ABSTRACT
Clearly, victims view famine as a pervasive, slowly-encroaching disaster within which food scarcity is merely one factor. Not only do they perceive famine in a qualitatively different manner than outsiders do, they react to it in a qualitatively different way. An examination of responses in India identified four fundamental ways in which traditional societies differ in their reaction to famine from more complex state societies: 1
The origins of famine are seen in traditional societies as resting in the breakdown of relations between people: the failure of kinship and village support structures. For states, it is the technical rather than the social system that is perceived to have failed.
In traditional societies, famine is a problem to be resolved by the affected group. States envisage a much broader field of responsibility.
Famine stress causes states to intensify their administrative procedures, but in traditional societies stress tends progressively to constrict the field of decision-making.
Traditional societies tend to gather a very broad base of knowledge, which is used by a relatively simple organization to tackle a problem which, as famine intensifies, is seen as being of diminishing complexity. The state, on the other hand, starts with a rather narrow knowledge base, and builds upon it a complex system of organization to tackle a problem which appears increasingly complex.
