Crops
Observation is a central process in learning about farming. Observation can be covert or overt. Although most people in the sample did not admit to learning by observation, it could be noted that some of the answers they gave pointed to this effect. In both villages, expressing undue interest in your neighbour’s field could trigger an accusation of witchcraft; as a result people did not mention observation as a component in their acquisition of know- ledge. It was also not only the person who was observing the field who could be accused of witchcraft. In at least two cases, respondents mentioned that they would not go to some people’s fields to observe because these people had bad medicines. Strange things would happen to those who dared to observe fields without permission from the owner:
You might hear strange noises. Sometimes you will hear voices but you do not see the people. You can be instructed by a voice to leave the field immediately!
45 According to the AREX officer, bacteria cause black leg and penicillin is the
Even snakes (he starts laughing) ... if you go into these fields without permission you can be chased away by very large snakes.
Some people with farming magic were known to be hostile to those who wanted to observe their fields because these observers would not know of all the taboos required. If such taboos were not followed then this could spell disaster for the owner of the field. For example, marauding animals might attack his crops, or the crops would simply refuse to do well.
Despite this denial of learning through observing other people’s fields, observation is still central. One woman was asked how she had come to know of herb killers, although she had never attended agricultural lessons, did not go to field days and did not observe other people’s fields (for fear of being labelled a witch). She answered that she had observed that in a field they passed on their way to church the field no longer had a problem with weeds. As a result she asked the owner of the field, whom she knew on a personal basis, what they had done with the weed and she was told that they had used a herbicide.
What is interesting to note is that, although they referred to observing other people’s fields, most people mentioned observing the fields of others who were living in a different village. People were only expected to observe the fields of friends. If the person was not their friend, then observation would only be possible if that person hosted a field day. One person was threatened with a beating after he passed through the field of a farmer he did not know in another village with the intention of observing. The owner of the field suspected that his passing through his field had something to do with the use of bad muti.
Only one person admitted that he went to observe the fields of his friends who lived within the village, and that sometimes they would compete with each other over who was going to achieve the best crop. On another occasion, the same person mentioned that going to people’s fields to observe was a thing of the past. On being asked why this was so, he said:
In the past people were united. Now! Ha! Even the AGRITEX officer com- mented on it one day that in the past people used to farm and buy useful things like ploughs but now people are farming and investing in goblins (zvidhoma) instead. This area was developing but now everything is going down hill. In the past people here were very good farmers. A bale of cotton would sell at $5 but that money would be invested wisely for development.
This he said after the person he had mentioned earlier as the friend where he went to observe, had not invited him to a tombstone laying ceremony. Thus, in this case, the issue of witchcraft was used to cover up socially strained relationships. However, it is undeniable that observation is an
important aspect of the production of knowledge in the research area, but it is difficult to point at it if direct questions are asked.
Observation is also important where youth are concerned. Although people often did not know why they performed certain tasks in certain ways, they maintained that they did those things in the same way that they had observed their parents do them. One respondent said that she had learnt how to cultivate rapoko from her parents.
Mostly I learnt about rapoko when I stayed with my parents. Rapoko is some- thing that is in people. It’s not something that you learn to do or something that you can even remember learning. You just know that you know. We just learned by seeing what our parents were doing. They were transplanting the rapoko and doing a lot of things to the rapoko and all these things we saw with our own eyes.
This respondent summarised in a neat way how some things are ‘in people’. Especially when knowledge has been gained through observation, it becomes internalised. Such knowledge is also generally regarded as more valuable since it is morally enforceable. Some people confessed to doing certain things because that is what they observed their parents do and their parents had also learned from their parents. (The subject of youth and knowledge will be discussed in more detail in another chapter.)
Observation can also be used for verification purposes. People can discuss new things with their friends and relatives but they can not just adopt any new thing before they are sure that it works. Even among close friends and relatives there is an element of mistrust, so that people only feel comfor- table in adopting something when they are sure it will work.
To be sure, they have to observe to ascertain whether whatever is being claimed works. As a result, most people said they would only adopt a new thing after they had observed that the thing worked for the person who first discussed the idea. Below is an extract from a conversation involving the researcher, research assistant and one of the respondents.
(Christine (the research assistant)) Say, you hear of or see a new crop, what do you do before you decide to adopt or not to adopt the crop?
Maybe I will buy the seed in small quantities then plough a small piece during that year and see how it will do.
What if you hear about the new crop from your neighbour; do you just accept the new crop?
I look at whether the person is also growing that crop and I will ask that person about the crop. If they are not cultivating it I will ask them why they are not cultivating it, why they have given that crop up. I will ask them why if they have stopped cultivating the crop they are encouraging me to cultivate.
(Netsayi) What if it is your friend whom you trust who has come up with that idea?
Well, I will still have to make sure that they are still cultivating the crop. If they say, ‘last year I made a profit’, if it is true, then maybe I will also adopt the crop. One cannot accept seeds from someone just because that someone is your friend. Some people can just lie to you about the benefits of cultivating a certain crop when they have not grown the crop themselves.
Why do you say they lie? Has someone ever lied to you?
No.
So why do you say people lie? I talked to some people and they said that they feared to take ideas from other people because people lie, but when I ask them whether they have ever been lied to, they say no, they have never been lied to.
Some people lie. Sometimes in your mind you just suspect someone of lying to you, even though you have no evidence that you have been lied to before.
Although sometimes observation can breed suspicion, it can also be a very reliable method of verifying information. As shown in the above case, in a situation where there is a high level of mistrust, observation as a way of getting new knowledge or even disseminating new knowledge is indispen- sable.
Although the percentage of people who stated that they got their know- ledge at field days has declined from 79 per cent to 29 per cent (from the 1980s to 1990s) field day/ demonstration plots still rank highly as a place where people manufacture and disseminate knowledge. Information relating to new seed varieties is passed on from seed companies to AGRITEX, whose field officers in turn disseminate the information to the farmers by word of mouth and through field days. Informed of the basic features or characteris- tics expected of a crop grown from that seed, AGRITEX carries out ‘field observation trials’. In Mupfurudzi, the more successful farmers, especially those in the green group for maize and those in the gold group for cotton, would usually volunteer for field trials. These people would use their inputs and work in conjunction with AGRITEX so that, if their crops did very well, people would come to observe their fields.
AGRITEX and the Seed Houses help with the provision of food for field days, otherwise the farmer would only get prestige and sometimes might win ploughs and other things.
Field days are carried out at fields. The owner of the field is the one that explains everything to the audience. The farmer will provide beer and some farmers would slaughter cows or goats. AGRITEX officials also contribute but usually they only buy a little food to help the farmer. However, the farmer could some- times win big things like a plough.
Officers disseminate knowledge about crops, especially maize, cotton and recently tobacco, on field days. The field days give people the opportunity to observe in a relaxed atmosphere, since the occasion combines observation, learning and entertainment. What I find noble about these demonstration units is the fact that the farmer whose field is being observed as the model will explain to other farmers how he managed to produce such a model crop. Only a farmer who follows ‘modern’ ways of farming would have the honour of having a field day held at his or her field. This could be one of the many reasons why so many farmers have begun to adopt the new methods of farming and new technology because this new technology is associated with prestige, and of course with improved yields.
The concept of these demonstration plots is not entirely a new phenome- non. In the 1920s there was a conflict between two groups of white agricul- tural experts, in which one group argued for the establishment of model farms and the other for the training of native agricultural demonstrators. Here it was assumed that to improve farming the Africans had to be exposed to model farms so that they could copy the methods. On the other hand, others wanted training for native demonstrators so that they could assist fellow natives with agricultural knowledge. Howman (in Steele 1972: 13, 16) maintained that African farming was deplorable and lacked imagination and, above all, the mind of the African peasant was difficult to change. When asked about the 1920s controversy, Howman (in ibid.: 32) said:
I wasn’t aware of the people that advocated the model farms. At that time people took a simple attitude towards how you could change an African. They believed if you show him something better he is bound to pick it up, a fallacy, which I do not think now would be accepted anywhere. Every European farm is a model farm but it made not the slightest difference to these people.
As can be seen, the European farm was regarded as the model, so Africans underwent a process of being labelled ‘ignorant’, and their know- ledge was delegitimised. For example, in the early days, people were forbid- den to intercrop because it was thought that crops would disturb each other. After a couple of years there was a shift again towards intercropping, as it was shown that it increased ground cover and reduced soil erosion. Nowa- days, AGRITEX encourages intercropping as beneficial for crops and situations of land scarcity.
Although demonstration units are used to disseminate knowledge to farmers, they also have a highly political component. When people attend field days to observe these demonstration plots people also perform dramas and sing songs of the revolutionary movement as well as praise songs for President Mugabe and his government. Hence, knowledge of hybrid seeds is disseminated at the same time as the political ideologies of the ruling party are reinforced. To be successful, AGRITEX (AREX) officers (especially in
the current scenario of political uncertainty and unrest) need to be seen, at least publicly, to be aligned to the ruling party and its standpoint.
Learning by observation is very useful for those who are not very well educated and cannot attend the conventional agricultural lessons offered by AGRITEX where people have to take notes. Although people can take an oral exam for the Master Farmer certificate they do not want the embarrass- ment involved in being the only illiterate among literate persons. As one illiterate farmer pointed out, he had attended the AGRITEX lessons in the early days until he realised that he was not learning anything new since he had learned everything at the commercial farms where he used to work. Most of the older farmers preferred to learn by observation and did not trust any theoretical knowledge that was be imparted to them without a practical backing:
I do not listen to the radio or even to the AGRITEX officers. Those people do not know a lot of things. I stayed a long time at the large-scale farms working so that is where l learned how to farm. I learned from the white man himself (ndichiona mubhunu). I learned by observing. Cotton and maize l learned from white man’s farms.
In 2001, not many farmers admitted to have learned anything from the large-scale white commercial farms where they had lived and worked for several years prior to resettlement. Only one farmer mentioned that this was where he had obtained most of his knowledge on farming, while in 2002 this number had risen to five. This difference was probably the result of the tense political situation that was prevalent in 2001 during the parliamentary elections. At that time white farmers were vilified in political rhetoric as oppressors and as a result it was politically incorrect for one to admit that one had learnt anything from them.
Animals
As underlined earlier, observation is a very central element in learning how to do anything. Especially when cattle are being treated or given preventa- tive chemicals, men and boys in the village congregate at the cattle kraals to observe the whole proceedings. Sometimes even small boys, who are too young to be of help, are invited to observe so that if they ever face that same problem in the future, they will recall the knowledge of their fathers. The picture at the start of this chapter where people are congregated at a kraal where cattle are being vaccinated against black leg disease depicts this well. Even young men whose parents did not own cattle or did not have the money to buy the chemicals turned up to observe the event. When asked why, they said they had come because they wanted to learn what to do when faced with the same problem in the future.
Young boys who were too young to take part in the physically strenuous activities were given small tasks to do. Most people learn in this way to perform certain tasks at an early age, and often they cannot pinpoint the exact moment this happened. A more common response was, ‘no one told us, we just know’. On being asked how they treat eye cataracts in cattle one male respondent explained:
We use traditional methods. We take an unripe damba mix it with a little water then drop the liquid into the eye of the cow/ox. You can also use rukweza
(fermented finger millet flour). You put the rukweza in the eye of the animal.
Do your young children know all these things you are telling me? (The two young boys start to laugh.)
They know everything because they also help to treat the animals. For example, if a cow or ox gets tsanga (eye cataracts) you can ask the young boys to look for the damba, which will be used for the treatment.
Knowledge is practical. When smaller livestock such as chicken are given doses of paraffin to cure diseases, even young children will often be told to chase and catch the chickens and therefore will be present when the treatments are administered. Young children, therefore, are not only obser- vers or consumers but they also play some minor productive roles that prepare them for their adult lives. As Keesing (1987) puts it, knowledge becomes like the layers of an onion, where one keeps peeling until one reaches the core. Knowledge is not imparted all at once, but in bits and pieces, as people progress from childhood to adulthood, so that there is never an exact turning point that a person can mention as the moment he/she obtained this knowledge. Where observation is concerned, especially when learning in a family setting, knowledge can only be said to be incremental.
In Zimbabwe there are not many taboos associated with animal rearing. When people claim that their enemies have killed their animals they do not imply this was done by mystical means. It is usually by poisoning, drowning or axing the animal to death. Usually this is done in retaliation, for example, after a dog has mauled the other person’s animals or a cow or ox has grazed in another’s field. Sometimes it is for a religious reason such as when people