Rural Governance in Motion (A Political Sociology Analysis of Farmer Mobility)

Author: Xu Yong et al. / Country:
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2003-11-01
Features: In the rural areas as sources of outflow, whether the ritual order or the administrative order and its manifestation of order safety, are all based on the lack of mobility of farmers and their attachment to the land. Large-scale farmer mobility would change the original authority and rules, altering people's behavioral concepts and norms, thereby causing a shock to the order.
First, farmer mobility alters the characteristics of the "acquaintance society" in rural areas. In the "acquaintance society," "familiarity arises from time, multi-faceted, and frequent contact, creating an intimate sense. This sense is the result of countless small frictions." In the rural society, trust is gained through familiarity.① Farmer mobility separates the village from the land. Although many farmers are born and raised in the countryside, they no longer attach themselves to the land. Most of the migrating farmers are young, and many of them embark on the path of leaving their hometowns for work almost immediately after graduating from school. According to Du Ying and others' 1994 sample household survey in Sichuan and Anhui provinces, 6.5% of the out-migrating labor force were under the age of 18.9 For these individuals, their hometown is merely a vague concept. Even those who once farmed at home find it difficult to maintain close ties with their hometown through daily interactions after long periods away, making the hometown a "stranger society" in memory. Due to changes in perspective, upon returning to their hometowns, they may find the people and affairs there unfamiliar and find it even harder to establish the close, mutually trusting relationships of the past.
Second, farmer mobility challenges and doubts the established rural authority. Rural authority is based on the rural society. In the rural society, the authority of the elderly is rooted in their rich agricultural life experience, while administrative authority is based on the state's control over land and the people attached to it. Farmer mobility changes people's trust and obedience to this rural authority. For farmers who have left their villages, they generally earn more money than they would at home, and more importantly, their income is primarily earned through their knowledge, physical strength, ability, or courage. The rich agricultural experience of the elderly in their hometowns holds no meaning for farmers who have left the land. Not only does their life experience lack reference value, but it also imposes constraints on the adventurous farmers, shaking the sacred status and authority of the elderly. Mobility also alters farmers' perceptions of rural administrative authority. In the past, rural administrative authority largely derived from their control over abundant resources, even over people. Farmer mobility not only means that rural administrative authority cannot arbitrarily control people but also implies that the resources they control are diminishing. Generally, farmers who migrate to other places earn higher incomes and have broader social networks, along with greater freedom, which may lead some farmers to no longer easily obey administrative authority. For example, during our survey in a village in eastern Sichuan, the village party secretary frequently complained that staying in the village meant earning too little and that they had "no backbone" when dealing with or speaking to those who had migrated for work, expressing a preference for going out to work themselves. A farmer in central Hubei Province said, "Back there, I'm freer than you—no village cadres calling me to meetings, scolding me, urging me to pay debts or fees, no neighbors or relatives asking me to help plant or farm."①
Third, traditional rural rules are based on the "acquaintance society." In a non-mobile "acquaintance society," people see each other almost every day. On one hand, they are constrained by various rules of human relations, rituals, customs, and taboos. On the other hand, many conflicts can be resolved within the framework of rural rules. For village cadres who represent administrative authority, even without applying administrative pressure, villagers must give cadres face to ensure future cooperation. At the same time, families, relatives, and cadres educate people through various means, transmitting rules and customs to cultivate a sense of order. After farmers migrate, all of this changes. This is because once farmers leave the village, they the control network formed by families, neighbors, and government organizations and enter a state of disorder. They face an unfamiliar environment and must change their original behavioral norms. When they leave their hometowns, the rules attached to the land lose their binding and normative force. Fei Xiaotong believed, "The possibility of ritual governance must be based on the premise that tradition can effectively address life issues. The rural society meets this premise, so its order can be maintained through ritual. In a rapidly changing society, the effectiveness of tradition cannot be guaranteed. No matter how effective a way of life was in the past, if the environment changes, no one can continue to use old methods to cope with new problems."① Farmers who migrate and their hometowners no longer see each other every day, nor do they form close ties through frequent interactions. The sacredness of rural rules such as human relations, rituals, customs, taboos, and face is thus shaken. Especially, many farmers who migrate do so to escape disputes in their villages and are even less willing to be constrained by local rules. Rural rules are therefore strongly impacted by mobility.
At the current stage, most farmer mobility exhibits a "two-sided" characteristic. In terms of production and daily activities, they spend long periods away from the land, gradually becoming detached from rural authority and rules, with some even completely losing awareness of them. In terms of land, household registration, and living conditions, their roots remain in their hometowns, and they have not fully integrated into urban and industrial civilization, establishing a new set of behavioral norms. As a result, their consciousness is often in a state of contradiction, and their behavior is often normative, leading to a "rule vacuum." This means that the original authority and rules are challenged, new authority and rules have not yet been established, or they clash violently with the original rural society, causing a shock to the order.
In the rural areas of outflow, the impact is most severe on the order of safety. On one hand, through farmer mobility, the contradiction between people and land is, injecting vitality and dynamism into the countryside, changing living conditions, and contributing to the overall peace of the rural area. A field survey conducted by our research team during the 1999 Spring Festival in Liu Village, Henan, also demonstrated this point. Since the late 1980s, with the large-scale outflow of villagers from Liu Village, there were almost no remaining labor forces in the village. The villagers who stayed had a lot of agricultural and household chores to do, resulting in minimal incidents of troublemaking, theft, or violence. Among the 42 migrant workers surveyed, 76.2% believed that the social atmosphere in their hometown had indeed improved after many villagers left, while 16.6% thought there was no significant change, and only 1 person believed the social atmosphere had worsened. Other villagers in the survey also generally agreed that compared to before the large-scale outflow, the village's social atmosphere and public safety had improved. This indicates that while farmer mobilitys the contradiction between people and resources (primarily land resources) in outflow villages, it also reduces the opportunities for interpersonal interaction within the village community, avoiding social conflicts arising from the contradiction between people and land.
On the other hand, farmer mobility inevitably disrupts the original tranquility, peace, harmony, and stability of rural areas, severely challenging the normal social order. First, the vast majority of farmers migrate to earn money and seek a way out for survival. They not only aim to change their own fate but also carry the hopes of their families. However, many of them find it difficult to secure stable jobs, and some cannot find normal jobs at all. To achieve the goal of earning money, a significant portion of them may resort to abnormal or even criminal behavior. Such behavior may indeed earn them money, even substantial amounts. However, the consequences are that they may bring their mindset of breaking the law back to their hometowns, directly impacting the "labor is the father of wealth" and "more work, more gain; less work, less gain; no work, no gain" concepts in the rural society.
Western Hubei and eastern Sichuan are large mountainous areas with people who are both simple and fierce. In a non-mobile society, these two traits could be better coordinated due to the constraints of rural rules. In the 1990s, large-scale farmer mobility occurred in both regions. These farmers had less education and found it even harder to find jobs. To earn money, some of them took their fierce nature to the extreme, adhering to an unbridled philosophy of strength. When they returned to their hometowns, they still acted according to the habits formed outside, thus disrupting the peaceful rural life order. In some villages, when those who had migrated for work were expected to return during the Spring Festival, they took precautions in advance. Even so, the social security and public safety in these areas were far worse than before the large-scale farmer mobility. During our field surveys, the local elders expressed deep concern, wondering why some children they had raised from childhood had "changed for the worse" after migrating. Disrespect for and neglect of the elderly, even abandonment, became a prominent social problem in these areas. According to official statistics, in the 1990s, the crime rate among rural youth rapidly increased, with a significant portion being rural migrants. Among these crimes, theft of cattle, farming tools, and irrigation facilities accounted for more than 70%.①
Second, the rapid expansion of desires after migrating. The balance between desires and the ability to satisfy them is a basic condition for social harmony. In the traditional rural society, although people's living standards were not high, the closed nature of the village also kept expectations low, with living within one's means and thriftiness regarded as virtues. People's standards for evaluating life were also primarily based on comparisons with the past, and psychological balance could be achieved through historical comparisons. With farmer mobility, their desires expanded rapidly. The places where they worked were mostly cities and economically developed areas. These places not only had higher living standards but were also far richer in lifestyle. Marx had long compared urban and rural differences, noting, "The city itself shows the concentration of population, production tools, capital, pleasures, and needs; whereas in the village, the opposite is true: isolation and dispersion."② Farmers who lived in isolated and dispersed conditions outside the village were directly exposed to rich and novel lifestyles, leading to a sharp expansion of their desires. However, compared to people in cities and developed areas, their incomes were extremely limited, creating a huge gap and contradiction between their rapidly expanding desires and their very limited ability to satisfy them. Since they had not been integrated into urban civilization, they only encountered the surface of urban civilization. They experienced and felt more of their own hardships. As a result, there was a sharp conflict between the extravagance of external life and the hardship of internal life.