Hybrid Histories and Indigenous Knowledge Among Asian Rubber Smallholders

Dove, Michael R. 2002. Hybrid Histories and Indigenous Knowledge Among Asian Rubber Smallholders. International Social Science Journal 173: 349-359.

11 Pages Posted: 29 Jan 2014 Last revised: 2 Feb 2014

Date Written: 2002

Abstract

Practically since its inception as a discipline, anthropology has interested itself in the knowledge systems of indigenous peoples. This interest can be traced from early ethnographic work on local patterns of environmental relations and systems of resource-use, to more recent work in ethnoscience and ethnobotany (e.g.). Within the past two decades, however, the object of this interest has been redefined and reified as “Indigenous Knowledge”; anthropologists have been joined in its study by other social scientists, as well as development scholars, planners, and activists; and it has become the focus of newly established institutes and publications (cf. Warren, Slikkerver, and Brokensha, 1995). This burgeoning interest in Indigenous Knowledge is premised on the belief that many failures of development and under-development are due to the privileging of modern, global, scientific knowledge over local, traditional indigenous knowledge. A corollary premise is that a reversal of this imbalance, based on the study and utilization of Indigenous Knowledge, will have salutary effects. The challenge of successful development, therefore, is seen as ethnographic and pedagogical in nature: ignorance of knowledge that lies outside modern scientific traditions is seen as the problem, which can be remedied through the unearthing and study of this knowledge. This critique of the dominant paradigm of development was initially heralded as a great step forward; but within the past five years in particular, questions have been raised regarding its genuineness. Both of these perspectives are reflected in a recent issue of “Current Anthropology”, in which the lead author Paul Sillitoe refers to this new study of Indigenous Knowledge as a “revolution”, whereas one of the commentators, Carmen Ferradás, calls is just another “self-privileging antinomy” (Ferradás, 1998:240; Sillitoe, 1998:223,246). My purpose in the present analysis is to consider the truth in both of these views of Indigenous Knowledge. I will base this analysis on my own study of one system of Indigenous Knowledge, that of Southeast Asia’s smallholder cultivators of Para rubber.

Keywords: Hybridity, indigenous knowledge, Para rubber, Hevea brasiliensis, Brazil, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, colonial era

Suggested Citation

Dove, Michael R, Hybrid Histories and Indigenous Knowledge Among Asian Rubber Smallholders (2002). Dove, Michael R. 2002. Hybrid Histories and Indigenous Knowledge Among Asian Rubber Smallholders. International Social Science Journal 173: 349-359. , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2387139

Michael R Dove (Contact Author)

Yale University ( email )

Kroon Hall
195 Prospect Street
New Haven, CT 06511
United States
203-432-3463 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
155
Abstract Views
756
Rank
343,436
PlumX Metrics