NEGOTIATING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE: AN INTRODUCTION

Johan Pottier

Two decades ago, social anthropology became interested in 'indigenous knowledge' as a possible antidote to the failures of externally driven, transfer-of-technology focused, top-down development (UNESCO-Nuffic 1999: 11; Warren 1998). Underpinned by some deeply rooted assumptions, for instance, that local knowledge was bounded, static, consensual, non-reflective and unscientific (Howes and Chambers 19 79), the initial search for indigenous knowledge convinced both anthropologists and developers that it was legitimate to look for and extract local knowledge elements for use in science. If local knowledge had anything to offer, it was because science could make use of it. The presumed consensual character of local knowledge, moreover, resulted in the further assumption that local knowledge 'systems' applied uniformly over extensive regions and time zones. Concretely and positively, the 'discovery' of indigenous knowledge demanded that development practitioners be receptive to the technology, skills and accumulated knowledge of people everywhere (Brokensha, Warren and Werner 1980; Richards 1985). On the negative side, the enthusiasm for local knowledge data produced some exaggerated claims about its value. Thus in agricultural research, correcting the bias against local knowledge sometimes resulted in the erroneous view that peasant farmers were collectively rational, even super-rational, everywhere (Fairhead 1993).

But the neat distinction between science and local knowledge did not last. First, under scrutiny, local knowledge began to reveal itself as the multifarious, contestable product of an ever-evolving syncretistic process (Scoones and Thompson 1994; Mundy and Compton 1995; Sillitoe 1998). The unitary concept 'local knowledge' fragmented into a plurality of local knowledges. Second, science came to be viewed as less universal and more particularistic than hitherto assumed (Agrawal 1995; Gardner and Lewis 1996). These new understandings prompted anthropologists to rethink the dichotomy. Increasingly, the blurring of this grand divide made researchers more conscious of the political economy of knowledge-for-development; that is, more aware of the risk of intellectual (and material) hegemony and more aware that a degree of local autonomy is required if sustained development is to emerge.

The post-modern challenge, however, also problematised the concept of hegemony: the exercise of power was complex business. At the Fourth Decennial Conference of the ASA (Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth), a short decade ago, there was consensus that 'the bounded' needed to be replaced by 'the relational' – and that this substitution, this moving away from ontological categories towards interwoven patterns, meant that from now on anthropologists would regard 'knowledge' as simultaneously local and global (Moore 1996). The conference called for a better appreciation of 'the complexities and techniques of knowledge production within and between societies, groups and regions' (1996: 14; emphasis added). Today, the intersection of power and knowledge remains fraught with uncertainty and contradiction. While there is much to be said for a perspective that views transnational hegemonic power as too fragmented to shape local conditions uniformly (Long 1996; Arce and Long 1999), it is also clear that powerful processes of disempowerment are at work, most notoriously through the patenting of life forms (Shiva 1992; IDRC 1994; Pottier 1999). Processes of disempowerment beg the question whether the optimistic, relational approach to understanding hegemony can be sustained.

Set in the broad context of global change and planned development, this volume explores knowledge as embodied practice and addresses the negotiated character of knowledge production with reference to the knowledge interfaces (Long and Long 1992) between local communities (their practices and discourses) and external agents of change, who have their own practices and discourses. No clear-cut distinction between 'local community' and 'external agents' must be assumed, however. Contributors recognise that the production of knowledge, in both development and non-development contexts, is acutely political, because 'what is excluded and who is qualified to know involves acts of power' (Hobart 1993). Knowledge production, we maintain, is embedded in social and cultural processes imbued with aspects of power, authority and legitimation; the act of producing knowledge involves social struggle, conflict and negotiation. Detailed attention to knowledge interfaces allows us to study what happens when 'local knowledge' – which means different things in different places, and different things to people who share the same space – is translated for the purpose of national or international use. And, vice versa, the interface approach throws light on what happens when international policy discourses are invoked for use in specific local settings. There are implications here for anthropology's role in development. We argue that an empirically grounded understanding of how knowledge(s) is (are) produced through the mediation of unequal power relations and processes of translation is a prerequisite for any serious attempt to instigate dialogue and make all stakeholders benefit from development initiatives.

The volume's focus on how knowledge for development is negotiated through processes of translation demands that we reflect on...