Landscape, Process and Power
eBook - ePub

Landscape, Process and Power

Re-evaluating Traditional Environmental Knowledge

Serena Heckler, Serena Heckler

Share book
  1. 304 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Landscape, Process and Power

Re-evaluating Traditional Environmental Knowledge

Serena Heckler, Serena Heckler

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

In recent years, the field of study variously called local, indigenous or traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) has experienced a crisis brought about by the questioning of some of its basic assumptions. This has included reassessing notions that scientific methods can accurately elicit and describe TEK or that incorporating it into development projects will improve the physical, social or economic well-being of marginalized peoples. The contributors to this volume argue that to accurately and appropriately describe TEK, the historical and political forces that have shaped it, as well as people's day-to-day engagement with the landscape around them must be taken into account. TEK thus emerges, not as an easily translatable tool for development experts, but as a rich and complex element of contemporary lives that should be defined and managed by indigenous and local peoples themselves.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Landscape, Process and Power an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Landscape, Process and Power by Serena Heckler, Serena Heckler in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Social Sciences & Cultural & Social Anthropology. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Year
2009
ISBN
9781845459048

Chapter 1

images

Introduction


Serena Heckler

TEK and Change

The majority of chapters in this book were first presented during a panel entitled ‘Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) and Change’ at the Ninth International Congress of Ethnobiology in June 2004 at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England. The title was intended to refer to the use of TEK methods to assess changes in the way that local peoples interact with the natural resources around them: some speakers in the panel reported on changing socioeconomic systems, while others spoke about changing environments. It soon became apparent, however, that another kind of change was being exemplified, that of a changing field of study. The contributions to this volume are written by researchers from a range of disciplines who have seen the term TEK, or whichever related term they are using, challenged, deconstructed, and reinvented in a wide variety of ways. And yet, despite different methodological approaches and different ideas about what TEK is, the speakers at the conference, and the authors of this book, hit upon similar issues and made similar statements about the nature and role of TEK in the lives of local people around the world. This book, then, represents a diversity of current approaches to TEK research, as well as demonstrating how those approaches are developing and seem to be converging onto a few interrelated themes, namely landscape, power and process. In encapsulating this diversity and convergence, and by presenting a summary of the development of TEK in each of its contributing disciplines, this book is a synthesis of a field of study that has expanded beyond its original boundaries.
In the new millennium, researchers have become more nuanced and critical in situating TEK alongside other types of knowledge and in particular social, political and economic contexts, contexts which themselves are changing. Gone are the days when TEK could be considered ‘ancestral’ or ‘timeless’ or as simple systems of classification. Today, it is conceived of as emerging from ecopolitical discourse, practical engagement with the landscape and social relationships all at the same time. As such TEK is acknowledged to be in constant flux and exceptionally difficult to pin down. It certainly cannot be fully elicited using the methodological approaches championed by many TEK researchers of the last millennium, such as rapid rural appraisal, pile sorts, tree trails, decision-making models, etcetera. As many of the contributions to this book demonstrate, in-depth methods, such as participant observation, are necessary to understand how TEK is related to other aspects of people's lives. This has opened up TEK research to incorporate other areas of research that were formerly sidelined, such as gender relations, political economy, pedagogy, cosmology and kinship, among others.
This drastic broadening of the subject, while greatly enriching our understanding of human-environment relations, has led to a crisis of identity. We all feel as though we know what TEK is, but are finding it increasingly difficult to agree on a definition or even a name. We all agree that TEK is important, but there are increasingly heated disagreements about how it should be used and who should decide its use. The political economists are highly critical of the cognitivists, who largely ignore the phenomenologists: all are largely negative about the work of development specialists, who continue to invest vast amounts of money in ‘indigenous knowledge (IK) informed’ projects around the world. As a result, many TEK specialists have begun to feel stuck, arguing over terms and definitions while marginalised peoples around the world are desperately in need of appropriate and meaningful support.
This book is an attempt to bring some of these diverging strands back together, to accentuate the strengths of such wide-ranging enquiry. Rather than arguing that any one approach is best, this compilation takes the stance that all the approaches can help to elucidate the full complexity of TEK and that, to be accurate descriptors of people's lived experience, we need a phenomenological approach, a political economy approach, a cognitive approach and an applied approach. These different theoretical and methodological stances consider different aspects of human-environment interactions and different levels of discourse, activity and decision-making; hence all are needed to describe the full complexity of TEK. We dismiss the other approaches at our peril.

Traditional, Indigenous, Local? The Problem of Nomenclature

Many recent TEK papers and volumes include a discussion of the terms used to describe this type of research (Ellen and Harris 2000: 2-3; Posey 1999: 9; Sillitoe 2002: 8; Sillitoe and Bicker 2004: 1), giving some indication of how difficult it has been to agree on any particular one. Part of the problem is the development of the concept in separate disciplines and by researchers in different professional networks and different parts of the world. These different groups of researchers soon began to share and integrate their research, assuming, perhaps wrongly, that they were talking about the same thing, even if they called it by a different name. Hence, the terms rural knowledge systems, traditional ecological/environmental knowledge, indigenous knowledge, indigenous knowledge systems, indigenous technical knowledge, local knowledge, folk science, people's science, ethnoscience and any number of related terms were all introduced in the 1980s and soon considered to be more or less equivalent. This gave rise to an extended debate, continuing today, about which of these terms is ‘best’ to describe this concept.
Many authors have objected to the term ‘traditional’ because it has connotations of being static, ahistorical and out-dated (Inglis 1993: 3). So the term ‘indigenous knowledge’ (IK) has become increasingly used. But while ‘indigenous’ can be a useful and meaningful term in some parts of the world where there is a clearly distinct colonial population and a minority of colonised people, such as the Americas, Australia and much of the Arctic and Sub-Arctic (cf. Wolf 1982; Taussig 1993), it is more problematic in places such as Asia and Africa, where a long (recorded) history of migration makes it more difficult to tease out who are the ‘original’ residents who can claim indigenous status (Sundar 2000: 79-81; see also Posey 2002: 25-27). Even where the term ‘indigenous’ is most clear-cut, however, it is highly political and, although the use of the term does not always ‘provid(e) both the justification for colonial rule and the means towards it’ as Sundar claims (2000: 81), it has been accused of entrenching unequal power relations.
Others argue that the term ‘local’ is best, because it does not make social divisions between different people, does not have the same negative connotations as the other terms, and does not exclude recent immigrant populations or mod-ernised1 populations that cannot claim indigenous status, but nevertheless, gain much of their subsistence from the land around them. However, ‘local’ throws up its own series of problems, including the idea that it is somehow separated from the wider context (Pottier 2003: 3), which, as the contributions by Alexiades, Kassam and Ganya, Gilberthorpe, Carss, Bell and Marzano demonstrate, is a misrepresentation of the nature of such knowledge. Indeed, the term ‘local’ is often implicitly assumed to be subsumed by and inferior to science, which is often considered to be ‘global’ knowledge (Sillitoe 2007). As Hobart argues (1993), the term ‘local’ embeds the hierarchy that privileges science at the expense of the local simply by reifying the difference. Moreover, in its very inclusiveness, the term ‘local knowledge’ loses some of the distinctiveness that has made this concept useful and appealing.
So, it seems we cannot win, all the terms are problematic and yet we agree that there is something valuable in giving a voice to a different way of knowing in the global and scientific discourse. Indeed, researchers and human rights groups who use ‘traditional’ are generally clear that they do not mean a knowledge that is or ever has been static, but one that has associations that are meaningful for many local people with a particular, self-conscious, construction of their own identity (Posey 1999: 4). The overtly political nature of ‘indigenous’ can work for indigenous people, as well as against them: it is increasingly being used as a lever to gain access to resources, such as government grants and land tenure (Alexiades, Chapter Three; Heckler 2007: 101). Similarly, ‘local’ in today's climate of devolution, participatory development and bottom-up governance is a more powerful term than it may have been previously.
Moreover, each of the terms has a historical component. For instance, the early term ‘rural knowledge’ was first used by rural sociologists and agronomists, particularly in the ‘Farmer First’ school (e.g. Chambers 1983; Chambers et al. 1989, Scoones and Thompson 1994), who were concerned with what they considered to be the ‘unseen poverty’ of rural people (Chambers 1983: viii). ‘Indigenous knowledge’, ‘indigenous knowledge systems’, and ‘indigenous technical knowledge’ came from anthropologists (Brokensha et al. 1980), which is understandable given their concern with ethnicity and culture as a marker of difference. ‘Traditional environmental knowledge’ was first used by ethnobotanists and conservationists who were slightly more orientated towards conservation and environmental sustainability than agriculture (Inglis 1993: vi; Hadley and Schrekenberg 1995; McNeely 1995). ‘Local knowledge’ has been used interchangeably with ‘indigenous’ when the latter term did not fit or seemed politically incorrect (e.g. Rocheleau et al. 1989: 14).
In summary, then, not only does each of the above terms reflect assumptions about the nature of such knowledge and its relationship to an equally problematic dominant paradigm, they also reflect the ways in which the authors, by virtue of their disciplinary perspectives, seek to acknowledge and critique this divide and how they seek to represent the relationship between the two. The truth is that each of these dichotomies – global versus local, colonial versus. indigenous, modern versus traditional, and urban versus rural – reflect and entrench the significant barriers that marginalised people the world over encounter. Interfaces between more powerful and less powerful groups of people involve any number of assumptions based on skin colour, livelihood, cultural or ethnic identity, education, and birthplace. However, the importance of each of these issues in different situations varies in a myriad of ways and to say that any one of the issues illustrated in the terms used is the dominant issue is incorrect. Indeed, they are all flawed and they are all useful, so that if one author has chosen to use ‘indigenous knowledge’ rather than ‘local knowledge’, it cannot be said that she or he is necessarily ‘wrong’.
For this reason, I have not insisted that the contributors to this volume use one term rather than another. Some authors do not discuss any of these terms at length, but rather talk about landscape (for example Gilberthorpe and Sillitoe) and practice (Vermonden), whereas Zent uses several of the terms to signify slightly different things. As an ethnobotanist heavily influenced by the ‘Canadian school’ (e.g. Inglis 1993: vi), who thinks that interactions with and perceptions of the natural world are key defining characteristics of this knowledge, I have chosen to use the term ‘traditional environmental knowledge’ as my preferred gloss that, in this introduction only, includes all the other terms as well. Traditional in this sense does not reflect any idea of stasis, but, as the Four Directions Council of Canada put it, is about a ‘way of knowing’ rather than ‘what is known’ (Posey 1999: 4). In other words, it is about a process of transmission, interaction and innovation that is embedded in social relations, rather than a discrete series of ‘facts’ that can be extracted, scientifically verified and transferred to other settings.

Defining Diversity: The Problem of Definition

As the excesses of postmodernism demonstrated, if we over-deconstruct any topic, we end up with nothing or everything. Indeed the chapters in this book cover such a wide ground that the reader may find themselves asking what TEK actually is. Numerous attempts to define TEK have been made (Posey 1999: 9; Sillitoe 1998; see also Zent, Chapter Two) the most all-encompassing and useful of which is by Ellen and Harris (2000: 4-5), but as Vermonden (Chapter Nine) points out, even this impressive attempt has its shortcomings. Just as with nomenclature, then, there are some seemingly insurmountable problems with developing a definitive and encompassing definition of TEK. The problem lies in the diversity of TEKs that exist, and since our primary concern is to represent other ‘ways of knowing’ as accurately as possible, any one definition may be overly restrictive. Indeed, Hobart argues that the attempt to define TEK is an attempt to ‘domesticate practice by recourse yet again to a hegemonic epistemology’ (Hobart 1993: 14). In other words, he argues that by defining it, we risk transforming it to something other than TEK. I will return to this issue below, but for now, rather than attempting to add to the definitions posited elsewhere, I am more concerned here to consider how it is used by the contributors to this volume.
For some contributors, TEK seems to exist mainly in opposition to other types of knowledge, and certainly, people only become self-conscious about it and begin to reflect upon it when they are presented with another way of knowing. In another sense, it is considered to be the way people have learned to operate, to gain their subsistence, to build their communities, to contextualise their social relations and to understand themselves vis-Ă -vis the natural world around them (Gilberthorpe, Boissiere, Vermonden, Kassam and Ganya). This type of knowledge, of course, has a much longer history than science, globalisation, urban lifestyles, economic inequality or any of the other things with which we often contrast it. Hence, in its widest sense, the study of TEK is about comparing different epistemologies of the natural world, starting from the author's viewpoint.2
Given that the author's perspective is so significant, it is fitting that each contribution explicitly or implicitly informs researchers’ notions of TEK and how they affect our study, description and application of it. Indeed, the majority of the chapters in this book illustrate how particular assumptions and methodological approaches have forced researchers into a narrow perception of TEK. In particular, each contribution, no matter how focussed or general their research question, points out what we have missed by approaching TEK in a particular way. In this respect then, the study of TEK is often more limited by the researcher's intent than by the subject matter itself.

TEK-Shaped Instruments: The Problem of Methodology

The issue of how research changes TEK by virtue of collecting, analysing and applying data is an implicit concern of this compilation. Indeed, it has been a key concern of anthropology for decades. While the cognitive ethnoscientists argue that the human brain structures information in a predetermined fashion, so that a translation of TEK from ‘local’ knowledge systems to scientific language is largely a matter of superimposing similarly organised cognitive structures (Zent, Chapter Two), others argue that the apparent success in describing TEK in this way is simply an artefact of the method used to collect the data. As Schneider put it for more longstanding analytical categories of anthropology:
It is said that by smashing the atom we break it into its component parts and thus learn what those parts are and what they are made of. This may hold for atoms. But a smashed culture does not break up into its original parts. A culture which is chopped up with a Z-shaped instrument yields z-shaped parts: a culture which is chopped up with tools called kinship, economics, politics, and religion yields those parts. Schneider (1984: 198).
In this same sense, if one uses the categories that many researchers use to organise knowledge systems, i.e. methods designed to structure data in cognitive, systematic, hierarchical or utilitarian ways, then one will extract evidence of TEK systems being structured in those ways. Although the ideal would be to represent TEK without altering it at all, any analytical perspective, representation or translation will use an instrument that privileges some aspects of TEK over others. Of course, TEK researchers are not just speaking for people, but are also speaking to distinct audiences. To be able to engage these audiences and to increase their understanding of and consideration for different TEKs, natural scientists must use certain instruments and social scientists must use others. Hence, rather than assuming that one method or analytical tool is better than another, it is crucial that researchers are aware of the ‘shape’ of their instrument and recognise that what they elucidate is but one facet of TEK.
Hence, it is significant that the contributors to this volume use and comment upon a variety of methods and analytical approaches to elicit and describe TEK, notably Sillitoe, Thomas, Boissiere, Vermonden and Fujimoto. Fujimoto, for example, uses a combination of ethnobotanical survey methods and participant observation. He describes how an important plant use was not captured by traditional ethnobotanical survey methods. In this case, the oversight was two-fold: first, the researcher did not initially think to ask about indirect uses; second, farmers did not spontaneously mention these uses when freelisting or when presented with a plant specimen and asked to list its uses. It was only when Fujimoto engaged in participant observation that it became clear that farmers were reading different weedy species in and near agricultural fields as indicators of a variety of soil and climatic features. The growth form, colour, and presence or absence of weedy species were informing cultivation practices and patterns. The fact that farmers themselves did not mention these uses during the first survey implies that this kind of knowledge is so embedded in context as to not even be talked about. Indeed, Fujimoto found little evidence that they transmit this knowledge orally. Rather, it is usually ‘picked up’ over a lifetime of farming practice. This indicates that what is articulated as TEK by local and scientific experts is only a part of the expertise used by farmers. It also demonstrates the limitations of the ethnobotanical survey methods often used to elicit such knowledge.
Vermonden also uses quantitative and qualitative methods, but analyses his data from a phenomenological perspective (note that although Vermonden and Fujimoto both use participant observation and structured interviews, their analytical approaches are quite different). Like Fujimoto, Vermonden demonstrates how TEK is embedded in practice and calls into question the primacy of oral instruction in TEK transmission. However, rather than focussing on the utility of a particular plant use category, as Fujimoto does, he focuses on describing the means by which transmission occurs. By elucidating different features of the extraordinarily rich phenomenon that is human perception of and interaction with the world around them, ...

Table of contents