The Relational Typology of the Family Exploitation System in Iran (Case Study: Qudjan Village)

Authors

1 PhD in sociology, Researcher of Khouzestan Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research

2 Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Payame Noor University of Tehran

Abstract

Studies in the field of family farming have generally been based on two different perspectives: the first perspective focuses on the material structures and highlights the role of farm types and ecological dynamics; the second perspective focuses on the social actors and emphasizes agency. It is the farmer and the wider social forces that also play an important role. In contrast, the proposal by Darnhofer et al. (2016) is a third perspective that focuses on “relationships” and has the potential to overcome the duality of ecology /social and structure/actor. Given the dominance of this approach in this study, Kantzen and Fornay’s relational sociological theory was used to build a conceptual framework and increase theoretical sensitivity. For this purpose, the typological method and the operational strategy (a combination of experimental and conceptual strategy) were used. Thus, based on the inductive approach, frequent and in-depth observations and semi-structured interviews were first conducted with members of 19 households (43 interviews) in the village of Qudjan, where 100% of the farm units are family-run. In a roundabout way, concepts based on a more general concept were given appropriate conceptual labels as species, and species gradually became (experimental). The results show that how and to what extent the members of the exploiting families participate in decision making and how they function in the work structure in the exploiting unit leads to the formation of different configurations of peasant families, including four types of configurations: “traditional complementarity”, “cooperation”, “individualism on the farm” and “specialized individualism”. In Qudjan village, despite the existence of other family configurations, the “traditional complementation” type is the predominant type in which the man is the official owner and head of the family farm unit. The research results also show that the probability of generational stability of the family exploitation unit is higher with the “individualism in the field” configuration than with other configuration types. Reconstructing patterns of labor division in the family sweatshop can increase its flexibility and thus improve the future prospects of the family farm.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  • بانک بین‌المللی برای بازسازی و توسعه (1389)، کشاورزی برای توسعه، ترجمۀ هوشنگ ایروانی و حجت ورمزیاری، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
  • خانی، فضیله (1389)، چارچوب تحلیلی در مطالعات نابرابری‌های جنسیتی در جهان، زن در توسعه و سیاست، دورۀ هشتم، شمارۀ 3: 30-7.
  • سالدنا،‌ جانی (1395)،‌ راهنمای کدگذاری برای پژوهشگران کیفی،‌ ترجمۀ عبدالله گیویان،‌ تهران:‌ انتشارات علمی-فرهنگی.
  • سگالن، مارتین (1393)، جامعه‌شناسی تاریخی خانواده، ترجمۀ حمید الیاسی، چاپ ششم، تهران: نشر مرکز.
  • طالب،‌ مهدی،‌ زاهدی،‌ محمدجواد، شفعتی،‌ معصومه (1398)،‌ جایگاه انواع سرمایه در پایداری نسلی نظام بهره‌برداری خانوادگی،‌ مجلۀ مطالعات و تحقیقات اجتماعی در ایران،‌ دورۀ هشتم،‌ شمارۀ 2: ‌255-223.
  • مرکز آمار ایران (1393)، سرشماری عمومی کشاورزی، https://www.amar.org.ir
  • وثوقی، منصور (1390)، جامعه‌شناسی روستایی، چاپ چهاردهم، تهران: انتشارات کیهان.

 

  • Chirico, F., & Nordqvist, M. (2010). Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms: The role of organizational culture. International Small Business Journal, 28(5), 487-504.
  • Contzen, S., & Forney, J. (2017). Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: a typology of farming-family configurations. Agriculture and human values, 34(1), 27-40.
  • Darnhofer, I., Lamine, C., Strauss, A., & Navarrete, M. (2016). The resilience of family farms: Towards a relational approach. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 111-122.
  • Dechaux, J. H. (1995). Sur le concept de configuration: quelques failles dans la sociologie de Norbert Elias. Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 293-313.
  • Dyer Jr, W. G., & Dyer, W. J. (2009). Putting the family into family business research. Family Business Review, 22(3), 216-219.
  • Elias, N. (1978). What Is Sociology? Columbia University Press, New York.
  • FAO (2014). Innovation in family farming, are available on the FAO website fao.org/publications
  • (2013). International year of family farming 2014. Master plan. Rome available at http://www.fao.org/fleadmin/user_upload/iyff/docs/Final_Master_Plan_IYFF_2014_30-05.pdf.
  • Gasson, R., & Errington, A. (1993). The Family Farm Business, CAB International, Oxon.
  • Gersick, K.E., Davies, J.A., McCollom Hampton, M.E., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation: lifecycles of family business, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
  • Lobley, M., Errington, A., McGeorge, A., Millard, N., & Potter, C. (2002) Implications of changes in the structure of agricultural businesses, research report prepared for DEFRA, University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
  • Martin, C., Martin, L., & Mabbett, A. (2002). SME Ownership Succession – Business Support and Policy Implications, Knowledge Management Centre, Business School, University of Central England, Birmingham, available at: http://sbs.gov.uk/content/analytical/research/
  • Widmer, E. D. (2010). Family configurations. A structural approach to
    family diversity. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.
  • Widmer, E. D. (2014). Partnerships, family, and personal configurations. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to the sociology of families(pp. 236-254). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics