The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

The discursive context
Apart from this broad-based analysis, Berkes underlines the fact that knowledge needs
to be understood in a political context and is even to be approached itself as an »intensely
political matter« (1999: 24). It incorporates notions of differentiation between
local groups and power gradients on local, regional and global levels. This view has
been widely shared and was framed by Purcell in terms of a »key insight of postmodern
thinking« (1998: 268). Dealing with the political dimension, authors like Pottier
conceptualise knowledge itself as power, which implies that »one cannot discuss
knowledge without discussing the economic and political dimensions of its emergence
and use« (2003: 7). This affirmation leads to the claim that any analysis must include
an appreciation of social relations imbued with aspects of power, authority and control
being central to the production and articulation of knowledge. Long assumes that
if we take the view that we are dealing with ›multiple realities‹, potentially conflicting social and normative
interests, and diverse and discontinuous configurations of knowledge, then we must look closely
at the issue of whose interpretations or models [...] prevail over those of other actors [...]. Like power,
knowledge is not simply something that is possessed and accumulated [...]. Nor can it be measured
precisely in terms of some notion of quantity or quality. It emerges out of processes of social interaction
and is essentially a joint product of the encounter and fusion of horizons. It must therefore, like power,
be looked at relationally (1992: 26f.).
Despite the fact that IK is apparently subjected to very diverse interpretations and
conceptual strands, there is a certain convergence in recent anthropological works in
treating it as situated practice rather than a system of shared context-free knowledge.
Following the understanding of McCarthy (1996), who suggests that knowledge itself
is best conceived and studied as culture and may be identified in general terms with
human experience, it can be assumed that knowledge as sets of experiences is not to be
seen as an abstract and coherent entity independent from practice. To a considerable
extent, knowledge related to natural processes is often unconscious and remains implicit.
Embedded in economic modes and social structures, it is partially verbalised but
tends primarily to be transferred through non-verbal demonstration, imitation and repetitive
practice. Thus, it has been proposed to be »bodily knowledge« (Ellen 2003) or
»embodied practice« (Pottier 2003) encoded as a part of doing and recognising in applied
contexts and informal apprenticeship but not formulated in a set of rules. If explicitly
transmitted, it is orally communicated and thus encoded by language. 47 Anthropologists
have demonstrated that in all cultures, knowledge and traditions, beliefs
and myths are subject to a process of re-creation, re-adaptation and renewal. Thereby,
diverse approaches to culture-environment issues have been explored, each adding
different aspects to an understanding of the system as a whole. These include knowledge
systems of the natural environment, resource use practices, spatial land use patterns,
social organisation, common property management systems, as well as worldviews
and spiritual systems influencing human-nature interaction (Nakashima 1998: 9).
47 For a discussion pertaining to the central role of language in encoding and transmitting indigenous
knowledge, consider Maffi (2001).
93