-3-


 in Latin America, have been on their family finca or hacienda, where they had
 a chance to ride horses and enjoy a pastoral weekend of relaxation. But, they
 were never engaged in the hard, physical labor of agricultural production.
 Through training in leading U.S. universities, Third World researchers' goals
 tend to develop as scientists, not as farmers. Their reference group will
 more likely by First World professional journals rather than marginal farmers.
 Differences in experience in practical agriculture means that the kind of
 research developed will not necessarily be that which corresponds to the needs
 of the everyday farmers, particularly those marginal farmers who produce most
 of the wage foods-the subsistence crops most of the poor population eat in
 the Third World.

 A third phenomenon in the United States that does not exist in many
developing contexts is valuing the combination of mental and manual labor.
This value stemmed from the conditions of production favoring freeholder
agriculture. One of the reasons the farming lifestyle has been valued in the
United States is that the farmer controls the means of production-no one
tells the farmer what to do, as one would an employee (Kelly, 1979). That is
to say, the farmer .ons the land, or at least has title to it, even if still
paying off family debts. The farm family provides the work and the farm family
reaps the profits from that work, or shares the losses if there is a bad crop
year. Thus, in the U.S., we see nothing intrinsically wrong with people getting
their hands dirty and sweating in the fields because it is understood that the
same people who do the dirty manual work also make decisions about planting,
harvesting, purchasing inputs, and marketing. They also get to keep any profits
generated.

 How different this is from many developing countries of the world. Land is
much less equally divided. (See, for example, Barraclough, 1973, for Latin
America; despite land reform, distribution remains much the same--the large farms
have simply become more capital intensive (Barskyand Cosse, 1981:52-56).) A few
landowners have a lot of land that is often farmed by sharecroppers. Furthermore,
even in places in Africa where land is more evenly divided, the people who make
the final decisions about production often are in urban areas, not in the rural
areas doing the manual work (Clarke, 1980; Bernstein, 1977). The mistaken
idea that getting your hands dirty and sweating is inappropriate for gentlemen
and ladies was introduced by colonial masters who, because of their greater
relative wealth, were able to hire the local population to do the manual work-it
was inappropriate for those in command. Education became a tool for getting away
from manual work, not for doing it better.

 A fourth condition implicit in the development of the U.S. farm economy was
that of the complete farm family-a husband and a wife sharing management, labor,
and land ownership (once women gained property rights). The U.S. farm family is
often a decision-making and management unit, with the wife keeping the farm
records and discussing purchasing and marketing decisions with the husband.
Further, the unit of production was highly intertwined with the unit of repro-
duction. It was difficult to separate the accounting units of the home and
enterprise, although all decisions involved allocations between them. (See
Weber, 1947:275-280, on the implications of that lack of separation for becoming
part of a modern economy.) Division of labor by sex existed on U.S. farms
causing the man to be defined as the farmer and the woman as homemaker. But,
labor has been important as well and, although rural-urban migration in the