Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T06:20:37.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tea Talk: Violent Measures in the Discursive Practices of Sri Lanka's Estate Tamils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

E. Valentine Daniel
E. Valentine Daniel
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the most manifest level, this paper is about agricultural and agronomic terminology as found in the discourse of Tamil-speaking workers on Sri Lanka's tea plantations or tea estates, as they are called there. My use of the terms agricultural and agronomic in this context is admittedly idiosyncratic. In the tea estates of Sri Lanka, two kinds of agricultural (in the unmarked sense) terminology are in use, one belonging to managerial agriculture and the other to folk agriculture. But by and large, the tea estate is the regime of managerial agriculture. Whereas in village India, folk agriculture prevails. I call the class of terms belonging to managerial agriculture, agronomic terminology, and reserve the term “agricultural terminology” for the domain of folk agriculture. By analyzing four communicative events that I observed and recorded on tea estates in Sri Lanka, I attempt to show how these two terminological worlds interact. The nature of that interaction is such that the dominant terminology of agronomy may be seen to be deconstructed by the subdominant terminology of village agriculture.

Type
Labor Systems
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 568 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Appadurai, Arjun. 1981. “Gastro-politics in Hindu South Asia.” American Ethnologist, 8:3,494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, Arjun 1986. “The Terminology of Measurement in the Peasant community of Maharashtra.” Paper presented at workshop on “Agricultural Terminology,” in New Orleans.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogical Imagination: Four Essays by Bakhtin, Holquist, Michael, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bhabha, Homi. 1984. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discpurse.” 10, 125–33.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. 1983–84. “N[Theoretics of Knowledge; Theory of Progress],” Hafrey, Leigh and Sieburth, Richard, trans. The Philosophical Forum, 15:1–2, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Daniel, E.Valentine. 1984. Fluid Signs: Being a Person the Tamil Way. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Max H. 1978. “Peirce's General Theory of Signs.” Sight, Sound and Sense, Sebeok, Thomas, ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel 1984. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” Foucault Reader, Rabinow, Paul, ed. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. J. 1962. Johnson's Notebook for Tea Planters. Lake House Press:Colombo.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in Language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lears, T. J. Jackson. 1985. “The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities.” The American Historical Review, 90:3 (06), 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmentier, Richard. 1985. “Signs' Place in Medias Res: Peirce's Concept of Semiotic Mediation.” Semiotic Mediation, Parmentier, Richard and Mertz, Elizabeth, eds. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1958. Collected Papers, Vols. 1–8. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. Unpublished Manuscripts. Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Library, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Sanderson, G. W. 1964. “The Theory of Withering in Tea Manufacture.” Tea Quarterly, 35:3, 146–56.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description,” in Meaning in Anthropology, Basso, Keith H. and Selby, HenryA., eds. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Tea Research Institute. 1966 and 1967. Annual Reports. St. Coombs, Ceylon.Google Scholar
Tea Research Institute 1963. One Day Coursee in Tea Production. St. Coombs, Ceylon.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1948. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, trans, and ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, Hayden. 1973. Metahistory. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar