Contents *

Introduction *

A change in focus *

Opposing positions *

Indigenous knowledge *

A new perspective *

Concluding remarks *

Literature *

The focus of this essay is local knowledge. There are many ways in which to discuss local knowledge, so in trying to narrow it down I have decided to focus on two working questions, which will form the discussion. The first question is what is the difference between local, or indigenous, knowledge and western scientific knowledge? The second question is what impact has theories of local knowledge had on the discussion of development in the third world? But first I would like to elaborate on why there has been such an interest in local knowledge and how this relates to recent development trends. This interest is also related to the discussion on globalism and anti-globalism, something, which has been talked and written about in abundance (Milton 1996 pp.106, Ingold 1993 pp.31, Dove1998 pp.44).

During the last few decades there has been a shift from a top-down approach in development to a bottom-up approach, or as Poul Sillitoe puts it "The change has to do with the shift in emphasis that is occurring in the development world from a focus on the ‘top down’ impositions of interventions to a ‘grassroots’ participatory perspective" (Sillitoe 1998, p.203). The former approach has often caused a grave marginalisation of the rural communities in the developing countries, or at least this has been the argument for advocates of indigenous knowledge as a part of the development perspective (Agrawal 1995, p.2). Also this change in perspective can be seen as a reaction against earlier modernist theories and also Marxist theories (Agrawal 1995, p.2 & Sillitoe 1998, p.211). The consequences of this change in focus will be explored further in the last part of this essay, but first I will discuss what actually has brought local knowledge into the development debate.

In the debate of globalism vs. anti-globalism the change in the above mentioned focus is apparent, especially where resource and environmental management is concerned. According to the globalist perspective, resource management is to be globally co-ordinated because environmental problems are of a global character and that sustainability (in this sense environmental sustainability) must be managed at a global level (Milton 1996, p.181). This is an especially apparent characteristic of Lovelock’s Gaia theory where the earth is seen as one living organism (a birds eye perspective), where no attention is paid to a more localised perception of the environment (Lovelock 1986, pp.3). But the globalist perspectives are not only embedded in environmentalist discourse, these perspective are also highly politicised. Over the years a number of global conferences have been held in the name of development and the environment. As Milton (1996, pp.180) points out, the product of these conferences, in the form of reports, proceedings, declarations and agreements, make up a major source of information on the globalist model.

When talking about environmental discourse above I am referring to views held by mainly western environmental NGOs and also to some degree the broader public in the West (often holding views propelled by environmental NGOs), views that by many are deemed ecocentric. One such example is put forth by Niels Einarsson (1993, pp.73). His example is that of a conflict between environmentalists and Icelandic mink whalers. Often environmentalist groups project a simplification and over exaggeration of the problem at hand in order to get the public attention. In the case mentioned above anthropomorphism takes place, making the whales (non-human) into having almost human characters. This way the whales seem to epitomise everything that is wrong with the relationship between man and the environment, by creating a myth surrounding the whale as a near human creature, making the fight against the Icelandic mink whalers a symbol of the struggle against mankind’s exploitation of the environment (Einarsson 1993, p.75). On the other end of this struggle you find the Icelandic whaler for whom the question of ‘whaling’ or ‘not whaling’ is a matter of economic survival and cultural belonging and not a struggle to save the planet (the one living organism). The practises and views held by environmental NGOs can often be turned into what might be called ethnocentric cultural imperialism when animal rights are turned into practise (Einarsson 1993, p.80). Einarsson goes on to say that "Most anthropologists will protest when ‘their’ people are subjected to ethnocentric treatment attacking their culture or even threatening their subsistence" (Einarsson 1993, p.80). Another way in which a western environmental viewpoint has influenced local, or indigenous, people is through the before mentioned top-down model of development. In an effort to couple development with sustainability, in this case environmentally sustainability, rural communities in the third world have often lost power over their own resources. In Michael Dove (1998) it is suggested that the reason behind a demand from the developed nations that the less developed nations should conserve its forest and animals is to mitigate the negative environmental impact caused by their own progress (Dove 1998, p.45). During an interview with PACOS, a Malaysian NGO, it was pointed out to Rasmussen et al that the World Bank often will couple their developmental loans with a demand for an increase in forest cover as a result of pressure from the various global environmental agendas (Rasmussen et al 1999). According to Dove (1998) it is naive to think that the Malaysian government will treat their environmental resources, hence local indigenous groups living off these same resources, any different than the western countries have done in the past. The developing countries need income, among other things to meet the declining terms of trade, and this income is often obtained through harvesting their own natural resources. In Dove (1998) there are two citations, both made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Bin Mohamad, perfectly illustrating the above.

Mahathir goes on in Dove (1998):

This modernist position of the Malaysian government leaves not much room for indigenous peoples way of life. This is not to say that change influencing local communities has to be negative, in fact local knowledge is often also a product of outside influences over time, and not just a product of the immediate environment. In fact it could be argued that it is naive to demand, even from a participatory perspective, that local knowledge systems should be conserved, or frozen in time. However, often the transitions these people have had to undergo have had a grave effect on their physical environments through a change in land use, facilitated by the process of modernisation. This scenario form the basis for the change in focus mentioned in the beginning of this essay, namely that of looking towards local knowledge when searching for answers to a sustainable environmental development, hence the bottom-up approach. According to Poul Sillitoe (1995), "research in local knowledge relates to development issues and problems" (Sillitoe 1995, p.204). But before we can examine this change in focus further we have to discuss the character of local knowledge.

In much of the literature opposing features define local knowledge, that is, opposing those features characterising western scientific knowledge (Sillitoe 1998, Levi-Strauss 1966, Agrawal 1995). According to Sillitoe (1998) local knowledge is knowledge held collectively by a group of people, informing interpretation of the world. It is conditioned by tradition, it is culturally relative and the understanding of local knowledge is inculcated into individuals from birth, structuring their interaction with the environment (Sillitoe 1995, p204).

Claude Levi-Strauss (1966) gives several examples of how knowledge structure language in accordance with use value, which can be interpreted as subjectification of knowledge (Levi-Strauss 1966, pp.1). This subjectification of knowledge, one should think, would be in contrast to the objective character of western science, however, Levi-Strauss questions this. According to Levi-Strauss the thirst for objective knowledge is a neglected aspect of the thought of indigenous people, claiming that every civilisation tends to overestimate the objective character of its thought (Levi-Strauss 1966, p.3). This leaves the question whether western science really is as objective as it claims to be, more so than local knowledge? This question leads to other questions like: are indigenous people more inclined to give names and ascribe values to those plants and animals which they value and not to those that has no value; or is there the same desire for order, giving the concept of classification a value of it own (classification for the sake of it), even in indigenous societies? (Levi-Strauss 1966, pp.1). According to Levi-Strauss this is in fact the case. Examples of animals and plants not know for their usefulness, but deemed to be useful or interesting because they are known do occur in ethnographic literature (Levi-Strauss 1966, p.9). Levi-Strauss goes on to say that ‘primitive’ though is founded on a demand for order. If it is accepted that western science is no more objective than local knowledge (the ‘primitive’ thought) then the systems of classification found among local people is no different in value than that found in botany or any other western science, hence no difference in the demand for order. This is a trait common to all thought and therefore it is through this demand for order we can begin to understand thoughts, which seem strange to us (Levi-Strauss 1966, pp.10).

However, Levi-Strauss ends up drawing the dichotomy between western science and local knowledge back in. Through witchcraft circumstances and particularity are brought together into relations determining the outcome, e.g. witchcraft is not the cause of accidents, but it is the circumstance (a granary undermined by termites) and the presence of witchcraft that would cause an accident to happen (the granary collapsing on a person) (Evans-Pritchard in Levi Strauss 1966, p.11). The difference between magic and science, seen this way, is that magic postulates a complete and all-embracing determinism, while science makes a distinction between levels, where some admits forms of determinism and others not. This determinism, present in magic, resemblance earlier stages in technical and scientific evolution, however, it should not be reduced to this status, in fact it would be better to compare western science and local knowledge as two parallel modes of acquiring knowledge (Levi-Strauss 1966, pp.12). So from this one can conclude, based on the arguments by Levi-Strauss, that western science and local knowledge does not differ in kind, but what about the different types of phenomenon to which these two systems of knowledge apply?

Levi-Strauss uses the example of the bricoleur contrasting to the engineer. The set of tools of the bricoleur can not be defined in the terms of a project, much unlike that of the engineer where there are as many sets of tools as there are projects. This analogy helps to demarcate the difference between western scientific thought and mythical thought. Myths and rites work as tools to preserve methods, observations and reflections adapted to discoveries "which nature authorised from the starting point of a speculative organisation and exploitation of the sensible world in sensible terms" (Levi-Strauss 1966, p.16). This is what is termed the science of the concrete by Levi-Strauss. As with the case of the bricoleur mythical thought I limited through expressing itself by means of a heterogeneous repertoire (Levi-Strauss 1966, p.17). The bricoleur will refer to that which is already known to him while the scientist will refer to concepts, which can be formed hence unlimited, at least on a theoretical level.

Sillitoe’s point of departure as with much literature on the subject, is whether the dichotomy between local knowledge and western scientific knowledge can be justified. According to Sillitoe this dichotomy fails on three grounds:

• Substantive similarities and overlaps occur between local knowledge systems and that of western science.
• Epistemological because of similarities in methods used to examine reality.
• Contextual because local knowledge is no more anchored in local cultures than western science is anchored in western cultures.

However, Sillitoe does not seem to abandon the concept of a dichotomy all together, at least not for the sake of discussing local knowledge in development and also for the sake of anthropology. Different people, whether western scientists or indigenous people, are different in their understanding of the world, not just because they inhabit different environments, they are also informed by different cultural repertoires that have evolved over time and often through some degree of outside influenced. The different knowledge systems will also be codified in different ways, so despite similarity distinctiveness is maintained (Sillitoe 1995, p.206).

Arun Agrawal (1995) points to the same three themes as Sillitoe, which presumably separates indigenous from western knowledge:

• Substantive – there are differences in the subject matter and characteristics of indigenous knowledge as opposed to western science.
• Methodological and epistemological – the two forms of knowledge use different methods when investigating reality, and possess different views of the world.
• Contextual – indigenous and western knowledge differs because indigenous knowledge is more deeply rooted in the locality of the beholder.

In the case of substantive differences Agrawal claims that these are out of proportion, that in fact indigenous knowledge is not only concerned with technical solutions to everyday problems (Juma et al in Agrawal 1995, p.10), but that it also contains intellectual insights that goes beyond mere use values.

The methodological and epistemological differences supposedly stem from the fact that science is open, systematic, objective and analytical, and advances by building on previous achievements and discoveries, while indigenous knowledge is closed, non-systematic, without concepts that would conform to ideas of objectivity or rigorous analysis (Agrawal 1995, pp.11). In criticising this Agrawal strikes at Levi-Strauss’ analogy of the bricoleur and the engineer. The constraint faced by the bricoleur is the particular state of civilisation and the resources made available by this civilisation. The lack of ability to go beyond the resources made available by the state of civilisation would indicate that only repetitious recombination is possible for the bricoleur, thus leaving no room for change and creating a static view of the knowledge systems held by indigenous people. In other words Agrawal criticises the view held by Levi-Strauss because it denies that the bricoleur would experience any cultural change (Agrawal 1995, p.11).

When reading The Revolution of Sciences by Thomas Kuhn it becomes clear that science does not evolve out of context (Kuhn 1995, pp.52). It is often thought that while indigenous knowledge is subjective and contextualised, western science is objective divorced from context, this, Agrawal argues, is a misguided contention. A critical point is that technical solutions developed in the west has failed implementation in developing countries because the local social, political and cultural context has been denied any attention during implementation. This would seem to indicate that these technical solutions, based on western science, is as much embedded in a western context, as local knowledge is embedded in a local context (Agrawal 1995, p.12). This brings me back to the discussion initiated in the beginning of this essay. It seems as though the top-down approach, because it is embedded in western science and culture, has maginalised people and alienated them from their environments through applying technical solutions foreign to the local context. This leaves the question of how a new development perspective, one that includes local knowledge, should look?

Sillitoe (1995) points to two strands of approach to local knowledge, one encompassing ethnoscience and human ecology and the other encompassing farming systems research and participatory approaches. Part of the first strand, ethnoscience, relates to the study of taxonomic systems and systems of classification, but it also has commercial side putting a price tag on local knowledge e.g. in the etnobotanists pursuit of medicinal plants for the medical industry (Sillitoe 1995, pp.207). Much can be said about the ethnoscience approach, however, it does not seem to benefit the local communities in any significant way. Perhaps local knowledge in this way can be preserved, but the holders of this knowledge do not benefit from having their knowledge categorised and frozen in time. The second approach, human ecology, is related to the science of biology describing mans relationship with the environment in much the same terms as animals relate to the environment, which they are adapted to exploit. This, however, indicates that culture is determined by nature. As with ethnoscience there are two different types of approach to human ecology, one termed the production system approach and the other termed eco-systems theory. The former tries to describe different subsistence regimes (i.e. shifting cultivators, hunter-gatherers) and involves socio-cultural perspectives focusing on family structure, land tenure issues etc. The latter focuses on ecological models, e.g. tracing the kilocalorific energy relationship between man and the environment (Sillitoe 1998, pp.209).

The second strand of local knowledge approaches can be viewed as a resentment of purely academic approaches to local knowledge, because these according to Sillitoe bear little relation to development problems. Recent thinking has focused on bringing local knowledge into the development debate, so as to incorporate it into development policies and practises. The farming system research approach is anthropological in tone and emphasises cultural interconnectedness. It tries to take a holistic and functionalist approach, but this is problematic in a development situation because of the often short time frame in development projects. It is simply too all embracing in its requirement of field data. An alternative to this is the participatory approach, which aim is to enable local people to participate actively in both research and decision-making processes and also to act on and evaluate development proposals. This, at least in theory, would ensure the appropriateness of the measures taken in the mitigation of possible negative effects influencing on the livelihood of the local communities. However, even the participatory approach is subject to several flaws. The tools used in participatory approaches are not necessarily neutral or culturally relative and subject to manipulation, often failing to access local knowledge systems (Sillitoe 1998, p.211).

The key idea behind the change in approach is often a desire to implement appropriate systems of resource management into development projects, e.g. by installing participatory approaches into environmental impact assessments (EIA) (Nuttall 1998, pp.72). But given the time frame of EIAs and the origin of the participatory methods, can we be certain in our approach? It seems as though we blindly have accepted participatory approaches as the key to sustainable development for two reasons. Firstly because the hunter or shifting cultivator is conferred with, ensuring a better implementation of development objectives, and secondly because it is assumed that the hunter or shifting cultivator holds the key to understanding the environment that surrounds him. Sillitoe has already criticised the former above, but the latter refers to the discussion of the noble ‘savage’ concerning the myth of ecological wisdom. I will not go into any elaborate discussion of this myth, but it is important to point out, that it places local people in a state of equilibrium within nature. Both nature and culture change over time and as a consequence of outside influences. A good example of changing environment and culture is that of the Zafimaniry concepts of clarity. Maurice Bloch (1995) uses the example of the Zafimaniry people to show that culture is determined by social organisation and therefore determines nature and not as suggested in the myth above, that the natural environment determines culture. Hence culture is socially constructed and nature is merely a part of this construction (Bloch 1995, pp.63) opposed to the view that culture is determined by nature.

In the above discussion I have tried to cast some light on the character of local knowledge and its relationship to development discourse, but one thing still needs to be clarified, namely what local knowledge really is. When going through the theories of the different writers it seems that the really interesting point to be elaborated on, in relation to development discourse, is context. One could argue that all knowledge is bound to context making local knowledge no different than western science and that the demand for order and objectivity is no truer for western science than for local knowledge systems. If this is true, why should the study of local knowledge hold any particular place in science (in this case anthropology) as opposed to western science? A post structuralist would perhaps argue that the treatment of local knowledge in this separate manner, and as inferior to western science, is a product of the power relation between the North and the South. But one cannot dismiss the fact that western science and technology has had a great deal more success. Also one cannot dismiss that development without the understanding of local knowledge often tend to lead to a misappropriate development. As a student of development studies I cannot look past this. If I were to define local knowledge on the basis of the discussion in this essay, I would choose a simple, yet all embracing definition of local knowledge, that local knowledge derives parts of its character from its immediate environment, but it is not determined by it. Time and space, in the form of outside influences, are as much a part of local knowledge systems as local context. In fact context can be said to be a relative concept. Variation between different types of local knowledge is just as varied as the difference between any local knowledge system and western science.

The concept of local knowledge must enter development practise. Even though outside perception of a localised knowledge system lacks neutrality and objectivity, it still enables us to understand to some degree the environments in which development is to take place. A bottom-up participatory approach can help to ensure that policy-makers give due attention to local perspectives before entering the decision-making process. So for me local knowledge, seen in terms of development, can inspire to a change in methodology, and from a theoretical perspective it can create an understanding of how knowledge is acquired and codified.

Agrawal, Arun (1995): Dismantling the Divide between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge. Development and Change Vol. 26 (1995). © Institute of Social Studies 1995.

Bloch, Maurice (1995): People into Places: Zafimaniry Concepts of Clarity in E. Hirsch & M. O’Hanlon (eds.): The Anthropology of Landscape. Perspectives on Place and Space, pp.63-77. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Dove, Michael R. (1998): Local Dimensions of ‘Global’ Environmental Debates. Six cases studies. In A. Kalland & G. Persson (eds.): Environmental Movements in Asia, pp.44-64. Curzon Press, Richmond.

Einarsson, Peter (1993): All animals are equal but some are cetaceans. Conservation and culture conflicts. In K. Milton (ed.): Environmentalism: The view from anthropology, pp.73-84. ASA Monograph, 32. Routledge, London.

Kuhn, Thomas (): Videnskabens revolutioner. Revised editions with two supplement articles. Copenhagen.

Levi-Strauss, Claude (1966): The Savage Mind, chapter I The Science of the Concrete pp.1-33. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lovelock, James (1986): Gaia in C. Merchant (ed.): Key Concepts in Critical Theory: Ecology, pp.351-9. Humanities Press, New Jersey.

Milton, Kay (1996): Environmentalism and Cultural Theory. Routledge, London and New York.

Nuttall, Mark (1998): Ways of Knowing, Ways of Acting: The Claim for Indigenous Environmental Knowledge. In Protecting the Arctic. Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Survival, pp.71-95. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.

Sillitoe, Paul (1998): What, know natives? Local Knowledge in Development. Social Anthropology 6(2), pp.203-20.