Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
5.2.2 I
dealIzatIon
oF
tK
In
P
ast
s
tudIes
Although indigenous practices have evolved and survived the changing biophysical
and socioeconomic conditions, through continuous responsive changes and adapta-
tion, they are not perfect (Briggs 2005). If TK and indigenous soil and water conser-
vation (ISWC) were truly effective, there would not be a problem of food shortages
and widespread land degradation (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Reijntjes et al. 1992).
Perhaps a major disservice to TK has been its romanticization, a view that idealizes
that TK is basically “good” and should be preserved and used as it is without point-
ing out its major drawbacks that can be used as the entry/opportunity points to lever-
aging the SK. The fundamental difficulty in integrating TK stems from the limited
understanding of its nature; the limited literature on TK is often used by scholars
largely of explicit SK background that use the scientific method to falsely judge the
TK that is largely tacit as being shallow. Trying to analyze and validate TK systems
by using external (scientific) criteria carries the risk of distorting such systems in the
process (Briggs 2005). This is a typical case of the accuser being the judge whereby
scientists use the scientific method and that glaringly lack the appropriate tools for
extracting tacit TK into literature, causing contradiction, and perhaps explains why
TK is often despised (Berkes 1993).
A value judgment assigned to TK based solely on literature can be misleading.
According to Altieri et al. (1983), Berkes (1993), and Gata (1994), there is a long
tradition of defining TK systems in opposition to SK. The frequent neglect of local
social and cultural priorities further reduces the relevance of scientific surveys and
reports pertaining to land use and management (de la Cruz 2005). Very few stud-
ies make an effort to make distinction between traditional, indigenous, and local
knowledge. Berkes (1993) note that no universal definition is available for TK, and
many terms are used to describe what indigenous people know. The TK in litera-
ture is often used interchangeably with traditional ecological knowledge, indigenous
knowledge, indigenous science, local knowledge, folk knowledge, farmers' knowl-
edge, fishers' knowledge, community knowledge, and rural people's knowledge on
the premise that they have common epistemic ground and there is no difference
among them (Warren 1989; Tick 1993; Ellen et al. 2000; Cools et al. 2003; Adepide
et al. 2004). By this analysis, scholars have instead grossed over the problem; the
fundamental problem lies in failure to recognize that TK is largely tacit and, rather
than explicitly written down, is embodied in the beholder.
“The TK interweaves empirical, spiritual, social and other components. In gen-
eral, by isolating elements from such a holistic worldview one runs the risk of mis-
representing both the elements and the whole” (ICSU 2002). The word “traditional,”
for example, places the emphasis on the transmission of knowledge along a cultural
continuity but might ignore the ability of traditional societies to adapt to chang-
ing circumstances (Briggs 2005). At present, traditional ecological knowledge is
interpreted as a cumulative body of knowledge, practices, and representations that
describes the relationships of living beings with one another and with their physi-
cal environment, which evolved by adaptive processes and has been handed down
through generations by cultural transmission (Berkes et al. 2000). Another widely
used word, “indigenous,” is meant to highlight the autochthonous nature of this
Search WWH ::
Custom Search