A Review on the Articles of Darrell Addison Posey and Roy Ellen & Holly Harris
Summary
Posey (2000) started with his discussion on the importance of indigenous knowledge (IK) or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). He explained that IK was used for advancing hypotheses and enriching scientific knowledge, conservation of development projects and was employed in the ‘shift from implementing top-down management to community-based participation.’ The author also reiterated that IK is not a compilation of facts but is holistic, evolving and used in different aspects of contemporary life. He went on to defend that IK is used in the ‘sustainable utilization of natural resources and these are embodied in traditional livelihood systems’ based on historical evidence. The sustainable utilization of traditional livelihood systems is referred by the author as ‘conservation ethic’ of indigenous systems.
Despite the importance of IK, Posey (2000) pointed out the inability of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to protect the IK systems in the traditional communities. IPR, which is supposedly ‘a mechanism for equitable sharing and protection,’ only protect the economic interest of individuals in western societies. As such, the author persuades those studying IK to develop alternative methods. He proposed a ‘rights-based Traditional Resource Rights concept as a catalyst to transform conflict into conciliation.’
The discussion of Posey (2000) is much related to Ellen & Harris (2000) article on indigenous and environmental knowledge and its transformation. They went on to expound IK and its characteristics, historical evidence of IK collection to support the advancement of western science and technology by means of decontextualization. Arguments were presented on the recognition of local knowledge. Positivists wanted to make it universal by eliminating ‘imperfection and subjectivism.’ Post-modernism asserted the view of relativism. Neologism, on the other hand, emphasized mixing local and global to which Robertson (1996) termed as ‘glocal.’ With these wrangles, the authors considered the existence of universal reasoning but believed that these should be ‘activated and experienced in different contexts.’
Critique and Reflection
Increasing interest to IK leads to finding means to protect indigenous and local knowledge. This is directed to the realization that IPR exploits local communities and resources within. IPR, which is supposedly a legal system for ‘equitable sharing and protection,’ is only for those who have the means to avail of it. Biodiversity prospecting, or rather biopiracy at times, of pharmaceutical companies and other private institutions use IPR as a clot to exploit traditional local knowledge and publish such for their gain. This is not surprising, at the least, since IPR is a creation of the west. Thus, intentionally or unintentionally, it favours industrialized nations rather than bioculturally rich developing nations.
Going back to the discussion of Ellen & Harris (2000), the sophisticated advancement of European medicine is the product of long history of bioprospecting. It is with concern that although the intention is good for the provision of medical cures for their people, on one hand, it is the exploitation of traditional societies, on the other hand. I find it comical that western scientists hold IK in low esteem when the medical and scientific knowledge they have is the product of a long history of pirating traditional knowledge. In the guise of fieldwork to accumulate local knowledge and convert it into scientific knowledge, western scientists, thereby, misrepresent the context of which IK or TEK came from.
With the discussion on whether local knowledge should be transformed into global knowledge, I go with the idea that what makes IK significant is its relativity and its application is still embedded in the local because of the meanings attached to it. The trial and error methods applied by the locals in coming up with traditional knowledge is a test of unwavering belief to devise something that has to do in maintaining harmonious relationship to nature and the supernatural.
Question
There is a line at the end of the article of Ellen & Harris (2000) that I find questionable. It says, ‘Indigenous knowledge is dead.’ If the statement is really what is intended, then it defeats the rest of the arguments posted in the article. In fact, it would be deemed pointless. I am wondering if there is a missing word there, the ‘not’ before ‘dead.’ Such a minute word but it implies an opposite standpoint. Optimistically, it was just unintentionally overlooked.
No comments:
Post a Comment