It is now ten years since I wrote my own initial critique of the theory of sociological dualism presented by J. H. Boeke. In the intervening decade, all of us who are concerned with the problem of economic development and cultural change have, I trust, learned more about the nature of the phenomenon and hence the reopening of discussion by Professor Manning Nash at this time is very welcome. I should like to deal first with his main theme, and then with a few details of his paper.
Professor Nash shows the usual reluctance of the cultural anthropologist to generalize; he is unwilling to “deal with anything as complex, heterogeneous, and refractory as Southeast Asia as a whole.” The really interesting question, however, is surely how general tiie phenomena of dualistic society, multiple society, technological dualism, and underdevelopment are, and what the relationships are among them. Being less inhibited than Professor Nash, let me say at once that in my view technological dualism appears in all countries which can be regarded as underdeveloped. By this I mean that all such countries have two clearly distinguishable sectors, one with a capital-intensive and modern technology with high levels of man-year productivity, consisting of large scale manufacturing, plantation agriculture, mining, and the services associated with these; and die other, the “traditional” sector, consisting of peasant agriculture, small scale manufacturing and handicrafts, and the services connected with these.