A Second Look at Limited Good

Author(s): George M. Foster

Source: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 1972), pp. 57-64
Published by: George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3316572
Accessed: 10-12-2015 17:15 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Anthropological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A SECONDLOOKAT LIMITEDGOOD1

GEORGEM. FOSTER
Universityof California,Berkeley

Because of the controversy which has arisen since the

original article on Limited Good was published in 1965, the
author questions here whether or not it is a plausible model to
explain peasant behavior and if he has made himself clear in
describing it The nature of peasant behavior is not in dispute.
Further clarification stresses that the model is not exclusive to
peasant societies; that it is a model inferred from behavior;
that it explains classic, not modernizing, peasant society; that
peasant society is not a closed system; and that exceptions to
the rule of Limited Good include religious prestige and intense
emotional experiences. The author maintains that the cogni-
tive orientation of Limited Good goes farther than any other
model yet advanced to explain peasant behavior.

In 1965, in "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good," I

suggested a zero-sum game model to account for the behavior that
appearsto characterizemany peasantsocieties. The articlestimulateda
lively and continuing controversy.Some behavioralscientists found the
hypothesis to have major explanatorypower, or in largemeasureto fit
their data,2 while others found it sheer nonsense.3
In presentingmy argumentI took as given the pattern of behavior
that has emergedsince OscarLewis first questionedRedfield'sidealized
account of life in Tepoztlkn, and which today seems generallyto be
accepted. Thus, Rubel and Kupferer introduce a symposium on five
"atomistic-type societies" by writing, "Interpersonalrelations outside
of the nuclear family are characterizedby contention, suspiciousness,
and invidiousness.. . the quality of interpersonal relations in each
society is not in dispute. They are, in fact, a phenomenologicalreality
and not a function of the selective perception of our contributors;the
data exist 'out there,' not in the mind of the observer" (Rubel and
Kupferer1968:189). And Piker, while denying that Limited Good ex-
plains such behavior, writes that "... . the idiom of interpersonal rela-
tions in rural Thai society agrees largely with Foster's picture,
particularlywith regard to individualismor noncooperativeness,their
distrust of the intentions of others, the proclivity for 'luck' or
57

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

patron-clientresolutionsof many kinds of criticalsituations .. ." (Piker

1966:1202).
I assume, therefore, that we are not concerned about the nature of
peasant behavior, but rather, whether or not Limited Good is a
plausible model to explain that behavior, and whether or not I have
made myself clear in describingthe model. As a prelude to discussing
the latter point, I will summarize,in very sketchy fashion, the Limited
Good model:

1) In Limited Good societies, including"classic" peasant societies,

people share a cognitive orientation in which they perceive their
socioeconomic and naturalenvironmentsto constitute a closed system.
2) The resources of the system are seen as insufficient to satisfy
each memberwith all of the things, the "good," that he wants;not only
are resourcesinsufficient, but they are finite, static, unexpandable.
3) Although people in Limited Good systems believe their "good" is
finite, they also know that there is more "good," perhapsin unlimited
quantities, beyond the boundariesof their system, hence normallynot
availableto them.
4) In a closed, static, unexpandingsystem, as the zero-sum game
model predicts, one person's gain with respect to any "good" must by
necessity be another'sloss.
5) To guard against being the loser, people in Limited Good
societies opt for an egalitarian,shared-poverty,equilibrium,status quo
style of life, in which no one can be permitted major progresswith
respect to any "good." Limited Good behavioris calculatedto maintain
the status quo, and it is based on at least four majorpremises:
a) A normativeindividualbehaviorthat minimizesthe settings or
situations in which ego may be exploited by others, i.e., rise at his
expense, is preferred. This behavior stresses the avoidanceof close
ties with others (unless validatedby ritual safeguards),distrust,and
concealment or denial of "good" possessed. The individual is
confronted with a prisoner's dilemma payoff matrix in which
cooperative urges are discouraged by the recognition that such
action can be exploited by the other player, to ego's detriment.
b) Violations of the preferred normative behavior are dis-
couraged by invidious sanctions such as gossip, backbiting, witch-
craft, and assault.
c) Achieved or threatened power and wealth imbalances are
neutralized through redistributive(or siphon) mechanismssuch as
fiestas and other forms of ritualhospitality.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LIMITED GOOD 59

d) Acquisition of additional good is permitted (but not en-

couraged) by tapping sources outside the system: finding treasure,
winning on the lottery, obtaining human and supernaturalpatrons
(includingpacts with the Devil), and working for wages beyond the
boundariesof the system. Since such "good" clearly is not at the
expense of others, it is "safe," and can be permitted without
threateningthe stability of the system.

In the future I hope to discuss the implications of this model in

greaterdetail, but here, because of space limitations,I will limit myself
to points where clarificationof the originalarticleis in order.
1) Limited Good behavioris not exclusive to peasant societies. I do
not believe, nor have I ever believed, that in formulatingthe limited
good model I was dealing only with peasant societies. I reiterate the
point to correct such misinterpretationsas Kaplan and Saler, "The
implication that we drawfrom Foster'sdiscussion. .. is that this world
view is somehow peculiar to peasant society" (Kaplan and Saler
1966:203), and Bennett, "I therefore feel that Foster has not
distinguished peasants from other agrarians on the basis of the
possessionof 'limited good' behavior"(Bennett 1966:207).
In footnote number5 of the originalarticleI wrote "I do not believe
the Image of Limited Good is characteristiconly of peasant societies.
Quite the contrary, it is found, in one degreeor another,in most or all
socieconomic levels in newly developingcountries, and it is, of course,
equally 'characteristicof traditional socialist doctrine. I am not even
sure that it is more characteristicof peasants than of other groups"
(Foster 1965:311). I happenedto be examiningthe model in terms of
the people that particularlyinterest me, namely peasants, but I do not
see how I could have been more specific in disclaimingthat the model
appliesonly to peasants.
In utilizing the Limited Good model, the task is not to classify
societies as either Limited or UnlimitedGood; I believesome degreeof
Limited Good behavioris present in every society. Rather,we are faced
with a continuum the poles of which are More Limited and Less
Limited. Some societies, peasants included, appear to exhibit a great
deal of Limited Good behavior;others, my own included,exhibit much
less. I find it easier to imagine a 100% Limited Good society than a
100% Unlimited Good society, but I do not in fact believe either exists
in pure and unadulterated form. In extending the model beyond
peasants,and in differentiatingbetween peasant societies, the problem

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

is to determinein which contexts in which societies the Limited Good

model plausiblyexplains behavior.
2) Limited Good is a model inferredfrom behavior,but not derived
directly from peasants' statements about their world view. Nadel
expressed it well when he wrote "What I have done was to define
certain general ideas and principlesin the religion of the Nupe which,
even though the people themselvesare not clearly aware of them, are
yet implicit in their beliefs and practices" (Nadel 1956:162; emphasis
added). Scott utilized the same analytical technique when he derived
the "constant-pie orientation" (which he equates with "Limited
Good") to explain the behavior of the middle-rungcivil servants he
studied in Kuala Lumpur: "None of the civil servants ever directly
suggested that he viewed the environment in this fashion [i.e., the
"constant-pie orientation"], and there is therefore no basis for
assuming that this central belief is a part of his conscious cognitive
orientation. But many of the respondents'political beliefs make sense
only if they are interpreted in the light of this principle" (Scott
1968:115; emphasisadded).
As do Nadel and Scott, I assume our researchskills and analytical
powers enable us to transcend our informants' verbalizations in
interpreting their societies. I would consider myself a very poor
anthropologistwere I to report only what my informantstell me. I am
therefore puzzled when Kennedy makes the curious statement that
"Apparentlyone of the stimuli for the concept of the Imageof Limited
Good came from some reports of people feeling that one person'sgain
was another's loss.... I suggest that where this does occur it is usually
based on real histories of people depriving others of land or other
property" (Kennedy 1966:1213). I am equally puzzled when Piker
writes that "structuredand unstructured"conversationsenabledhim to
conclude that Thai peasant behavior "includes a deprecation of
personal performance," but that "it is not as clear to me... how a
respondentmight be induced to tell whetherhe views generic'Good' as
being in chronicallyscarce supply" (Piker 1966:1203-1204). And I am
flabbergastedwhen I read Jayawardena,"The survivalof this brain-
child [Limited Good] has been further jeopardized by the author's
damagingadmissionthat, 'At no point has an informanteven remotely
suggested that it was his vision of the universe'" (Jayawardena
1968:436). Do these authors really believe that a culturalmodel is not
valid unless it is verbalizedby informants?
3) Limited Good is a model that explains "classic,"not moderniz-
ing, peasant society. I use the term "model"as Gluckmanhas described

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LIMITED GOOD 61

the "equilibriummodel," as "a mode of analysis, not a descriptionof

reality, though it is derived from reality" (Gluckman 1968:222). In
other words, Limited Good is an ideal type, derived from reality (or
based on real behavior), to be used as a mode of analysis, but not
intended to describe any specific community or society. Many
reservationsabout Limited Good (e.g., Lopreato and Saltzman 1968)
are based on contemporary research in a rapidly changingworld, and
when individualpeasantsare found who deviate from what the model
predicts, this is taken as evidence that the model is faulty. Even in
contemporaryTzintzuntzana great deal of behaviorappearsto violate
the model. many people compete openly for prestige goods, others
ignore the mayordomia fiesta system, some dress well, and not a few
laugh at the older people for their quaint views. The point is, as noted
in footnote number3 in the originalarticle, that the model was "drawn
up on the basis of an ideal type of ruralcommunity in a preindustrial
world," and that it does not in fact fit any contemporarypeasant
community with exactitude because all peasant communitieshave ex-
perienced important modernizinginfluences from the urban,industrial
world. I doubt that there is a single "classic"peasantvillageleft in the
world that can be describedas well as explainedby the model. The fact
that the model does not fully conform to peasant behavior today is
beside the point; it is not expected to.
4) Peasantsociety is not a closed system. In 1953, in the idiom of
the time, writing "folk" for what today we call "peasant,"and drawing
upon Kroeber,I said, "A folk society is not a whole society, an isolate,
in itself. It is a 'half society,' a part of a largersocial unit (usually a
nation) which is vertically and horizontally structured.The folk com-
ponent of this largerunit bears a symbiotic spatial-temporalrelation-
ship to the more complex component, which is formed by the upper
classes of the pre-industrialurban center. In this sense folk and urban
are not polar concepts; rather, they are both integral parts of the
definition of a certain type of sociocultural unit in which the pre-
industrial city is a focal point" (Foster 1953:163). In subsequent
writing on peasants, I have always stressed this basic concept, and
footnote number 3 in "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited
Good" is largely an explication of the point. To my chagrin,however,
there is ambiguity on page 306 of the article in question where I write
that peasant communities "approximate"closed systems, and some
critics have taken this to mean I believe peasants constitute closed
systems. I acknowledge the ambiguity, and beg my colleagues hence-
forth to believe that I know peasantsdo not constitute closed systems.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

The important distinction is between how "classic"peasantsview their

system (closed), and how anthropologistsanalyze peasantsociety (open
systems). Classic peasants behave the way they do, I believe, because
they perceive their system to be closed, not becauseit is closed.
5) In peasant society thereare exceptions to the rule that all good is
limited. In dramatizing points, or driving home an argument, it is
sometimes effective to speak in hyperbole. But I was mistaken in
assuming this license in Limited Good. Piker, for example, remindsus
that peasantsdo not believe all desiredgood is in short supply by citing
the case of the Thai peasant who "views relaxed, informal, and con-
vivial associationwith his peersas one of life's true pleasures,"a quality
"abundantly, almost inexhaustibly, available" in the peasant view
(Piker 1966:1204). Kearney"supports Foster's concept by demonstra-
ting an exception to it," namely that in the Zapotec villageof Ixtepeji,
Oaxaca,Mexico the desired good of "intense emotional experience"as
exhibited in fiestas is believedto be availablein quantitiessufficient for
everyone to have his fill (Kearney1969). And I have suggestedmyself
that in Tzintzuntzan, and by extension other Latin American com-
munities, religious prestige built on the fiesta system is potentially
unlimited (Foster 1967:207-209). WereI rewritingthe article, I would
avoid hyperbole and simply say "most good" is seen to exist in finite,
limited quantities, which would state my views more accurately,if less
dramatically.
By way of summary,I continue to believe that the cognitiveorienta-
tion of Limited Good goes fartherthan any other model yet advanced
to explain peasant behavior;an astonishinglywide rangeof phenomena
makes sense in the Limited Good context. This is not to say, however,
that alternate models of equal or greater explanatory and predictive
power may not be adduced. Whenthey appearLimited Good will have
to be weighed against them, and if, or to the extent that, it is found
wanting,it will have to be abandonedor relegatedto a second level.

NOTES

1Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American

AnthropologicalAssociation,New York, November18-21, 1971.
2Commentariesthat are essentially "pro"include Aceves 1971:124;
Bailey 1966, fn. 13; Cohen 1971:298-299; De Gregoriand Pi-Sunyer
1969:36; Delgado 1969; Ingham 1970:78; Kearney 1969; Korten 1968;
Langworthy 1966:117, 1968; Margulis 1968:121-122; Nash 1966:361,
1970:279; Powell 1970:411; Scott 1968:107, 111-113.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LIMITED GOOD 63

3Commentaries that are essentially "con" include Bennett 1966;

Brokensha and Erasmus 1969:95; Erasmus 1967:378, 1968:92;
Forman 1970:132; Jayawardena 1968; Kaplan and Saler 1966:
Kennedy 1966; Lopreato and Saltzman 1968; Piker 1966.

REFERENCES CITED

ACEVES, JOSEPH
1971-Social change in a Spanish village. Cambridge, Mass. and
London: Schenkman Publishing Co.
BAILEY, FREDERICK G.
1966-The peasant view of the bad life. The Advancement of
Science 23(114):399-409.
BENNETT, JOHN W.
1966-Further remarks on Foster's image of limited good. Ameri-
can Anthropologist 68:206-210.
BROKENSHA, DAVID AND ERASMUS, CHARLES J.
1969-African peasants and community development. In The an-
thropology of development in sub-Saharan Africa. D.
Brokensha and M. Pearsall eds., The Society for Applied An-
thropology Monograph 10.
COHEN, YEHUDI A.
1971-Man in adaptation: the institutional framework. Chicago and
New York: Aldine-Atherton.
DE GREGORI, THOMAS R. AND Pi-SUNYER, ORIOL
1969--Economic development: the cultural context. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
DELGADO O, CARLOS
1969-An analysis of arribismo in Peru. Human Organization
28:133-139.
ERASMUS, CHARLES J.
1967-Upper limits of peasantry and agrarian reform: Bolivia,
Venezuela, and Mexico compared. Ethnology 6:349-380.
1968-Community development and the encogido syndrome.
Human Organization 27:65-74.
FORMAN, SHEPARD
1970-The raft fishermen: tradition and change in the Brazilian
peasant economy. Bloomington and London: Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
FOSTER, GEORGE M.
1953-What is folk culture? American Anthropologist 55:159-173.
1965-Peasant society and the image of limited good. American
Anthropologist 67:293-315.
1967-Tzintzuntzan: Mexican peasants in a changing world.
Boston: Little, Brown.
GLUCKMAN, MAX
1968-The utility of the equilibrium model in the study of social
change. American Anthropologist 70:219-237.
HONIGMANN, JOHN J.
1968-Interpersonal relations in atomistic communities. Human
Organization 27:220-229.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

INGHAM, JOHN M.
1970- On Mexican folk medicine. American Anthropologist
72:76-87.
JAYAWARDENA, CHANDRA
1968-Ideology and conflict in lower class communities. Compara-
tive Studies in Society and History 10:413-446.
KAPLAN, DAVID AND SALER, BENSON
1966-Foster's image of limited good: an example of anthropologi-
cal explanation. American Anthropologist 68:202-206.
KENNEDY, JOHN G.
1966-Peasant society and the image of limited good: a critique.
American Anthropologist 68:1212-1225.
KEARNEY, MICHAEL
1969-An exception to the image of limited good. American An-
thropologist 71:888-890.
KORTEN, DAVID C.
1968-Management, modern organization and planned change in a
traditional society: a social systems analysis of cultural
transition in Ethiopia. Stanford, Calif.: Graduate School of
Business. Mimeographed.
LANGWORTHY, RUSSELL L.
1966-Some economic and sociological issues of cooperative farm-
ing in India. Journal of Asian and African Studies
1:100-117.
1968-The peasant world view: Italy and India. Human Organiza-
tion 27:212-219.
LOPREATO, JOSEPH AND SALTZMAN, JANET E.
1968-Descriptive models of peasant society: a reconciliation from
southern Italy. Human Organization 27:132-146.
MARGULIS, MARIO
1968-Migraci6n y marginalidad en la sociedad argentina. Buenos
Aires: Paidos.
NADEL, S. F.
1956-Understanding primitive peoples. Oceania 26:159-173.
NASH, JUNE
1966-Social resources of a Latin American peasantry: the case of
a Maya Indian community. Social and Economic Studies
15:353-367.
1970-In the eyes of the ancestors: belief and behavior in a Maya
community. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
PIKER, STEVEN
1966-The image of limited good: comments on an exercise in
description and interpretation. American Anthropologist
68:1202-1211.
POWELL, JOHN D.
1970-Peasant society and clientelist politics. The American Politi-
cal Science Review 64:411-425.
RUBEL, ARTHUR J. AND KUPFERER, HARRIET J.
1968-Perspectives on the atomistic-type society: introduction.
Human Organization 27:189-190.
SCOTT, JOHN C.
1968-Political ideology in Malaysia: reality and the beliefs of an
elite. New Haven. Yale University Press.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:15:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions