The cultural context of biodiversity conservation - Oapen

246
The cultural context of biodiversity conservation
By appealing to the concept of ›distancing‹ as provided by Fabian 96 , Agrawal (2002)
suggests that ethnographic discourse rests upon personal, prolonged interaction with
›the other‹, but ethnographic knowledge interprets the other in terms of spatial and
temporal distance, so that the other's empirical presence turns into his theoretical absence.
The methods of learning firsthand about indigenous knowledge require a shared
time and a shared conception of time between the ›indigenous‹ and the researcher.
And it is in fieldwork that knowledge is first gained, before it becomes reified as indigenous
knowledge. Writing about the research transforms the ›indigenous‹ into a category
that is more conceptual-theoretical then intersubjectively constructed. These critical
insights lead to my concluding claim that scientists should not only widen their
scope towards tenets of other disciplines, but likewise should reflect on the inherent
values and ethics of their own analytical approaches and models of science that serve
as an ideal for enquiry and explanation and consider alternative ways of defining reality
that include pathways between the natural and the cultural realms. The cultural
construction dividing culture and nature, differentiating rationality from spirituality
and the empirical from the symbolic have provided science with its very foundations,
and still remain an everyday reality of scientific thought and practice. In comparison,
an integral concept of reality implies that the material and the spiritual dimensions of
culture are not considered as opposed spheres but rather as non-fragmental extensions
of human society.
Although studies of environmental management have called into question ideas
about the adequacy, universality and superiority of much scientific knowledge, it continues
to be seen widely as the only valid source of knowledge. In her account Nature,
Culture and Biodiversity, Milton (1997) has shown that the segregation of nature and culture
is still inherent to the current conservation worldview. At the same time, authors
like Grenier (1998) assert that all of the precepts of conventional science have been
challenged, including its rationalism, objectivism, reductionism and positivism. To her
it seems that science is changing. Many academics and practitioners are trying to introduce
more holistic concepts to accommodate the interconnectedness of biological,
social and psychological phenomena. Since many scholars regard the artificial segregation
of nature and culture as a major source of most of the world's environmental
problems, Dove (2001) suggests that anthropological insights may interrogate the continued
evolution of thinking about this divide. Despite its common position as recipient
rather than donor discipline, anthropological perceptions offer an option, within
reigning paradigms for understanding the environment, for thinking ›outside the box‹.
Strengthened by its own reflexivity and due to conceptual tools for studying institutions
and ideational systems, anthropology is likely to continue to play an important
role in critiquing and presenting alternatives to conventional thinking about human
environmental relations. In particular, the assessment of indigenous knowledge alongside
scientific criteria will remain a contentious issue.
96 Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other. How Anthropology Makes its Object (1983).