36
Subtle Agroecologies
DEALING WITH THE STRONG AND WEAK POINTS WITHIN THE DOMINANT FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
The basic hypothesis of this chapter is that Western knowledge is just one of the possible forms of
knowledge. It is not universally applicable. It has its own strengths and weaknesses. An intercultural
dialogue based on mutual confdence and horizontal relationships can only take place if all partners
involved are prepared to have a self-critical attitude. There are considerable theories and refections
on the character of Western science. In the battlefeld of knowledge, debates are held on issues such as
objectivity versus subjectivity; universalism versus relativism; specialisation and disciplinarity versus holism or transdisciplinarity; quantitative methods and qualitative methods; and neo-positivism
and actor perspectives. Hence, it is clear that also within the dominant ‘scientifc tower’, there are
different perspectives and positions. Western knowledge applied to agriculture or health practices
has great impact across the globe. It has led to impressive results, but it has not been able to solve all
problems related to food security, health, poverty, environmental sustainability and peace. Therefore,
there is a perspective for intercultural and inter-scientifc dialogue, on condition that Western science
also accepts its limitations and is interested in fnding ways to deal with them. The balance between
sources of knowing– rationality, quantifcation and the material world, on the one hand, and empathy,
intuition, sense and meaning, on the other – needs to be explored and, where necessary, corrected.
Non-Western scientifc traditions can offer a lot to Western science, and the other way around.
CHALLENGING THE DOMINANT WORLDVIEW AND EPISTEMOLOGY
The dominant/mainstream/Western worldview is biased in its dualistic and materialist orientation,
and this bias contributes to the existing global ecological, social and spiritual problems. Human
behaviour leading to these crises has its roots in the dominant values and the way knowledge and
technologies are produced. There is a clear link between the dominant scientifc knowledge and the
way economic development is governed by the laws of capital (Molenaar, 2006).
As the dominant worldview is at least partly responsible for the poly-crisis in the world, it is being
challenged from several angles. More and more the conventional, materialistic and science-based
approaches to development are being questioned, and innovative individuals, citizen groups, scientists and policy makers are presenting new ideas on how things can be done.
CONCLUSION: DIALOGUES BETWEEN AND ABOUT SCIENCES
The insight is emerging that we should look at worldviews, sciences and values, not as universal,
where in the end one of the options will turn out to be the best, but as expressions of a pluralist
reality. In this view, intercultural dialogues, mutual learning and co-evolution of the diversity of
sciences are important. But then, how can we form rules for understanding and exchange between
individual knowledge systems? To what extent can we expect contradiction, synergy or complementarity between different forms of knowledge? How can we make an exchange between, for example,
Maya knowledge, Shona knowledge, Hindu and Buddhist knowledge, European and global knowledge benefcial for the participants?
Two conditions have been suggested (Klein, 2005) for a fruitful dialogue:
• Acceptance of pluralism, and
• Symmetry in power and resources.
The different partners in the dialogue need to accept that, even though they believe that (considering
possible limitations) their own view is probably the best option for their own context, other views
may be relevant for other contexts. In other words, there may be more than one way to interpret,
study and understand reality.
Symmetry in power, in prestige and in access to human and fnancial resources will avoid a situation where a dominant system determines the rules of the game. Local knowledge may be weaker
Subtle Agroecologies
DEALING WITH THE STRONG AND WEAK POINTS WITHIN THE DOMINANT FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
The basic hypothesis of this chapter is that Western knowledge is just one of the possible forms of
knowledge. It is not universally applicable. It has its own strengths and weaknesses. An intercultural
dialogue based on mutual confdence and horizontal relationships can only take place if all partners
involved are prepared to have a self-critical attitude. There are considerable theories and refections
on the character of Western science. In the battlefeld of knowledge, debates are held on issues such as
objectivity versus subjectivity; universalism versus relativism; specialisation and disciplinarity versus holism or transdisciplinarity; quantitative methods and qualitative methods; and neo-positivism
and actor perspectives. Hence, it is clear that also within the dominant ‘scientifc tower’, there are
different perspectives and positions. Western knowledge applied to agriculture or health practices
has great impact across the globe. It has led to impressive results, but it has not been able to solve all
problems related to food security, health, poverty, environmental sustainability and peace. Therefore,
there is a perspective for intercultural and inter-scientifc dialogue, on condition that Western science
also accepts its limitations and is interested in fnding ways to deal with them. The balance between
sources of knowing– rationality, quantifcation and the material world, on the one hand, and empathy,
intuition, sense and meaning, on the other – needs to be explored and, where necessary, corrected.
Non-Western scientifc traditions can offer a lot to Western science, and the other way around.
CHALLENGING THE DOMINANT WORLDVIEW AND EPISTEMOLOGY
The dominant/mainstream/Western worldview is biased in its dualistic and materialist orientation,
and this bias contributes to the existing global ecological, social and spiritual problems. Human
behaviour leading to these crises has its roots in the dominant values and the way knowledge and
technologies are produced. There is a clear link between the dominant scientifc knowledge and the
way economic development is governed by the laws of capital (Molenaar, 2006).
As the dominant worldview is at least partly responsible for the poly-crisis in the world, it is being
challenged from several angles. More and more the conventional, materialistic and science-based
approaches to development are being questioned, and innovative individuals, citizen groups, scientists and policy makers are presenting new ideas on how things can be done.
CONCLUSION: DIALOGUES BETWEEN AND ABOUT SCIENCES
The insight is emerging that we should look at worldviews, sciences and values, not as universal,
where in the end one of the options will turn out to be the best, but as expressions of a pluralist
reality. In this view, intercultural dialogues, mutual learning and co-evolution of the diversity of
sciences are important. But then, how can we form rules for understanding and exchange between
individual knowledge systems? To what extent can we expect contradiction, synergy or complementarity between different forms of knowledge? How can we make an exchange between, for example,
Maya knowledge, Shona knowledge, Hindu and Buddhist knowledge, European and global knowledge benefcial for the participants?
Two conditions have been suggested (Klein, 2005) for a fruitful dialogue:
• Acceptance of pluralism, and
• Symmetry in power and resources.
The different partners in the dialogue need to accept that, even though they believe that (considering
possible limitations) their own view is probably the best option for their own context, other views
may be relevant for other contexts. In other words, there may be more than one way to interpret,
study and understand reality.
Symmetry in power, in prestige and in access to human and fnancial resources will avoid a situation where a dominant system determines the rules of the game. Local knowledge may be weaker