Conclusion

1169 Words3 Pages

The case studies showed that Bourdieu´s conceptualization of cultural capital provides a perspective that can elucidate several facetted of agricultural knowledge. As the focus of this paper was on the cultural capital of specific ethnic minorities in the agricultural sector of high mountain areas, which is characterized by numerous processes of transition, the field agricultural knowledge production, dissemination and further development is only one of numerous (c.f. Van Assche et al., 2013). Stimulating factor such as state legislation, economic incentives or social arrangements have not or only marginally been discussed so far. Although, in particular social arrangements i.e. social capital, are highly influencing formation and expressions of cultural capital.

Not only the economic performance of a household relies directly or indirectly on social capital (enough staff etc.), notably in processes of decision making with regard to agricultural production social capital plays a major role. According to Putnam, “social capital (…) refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, networks that can improve efficiency of society by facilitation cooperative action.” (Putnam, 1994: 167) Trust or mistrust, solidarity and hierarchies are of high importance regarding agricultural (knowledge) production, the dissemination of knowledge but also decisions about planning processes for the future.

Market type relations between fellow villagers are limited due to various reasons. People are trying to avoid “making money” at the expense of one another – consultation and mutual help are offered free of charge, or in exchange for social capital for example through mutual help in hay making or the production of cow chips (c.f. a...

... middle of paper ...

...ough, in most cases, farmers had to invent from scratch, as there was no institutionalized capital available that would serve as role model under market conditions.

The significant similarities between the stocks of knowledge and the structures of perception of individual stakeholders point to the importance of the socio-cultural context in terms of learning and perception. Some of the specifics can be found in other post-Soviet transition countries as well. Knowledge e.g. was highly specialised and centralised by the state during the Soviet period – promoted and controlled by local institutions (c.f. Ul -Hassan et al., 2011). Whereupon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, lead to a loss of institutionalised knowledge, resulting in knowledge gaps in the academic field and to a mismatch of local knowledge with today's institutional structures (c.f.Wall, 2008).

Open Document