Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Moshava, Kibbutz, and Moshav by D. Weintraub, et al (review)

1970; Johns Hopkins University Press; Volume: 11; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/tech.1970.a894067

1097-3729

Rowena W. Swanson,

Jewish and Middle Eastern Studies

TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 645 the anthology contains useful data about R & D budgets, the relations of big to little science, and the role of science specialists in influencing the political decisions of the state, the chief value of these essays is to be found in their range of speculation. Together with the humanistic approach of Reid, the authors demonstrate that the contemporary afflu­ ence of institutionalized science is far from an unmixed blessing. Indeed, there is no greater quandary that faces the science worker than that posed by the winning of public recognition and successful support. As soon as his efforts are blessed with public approbation they are likely to be imprisoned by the Midas touch of state support. Yet, as both volumes show, if approbation is withheld the efforts of the scientist can be condemned to a feeble and isolated monasticism. To expect the scientist rather than the political leader to resolve this dilemma is one of the more absurd aspects of the science policy of our society. Walter Goldstein* Moshava, Kibbutz, and Moshav. By D. Weintraub, M. Lissak, and Y. Azmon. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968. Pp. 360. $14.50. This book analyzes the three major types of agricultural settlement developed in Palestine during the seventy-year period preceding estab­ lishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The analysis unfolds through an examination of archetypes of each and their roots in sociopolitical and ideological movements, a description of the nationwide movements they stimulated, and a comparative assessment of the different forms. Overall, this is a tracing of the evolution of a complex modern societal structure influenced by an almost unique combination of forces. The development occurred under two different administrative governments, both alien to the developers—Turkey’s Ottoman Empire (until 1918) that gave no legal status to the undertakings, and the British Mandate authority (1919-48) that, especially during its last decade, severely limited man­ power growth by immigration restrictions. Reductions to practice were made by different groups of people most of whom had acquired their ideologies and initial (nonagricultural) experiences in other countries. A growing number of organizations within (e.g., Histadrut) and outside (e.g., Zionist bodies) the region constituted a powerful, though not al­ ways homogeneous, infrastructure. Superimposed on all of this was growth that became possible during this period through modernization of operations and industrialization. The moshava (colony) was conceived within the Yishuv (indigenous Jewish population) in Jerusalem in 1875 as a return to precepts of the Bible and as an economic way of life. Together with members of the First Aliyah (first immigration) who fled the pogroms of East Europe in * Dr. Goldstein, professor of political science at the State University of New York at Albany, specializes in the field of science policy, particularly the interna­ tional ramifications of scientific and technological developments. 646 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE the 1880s, they founded Petach Tikva (Door of Hope). Lack of an ideological connection between their traditional social structure and agricultural activity permitted the settlers first to relinquish economic and administrative independence to outside sources and then to pursue a market-oriented economy that introduced new elements into the colony (craftsmen and hired labor), intensive capital agriculture and, by the 1930s, heavy industry. Petach Tikva’s religious conservatism and its denial of civic rights to laborers were inimical to the secular socialist and revolutionary ideologies of the East Europeans of the Second (1904-14) and Third (1919-23) Aliyahs. The two labor parties, Hapoel Hatzair (Young Workers, 1906) and Achdut Haavoda (United Work­ ers, 1919), formed in Petach Tikva, laid the foundation for Israel’s labor movement. By contrast with other groups, the colonists produced no leaders of national importance during the early years, and their attach­ ment to national parties was vague and divided. This explains the para­ dox of their small voice in settlement policy with Zionist institutions when they held most of the private capital and were the major income producers. Though similarly dependent on external sources (Zionist organiza­ tions) for funds, the missionary zeal and entrepreneurial drive of the Second- and Third-Alivah intellectuals who founded the kvutza (co­ operative) and kibbutz (collective) did not...