I am a little disappointed by the whole debate over the Article posted by Louis of Shiva's speech. First of all, like Michael, I thought most of it made a lot of sense. Anyone who has followed the experience of the 'green revolution' (sic) knows about the problems that it has produced and the fact that it has exacerbated class problems by displacing the poor farmers and giving control to the rich. The development literature has been reporting this for twenty years or so. Secondly, Marilyn Waring has been reporting on how the introduction of capitalist markets have disempowered women, again for a decade or so. I am going from memory, but if I remember her example, one of the international agencies (WB, IMF, whatever) came in and convinced east Africans that heating/cooking with dung was inefficient and unhealthy and that it was much better to heat/cook with keroscene. The problem, of course, was that keroscene had to be bought from multinational oil companies whereas dung was 'free'. The women were better off cooking with keroscene, but were much poorer and were disempowered. Moreover, they now had to produce for the export market in order to earn enough income to purchase imported oil. What bothers me most about the discussion here on Pen-l is that everyone seems to be treating this as some ideological test case. If you oppose capitalist chemical and GE agriculture you are a Luddite. If you support industrial organization of agriculture complete with chemicals, monopoly marketing and private ownership, you are somehow a socialist. In any case, as Hobsbawm has amply demonstrated, the Luddites were not against technology, they were just bargaining about the distribution of the rewards. I am sure that Vandana Shiva would not argue agains the introduction of any technology that maintained women's control of agriculture but lessened their burden. It does make me angry when a bunch of males line up to criticize her because of her defense of women's power in society. The interesting point about the Bali post is that, the introduction of machinery increasing community level productivity, consolidated the economic power of women in the community. Great. But what if a new technology *reduced* womens' status in the society? Would that necessarily by 'good'. This is not an abstract issue. In 19th century Ontario, the introduction of he cream separator and the development of cheese plants took the domestic dairy industry out of the household where it was controlled by women, into the market where it was controlled by men. I'm sure all the men on the list would think this was great. I am not sure that women would agree. The point that I am trying to make is that 1.industrialization of agriculture is not an unqualified good -- indeed it can be ecologically disasterous; and 2. the introduction of new technology can not only lead to negative class effects, but also negative gender effects at the expense of women. Shiva may be belabouring a point and appearing as anti-'progress' (i.e. 'luddite') but she has a valid point, and a point that we all should consider much more seriously than this list has so far. I admit, I am disappointed at the quality of the discussion of the issue on Pen-l. It approximates the discussion in the tabloid newspapers in Winnipeg. And that is scary.
Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
