The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

Local expressions of indigenous knowledge
To summarise the last part of the context of meaning, I have sought to show that humans
use symbols as a means of expressing their ideas. Most centrally, it has been illustrated
that economic modes of involvement with the physical environment are to be seen as
an expression of social relations and cultural values. Among the Q'eqchi', the material
and the symbolic dimensions of land are perceived as integral aspects of reality. In this
way, land embodies culture in both senses of the term: as a site of production in terms
of subsistence farming and a site of production in terms of cultural meanings and
identity through associations with the local landscape. This even operates within the
boundaries of the individual psyche (Wilson 1995: 319). The sitedness of belonging, as
Lovell (1999) writes, is constantly re-enacted in order to transcend the vagaries of
migration, of movement and of existential uncertainties. The close relationship between
villagers and the landscape anchors community identity and strengthens social
relations within the villages. Collectively practised rituals are not only performed to
strengthen these ties but also to contribute to the reduction of insecurity and to cope
with times of transition or crisis. In particular, they play a decisive role in transmitting
behavioural habits of practice and attitudes of mind to succeeding generations.
Through the ritual practice the communities constantly create and recreate their culture
in order to adjust to processes of change and cyclically repeat »collective dramatizations
as a way of expressing and renewing their identity« (Galicia Silva 2001: 304).
However, the human-environment relationship is essentially dynamic, it develops
through the constant interaction between people and the material world and the symbolic
universe of the human mind. It is thus a process of creation and adaptation that
also includes the abandonment of practices and beliefs. By applying to Wilson (1993),
who argues in his article Anchored Communities. Identity and History of the Maya-Q'eqchi that
social scientists, unlike their informants, are all too ready to dismiss the past and seeks
to inject a more historical and processual dimension into the study of Mayan culture,
the next chapter will turn to the transformative character of indigenous knowledge.
The families we worked with have to deal permanently with changes occurring in their
social and physical environment. These changes derive from many factors and include
historical events, political instabilities, social conflicts and economic changes. A number
of such currents will be approached in the following. In investigative terms, relatively
little attention has been paid so far to the process of diffusion and ways of imparting
local knowledge. This fact underlines the view that any understanding should
be situated in the larger context of the social space in which the farmers and their
families are living and coping with conditions brought about by processes of change.
In particular, patterns of knowledge dissemination are influenced by broader socioeconomic
conditions and historical developments and thus have to be positioned in a
social setting that is predominantly in a state of cultural transition.
197