
internal conﬂicts that beset rural Oaxacan communities. These internal conﬂicts,
while not new, take on an added importance as the economic situation in the
countryside worsens, people leave for the North, and/or turn to the cultivation of
illegal crops to survive. In the Seminar, communities confront these destructive
dynamics and wonder how they can survive both culturally and economically.
Increasingly, problems of a socioeconomic nature are dominating Seminar
discussion. San Carlos' venture in growing coffee is proceeding successfully.
There are now sixteen families participating in the project with approximately 100
coffee tree seedlings apiece. They are also experimenting with several other
plants donated by Seminar members or local NGOs including vetiver grass,
papaya, ginger and several medicinal plants. They will experiment with planting
these in their “café milpero.” However, not all projects are proceeding as
successfully as that of San Carlos. The women's group in Tierra Piedra is

progressing slowly in their quest to ﬁnd economic opportunities. The following

151

vignette describes the various attempts of the young women, a task made more
difﬁcult by government "assistance" programs.

—
Vignette 7. In Search of a Project

The young women of Tierra Piedra want to ﬁnd a way to earn some income that
will allow them to stay in their community. Thirteen young women formed a
group, the "Committee in the Defense of Women." In the Seminar, they
presented their bitécora, saying, 'Women do not have a voice [in our community,
so] we bring this to the Seminar for an opinion and an answer. We want help to
generate employment so we don’t have to immigrate. Single women have to
leave their children to ﬁnd employment. But we don’t want to leave our
communities and abandon our children... Women always have work helping
men in the milpa, but how do we find employment?...Women are always helpers
and sometimes we do the hardest work. We want less difﬁcult and more secure
employment.”

The young women considered raising rabbits, ducks, or chickens and were also
interested in a sewing project. Some of the people from the community had
started several successful broasted chicken businesses in Mexico City. This
success inspired the young women to start a chicken project.

The Seminar suggested that they consult both individuals in the community with
experience in raising chickens and their fellow community members who had
migrated to Mexico City. One participant suggested that they develop a work plan
including a market analysis. The women agreed. They asked the Seminar to lend
them money to start their project, but the Seminar had no funds for this type of
activity. Rather than begin a large enterprise, the women scraped together a little
money to buy a few chickens each. But they had not done their research. They
purchased the chicks in November, a month known to be the time of deadly
poultry disease. Most of the chicks contracted the disease and died. The project
ended.

In the Seminar, members gave the women advice and encouragement.
"Just think what would have happened if you had bought many chickens and they

had died. Think about what you have learned. The best way to learn is thorough
experience, through your own initiative. "

152

"Chickens are like coffee, it gives an opportunity to come together to discuss, to
explore alternatives, and to come to agreement. An opportunity to pléticar” to
organize and decide what you are going to do. "

"The idea of the companeras“ is very important because it is their own idea. It is
born from within. This is the beginning even if it is not chickens. "

”We weren't born experts, you shouldn ‘t become disanimated. "

The young women did not give up. The government was offering a course on
hand-embroidered traditional Oaxacan dresses. The women decided to take
advantage of the training and two of the women enrolled in the course. These
two would return to the community and teach the rest of the group. Again, the
members of the Seminar encouraged the women to do a simple market analysis.
It seemed apparent to those with more experience that the market was saturated
with hand-embroidered dresses. Once again, the young women agreed, but
proceed without examining the market. The cost of the course was $500 pesos
plus the added expense of staying in a town several hours from Piedra Tierra.
The instructor hired by the government was paid before she began the course.
She taught the young women only a small part of the embroidery process and
then disappeared without finishing the class. Regardless of their disappointment,
the young women returned to their community to teach what they have learned to
the rest of the group. In a Seminar meeting, they proudly displayed the dress
yokes that they had learned how to embroider. They began to teach themselves
how to finish the dresses and asked me if I could help them learn how to sew.

I also wanted to help them better understand the marketing of their crafts, and so
I set up a meeting with a friend who operated a small textile store. She told them
how she had gotten started and suggested that the young women visit two
government agencies charged with the training artisans and marketing artisan
crafts. At one agency, the young women were told that the warehouses were full
of traditional Oaxacan dresses that couldn’t be sold. Additionally, while the
government had commissioned them to buy large quantities of crafts, the funds
for the current year had not, and probably would not, arrive. This agency could
not help. But the young women began to grasp some basic ideas of supply and
demand.

Not deterred, the young women solicited another government agency for sewing

machines. The agency readily agreed. Finally, a large box arrived in Tierra
Piedras. The women opened the box with anticipation. However, when the box

“7 Formally translated as to talk informally or chat, but understood in this context as dialogue.
48 Companions or friends often associated with partners in a struggle as in comrade-in-arms.

153

was opened it did not contain sewing machines. The box contained a large,
antiquated knitting machine called a Tricadora, made in the 19505 with
instructions written in German. The young women were disheartened, but again
did not give up. They attempted to find someone to teach them how to knit with
the machine. They did not want to consider the fact that there was only one
machine and 16 young women, that more modern knitting machines were faster
and more efficient, and they had no idea if there was a market for sweaters.

During a Seminar visit to the community, Don Salomon invited us to his house to
see the machine. A large long gray wooden box covered with dust was tucked up
against the wall in his living room. It looked for all the world like a coffin. This
sight was made even more poignant, because Don Salomon's wife had died a
month earlier. We joked that it contained Dracula. When we opened it, we saw
the knitting machine. Our amusement at the "cofﬁn" turned to a mixture of anger
and disbelief as we gazed at the useless piece of equipment. We could ﬁnd no
humor in the situation. The young women continue to wait for a government
instructor to "teach" them how to knit.

 

The Santa Ana vignette illustrates the dependency rural communities have
on government programs and the often dysfunctional nature of this relationship.
The Seminar challenges communities to reconstruct this relationship, to become
"actors" instead of passive recipients of aid programs. However, it seems that the
strategies and advice devised in the Seminar to confront the new problems
facing communities are less effective or efﬁcacious than those devised to
confront land tenure problems. Increasingly in Seminar discussions, the question
of despries de la tierra que? (Now that we have won the struggle for the land,
what do we do?) was turned on the Seminar itself. What did the Seminar need to

do and be to help communities face their changing reality?

154

5.9 Summary

The "logic of the milpa" forms the underlying philosophy of the Seminar.
As a social "mi/pa,” the Seminar views itself as a space where representatives
from diverse communities and cultural groups come together and contribute to
the discussion and resolution of problems facing their communities. In theory,
each Seminar participant has the opportunity to contribute as an equal to
discussion and reﬂection. However, in practice, participation is distorted by both
class- and gender-related barriers to communication. In addition, the co-joined
knowledge of all participants seems insufﬁcient to the task of ﬁnding solutions to

problems emerging from the rapidly changing environment of rural Mexico.

155

CHAPTER 6

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SEMINAR

The Seminar faces new challenges relating to external and internal
factors. External pressures of globalization, both economic and cultural, seem to
have intensiﬁed with the passage of NAFTA. Reduction of agricultural subsidies,
falling corn prices, changes in land tenure laws, and out-migration negatively
impact family and community survival. Internally, the empowerment of Seminar
participants as they learn to become better community leaders has changed the
quality and quantity of their participation in the Seminar. Old patterns of
participation are being challenged both implicitly and explicitly. Additionally, the
inclusion of new members -- with markedly distinct experiences from the state of
Nayarit and from the United States -- increase the diversity of the Seminar, and
thereby, the scope and nature of the dialogue in the Seminar.

We, the Seminar participants, had asked communities to reﬂect upon what
they were doing, why they were doing it, and what they wanted to be. We had
consistently encouraged them to dream, to develop a plan, to envision the future.
We had admonished them to be disciplined, to be organized, and to tell the truth.
Yet the Seminar -- as an organization - could not or did not want to recognize its
own shortcomings and inconsistencies in terms of the typical criticisms and

suggestions given to communities, groups and individuals (see Argyris 1993). It

156

even seemed to be reproducing the types of relationships found in broader
Mexican society.

Gradually, the Seminar began to recognize that in the advice given to
communities lay ways to address some of its own challenges. The processes in
the Seminar as it came to this realization are discussed in this chapter. As in
Chapter 5, vignettes and quotes are used extensively to present these processes
from the perspective of the participants themselves. In this chapter, the voices of
the participants are heard more frequently. Vignettes give way to quotes, shared
as excerpts from the dialogue and discussions of Seminar meetings.

The organizational change of the Seminar appears to be similar to the
change an organization makes when moving from an adaptive organization to a
learning organization (Argyris 1993; Argyris and Schon 1978; Lassey 1998).
These concepts -- “adaptive organization” and “learning organization” - are
typically applied to businesses, government departments, schools, or charities in
industrialized countries. In this research, these concepts are used as heuristic
tools to better understand the changes that occur in the Seminar. The use of
these terms does not imply the application of the learning organization theory as
a whole. Rather, I follow the advice of Mills (1959: 225) who says:

In formulating and in trying to solve these problems, do not

hesitate, indeed seek, continually and imaginatively, to draw upon

the perspectives and materials, the ideas and methods, of any and

all sensible studies of man and society. They are your studies; they

are a part of what you are a part of; do not let them be taken from

you by those who would close them off by weird jargon and
pretensions of expertise.

157

Accordingly, the use of these terms represents a transdisiplinary and experiential
effort to gain insights into a given social phenomenon.

Argyris and Schon (1978) deﬁne an adaptive organization as a problem-
focused organization that makes incremental improvements in its action without
examining the organization’s underlying assumptions. In contrast, a learning
organization is one that begins to look at the world differently, and consciously
transforms itself and its own basic “functions, ideals and beliefs” (Argyris 1993;
Bawden 1995). In the Seminar, this movement is termed, the “transformation” of
the Seminar.

6. 0 Themes

In order for the Seminar to contemplate this transformation, certain
themes -- both real and conceptual -- needed to be in place. By “real,” I mean a
change in procedure. By “conceptual,” I mean that new ideas became a part of
the language and practice of the Seminar. These themes helped disclose the
individual and collective assumptions that underlie the “mental model” of the
Seminar. Senge (1990: 8-9) deﬁnes a “mental model” as “the deeply ingrained
assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that inﬂuence how we
understand the world and how we take action.” These assumptions are often
unconscious and effect behavior in unrecognized ways. The themes of the
Seminar that helped make these assumptions more visible are presented in

Table 4.

158

Table 4. Themes of the Seminar

 

 

Real Conceptual

. Establishing Saturday -- the day of . The idea of the Seminar as a
truth learning process

 

. Introducing the ronda as a means to . Identiﬁcation of obstacles to

 

 

encourage participation learning
. Using regional diagnostics as a . Picturing and discussing internal
means to develop a historical social organization
perspective and analyze existing
resources . Framing the issue of mandadero"9

 

& other concepts of leadership

. Confronting issues of how to
escape relationships of dependency

. Formulating ideas of new
technicians and experts

. Creating a vision of the future for
the Seminar

 

 

In this chapter, these themes will be further elaborated, and their
relationships to the “transformation” of the Seminar will be highlighted. The
meaning of these speciﬁc achievements in the Seminar, the order in which they

occurred, and their relationships to each other are intertwined and evolving.

49 A person at the “service” oftheir community.

159

 

Accordingly, this list of themes does not imply a linear relationship among them,

but rather, serves as a means to introduce them50 (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Moving towards a Learning Organization

 

ale The Seminar as a “learning organization”

g - The Transformation of the Seminar

) - La Ronda

- Lack of Participation

D - Saturday -— the day of truth
& - Regional Diagnostic

0 Chi iiza - envisioning the future

- Ideas of new tecnicos and experts
. - Escaping relationships of dependency

- Mandaderos — examining leadership
C - Obstacles to Ieaming

 

- The Seminar as a Ieaming process

*— The Seminar as an “adaptive organiZation”

 

 

 

These themes appeared in the Seminar in various ways -- serendipitously,
accidentally, or emerging from other themes. Despite the unpredictable nature of
their appearance, there was a pattern associated with how these ideas emerged
and circulated. Themes first appeared during the analysis of community or group
issues. Issues were brought to the Seminar by representatives and, then, were
processed through discussion and analysis. Speciﬁcally, these themes provided

a means to communicate across differences and/or as a means to synthesize

50 I presented this diagram as part of a validity check. The curved line was drawn in at the
suggestion of Seminar participants. They also suggested that we had not yet fully become a

160

hours of discussion. Both during and after discussion and analysis, themes were
returned to communities as suggestions and/or solutions by community

representatives through their bitécoras. As the Seminar began to question some
of its underlying assumptions, particular themes re—emerged and were applied to

the Seminar in a critically self-reﬂexive manner (see Figure 7)

Figure 7. Reﬂecting on the Seminar

 

Themes applied to the Seminar

Them es

  
 
   

Themes Themes

 

 

 

These discussions were often long and complicated, during which a new
understanding of the Seminar emerged. The application of these themes to the
Seminar marked the transition of the Seminar from an organization that appeared
to be an “adaptive organization” to one that more closely resembled a “learning

organization.”

 

“learning organization.”

161

6.1 Theme 1: The Seminar as a Learning Process

A fundamental concept needed to be in place before participants could
begin to reﬂect on themselves as an organization -- the Seminar was, at least

potentially, a learning process (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. The Seminar Reﬂects on Itself as a Learning Process

 

Themes applied to the Seminar

 

 

 

. The Seminar as a learning process

 

   

Community Community

 

 

 

By a learning process, I mean a form of praxis - a space where people can learn
together over time in order to inform action (Argyris 1993). While this deﬁnition
may appear simplistic, embedded within it are fundamental issues relating to a
dissonance between ig_e_a§ and practice, struggles over mean—ing, forms of
knowledge, social relations and the situated nature of Ieaming (Freire 1985: xiii;

Lave and Wenger 1991: 33).

162

The following quotations communicate member’s initial understanding of
the Seminar as a learning process both for individuals and for the organization
itself.

“The Seminar is a school where we learn to discover things, not just gather
prescriptions. ”

“I come to the Seminar. . because of what I learn. For example when a little
problem comes up in the [community] assembly, I raise my hand and say why
don ’t we do this. My suggestions come from something I’ve learned here. ”

“We’re learning a new way of thinking, but we don ’t know what to do yet... We
are changing our way of talking about and thinking of things.”

“The Seminar is a school, not of children, but of adults. It helps us a lot in
improving our practice. ”

Understanding the Seminar as a space where Ieaming occurs allowed the
Seminar participants to step back from a focus on outcomes (the solutions to
community and group problems) to include a focus on process (how these
solutions were conceived.) This expansion shifted the standpoint from one that
looked primarily towards the outside to one that also looked inward. This shift
enabled Seminar participants to begin to reﬂect upon the organization and its
internal workings.

Conceptualizing the Seminar as a learning process opened a space where
obstacles to learning could be addressed. Furthermore, comprehending the
Seminar as a learning process provided a point of reference for members to think

about, and make sense of, relationships within the organization. In addition,

163

examining the Seminar’s ability to provide learning experiences for members
helped increase the organization’s own Ieaming capacities.

6.2 Theme 2: Obstacles to Learning

Initial sparks of recognition regarding the potential of the Seminar as a
learning process emerged from Seminar discussions of arch-typical problems in
several of the communities. These problems involved obstacles to community
learning, and micro-political divisions and power struggles that could paralyze
communities for years (see Figure 9).

Figure 9. Obstacles to Learning

 

 

. Obstacles to learning

 

 

The Seminar as a Ieaming process

Seminar

CommWnities

These problems often resulted in, among other outcomes, unwillingness of

 

 

 

members to learn from each other and the subsequent deference to and

164

dependence on experts. Once these obstacles were identiﬁed, the organization
could more consciously begin the process of organizational change.

A reoccurring topic relating to obstacles to learning in communities was
the propensity of new comisanados to reject advice from ex-comisariados. In
fact, the departing comisariado and his advisors were often ostracized from the
leadership circle of the community. The three years of knowledge and experience
of the retiring comisariado and his advisors were lost and could not be drawn
upon. The new and often inexperienced comisariado would not or could not ask
his predecessor for assistance or guidance for fear that he would appear weak or
ignorant. This seemed to be driven by considerations of personal pride and a
perceived need to impress the community of the new comisanado’s superior
skills and the notion that “anyone who is not with me is against me.”

Vignette 8 illuminates several of these issues that later become a part of
the Seminar’s self-reﬂexive process. The case of Tierra Piedra presents
problems stemming from individual pride and the comisariado’s inability to accept

counsel from his fellow community members.

165

_
Vignette 8. Obstacles to Learning in Tierra Piedra51

mid-18003 - The land is a large hacienda. Indigenous workers from several
different ethnic groups are forcibly relocated to the hacienda to cultivate
cochineal52 for a large landholder.

19305 - By this date indigenous identities and languages are lost. The workers
cultivate cochineal for the landholder until the mid-19303 when aniline
dyes force natural dyes out of the market. The workers turn to subsistence
farming to survive.

1977 - Details of the 1910 revolution and accompanying land reform reach Tierra
Piedra. The community elects to become an ejido and submits a solicitud
to the government.

1978 - The community names a committee to address land tenure issues.

1983 - The community receives a negative response to their solicitud to become
an ejido because the neighboring community San Pablo also claims the
land.

1991 - Tierra Piedra joins the Seminar.

1994 - The government surveys the land, recognizing Tierra Piedra’s claim.

1995 - The community is ofﬁcially recognized as an ejido.

1996 - San Pablo, a neighboring community, challenges the boundaries of Tierra
Piedra and initiates an amparo - a legal hold on the titling process. An
agreement is reached that all parties will submit their arguments and
claims to the government. A visual inspection or survey must accompany
these claims.

1997 - A new comisariado is elected in Tierra Piedra. In June, the comisariado
and his advisors make a trip to Mexico City to see the agrarian reform
officials. They have not made an appointment and the ofﬁcials are not
there. When asked in the Seminar what they have Ieamed from the trip
the comisariado replies, “We will have to go again.”

1998 - The comisariado hires a surveyor and lawyer against the advice of several
community members and the Seminar. The surveyor is invited to the
Seminar where the govemment’s requirements for a visual inspection are
clariﬁed. The survey is completed and legal documents prepared. These
documents are brought to the Seminar b the comisariado and reviewed. It
appears that the documents may jeopardize Tierra Piedra’s claim; they
contain errors and extraneous details and omit crucial information.
Community members are concerned. The comisariado will not take

5’ This vignette draws from several bitacoras, Seminar discussions and The History of Santa
Catarina written by Don Bemabe Martinez Vazque with his permission.
52 A parasitic insect that infects nopal cacti and is used as a dye.

166

anyone’s advice and stubbornly continues to rely on the costly and poor
council of “experts.”

Current Situation - In April 1999, the community assembly invites the Seminar to
attend a special assembly meeting to discuss these issues. The Seminar
members are conscious of the need not to make the comisariado feel
threatened. They decide to simulate the learning process of the Seminar
by reading and discussing the legal documents submitted by the lawyers
and the surveyor. As these documents are read it becomes apparent that
no one in the community assembly understands the legal language of the
documents. Yet, the community assembly accepted, and the comisariado
signed, the documents. The Seminar simulation shows that these
documents are written in a “foreign” language that needs to be “translated”
to be understood. Seminar members suggest that: 1) if documents are not
understood, they should not be signed; 2) having a lawyer is no guarantee
that the work will be done correctly; 3) a community can seek advice from
outside “experts” when necessary, but should recognize their own
capabilities and ability to control the process. During the next Seminar,
meeting participants encourage the new comisariado to break the
obstacles to learning he has constructed. An ex—comisan'ado says, “There
are no laws that say this has to happen - that those that have learned
can’t share with those who are new. When I was elected comisariado, I
met with the old comisan'ado in my community every eight days.”

 

The situation in Tierra Piedra appears typical of many rural communities of
Oaxaca in which incoming comisariados can not and do not cooperate with
exiting comisariados (Dennis 1987; Kearney 1972; Nader 1990). The knowledge
and experience acquired by the past leaders can not be drawn upon without the
new comisariados appearing weak. In Tierra Piedra, this lack of communication
and sharing of knowledge clearly led to reliance upon outside legal experts
without examining whether these experts merited their status as knowledgeable

and competent individuals. In the case of Tierra Piedra, marginalizing

167

experienced former leaders added to the real risk that the community would lose
its land tenure struggle.

In the Seminar, personal pride and ego were seen as destructive forces
when they prohibit community leaders from consulting with and drawing upon
more experienced community members (see Rahman 1993). The need for
leaders to learn from the experiences of others was emphasized as an essential
ingredient for communities to move forward. The consequences of not doing so
could potentially jeopardize the wellbeing of communities and often led them to
rely unnecessarily and unwisely on outside experts. The Seminar suggested that
a dependency on experts was not necessary; rather experts should be at “the
service of the community.” The Seminars advice intended to increase community
leaders’ abilities to Ieam from their peers and help them recognize their own
agency and capabilities to take both action and maintain control of that action.

The participants in the Seminar could see the destructive nature of these
relationships in their own communities. Yet, they did not recognize that they were
reproducing similar relationships in the Seminar through dependence on
academics and experienced community organizers. While these individuals had
special knowledge and experience, this dependency appeared to inhibit Seminar
participants from learning from each other and from recognizing and improving
their own capacities. Fitfully, Seminar members began to apply to themselves the
same critical analysis they had used to reﬂect on community problems. Some of

the earliest indications of the Seminar moving towards becoming a learning

168

organization was this incipient questioning of relationships in learning and
leadership in communities. Some members occasionally admitted that they had
“failed” as leaders in their communities, and in the Seminar and that they could
not justify their behavior. However, they did not at this point change their
practice.53

6.3 lntemal Social Organization

The Seminar made an initial move towards self-reﬂectivity during
discussions of a case highlighting destructive social relationships in communities.
Social divisions in Oaxacan communities, generally, are based on internal land
squabbles, family rivalries, religious differences, or political party afﬁliation that
lead to destructive and often violent lntemal power struggles and micro-political
divisions (Dennis 1976). Generally, the dialogue and reﬂection of the Seminar
stimulated participants to think critically and encouraged them to examine the
nature of these relationships and how they might be changed or mitigated.
Vignette 9 provides an example of the type of issues raised in the Seminar
regarding internal social organization and the advice given to community

members. It also demonstrated the complexities of a learning process that

53 This phenomenon appears similar to what Brunsson’s found in his study of Swedish local
authorities. He states that although leaders knew they were doing wrong, they continued their
behavior (Brunsson cited in Argyris, 1993: 16).

169

combines individual and community learning. This case presents an instance in
which a long-standing leader is attacked by his fellow community members. The
leader takes a step towards recognizing his abilities and influence as a
community leader. At the same time, a community institutionalizes a healthier
attitude towards its own leaders.

g
Vignette 9. Samuel

Samuel has participated in the Seminar for eight years. He has diligently and
capably served his community as a comisariado for three years and played a
decisive role in the resolution of a 600 year-old conﬂict with the neighboring
community. The neighboring community has treated the smaller and poorer
community of Lorna de Aquila as its vassal, extracting labor, food and servitude.
Samuel and two other community members were elected by the community
assembly to participate in the Seminar. With other Seminar participants, they
developed a complex series of strategies that eventually released Loma de
Aquila from the destructive grip of its neighbor. The struggle required wit,
commitment and sacriﬁce. During the three years of service as comisariado,
Samuel received no pay nor did he have much time to devote to the subsistence
of this family. Despite the personal difﬁculties this service entailed and the
sacrifices made, Samuel was accused by his community of stealing community
funds. For months, he struggles with how to handle the situation. He says, ""The
mule is beaten when he will not move, the comisariado is beaten when he makes
progress... If I was a responsible person, lwouldn't have this problem.” Finally,
he presents his bitacora, smiling shyly, yet sadly, saying he would never serve
his community again -- “The same people we serve throw stones at us. Ni un
dedo mas" (not a ﬁnger more)”

The Seminar addressed the issue of leadership and the difﬁculties it implied. The
Seminar coordinator posed a question to Samuel, “If you could turn back time,
what rules would you impose on the community?” Samuel responded, “The rules
I would put are these: there would have to be proof before anyone could make
accusations; if someone has proof they would have to present it publicly or they
would be accomplices; and depending on the severity of the accusation, a false
accuser could be jailed.”

A year passed and Samuel was once again elected to a community position. This
time he told the assembly that he would not accept the position unless the

170

community accepts his terms. He told the assembly that: the community must
pay for expenses associated with the work (it was not a salaried position), any
accusations made against a public ofﬁcial must be made publicly, and the
accuser must have proof of a crime. The assembly voted to accept his demands
and Samuel once again took a position of leadership and responsibility in the
community, but now with an increased sense of conﬁdence. The community
adjusted its approach to leadership by adopting a less destructive attitude.

 

This vignette presents an issue that re-occurred regularly in Seminar
discussions - a community leader being punished after years of service.54
Leaders typically react to various forms of punishment by withdrawing from public
service for a period of time. Often, they work behind the scenes to regain a
position of authority -- an action that further divides communities -- or they wait
until the community once again calls them to service. In effect, little learning
occurs, either for the individual or the community. The Seminar helps participants
learn how to confront and change these destructive forces by giving them
confidence in their own leadership abilities. Recognizing their own agency seems
a necessary condition for leaders to deal with, and Ieam from, these negative
experiences. In this instance, Samuel gained increased conﬁdence and self-
esteem in responding to the community’s demands. In addition, the community

began to develop a new way of conceptualizing leadership, an attitude that

5“ For an additional example ofthis phenomenon, see vignette 5.

171

seemed necessary for the community to move ahead. In a small way, Samuel’s
interaction with the community began to change the community’s perspective
towards leadership. Yet, while individuals were learning to be better leaders in
their own communities, they did not fully exercise these ﬂedgling skills in the
Seminar.

6.4 Theme 3: Mandaderos & Community Leadership

Discussions of the concept of mandadero further assisted the Seminar in
the analysis of its lntemal organization (see Figure 10). Mandadero comes from
the verb mandar, “to send or to order.” In the Seminar, participants often referred
to themselves as mandaderos. Mandadero is deﬁned in the Seminar as a role in
which individuals are placed at the “service of community.”

In the ethnographic literature, there is no speciﬁc reference to
“mandadero.” The closest term and discussion refers to the system of cargos that
is common throughout indigenous Mesoamerica (Dennis 1976; Kearney 1972).
Kearny (1972) describes a cargo as "an ofﬁcial position within the civil or
religious hierarchies of the municipio and its agencia.” These positions pertain to
three separate areas - religious responsibilities, community governance, and
regulation of community lands. Kearny describes positions of cargo as an
“unavoidable consequence of living in the municipio.” The term mandadero refers
to individuals who may or may not hold positions of community cargos but who

are assigned certain community responsibilities and leadership roles.

172

Figure 10. Mandaderos

 

 

 

7 - Escaping relationships of dependency

 

  

Community Community

 

 

 

The role of mandadero and positions of cargo, while different, share some
similarities. First, individuals are obligated by custom to accept these positions.
Secondly, individuals who hold these positions feel some ambivalence towards
them. Thirdly, individuals in these positions feel “hemmed in” by community
“tradition,” expectations and rules. Finally, if leaders either as mandaderos or in
positions of cargo violate the narrow strictures of “appropriate” leadership - if they
are too innovative, too individualistic, or too successful - they may be punished. A
person who identiﬁes himself as a mandadero in the Seminar feels a certain
sense of responsibility towards his community and accepts the “consequences”

of being a community member. Yet, he is well aware of the limited authority that

173

is associated with these positions and how that limited authority inhibits his ability
to act.

During a Seminar discussion, I asked for an explanation of the term
mandadero. I was unclear about the complexities of a role that appeared to have
both positive and negative connotations. The comments of participants illustrate
the contradictory nature of the term and their own ambivalence about the role of
mandadero:

“A mandadero is someone who is at the service of his community, someone who
doesn’t have solutions to the community’s problems but must ﬁnd them.”

“It is someone who is either committed or stupid. ”

“Its someone who is a joke and screwed - he is ordered and he must obey.”

“A mandadero has two sides, that of being a martyr and that of having power.
There is a tension between service and power. There is a bad and good spirit to
it, one can become ambitious. ”

“It’s hard to talk about this. No one wants to say that he is in this for the power. 55
It’s hard to accept this. . .. It’s an easy explanation. What power are we gaining? I

would put it another way, you can get eaten alive. Look at Samuel or Pablo. . ..
We’re masochistic. This pinche (damn) power - we can do without it. ”

As the above comments indicate, the concept of mandadero seems to contain
two notions - s_eﬂc_§ and pow—er. The notion of service is associated with an
attitude of humility, a willingness to complete the tasks assigned and a
commitment to community. Service also appears closely related to a feeling of

powerlessness or inability to control or direct, as in the case of Samuel or Pablo.

55 In this instance, power includes a strong element of personal gain.

174

The understanding of power in this instance may be constrained by ideas
based on past exercises of power by local caciques and government officials.
During the 19605 and 705, several senior Seminar participants engaged in long,
and often violent, struggles to destroy the power of the local caciques.
Participants also recognized government officials’ abuse of power - a constant
reminder of the negative consequences of leaders who lacked a sense of
responsibility and commitment. No one wanted to be associated with or to
reproduce these forms of power in either their communities or in the Seminar.

Another form of power frequently spoken of in the Seminar was the power
to convocar - to convoke - yet only a few individuals in communities or groups
actually “have” the power to call upon other community members to meet and
engage in community activities. Community and Seminar members are willing to
listen to individuals who have the power to convoke based on their demonstrated
abilities, commitment, and past successes as leaders. However, this form of
power is not common -- few individuals in communities are recognized to have
the “power to convoke.”

Despite the recognition of the power to convoke, Seminar members have
not yet been able to resolve the issue of power and its seemingly discordant
nature in the Seminar and in communities. Reﬂection and analysis on the dual
nature of power and leadership in the Seminar was restrained, in part, by the all
too familiar specter of destructive social divisions in communities. In

communities, questioning of leadership often lead to intensiﬁed divisions,

175

violence, and even the destruction of communities. The Seminar was a collective
with a cohesive identity that had allowed it to proceed successfully in its search
for solutions to difﬁcult land tenure and related socioeconomic conditions.
Seminar participants appeared to be searching for a way to discuss internal
leadership and relationships in a way that did not jeopardize this communal ”we.”

Discussion in the Seminar of leadership and power were not fully
elaborated, in part, because of this recognition. Yet, discussions about
mandaderos and its dual nature of service and power set the stage for both
campesinos and academics to recognize that these ideas could be apply to
themselves as leaders in the Seminar. The idea of “service to community” would
encourage Seminar participants to think of themselves as members with
responsibilities and commitment. The idea of power would later be drawn upon in
discussion of relationship between academics and campesinos. The exploration
of concepts of leadership and power continued under the themes “escaping
relationships of dependency” and “the tecnico of the future.”

6.5 Theme 5: Escaping Relationships of Dependency

The nature of leadership and power was further examined under the
theme of “escaping relationships of dependency” - a key theme in Seminar

discussions (see Figure 11 ).

176

Figure 1 1. Escaping Relationships of Dependency

 

 

7. Escaping relationships of dependency j

 

  

Community Community

 

 

 

The notion of dependency usually refers to economic relationships. In the
Seminar, there was an economic component to the idea of dependency, but it
also included elements of cultural, political, and social domination. For example,
the government’s attitude, behavior, and policies towards campesinos and
indigenous peoples were often viewed as ramiﬁcations of dependency.

Communities often told stories of how they had confronted this form of
dependency, taking advantage of government programs in ways the government
had not intended. Vignettes 10 & 11 represent different reactions to dependency

-- one where fundamental relationships do not change and the other where they

177

do change. Vignette 10 -— the Case of San Mateo - presents an instance where
a community puts aside its animosities to fool the government. In this case, the
government served as the “enemy without,” uniting a community suffering from
intense internal conflict. Vignette 11 - The Case of Cerro Niebla — presents an
instance in which a community recognizes its own rights and abilities to

challenge and change government healthcare workers’ attitudes and actions.

 

Vignette 10. The Case of San Mateo

A new comisariado is elected in San Mateo. He begins to strategize how to
weaken the power of the retiring comisariado and his group of supporters. His
maneuvers do not produce the desired results quickly enough, so he prods his
kin to kill the ex- comisariado. They attack the ex-comisan'ado in his home and
stab him several times, but he does not die. The conﬂict between the two factions
intensifies as each side conspires and strategizes how to overpower the other.

A government official arrives in San Mateo to announce a new subsidies program
- each campesino family will receive money in exchange for planting ﬁve
hectares of corn. The community members set aside their animosities and
develop an elaborate scheme of swapping lands and moving boundaries to make
it appear that virtually every family in the community has ﬁve hectares under
cultivation. The desire to fool the “enemy” and obtain money temporarily
overcomes the animosity between the two factions uniting them in a common
cause.

 

The attack against the ex-comisan'ado in San Mateo, while an extreme
case, is not unique. The community’s attempt to take advantage of government
subsidies and programs in ways the government does not intend is not

uncommon. However, the success of these efforts does not mean that

178

communities escape from what they term “relationships of dependency” -- neither
social nor economic relationships are changed.56

Vignette 11 addresses a problem that several communities share relating
to the behavior of governmental healthcare workers, especially those promoting
family planning. This case shows how a community began to strategize, how
they applied some of the lessons learned in Seminar discussions, and how they

began to change their relationships with government workers.

Vignette 11. The Case of Cerro Niebla

A rumor circulating in the community of Cerro Niebla accused govemment
healthcare workers of giving tetanus shots to women that contain hormones to
prevent pregnancy. A local nun told the people that the rumor was true. The
community was concerned and considered how to deal with the situation. They
also felt that healthcare workers were treating them poorly - they did not arrive on
the scheduled days, were rude, and often refused to sign forms necessary to
participate in governmental programs focusing on children’s health. The
community representatives reported in the Seminar that healthcare workers
withheld their signatures unless the mother agreed to participate in family
planning efforts. When JesUs presented his bitécora about these issues, it struck
a chord with other community representatives who then recounted similar
experiences. The consensus in the Seminar was that communities did not have
to accept this type of treatment. Participants suggested to each other that they
could devise ways to counteract the negative behavior of government workers
through their respective community assemblies.

A year later, JesUs returned to the topic of healthcare workers and shared how
his community had dealt with the problems and the issue of family planning. “We
have to walk three hours to get to the clinic and the medicos treated us the same
way [often they do not show up] We scold them and tell them they have to plan
their visits and tell the [community] authorities when they will be there. Then the
authorities can tell the people. Now, before they arrive we plan what we are
going to say and do because this is the life of the pueblo (people) [we are talking

56 See Scott (1986) for a description and analysis of “everyday forms of peasant resistance."

179

about]... We speak in Zapotec [instead of Spanish] and translate for the nurses.
We ask them, ‘Why do you treat us like animals? We are human beings.’ The
administrator came and asked us, Why are you so confrontational?’ We replied,
‘You can not obligate us to use birth control, it is the decision of each couple.’ We
accept pap smears because it concerns the life of our women, but we plan the
day before they come. We ask everyone to give his or her opinion [when we

plan] because its different if only a few talk. [When only a few talk] it could appear
that we are manipulating the people. This is how we have stopped the healthcare
workers’ poor behavior.”

 

 

 

 

 

Communities are confronting government representatives, as in the case
of Cerro Niebla, insisting that they be treated with respect. In choosing to speak
in their native language, in asserting their rights to be treated as equals, and
independently deciding on how to respond to outsiders, the people of Cerro
Niebla recognized their own rights and act accordingly.

The case of Cerro Niebla became an example for other communities in
the Seminar, contributing to the idea of community and individual agency. The
events recounted in these vignettes occurred in communities, yet they were also
drawn upon as lessons for the Seminar. These lessons were taken up by
Seminar participants and fed into the Seminars growing ability to reﬂect upon
itself. However, the idea of escaping from relationships of dependency was not
fully developed during these discussions, or was it immediately applied to the
Seminar as an organization. The discussion continued under the theme “the

tecnico of the future.”

180

6.6 Theme 6: The Tecnico of the Future

The theme “the tecnico of the future” emerged during a discussion of
extension workers (see Figure 12). Tecnicos can either be governmental or non-
governmental technicians working in the countryside.

Figure 12. Tecnicos 8. Experts of the Future

 

 

. Ideas of new tecnicos & experts

 

 

 

  
  
   

Escaping relationships of dependency

Community Community

 

 

 

In the Seminar, the examination of this term was expanded to include
discussions about academics and other outsider experts.

Today’s tecnicos follow a diffusion of technology approach based on a
development as modernization model. However, the rural projects and programs
implemented by the government can also be understood as an extension of its

political activities and, as such, are designed to secure and maintain the political

181

support of the peasantry (Fox 1994). The Seminar members discussed questions
relating to “tecnicos of the future,” asking how these tecnicos would fit into a new
development process and explored what characteristics a new tecnico should
have.

The following comments express some of these ideas.
“Tomorrow’s tecnicos should wear the shirt of the campesino. ”
“These new tecnicos should understand the community.”
“Tecnicos of the future should serve the people, not themselves. ”

“The point of departure for these new tecnicos should be the knowledge of the
people. "

“This new learning should be a mix of ways of knowing; a mix of the peoples’ and
the tecnico’s knowledge. ”

I drew attention to the gendered nature of our discussion, pointing out that,
“When we talk about these new tecnicos we have been saying ‘they,’ but what
we are thinking is ‘he’. . .. We should remember women when we talk about new
tecnicos [and] take women into account.”
This idea lead to a discussion in which it was pointed out that the Seminar had
not giving equal attention to the women’s groups in the Seminar and had not
invited any women’s groups engaged in land tenure struggles to join the
Seminar.

Later in the afternoon, the discussion moved to how communities, on their
own, have addressed the issue of inventing new “tecnicos” or experts by

collectively supporting students to attend universities. This usually entailed great

sacrifice by the community and the student’s family. The communities paid for

182

part of the student’s cost, but expected them to return home when they had
completed their studies to dedicate themselves to the needs of the community.
When these students returned home, the community expected them to serve
their community in legal matters, especially those relating to land tenure issues.

In the Seminar, one community asked for and received matching funds so
that two of its young people could go to law school. One of the Seminar
participants suggested that students who were given this type of opportunity also
be offered the chance to study with campesinos during the last year of their
program. It was hoped that experiential rural education would help students
retain their connectedness to community and increase their respect for local
knowledge and for holders of that knowledge. When students leave home
seeking higher education they often remain in urban areas and/or accept work
with organizations or businesses that did not support the peasantry. If they return
home, it is often with an attitude of superiority and/or denigration of their home
community and culture. It was hoped that students sent to the University with the
expectation of serving their communities and trained, in part, by campesinos
would return as the kind of experts or tecnicos envisioned by Seminar
participants.

The issue of expert as academics and their relationships to the people
was also raised during another meeting, shortly after Pablo and Samuel returned
from a conference in Queretero. The pair had accompanied two of the Seminar

academics to represent the campesino perspective of the Seminar. When they

183

returned, Pablo questioned the relationship between academics and
campesinos: “It would be necessary to ﬁnd people who could talk to us as
equals. If it is not a relationship of equals, disconﬂanza (distrust) enters.” After
the conference in Queretero they asked: “What happens with our relationship
with these academics? They ask us a bunch of questions without telling us how
they are going to use the information. If it is really academics in a relationship of
equal to equal, this research would return to the same communities [it comes
from] maybe not right away, but at some point. Without this relationship, their
research will fail.”

Participants began to ask each other where they could ﬁnd this new
tecnico. No one seemed to have an answer. During the discussion, Tomas
reﬂected on different ways of learning, “We are born planting corn. We learn by
watching our parents. Mateo [a gifted huesero or bonesetter] is an example of
this way of learning.” Mateo Ieamed his trade through practice with an elderly
huesero from his community. Later Tomas suggests, “We are going to have to
invent a new tecnico - an empirical expert like Mateo.” The discussions of new
tecnicos and other forms of experts brought into the open the idea of unequal
relationships between “experts” and local people. The characteristics of new
experts and leaders were slowly elaborated - respect, humility, service, and an
appreciation for the knowledge of others. The campesino participants began to
recognize, both in theory and in practice, their own abilities to invent and control

“experts” for the betterment of communities. The idea of a new type of tecnico

184

contributed to the analysis of relationships with outsiders and added to a slowly
emerging theme focusing on the future of both communities and the Seminar.

Despite the restrictive understanding of power and leadership in the
Seminar and in communities, Seminar participants began analyzing their own
(and each other’s) skills as community leaders —- to help improve their theory and
practice of leadership. A few participants began to explore and talk about the
ideas of leadership among themselves outside the dialogue and discussions in
the Seminar.

6.7 Theme 7: Envisioning the Future

“Envisioning the future” was a key concept that emerged in the Seminar
enabling participants to address the future of their communities (see Figure 13).
The ﬁrst mention of envisioning the future appeared in Cerro Niebla with the
words chi iiza. Both in Cerro Niebla and in the Seminar, the idea of envisioning
the future helped communities raise their eyes from the immediate problems at
hand to ask questions about w_h_y these problems existed and M131 changes
could be made.

Participants felt, however, that they ﬁrst had to understand what was
wrong -- and what they should avoid — before they could ﬁnd solutions.
Identifying this problematic served as a wedge to open up spaces previously
closed to examination. The following comments illustrate some of these ideas

about understanding the problematic:

185

Figure 13. Envisioning the Future

 

 

l- Chi iiza - envisioning the future

 

 

Community

 

Escaping relationships of dependency

   
   
   

Ideas of new tecnicos & experts

Community

 

“[What is happening now] is like a disease. We have to ask what the causes are
and why they are happening. Everything has a cause. Look at AIDS, it’s a new
disease that didn’t exist before. Studies were done and now we understand how

it’s contacted, but it still can’t be cured. . .. ”

“[We could say] our community was sick. We went to “doctor” Gonzales” to get a
cure. He diagnosed the sickness and told us what to do. . .. We looked for other
doctors and here [in the Seminar] we did our own diagnostic and the Seminar

suggested what medicine to use. . .. ”

“But sometimes the patient doesn’t want to take the medicine. . .. ”

“ Or the medicine doesn’t kill the bug. We had to ask why do we have this

problem, what is its origin. We had to examine our history... We need to begin to

understand how our community became sick. . .. ”

. .but the old medicine doesn’t wor

57 An agrarian reform ofﬁcial.

186

 

“Something called globalization has appeared and our old defenses no longer
serve. We need an in-depth understand before we can move ahead.”

The metaphors of illness, diagnosis and medicine were frequently used to talk
about community problems and their solutions. Participants felt that they had to
understand the history and origins of community problems pgfo_re_the problems
could be solved. They also recognize that the "symptoms” they were
experiencing related to something called globalization -- a disease they had not
encountered before.

6.8 Theme 8: Regional Diagnostics

The need to contextualize community challenges led to the adoption of
“regional diagnostics” (see Figure 14). A regional diagnostic was suggested by
the coordinator as a means to identify problems and assess resources available
to communities on a regional level. A form of regional diagnostics had been used
several years yearly in the struggle for the land, but the concept was new to
current participants. Once these resources were identiﬁed, they could be drawn
upon for future community change efforts. The diagnostics could help
participants recognize their own agency in building their future and establish a

proactive stance towards change.

187

Figure 14. Regional Diagnostics

 

 

 

Regional Diagnostic

 

 
 
 
   
   
 
  
 

Escaping relationships of dependency

Obstacles to learning _ __ , , ,
Chi iiza - envrsroning the future

The Seminar as a Ieamin rocess .
g p . eas of new tecnicos & experts

S

Community Community

 

 

 

Initially, however, it seemed that the idea of regional diagnostics was
foreign to the campesino participants. Over time, the meaning became clearer,
although many seemed to remain skeptical as to the usefulness of the idea in
helping communities resolve their problems. A few communities began to utilize
regional diagnostics, but adapted them to suit their own needs. Pablo, from San

Carlos, was the ﬁrst to do a type of regional diagnostic. At the outset, in his usual

188

cautious manner, he said he was unclear about what it meant:

We are different ethnic communities [here in the Seminar]. We are
also here with different capacities, each participant contributing
according to own their ability. Maestros (teachers) have their way of
saying things, campesinos have their way. And in our community,
we understand in our own way. We don’t have a good
understanding of what it means to do a diagnostic for the future -
we only have a superﬁcial idea. But we want our children to go to
school, to eat well, to have decent clothes —- this is what a better life
means to us.

Later in the day, Pablo added, “What is the way out? How can we ensure that
our community is sustainable so we don’t get lost in all the problems we have?
We need a diagnostic. It is a plan -- a map to show us where to walk.” He went
back to his community and began a regional diagnostic, drawing upon his
knowledge of transect walks — an activity with which he was familiar with based
on an earlier experience with a local NGO. Pablo incorporated the idea of
transect walks into the new idea of regional diagnostics. Several months later, he
returned to the Seminar with an in-depth diagnostic that detailed the historic,
political, and cultural characteristics of the Upper and Lower Mixe region. After
several months, another community had completed a regional diagnostic, while
other communities were beginning their own.

Regional diagnostics were developed with an eye to the future. This
allowed communities to look differently at their histories, their locales, and the
resources they contained. A focus on the future not only complemented the

earlier problem-focused perspective of the Seminar and communities, but they

also appeared to lend a more critical aspect to the Seminar’s discussions. The

189

idea of diagnostic would soon reappear in the Seminar, but this time the Seminar
would be the “patient.”

6.9 The Issues of Truth and Transparency

Seminar participants often approached a problem and its solution
obliquely -- slowly moving from the periphery to related issues, backing off again,
later returning to the core of the issue or waiting until it was revealed through
questioning and discussions. Use of the Seminar’s metaphors often allowed
participants to broach subjects that could not be spoken of directly. This type of
indirectness was understood by, and resolved through, the shared culture and
language of the Seminar.

At times, however, sensitive issues were intentionally presented in unclear
and obfuscating terms. I will not elaborate on these issues given their “sensitive”
nature and issues of conﬁdentiality. However, the Seminar participants reacted
against this lack of transparency, declaring that this mode of communication
inhibited Seminar members’ ability to assist or suggest solutions.

Over dinner one evening, I asked Antonio, “When do people tell the truth
in these situations?” He responded, “When there is no other option, when they
are drowning.” Yet, the Seminar members struggled to convince each other of

the need for transparency or truth.

190

The following comments illustrate several of these points:

“Some things are not said in the Seminar for political reasons, when there is risk
in telling the truth, or when people are afraid of appearing stupid. But we can not
plan for the future if we do not speak the truth. ”

Pablo speaking of the community San Pedro, “There are forces that don’t allow
the community to be open. What is this force? We need to understand it because
it appears to be the core of the problem. [We understand that] sometimes people
arrive at the Seminar and do not say everything. Some things are very sensitive
and can’t be talked about.”

“When a community elects a representative to the Seminar it is to solve
problems by telling the truth. We come to the Seminar to say we ’ve failed. If we
can’t say we’ve failed here, how can we ﬁx the problem? It’s a sickness that
we have in communities and no one has the cure, but here in the Seminar we
have to tell the truth. ”

“There are always things that are oculto (hidden) - but here in the Seminar there
is more conﬁdence, more trust than in communities. . .. "

Despite these concerns, every member of the Seminar at one time or
another could say that they were less than forthright when talking about sensitive
issues. Yet, all members felt that a certain level of transparency was necessary
in order to communicate effectively and assist communities in resolving the
problems they faced. A consensus was arrived at to establish new procedure/s to

overcome obstacles to communication created by this lack of truthfulness.

6.9.1 Theme 9: Saturday - the Day of Truth

In the May 1998 meeting, “Saturday - the day of truth” emerged from

discussions about planning for the future (see Figure 15). There was general

191

Figure 15. Saturday - the Day of Truth

 

 

 

 

- Saturday — the day oftruth

 

  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  

Escaping relationships of dependency

R ional Di nostic
Obstacles to Ieaming eg 89

The Seminar as a Ieaming process

8

Chi iiza - envisioning the future
eas of new tecnicos 8. experts

Community Community

 

 

 

consensus that “we can not plan for the future without truth.” One participant
referred to this truth as, “a light to show what should be encouraged and
strengthened and to illuminate what should not be done.” When Saturday -- the
day of truth was implemented participants were invited to stay an extra day if
they wanted to talk about what they did not feel comfortable speaking of in the
larger group. Saturday became the day to “say the things that can not be said.”
Saturday — the day of truth presented an opportunity where participants
could speak of things that they normally would not or could not raise, either in

their own communities or in the Seminar. This expanded openness allowed

192

Seminar participants to overcome several endemic barriers to communication --
fear of appearing foolish, fear of reprisals in their own communities, and fear of
persecution by “enemies.” It also permitted an explicit recognition that the issues
that “could not be spoken of” where shared by the majority of participating
communities.

Gradually, however, Saturday as the day of truth disappeared and was
replaced by topics introduced by the coordinator or by issues introduced by
community representatives that appeared to have a certain urgency to them.
These topics included, but were not limited to, an immediate appearance in court,
the threat of violence in a community, or the urgent invitation to the Seminar to
attend a community assembly or meet with community officials.

The topics introduced by the Seminar’s coordinator were based on his
vision and goals for communities and the Seminar. Smith (1997: 195) notes a
similar dynamics, commenting, “...outsiders, however well-intentioned
(consciously or not) can drive a process with their own ideas of what should
happen.” These topics included questions such as: What is globalization? What
is free trade? Why has the price of corn fallen? While these questions appear
central to the discussion of envisioning the future and reinventing communities,
they displaced the original focus of Saturday as the day of truth. These questions
and other similar topics were presented without consensus as to how and when
they would be discussed. It seemed that the coordinator at times mistook

participants’ silence as consent. Participants’ response to these topics seemed to

193

be guided by a respect for the coordinators intellectual authority and experience,
culturally deﬁned roles of leadership, and the intense need for advice from those
who had access to the “outside world.“

Despite the disappearance of Saturday as the day of truth, the recognition
of the need for truth and transparency remained, as did a certain level of
confidence to “say the things that could not be said.” The idea of truth and
transparency was absorbed in such a way that it served as a guide or reference
for further interactions.

The incongruencies between the Seminars internal organization and its
dual goals of developing better community leaders and assisting communities’ in
creating a better future slowly came to the fore. Truth, with growing frequency,
came to resemble truth as deﬁned by Senge (1990), a “willingness to work out
the ways we limit or deceive ourselves from seeing what is and continually
challenge our theories of why things are the way they are.” Seminar members
began to question and examine the activities of the Seminar, how it carried out its
activities, and how it understood itself.

6.10 Re-visioning the Seminar

With the introduction of Saturday - the day of truth, an openness began to
emerge to discuss internal issues relating to the Seminar. The members began
raising issues relating to participation. This did not happen all at once or did it

always happen directly; discussions of these issues evolved over a period of

194

several months. Seminar participants began to ask, “What do we as the Seminar
want to be and how can we achieve this vision?” Members then began to identify
factors that inhibited the Seminar from achieving its full potential. Initial themes
included a lack of participation, commitment, punctuality and a vision for the
future. Later themes involved social relationships. These factors echoed themes
shared with Seminar members and their communities, but now the object of
reﬂection and analysis was the Seminar itself.

6.11 Theme 10: Lack of Participation

Lack of participation was understood by Seminar members against the
backdrop of the “struggle for the land.” The period of the struggle for the land was
the high point of organization and participation in communities. The land was the
life or death issue, uniting communities against the common “enemy” of the large
landholders or caciques. Members judged their own participation in the Seminar
on the standards established during that time period. Members also identiﬁed
another element of participation, “false participation” motivated by the desire for
monetary and other forms of beneﬁts through government projects or programs.
In the Seminar, levels of participation were higher when: 1) the issue under
discussion was serious, i.e., impending violence; 2) there was general interest in
the topic rather than a community-speciﬁc problem, i.e., medicinal plants or
agricultural production; and/or 3) it was a problem that the majority of

communities had experienced, i.e., the implementation of an amparo.

195

Figure 16. Lack of Participation

 

 

 

1' Lack of Participation

 

    
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
  

Esca i relationshi of de ndenc
p ng ps pe y Saturday - the day of truth

Regional Diagnostic
Chi iiza - envisioning the future
Ideas of new tecnicos 8. experts

Obstacles to Ieaming
The Seminar as a learning process

S

Community Community

 

 

 

Levels of participation were lower when the academics and a few experienced
community organizers dominated discussions, irrespective of whether issues
were “serious,” or interesting, or not. In these discussions, women and other less
experienced members did not often participate or present their ideas.

It appeared that levels of participation in the Seminar were, at times,
manifestations of broader Mexican social inequalities. Kaufman (1997: 153)
notes that these “structural differences in participation apply to many categories
of social hierarchy and oppression - relating to class, sex, color, age, religion,
nationality, physical well being and sexual orientation. These categories are often

intertwined and mutually determined.” In Oaxaca, the categories of class,

196

ethnicity and gender appeared to be the most obvious factors limiting or
increasing participation.

In the Seminar, “authority” based on these categories created forms of
dependency on “experts” that were akin to a self-fulﬁlling prophecy. Members’
participation appeared constrained because they were not experienced. Because
of the lack of knowledge and experience, the members sought out
knowledgeable and sympathetic individuals who could assist them. However,
these same members were hesitant to challenge themselves or to recognize their
own abilities, and they did not allow themselves to develop their own skills or
confidently present their own knowledge in the presence of those identiﬁed as
“leaders.” While members encouraged each other to overcome self-imposed
barriers to learning and leadership, these urgings were difficult to put into
practice. Seminar participants struggled to ﬁnd a way to deal with the different
capacitates and ways of participating that were historically situated outcomes of
the culture and structure of the larger society (Kaufman 1997).

Several suggestions were made during the course of discussions to rectify
the propensity of some not to fulﬁll their obligations to participation in Seminar
discussions. In communities, ﬁnes or multas were a common way of punishing
community members who did not fulﬁll their community obligations. Members
explained the different forms multas took - monetary fines, increased workloads,
or even jail time. The Seminar participants consider this model of punishment to

encourage "discipline” in participation.

197

Several months later, the idea of multas was raised again. An elder Mixe
man, who late became known as Don Viejito58 because of his sense of humor,
had remained silent during most of the Seminar meetings he attended. When he
did speak it was in broken Spanish and it often appeared he had not understood
the topic under discussion. In April 1999, he broke his silence by telling a joke
during a discussion on the idea of punishment for tardiness: "In our community
we decided to impose a multa on those who stayed out past a certain time. An
individual in the assembly meeting suggested this and we agreed. The next night
this same man was drinking and stayed out past the time he had proposed. We
threw him in jail. His wife came to ﬁnd him the next day and we had to laugh and
to tell her he was in jail. Sometimes the idea of multas backfiresl" Amidst
laughter, an unspoken agreement was arrived at and the issue of multas was
resolved and not raised again.

As participants began to analysis the Seminar and contemplate how to
improve the organization, the topic of punctuality was also raised. People
habitually arrived late to Seminar meetings. During one meeting, we had agreed
to begin the next day at 9:00 am. en punto (on the dot). At the designated time,
only one participant (other than the academics and the group from Nayarit) had
arrived. As people began to trickle in, we addressed the topic of tardiness. The

discussion quickly expanded to include a number of topics, some related to

58 A respectful, but affectionate term for “little old man.”

198

tardiness and some not. Of these points, only the issue of punctuality was dealt
with. The following statements are excerpts from this discussion.

“We need discipline. ”

“Latecomers should be ﬁned. ”

“I agree with this, but we are late at times because we stay at a place that is quite
far from the Seminar.”

“Another problem is that people say the same thing two or three times. The
timekeeper should say you are repeating yourself. ”

“We are trying to ﬁgure out the best options we have. We’ve suggested
punishment, but not everyone will feel the punishment. Some people go outside
and appear not to have an interest in what is going on. ”

“ That might be because people are repeating themselves or because people are
tired and go out to sleep. These things are valid.”

“We come from far away and use Thursday to travel. We suggest that we start
later on Thursday. ”

“Also people have other commitments when they are here in Oaxaca.”

“We can’t get here until 6:00 pm. ”

“We have to walk three hours to where we can catch a bus, but we can’t always
count on it. We could come a day early, but only if we don’t have other
commitments in the community.”

“What time should we start next month ?”

“We suggest 12:00 p. m. ”

There was a nodding of heads and a general consensus appeared to be
reached. The next meeting was to begin at noon instead of 8:00 am.

This discussion and consensus contrasted with other months’ when the

academics set the time of the meetings. While this may seem relatively

199

unimportant, this open discussion and decision-making was a marked change for
the “leadership” of the Seminar. This was one of the ﬁrst indications of decisions
for the Seminar being made by all Seminar participants together, instead of by a
select few. In AR, the norm is that decisions are made by management and/or
outside researchers. PAR, in contrast, encourages a more decentralized
decision—making process -— in theory, the larger group makes decisions. The
Seminar, while espousing a PAR philosophy, at this time, resembled an AR
approach in practice. The issue of punctuality was a “safe” issue to discuss and
provided an unexpected vehicle for expanding decision-making and enlarging the
learning in the Seminar.

6.12 Theme 11: The Ronda

This expansion continued when the ronda was implemented (see Figure
17). A ronda is nothing more than all members speaking in turn. After a bitécora
was read in the Seminar, typically the presenter asked if anyone had any
questions, comments, or if there was a need for further clariﬁcation. Those who
wished to ask a question or make a comment raised their hands. The presenter
then “gave the word” or recognized the speaker.

A crucial discussion of the situation in San Pedro began to change the
dynamics of participation. As mentioned earlier, the problem in San Pedro
centered on the comisariados unwillingness to recognize the majority of the

community’s population as ejiditan‘os, thereby denying them the right to

200

participate in the community assembly. Each passing month seemed to increase
the possibility that this problem would be solved through violence. The Seminar
members decided to invite the comisariado, the new gestion agraria members,
and several other important community members to a Seminar meeting to
discuss the situation. The tension and threat of imminent violence in the
community compelled most of the Seminar members to participate in the
discussion. We felt that if we did not add our council to the debate, the

community might do something it would regret.

Figure 17. The Ronda

 

 

 

 

1' La Ronda
Escaping relationships of dependency Lack of Participation
Mandaderos Saturday — the day of truth
Obstacles to Ieaming Regional Diagnostic
The Seminar as a Ieaming process Envisioning the future
Ideas of new tecnicos & experts
‘ r ar .
Community Community

 

 

 

201

The meeting had a strong impact on both the community leaders and the
Seminar participants. A feeling of moving fonivard permeated the Seminar as we
later reflected upon the impact of the meeting on the leaders of San Pedro and
the amount and quality of participation that had taken place in the Seminar.
Virtually every member of the Seminar had contributed to the dialogue driven by
their concern and commitment. The next month, participants decided to try and
institutionalize the dynamics established during the discussion of San Pedro
through a rcnda.

The rcnda was implemented after a bitecora was read. In a rcnda, the
“word” passes to the individual sitting next to him or her, giving each person the
opportunity to ask questions and give his or her opinion. While this is nothing
novel, its introduction in the Seminar was a marked departure from the form of
presentations of the past. In the past, only those who had something “important”
to contribute spoke. The rcnda set up conditions so that everyone, even the most
reticent, could speak.

When the rcnda was analyzed, members decided that the bitacora
presenter could choose whether or not to use a rcnda based on time constraints.
But regardless of the choice, increasing numbers of participants entered into the
dialogue. The rcnda seemed to give conﬁdence to those who had not spoken
before. It also seemed to help the academics and more assertive community

leaders to control their urge to dominate discussions.

202

When the success of the rcnda was evaluated the next month, everyone
agreed that the level and quality of participation had increased. This, of course,
did not mean that everyone participated equally. A few said that they did not
understand, others said little orjust agreed with the person who spoke before
them. But, in general, the quality of the dialogue improved and the number and
diversity of people participating increased substantially. The rcnda set an implicit
standard for the quality and quantity of speaking. It also established expectations
legitimating the process, rather than the outcome, of speaking. People became
less inhibited about feeling foolish, being afraid to speak, etc. The rcnda removed
a principle obstacle to speaking in the Seminar due to this inexperience and fear.

The requirement to speak implemented with the rcnda impelled people to
participate more as they seemed to internalize new ideas and norms of
participation. In the February 1999 meeting, an older woman from San Carlos
who had never spoken before entered the rcnda. Her voice shock in her
nervousness as she encouraged the companeras of Tierra Piedras in their
embroidery project, “Do not become disanimated my friends. It is good that you
are learning... There is a woman in Mexico City who buys clothes made in San
Carlos. May be you can sell to her. Do not be discouraged.” Later during the
same meeting, other women from San Carlos joined the conversation as the
discussion turned to access to and knowledge of agricultural markets. This was a

topic typically reserved for men.

203

While discussion in the Seminar did not at this time revisit the concept of
the logic of the milpa, the diversity that made up the Seminar multiplied and its
potential to ﬁnd new solutions appeared to increase. The space in the Seminar
expanded to include everyone as active participants rather than devolve to its
prior state where only the more experienced members spoke and other members
appeared as recipients for the knowledge of others (Freire 1970, 1990).

6.13 Theme 12: The Transformation of the Seminar

The themes of the Seminar did not occur in a linear fashion. These
themes did, however, reinforce each other and contribute to a movement towards
an increasingly collaborative organization. Each theme contributed in its own way
to a complex and emerging vision of the future for the Seminar. The ﬁnal theme,
the transformation of the Seminar, brought the idea of the future more sharply

into focus (see Figure 18).

204

Figure 18. The Transformation of the Seminar

 

 

-The Transformation of the Seminar

 

 

 

La Ronda
Escaping relationships of dependency Lack Of Participation
Mandaderos Saturday - the day of truth
Obstacles to learning Regional Diagnostic
The Seminar as a Ieaming process Envisioning the future

Ideas of new tecnicos & experts

Community S 7 ' r community

 

 

 

As Valle del Norte presented their bitacora in April 1999, Antonio raised
the issue of work that had not been completed and why people had not done the
things they had committed to. Antonio’s ﬁnal point was that this issue was “tied to
the transformation of the Seminar.” He suggested that we needed to “replant” the
idea of change in the Seminar. “If we don’t,” he pointed out, ”we would be starting
with the tail instead of the patas (the feet)... .”

The month prior, Antonio had suggested that we add topics to our agenda
for the day. Previously the agenda consisted solely of cases, e.g., community

and group issues. In April, at Antonio’s suggestion, several participants listed

205

speciﬁc topics — completing pending work, discussion of an upcoming visit to
Nayarit, Seminar hours, and how to discover new solutions. I suggested adding
the theme, “the transformation of the Seminar.” After a brief discussion, we all
agreed that this was the central issue and other topics fell within this topic. The
“transformation” of the Seminar was termed the prob/amon (the big problem.) We
all recognized that this was a discussion that could not be dealt with in one
meeting, but rather would be an ongoing and lengthy discussion.

Organizational transformation, according to Nevis et al. (1996), means to
“fundamentally change organizational reality... not only the practices, policies,
behavior and structures but also the underlying mental models, meanings and
consciousness of the people involved.” Some of the Seminar participants
seemed to understand the transformation of the Seminar in terms similar to those
of Nevis -- raising structural issues, such as internal organization and practices --
and discussing ideas such as mandaderos, participation, and the future of the
Seminar.

The discussion of the transformation of the Seminar began with a
reaffirmation that the context of rural Mexico was changing and the recognition
that the Seminar needed to “reinvent” itself:

We are an organizational entity with an identity. We are leaders

with responsibilities. The state of Oaxaca is becoming increasingly

militarized, and economic and political problems are more serious.

The Seminar needs to be more concrete and less a space where
friends get together.

206

Given the importance of this meeting for the Seminar, it is expressed here
in the words of the Seminar participants. Because Seminar discussions tend to
be long, drawn out conversations interspersed with other topics, the full text of
this meeting is not shared. Rather, what follows are relevant excerpts from the
dialogue on the transformation of the Seminar:

Antonio, “Donde vamos (where we are going) - it’s a big question. We talk about
what we’ve done well. Diana asks us what do we want to be. We ask ourselves
despues de la tierra que (after the land what)? As a Seminar, we are asking the
same thing. How do we get out of this mess? What are the mechanisms?...
Together we must exp/ore where the Seminar is going, we must look outside
ourselves, broaden our vision. ”

Cristian, “The theme, the transformation of the Seminar, comes from some of us
who see changes in the Seminar. . .. We could have this discussion among a few
of us. But we are having it as an open discussion - as Julio said, we are all
subjects of the Seminar. . .. Several of us have a perception - a feeling that is not
well deﬁned. Earlier three or four of us got together to talk. We feel that we
should ﬁnd answers in the Seminar, something to take away with us. . .. We ask,
‘Wh y are we here? Why do we continue to come to the Seminar?’ Maybe I
should use another word - we should reconocer (acknowledge) what the
Seminar has done in communities... We come for solutions. . .. We need to
modify the Seminar, without losing the essence of what we are doing. We need a
new structure... If we think of the Seminar as a cobija (blanket or cover), some
have gotten left out in the cold. . .. Now that we have the land, we are confronting
other things: globalization, economic problems, social phenomenon that are new
broncas (quarrels) that we didn’t have in the 1980s The Seminar has to learn,
has to respond... We a_ll have to discuss these things.”

Manuel, “From the beginning, the Seminar principally dealt with land issues,
although our community didn’t come here for reasons of land struggles... but
others came because of the land. Those problems are not as serious as before.
We need to look at the transformation of the Seminar. We a_ll have to take part in
the discussion of the transformation. . .. In our case, we feel as if we have
reached a point and we do not know how to continue. The Seminar is like a
school that teaches real life issues, not a school of theory, but a school of
practice. It has a focus on answers for the difﬁcult situation we are living. . .. We
are living in a difﬁcult situation where it is easy to lose the way. The Seminar
should be a space for reﬂection and analysis over each of the problems

207

presented... Our group is at a point where we want to present proposals for
projects. There is a desire to move ahead, but none of us knows the path to
follow. . .. ”

Antonio, "We all feel these doubts. When we ask “What do we want of the
Seminar,’ we are asking what do we want of ourselves - because we are all the
Seminar. Each of us is playing the role of mandadero. We have to ﬁnd ways to
communicate among ourselves and to understand each other. As we have said,
sometimes the internal problems are more difﬁcult than we can present. The
Seminar can’t ﬁnd the solution. We have to ask what is going to be the level of
participation of each of us. Not just of being here, but real participation -- to
presenting problems, to breaking barriers that keep us from understanding each
other. We might think, lpresented that clearly, but perhaps that’s not true. We
have to look for a way to make it so. We have to break obstacles so there is
understanding. Cristian said it clearly, there is a need for change. We need to
ask what do we want to be.”

Cristian, “What is the human side of the Seminar? Perhaps it needs to be
injected with new blood. We are all mandaderos here - maybe we’ve come to
the Seminar to get a breath of fresh air. It’s possible that this is it. There are
different levels of mandaderos. ” He motions towards Antonio, Juan, the
coordinator and other experienced community leaders. . .If we who are
mandaderos present ourselves as apostles we can be easily cruciﬁed. But we
have to ﬁgure out how to harness or use this part of our character. It is
frightening. I feel that the Seminar, the space here is ﬁlled with telaraﬁas.
[Literally, spider webs - figuratively, ideas from the past]

Sergio, “We came here to confront land tenure problems, but now things have
changed. It’s like a boy who is now a man. . .. We need to look for new solutions.
We are talking about leaders - we need to be fructifero (fruitful or productive)”
During this part of the dialogue, several experienced community leaders
and the anthropologist expressed their ideas. They each identiﬁed past
accomplishments of the Seminar relating to land tenure issues. Communities had
joined the Seminar because it offered a collective search for solutions to the

complex problems relating land tenure issues. But now the problems facing

communities were qualitatively different. Manuel described his community’s

208

dilemma of arriving at a point where they no longer knew how to proceed.
Antonio, Cristian, Manuel, and Sergio all agreed that times were changing and
they agreed that the Seminar needed to change as well. Manuel drew attention
to the idea that the Seminar was a school - a place for reﬂection and analysis.
He then suggested that we reﬂect on the transformation of the Seminar. Antonio
pointed out that we needed to break the barriers to understanding by ﬁnding
ways to “communicate among ourselves.”

The change or transformation of the Seminar needed to take place as a
collective endeavor including all the members. Antonio proposed that we ask
what we wanted to be as an organization. The others emphasized that we were
§_|_|_ collectively the Seminar. Cristian said, “The Seminar has to learn how to
respond.” We had to ask, “What do we want of ourselves?” and “What is going to
be our level of participation?” These questions implied that everyone needed to
participate in this change because the Seminar was not just a few individuals, but
it was an organization made up of a_l_l its members.

The idea of mandadero was also stressed — the idea that everyone in the
Seminar was a mandadero, each with their own skills. Cristian asked us to
“harness” that quality. Antonio raised an issue that had been mentioned in
previous discussions - that of broadening our vision by looking outside of
ourselves. Sergio called upon each of us to think about being successful leaders

in these new times.

209

As this portion of the dialogue drew to a close, I suggested a rcnda. I did
so to expand the dialogue -- up until this point, only the leadership of the Seminar
-- both academics and community leaders - had engaged in the dialogue.
Turning to a rcnda was also a way of continuing the conversation on what
appeared to be an important topic. Later, when I reﬂected on this portion of the
meeting, I realized that -— by opening a space where more members could take
part - I was operating in the active logic of the milpa.

A rcnda began.

Manolo, “I often feel ashamed to speak and the words stay in my mouth -- but its
time for everyone to speak. Those that are ﬁrst can be last and those who are
last can be ﬁrst. Often those who are last have the best ideas.”

Pablo, “Many times, there are those with more preparation and others with less.
We ask ourselves, why don ’t we all give our opinion? We are afraid that we will
be ridiculed, or we feel like we don’t know how. It costs us a lot to come here - a
place to stay, our food - but we know that our community’s problems drive us
here... When your cargo is over, people don’t treat you the same any more”.
We need to reflect. It’s like we were a family here in the Seminar. . .. But if we
don’t have a document that says who we are, how can we complete our
responsibilities?”

Don Salomon, “ . .. Some say it’s not your responsibility to solve the community’s
problems, that it’s the responsibility of the [elected] representatives. But the main
thing is to have support of the community.”

Pablo, “l have come to ask those who have the most knowledge to help me
resolve the problems of my community.”

Diana, “. . .but this could be a new situation where there are no experts. It might
be that there were experts before, during the struggle for the land. But now it

59 Pablo is an ex-comisirado who is still involved in the Seminar even though he is no longer an
elected community ofﬁcial. He has struggled between his own growing leadership skills and
knowledge acquired, in part, through his participation in the Seminar and his community’s
unwillingness to accept his council.

210

seems that we are trying to follow an old way of doing things - of looking to
experts for answers -- even if they don’t have them. These experts we ask try to
respond and to help. But it might be time to rethink this idea of expert and maybe
the idea of “enemy. ” The idea of enemy used to unite people, but now it may be a
barrier to learning from others, to working with outsiders, and to ﬁnding

solutions. ”

At that point, we broke for lunch and returned to addressing community
issues. On Saturday, the theme of the transformation of the Seminar was taken
up again.

Cristian, “We need a certain structure to make us more responsible, a minimal
and organic structure... We have a space, a telephone, a computer -- to say
these things belong to the Seminar is to say they belong to no one. I’m not
saying this should be a hotel, but now it’s as if they belong to some one else...
The hardest part of all of this is re-structuring the Seminar... The Seminar should
give answers to the questions each of us ask. . .. We all want to take something
concrete home with us. The Seminar should plantearse (provide something.)
There may be certain ingredients for what we are trying to do. We can decide
how to put them together. But now we are asking, now that we have the land
what are we going to do. I don ’t know the recipe, but perhaps we need to have a
certain orientation. . .. We have to be more active, more preciso (precise, clear or
useful), more participative... We are entering a new phase. We say we are
mandaderos, leaders - we should take advantage of this. .. This business of
scheduling this is secondary. We need to think of the Seminar as a creation of all
of us. . ..

Later in the day, Cristian continues his thoughts,

“I’m going to speak clearly and make a proposal. We recognize that we have our
good and bad parts, but those of us who are here are here because we want to
be. What if the Seminar disappeared, what would we do? We who have this
commitment would have to invent a space just like it, perhaps even with the
same name... Now we have a coordinator. Why don ’t we have a different
structure that recognizes that we are all mandaderos?. .. If we establish a
structure that identiﬁes certain aspects of the internal organization relating to
projects, to resources, where we establish a certain division of labor. Now there
is particular division of labor. We who are mandaderos of our own groups ask
why don’t we share in the work more. We intend to help train everyone so they
can be leaders... to have a more active role. We should have a workshop where

211

we can identify what we want, so we can participate more, so that we can all be a
part of the body that is the Seminar”.

Antonio, . .. We all want and understand that the Seminar needs to change how
it functions. It is a necessity... Each of us could do a diagnostic of the Seminar --
how each of us sees it and what each of us thinks the Seminar is. . .. ”

At this point, I again asked if we could return to a rcnda so that those who
had not spoken be given the opportunity to express their opinions.

Pablo, “My concern about this is the same as when we began - what does it
mean? I am beginning to understand that it means to make us more efﬁcient --
better. It is difﬁcult for me to understand, even though I have been here ﬁve
years. . .. I have to ask, is everyone here comfortable with the theme -- the
transformation of the Seminar? It’s clear that there are some concerns. But there
are some that have trouble perceiving the need for a transformation and for
others, it seems very urgent... lam beginning to understand. It’s very interesting.
It’s like the idea of Saturday the day of truth — but that lasted only a short time
and then disappeared. It’s good that we are returning to this openness. .

Juan, “The problems now are economic, but the question is how do we resolve
these problems. Herein the Seminar we don ’t have a lot of resources. We need
to ﬁgure out how to take advantage of what we have.”

Don Salomén, “We need to analyze what goes with what and what doesn’t. . .. We
have to look at both the good and the bad of the Seminar. . .. We need to ﬁgure
out how to involve more people in identifying what the problems are. We have to
ask, is it the fault of the Seminar if things don’t work out or the fault of the
representatives who don’t take the suggestions of the Seminar? We need to
know the truth of things. . .. No one here is the patron (boss) - we are all equal,
but some get their fellowships and stay because of their commitment, while
others leave. ”

Crisitan, “I think Antonio’s idea of doing a diagnostic of the Seminar is a good
idea. We could present our views on the Seminar what we would propose. ”

Julio, “I asked for everyone’s opinion on this, Diana tried to summarize the main
ideas, Loretta asked for an example, Pablo asked what it was, the Triques don’t
understand. I could give an example of what we mean by transformation.”

Crisitan, “I’d say that that’s not a good idea. It’s better if the results were
everyone’s own idea. “

212

Antonio. “We who are here today could begin something to start for next month
on Friday or Saturday. Part of the transformation of the Seminar could be that
everyone participates, not just those of us who stay for Saturday. . .. We can
present our ideas about the transformation of the Seminar as they occur to us.
Maybe we can ﬁnd a remedy if we all work together to ﬁnd it. ”

Interestingly, it was the community organizers who pushed most strongly
for change in the Seminar. They were also the most articulate and experienced
campesino members of the organization. The less experienced members took a
more restrained or conservative approach, seeking to lead the discussion to
personal issues, pointing to individual faults and/or advocating a cautious and
slow approach to organizational change. The various reactions to the idea of
organizational transformation appeared to differ given an individual’s experience,
level of consciousness, and length of participation in the Seminar. Individual
identify based on class, ethnicity, and gender coincided with calls for
transformation or caution. In general, those who advocated structural change
were mestizo leaders; indigenous leaders asked for a more cautious approach.

Indigenous women consistently said they did not understand.

6.14 The Diagnostic of the Seminar

On Saturday, a general consensus was reached that everyone write a
diagnostic of the Seminar and a proposal for the future. A dialogue ensued about
what a diagnostic was and how a diagnostic of the Seminar could be done. Some

participants were unclear of what they were being asked to do. The coordinator

213

wanted to present his idea on how he would do his diagnostic, but I suggested
that even though his intentions were good, people would then spend their energy
trying to ﬁgure out what the coordinator wanted rather than present their own
ideas. Most participants agreed with me The coordinator conceded and did not
present his interpretation of a diagnostic of the Seminar, although he did try and
slip in his idea in during a later conversation. I pointed out this out, teasing him
that he was trying to escape. He agreed and again did not present his
explanation of how to do a diagnostic.

This small exchange, and similar ones between the coordinator and
community organizers, represented a change taking place in relationships of the
Seminar as it moved to become a more collaborative organization. Participants
began to ﬁnd their own path, instead of allowing leaders of the Seminar to show
them the way. The topic of lntemal relationships increasingly entered the formal
discussions. These discussions may have made people uncomfortable or
uneasy, but the shared commitment to the improvement of the Seminar and trust
in fellow participants appeared to help members overcome these feelings.

By the May 1999 Seminar meeting, ﬁve of us had “done our homework”
and were ready to present a diagnostic of and proposal for the Seminar. Four of
us presented our diagnostic during the May meeting. The ﬁfth participant was the
coordinator. He was not able to present his work because of time constraints. He
later told that me that he was never able to present his diagnostic because there

were more “pressing issues” to deal with.

214

6.14.1 Don Salomon’s Diagnostics60

Don Salomon volunteered to share his work first. Don Salomon’s analysis
raised issues of discipline and completing the work assigned by the Seminar, i.e.
community histories, bitacoras, and regional diagnostics. Don Salomon
suggested that each month we have a mesa or board that reviewed the Seminar
and its activities. “It could help us deal with things like rules, who participates and
who doesn’t, and it could help us think about the Seminar.” He suggested that, in
order for the Seminar to be of value to the participants, each of us needed to
“complete our work.” He also suggested that the Seminar strengthen its
interactions with communities and community assemblies. He concluded, “My
proposal is that each of us review our own participation and ask ourselves, why
am I in the Seminar? Why do I come here? What can I do so that the Seminar
functions better? Don Salomon’s emphasis on the connection with and
communication between the Seminar and communities was a timely reminder of
the reason for the Seminar existence. The Seminar in a way was “at the service”
of communities. But this relationship was one in which both partners as collective
actors needed to be open and responsive to each other.

In his diagnostic, Don Salomon counseled the Seminar to improve its

existing methods of doing business. He suggested that bitécoras were important

60 Don Salomon’s diagnostic was a remarkable accomplishment. When he joined the Seminar, he
was barely literate. Motivated by his commitment to serve his community, he taught himself how
to read and write, eventually completing a historic account of his community. His diagnostic was
the latest evidence of his self-conﬁdence and his self-educated abilities.

215

and should be completed conscientiously, community visits should be continued
or increased, participants should earn their becas through participation, and work
emanating from community issues should be completed. Don Salomén placed
the responsibility of improving the Seminar on members as individuals. While he
did not say that he was speaking primarily of the campesino members, this was
implied in his presentation. Don Salomon seemed to accept the superiority of the
leadership and that their participation did not need to be improved. While this is
understandable given Don Salomon’s unwavering respect for authority, it did not
help the Seminar go beyond its existing theory or practice. Don Salomon did not
directly address the difﬁcult issues that had increasingly been raised or alluded to
in Seminar meetings. These difﬁcult questions, such as who was the Seminar
and why did it now exist, did not feature in his diagnostic.

Many comments raised during the rcnda that followed Don Salomén’s
presentation echoed the issues he had raised -- more and better participation,
responsibility, and discipline. It appeared that the criticism on the quality of
participation and responsibility was directed towards the peasant participants, not
the leadership of the Seminar. Despite the criticisms that had been leveled
against “experts” and tecnicos in a general sense, the informal leadership of the
Seminar seemed immune to such reprimands.

During the rcnda, Antonio suggested that we write the most important

points of each diagnostic on the board. Don Salomon asked Juan to write them

216

down. This was a distinct departure from most months, when only the academics

wrote on the board.

6.14.2 The Diagnostic of Valle del Norte

Antonio presented his group’s diagnostic. He began with an apology:
“Before we begin, we want to say that our diagnostic, as well as the what may be
said as a result of our analysis of the Seminar may raise more questions than
they answer. . .. We hope that some of the criticisms that we raise give us, as the
Seminar, the opportunity to know ourselves or perhaps even become part of a
project of the Seminar. We hope that all of this will result in a constructive
discussion in which each of us can absorb that which might be hurtful. Some of
our words might appear harsh. But it is part of the reality of looking for solutions
together. We hope that we can all learn from our mistakes and improve on our
successes. Having said this, we can now begin our diagnostic of the Seminar.”
The diagnostic of Valle del Norte began with a review of the problems addressed
in the Seminar. Antonio them moved to a review of the quality of participation in
the Seminar. He called upon the Seminar to be more participative, but suggested
that each one of us say what were the barriers to our own participation. Antonio
suggested we search for better ways to communicate where we use words that
everyone could understand. He proposed that the Seminar was a place to create
theories that inform our actions. The member communities and groups put the
theory into practice. He concluded that if the Seminar had to change because of
the changing context that confronted us and we would have to do so in two
stages. The ﬁrst stage would be to address the issue of our internal organization

including organizing our time, getting our work done, being punctual, and

everyone doing their part.

217

“We should act, ”Antonio said, “as if we were a human body where the Seminar
was the brain... that gives us the ideas, the theories. Each group would form the
other parts of the body - the ones that put the ideas into practice. This is why it’s
important that we all participate actively in the meetings.”

In ending, he utilized a metaphor of a bus and its chauffeur to refer to the
Seminar and the issue of leadership:

”The Seminar is not like a bus with a chauffeur who will take us to wherever we
want to go. But, we can’t just leave the responsibility in the hands of the
chauffeur and not pay any attention to where we are going until we’ve gotten
there. ”

Before the rcnda began, the coordinator asked Antonio about the second
stage he had mentioned. Antonio responded that he had not mentioned it
because we had to deal with the ﬁrst stage relating to the internal organization of
the Seminar before we could move on to the second stage. Later during a break,
Antonio commented to me that he had tried to be very discrete in his choice of
metaphors so as not to make the coordinator feel that he was being singled out
for criticism. But Antonio felt that he had failed.

The next day I spoke to the coordinator and conveyed my sense that he
had seemed hurt by Antonio’s remarks. He agreed that he had. I responded,
“But, sometimes you are the chauffeur and that’s ok. There are times when we
need you to be the chauffeur. But we can’t let you be the chauffeur all the time.”

The coordinator smiled and said with relief, “That’s just what Sergio [the

anthropologist] said.”

218

A rcnda followed Valle del Norte’s presentation.

David, “We ’ve talked about the effect of government programs on our
community. We have to take advantage of them, but also be aware of our own
responsibilities. I like the idea of forming small groups to take advantage of
government projects. ”

Pablo, “Many times we don’t pay attention and there is a lot of repetition, maybe
because people don’t understand. We need to put more effort into understanding
each other. Each of us is responsible for this.”

Maria, “The same thing happens with our children [being irresponsible]. Each of
us has responsibilities. We were told last month to come early, but people still
arrived late. Some of us in our community are asking what we can do so people
feel their responsibility so that our work advances. We would advance if there
was a group that worked together, but it seems that there are those who don’t
understand this.”

Pablo, “We come here to ﬁnd solutions but without understanding that this is a
space where we come to search together to ﬁnd solutions. . .. The question is how
to proceed.”

Silvia, “The Seminar is very important and punctuality and participation are
important, but my question is how.”

Carmen, “It seems to me that we keep repeating things and never arrive at any
conclusions. ”

Julio, “Perhaps our ﬁrst problem is our own success, we have resolved land
tenure problems. Our second problem is the resolution of our internal difﬁculties. ”

Sergio, “The problems we have are internal. But why? They are a reflection of
our environment. . .. ”

Gabriel, “We have solved our agricultural problems or at least part of them. Now
we should consider what type of productive or commercial projects we can come
up with that could stimulate a process to move fonvard. If we don’t, the land we
struggled so hard to gain means nothing... Projects can serve to unite us. We
could say, we need to go to the Seminar for a project of our own, like how we can
export our products or something like that.”

219

Diana, “I like the idea of projects that Antonio talked about, but that was the
second phase. The ﬁrst phase was the internal issue, both in the Seminar and in
communities. . .. ”

Don Salomon, “People seem to come to the Seminar so that other people will
solve their problems. Like Antonio said, the Seminar is not a bus that someone
else is driving. Antonio and l have come to the same conclusion. I also agree that
we should take advantage of projects. We could appoint a commission to identify
a project someone has or develop projects through the Seminar. This would also
help us understand where we are going as an organization. ”

Antonio reiterated, “. .. We aren’t ready to do projects until internal issues are
resolved and we ’ve thought about how and why projects will serve and beneﬁt
us. For example, we need to think about how we can form alliances with other
communities, but this is part of the second phase. We can’t do this until we’ve
resolved the ﬁrst phase. . .. We need to decide if we are all the Seminar or if it’s
only a few — one, two, or three of us.

In their diagnostic, the group from Valle del Norte directly addressed the
issue of organizational structure and leadership in the Seminar. Given the
cultural difﬁculties in raising these issues, they used metaphors to approach the
topic less directly. They suggested that the solution for the Seminafs internal
problems lay in participation where both the campesinos and the leadership
examine their own forms of engagement. In their own words, it appeared that
they were suggesting the Seminar become a more self-reﬂexive organization
through dialogue.

The idea of a project was taken up and was beginning to be explored both
as an economic endeavor and as a means to explore new forms of organizing.
The words of Pablo came to mind when talking about the strategy of the Grupo

Nosotros. Pablo explained that growing coffee was a “pretext” for organizing

themselves. Projects could be a pretext for re-organizing the Seminar.

220

Antonio asked Pablo to summarize and write the main points of his
presentation and the rcnda on the board. He wrote:

. Understand that we are all the Seminar (autobus)

. There are two stages: 1) lntemal problems 2) after the land what?

(projects)

A new metaphor for social organization was entering the language of the
Seminar - the Seminar was imagined as a bus with a driver and passengers. If
we understood that we were a_lI the Seminar, then we could mt think of ourselves
as passive passengers waiting for the driver to deliver us to our destination. It
also meant that we must take an active role in deciding where we wanted to go
and in helping the bus arrive at its destination. It remains to be seen how these
themes will evolve.

We turned again to cases. Don Viejito gave his bltacora, presenting
several medicinal plants that they used in his community. Later in the day, we
returned to diagnostics.

6.14.3 Diana’s Diagnostic

l was still struggling with how to express myself in a way that crossed the
immense gap that separated my world from the world of the Oaxacan
campesinos. The words I knew and the thoughts I expressed were often too
academic or too grounded in a “modern” Western world. I had decided to try to

show what I meant mostly in drawings. I had drawn a sketch of a traditional milpa

221

and a version of the Seminar as a social milpa. I had tried to make the members
identifiable by class, ethnicity, and gender. I began my diagnostic with how I had
come to understand the logic of the milpa and what it might looked like when
applied to the Seminar. During this portion of my presentation, I showed the two
drawings, explaining how the milpa logic had helped me understand the Seminar.
“We’ve talked about the Seminar as if it was a social milpa. You could even say
that each participant was like a different kind of plant. But what makes us
different from plants in a milpa is that we each have different experiences,
distinct ways of talking and viewing the world. We could even say that we come
from different worlds. But instead of letting these differences divide us or cause
conflict, we look for ways to communicate... Many of us speak different
languages and have different ways of understanding things, but we look for ways
to say things so that we can understand each other And when we are lucky and
we are able to understand each other, we come up with good ideas and solutions
to the problems that confront us. ”

I talked about the Seminar as a “school” where we were teaching each
other to be mandaderos or leaders in our own communities. I also revisited the
ideas of service and power. We had talked about a power that could ovenrvhelm
service. If that happened, a mandadero could become like a cacique. When
service overcame power, the mandadero might appear weak and ineffectual.
However, I suggested that there was another way to think of service and power.
We could think of them as if they were tools for different situations. A leader
needed to know when to draw upon one or the other, and when to keep them in
balance.

I then suggested that we could look at communities and the Seminar as if

they, too, had these forces. If they were not kept in balance, some groups or

222

individuals might not participate and others might dominate. Here, again, I
suggested the trick was to have the right mix. Sergio raised the issue that some
individuals had more experience or more education. He asked, “Don’t they have
the responsibility to share their knowledge with others?” I agree and said, “But
the issue is not H knowledge and experienced is shared, but po_w it is shared... If
we recognize that we all have something to contribute and we all have something
to learn, we can work at looking for the best mix or balance... .” I returned to the
concept of the logic of the milpa, adding the idea of communication. To my
drawing, I added a line representing the ideal case of active communication,
comparing it to an instance where communication was broken either through lack
of or overly active participation.

I tried to tie the ideas of communication, participation, and leadership into
the milpa logic. In my drawing, I struggled to make each participant recognizable
-- the coordinator had his briefcase, a Triqui woman her traditional dress, a
leader from Nayarit his sombrero, etc. Each participant or mandadero appeared
with distinct characteristics based on ethnicity, gender and/or class. I hoped that
by portraying participants as giggle: individuals with M skills, experiences,
and knowledge, Seminar members would gain a more complex understanding of
the challenges to — and the beneﬁts of -— diverse participation. I hoped that these
ideas would add to our array of metaphors and facilitate a more in-depth

discussion associated with the difﬁcult issues of internal organization.

223

It seemed that only Sergio and I understood and agreed with each other;
the rest seemed puzzled. In spite, or perhaps because, of this puzzlement, a
lengthy discussion ensued. We revisited the idea of the amarre social -- the
social version of the logic of the milpa. Don Salomon noted that the idea of the
amarre social was important both at the level of community and the level of the
Seminar. He suggested that we had to have conﬁdence in each other and we
also needed to recognize our ability to participate. Don Salémon also suggested
that we could have a consejo (council) each month that “revisited” the idea of the
Seminar or helped us think about the Seminar. This suggestion was reminiscent
of the “council of elders,” a traditional form of leadership in communities. It
appeared that Don Salomon was quietly suggesting an additional decision-
making mechanism in the Seminar.

The coordinator commented that I had not made the connection between
the changes in the Seminar and the amarre social. He suggested that I try to
explain it again. He pointed out that there was a difference between plants and
people, “people have the capacity to decide what to contribute and what to
withhold... Each of us has a different capacity... Each of us can do something
that others can’t. If it wasn’t that way we’d have a monoculture.”

Pablo countered by saying that the example was clear to him, but that the
“mix of plants do not think about the development of each other. We are different.

We may each seek individual solutions, but if we unite we can ﬁnd better

224

solutions. That is how working in the Seminar changes us.” Carlos reﬂected on
the idea of mandadero and saw a general formula,

“We could generate a formula of ‘how’ so that we thought of everyone who
comes here has the two parts [service and power] and we learn how to balance
them. This implies time and effort. How can each of take this responsibility if we
don’t understand why we have this sense of service. I realize that I can’t separate
myself from service. If a leader doesn’t know how to balance, he can fall on the
side of power and can damage society. My question is how can we achieve this.
We have both parts, service and power, in the same person -- the good and the
bad. ”

David noted that when we were successful at solving our agrarian problems, we
were operating in as an amarre social. Now we seemed to lack discipline. He
asked, “Why don’t we return to the amarre social again, without speciﬁc rules, but
by using a project as a pretext to bring us together?”

After Pablo’s comments about service and power being good and bad, I
realized I had not been able to communicate my ideas fully. I tried to explain that
I had not meant service and power as good and bad. I wanted to suggest that we
could understand them as two necessary forces, but perhaps useful at different
times. But David’s comments offered a possibility that could unite the ideas that

Antonio raised. The discussion continued until Samuel arrived. He added his

comments to the mix:

225

“From our point of view, it would be great if we could ﬁnd a project based on the
logic of the milpa. There is so much talk of modernizing. But there is uneasiness
among our producers, it’s hard to be successful producing now. We’d have to go
slowly and look closely at how things are put together. . .. But we feel that if
someone doesn’t take the initiative as a mandadero no one will do anything. I
suggest we continue talking about this. . .. ”

Samuel observations returned the conversation to the idea of projects through
the Seminar. We then went back to discussing cases. The idea of the bus
chauffeur was applied to the case of Tierra Piedra and the young women who
want to sell embroidered dresses. It was pointed out that Don Salomon and his
daughter were the only ones who are willing to take responsibility, the rest of the

community were acting 3 passengers.

6.14.4 ODDDECO’s Diagnostic

We turned to ODDDECO’s diagnostic late Saturday morning. The
ODDDECO members used several metaphors to present their diagnostic. They
drew a parallel between a doctor’s examining a patient and doing a diagnostic of
the Seminar. Under the heading of participation, the group said that the Seminar
was like a school where some students paid attention and others didn’t. At times,
this was because the material presented had nothing to do with “the reality” of
the students. They then shifted focus to Seminar participants. Sometimes
participants presented things that appear easy to resolve, but month after month,
they make no progress in solving their problems. The group suggested that we
return to more general topics such as globalization to help members understand

the current situation they were facing. They also proposed that time be given to

226

the generation of projects. They reiterated the importance of the Seminar in
helping individual’s develop and communities resolve their problems.

During the dialogue that followed ODDDECO’s diagnostic, Antonio noted
that our diagnostics were concurring with, and complementing, each other.
Sergio identiﬁed two key issues that we all seemed to agree on -- the need for
change and a method to achieve that chapqe:

“We are coming close to an agreement in our diagnostics from different points of
view. . .. The next thing to do is to ﬁgure out how. . .. We seem to be in agreement
that we have to ﬁgure out how to change...

A brief discussion followed with concrete suggestions on how the Seminar could

better meet the evolving interests and needs of groups and communities.

6.14.5 Sergio’s Diagnostic

Sergio then presented his diagnostic as a more historic view, focusing on
the changes the Seminar had made over the last several years. He reviewed and
analyzed which communities had participated in the Seminar and what issues
they had raised. He pointed out that the methodology of the Seminar had
empowered individuals and created a collective identity. However, the Seminar
had not been able to apply to itself the same dynamic that it had employed to
empower individuals and communities. In fact, it seemed to have reproduced the
very hierarchical social structure that it opposed. He concluded saying:

“My proposal is that we depersonalize the way we look at ourselves and we

judge ourselves in the same way that we have judged others so that we can see
the Seminar more realistically. The Seminar should be revitalized with the same

227

objectivity that we have tried to maintain towards related processes. The Seminar
should take its own “medicine.

6.14.6 Summary of the Diagnostics

The presentation of diagnostics and proposals began to move the
Seminar towards a reﬂective openness as members examined fundamental
issues and envisioned what the Seminar could be. Don Salomon pointed to the
achievements of the Seminar and each participant’s responsibility to improve
their own practice in the Seminar. By doing so, the Seminar would improve. The
representatives of Valle del Norte advocated a more participative space, where
all members took part in the decision-making and work of the Seminar. I
suggested that the Seminar look at itself as a social milpa where no one
dominated but, rather, communication occurred among equals. The ODDDECO
group revisited some of the problems facing the Seminar, the need for truth, the
difficulty in ﬁnding solutions, a need for understanding general problems facing
communities, and the need to be more inclusive. Finally, Sergio suggested
looking at the Seminar with the same criticality that we had employed towards
communities. No consensus was reached; no agreements forged. But an
expanding dialogue on the issues of internal social organization of the Seminar
had emerged.

Together with this dialogue, peoples’ behavior began to change. Leaders’
right to dominate were being questioned. And - all the while -- the leadership

was not dominating the discussion or controlling the process as much as they

228

had previously. Slowly and hesitantly, women were beginning to participate
more. A woman’s initial words in the rcnda seemed to mimic the representative
of their community. But succeeding attempts became longer and more
thoughtful. In addition, other participants were taking on the roles formally
reserved for the leadership. The substance of each diagnostic contributed to the
“transformation of the Seminar.” Yet even more important than the ideas,
reflections, and suggestions that each group or individual presented, was the
very fact that all of this was taking place. This was, to my knowledge, the ﬁrst
time that an analysis and reﬂection of the organization had occurred with the
participation of a_ll members.

6.15 Community Case Studies Continue

While the diagnostics were being presented, the Seminar was carrying on
its work as usual -- representatives presented their bitacoras, and problems
continued to be analyzed. The community of San Carlos presented their bitacora,
focusing on their group’s application process of becoming a registered sociedad
(civil association). After David gave the bitécora presentation, Pablo added some
details. Pablo explained:

. . We are trying to put into practice what we are talking about in the Seminar
about transformations... [As we do our application] we are trying to form our
organization so that there is not one mandadero, but that everyone takes on his

or her responsibilities. . .. [We are trying to create] a transformation where we all
take part in the activities that we all beneﬁt from.”

229

It seemed that despite various comments from the group about their lack of
understand of the “transformation of the Seminar,” the group was actually
attempting to put the idea of transformation into practice.

Pablo’s comments were buried in the details of the formal application
process, and the discussion that followed focused on these details. Despite the
lack of attention given to these speciﬁc comments, the idea of transformation was
understood by the group from San Carlos, despite their words to the contrary. In
addition, the idea was proving useful not only for the Seminar, but also for
communities and groups in helping them rethink social relationships that had
formerly appeared unquestioned.

6.16 Summary and Conclusions

This chapter details how the Seminar changed over time. This change
began gradually, but gained momentum as various themes emerged and
converged. These themes helped Seminar members look inward, to critically
analyze the underlying assumptions of the organization. Members recognized
that the Seminar was a “space” where Ieaming occurred both at an individual and
at an organizational level. This examination was done through dialogue in which
members revealed their own thinking and were open to the thinking of other
members. Members were able to reﬂect on both the process of leamigq and
obstacles to that process within the Seminar. With these two basic concepts in

place, the Seminar could begin to change as it learned about itself.

230

Obstacles to Ieaming included two related issues - community members’
unwillingness or inability to learn from each other; and, the tendency of
community members to be overly dependent on experts and their knowledge.
These themes underscored the lack of conﬁdence and agency of community
members, generally. The discussion of comisirados’ inability to learn from each
other had introduced the ideas of pride and ego and the notion of “enemy” as
barriers to learning. Confronting Tierra Piedra comisariado’s dependence on
inept experts helped Seminar members recognize that “experts” did not have a
monopoly on knowledge. In fact, participants saw that they could Ieam from each
other if they recognized their own and their fellow community members’ agency
and abilities in the learning process. In addition, a focus on the internal
functioning of communities highlighted obstacles to Ieaming that resembled
obstacles to learning in the Seminar.

The procedure of Saturday - the day of truth provided an opportunity to
focus attention on these similarities. The Seminar began to acquire a dual focus:
seeking solutions to community problems (outcome-based), and reﬂecting on
itself, its approach, and its vision of the future. The foundational themes that had
been established and applied to communities, together with a commitment to a
degree of transparency and truth, resulted in a new level of self-reﬂexivity on the
Seminar’s process and lntemal organization. Furthermore, the language of

metaphors expanded, enabling participants to speak of the internal dynamics of

231

the Seminar in ways that reduced the risk of personal insult and thereby internal
conflict.

A qualitative and quantitative changed occurred in the Seminar. With the
implementation of the rcnda, the dialogue included the majority - not just the
more confident and experienced members of the Seminar. Engaging in dialogue
meant that participants where also more fully engaged in an iterative learning
process of the Seminar. As they Ieamed individually, participants were able to
apply what they were learning to the Ieaming process of the organization itself.

As the quality and quantity of participation increased, members began to
recognize themselves as leaders who could contribute to the process of the
Seminar. This also led members to examine the relationship between the
leadership of the Seminar and other participants. Increasingly, they suggested
that decisions for the Seminar be made by all Seminar participants.

At the same time, participants recognized that academics and
experienced community leaders had specialized skills, knowledge, and
experience. The participants felt there were times when those who “knew how to
drive” should be the “chauffeurs.” This did not mean that experienced individuals
should dominate or control the process. However, the Seminar does not yet have
a fully developed concept of a new leadership for the future. The theme of the
new tecnico is available and can yet be drawn upon to further enrich participants’

understanding of leadership and relationships in the Seminar.

232

Expanded participation increased the diversity of the Seminar and,
thereby, it’s potential to ﬁnd solutions. However, the diversity of the Seminar is
not yet fully recognized. The situated identities of its members are still partially
subsumed in the dichotomy of campesino and academic. This dichotomy
obscures the rich ethnic pluralism of the Seminar. Additionally, the gendered
nature of the Seminar has only begun to be explored. There has not yet been a
serious discussion on how to make the Seminar more gender-inclusive. The
Seminar must apply the advice it gives to communities and recognize that it, too,
is missing half of its community when women’s participation is restricted. A notion
of synergistic power resides in the logic of the milpa. Through dialogue, the
Seminar participants have the means to draw upon this power, connect with each
other and explore emergent ideas. However, in order to develop the milpa logic
more fully, Seminar participants must re-examine their constructs of class,

ethnicity, and gender and resulting social relationships in the Seminar.

233

CHAPTER 7

CRITICAL LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH:
TOWARDS A SECOND GENERATION OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

In their classic article, Brown and Tandon (1983) argue that the
”ideologies and political economies that underlie [action research and
participatory action research] are fundamentally different.” They contend that,
“More exchange, challenge and cross-fertilization between the two is
intellectually desirable — but ideologies and political economies of inquiry will
continue to reproduce present differences and communication difﬁculties.” In
1997, Brown (1997: 2) noted that the “Northern” (AR) and “Southern” (PAR)
traditions of participatory research have “different, potentially complementary,
strengths and weaknesses.” However, the two traditions have still not taken full
advantage of these differences to Ieam from each other.61 In this chapter, I
connect these differences by drawing upon the idea of Ieaming organizations as
developed within AR and elaborating it within an emancipatory framework of PR.

In this chapter, I trace the evolution of the Seminar towards a general
model of a critical learning organization (CLO). I speciﬁcally focus on the issue of
social relationships within the Seminar, elaborating ideas of power, leadership,
and participation. The model of a critical learning organization originates from

and is fed back to the Seminar through the ongoing praxis of this research.

6’ There are a few notable exceptions, see Roobeck (1996) and Greenwood and Levin (1998).

Accordingly, the development of this model has a practical, as well as theoretical
intent.

7.0 A Review of Organizational Change in the Seminar

An overarching organizational theme was presented in Chapter 6 in terms
of the Seminar moving from an adaptive organization to a learning organization.
Chapter 6 culminates with the Seminar reﬂecting on, and engaging in,
preliminary efforts of “transforming” itself. This change was stimulated by the
changing socioeconomic context in which the Seminar operates, by the growing
empowerment of its members, and by the inclusion of new members with distinct
perspectives and experiences.

The “transformation” of the Seminar was facilitated by several
intermediate themes. Seminar members recognized that learning was occurring
within the organization and that there were barriers to that Ieaming. Members
questioned old models of expertise and external intervention, and sought to
create new models of engagement with outsiders. Seminar members recognized
the need for transparency and truth in the Seminar in order to “move ahead.” The
space created by this relative transparency allowed members to problematize
ideas of operational strategies and internal social organization. Finally,
participants began to envision the Seminar of the future - one that could respond
to the changing external conditions and more fully recognize, validate, and

mobilize the growing skills and conﬁdence of its members.

235

Regional diagnostics were developed with an eye to the future. This
allowed communities to look differently at their histories, their locales, and the
resources they contained. A focus on the future not only complemented the
earlier problem-focused perspective of the Seminar and communities, but also
appeared to add a more critical voice to the Seminar’s discussions. The idea of
diagnostic reappeared in the Seminar, but this time with the Seminar as the
“patient.”

When Seminar members began to raise issues about internal social
relationships, the Seminar moved beyond AR notions of a learning organization.
In AR, fundamental questions of social relationships are not raised - in fact, they
are conspicuous by their absence. If we reﬂect on the Seminar as it moves
beyond a learning organization, we may revisit the AR literature as a point of
departure from which to discuss a model of a critical Ieaming organization within
an emancipatory PR approach.

The literature on AR is replete with discussions and examples of “learning
organizations.” From an AR perspective, a Ieaming organization is an
organization that detects errors and corrects them in a way that involves the
modification of its underlying norms, policies and objectives (Argyris and Schon
1978). Yet, learning organizations are constrained by the nature of the framework
in which they are conceptualized. As Brown and Tandon (1983: 292-293) remind
us, “Action research focuses on incremental problem solving and knowledge

development within an accepted social consensus. It promotes social reform

236

within a client system.” Accordingly, Ieaming organizations tend to address
problems framed by organizational authorities.

Learning organizations in AR may address issues relating to values and
beliefs, but these are narrowly deﬁned. They tend to take for granted the
hierarchical relationships within organizations and the broader society in which
they occur. These assumptions and foci can inhibit the elaboration of a learning
organization from an emancipatory perspective. When this elaboration does
occur, issues of power, leadership, and participation come to the fore, as do
issues of social transformation.

7.1 A Critical Learning Organization

A critical learning organization (CLO) is one in which collective learning is
critically reﬂexive - - the organization examines its underlying epistemological,
methodological, and ideological assumptions, including assumptions about social
hierarchy. This examination of internal organizational relationships is what
distinguishes a cltlggl Ieaming organization from an AB learning organization.
The Seminar had asked communities to examine social relationships in their own
communities and in society at large. When the Seminar began to examine it_s
pyv_n_ organizational structure through issues of power, leadership, and
participation, it began to resemble an incipient critical learning organization.

For the Seminar, the process of becoming a CLO was approached

cautiously. Questions relating to internal social relationships were, by their very

237

nature, both personal and collective issues. In addition, the Seminar was situated
in an environment that discouraged, if not punished, people who questioned their
leadership. The tensions created by these discussions were at times openly
recognized and, at times, suppressed. But all the while, the forces which drew
people together -- common identities, shared problems, and mutual outside
“enemies,” combined with trust, caring and commitment -- overcame the
centrifugal forces when these potentially divisive issues were raised. Baker et al.
(1999: 18) suggest that, “When safety, mutual respect and trust are present,
perhaps enough order is provided to allow for confrontation with differences to
provoke new learning and discovery without disintegration into chaos.” Such
cohesive social bonds appeared to be essential for the Seminar to enter into
these discussions and seem necessary for the formation and maintenance of a
CLO.

In a CLO, issues of internal social relationships, including notions of
power, leadership, and participation are problematized -- they become a focus of
discussion and critical analysis in both theoretical and practical terms. In a CLO,
power, leadership, and participation are understood to be interrelated
phenomena and therefore are discussed and analyzed in conjunction with each

other.

238

7.2 Power in a Critical Learning Organization

In general, the most common conceptualization of power is associated
with domination, control, and authority. This concept of power is also referred to
as power-over and pertains to the ability of one person or group to control the
actions and beliefs of others (Starhawk 1987; Wartenberg 1990). This form of
power is crucial in maintaining systems of inequality and injustice. When power is
conceptualized solely in these terms, power may be viewed as a negative social
force, not appropriate to be used as a means to initiate social change by the
powerless.

This idea of power is tied to Kaufman’s notion of differential participation
(Kaufman 1997: 163) The concept of differential participation incorporates an
explicit analysis of power, control, and domination into ideas of participation.
From this perspective, power is the ability to control resources, including the
ability to exploit differences within human relationships. These uneven capacities
are rooted in the brute facts of sexism and inequality, but depend on internalized
values about individual and group identities.

Power can also be associated with ideas of service, cooperation, and
influence. Two such forms of power are elaborated by Starhawk (1987) -- power-
with and power-from-within. Power-with is given to individuals by groups,

organizations, or communities to which they belong. Power-from-within emanates

239

from connections with others, with oneself and with the environment. These two
forms of power have a more positive connotation.

Power-with is a shared power found in relationships of equality. Power-
with is not the power to command, but rather the power to suggest, to begin
something and to see it happen. Power-with is revocable - a group may accept a
leader with this form of power or may withdraw its support at any time. Starhawk
(1987: 11) describes, “Power-with is more subtle, more ﬂuid and fragile than
authority. It is dependent on personal responsibility, on our own creativity and
daring, and on the willingness of others to respond.” In other words, power-with is
granted by a group rather than assumed through authority.

Power-from-within is found in the connections and bonds with other
individuals and with the environment. Starhawk (1987; 9) describes power-from-
within as “linked to the mysteries that awaken our deepest abilities and
potentials.” These two forms of power -- power-with and power-from-within -- can
be drawn upon to bring about social change without reproducing relationships of
domination and control.

A CLO reﬂects upon and analyzes power in its multiple forms and
manifestations. It is not assumed that power itself is inherently good or bad.
Rather, power is recognized to have the potential to be either a positive or
negative social force depending upon the way that it is conceptualized and used.
A CLO seeks to understand the historical and current political context of

participation by both helping individuals to understand their internalized identities

240

and seeking to change norms of participation within the organization itself. In
doing so, a space is opened in which more positive forms of power -— power-with
and power-from-within -- can be analyzed and drawn upon.

In the Seminar, power is most frequently conceptualized as power-over --
as oppressive. The power to convoke in the Seminar is similar to power-with.
However, this form of power is not often used and when evoked it is not usually
recognized as power in the terms of the Seminar. Power-from-within is only
latently present in the Seminar. Only when Seminar members recognize the
need for transformational change, do they begin to draw on this latent power.
Participants begin to connect to each other, to draw upon the strength of the
group, and to mobilize the tremendous commitment of members to the
organization and to each other. In the Seminar, Sergio began to conceptualize
power as a positive force when he said, “There are no human relationships that
cannot be understood as relationships of power. But power is so ambiguous, it’s
hard to grasp it positively, but there are relationships where power is positive,
when it is distorted it becomes negative.” However, Seminar participants are just
beginning to explore more complex and positive ideas of power and the
connection between power, and the way different individuals participate in the

Seminar.

241

7.3 Leadership in a Critical Learning Organization

The leadership model of a CLO resembles that suggested by “responsive”
leaders - individuals who are open to the “needs of the group and individuals in
it” (Starhawk 1987). This leadership is similar to that of Ghandi’s when he said, “I
am my people’s leader. There go my people. I must follow" (Esteva and Suri
1998). It is similar to that of the Zapatistas who “command by obeying” (Esteva
and Suri 1998). In the Seminar, leaders of this type are “at the service of
community.” This form of leadership is accompanied by or springs from power
with, although it is not understood in these terms.

Leadership using power-with is based on inﬂuence. Inﬂuence determines
who is listened to and whose ideas are adopted. Starhawk (1987: 269) explains,

A group, as an entity with its own spirit and identity, needs a brain.

It needs some people who are willing to look ahead, anticipate

problems, suggest new directions, try out new solutions, keep track

of information and decisions, who lead in the sense of stepping out

in front and going ﬁrst. Such leadership is a service to the group.

Starhawk recognizes a particular form of organizational structure that
recognizes the need for individuals who are willing to lead by contributing their
special skills and knowledge to the organization as a whole.

Individuals with experience, knowledge, skills and/or imagination are of
value to the group and tend to be leaders of the type envisioned by Starhawk.

This form of leadership combines power with responsibility and responsiveness -

“If you have power, you are responsible for using it in a an empowering way. If

242

you have responsibility, you need power to meet it (Starhawk 1987: 270).” The
leadership of the Seminar faces a difﬁcult and often conﬂicting role They are
expected to lead —- suggest solutions, make contacts, take responsibility -- yet
they may be criticized for doing the same As Samuel told the Seminar when he
was accused of stealing community funds, “the same people we serve throw
stones at us.” The boundaries of “good” leadership are narrow and shifting. In
one context a leader can be praised for his successes and in another
condemned for them.

There are several conflicting assumptions of “good” leadership in the
Seminar. These assumptions appear to prohibit leaders from fulﬁlling their
leadership potential both in the Seminar and in communities. According to these
assumptions, a “good” leader is a strong leader -- one who directs, controls, and
inspires loyalty. From a followers perspective, this leader should have contacts,
be self-confident, possess the ability to communicate his ideas, and maintain a
clear sense of the future. On the other hand, a good leader should follow the
wishes of the community, exhibit a humble desire to serve, and be willing to
sacrifice himself. If a leader departs from this second group of assumptions, he
may be punished. He may find that rumors are circulated attacking his character,
he may be jailed, driven from the community, or even killed. Rules of “good
leadership,” the threat of punishment, and lack of authority all combined to
produce a situation that circumscribe leaders in their search for solutions to the

“new problems” confronting communities and the Seminar.

243

The academics, who are selected for or who have taken on positions of
leadership in the Seminar, have an additional burden. They are chosen for their
skills, knowledge, contacts, status and/or experience. They also must be
trustworthy and committed to the peasantry. However, these characteristics can
be accompanied by pride, conﬁdence, and status both assumed by the
academics and given by peasant participants. This privileging could not exist
without the peasant participants’ willingness to give it and the academics
willingness to accept it. Of course, the social status and political contacts of the
academics were part of the reason these individuals were originally invited to join
the peasantry in their struggles. The need for individuals with understandings and
experiences that differ from those of the peasantry has not diminished, yet the
accompanying privileging of these same individuals appears to be an obstacle to
creating a co-learning environment and an impediment to ﬁnding innovative
solutions.

As the Seminar explored issues of power and leadership, two parallel
processes of empowerment began. Participants, as community leaders, started
to see themselves as agents who had power-with in their communities (even
though they did not recognized it in those terms), and Seminar participants saw
glimmers of themselves as equal within the Seminar. The Seminar’s goal to
empower its members and improve community members’ ability to be leaders

slowly began to influence the organization’s internal dynamics.

244

Social relationships within the Seminar have begun to change. However,
more reflection and analysis remain to be done both on Mexican society at large
and on the internal organization of the Seminar itself. The explicit theories of
power in the Seminar do not appear to encompass a broad grasp of the positive
forms of power, nor do they fully envision the potential for leadership in the
Seminar or in communities. Starhawk (1987: 11) explains that, “In a culture
based on domination, authority and power-with are often confused, and the
boundaries can be fuzzy.” Starhawk (1987: 13) goes on to explain that we may
actually, “fear power-with because we do not recognize it as different from
power-over.” Also, people may “fear” power with because they feel they will have
to change their ways as “leaders.” This confusion and these feelings seem to
occur both in the Seminar and in communities as individuals attempt to
conceptualize appropriate models of leadership.

Reflecting upon a responsive model of leadership may help Seminar
members overcome their own limited models in which leaders are either
restricted in their abilities to lead and/or resented for their acts of leadership.
Conceptualizing power as a positive force through the notions of power—with has
the potential to broaden the Seminar members’ understanding of “power” and
“leadership” and thereby improve their leadership abilities, the future of the

Seminar, and the viability of communities.

245

7.4 Participation in a Critical Learning Organization

In a CLO, participation among equals forms an organizational horizon. Full
participation becomes a goal -- a potential for interacting and sharing. Equality in
this sense refers to people’s understanding of their relationships to each other --
it suggests non-hierarchical or horizontal social relationships (Lummis 1995).
Participation in a CLO means that the potential exists for each individual to
contribute to the collective knowledge generation and change process according
to his or her unique skills, abilities, interest, and level of conﬁdence. In addition,
less experienced members are given a place to practice participation in a non-
judgmental and safe environment (Lave and Wenger 1991). As Rahnema (1995:
127) explains, participation means “to live and relate differently. It implies above
all, the recovery of one’s inner freedom, that is, to learn to listen and to share,
free from any fear or predeﬁned conclusion, belief or judgement.” In a CLO, a
space is created in which self-conﬁdence is nurtured and individual and collective
conscienctizaca'o is encouraged.

While participation in a CLO is understood to take place among equals,
equality does not mean sameness or homogeneity.62 Rather, the way people
participate is conditioned by individual identities. Class, ethnicity, gender, age,
religion, etc. contribute to the formation of a person’s participation. For example,

an indigenous woman will not participate the same as a mestizo male; 3

62 For a discussion on participation and how various concepts of participation are put into practice
see Greenwood and Levin (1998).

246

community activist trained in the struggle for the land but with little “schooling” will
participate differently from a professional with years of formal education, who has
little experience in rural life A CLO recognizes, validates, and respects its
members in their diverse equalities.

Accordingly, in a CLO, participation can not be forced or mandated. When
participation is mandated, PAR efforts may, in practice, produce results opposite
to its presumed emancipatory intent (Heeks 1999). To enforce or mandate
“participation” is an example of power-over: the direct opposite of recognizing,
validating, and respecting members in their diversity and complexity. In a CLO,
participation is a means to share one’s own knowledge and experience with
others while at the same time, learning from them. Through practice, participants
become more adept at participating while they become more knowledgeable
about the problems at hand.

7.5 Conclusions

The idea of a CLO can be understood as an elaboration of the logic of the
milpa. The metaphor of the milpa facilitates reﬂection and analysis of complex
ideas relating to social relationships. Ideas of participation and diverse equality
are subsumed within this logic. In the agroecological model of the traditional
milpa, each plant contributes unique elements to the overall functioning and
output of the system as a whole. Yet, at any given point in time different plants

contribute in different ways. For example, in the spring and summer, beans’

247

ability to afﬁx nitrogen supply corn with nutrients. The corn, as it grows, provides
support for vining beans. In the spring, the squash ﬂowers attract pollinating
insects and its prickly leaves deter small marauding animals. Later in the season,
the squash plants shade the soil, keeping it cool and reducing the growth of
weeds, while preserving moisture. Over the growing season, the milpa with its
diverse plantings, out produces most mono-cropped ﬁelds of modern agriculture
while preserving the health of the environment.

Reflecting on the logic of the milpa allows us to understand situated
individuals who can contribute to collective Ieaming in organizations. This “logic”
provides a rationale to overcome the barriers to communication due to power
differentials relating to class, ethnicity, gender, etc. Once these boundaries are
transcended, a “way of knowing” that is beyond the capacity of any one individual
or any homogenous group is created. Reﬂection on the agroecological model of
the milpa helps organizational members understand that each of them has
something unique and valuable to contribute in their own time; each individual
learns and contributes according to his or her growing abilities.

7.6 Summary

This study demonstrates that peasant and academic researchers can and
do work together to identify and solve researchable problems through
participatory forms of research. Peasant participants may often need to be

encouraged to recognize and further develop their investigative skills broadly

248

defined. Outside researchers must enter collaborative research relationships with
a strong dose of humility and the ability to see beyond their own "scientiﬁc"
paradigm of research. The outside researcher's role is to contribute in
appropriate ways that are guided by the interests and needs of his or her fellow
non-professional research partners.

The Seminar represents a model for carrying out such research. This
model can be seen as a second generation of PR — one that transcends the
temporal, spatial, and conceptual boundaries of most PR activities. The Seminar
overcomes constraints of time and space in the way it has organized itself as an
ongoing organization that brings together individuals across local, national, and
international arenas. Conceptually, the Seminar expands the idea of learning in
PR to include the idea of a critical learning organization.

The Seminar participants have addressed and successfully resolved
community problems relating to the struggle for the land over a number of years.
The organization applied strategies of confrontation, negotiation, and
obfuscation. They have sought alliances with individuals with power and
authority. They used their enemies when they were able. However, problems
being brought to the Seminar are changing. These problems go beyond
possession of the land and its use; they concern the very economic and cultural
survival of communities. Understandably, the methods and strategies devised to
analyze and resolve the problems of the past do not seem to provide solutions

for today’s problems. In fact, the very nature of these new problems is unclear.

249

The Seminar arrived at an impasse -— it reached the limits of its abilities to
analyze problems brought before it and to generate solutions.

Following the milpa logic, the Seminar sought to expand its diversity --
new members with distinct experience and knowledge were invited and
incorporated. These new members added different dimensions and new insights
to the problem-solving capacity of the Seminar. These newcomers asked
questions and raised issues that had not been raised before. These questions
and issues did not supplant those of older members. Rather, they complemented
and expanded the ongoing discussion.

Through a collective process, questions relating to social relationships in
the Seminar began to emerge. Early questions centered on participation or the
lack of participation. Issues of leadership and power were raised indirectly in
discussions on new tecnicos and outside experts, and more directly during
discussions on mandaderos. Members recognized the need for leadership and
sought to imagine what ideal leaders and experts would look like. A new tecnico
would “wear the shirt of the campesinos" and respect the people. A good leader
would be at the service of community. The leadership that they began to imagine
was one that could n_ot reside in any one individual, but rather, was a ﬂuid role
that could be passed from one individual to another. However, members of the
Seminar do not fully conceptualize new models of power, leadership, or
participation. Seminar members have not resolved the apparent contradictions

between the ideas of service and power or those between the need for “expert”

250

knowledge and empowerment of its less experienced members. Perhaps they
never will. Yet, the Seminar has begun to reﬂect critically upon on itself in a
dialogic fashion -- raising questions relating to social relationships in the
organization.

The questions we asked of each other led us to reﬂect, analyze, and at
times, to act. The focus of Seminar moved beyond a problem-focused orientation
to one in which we began to examine individual and collective ideological,
epistemological, and even ontological assumptions. Each member’s unique
viewpoint helped us, individually and collectively, to understand the Seminar in
new ways and to envision a future that had not been envisioned before.

7.7 Contributions of this Research

This research makes several contributions at a theoretical,
methodological and practical level. At a theoretical level, the inclusion of AD to
PR adds a much-needed dimension to this emerging paradigm of research and
development. Adding AD to the family of PR approaches makes visible those PR
activities where there are no outside researchers present. AD proposes that PR
does not need outside researchers for research to occur. Rather, local people
have and will continue to carry out research and development activities in their
own way and in their own time. Professional researchers and development

specialists can only join with local people in these endeavors if they are willing

251

and able to recognize and fully appreciate them. This research provides some of
the theoretical and practical tools to do so.

The elaboration of a CLO, while preliminary, expands both the theory and
practice of PR. The ideological boundaries of AR and PAR - a consensus theory
of society and a conﬂict theory of society - are overcome as a learning
organization theory is transformed into a critical learning organization theory. The
presentation of the Seminar as a critical learning organization provides an
example to reﬂect upon and understand a speciﬁc form of organizational change.
These two reﬂections, one occurring in the realm of theory the other in the realm
of practice, are simultaneous and complementary. The emerging idea of a critical
learning organization opens a space to further explore notions of power,
leadership, and participation as they unfold in a dialogical fashion.

The addition of the concept ”critical Ieaming organization" to theory and
practice of organizational learning will expand the ability of organizations to
create more horizontal relationships within organizations and to be more
inclusive of all members' interests and viewpoints. While the term "participation"
is in vogue in the development literature, there have been few means available to
address the unequal relationships that may pass as participation within
organizations and communities. The Seminar as a CLO provides a powerful
example to do so.

Within the realm of methodology, this research is an innovative response

to the context within which it occurs. While the methodology of this research can

252

not be adopted as a whole, it can serve as a guide for other PR activities in other
settings. For example, combining the reﬂection of PAR and that of a critical
learning systems approach offers a more robust approach to reﬂection.
Combining the praxis of AR and that of PAR offers a clearer articulation of praxis
at an individual level. Explicating the use of bracketing as part of PR praxis
illustrates a means to maintain subjective objectivity or strong objectivity (Harding
1991: 151). These methods await trial and further elaboration by other PR
researchers.

On a practical level, the Seminar provides an example of how an
organization can draw upon the diversity of its members. The logic of the milpa
teaches us that different perspectives and experiences based on the situated
identities of organizational members can become the source of creativity and
innovation rather than conﬂict and divisions. This creativity and innovation has
the potential to be much richer when a dialogue occurs between individuals and
groups holding distinct ways of understanding the world. The lens each of us
brings to this form of dialogue allows us to see from a different perspective and
may serve to illuminate a greater "whole" than viewing "reality" through only one
lens.

The Seminar also illustrates the essential role of trust and commitment
when an organization engages in critical reﬂection on its internal social
relationships and hierarchy. Mutual commitments and trust developed over time

provide the glue that binds individuals and groups together when engaged in

253

critical reflection and dialogue. When trust and commitment do not exist within an
organization, the obstacles to dialogue occurring across worldviews may
disintegrate into power struggles in which the most powerful actors of the group
impose their views.

Most importantly, this research contributed to the theory and practice of
the Seminar itself. The intense participatory nature of this research means that
this study, from its inception, contributed to the evolution of the Seminar. This
influence occurred not only during my time in Oaxaca, but continued throughout
the writing process. In a way, this document is a living document that continually
fed into the process of the Seminar. This was done both through conversations
with the coordinator and two post-research visits. After I returned home, the
coordinator and I spoke by phone every month after the Seminar meetings. As I
wrote and discussed my ideas with him, the ideas generated were returned to the
Seminar contributing to further discussion and dialogue. In addition, I visited the
Seminar twice during the writing process to share my thoughts. During the visit of
September 1999, I shared the ideas of the Seminar as a Ieaming organization.
Participants easily recognized the Seminar in those terms. They did agree,
however, that the Seminar had not achieved its full potential as a learning
organization. I later returned to present a semi-ﬁnal draft presenting the idea of
the Seminar as a critical learning organization and the notions of power,

leadership, and participation.

254

How my presence and participation affect the Seminar in other areas is
harder to ascertain. At times, I felt that my contributions were neither
understandable, nor understood. A phrase we used occasionally in the Seminar -
- “speaking as if from Mars” -- applied to how I felt. This phrase was used when
one of us -- usually an academic -- presented an idea that was incomprehensible
to other participants. Yet, there were times when my contribution was obviously
meaningful. l was openly praised after one particular engagement in the Seminar
dialogue — during the case of San Pedro when the Seminar members all felt
compelled to participate due to the pending violence in the community. I had read
an article in the local newspaper about the community that described the
community as an “empty shell,” save for women and children. The rest of the
community, the article described, had left -- searching for opportunities in the
US. or Mexico City. Earlier in the day, I had asked the commission from San
Pedro if they had seen the article. One of them responded that he had seen it,
and that his son was one of those who had left for the US. The son, however,
was not happy away from home and soon returned.

In the Seminar, towards the end of the dialogue, it was my turn to speak. I
began by saying I had read the article about San Pedro being an empty
community -- a community of only women and children. But, I told them, I was
puzzled -- the men in front of us were neither women nor children. (This
comment was said in keeping with the humor of rural Oaxaca and elicited a good

deal of laughter. It also got people’s attention.) I then went on to say that one of

255

the commission members had told me about his son leaving, but returning. I
thought about my first visit to Cerro Niebla when we had asked the community if
they want to be a community of only old people and children or a vibrant
community of old and young, men and women - a community that was alive and
thinking of their future. I asked the men of San Pedro, “If you continue this
struggle what will your children come home to? Do you want to be a community
of only women and children or a community that is alive with a future...” Later in
the afternoon, as we were all getting ready to return to our homes, Antonio told
me, “sacaste un diez (you got a ten)” — the highest grade. My contribution in this
instance was appropriate, understandable, and helped contributed to the critical
reflection on the problems of San Pedro.

On a more general level, it appears that my presence has also made an
impact. The coordinator told me that a new phrase has entered the language of
the Seminar. Occasionally, during discussions 3 member will say, “as Diana
said...” -- It seems that l have become a small part of the living history and
language of the Seminar. And in this way, my participation continues,
contributing to an ongoing dialogical process.

This “living” history has not been unidirectional. l have been profoundly
changed through this research. I now have a renewed sense of community -- a
sense of belonging to a communal “we.” By this, I do not mean community in the
narrow sense of being a member of the Seminar or my own neighborhood.

Rather, this feeling of belonging is associated with a sense of belonging to a

256

larger humanity and an intensiﬁed sense of service to the global community to
which we all belong. l have in some ways internalized the Seminar’s model of
learning and interacting. I am now exploring the applicability of this model to
other arenas, in which I live and act.

7.8 Directions for Future Research

In research as rich as this, innumerable questions could have been
explored. Given the participatory and experiential mature of this research, I
chose to tackle only one —- focusing on the organizational development of the
Seminar. Yet, as a participant in the Seminar, my involvement has not ended. A
particularly intriguing area invites further involvement - that of actually applying
some of the ideas on enterprise development that the young women of the
Seminar and l devised. We have begun to explore how traditional and modern
textile design can be combined, produced, and marketed. The women are
encouraged by the possibilities and women’s groups from other communities are
interested in joining. An additional avenue relates to exploring the idea of projects
as a means to explore and solidify “sustainable” social relationships both in
communities and in the Seminar.

On a more general level, this research presents one instance in which
PAR and AR can learn for each other. More specifically, this research presents
the Seminar as a combination of intrinsic and instrumental case study that leads

us to re-examine the existing AR Ieaming organization literature. This reﬂection

257

has led to an elaboration of the idea of second generation PR and a model for a
CLO. This model is now available for testing in other distinct socio/cultural
spaces.

Little attention has focused on the internal workings of organizations within
an emancipatory perspective. This research has developed preliminary ideas
about issues of power, leadership, and participation with in a “critical learning
organizational.” Future investigation could focus on the internal social
relationships within CLOs and how they change over time through dialogue.
lnnumerable opportunities exist for other such activities.

This research has focused on one organizational response emerging form
the Mexican peasantry. Additional research focusing on the responses of
marginalized people to the impacts of globalization is needed. PR offers a unique
means to understand and share the experience of these marginalized groups as
they grapple with their changing worlds.

And, ultimately, a need exists for more researchers to humbly enter in to
partnerships of equality with people around the world. These partnerships should
not only collectively advance scholarship. But also better recognize, understand,

and improve the conditions for the majority of the world’s people.

258

7.9 Final Thoughts on this Research

This investigation occurred over a three-year period, yet visits to
communities were relatively brief. A longer period of time in communities would
have furthered my understanding of the problems confronting communities and
how communities dealt with these problems without the assistance of the
Seminar. Instead, I chose to spend my time focusing on the internal dynamics of
the Seminar based on the needs and interests of the organization itself. In
addition, I recognized that the presence of an outsider, no matter how well
informed and skilled, has the potential for increasing divisions in communities. I
chose to err on the side of caution.

Visits to governmental and non-governmental organizations working with
peasant organizations were also limited during this research. Here again, I chose
to err on the side of caution so as not to negatively impact the Seminar in its
delicate relationships with government ofﬁcials. Given that many NGOs and 605
have close working relationships in the area, I only met with representatives of
NGOs that I felt would not jeopardize any of the Seminar’s or its community
members’ activities.

An additional dilemma I faced in this research was related to one of the
informal roles accorded to me by Seminar members towards the end of my stay
in Oaxaca. Some of the Seminar members (the community activists) recognized

me as a participant/outsider - one who could ask questions that no one else

259

could ask. This “privileged” position meant that I could raise issues relating to
internal power relationships without violating the social norms of the Seminar or
larger Oaxacan society. This questioning could not have taken place earlier in my
relationship with the Seminar -- it required a degree of trust and respect that
developed over time —- and it could not have happened until I had gained a more
nuanced understanding of social dynamics in Oaxaca and in the Seminar.63 This
role, however, challenged my growing ability to engage in a particular element of
praxis -- that is a critical reﬂection on my own participation. This critical reﬂection
requires me to ask myself: What are my own ontological, epistemological, and
ideological assumptions and how have they impacted my analysis of this
research? This question is intrinsic to the methodology of this research. Yet, in a
sense, I have come full circle in the spiral of praxis (Smith et al. 1997). I am still
questioning what I know, how I know, and why I know it - yet at a different level.
Now the “object” of my reflection and analysis includes not only the Seminar and
its processes -- it includes my own engagement in praxis as a member of the
Seminar.

An additional challenge of this research has been documenting and
interpreting this participatory experience with the Seminar. l have only partially
captured the richness, complexity, and contradictions of the experience. Smith
(1997: 196) explains this well, “Any framework will, by definition, simplify a given

53 I engaged in a conscious exploration of these boundaries during my research. For example, I
explored the boundaries of constructive criticism in a conversation with some Zapotec friends.

260

event or process... A holistic model of PAR must capture vivencia [the lived
experience of PAR], making room for the necessary dialectical tensions and
conflicts. It will incorporate people as complex beings with differing motivations,
individual capacities, and feelings; varying moments of joy and anguish; multiple
relations to each other, and shared needs for community and common efforts.” In
attempting to do justice to the complexities of the Seminar, l have struggled with
these issues. I have, in part, encountered the dilemma that Esteva (1994:1,12)
so aptly describes when speaking of the endeavor his fellow indigenous
Oaxacans are engaged in, “These initiatives are so new, in fact, that we have no
words to express them in an articulate manner. Our formal categories are
irrelevant or useless. Even our simple words, doors of our perceptions, are not

accurate. That is my predicament... I hope that by now it is also yours.”

261

BIBLIOGRAPHY

262

Bibliography

Adams, WM. 1990. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the
Third World. London and New York: Routledge.

Addleson. 1999. What is a learning organization?
httpzllpsol.gmu.edulHome/perspectives.nsf

Alcorn, Janis B. 1984. Development Policy, Forests, and Peasant Farms:
Reflections on Huastec-managed Forests' Contributions to Commercial
Production and Resource Conservation. Economic Botany 38:3889-406.

Alexander, Robert Jackson. 1999. International Maoism in the Developing World.
Westport, Conneticut: Praeger.

Althusser, Louis. 1976. Positions, 1964-1975/Louis Althusser. Paris: Editions
sociales.

Alvarez-Buylla Roces, E., E. Lazos Chavero, and Jose Raul Garcia-Barrios.
1989. Homegardens of a Humid Tropic Region in Southeast Mexico: an
Example of an Agroforestry Cropping System in a Recently Established
Community. Agroforestry Systems 82133-156.

Appfel-Marglin, Frederique. 1997. Counter-Development in the Andes. The
Ecologist 27 (6): 221-224.

Argryis, Chris, and Donald Schon. 1989. Participatory Action Research and
Action Science Compared: A Commentary. American Behavioral Scientist
32: 612-623.

Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action: A Guide for Overcoming Barriers to
Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

263

Argyris, C., and D. A. Schon. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Baker, Ann 0, Patricia J. Jensen, and David A. Kolb. 1999. Conversation as
Experiential Learning. http:l/psol.gmu.edu/Home/perspectives.nsf

Barabas, A., and M. Bartolome. 1999. Conﬁguracuibes Etnicas en Oaxaca:
Perspectivas Etnograﬁcas para las Autonomias. 3 vols. Mexico, D.F.: INI,
lNAH.

Barkin, David. 1990. Distorted Development: Mexico in the World Economy.
Boulder: Westview Press.

Barkin, David, Irene Ortiz, and Fred Rosen. 1997. Globalization and Resistance:
The Remaking of Mexico. NACLA report on the Americas 30, NO. 4.

Barry, Tom. 1995. Zapata's Revenge. Boston: South End Press.

Bartolome, Miquel A., and Alicia M. Barabas. 1996. La P/uralidad en Pe/igro:
Processos de Transﬁguracion y Extincion Cultural en Oaxaca (Chocos,
Chonta/es, lxtecos y Zoques), Serie Antropologia. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia & Instituto Nacional lndigenista.

Bawden, Richard. 1997. The Community Challenge: The Learning Response.
Paper read at Community Development Society.

Bawden, Richard. 1998. Personal communication.

Bawden, Richard. March 1995. Systemic Development: A Learning Approach to
Change. Edited by Center for Systemic Development. Vol. Occasional
Paper #1. Hawkesbury: University of Western Sydney.

Behar, Ruth. 1996. The Vulnerable Observer: Anthropology that Breaks Your
Heart. Boston: Beacon Press.

264

Beltran, Gonzalo Aguirre, and Ricardo Pozas Arciniega. 1954. La Politica
lndignista en Mexico: Metodos y Resultados, Tomo ll. Mexico, D.F.:
Instituto Nacional lndigenista.

Black, Jan Knippers. 1991. Development in Theory and Practice: Bridging the
Gap. Boulder, San Francisco & Oxford: Westview Press.

Bohm, D. 1989. On Dialogue. Vol. Ojai Seminars. Ojai, CA.
Bohm, D., D. Factor, and P. Garrett. 1991. Dialogue - a proposal.

Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo. 1996. Mexico Profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization.
Translated by Philip A. Dennis. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo, Jose Carreno Carlon, Daniel Gonzalez 0., Xavier
Garibay, Daniel L. Ungerleider, Jaime Martinez Luna, Salomon Nahmad
Sitton, Victoria Novelo, Arturo Warrnan, and Carlos Monsivais. 1995.
Culturas Populares y Politica Cultural. Mexico, D.F.: Culturas Populares
Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.

Bookchin, Murray. 1978. Beyond Neo—Marxism. Telos 36 (Summer):5-28.

Botey, Carlota. 1996. Introduction to Panel I. In Reforming Mexican Agrarian
Reform, edited by Laura Randall. New York: ME. Sharpe, Inc.

Braidotti, R. 1991. Patterns of Dissonance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Braidotti, R, E. Charkiewicz, S. Hausler, and S. Wieringa. 1994. Women, the
Environment and Sustainable Development. London: Zed Books.

Brewer, John, and Albert Hunter. 1989. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of

Styles. Vol. 175, Sage Library of Social Research. Newbury Park, London,
New Dehli: Sage Publications Inc.

265

Bronkensha, D.W., D.M. Warren, and Oswald Werner. 1980. Indigenous
Know/edge Systems and Development. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.

Brown, David, L., and Rajesh Tandon. 1983. Ideology and Political Economy in
Inquiry: Action Research and Participatory Research. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 19 (3):277-294.

Brown, Lester. 1999. Feeding Nine Billion. In State of the World 1999: A
Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society,
edited by Lester Brown. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Brown, Lester, Christopher F lavin, and Hilary French, eds. 1999. State of the
World 1999, A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a
Sustainable Society. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Brown, L. David. 1997. Social Learning in South—North Coalitions: Constructing
Knowledge Systems across Social Chasms. Paper read at World
Congress on Action Research, Action Learning and Process Management
and on Participatory Research, June 1-5, 1997, at Cartegena, Colombia.

Burgess, Robert. 1991. The Unstructured Interview as Conversation. ln Field
Research: a Sourcebook and Field Manual, edited by Robert G. Burgess.
London: Routledge.

Callari, Antonio, and David F. Ruccio, eds. 1996. Postmodern materialism and
the future of Marxist theory: essays in the Althussen'an tradition. Hanover,
NH: University Press of New England for Wesleyan University Press.

Campbell, Connie, in collaboration with The Women's Group of Xapuri. 1996. Out
on the Front Lines but Still Struggling for Voice. In Feminist Political
Ecology: Global and Local Experiences, edited by Diane Rocheleau,
Barbara Thomas-Slayter and Esther Wangari. New York: Routledge.

Carmen, Raff. 1996. Autonomous Development, Humanizing the Landscape: An
Excursion into Radical Thinking and Practice. London and New Jersey:
Zed Books, Ltd.

266

d3

Centeno, MA. 1994. Democracy within Reason: Technocratic Revolution in
Mexico. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the First Last. London:
Longman.

Chambers, Robert. 1990. MicroEnvironments Unobserved. Paper read at
International Conference on Natural Resources Management in a
Sustainable Agriculture, Feb. 6-10, at New Delhi.

Chambers, Robert. 1993. Challenging the Professional. London: Intermediate
Technology Press.

Chambers, Robert. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and LA. Tripp. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation
and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Press.

Clandinin, D. Jean, and F. Michael Connelly. 1994. Personal Experience
Methods. In Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research,
edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne S Lincoln. Thousand Oaks,
London and New Delhi: Sage.

Cleaver, Harry. 1973. The Contradictions of the Green Revolution. In The
Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment, edited by
Charles Wilbur. New York: Random House.

Cockcroft, James. 1998. Mexico's Hope. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Colburn, Forrest, ed. 1989. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. NY:
Armonk, ME. Sharpe.

Collier, George A. 1994. Basta! Land and the Zapatistas in Chiapas. Oakland,
CA: Food First Institute for Food and Development.

267

Collins, David. 1998. Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives. London:
Routledge.

Cook, James. 1984. Peasant Capitalist Industry. New York: University of America
Press.

Cornelius, Wayne A., and David Myhre, eds. 1998. The Transformation of Rural
Mexico: Reforming the Ejido Sector. Edited by Center for U.S.-Mexican
Studies. San Diego: University of California.

Creswell, John W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Pubs.

Creswell, John W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Pubs.

Crockcroft, James D. 1998. Mexico '3 Hope: An Encounter with Politics and
History. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Debbink, Gerald, and Arturo Ornelas. 1997. Cows for Campesinos. In Nurtured
by Knowledge: Learning to Do Participatory Action Research, edited by
Susan Smith, Dennis Willms and Nancy Johnson. New York: Apex Press.

Dennis, Philip A. 1976. Conflictos por Tierras en el Valle de Oaxaca. Translated
by Celia Paschero. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional lndigena, Secretaria
de Educacion Publica.

Dennis, Philip A. 1987. lntervi/lage Conﬂict in Oaxaca. New Brunswick and
London: Rutgers University Press.

Denzin, Norman K., ed. 1989. Interpretive interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonne S. Lincoln, eds. 1994a. Handbook of Qualitative
Research. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.

268

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonne S. Lincoln. 1994b. Introduction. In Handbook of
Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne S. Lincoln.
Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.

Deshler, David. 1995. Traditions and Assumptions of Participatory Action
Research: Implications for Natural Resources Management and
Sustainable Agriculture. Paper read at SANREM CRSP Participatory
Collaborative Research Methodologies, June 27-30, at Kellogg
Conference Center, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama.

Diaz Hernandez, Jorge. 1986. Relaciones lnteretnicas Contemporaneas en
Oaxaca. In Etnicidad u Pluralisom Cultural: La Dinamica Etnica en
Oaxaca, edited by Alicia Barabas and Miguel Bartolome. Mexico. D.F.:
Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

Dick, Bob. na-a. Approaching an action research thesis: an overview:
http:lwww.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/arr/phd.html.

Dick, Bob. na-b. You want to do an action research thesis?:
http:lwww.scuedu.au/schools/arrlphdhtml.

Dickinson, Jeffery. 1988. Experiential Social Learning and Management for
Social Transformation: A Case Study of a Community Development
Project in Lima, Peru. Ph.D. Dissertation, Resource Development,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Diskin, Martin. 1986. La economia de la comunidad etnica en Oaxaca. In
Etnicidad y pluralismo cultural: La dinamica etnica en Oaxaca, edited by
A. Barabas and Bartolome. M. Mexico D.F.: Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia.

Ecumenical Association. 1986. Third World theologies: commonalties and
divergences : papers and reﬂections from the Second General Assembly
of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians, December.
Paper read at Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologian, 1990, at
Oaxtepec, Mexico.

269

Edwards, AD, and D.G. Jones, eds. 1976. Community and Community
Development. The Hague and Paris: Moutan.

Elden, Max, and Morten Levin. 1991. Cogenerative Learning: Bridging
Participation into Action Research. In Participatory Action Research,
edited by William Foote Whyte. Newbury Park: Sage.

Englestad, Per H., and Bjorn Gustavsen. 1993. Swedish Network Development
for Implementing National Work Reform Strategies. Human Relations 46
(2):219—249.

Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development - The Making and Unmaking
of the World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Escobar, Arturo, and Sonia E. Alverez, eds. 1992. The Making of Social
Movements in Latin America. Boulder: Westview Press.

Esteva, Gustavo. 1983. The Struggle for Rural Mexico. South Hadley, MA:
Bergin and Harvey.

Esteva, Gustavo. 1994. Re-embedding Food in Agriculture. Culture and
Agriculture (No. 48): 2-13.

Esteva, Gustavo. 1995. Development. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide
to Knowledge as Power. London & New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.

Esteva, Gustavo, and Prakash. Madhu Suri. 1998. Grassroots Post-Modernism:
Re-making the Soils of Cultures. London 8 New York: Zed.

Fals Borda, Orlando, ed. 1985a. The Challenge of Social Change, Sage Studies
in International Sociology 32. Delhi: Sage Publications.

F als Borda, Orlando. 1985b. The Theory and Practice of Participatory Action
Research: Issues from Fieldwork in Three Latin American Countries. EAD/
Bulletin 1:41-47.

270

Fals Borda. Orlando, ed. 1998. People's Participation. London: Intermediate
Technology Publication.

Fals Borda, Orlando, and Anisur Rahman, eds. 1991. Action and Knowledge:
Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. London:
Intermediate Technology Pubs.

FAO. 1999. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 1999: FAO.

Fear, F .A., and JR. Lichty. 1990. Action Research in Community Development.
Paper read at 22nd Annual Conference of the Community Development
Society, at Little Rock, Arkansas.

Fernandez, W., and R. Tandon. 1981. Participatory Research and Evaluation:
Experiences in Research as a Process of Liberation. New Delhi: Indian
Social Institute.

Forest Trees and People Newsletter. No. 18 September, 1992.

Fox, Jonathan. 1994. The Politics of Change in Mexico’s New Peasant Economy.
In The Politics of Economic Restructuring: State-Society Relations and
Regime Change In Mexico, edited by Maria Lorena, Kevin Middlebrook
and Juan Molinar. La Jolla: Center for Mexican-US. Studies, University of
California at San Diego.

Francis, Dawn. 1996. Moving from Noninterventionist Research to Participatory
Action: Challenges for Academe. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education v9 (n1): p75-86.

F reire, Pablo. 1970, 1990. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum
Publishing Co.

Freire, Pablo. 1985. The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation.
NY: Seabury Press.

271

Freire, Paulo. 1998. Education for Critical Consciousness. Edited by Continuum.
New York.

Freire, Paulo, and D. Macedo. 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World.
London: Routledge.

Gaventa, John. 1991. Towards a Knowledge Democracy: Viewpoints on
Participatory Research in North America. In Action and Knowledge:
Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research, edited by
Orlando Fals Borda and Anisur Rahman. London: Intermediate
Technology Pubs.

Gaventa, John. 1993. The Powerful, the Powerless, and the Experts: Knowledge
Struggles in an Information Age. In Voices of Change: Participatory
Research in the United States and Canada, edited by Peter Park, Mary
Brydon-Miller, Budd Hall and Ted Jackson. Westport, Connecticut,
London: Bergen 8 Garvey.

Geertz, C. 1988. Works and Lives: The Anthropologists as Author. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.

Gillis, Malcolm, Dwight H. Perkins, Michael Roemer, and Donald R. Snodgrass.
1983. Economics of Development. New York: WW. Norton 8 Company.

Golden, Tim. 1991. The Dream of Land Dies Hard in Mexico. New York Times,
November 27.

Gramsci, Antonio. 1979. Letters from Prison. London. Quarter.

Greenwood, Davydd, and Morten Levin. 1998. An Introduction to Action
Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Guba, E., and Y. Lincoln. 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.
In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and
Yvonne S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

272

Gunder Frank, Andre. 1969. Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution.
New York: Monthly Review Press.

Gutierrez, Gustavo. 1975. A Theology of Liberation. London. SCM Press.

Habermas, Jurgens. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1 Reason
and the Rationalization of Society. Boston. Beacon Press.

Hall, Budd. 1979. Knowledge as a Commodity and Participatory Research.
Prospects: Quarterly Review of Education 9 (4)2v393-408.

Hall, Budd. 1981. Participatory Research, Popular Knowledge and Power: A
Personal Reﬂection. Convergence 14 (3): 6—17.

Hall, B.L., A. Gillette, and R. Tandon. 1982. Creating Know/edge: A Monopoly?
Participatory Research in Development. New Delhi: Society for
Participatory Research in Asia.

Hanson, Tom. 1999. Personal communication.

Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvent/on of
Nature. New York: Routledge.

Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? NY: Cornell
University.

Harvey, Neil. 1998. Rural Reform and the Question of Autonomy in Chiapas. In
The Transformation of Rural Mexico: Reforming the Ejido Sector, edited
by Wayne A. Cornelius and David Myhre. San Diego: University of
California.

Heeks, Richard. 1999. The Tyranny of Participation in Information Systems:
Learning form Development Projects. Vol. Working Paper No. 4,
Development Informations Working Paper Series. Manchester: Institute for
Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

273

Hilbert, Sarah. 1997. For Whom the Nation? Internationalization, Zapatismo, and
the Struggle Over Mexican Modernity. Antipode 29:115-148.

Holstein, James A., and Jaber F. Gubrium. 1994. Phenomenology,
Ethnomethodology, and Interpretive Practice. In Handbook of Qualitative
Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne 8. Lincoln. Thousand
Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.

Honey Bee. Ahmedabad, India. SRISTI Innovations.
Husserl. 1970. Logical Investigation. New York: Humanities Press.

INEGI. 1995. Oaxaca Hablantes de Lengua Indigena: Perfil Sociodemografico.
Aguascalinetes, Ags.: Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geographia e
Informatica (INEGI).

INEGI. 1997. Oaxaca Perfil Sociodemograﬁco. Aguascalientes, Ags.: Instituto
Nacional de Estadistica Geographia e Informatica (INEGI).

IN EGI. 1998. Oaxaca Tabulados Basicos Ejidales por Municipio: Programa de
Certificacion de Derechos Ejidales y Titulacion de Soalres Urbanos,
PROCEDE 1992-1997. Aguascalinetes, Ags.: Instituto Nacional de
Estadistica Geographia e Informatica (INEGI).

lshida, Loretta. 1999. A Case Study of Participatory Action Research to Enhance
Community Development: A Community-Based Ecotourism Project in
Huatulco, Oaxaca. M.S., Resource Development, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Katz, Friedrich. 1996. The Agrarian Policy and Ideas of the Revolutionary
Mexican Factions Led by Emilinano Zapata, Pancho Villa, and Venustiano
Carranza. In Reforming Mexican Agrarian Reform, edited by Laura
Randall. New York: ME. Sharpe, Inc.

Kaufman, Michael. 1997. Differential Participation: Men, Women and Popular
Power. Edited by M. Kaufman, H. Dilla Alfonso, Community Power and

274

Grassroots Democracy: The Transformation of Social Life. London and
New Jersey: Zed Books.

Kearney, Michael. 1972. The Winds of lxtepeji: World View and Society in a
Zapotec Town. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc.

Kearney, Michael. 1996. Reconceptualizing the Peasantry: Anthropology in
Global Perspective. Edited by J. Comaroff, P. Bourdieu and M. Bloch,
Critical Essays in Antropology. University of California, Riverside:
Westview Press.

Kemmis, Stephen. 1991. Critical education researcher. The Canadian Journal for
the Study if Adult Education Special issues:94-119.

Kemmis, Stephen, and Robin McTaggart. 2000. Participatory Action Research. In
The Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y.
Lincoln. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Korten, David. 1996. The Failures of Bretton Woods. In The Case Against the
Global Economy and For a Tum Toward the Local, edited by J. Mander
and E. Goldsmith. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Kothari, Rajni. 1988. Rethinking Development: In Search of Humane
Alternatives: Ajanta Publications.

Krishna, Anirudh, Norman Uphoff, and Milton J. Esman. 1997. Reasons for
Hope: Instructive Experiences in Rural Development. West Hartford:
Kumarian Press.

Kumar, Krishna, ed. 1993. Rapid Appraisal Methods. Edited by The World Bank,
World Bank Regional and Sectoral Studies. Washington DC: The World
Bank

Lassey, Peter. 1998. Developing a Learning Organization. London: Kogan Page.

275

Lather, Patti. 1986. Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research: Between a
Rock and a Hard Place. Interchange 17 (4): 63-84.

Latouche, Serge. 1991. In the Wake of the Afﬂuent Society: An Exploration of
Post-Development. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Limerick, David, Ron Passﬂeld, and Bert Cunnington. 1995. Transformational
Change: Towards an Action Learning Organization: The Learning
Organization.

Lummis, C. Douglas. 1995. Equality. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to
Knowledge as Power, edited by Wolfgang Sachs. London 8 New Jersey:
Zed Books Ltd.

Macdonald, Mandy, Ellen Sprenner, and Ireen Dubel. 1997. Gender and
Organizational Change: Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Practice.
Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute. ‘

MacEwan, Arthur. 1991. Banishing the Mexican Revolution. Monthly Review
43:16-27.

Maguire, Patricia. 1987. Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach.
Amherst: The Center for International Education, School of Education,
University of Massachusetts.

Malhorta, Yogesh. 1996. Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations:
An Overview.

Mander, J., and E. Goldsmith, eds. 1996. The Case Against the Global Economy
and For a Turn Toward the Local. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

276

Martinez Luna, Jaime. 1995. Resistencia Comunitaria y Cultura Popular. In
Culturas Populares y Politica Cultural, edited by Guillermo Bonfil Batalla.
Mexico, D.F.: Cultras Populares de Mexico.

Max-Neef, Manfred, Elizalde Antonio, and Maritn Hopenhayn. 1989. Human
Scale Development. Development Dialogue.

McLaren, Peter. 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture. Edited by
Routledge. New York.

McLaren, Peter, and Tomaz Tadue da Silva. 1995. Decentering Pedagogy:
Critical Literacy, Resistance and the Politics of Memory. In Critical
Pedagogy and Predatory Culture, edited by Peter McLaren. New York:
Routledge.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Millman, Marcia and Rosabeth M. Kanter. 1975. Another Voice: Feminist
Perspectives on Social life and Social Science. The Hague. Institute of
Social Studies.

Moustakes, C. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Mueller, Adele. 1991. In and Against Development: Feminist Confront
Development on Its Own Ground.

Nader, Laura. 1990. Harmony, Ideology, Justice and Control in a Zapotec
Mountain Village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Nelson, C., P. A. Treichler, and C. Grossberg, eds. 1992. Cultural Studies. Edited
by C. Nelson, P. A. Treichler and C. Grossberg, Cultural Studies. New
York: Routledge.

277

Netting, Robert. 1993. Smal/holders, Householders: Farmer Families and the
Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.

Nevis, Edwin 6, Joan Kancourt, and Helen G. Vassallo. 1996. Intentional
Revolutions. Edited by Jossey-Bass Publichers. San Francisco.

Norgaard, Richard. 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a
Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. London and New York:
Routledge.

Novela, Victoria. 1995. La Expropiacion de la Cultura Popular. In Culturas
Populares y Politica Cultural, edited by Guillermo Bonfil Batalla, Jose
Carreno Carlon, Daniel Gonzalez 0, Xavier Garibay, Daniel L.
Ungerleider, Jaime Martinez Luna, Salomon Nahmad Sitton, Victoria
Novelo, Arturo Warman and Carlos Monsivais. Mexico, D.F.: Culturas
Populares de Mexico.

Nurkse, Ragnald. 1953. Problems of Capital Formation in Underdeveloped
Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Olesen, Virgnia. 1994. Feminism and Models of Qualitative Research. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and
Yvonne S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Omawale. 1984. Politics and the Right to Food. In Food as a Human Right,
edited by Asbjorn Eide, Wenche Barth Eide, Susantha Goonatilake, Joan
Gussow and Omawale: The United Nations University Press.

Park, Peter. 1993. What is Participatory Research? A Theoretical and
Methodological Perspective. In Voices of Change: Participatory Research
in the United States and Canada, edited by Peter Park, Mary Brydon-
Miller, Budd Hall and Ted Jackson. Westport, Connecticut, London:
Bergen 8 Garvey.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 1975. Alternative Evaluation Research Paradigm.
Grand Forks, ND. University of North Dakota.

278

Pelto, Pertti J., and Gretel H. Pelto. 1978. Anthropological Research: The
Structure of Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pisa, Rosaria Angela. 1994. Popular Response to the Reform of Article 27: State
Intervention and Community Resistance. Urban Anthropology 23 (2-
3):267-306.

Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation: the Political and Economic
Origins of Our Times. Ninth printing, 1968 ed. Boston: Beacon Press.

Popkewitz, Thomas. 1984. Paradigm and ideology in educational research. New
York: Falmer Press.

Procuradaria Agraria. 1993. Edited by Organos Ejidales y Comunales. Vol. Guias
Agrarias 10. Mexico, D.F: Procurdaria Agraria.

Rahman, Anisur. 1993. People’s Self- Development - Perspectives on
Participatory Action Research. London and New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.

Rahman, Muhammad Anisur. 1991. The Theoretical Standpoint of PAR. In Action
and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-
Research, edited by Orlando Fals-Borda and Muhammad Anisur Rahman.
London: Intermediate Technology Pubs.

Rahnema, Majid. 1995. Participation, in The Development Dictionary: A Guide to
Knowledge as Power, edited by Wolfgang Sachs. London 8 New Jersey:
Zed Books Ltd.

Randall, Laura, ed. 1996. Reforming Mexican Agrarian Reform. New York: ME.
Sharpe, Inc.

Rapoport, RN. 1970. Three Dilemmas in Action Research. Human Relations 23
(6): 499-513.

279

Reason, Peter. 1994. Three Approaches to Participatory Inquiry. In Handbook of
Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne 8. Lincoln.
Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.

Rivers-Rozdilsky, Deanna. 2000. Art and Tradition.
http:l/www.geocities.com/tapetes_2000.

Robert, Jean. 1995. Production. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to
Knowledge as Power. London 8 New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.

Rocheleau, Diane, Barbara Thomas-Slayter, and Esther Wangari, eds. 1996.
Feminist Political Ecology: Global and Local Experiences. New York:
Routledge.

Rocheleau, Dianne E. 1994. Participatory Research and the Race to Save the
Planet: Questions, Critique and Lessons from the Field. Agriculture and
Human Values 11 (283): 4-25.

Rogers, E., and F. Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of Innovations: A Cross-
cuItural Approach. New York: The Free Press.

Roobeck, Annemiele J.M. 1996. Strategic Management for the Bottom Up. In
Beyond Theory: Changing Organizations through Participation, edited by
Stephen Toulmin and Bjorn Gustavsen. Amsterdam 8 Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.

Rostow, Walter W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist
Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ruiz, Ramon Eduardo. 1992. Triumph and Tragedies. New York: WW. Norton 8
Co.

Ruonavaara, Diane. 1996. Traditional Household Gardens of the Petén,
Guatemala. M.S., Resource Development, Michigan State University, East
Lansing.

280

Sachs, Wolfgang, ed. 1995. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge
as Power. London 8 New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd.

Salopek, Paul. 2000. Ghastly Ebola Unlikely to be Last of its Kind. Chicago
Tribune, Jan. 11, 2000, 1 8 16.

Sanderson, Steven. 1981. Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Saravia, Gustavo. 1992. A Breath of Life: Revitalizing Farmer's Knowledge.
Forest, Trees and People (18): 36-39.

Schartz, Michael, and Rob Walker. 1995. Research as Social Change: New
Opportunities for Qualitative Research. London and New York: Routledge.

Schein, Edgar H. 1993. On Dialogue, Culture and Organizational Learning.
Organizational Dynamics (Winter):40-51.

Schon, Donald. 1983. The Reﬂective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
Action. Basic Books.

Schon, Donald. 1995. Knowing in Action: The New Scholarship Requires a New
Epistemology. Change: 27-34.

Scott, James. 1986. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. In Everyday Forms
of Peasant Resistance in South-east Asia, edited by James C. Scott and
Benedict J. Tria Kerkvilet. London: Frank Cass 8 Co. Ltd.

Selener, Daniel. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Ithica,
NY: Cornell Participatory Action Research Network.

Sen, Gita, and Caren Grown. 1988. Development Crises and Alternative Visions:
Third World Women’s Perspectives. Edited by DAWN. London: Earthscan.

281

Senge, PM. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Double Day.

Sethi, Harsh. 1993. Action Groups in the New Politics. In New Social Movements
in the South, edited by Ponna Wignaraja. London: Zed Books.

Sfard, Anna. 1998. On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of
Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher. Vol 27. No. 2: 4-13.

Shiva, Vandana. 1989. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development.
London: Zed Books Ltd.

Shor, Ira. 1995. Education is Politics: Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy. In Critical
Pedagogy and Predatory Culture, edited by Peter McLaren. New York:
Routledge.

Simon, Joel. 1997. Endangered Mexico: An Environment on the Edge. San
Francisco: Sierra Cub Books.

Smith, Susan. 1997. Deepening Participatory Action-Research. In Nurtured by
Knowledge: Learning to Do Participatory Action Research, edited by
Susan Smith, Dennis Willms and Nancy Johnson. New York: Apex Press.

Smith, Susan, Dennis VVilIms, and Nancy Johnson. 1997. Nurtured by
Knowledge: Learning to Do Participatory Action Research. New York:
Apex Press.

Stake, Robert E. 1994. Case Studies. In Handbook of Qualitative Research,
edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks,
London and New Delhi: Sage.

Starhawk. 1987. Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority and Mystery.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Stephen, Lynn. 1991. Zapotec Women. Austin: University of Texas.

282

Stephen, Lynn. 1993. Restructuring the Rural Family: Ejidatario, Ejidataria, and
Official Views of Ejido Reform. Paper read at Mexico: Beyond NAFTA, at
Amherst.

Stephen, Lynn. 1998. Interpreting Agrarian Reform in Two Oaxacan Ejidos:
Differentiation, History, and Identities. In The Transformation of Rural
Mexico: Reforming the Ejido Sector, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius, David
Myhre and Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. San Diego: University of
California.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corburn. 1994. Grounded Theory Methodology. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and
Yvonne S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage.

Szekely, E. Miguel. 1994. Demandas impuesta por la empresa globalizada sobre
la fuerza de trabajo. Revista Mexicana de Sociologia 1:150-181.

Szekely, E. Miguel. 1995a. Mecanismo "Alternativos" para la Resolucion de
Conflictos. Cuidad Universiraria, Mexico, D.F.: Seminario de Defensa de
Derechos de las Comuniddes Agrarias, lIS-UNAM.

Szekely, E. Miquel. 1995b. Strategic Regional Planning at the Peasant
Grassroots: An Experience in "Learning-in—Practice". Ph.D., Social
Science Systems, University of Pennsylvania.

Szekely, E. Miquel. 1997. La Perdida y la Recuperacion del Concepto de la Milpa
Traditional Frente a Ios Retos de la Globalizacion. Paper read at Reunion
de la Asociacion de Estudios Latinoamericanos "LASA—1997", April 17-19,
1997, at Guadalajara, Mexico.

Szekely, E. Miguel. 1998. Colectivo de Consulta: Costituidos por Investigadores
Universitarios y Campesinos: La Fecundidacion Conceptual Cruzada
como Recurso Frente a Ios Retos de la Globalizacion. Cuidad
Universitaria, Mexico, D.F.: Instituto de lnvestigaciones Sociales.

Tandon, Rajesh. 1981. Participatory Research in the Empowerment of People. .

283

Thiesenhusen, William C. 1996. Mexican Land Reform, 1934-91: Success or
Failure? In Reforming Mexican Agrarian Reform, edited by Laura Randall.
New York: ME. Sharpe, Inc.

Thompson, John, and Ian Scoones. 1994. Challenging the Populist Perspective.
Agriculture and Human Values 11 (283)258-76.

Thorne, Barrie. 1983. Political Activist as Participant Observer: Conflicts of
Commitment. In Contemporary Field Research, edited by Robert
Emerson. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc.

Torbert, William R. 1991. The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and
Scientific Inquiry. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: Sage Pubs.

Torres-Lima, P., B. Canabal-Cristini, and G. Burela-Rueda. 1994. Urban
Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values (Winter):37-46.

Ullrich, Otto. 1995. Technology. In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to
Knowledge as Power, edited by Wolfgang Sachs. London 8 New Jersey:
Zed Books Ltd. '

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 1990. Human Development
Report. New York, Oxford University Press.

Warman, Arturo. 1980. We Come to Object: The Peasants of Morelos and the
National State. Translated by Stephen K. Ault. Baltimore, Md: John
Hopkins University Press.

Warnock, John. 1995. The Other Mexico. NY: Black Rose Books.

Wartenberg, Thomas E. 1990. The Forms of Power: From Domination to
Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Westkott, Marcia. 1979. Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences in
Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 49. No. 3: 422-430.

284

Whyte, William Foote, ed. 1991. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park:
Sage.

Wignaraja, Ponna. 1993. New Social Movements in the South. London: Zed
Books.

Wolf, Eric. 1966. Peasants. Englewood, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

Wolf, Eric. 1986. Beyond the Green Revolution: New Approaches for Third World
Agriculture, Worldwatch Paper 73: Worldwatch Institute.

Wolf, Eric. 1999. Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crises.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

World Bank, 1991a. The Challenge of Development. Washington DC. The World
Bank.

World Bank, 1991b. The World Bank Participation Handbook. Environmentally
Sustainable Development. Washington DC. International Development
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.

World Bank, 1996. Food Security for the Worid statement prepared for the World
Food Summit by the World Bank. November 1996.

Zaoual, Hassan. 1992 The Methodology of the Symbolic Sites. Culture and
Development. Vol. 10 (11).

285