This monograph by Holly High, senior lecturer at the University of Sydney, studies peasants' relations with the state in Laos. Although based on her doctoral thesis in anthropology, one should not dismiss Fields of desire as just another thesis. For one, it is very readable. It does not deliver new empirical material or a groundbreaking theory on Lao society, but offers an interesting new and original approach in Lao Studies. The guiding research question is directly related to James Scott's work and asks why Lao peasants have not been rebelling against the state (p. 3). The answer is developed on the basis of an approach inspired by Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Lacan, interpreting the symbolic sphere as a socially shared unconscious. The author argues that peasants and state share concepts of power and mutual aid, which they interpret differently while drawing on shared symbols. The peasants are symbolically tied to the state by their desire directed at the vacant and incoherent places in this symbolic configuration. The author's use of the core term of desire is borrowed from Deleuze, who used it to analyse the structure of French capitalism in the 1960s.
Drawing on the concept of desire, the author develops a symbolic anthropology of the Lao peasants' attitude toward the state, or rather their symbolic interpretation of the state. The study draws on more than a year of fieldwork in a village in Champasak province. Using a program of poverty reduction, conducted jointly by development organisations and government agencies, as a case study, the author develops her argument in compelling prose, intertwining anthropological narrative, story-telling and theoretical reflection.
The book consists of seven chapters, a long introduction, and a conclusion. The introduction is a mixture of literature review and theory chapter. It is not at all comprehensive and tedious but focuses on state-directed desire preventing peasants from rebelling against the state. Brief overviews of Champasak and the structure of the book complement the introduction. The first chapter outlines the ambivalent character of the state, and more generally, power, for the Lao peasants by studying metaphors of ‘eating’ which play a prominent role in their everyday lives. Chapter 2 very aptly deals with the establishment of the nation-state at the local level of Champasak. The author describes how, to this day, the locals transgress the national border, literally and figuratively (p. 66). The third chapter introduces the concept of desire with regard to the poverty symbolically perceived by the peasants. Each of the subsequent three chapters studies a case of state encroachment aiming at poverty reduction and peasants' reactions: the collectivisation of the 1970s; a subsequent irrigation project; and a recent road upgrading attempt. The three cases are meant to illustrate the ambivalent character of the state in relation to peasant desire: ‘Just as the dog myth allowed for two kinds of power — destructive and nurturing — so too do these stories of state allow for two guises of power’ (p. 105). The final chapter unwraps the concept of mutual aid, which, according to the author, informs peasant, state and NGO discourses alike. The ‘idea of mutual aid … is co-opted and demanded by state policies. Meanwhile the language of state aid and largesse … is co-opted and demanded by rural residents in a rightful critique of the state’ (p. 168). This explains the absence of rebellion.
It would be inadequate and petty to point to flaws in the book as I consider it fine as it is. However, I should point to two broader issues. This criticism is directed less at the author and more against the academic community at large. The first issue concerns the division between anthropology and the other social sciences. Fields of desire deals with state and peasants, but fails to actually address the Lao political sphere and treats the peasant as a generic entity, as if there were no social differences within the rural population. Just as there should not be any sociology or political science without anthropology any more, the opposite should be true as well.
The second issue concerns the utter absence of non-English references in the book. (One French essay by Archaimbault is listed, but may not have been used as page numbers are missing.) The only Southeast Asian academics whose work is referred to in the book are teaching in the West and/or have been appropriated by Western academia. Marginalised voices are systematically excluded. This continues the anthropological tradition of using the native as an informant to generate literature for the dominant discourse, which today circulates between Anglo-Saxon academia and ‘international’ organisations. After decades of postcolonial critique, which significantly is absent from the book as well, this should no longer be possible. Instead of reproducing the structures of domination and disciplinary boundaries, we should systematically encourage our Ph.D. students to look for alternatives.
