Agriculture and Human Values 19: 225237, 2002. 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Theoretical streams in Marginalized Peoples Knowledge(s): asystems, and Subaltern Knowledge(s)

Brij Kothari
Ravi J. Matthai Center for Educational Innovation, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

Systems,

Accepted in revised form December 10, 2001

Abstract. Two distinct theoretical streams owing in the investigation, documentation, and dissemination of Marginalized Peoples Knowledge(s) (MPK) are identied and a third suggested. Systems thinking, which originally coined the term Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), continues to predominate the growing interdisciplinary interest in MPK. This approach has tended to view knowledge or its production based on systemic principles. The asystems approach challenges the usefulness of MPK as a systems construct. Its central proposition is that MPK does not always represent a coherent system of knowledge with underlying principles. Asystemists tend to prefer the term Local Knowledge (LK) and approach the subject from very different, even opposing, epistemological assumptions. Although both the systems and asystems research streams are often concerned with power, an in-depth exploration of power-issues is not inevitably integral to either approach. A third Subaltern Knowledge(s) (SK) perspective is suggested. The SK term embodies a central condition of many LKs vis--vis the scientic/Western knowledge establishment that of being marginalized but resisting or with the potential to resist this process. More benign terms in literature (IK, LK, Rural Peoples Knowledge (RPK), etc.) fail to make this condition explicit. Such a conceptual recasting overtly invites a consideration of the intertwined nature of power and knowledge in the exploration of MPK. Keywords: Indigenous, Knowledge, Local, Power, Subaltern Brij Kothari is an Associate Professor at the Ravi J. Matthai Center for Educational Innovation, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. This article is based on his doctoral dissertation at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, which focused on the conservation of indigenous peoples knowledge in six Quichua communities of Andean Ecuador with a knowledge-power perspective.

Introduction Cultural anthropologists were some of the earliest 20th century scholars to value and explore local peoples knowledge in-depth (e.g., de Schlippe, 1956; Conklin, 1954).1 For the development community, literature and general interest in Marginalized Peoples Knowledge (MPK) has grown exponentially since the publication of the rst book-length collection of essays that examined the relationship between Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and development (Brokensha et al., 1980). Marginalized is used in the Gramscian sense to qualify peoples who never quite fully accept their condition. Thus, a resistance or a potential for resistance is implied.2 Several interrelated factors are responsible for the surge in research on MPK. In part, it is the result of a welcome shift in the attitudes of many social and natural scientists towards indigenous/rural peoples and their knowledge (Slikkerveer, 1989; Warren, 1989). Another factor in the

changing academic climate is the relative humbling of the Western scientic enterprise as a whole, including many scientists3 trained in Western traditions, caused by half a century of failed development programs. A growing number of scientists today acknowledge the validity (even if primarily from the Western scientic perspective) of many indigenous practices, practices that were earlier dismissed as regressive, ignorant, or non-scientic. An attitudinal shift about indigenous/rural peoples and their knowledge has brought about an institutionalization of IK research. The establishment of a Center for Indigenous Knowledge for Agriculture and Rural Development (CIKARD) at Iowa State University contributed to the institutional interest in IK research worldwide. It was followed by the emergence of a journal (Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor (IKDM)), an internet list (INDKNOW), a bibliographic database (Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge Systems (INDAKS); see

226

B RIJ KOTHARI

Slikkerveer, 1995), and numerous national, regional, international, and non-governmental (e.g., Honey Bee Network, Gupta et al., 1996) centers of IK research (see the numerous contributors to Warren et al., 1995: 426479). Thus, in the two decades following Brokensha et al.s (1980) seminal work, the IK buzz can be heard ubiquitously in international development circles. Despite the systematic institutionalization, the conceptual boundaries of MPK are still very much evolving. If there is some intuitive consensus on the varieties of knowledge(s) that the term connotes, there is much less agreement on the term itself, its denitions, underlying assumptions, and theoretical underpinnings. Undeniably, the literature on the concept of MPK is best harvested with the keyword(s) Indigenous Knowledge. But that is more a reection of the institutionalization of IK rather than a universally unproblematic acceptance of the term among theorists. Hence, for many who use the term IK, it is either due to the lack of a better alternative or perhaps due to a resignation in the face of widespread usage. There is no dearth of competing labels for MPK. So whats in a name?, one might ask. Whether MPK is called: IK, Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK), Rural Peoples Knowledge (RPK), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Local Knowledge (LK), Traditional Knowledge (TK), or by any other name, does it make a difference? It does (Cashman, 1991). As will be argued in this article, the term not only reects, but also enables, expands, or limits the domain of theoretical possibilities that one can impute to the concept. It implies certain assumptions and suggests specic research approaches. It emphasizes or deemphasizes the peculiar conditions under which these knowledges are generated. Above all, it has implications for research and action. Of the many terms suggested in the literature for the concept of MPK, two indigenous and local have gained relatively more currency. McCorkle (1989) documents that a consensus had emerged from two conferences on MPK to use LK as the best term to capture all such phenomena and to avoid the confusions and pejorative connotations. It is asserted here that these and other terms that regularly surface in literature do not capture what is often (but not always) a fundamentally marginalized condition of LKs, but not without the possibility of resistance. This understanding of the tension between marginalization and resistence is informed by Gramscis notion of a perpetual struggle between hegemony and counterhegemony and his call for greater focus on this aspect of the conditions of subaltern classes. Marginalization, tension, and resistance manifest both within and across the local epistemic domain. Thus, it is

suggested that a characterization of MPK as subaltern would help us better understand the condition that seems most in common about these knowledges vis--vis the hegemonic character of Western scientic knowledge(s). By renaming MPK as Subaltern Knowledge(s) (SK), their marginalized condition is not only situated at the center of the theoretical debate, it also calls for research in this area as a praxis of resistance and empowerment (Lather, 1986). The study of SK is overtly and necessarily political in exactly the opposite way in which science, when it invalidates LK, is political. The twin objective of this article is a) to identify and examine the epistemological underpinnings of theoretical currents in research on MPK; and b) to suggest a reconceptualization of MPK as SK. Due to the fact that the terms traditional, indigenous, local, and so on are frequently used interchangeably (Heyd, 1995), it is confusing to associate them exclusively with any particular theoretical current. However, specic terms do predominate in certain currents. For analytical purposes, two theoretical currents can be identied in MPK research: i) the IK Systems approach (IKS) and ii) what will be called here as, the Asystems Local Knowledge(s) approach (ALK).4 With this semantic distinction, I do not wish to suggest the existence of two mutually exclusive strands that do not share overlapping conceptual boundaries. Rather, each by its unique emphasis prioritizes a range of approaches towards research, documentation, and dissemination of MPK. The principal motivation to recast the knowledge(s) that concerns us here as subaltern, is to steer MPK research more towards an empowering praxis and away from, what Thrupp (1989) has aptly called, scientized packaging.

Indigenous Knowledge Systems approach Overwhelmingly, most literature on MPK has been generated in a systems framework. IK is the preferred term used in this body of literature and this land of knowledge is conceptualized as a system. Many of the foremost exponents of the systems framework are represented in the works edited by Brokensha et al. (1980), Warren et al. (1989), Warren (1991b), Warren et al. (1995). Together, they have contributed enormously to establishing the legitimacy of IK. They have changed the negative biases of researchers trained in Euro-American traditions toward IK, promoted and institutionalized IKS research, and forged the links between IK and international development.

T HEORETICAL STREAMS IN MPK: S YSTEMS , ASYSTEMS , AND S UBALTERN K NOWLEDGE ( S )

227

A critical look at denitions What are IK and IKS according to the systems perspective? Why is IK conceptualized as a system? While the rst question has been addressed in the several denitions of IK and/or IKS that can be gleaned from Warren et al. (1995) and other sources, the second question is raised much less frequently. According to Warren and McKiernan (1995: 426):5 Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is local knowledge knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society. This is in contrast to the international knowledge system generated through the global network of universities and research institutes . . . By documenting these [IK] systems, we can compare and contrast them with the international knowledge systems. There are at least three central assumptions in the above denition that have deeply inuenced other reformulations: a) IK can be thought of as a system; b) IK is unique to a given culture; c) IK and scientic knowledge can be dichotomized (and therefore contrasted and compared). Indigenous Knowledge Systems gures in the titles of many of the major works such as Brokensha et al. (1980), Warren et al. (1989), Warren (1991b), and Warren et al. (1995). But a conceptualization of IK as a system remains unclear. Has the IKS construct, like the use of the word indigenous, become a convention initiated by Brokensha et al. (1980) and established by subsequent works? Perhaps, that is the case since systems constructs of IK are more commonplace than their explication. Rling and Engel (1989; see also Rling, 1992) provide a rare window into systems thinking when they discuss the interface between the Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) and IKS. IK as systems stems from a view that IKS are consistent and coherent sets of cognitions and technologies, including their underlying cosmologies which have slowly evolved by trial and error of generations of farmers who had to live by the results (Rling and Engel, 1989: 102). At the heart of a knowledgesystems framework is a particular view of knowledge it is unitary, cumulative, denable, delimitable, evenly distributed, extractable, and easily incorporated into other knowledge systems (Thompson and Scoones, 1994). An IKS would thus be in a relative state of synergy when the actors (local people) can be said to contribute to this singular body or stock of IK. This view of knowledge is in stark contrast from the one adhered to by asystems thinking (discussed in the

next section) for which knowledge is multilayered, fragmentary, diffuse, not unitary and not systematized (Thompson and Scoones, 1994). Leeuwis et al. (1990: 2021) contend that: [The knowledge systems approach] fails to grasp the essential dynamics and complexities of knowledge processes and recomends instead the development of a theoretical approach based on an actor-oriented rather than a systems perspective . . . knowledge processes are embedded in social processes that involve aspects of power, authority, and legitimation; and they are as likely to reect and contribute to conict among social groups as they are to lead to the establishment of common perceptions and interests. The systems concept creeps into most denitions of IK as corroborated by the ones cited in this paper (also see the denitions by McClure, 1989: 1; and Slikkerveer, 1995: 513514). In this and other ways, Flavier et al.s (1995: 479) denition parallels the one by Warren and McKiernan quoted earlier. Both denitions draw attention to the second recurring assumption that refers to the uniqueness of IK to a given culture. It is a common theme that appears in IKS discourse but needs critical examination. The idea can be related to systems thinking, which, by calling IK a system, suggests the notion of closure or boundary and by extension, uniqueness. But how unique is the knowledge of a given culture? Most indigenous cultures have historically always been in contact with other indigenous and/or Western cultures. Therefore, IK is shaped as much by a constant cross-fertilization and exchange of ideas between communities and cultures as it is by strictly local dynamism. Howes and Chambers (1980: 325) made this point early on in the debate: . . . at any time the knowledge available to people is the outcome of processes of transmission and generation which have occurred both within and beyond the local environment. Assimilation of outside knowledge, and synthesis and hybridization with existing knowledge, are continuing processes. Although the uniqueness of IK to a given culture does not necessarily imply that there is internal consensus or that everybody who belongs to the culture shares the same knowledge base for decision-making, the term is misleading. It does little to characterize the intra-cultural variation of knowledge(s) (Boster, 1986) and is at odds to account for inter-cultural inuences that would tend to make IK less unique. The use of indigenous, instituted principally by the systems approach, is also problematic from a

228

B RIJ KOTHARI

theoretical standpoint. IK primarily suggests a reference to the knowledge of indigenous peoples. It is clear from the broad usage of the term in the literature that IK embraces the knowledge(s) of non-indigenous rural peoples, farmers, nomadic tribes, pastoralists, and so on. According to Bebbington (1991: 15), to call it indigenous is, following convention, a reference to the fact that it is the knowledge of peasant farmers (italics added). Clearly, the convention of calling certain knowledge(s) as indigenous when the reference includes many non-indigenous peoples knowledge(s) is confusing. From an epistemological perspective, there is practically no knowledge that is strictly indigenous, i.e., not introduced directly or indirectly . . . into a particular region or environment from outside (Webster, 1986). A combination of emic and etic inuences have always shaped the generation of knowledge in any given culture (McCorkle, 1989). While the study of origins can certainly be a fascinating area of study, the accent of MPK research is more on the here and now, i.e., knowledge(s) and practices that enable indigenous and rural peoples to adapt to change continually. Partly as a result of the conceptual ambiguity shrouding the term indigenous, a clear denition of IK or IKS has been less forthcoming than their systematic investigation. The contributors to Brokensha et al. (1980) shied away from an attempt to dene IKS. The most recent exploration of the links between IKS and development (Warren et al., 1995) does not skirt the denitional conundrum entirely but falls short of a comprehensive discussion of the underlying presuppositions. Finally, one adds that none of the denitions mentioned so far have presented a view of knowledge as partial, generated by a multiplicity of actors, unevenly distributed, political, or enmeshed in power relations. Feminists have highlighted this view of knowledge. For example, Sachs (1996) draws on Haraways (1988) concept of situated knowledges, to show how rural womens knowledge situated in their everyday work in agriculture differs from urban womens and mens perspectives. By giving voice to womens knowledge, feminists uncover multiple agencies and power relations in local knowledge creation (Feldman and Welsh, 1995). Comparisons of science and IKS The third assumption deals with the indigenous vs. scientic dichotomy apparent in most denitions of IKS. Howes and Chambers (1980: 324) comparison of science and Indigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK), which was made 20 years ago, is still inuential and provocative, although one acknowledges that most scholars today treat this dichotomy as an ideal

type. While recognizing an important similarity that both scientic knowledge and ITK are the result of a more general intellectual process of creating order out of disorder, they posited many differences: the mode of thought in science has a greater ability to break down data presented to the senses and to reassemble it in different ways; the mode of ITK relies exclusively on intuition and evidence directly available to the senses; science is an open system whose adherents are always aware of the possibility of alternative perspectives; ITK is a closed system characterized by a lack of awareness that there may be other ways of regarding the world; science carries with it the possibility of Kuhnian revolutionary change (Kuhn, 1962), i.e., paradigm shifts; changes in ITK can be likened to the detailed working out of relatively minor puzzles within an established paradigm of thought; science and ITK are comparable as systems of classication but the former is generally superior as a system of explanation and prediction and markedly superior in terms of speed of accumulation.

Waldram alleging a Western scientic bias, challenges the claims of sciences superiority in explaining, predicting, and accumulating knowledge speedily (1987). The literature on farmer experimentation and innovation has posed a serious challenge to the view that the mode of IK relies primarily on intuition (e.g., see Biggs and Clay, 1981; Chambers et al., 1989; Rhoades, 1987; Rhoades and Bebbington, 1995). Human beings, whether they are indigenous peoples or scientists, rely on a range of avenues for knowledge generation empirical methods, trial-anderror, serendipity, feelings, intuition, and even spiritual means. To call science an open system and imbue scientists with an innate awareness of alternative perspectives in contrast to IKS, which are closed systems, is deeply problematic. This conception universalizes both scientic and indigenous knowledge processes and can only further the subjugation of indigenous peoples knowledge. As Thompson and Scoones (1994: 59) submit: Knowledge, whether indigenous or scientic, is inclusive in the sense that it is the result of a great many decisions and selective assimilations of previous beliefs, values, ideas, and images, but at the same time exclusive of other possible frames of conceptualization and understanding.

T HEORETICAL STREAMS IN MPK: S YSTEMS , ASYSTEMS , AND S UBALTERN K NOWLEDGE ( S )

229

Both science and IK are constituted by multiple strains of knowledges engaged in power struggles to allow, disallow, and resist certain understandings and create spaces for the generation of only certain types of knowledges. According to this view, the central question may not be how science and IK compare, but to ask, as feminists have shown, how knowledge-power webs exclude, include, invalidate, or systemically marginalize certain understandings (e.g., Harding, 1991; Mohanty, 1991; Sachs, 1996; Foucault, 1970; 1980). A comparison of scientic and indigenous knowledge inevitably leads to open/closed, dynamic/static, rational/irrational, and other such suspect dichotomies. Heyd (1995) concludes that the difference between IK and scientic knowledge is not of the fundamental sort. Binary oppositions are indeed not expressions of an objective reality (which is believed to exist) pertaining to different knowledge systems, but involve discursive acts of power of one system over another. Fairheads critique makes a general comment on such comparative frameworks (1992: 201): I consider the representations of difference between researcher (science) and farmer (ITK) according to their knowledge as a similar mythology of difference in which complementarity (science-researcher and ITK-farmer) is created between the ideologically created entities, but in a hierarchical way (science/researcher > ITK-farmer). It leads us to think that the farmer complements the scientist, and not vice-versa. Kloppenburg (1991) has forcefully argued that both science and LK represent partial and distinct ways of understanding phenomena. Neither can elucidate alone what they can in conversation. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and to think that only LK complements science or that science has a virtual monopoly on truth, is grossly fallacious. Most IKS research does not ignore or invalidate LK, but because a Cartesian reductionism usually informs it, it is unable to shake off the sacred principle of mobility (e.g., Brokensha et al., 1980; Warren et al., 1995). The systems approach recognizes that IK is context-determined but frequently believes that it is easily removed, appropriately reconstructed, and reintroduced into the original culture (or other cultures). But as Kloppenburg points out, the fact that a difference between local and scientic knowledge should now exist is rather ironic since science, in fact, grew out of local ways of knowing. Indeed, for a small but growing number of scholars, a way out of the dichotomous trap is to question the scientic/indigenous epistemological divide itself. Recently the nature of the dichotomy

and whether it should exist at all has been vigorously debated among others by Kloppenburg (1991), Thompson and Scoones (1994), Agrawal (1995), Heyd (1995), Turnbull (1993), Waldram (1987), and Fairhead (1992). Their general consensus seems to be that a division between science and IK on epistemic and qualitative (better/worse) grounds is highly problematic. For Agrawal (1995), the divide needs to be dismantled altogether.

Asystems Local Knowledge(s) approach Although indigenous knowledge is a term institutionalized by systems thinking, two other terms, Local Knowledge (LK) (e.g., Hobart, 1993 and contributors; Thrupp, 1989; Turnbull, 1993; McCorkle, 1989), and Rural Peoples Knowledge (RPK) (e.g., Bebbington, 1993; Thompson and Scoones, 1994) did gain some currency. It is also no coincidence that scholars who challenge the systems conceptualization of MPK, in other words those who take the ALK approach, are less comfortable with indigenous as a term and frequently in search of alternatives. Both, LK and RPK have been preferred over IK because: a) they avoid negative connotations associated with indigenous (i.e., traditional, static, unscientic, backward, native, etc.), and b) they are more encompassing of the plurality of peoples whose knowledge is of concern. Local is preferred here over RPK, primarily because it emphasizes the situatedness of knowledge. Local connotes the context-specicity of knowledge. In contrast, RPK is a narrower term because it alludes to the knowledge of rural people specically and is therefore problematic. Can the knowledge of those who migrated from rural to urban areas continue to be called RPK? Rural further connotes agricultural peoples and much less indigenous, tribal, or nomadic peoples. Local does not a priori contrast two systems scientic and indigenous/rural. In fact, it even enables the possibility of an equitable epistemological framework in which science is also seen as one among a variety of LKs (Turnbull, 1993). The conceptual boundaries of LK are anything but xed, and it may expand to accommodate, not only all subjugated knowledges irrespective of its geographic location, but all knowledge as an instance of the local (Turnbull, 1993). Such a theoretical position has already been developed in feminist scholarship as situated knowledge (e.g., Haraway, 1988) and the Sociology of Scientic Knowledge (e.g., Ophir and Shapin, 1991; Hacking, 1992; Knorr-Cetina, 1981). However, in this article, LK is viewed as separate from the knowledge generated by formal science and scientists. It refers to the knowledge(s) of rural and

230

B RIJ KOTHARI

indigenous peoples not only in developing countries but also in the developed world. An ALK approach, with a focus on agricultural knowledge, is discussed by the contributors to Hobart (1993). In common with systems thinking, they challenge the negative attitudes of scientists towards LKs, recognize the agency of local peoples in knowledge and technology generation, argue that their knowledge and contribution has been highly undervalued and ignored by the Western scientic community, and see LK processes as inherently dynamic (i.e., not as static obstacles to rational progress). The main difference is that the proponents of the ALK approach treat knowledge not as some abstract conceptual system, but as situated practices. They also take issue with the idea that such practices form systems of indigenous knowledge (Hobart, 1993: 4). Richards (1993) thinks of LK as performance-knowledge. By this he means that farmers make sequential adjustment to unpredictable conditions, and their knowledge is the product of a set of improvisational capacities called forth by the needs of the moment. Knowledge is thus the dexterity or skills acquired from practice, experience, and a history of past and present performance under familiar if not similar conditions. However, academic bystanders construction of this performance into a satisfyingly complete, free-standing indigenous agricultural knowledge system, is according to Richards (1993: 62), a fallacy of misplaced abstraction: the making of intellectual mysteries out of situations and activities whose practical import is obvious to all but the observer. Furthermore, he contends that, since conventional agricultural research methodologies have the luxury to be conducted in protected environments that are out of time and out of place, it is perhaps understandable that formal researchers are often in search of combinatorial logic whether in the research station or when observing a farmers performance. However, this methodological training makes them ill-prepared to deal with the issues of a farmers performance that only become apparent in time and in place under difcult conditions. Drawing upon his research in the Dogon villages of Mali, van Beek (1993) also paints an asystems picture of LK as sets of practices, rather than a formal system of shared knowledge. A notably common characteristic of a variety of LK is that differences and inconsistencies in individual practices are not usually resolved by a process of invalidation but by one of accommodation. The arbiter of what works and that is usually not expressed as a truth claim is time. If a practice works, given enough time and through a process of adoption and verication by other peoples, it will probably shape the

local history of practices. The local history of practice itself will, however, be less likely to be wiped out by a set of aberrant practices. A syncretic model of LK processes is thus more helpful than Kuhns model of inconsistencies in normal science logically leading to a revolution in thinking. Cohen (1993: 37) draws from Clifford Geertzs (1983) use of LK to highlight a communitys cognitive diversity. He questions the existence of a putative indigenous knowledge that contrasts with expert and extraneous knowledge. Like the Dogon, the Whalsay people with whom Cohen was involved are content to concede the plausibility of alternatives and would be reticent about claiming dogmatically the status of fact for their points of view.6 Although the knowledge of local peoples is for them highly particularized, to outsiders it can be presented as systematized. Two reasons as to why this might occur are offered by Hobart and Cohen respectively: People may represent what they know as systematic, for instance to express their distinctiveness and to rebuff others claims to expert knowledge (Hobart, 1993: 19). In its formal expression as shared knowledge that is, as a form of knowledge common to members . . . it marks symbolically the communitys boundary with the outside world (Cohen, 1993: 37).

Both reasons suggest how knowledge is presented by the local peoples to the outsider. But surely, LK is seen as a system by the outsider because it is viewed through a systems lens. Resonating with the ALK conceptualization in general, Fairhead (1992) is more direct in drawing attention to the researchers role in the systematization of LK. From the foregoing, it is very clear that two rather polarized views of local peoples knowledge have surfaced in the literature. Obviously, the question is not which is right or wrong but which helps us better approach local peoples creativity, power relations, survival issues, rights, and so on.

The systems or the asystems view? The recurring streams of thought in the systems view of IK and the ALK view are summarized in Table 1. The weakness of a summary such as this is that it straight-jackets scholars of MPK into one of the two mutually exclusive frameworks. Clearly, that is not possible with a lot of literature on MPK. Many authors at least partially straddle both conceptual stirrups even

T HEORETICAL STREAMS IN MPK: S YSTEMS , ASYSTEMS , AND S UBALTERN K NOWLEDGE ( S )

231

Table 1. Systems and asystems approaches compared. Systems view of IKS Coherent, cohesive, consistent, unitary, systematically classied, bodies of commonly shared knowledge Dialectic of theory and practice Context-determined; extractable, incorporable, and understandable outside of the context Knowledge mirrors an objective reality Knowledge resides in the mind, is verbalizable and documentable by the outsider Objective truth claims in cultural logic Mutable mobiles (Kloppenburg, 1991) IKS and SK can be contrasted; qualitative differences between IKS and SK, between indigenous people and scientists exist Asystems view of Local Knowledge(s) Particularized, fragmented, hypothetical, diffuse sets of varied practices within a common framework Dialectic of practice with a history of practice Context-bound; an understanding is inseparable from the social, political, economic, ecological, and environmental Knowledge is socially constructed Knowledge is bound up with action; it is tacit; difcult to access by the outsider Syncretic accommodation Mutable immobiles More and more generalized differences between LK and scientic knowledge are difcult to maintain

if the weight of their arguments may fall into systems or asystems constructs. Hence, the summary should be treated only in a heuristic sense. A more fundamental epistemological concern regarding the systems or asystems conceptualizations emerges from the fact that the bulk of literature they draw upon can be said to be loosely related with agriculture. The picture may need reconguration when literature in ethnobotany is considered. Brent Berlins scholarship, for instance, presents very strong arguments in favor of an underlying classicatory coherence to the ethnobotanical knowledge of the local peoples he drew upon (Berlin, 1992; Berlin et al. 1974). This does not rule out that ethnobotanical knowledge could at the same time be very particularistic and fragmented as the ALK argument would suggest. Neither is it reasonable to deny outright a cultural logic (which is different from the communitys shared cosmovision or what has been called the common framework in the summary table), that may loosely thread the variety of local practices together. A rigid choice between the systems or the asystems view of knowledge could be limiting. As Geertz (1983: 4) put it, a general theory of just about anything social sounds increasingly hollow, and claims to have one megalomanic. A conceptual approach unfettered by the systems/asystems, either/or dichotomy may be more useful in understanding local/indigenous knowledge processes. IK as systems grew out of a reaction of some Western scientists to other Western scientists who had historically ignored or invalidated local

peoples knowledge. In the process IK may have been over-systematized, partly as a way to sell it to scientists and also because its development has been inuenced by a conception of knowledge deeply rooted in positivism. LK as asystems-like is also a reaction, a reaction to IKS thinking. While it has presented a provocative critique of the assumptions underlying systems thinking, it has tended to deny a cognitive pattern linking sets of fragmented local practices. The possibility that in many cultures agricultural knowledge may be driven more by skills, practices, and practical procedures7 but that a cultural logic may underlie the motley of ethnobotanical practices is important to consider. The ALK view presented here is really an asystems view of agricultural LK. Nevertheless, it has made a signicant contribution by bringing a much needed analysis of difference to the study of LKs (Thompson and Scoones 1994).8

Science as varieties of Local Knowledge(s) If IKS literature has assumed the existence of a very sharp line dividing the indigenous and the scientic, ALK thinking has done much to smudge it by questioning many of the supposedly fundamental differences. But perhaps more than any other theoretical stream, the Sociology of Scientic Knowledge (SSK) has questioned the ontological nature of this divide. Recently, drawing from developments in SSK, Turnbull (1993: 30) has argued that Western contemporary

232

B RIJ KOTHARI

sciences, rather than being taken as denitional of knowledge, rationality or objectivity, should be treated as varieties of such knowledge systems . . . . A characteristic that they all share is their localness. The SSK has fundamentally reinterpreted the practice of science, demythifying the enterprise as a whole. The resulting perspective made it possible to see the epistemic parallels between scientists/science and local peoples/LK. Kloppenburg (1991) points out that the main insight of the SSK (which actually represents a multiplicity of theories, methodologies, and analytical techniques), is that the diverse elements that contribute to scientic knowledge are no less subject to social inuences than are the products of any other way of knowing. Knowledge is constructive rather than descriptive (Knorr-Cetina, 1981). The following points follow from this (excerpted from Kloppenburg, 1991): facts in science are not truth statements of reality but socially contingent constructions; science is not the only legitimate way of knowing; science excludes other ways to generate knowledge; knowledge claims borne outside the scientic establishment cannot be summarily dismissed as nonscientic because science is not privileged to know nature.

no necessary relationship to one another (Clarke and Fujimura, 1992; Law, 1991; Pickering, 1992). Although the SSK has proposed a theoretical framework putting all knowledges on epistemological par, the sociologists have not applied themselves to the transformative potential inherent in such a position (Kloppenburg, 1991). Knowledge is not only socially contingent, it is also politically contingent. How has the political informed MPK research? How has it empowered the local people? The praxis of Subaltern Knowledge(s) The rationale for calling MPK research as a praxis of SK is to explicitly: a) situate power at the center of the epistemological debate; b) recognize the heterogeneity of knowledges; and c) call for a praxis of empowerment (through action research) versus just research. ALK thinking crystallizes around the plurality of LK. It is also informed periodically by the importance of power in knowledge processes and sometimes calls for praxis. A praxis of SK differs in that it not only brings to the fore an analysis of the embeddedness of power and domination in knowledge processes (Foucault, 1982) but actively searches, even creates transformative spaces. Its agenda is overtly political. Its emphasis is on altering power relations in a way that empowers the subaltern via their own knowledge(s) and through strategically employing the knowledge of others to their own advantage. This change can be catalyzed through a Freirian idea of conscientization rooted in the local (Freire, 1970). Thus, orthodox MPK research lacking a subaltern perspective, can and often does reproduce epistemological marginalization of SK. The challenge is to engage in a praxis that may contribute to local peoples understanding of how practice reproduces the system [of domination], and how the system may be changed by practice (Ortner, 1984: 154). Nancy Naples and Carolyn Sachs (2000) provide a good overview of how feminist literature depends on standpoint theoretical frameworks and self-reection as methodological tools to counter the reproduction of power relations in ethnographical eldwork. These self-reexive techniques can be combined usefully with collaborative-reection with the subaltern, as in participatory action research traditions, to search for empowering knowledge processes.

One can liken many of the practices of science to practices in the generation of LK. Turnbull (1993) draws upon the theoretical contributions in the SSK to make the following points: scientists practicing in the real world often do not deduce their explanations from universal laws but rather make do with rules of thumb derived from the way the phenomena present themselves in the operation of instruments and devices (Cartwright, 1983); tacit knowledge plays an important role in scientic practice (Cambrosio and Keating, 1988; Collins, 1985; Polanyi, 1958); the practice of science is manifested as craft skills and collective work (Star, 1990; Young, 1977, 1979, 1985); all knowledge is local (Ophir and Shapin, 1991); knowledge is produced in mutual interaction that relies on the presence of other human beings on a direct, face-to-face basis (Thrift, 1985); knowledge is produced in contingent, site, discipline or culture specic circumstances (Hacking, 1992; Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Rouse, 1987); scientic culture is deeply heterogeneous and made up of all sorts of bits and pieces that stand in

T HEORETICAL STREAMS IN MPK: S YSTEMS , ASYSTEMS , AND S UBALTERN K NOWLEDGE ( S )

233

Renaming MPK With so many terms for MPK already having been suggested in the literature and no apparent consensus, the last thing one wishes is to concoct yet another. Still, that is precisely what is being suggested here. Indigenous can invoke many interrelated pejorative connotations such as native, traditional, static, uncivilized, irrational, and unscientic. Local knowledge stresses the main point of being context-specic and is more accommodating of the global variety of people expressing and generating such knowledge than indigenous implies (OBrien and Flora, 1992). However, both these and other terms mentioned earlier serve to contrast the scientic with the indigenous on dubious, epistemologically universalized grounds. The terms promote at best only an indirect consideration of differences from a power perspective. The major differences between Western science and other knowledge systems lies in the question of power (Turnbull, 1993). This essential difference is embodied, at least semantically, in SK. Kloppenburg illustrates this eloquently: . . . today it is not the herbalist but the biochemist, not the midwife but the obstetrician, not the craftsperson but the engineer, not the campesino but the agronomist who dominates knowledge production and deployment. What we all know as scientic knowledge has attained virtually undisputed intellectual hegemony, while local knowledge has been pushed to the epistemic peripheries, its utility so poorly recognized that we have difculty even labeling it. Until recently, the scientic method was held to be not just a different, and not just a better, but the best and the only consistent way of producing reliable knowledge in the world. It is precisely this epistemic uniqueness that has now been so powerfully challenged (Kloppenburg 1991: 529). Formal MPK research usually occurs at the interface of two drastically different systems. Even though viewing MPK as SK is merely a semantic step, it situates power at the center. A praxis of SK encourages the researcher to seek transformative possibilities in theory, methodology, and epistemology, possibilities that are not overtly suggested by presumably neutral labels. Obviously, the transformative potential of labels can be over-stated if they do not also build on transformative research agendas. The challenge for the researchers of SK is not only to legitimize what was previously delegitimized, but also, to move towards an analytical approach that promotes shared conversations among partial perspectives (Kloppenburg, 1991). For that, we cannot be involved fruitfully in SK research without rst understanding how,

despite our best intentions, we could be participating in the marginalization of these very same knowledges. The question then is, whether our research will indeed contribute to further subjugation or actually work as a catalyst for redressing the power imbalance that exists between different kinds of knowledge. Thinking of MPK as SK forces us to ask that question.

Redressing power imbalances: Need for cross-cultural sharing Clearly, it is a daunting if not impossible task to delineate the dos and donts of an SK praxis. Every SK context is constituted by its unique and complex web of power relations, so prescriptive approaches to SK research are doomed to failure. Still, if one sweeping observation can be permitted about the state of work on MPK, it is simply, that the bulk of the global output of MPK research including books, dissertations, articles, computer databases, reports, manuscripts and so on is inaccessible to the very people from whom this knowledge comes. Inaccessibility may be in terms of language, format, and content. If we are to put in place a praxis for SK, it is absolutely vital that we spawn intense cross-cultural sharing, not as an after-thought, but something that is integral to the MPK research enterprise. The work of the Honeybee Network in India is a good example of the SK approach (Gupta et al., 1995), whereby recognition, benet sharing, and respect for local peoples knowledge is as central to the praxis as any search for knowledge benecial to the larger society. At minimum, cross-cultural sharing would involve cross-cultural communication of output. As Gupta et al. (1995) discuss, communication at the grassroots is inseparable from power. It can be used to reproduce and further power inequities or to reduce existing inequities between the outsider and the local people and also inequities within the local context. Fundacin Sabidura Indgena and Kothari (1997) share another example of what we think is an attempt at an SK approach.9 In this case, the medicinal plant knowledge of Andean campesinos in Ecuador was researched and documented in a book for and with the participation of the local stakeholders. The resulting QuichuaSpanish book (Kothari and UNOCIAE-C, 1993) grappled with the issue of benet sharing, including the accessibility of the campesinos SK among themselves. The immediate academic outputs, including this article, explore through self-reection the subaltern condition of local peoples knowledge, with a view to deconstruct and reconstruct knowledge processes marked by marginalization, resistance, and empowerment. A key element of the deconstruc-

234

B RIJ KOTHARI

tion project is to self-critically examine the relationship of ones own practices with the subaltern condition. Such an examination, for example, led us to a position that the people, whose knowledge we as academics research or benet from, have a fundamental right to share in the benets of research. The outsider is not engaging in noble acts by sharing, but merely following an expected norm of reciprocity. By not sharing knowledge in ways that are justiably empowering, the researcher may well be at risk of furthering a process of marginalization that already exists. Creative researchers will always nd creative ways to share meaningfully the knowledge generated for their own purposes/peers (e.g., dissertations, publications, and so on) and any resulting benets. They may also consider engaging themselves and/or the local people in knowledge generation that may or may not even be linked very directly to the central purpose that brought them to the eld. These approaches, if informed by a subaltern perspective, would prevent us from lapsing into uncritically charitable or feel-good kinds of reciprocity. A subaltern approach expects reciprocity that strengthens supra-local, local, and sublocal resistance to marginalization. For example, in the Ecuador project mentioned, a subaltern framework compelled us to situate our actions and research on campesinos knowledge in: i) the supra-local academia (FSI and Kothari, 1997) and the politics of the Ecuadorian indigenous movement (Kothari, 1996), ii) the local context of the schools and campesino communities of La Esperanza and Angochagua (FSI and Kothari, 1997; Kothari, 1995), and iii) the sub-local gender dynamics of knowledge and power (Kothari, forthcoming). Gender-based privileging of male local knowledge (by the local people and the outsider) is a high priority area in SK praxis. In addition, one might further suggest the intersections of race (or caste as in the Indian context). A large body of feminist literature can be drawn upon to rst understand the complex ways in which womens local knowledge remains invisible or is marginalized and then learn from the creative experiences of womens empowerment through their own knowledge.10 As a rst step in the praxis of SK, translations of any output resulting from peoples knowledge should be obligatorily made available directly to the contributors in their local language.11 Where mere translations could be meaningless, as in the case of many dissertations and books, more people-friendly forms, such as modied texts or audio-visual outputs can be considered. This is no deep insight. Countless authors have voiced similar sentiments. Yet, globally the MPK research enterprise, institutions, and funding bodies have for long ignored this basic require-

ment of an SK perspective. Many other strategies to empower the local people through their own knowledge are context dependent. But rare is the context in which a disadvantaged peoples knowledge is not marginalized. In almost every situation, people can be empowered through genuine access to their own knowledge. Rethinking marginalized peoples knowledges in the SK perspective is only the beginning of questioning our own role in furthering the oppression, for our benet, or contributing to the empowerment of the local, for mutual benet.

Notes
1. Even earlier, 1930s and onwards, Carl Sauer, the famous geographer at Berkeley, was known for his keen interest in and exploration of local peoples knowledge. The author would like to acknowledge that the article has beneted greatly from this and many other insightful points made by the anonymous reviewers. 2. The original version of this paper had argued that marginalized peoples knowledge should be called Oppressed Local Knowledge(s). I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for arguing that knowledge can be seen as both resistance to oppression and its devaluing as a result of power relationships. Thanks to Amita Baviskar for suggesting a subaltern perspective. IK represents one approach to the study of MPK, but is not necessarily with a subaltern perspective. 3. The term scientist has been used for formal scientists and does not imply that others do not have a scientic temper. 4. In contrast to IK systems research, which draws upon systems constructs, asystems implies an approach that does not see local knowledge as a system. 5. The denition was originally outlined in Warren (1991a) in a paper prepared for the World Bank. 6. In my own research in Ecuador, a campesinos typical reaction to practices of medicinal plants that were incongruent with her/his own was, I dont know, I have never heard of it. It was rarely worded as right or wrong. 7. Even in agriculture, Pawluk et al. (1990) asserts that different land and soil classication systems have evolved among many groups in Africa. 8. An SK perspective is less concerned with whether a systems or an asystems view is adopted per se. What is more at stake is the action driven by the understanding of power/knowledge processes in either views. However, a central commitment to the power/knowledge processes (with a view to empowering the subaltern), arguably, makes the SK view more consonant with the asystems framework. This does not rule out the possibility of a systems approach to the study of SK. 9. The author apologizes for subjecting the readers to a heavy dose of his own work. One begs the readers indulgence on the grounds that the publications by him, mentioned here (including this article), come from his dissertation. The interconnections are, thus, obvious and too tempting to be kept in the margins of the discussion. It also illustrates,

T HEORETICAL STREAMS IN MPK: S YSTEMS , ASYSTEMS , AND S UBALTERN K NOWLEDGE ( S ) perhaps, how a power-knowledge perspective can deeply permeate ones way of looking at local peoples knowledge. 10. A discussion of this very important area is beyond the scope of this article. 11. As I write this, I realize that I am myself in violation of this argument regarding my dissertation. The justication (and somewhat convenient one) was that the academic nature of our expressions may not be meaningful for very many people in the local context. Having ploughed through this article, my revised position is to let local people/academics decide whether what was written was meaningful, and if not, they have the right to make that judgment, which by itself could be an act of empowerment. Fortunately, that mistake committed over ve years ago can still be reversed.

235

References
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientic knowledge. Development and Change 26: 413439. Bebbington, A. (1991). Indigenous agricultural knowledge systems, human interests, and critical analysis: Reections on farmer organization in ecuador. Agriculture and Human Values 18(12): 1424. Bebbington, A. (1993). Rural Peoples Knowledge(s), farmer organizations and rural development: Implications for agricultural research and extension. Network Paper 41, Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension). London: Overseas Development Institute. Berger, P. and T. Luckmann (1972). The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin. Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classication: Principles of Categorization. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Berlin, B., D. Breedlove and P. Raven (1974). Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classication: An Introduction to the Botanical Ethnography of a Mayan-Speaking Community in Highland Chiapas. New York: Academic Press. Biggs, S. D. and E. Clay (1981). Sources of innovation in agricultural technology. World Development 9(4): 321336. Boster, J. S. (1986). Exchange of varieties and information between aguaruna manioc cultivators. American Anthropologist 88: 428436. Brokensha, D., D. M. Warren, and O. Werner (eds.) (1980). Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems and Development. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Cambrosio, A. and P. Keating (1988). Going monoclonal: Art, science and magic in the day-to-day use of hybridoma technology. Social Problems 35: 244260. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cashman, K. (1991). Systems of knowledge as systems of domination: The limitations of established meaning. Agriculture and Human Values 8(12): 4958. Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp (eds.) (1989). Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Clarke, A. E. and J. H. Fujimura (eds.) (1992). The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cohen, A. P. (1993). Segmentary Knowledge(s): A whalsay sketch. In M. Hobart (ed.) An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance (pp. 31-42). London: Routledge. Collins, H. (1985). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientic Practice. London: Sage. Conklin, H. C. (1954). The Relation of Hanuno Culture to the Plant World. Ph.D. dissertation. New Haven: Yale University. de Schlippe, P. (1956). Shifting Cultivation in Africa: The Zande System of Agriculture. London: Routledge. Fairhead, J. (1992). Representing knowledge: The New Farmer in research fashions. In J. Pottier (ed.), Practising Development: Social Science Perspectives (pp. 187204). London: Routledge. Feldman, S. and R. Welsh (1995). Feminist knowledge claims, Local Knowledge(s), and gender divisions of agricultural labor: Constructing a successor science. Rural Sociology 60(1): 2343. Flavier, J. M., A. de Jesus, and C. S. Navarro (1995). The regional program for the promotion of Indigenous Knowledge(s) in Asia. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha (eds.), The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems (pp. 479487). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things. New York: Random House. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 19721977. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword: The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (pp. 208226). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Freire, P. (1970). The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. M. B. Ramos (trans.). New York: Seabury. Fundacin Sabidura Indgena and B. Kothari (1997). Rights to the benets of research: Compensating indigenous peoples for their intellectual contribution. Human Organization 56(2): 110. Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge(s): Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith (trans. and eds.). New York: International Publishers. Gupta, A. K., K. K. Patel, P. G. V. S. Chand, A. R. Pastakia, J. Suthar, S. Shukla, D. Koradiya, V. Chauhan, A. Raval, C. Srinivas, and R. Sinha (1996). Participatory research: Will the koel hatch the crows eggs? In New Frontiers in Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (pp. 209243). Proceedings of the International Seminar on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development, September 914. Cali: CGIAR. Gupta, A. K., K. K. Patel, A. R. Pastakia, and P. G. V. S. Chand. 1995. Building upon local creativity and entrepreneurship in vulnerable environments. In V. Titi and N. Singh (eds.), Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies (pp. 112137). London: Zed Books.

236

B RIJ KOTHARI Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In C. T. Mohanty, A. Russo, and L. Torres (eds.), Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism (pp. 5180). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Naples, N. A. and C. Sachs (2000). Standpoint epistemology and the uses of self-reection in feminist ethnography: Lessons for rural sociology. Rural Sociology 65(2): 194214. OBrien, W. E. and C. Butler Flora (1992). Selling appropriate development vs. selling-out rural communities: Empowerment and control in Indigenous Knowledge(s) discourse. Agriculture and Human Values 9: 95102. Ophir, A. and S. Shapin (1991). The place of knowledge: A methodological survey. Science in Context 4: 321. Ortner, S. B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26(1): 126166. Pawluk, R. R., J. A. Sandor, and J. A. Tabor (1990). The role of indigenous soil knowledge in agricultural development. Soil and Water Conservation 47(4): 298302. Pickering, A. (ed.) (1992). Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rhoades, R. E. (1987). Farmers and experimentation. Discussion Paper 21, Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension). London: Overseas Development Institute. Rhoades, R. E. and A. Bebbington (1995). Farmers who experiment: An untapped resource for agricultural research and development. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha (eds.), The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems (pp. 296307). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Richards, P. (1993). Cultivation: knowledge or performance. In M. Hobart (ed.), An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance (pp. 6178). London: Routledge. Rling, N. (1992). The emergence of knowledge systems thinking: A changing perception of relationships among innovation, knowledge process and conguration. knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of knowledge Transfer and Utilization 5(1): 4264. Rling, N. and P. Engel (1989). IKS and knowledge management: Utilizing Indigenous Knowledge(s) in institutional knowledge systems. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and S. O. Titilola (eds.), Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development, Studies in Technology and Social Change 11 (pp. 101115). Ames: Iowa State University. Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and Power: Towards a Political Philosophy of Science. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Sachs, C. (1996). Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture and Environment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Slikkerveer, L. J. (1989). Changing values and attitudes of social and natural scientists towards indigenous peoples and their knowledge systems. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and S. O. Titilola (eds.), Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development, Studies in Technology and Social Change 11 (pp. 121137). Ames: Iowa State University.

Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (pp. 2964). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575599. Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Heyd, T. (1995). Indigenous Knowledge(s), emancipation and alienation. Knowledge and Policy 8(1): 6373. Hobart, M. (1993). Introduction: The growth of ignorance? In M. Hobart (ed.), An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance (pp. 130). London: Routledge. Howes, M. and R. Chambers (1980). Indigenous Technical Knowledge(s): Analysis, implications, and issues. In D. Brokensha, D. M. Warren, and O. Werner (eds.), Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems and Development (pp. 323 334). Washington, DC: University Press of America. Kloppenburg, J. (1991). Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local Knowledge(s) for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56(4): 519548. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kothari, B. (1995). From oral to written: Documentation of knowledge in Ecuador. Indigenous Knowledge(s) and Development Monitor 3(2): 912. Kothari, B. (1996). Strands of the Ecuadorian Indian movement: The case of FICI and FICAPI in imbabura province. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 21(42): 265291. Kothari, B. (forthcoming). The invisible queen in the plant kingdom: Gender perspectives in ethnobotany. In P. L. Howard (ed.), Women and Plants: Case Studies on Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation. London: Zed Press. Kothari, B. and Unin de Organizaciones y Comunidades Indgenas de Angochagua, La Esperanza, y Caranqui (UNOCIAE-C) (1993). ucanchic Panpa Janpicuna: plantas medicinales del campo. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review 56(3): 257277. Law, J. (ed.) (1991). A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Sociological Review Monograph 38. London: Routledge. Leeuwis, C., N. Long, and M. Villarreal (1990). Equivocations on knowledge systems theory: An actor-oriented critique. Knowledge in Society: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer 3(3): 1927. McClure, G. (1989). Introduction. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and S. O. Titilola (eds.), Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development, Studies in Technology and Social Change 11 (pp. 12). Ames: Iowa State University. McCorkle, C. M. (1989). Toward a knowledge of Local Knowledge(s) and its importance for agricultural RD&E. Agriculture and Human Values Summer: 412.

T HEORETICAL STREAMS IN MPK: S YSTEMS , ASYSTEMS , AND S UBALTERN K NOWLEDGE ( S ) Slikkerveer, L. J. (1995). INDAKS: A bibliography and database on Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge Systems and sustainable development in the tropics. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha (eds.), The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems (pp. 512516). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Star, S. L. (1990). The sociology of the invisible: The primacy of work in the writings of anselm strauss. In D. Maines (ed.), Social Organization and Social Processes: Essays in Honour of Anselm Strauss. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Thompson, J. and I. Scoones (1994). Challenging the populist perspective: Rural Peoples Knowledge(s), agricultural research, and extension practice. Agriculture and Human Values 11: 5876. Thrift, N. (1985). Flies and germs: A geography of knowledge. In D. Gregory and J. Urry (eds.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures (pp. 366403). London: Macmillan. Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Legitimizing Local Knowledge(s): Scientized packages or empowerment for third world people. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and S. O. Titilola (eds.), Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development, Studies in Technology and Social Change 11 (pp. 138153). Ames: Iowa State University. Turnbull, D. (1993). Local Knowledge(s) and comparative scientic traditions. Knowledge and Policy Fall/Winter: 29 54. van Beek, W. E. A. (1993). Processes and limitations of dogon agricultural knowledge. In M. Hobart (ed.), An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance (pp. 4360). London: Routledge. Waldram, J. B. (1987). Traditional knowledge systems: The recognition of indigenous history and science. Saskatchewan Indian Federated College Journal 2(2): 115124. Warren, M. D. (1989). The impact of nineteenth century social science in establishing negative values and attitudes towards Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and S. O. Titilola (eds.), Indigenous Know-

237

ledge(s) Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development, Studies in Technology and Social Change 11 (pp. 171183). Ames: Iowa State University. Warren, M. D. (1991a). Using Indigenous Knowledge(s) in agricultural development. World Bank Discussion Paper 127. Washington, DC: World Bank. Warren, M. D. (ed.) (1991b). Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge Systems and Development. Agriculture and Human Values 8(12): 1184. Warren, M. D. and G. McKiernan (1995). CIKARD: A global approach to documenting Indigenous Knowledge(s) for development. In M. D. Warren, L. J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha (eds.), The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems (pp. 426434). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Warren, M. D., L. J. Slikkerveer, and D. Brokensha (eds.) (1995). The Cultural Dimension of Development: Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Warren, M. D., L. J. Slikkerveer, and S. O. Titilola (eds.) (1989). Indigenous Knowledge(s) Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development, Studies in Technology and Social Change 11. Ames: Iowa State University. Webster (1986). Websters Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Springeld, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. Young, B. (1977). Science is social relations. Radical Science Journal 5: 165129. Young, B. (1979). Science is a labor process. Science for People 43/44: 3137. Young, B. (1985). Is nature a labor process? In L. Levidow and B. Young (eds.), Science Technology and the Labor Process. London: Free Association Books. Address for correspondence: Brij Kothari, Wing 14, IIM Ahmedabad, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015, Gujarat, India Fax: +91-79-6306896; E-mail: brij@iimahd.ernet.in