22
Subtle Agroecologies
revitalising local knowledge systems – and local sciences – and these search for complementarity and synergy between different sciences.
These initiatives assert not only that global diversity has a physical and biological component,
but also that cultural and scientific diversity is also important. In different parts of the globe,
indigenous and local experts publish about the scientific basis of their knowledge systems: in New
Zealand ( Bishop, 1998; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999), Canada ( Battiste, 2005), the USA ( Barnhardt and
Kawagley, 2005; Cajete, 2000; Mihesuah and Wilson, 2004), South America ( Rist and Delgado,
2009), Africa ( Millar et al., 2006) and India ( Balasubramanian and Nirmala Devi, 2006). A great
number of research and educational programmes are emerging that aim at revitalising local knowledge traditions, and these seek a complementary relationship with other sciences. These range from
the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies – Indigenous Knowledge Initiative,
and the Inter-institutional Centre for Indigenous Knowledge located in the College of Education
at Pennsylvania State University, which comprises more than 20 indigenous knowledge resources
centres in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania, to the Indigenous Women’s
Network that was founded in 1985 and has a journal of the same name. These indigenous scholars,
researchers and institutions address questions such as the following:
• What are the worldviews, basic principles, values and methods according to which learning takes place in different cultural environments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of different sciences and what can be done to
increase the effectiveness and innovative character of these ways of learning?
• How can the marginalisation and suppression of local sciences be addressed? And
• How can complementarity and co-evolution of sciences be achieved?
Proponents of this approach take the position that neither experiences and methods from minority
cultures nor those of the mainstream approach are inherently the most appropriate to explain reality
and/ or to develop technologies that improve quality of life. The latter may be used to complement
local learning processes, but they should not replace them, as is often the case. Exchange between
different sciences, and co-evolution rather than domination and substitution are seen as important.
UNDERSTANDING MIND AND MATTER
Amongst the different worldviews and sciences that exist today, reality is considered and understood in different ways. Globally, a divide can be observed between those who believe that reality is
made up of only one basic substance ( monists) and those who believe that reality is made up of two
different substances ( dualists).
Monists focus either on matter or on mind. Materialism asserts that mind is basically a result of
biochemical processes. This position is dominant in modern Western paradigms. Within monism,
positions that consider reality to be based on spiritual or mental principles are labelled as idealism. These positions are often held in non-Western cultures, and specifically so in the Vedic tradition. Modern science has been struggling with the relation between monism and dualism. It mostly
accepted that both realities exist ( dualism), but in their research practice, modern scientists address
only the quantifiable, which is the material reality.
During the Enlightenment period, the foundations of scientific reasoning were laid by various traditions, including Empiricism by Francis Bacon ( 1561–1626), Rationalism by Descartes ( 1596–1650)
and Mechanism by Newton ( 1642–1727). The development of Evolutionism by Darwin ( 1809–1882)
and Classical Economics by Adam Smith ( 1723–1790) emerged from this scientific revolution with
major implications for the worldviews and the way social systems were considered and organised.
Rene Descartes believed in the possibility to reach absolute truth through scientific knowledge. His approach was based on the belief that all aspects of a complex phenomenon can be
Subtle Agroecologies
revitalising local knowledge systems – and local sciences – and these search for complementarity and synergy between different sciences.
These initiatives assert not only that global diversity has a physical and biological component,
but also that cultural and scientific diversity is also important. In different parts of the globe,
indigenous and local experts publish about the scientific basis of their knowledge systems: in New
Zealand ( Bishop, 1998; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999), Canada ( Battiste, 2005), the USA ( Barnhardt and
Kawagley, 2005; Cajete, 2000; Mihesuah and Wilson, 2004), South America ( Rist and Delgado,
2009), Africa ( Millar et al., 2006) and India ( Balasubramanian and Nirmala Devi, 2006). A great
number of research and educational programmes are emerging that aim at revitalising local knowledge traditions, and these seek a complementary relationship with other sciences. These range from
the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies – Indigenous Knowledge Initiative,
and the Inter-institutional Centre for Indigenous Knowledge located in the College of Education
at Pennsylvania State University, which comprises more than 20 indigenous knowledge resources
centres in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania, to the Indigenous Women’s
Network that was founded in 1985 and has a journal of the same name. These indigenous scholars,
researchers and institutions address questions such as the following:
• What are the worldviews, basic principles, values and methods according to which learning takes place in different cultural environments?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of different sciences and what can be done to
increase the effectiveness and innovative character of these ways of learning?
• How can the marginalisation and suppression of local sciences be addressed? And
• How can complementarity and co-evolution of sciences be achieved?
Proponents of this approach take the position that neither experiences and methods from minority
cultures nor those of the mainstream approach are inherently the most appropriate to explain reality
and/ or to develop technologies that improve quality of life. The latter may be used to complement
local learning processes, but they should not replace them, as is often the case. Exchange between
different sciences, and co-evolution rather than domination and substitution are seen as important.
UNDERSTANDING MIND AND MATTER
Amongst the different worldviews and sciences that exist today, reality is considered and understood in different ways. Globally, a divide can be observed between those who believe that reality is
made up of only one basic substance ( monists) and those who believe that reality is made up of two
different substances ( dualists).
Monists focus either on matter or on mind. Materialism asserts that mind is basically a result of
biochemical processes. This position is dominant in modern Western paradigms. Within monism,
positions that consider reality to be based on spiritual or mental principles are labelled as idealism. These positions are often held in non-Western cultures, and specifically so in the Vedic tradition. Modern science has been struggling with the relation between monism and dualism. It mostly
accepted that both realities exist ( dualism), but in their research practice, modern scientists address
only the quantifiable, which is the material reality.
During the Enlightenment period, the foundations of scientific reasoning were laid by various traditions, including Empiricism by Francis Bacon ( 1561–1626), Rationalism by Descartes ( 1596–1650)
and Mechanism by Newton ( 1642–1727). The development of Evolutionism by Darwin ( 1809–1882)
and Classical Economics by Adam Smith ( 1723–1790) emerged from this scientific revolution with
major implications for the worldviews and the way social systems were considered and organised.
Rene Descartes believed in the possibility to reach absolute truth through scientific knowledge. His approach was based on the belief that all aspects of a complex phenomenon can be