Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Peter Oksen's comments on our paper about farmer–herdsman relations
in Burkina Faso raise some interesting issues, notably regarding
problems of interpretation of oral and archival sources and regarding
the broader relevance of insights gained from an in-depth case study.
Before answering straightforwardly to his objections, it is useful to
clarify the misunderstanding which appears to exist about the meaning
we attribute to ‘symbiosis’ and ‘symbiotic relations’. In our article we
restricted the use of these terms to the way in which past relations
between farmers and herdsmen, depicted as undifferentiated groups, are
often represented. In discussions about the change of these relations,
the emphasis is on progressive deterioration, again without attention
paid to the possible existence of intra-group differentiation or of
heterogeneity of relations across group boundaries. In this regard, it is
remarkable that from colonial documents the interests of farmers and
herdsmen emerge as equally irreconcilable as they are often considered
today, and that, just as at present, competition over scarce natural
resources constituted a major factor in inter-group relations. If we
therefore reject ‘symbiosis’ as a correct description of formerly existing
inter-group relations, we do not intend to imply that complementary
links – such as those we describe for present-day relations between
Mossi and Fulbe – did not exist in the past. A major aspect of our
argument is that inter-group relations, whether past or present, cannot
be subsumed under simplifying labels such as ‘symbiosis’. Neither can
changes in these relations be understood in terms of uni-directionally
processes of deterioration. Hence, present-day ‘complementary’ links
across the ethnic boundary – established by certain, but not all, Mossi
and Fulbe actors – are but a manifestation of the continued presence of
diversity of relations, not of ‘symbiosis’. They point to mutual interests
between certain actors belonging to different ethnic groups, not
between the groups as such.
