The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

106
The cultural context of biodiversity conservation
The key is to provide both knowledge systems with more opportunities in which they can inform and
stimulate one another. [...] In order to be effective, the results of scientific knowledge must ultimately
be incorporated into indigenous knowledge systems. [...] The strengths of observation of these indigenous
knowledge systems, however, need to be combined with the experimental method of scientists
(1994: 128).
DeWalt argues that social scientists could become a connecting part of this process of
both mediating between indigenous and scientific knowledge and orienting research
towards accomplishing more socially just and ecologically sustainable systems. It is not
enough to simply engage in post-modernist criticism of industrial society, he contends;
anthropologists should apply their knowledge obtained from studying indigenous
knowledge systems to assisting in the transfer of these knowledges to other similar
circumstances and situations. As they are coming from the society and culture of
scientists but concurrently identify with or focus on the needs and goals of the people
they study, social scientist should better learn to speak the languages of both natural
scientists and the people on whom development efforts are focused (1994: 128f.).
Likewise, Antweiler (1998) positions anthropological knowledge between the scientific
and indigenous perspectives. With reference to Turner 61, he mentions anthropologists'
›interculturality‹ and their status as liminal personae, which may lend them a
certain aptitude for reflecting and integrating both ways of knowing. Their role as mediating
agents translating cultural knowledge and uncovering the inherent ethnocentrism
of science is also referred to by Kalland (2003). He argues that anthropologists
may contribute in a twofold manner. First, they can provide a linkage between the two
distinct knowledge regimes. Secondly, as resource management is first of all a question
of social relations and not a relationship between people and nature, they may contribute
in designing and monitoring management institutions. Taking into account that
›social engineering‹ seldom works as intended, he argues, monitoring is essential. Here,
anthropologists function »not necessarily as advocates and interpreters of exotic cultures,
but as mediators between two knowledge systems, the local/practical versus the
scientific/legalistic« (2003: 173). Though they have made important contributions as
to the presentation of local knowledge, he argues, anthropologists should rid their
analyses of the »apologetic romanticism« often found in their studies: »Ideally, we
should use the same critical standards when analysing other people's knowledge systems
as when we analyse our own culture« (2003: 173). Although alternative worldviews
might be important sources of inspiration and make it possible to reflect on
one's own understanding of the world, Kalland further claims that knowledge alone,
whether scientific or local, is insufficient to secure the sustainable use of natural resources.
Thus, he argues elsewhere, both knowledge traditions will benefit from a dialogue.
Science is facing a problem with its narrow focus on one-dimensional causalities
and often lacks the empirical data it needs. In contrast, local paradigms face limita-
61 Victor Turner, The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure (1969).