Indigenous Knowledge: The Solution to all of our Problems?

In my last post, I alluded to the potential dangers of romanticising IK. Today, I wanted to explore how this further.

‘Kama elimu ya asili ni nzuri kiasi hicho, kwa nini shamba langu ni hafifu’

The quote above comes from a Tanzanian small-scale farmer and translates to: ‘If indigenous knowledge is so good, why is my farm so poor? (Briggs 2005). For this farmer, IK is not enough to sustain his needs, and instead, he believes modern agricultural technology is the solution to his problems.

The glorification of IK typically originates from the notion that indigenous communities are inherently harmonious with nature and their practices always nurture sustainable resource management. However, this is not the case as Critchley et al. (1994) are forthright in saying ‘if IK were truly effective, there would not be the problems of food shortages and land degradation that are evident today’. There are, of course, many other factors as to why IK may not yield successful results, but it remains true that IK isn’t a silver bullet that can entirely prevent the issues of food and water security affecting communities across Africa.

A key part of IK is indigenous soil and water conservation (ISWC) with soil texture and colour important factors for many farmers in determining soil fertility and the abundance of flora and fauna (Osunade 1994). However, if we fail to appreciate that IK is, by definition, local knowledge, we will fall into the trap of ‘turning local knowledge into global knowledge’ (Agrawal 1995). In doing so, the developmental value specific to the places where this knowledge has been applied may be ineffective in areas where this knowledge is impractical. This idea is critical to the idealisation of IK as their practices aren’t necessarily suitable in different environments or for different people.

Beyond the issues of romanticising IK is the concept of binary tensions between IK and Western scientific knowledge (WSK). IK is regularly depicted as lacking the methodological rigour of WSK. Indeed, Escobar (1995) sees development to have ‘relied exclusively on one knowledge system, namely, the modern Western one. The dominance of this knowledge system has dictated the marginalization and disqualification of non-Western knowledge systems.’ This marginalisation of IK is sustained through discourse where scholars like Kundiri et al. (1997) talk about indigenous communities as being overly subjective.

The binary between these forms of knowledge is only perpetuated by framing the research and assistance provided by WSK as superior to IK. During colonial periods, Africans were seen as ‘unscientific explorers’ (Mackenzie 1995) of resources. Consequently, the solutions offered by WSK were seen as integral to the development of Africans and this served to reinforce the ‘expertise’ of WSK in comparison to IK.

There are various problems associated with romanticising IK and maintaining binaries between IK and WSK, not least the negative influence this can have on improving food and water security across Africa. This resonates with an earlier post in my blog where I spoke of the tendency to romanticise…well almost everything in Africa. The challenge then of deciding whether IK should be established as an alternative to WSK or as something that can work alongside it may be overcome by treating IK as dynamic and flexible without completely suppressing it. If we can acknowledge that IK doesn’t always offer a more practical solution to WSK, whilst accepting that it has real value to development discussions, we can start to progress towards a more sustainable and profitable future for communities across the continent.