The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

The discursive context
3.4.3 The symbolic dimension - the context of meaning
By drawing on case studies on human interaction with nature, anthropologists have
increasingly placed special emphasis on the significance of symbolically motivated criteria
within indigenous knowledge and natural resource management systems. They
underline the crucial role of cultural and religious values that are highly variable, difficult
to quantify and often contrast with values underlying scientific approaches that
until recently have dominated conservation thinking (Laird 2000: 356). In the present
context, by referring to the symbolic dimension of IK, emphasis is placed on cultural
belief systems and related cosmological principles as determining factors in human
behaviour and important forms of knowledge in themselves. As experiences of the
natural world often remain »wordless« (Weber Nicholsen 2002: 12), an appropriate
way of exploring this unspoken sphere involves the analysis of symbolic expressions.
Interest in the relationship between symbols and socio-cultural systems has long
been a domain of anthropological study of symbolism. In his essays compiled in The
Interpretation of Cultures, Geertz defines the term symbol as »any object, act, event, quality,
or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception – the conception is the symbol's
›meaning‹«. He considers symbols as »tangible formulations of notions, abstractions
from experience fixed in perceptible forms, concrete embodiments of ideas, attitudes,
judgments, longings or beliefs« (1975: 91). Following this understanding, the
construction, apprehension and use of symbolic forms are to be seen as any other social
event or cultural act developed within a given culture. In particular, the symbolic
realm becomes evident in religious systems that are made up of »a cluster of sacred
symbols, woven into some sort of ordered whole« and for those who are committed
to such a religious system, it »seems to mediate genuine knowledge, knowledge of the
essential conditions in term of which life must, of necessity, be lived« (1975: 129). In
view of attempts to approach how religions generate worldviews and ethics that underlie
fundamental attitudes and values of different cultures and societies, he asserts
that the notion »that religion tunes human actions to an envisaged cosmic order and
projects images of cosmic order onto the plane of human experience is hardly novel.
But it is hardly investigated either, so that we have very little idea of how, in empirical
terms, this miracle is accomplished« (1975: 90). Following the influential work of
Geertz, many anthropologists began to incorporate indigenous cosmological concepts
in their ethnographic studies. With the growing attention on ecological concerns since
the 1970s, the study of indigenous religions and perceptions of the natural world as a
source of symbols has been increasingly approached by scholars engaged in the field
of symbolic ecology. Contributions emerging from this field are characterised by an integrative
approach that does not oppose secular aspects of human life from distinct patterns
of interpretation anchored in specific worldviews.
the accounts by Arizpe et al. (1996) and Hellier et al. (1999). For methodological specificities in ethnoscientific
research and its application to conservation, see Nazarea (1998) and Slikkerveer (2000).
97