viewpoint
©2006 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION EMBO reports VOL 7 | NO 5 | 2006
viewpointWestern science and traditionalknowledgeDespite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other
Fulvio Mazzocchi
Cultures from all over the world havedeveloped different views of naturethroughout human history. Many of
them are rooted in traditional systems ofbeliefs, which indigenous people use tounderstand and interpret their biophysicalenvironment (Iaccarino, 2003). These sys-tems of managing the environment consti-tute an integral part of the cultural identityand social integrity of many indigenouspopulations. At the same time, their knowl-edge embodies a wealth of wisdom andexperience of nature gained over millenniafrom direct observations, and transmit-ted—most often orally—over generations.
The importance of this traditionalknowledge for the protection of biodiver-sity and the achievement of sustainabledevelopment is slowly being recognizedinternationally (Gadgil et al, 1993). Forexample, Article 8 of the Convention onBiological Diversity urges us to “…respect,preserve and maintain knowledge, innova-tions and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditionallifestyles relevant for the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity….”(United Nations, 1992). In addition, tradi-tional or indigenous knowledge has beenrediscovered as a model for a healthy inter-action with, and use of, the environment,and as a rich source to be tapped into inorder to gain new perspectives about therelationship between humans and nature.
However, our difficulty in approachingthe knowledge from indigenous culturesis already reflected in the way in whichwe describe and name it. No universaldefinition is available, and many terms
are used to establish what indigenouspeople know (Berkes, 1993), includingtraditional knowledge or traditional eco-logical knowledge, local knowledge,indigenous knowledge or science, folkknowledge, farmers’ knowledge, fishers’knowledge and tacit knowledge. Each ofthese terms carries different implications,and there is an ensuing discussion aboutwhich one is the most appropriate. Theword ‘traditional’, for example, places theemphasis on the transmission of knowl-edge along a cultural continuity, butmight ignore the ability of traditional soci-eties to adapt to changing circumstances.Another widely used word, ‘indigenous’,is meant to highlight the autochthonousnature of this knowledge, but it mightoverlook knowledge from populationswho are not officially recognized asindigenous. The word ‘local’ can beapplied to different geographic contexts,but it lacks specificity. At present, tradi-tional ecological knowledge is interpretedas a cumulative body of knowledge, prac-tices and representations that describesthe relationships of living beings with oneanother and with their physical environ-ment, which evolved by adaptive processesand has been handed down through gen-erations by cultural transmission (Berkeset al, 2000).
Many indigenous populations haverelied for centuries or even mil-lennia on their direct environ-
ment for subsistence and autonomy. Overtime, they have developed a way in whichto manage and use their resources that
ensures their conservation into the future.Such traditional societies are interestedmore in preserving their own social, cul-tural and environmental stability andintegrity than in maximizing production.Consequently, there is no ‘exploitation’ ofnature—which they do not consider as acollection of commodities—in the interac-tion between humans and natural milieu.On the contrary, their way of life is basedon a strong sense of interconnection andinterdependence. This also applies to theirsocial life. Ethics is explicitly part of thetraditional approach. Relationships arebased on reciprocity and obligationstowards community members. Naturalresource management is based on sharedmeanings and knowledge (Berkes, 1993).Activities in traditional societies ofteninclude a strong symbolic dimension inwhich every action is highly ritualized,and allow humans to participate in thepreservation of the natural order. Ofcourse, these rituals differ between cultures,as each society has its own belief systems,which determine its cultural identity andtype of technology.
Traditional knowledge has developed aconcept of the environment that empha-sizes the symbiotic character of humansand nature. It offers an approach to localdevelopment that is based on co-evolution
463
…our difficulty in approachingthe knowledge from indigenouscultures is already reflected inthe way in which we describeand name it
science & society
EMBO reports VOL 7 | NO 5 | 2006 ©2006 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION
v iewpoint
464
with the environment, and on respectingthe carrying capacity of ecosystems. Thisknowledge—based on long-term empiri-cal observations adapted to local condi-tions—ensures a sound use and control ofthe environment, and enables indigenouspeople to adapt to environmental changes.Moreover, it supplies much of the world’spopulation with the principal means tofulfil their basic needs, and forms the basisfor decisions and strategies in many practi-cal aspects, including interpretation ofmeteorological phenomena, medicaltreatment, water management, productionof clothing, navigation, agriculture andhusbandry, hunting and fishing, and bio-logical classification systems (Nakashima& Roué, 2002). Beyond its obvious benefitfor the people who rely on this knowledge,it might provide humanity as a whole withnew biological and ecological insights; ithas potential value for the management ofnatural resources, and might be useful inconservation education as well as indevelopment planning and environmentalassessment (The World ConservationUnion, 1986).
Of course, I am not trying to assert theideal of the ‘noble savage’. Not all indige-nous people have lived or are living inpeace and harmony with nature; historyhas seen many cultures disappear afterthey had exhausted the environment’s abil-ity to sustain their population, such as theMaya or the Anasazi in the Americas.However, many existing traditional prac-tices are ecologically healthy, and we can-not simply dismiss them as primitive andunscientific belief systems.
In all cultures, humans have gainedknowledge by conceptualizing empiri-cal observations to better understand
nature, and thus interpret and predict it(Iaccarino, 2003). The problem is how tostudy and analyse indigenous knowledgeand belief systems. Of course, we cannotdepend only on their empirical aspects,but must embrace their specific world-views. It is not possible to simply reducethem to practical knowledge that is exclu-sively based on experience as opposed totheoretical knowledge, which is developedthrough deductive or inductive reasoning.In any case, discovering the fundamentalprinciples of dealing with nature in manyfar-off cultures is not an easy task. Westernscience—which is deeply rooted both inthe philosophy of Ancient Greece and the
Renaissance—and traditional knowledgesystems have developed radically differentstrategies to create and transmit knowl-edge, and it is exceedingly difficult toanalyse one form of knowledge using thecriteria of another tradition.
Still, there is a vast body of literature onsuch comparisons between Western sci-ence and traditional knowledge systems,which has identified various characteristicsand opposing views. Western sciencefavours analytical and reductionist meth-ods as opposed to the more intuitive andholistic view often found in traditionalknowledge. Western science is positivistand materialist in contrast to traditionalknowledge, which is spiritual and does notmake distinctions between empirical andsacred (Nakashima & Roué, 2002).Western science is objective and quantita-tive as opposed to traditional knowledge,which is mainly subjective and qualitative.Western science is based on an academicand literate transmission, while traditionalknowledge is often passed on orally fromone generation to the next by the elders.Western science isolates its objects ofstudy from their vital context by puttingthem in simplified and controllable experi-mental environments—which also meansthat scientists separate themselves fromnature, the object of their studies; by contrast, traditional knowledge alwaysdepends on its context and particular localconditions (Nakashima & Roué, 2002).
In general, traditional knowledge sys-tems adopt a more holistic approach, anddo not separate observations into differentdisciplines as does Western science(Iaccarino, 2003). Moreover, traditionalknowledge systems do not interpret realityon the basis of a linear conception of causeand effect, but rather as a world made up of constantly forming multidimensionalcycles in which all elements are part of anentangled and complex web of interac-tions (Freeman, 1992). Of course, there isalways the risk of oversimplifying by reduc-ing the things of interest to essentialsand/or dichotomies. However, from thisbrief overview of the dissimilarities, wecan gain an understanding of how hard it is
to compare two systems of knowledge thatare so profoundly different. Trying toanalyse and validate traditional knowledgesystems by using external (scientific) crite-ria carries the risk of distorting such sys-tems in the process. At the same time, wecannot extract just those parts of traditionalknowledge that seem to measure up to scientific criteria and ignore the rest. Thisprocess of cognitive mining would atomizethe overall system and threaten traditionalknowledge with dispossession (Nakashima& Roué, 2002).
However, Western contemporaryculture and philosophy does offersome interesting ideas as to how to
deal with these problems. The Austrian-born philosopher Paul Feyerabend, forexample, questioned the widespreadassumption that only Western scienceholds the criteria to determine the truth. AsFeyerabend pointed out, any form ofknowledge makes sense only within itsown cultural context (Feyerabend, 1987).Similarly, the British anthropologistGregory Bateson has compared knowl-edge about the material world to a mapand the terrain it describes: the map itselfis not the terrain, but only one representa-tion of it (Bateson, 1979). Just as differentmaps can give accounts of the same terri-tory, so too can different forms of knowl-edge about the material world. Its actualrepresentation ultimately depends on theobserver’s view.
Contemporary hermeneutics—a branchof philosophy concerned with the theory ofexistential understanding and interpreta-tion of texts—and, to a certain extent, com-plex thinking can offer useful approachesto compare different forms of knowledgeand rationality. Complex thinking has pro-vided new insights, and has contributed toa renewed interpretation of the concept ofnature, and a new paradigm of science andepistemology. This new approach hasbrought a greater awareness of the short-comings of simple explanations in compre-hending reality. It aims to overcome thelimits of both reductionism and holism byintegrating them into a wider perspective,which investigates the complex structure ofinterconnections and retroactive relationshipsin the real world.
According to the classic epistemologi-cal approach, the creation of knowledge isa process of qualitative refinement andquantitative accumulation. Its goal is to
Traditional knowledge hasdeveloped a concept of theenvironment that emphasizesthe symbiotic character ofhumans and nature
science & society
©2006 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION EMBO reports VOL 7 | NO 5 | 2006
v iewpoint
465
disclose the ultimate foundation—the‘meta’ point of view from where we cansee the ontological order and the objectivetruth—and to provide a neutral and universal language to explain natural phenomena (Ceruti, 1986).
Complex thinking has strongly ques-tioned this notion of a meta point of viewalong with its heuristic value as a principlefor the creation of knowledge. Instead, itseeks and analyses the web of relation-ships among different perspectives. This iscontinually redefined in a dynamic processinvolving multiple points of observationand explanation. These places are funda-mentally incommensurable, yet they cancomplement each other and be part of aconstructive network. What matters, infact, is the possibility of including multipleviewpoints that are vicarious in building acognitive universe and can disclose amore complete picture of reality.
In this context, the hermeneutical notionof a ‘horizon’ as expressed by the Germanphilosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer seemsto be highly relevant: “Horizon is the rangeof vision that includes everything that canbe seen from a particular vantage point”(Gadamer, 1960). Rationality intrinsicallyworks from this point, which starts theprocess of comprehension through whichwe can interact with other and differenthorizons, and ultimately expand our ownknowledge horizon.
The encounter between different culturesand knowledge systems can then beregarded as an encounter between differentmacrohorizons; such systems come fromdifferent traditions, and each has its ownway of understanding phenomena and itsown ‘logic’ that allows the observed phe-nomena to be placed within an overallvision. Nevertheless, all representations ofreality are expressions of the same cognitivefeatures that are inherent in human nature.
Traditional environmental knowledgeis an important part of humankind’scultural heritage—the result of
countless civilizations and traditions thathave emerged over human history. Thiscultural diversity is as important for ourfuture as is biodiversity. It is a potential
source of creativity and enrichmentembodied in several social and culturalidentities, each of which expresses itsuniqueness (United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization,2002). However, European colonizationhas eroded and destroyed much of this tra-ditional knowledge by replacing it withWestern educational and cultural systems.The trend towards a global culture mighteven worsen this situation and enhance aprocess of cultural homogenization.
Scientific knowledge has long held acentral role and attained a dominant posi-tion in our developed societies, but wecannot ignore the fact that other validknowledge systems exist. The imposition ofWestern scientific ideas and methods notonly causes disruption to existing socialand economic relationships, but also mightspoil the local knowledge. Allowing sci-ence to be the final arbiter of the validity ofknowledge, and to establish the thresholdbeyond which knowledge is not worthy ofits name, would create the conditionswhereby an astonishing cultural heritage istransformed into a monolithic structure.Instead, we would be better advised to rec-ognize the value of this heritage, and todevise strategies for its preservation for thebenefit of present and future generations.
First, a renewed approach to dialogueamong cultures is required. Such a dia-logue can only take place if there is a com-mon principle shared by all participants.All humans from all cultural backgroundshave the same biological nature. At thesame time, however, a dialogue is onlypossible because there is diversity at vari-ous levels. Eliminating these differences or staying in rigid isolation eliminates the conditions needed for a potentiallymutually beneficial converse.
By acknowledging the uniqueness ofeach knowledge system, we can go wellbeyond a mere pluralist approach toknowledge. Dialogue can become a toolfor social cohabitation, as well as for dis-covering and enhancing knowledge. Itshould be based on a sense of profoundhospitality because it arises from different
identities and traditions, which are inter-ested in exchanging their perspectives andexperiences. This should not be anathemato Western science—in fact, it is throughdialogue that new insights have emergedfrom the ancient Greek academies totoday’s laboratory meetings and scientificconferences. In this sense, a dialogue cancatalyse the development of shared mean-ings, which are key factors in binding peo-ple and societies together as vehicles ofsocial cohabitation (Bohm, 1996).
The real world is too complex to becompressed into static conceptual-izations. Dealing with this complex-
ity requires approaches and strategies thatmaintain a continuous openness and will-ingness to discover and learn (Morin,1990). This dialogue should take placewith the unknown and the otherness. Byshifting our perspective, and looking atother paths to knowledge that humanshave developed and lived, we might cre-ate the necessary conditions for hithertounknown knowledge to be revealed. All ofthese perspectives describe the humanexperience of reality. We need to openourselves to participating in the experi-ence of others, and yet we should also beaware that this opening can only start fromwhere we already are—from our point ofview or the tradition to which we belong.Our historical and culturally embeddedperspective has been described byGadamer as the “initial directedness of ourwhole ability to experience” (Gadamer,1967). Nevertheless, from our delimitedhorizon we can still accept the invitationof other paths to knowledge and mightwell learn from them.
For example, some authors (Freeman,1992; Iaccarino, 2003) have suggestedthat traditional knowledge systems can behelpful in dealing with complex systems:“The understanding of complex systemsremains a major challenge for the future,and no scientist today can claim that wehave at hand the appropriate methodswith which to achieve this. Thus, we can-not discuss the future of science withouttaking into account the philosophicalproblems generated by the study of com-plexity. Modern, or Western, science maynot be best suited to fulfil this task, as itsview of the world is too constrained by itscharacteristic empirical and analyticalapproach that, in the past, made it so suc-cessful. We should therefore remember
…any form of knowledge makessense only within its owncultural context
…all representations of realityare expressions of the samecognitive features that areinherent in human nature
science & society
EMBO reports VOL 7 | NO 5 | 2006 ©2006 EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY ORGANIZATION
v iewpoint
466
the contributions of other civilizations tothe understanding of nature. […] Such tra-ditional or indigenous knowledge is nowincreasingly being used not only with theaim of finding new drugs, but also toderive new concepts that may help us toreconcile empiricism and science”(Iaccarino, 2003).
There is little doubt that modern sci-ence can gain a lot from such a dialogue. Ithas been extremely efficient in studyingspecific aspects of the natural world—those that are achievable through observa-tion and experimentation—but operates inan environment that is either strictly con-trolled, such as a laboratory, or highly sim-plified. This approach is crucial in order tomake generalized claims about the validityof scientific propositions, because itallows hypotheses under the same or highlycontrolled conditions to be tested and ver-ified. However, an increasing number ofcritical voices argue that an approachbased on reductionism—as helpful as ithas been in the past—might no longer be sufficient to analyse and understandhigher levels of complexity (Kellenberger,2004; van Regenmortel, 2004). Moreover,scientists work only at specific levels ofanalysis. The theories formulated at eachlevel are based on key observations, and,therefore, can explain only a specific set offacts (Iaccarino, 2003). Hence, the inte-gration of methods and results from differ-ent approaches and levels of analysis canbecome essential.
These considerations seem to be partic-ularly relevant for studying biological, eco-logical and social phenomena that includedifferent levels of complexity. As alreadymentioned, the Western tradition of think-ing is developing a different approach togaining knowledge from complex systems,but it would be equally useful to learn howtraditional approaches explain such com-plexity. Not only are they more holistic, butalso they seem to be better suited to copingwith the uncertainty and unpredictabilitythat are viewed as intrinsic characteristicsof natural systems. Western science andtraditional knowledge constitute differentpaths to knowledge, but they are rooted in the same reality. We can only gain frompaying attention to our cultural history and richness.
REFERENCESBateson G (1979) Mind and Nature:A Necessary
Unity. New York, NY, USA: DuttonBerkes F (1993) Traditional ecological knowledge in
perspective. In Inglis JT (ed) Traditional EcologicalKnowledge: Concept and Cases, pp 1–9. Ottawa,Canada: International Program on TraditionalEcological Knowledge and InternationalDevelopment Research Centre
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery oftraditional ecological knowledge as adaptivemanagement. Ecol Appl 10: 1251–1262
Bohm D (1996) On Dialogue. London, UK:Routledge
Ceruti M (1986) Il Vincolo e la Possibilità. Milan,Italy: Feltrinelli
Feyerabend P (1987) Farewell to Reason. London,UK: Verso
Freeman MMR (1992) The nature and utility oftraditional ecological knowledge. NorthernPerspect 20: 7–12.www.carc.org/northern_perspectives.php
Gadamer HG (1960) Wahrheit und Methode.Tübingen, Germany: Mohr
Gadamer HG (1967) Kleine Schriften I (Philosophie,Hermeneutik).Tübingen, Germany: Mohr
Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993) Indigenousknowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio22: 151–156
Iaccarino M (2003) Science and culture. EMBORep 4: 220–223
Kellenberger E (2004) The evolution of molecularbiology. EMBO Rep 5: 546–549
Morin E (1990) Introduction á la PenséeComplexe. Paris, France: Editions SocialesFrançaises
Nakashima DJ, Roué M (2002) Indigenousknowledge, peoples and sustainable practice.In Timmerman P (ed) Encyclopedia of GlobalEnvironmental Change. 5: Social andEconomic Dimensions of GlobalEnvironmental Change, pp 314–324.Chichester, UK: Wiley
The World Conservation Union (1986) Tradition,Conservation and Development. OccasionalNewsletter of the Commission on Ecology’sWorking Group on Traditional EcologicalKnowledge No. 4. Gland, Switzerland: TheWorld Conservation Union
United Nations (1992) Convention on BiologicalDiversity (with Annexes). No 30619. Rio deJaneiro, Brazil: United Nations
United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization (2002) UniversalDeclaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris, France:UNESCO
van Regenmortel MH (2004) Reductionism andcomplexity in molecular biology. EMBO Rep5: 1016–1020
Dialogue can become a tool forsocial cohabitation, as well as fordiscovering and enhancingknowledge
Fulvio Mazzocchi is at the Institute for Atmospheric Pollution of CNR,Monterotondo, Italy.E-mail: [email protected]
doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400693
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile () /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts false /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /SyntheticBoldness 1.00 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage false /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile (None) /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 150 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly true /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.30000 0.30000 0.30000 0.30000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (OFCOM_PO_P1_F60) /PDFXOutputCondition (OFCOM_PO_P1_F60) /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /JPN
