George M. Foster, “Limited Good or Limited Goods: Observations on Acheson,” American Anthropologist 76, No. 1 (Mar. 1974), 53-57.

Notes

• 53 – University of California, Berkeley
• “To substantiate proposition two, Acheson quotes both Diaz and me to the effect that traditional suspicions make cooperation difficult in the towns we have studied. This is certainly the case. If we can believe Octavio Paz, suspicion of others is a common Mexican personality trait . . ..”
  • Essentializing the Mexican character
• 54 – “I agree that greater economic cooperation would be advantageous to the Tzintzuntzenos; I have often urged them to form cooperatives.”
• “Nowhere do I say that economic change can come only via formal programs which are financed and directed by agencies outside the community. But I do recognize their importance in providing the infrastructure and other important preconditions that permit budding entrepreneurs . . . to realize new and nontraditional goals.”
• “In Tzintzuntzan I have set forth my basic views on the underlying conditions that promote change: ‘It is weel to remember that the nature and extent of any significant change in a community results from the complex interplay of two type of phenomena. First, there is the personality of individuals, their views of the conditions that govern life, the ways in which they respond to stimuli, the social forms that structure their relationships among themselves and with the representatives of the wider world, and the basic cultural forms that set the values to which people subscribe. These are psychological, social, and cultural factors. And opposing these there is the ecological environment of the community, the productive methods at its disposal, and the basic support and opportunity provided by such aspects of the national infrastructure as transportation, technical services, credit facilities, schooling, medical facilities, and the like. These are economic and technological factors [Foster 1967].’”
• 54-55 – “It is ture that I have, particularly in the past, found a good deal of the inability of Tzintzuntzenos to take advantage of new opportunities to be rooted in personality and social factors. But I add: ‘Yet the reason for Tzintzuntzan’s slowness to change cannot be explained solely by the prevailing personality type and traditional social forms. For there are peple who are innovation-prone . . . who like to experiment, to try new ways, who have ideas, and who are anxious to break the shackles of the past. Sometimes the local social factors just mentioned prevent these exceptional people from doing what they would like to do. More often, perhaps, they are unable to realize their innovative potential because of extra-village circumstances, and particularly because there is no fully developed infrastructure to train them and support them in their efforts. Without innovative mentalities, without people with curiosity and a desire to try new ways, change cannot come about. But an innovative personality, to produce change, must be supported by a cultural environment that nurtures its creativity. Without this supporting infrastructure an individual innovative drive is only a potential, as yet unrealized [Foster 1967].’”