diffusion from a single innovator may be negligible, if a courageous

innovator exists at all. However, if such a village begins to change,

everyone may change almost simultaneously.

 The problem of peasant resistance to change may be frequently
overestimated. Peasants may prefer to tell outside observers that

recommended innovations are culturally unacceptable rather than go into

the complex and controversial details of technical suitability, risk

avoidance, suitability of price, availability of consumer goods on which

to spend increased cash income, interactions within a delicately balanced

farm system, and local land tenure relations. They may not be able to

articulate their underlying fear that a particular innovation will under-

mine the long-term ecological balance of soil, fertility, animals, fish,

etc. on which their descendants will depend. They may not want to de-

scribe their interest in the maintenance of existing patron-client

social relationships, which although exploitative, also provide some

economic security and cultural stability. Nor may they want to explain

that they see diffusion of a particular innovation (along with its credit

and market linkages) to represent penetration into their community by

a distrusted political or ethnic group or an exploitative government.

They may be suspicious of extension agents who seem to come just before

election time.1 Nor may they be willing to admit resentment of those

aggressive, lucky or well-connected enough to get access to new technology,

and credit to buy it.2 It is far easier to tell an outside observer that


 Marion Brown, p. 207.

 2For a detailed analysis of socio-political problems caused by
an attempt to modernize fishing in Java, see Donald Emerson, "Biting the
Helping Hand: Modernization and Violence in an Indonesian Fishing
Community," Land Tenure Center Newsletter, No. 5 (January-March, 1976).