238
4 Discussion
later that year. Since then, we have established a collegial relationship and friendship
and have also collaborated on a WRC-funded project investigating the lessons that
were learned from the establishment of catchment management agencies in South
Africa (Meissner et al. 2017 and Stuart-Hill and Meissner 2017).
Because of my formal association with UKZN and my professional partnership
with Sabine, which have enabled an academic network, I have visited Durban and
Pietermaritzburg on a regular basis to participate in conferences and workshops
hosted by the university and the INR. During these numerous research activities, I
have noticed that there has been an absence of community, public and traditional
leaders’ voices; not only have they not been physically present, but their voices have
also not been expressed in the research of local researchers. The exception to this
would be in the work conducted by Jim and Liz Taylor and their team from WESSA.
Since most researchers and other non-governmental representatives who attend
these conferences and workshops are natural scientists from entities such as DUCT
and WWF, I have concluded that their background knowledge does not consider the
normative aspects expressed by the communities, the public and traditional leaders. In
fact, most community activities that are spearheaded by DUCT and WESSA revolve
around the practice of citizen science and education with regard to the water quality
problems in the uMngeni Catchment. These activities are predominantly informed
by empirical science, while, to a large extent, normativity falls by the wayside. This
is also the case with eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructures, where organisations with an empirical background, like ACT, INR and SANBI, play a central
role. These entities define and inform green and ecological infrastructures from an
empirical and positivist ontology, within the framework of sustainable development,
and as an ideology and theory of positive environmental change. This is linked to the
existence of a limited epistocracy (p. 181) that operates within eThekwini’s green
and ecological infrastructure policy landscape.
Empirical and positivist scientific background knowledge is the function that
informs the epistemological, methodological and ontological practices of this epistocracy. This means that the epistocracy does not deliberately exclude the normative and intersubjective voices expressed by communities, the public and traditional
leaders, but that it does so subliminally, since empiricism and positivism practices
inform a top-down objectivist notion of knowledge generation, where scientists
govern, and the rest benefit.
By looking at the epistemological, methodological and ontological characteristics
of the epistocracy, we see that ‘science speaking truth to power’ (pp. 33, 34, 100)
operates in over-drive. The epistocracy is limited, since it is restricted to a group
of people that operates in a specific environmental (the uMngeni Catchment) and
epistemological (empiricist and positivist) intellectual setting. It is also not deliberately exclusionary, although this exclusionary feature is manifested in the way that
it practices its science.
Therefore, how the various stakeholders view the reality of the uMngeni Catchment’s problems and eThekwini’s green infrastructure initiatives has a bearing on
their knowledge and action-generating activities. Next, I will speak more about the
concept of reality.
4 Discussion
later that year. Since then, we have established a collegial relationship and friendship
and have also collaborated on a WRC-funded project investigating the lessons that
were learned from the establishment of catchment management agencies in South
Africa (Meissner et al. 2017 and Stuart-Hill and Meissner 2017).
Because of my formal association with UKZN and my professional partnership
with Sabine, which have enabled an academic network, I have visited Durban and
Pietermaritzburg on a regular basis to participate in conferences and workshops
hosted by the university and the INR. During these numerous research activities, I
have noticed that there has been an absence of community, public and traditional
leaders’ voices; not only have they not been physically present, but their voices have
also not been expressed in the research of local researchers. The exception to this
would be in the work conducted by Jim and Liz Taylor and their team from WESSA.
Since most researchers and other non-governmental representatives who attend
these conferences and workshops are natural scientists from entities such as DUCT
and WWF, I have concluded that their background knowledge does not consider the
normative aspects expressed by the communities, the public and traditional leaders. In
fact, most community activities that are spearheaded by DUCT and WESSA revolve
around the practice of citizen science and education with regard to the water quality
problems in the uMngeni Catchment. These activities are predominantly informed
by empirical science, while, to a large extent, normativity falls by the wayside. This
is also the case with eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructures, where organisations with an empirical background, like ACT, INR and SANBI, play a central
role. These entities define and inform green and ecological infrastructures from an
empirical and positivist ontology, within the framework of sustainable development,
and as an ideology and theory of positive environmental change. This is linked to the
existence of a limited epistocracy (p. 181) that operates within eThekwini’s green
and ecological infrastructure policy landscape.
Empirical and positivist scientific background knowledge is the function that
informs the epistemological, methodological and ontological practices of this epistocracy. This means that the epistocracy does not deliberately exclude the normative and intersubjective voices expressed by communities, the public and traditional
leaders, but that it does so subliminally, since empiricism and positivism practices
inform a top-down objectivist notion of knowledge generation, where scientists
govern, and the rest benefit.
By looking at the epistemological, methodological and ontological characteristics
of the epistocracy, we see that ‘science speaking truth to power’ (pp. 33, 34, 100)
operates in over-drive. The epistocracy is limited, since it is restricted to a group
of people that operates in a specific environmental (the uMngeni Catchment) and
epistemological (empiricist and positivist) intellectual setting. It is also not deliberately exclusionary, although this exclusionary feature is manifested in the way that
it practices its science.
Therefore, how the various stakeholders view the reality of the uMngeni Catchment’s problems and eThekwini’s green infrastructure initiatives has a bearing on
their knowledge and action-generating activities. Next, I will speak more about the
concept of reality.