TEK and Western Science

Question

Some of you have juxtaposed TEK as a way of knowing with Western science. Many articles we have read have listed these two ways of knowing in a compare and contrast form. What is/should be the relationship between TEK and Western science? Do you think these 2 ways of knowing should be integrated, kept separate, or used in a complimentary fashion? Are there any particular cases that have shaped your point of view?

Best regards: Kathy and Jamie

---

Responses

From: Ilarion Merculieff

In 1995 I coordinated a meeting of representatives from all regions in the Bering Sea under the auspices of the Bering Sea Coalition. In that meeting all representatives were adamantly unanimous that our ways of knowing be kept separate from that of western science, but that we can coordinate and cooperate, supplement and complement the work of western science. I believe this position is correct given my twenty years of experience in attempting to convince western scientists and policy makers that our ways of knowing are as equally valid as that of western science. Most scientists do not agree that it is as valid, but will agree that it is useful. I have visited some 70 villages in the past twenty or so years, and the distrust of western science is strong. Historically scientific work has proven to be a precursor to development or has laid the groundwork for imposing regulations on the subsistence way of life. In most cases of scientific research in rural Alaska, the research reflected the scientist's priorities and not local priorities or needs. In many instances, information garnered from the Alaska Native way of knowing were used to boost the credentials of the researcher with little or no attribution to the source. When collaboration occurred, it was the Alaska Native relegated to an advisory capacity. Also, given the nature of the information from traditional ways of knowing, most scientists (unless having had real experience with this way over a period of time) would not understand how to use the information, or for what period of time the information would be useful. It can and is taken out of context whenever there is "integration" of the traditional ways of knowing into western science. The very act of "integration" changes the nature of this information, or it may be edited to fit a model or thesis the scientist is working with. To some people, the meaning of "integration" is taken in the same vein as "racial integration". In other words, "absorb" this way of knowing into the system. For some in western science, integration means giving token acknowledgement to this way of knowing. Most scientists have approached "integration" and use of traditional ways of knowing in an ad hoc fashion. No thought is given to negotiating principles, policies, and protocols which would guide when, how, where, and under what conditions this information would be used.

Many scientists believe that to negotiate such things would compromise their work-even though any good scientist would never sanction use of their hypotheses, theories, models, or research data and findings out of context. It appears to be a double standard. At any rate, much can be gained by a true partnership between traditional ways of knowing and western science. It would be a combination of a masculine and feminine construct-a novel idea. However, there is tremendous resistance to change of any paradigm-demonstration projects are necessary to prove the utility of this approach.

Shantam

From: Gene Anderson

There is some truth and some non-truth in this-

Western science, at its best, relies on several very important features that are not found in TEK. The most important methodological ones are case/control experimentation (which was apparently invented in China ca. 150 BC, and thus isn't strictly "western"), free publication of results, and replicable experiments-or field observations that count as "natural experiments"-that are indeed replicated and verified. The most important general things are the concept of a "theory" that generates "hypotheses" that can be tested to produce "data" (NOT "facts") for confirmation, etc. After that there is a big fat argument about what happens next. Suffice it to say that controlled, verified experiments or "natural experiments" are basic.

The oft-repeated nonsense about Western science being somehow "rational", cold, cut-and-dried, routinized, rationalized, Cartesian, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam, was disproved long ago by Thomas Kuhn and others. Whether one likes that sort of mentality (as positivists do) or hates it (as Deep Ecologists do), it's just descriptively inaccurate. Practicing science is a messy business, full of false starts, biases, etc. The purpose of case/control experiments and verifiable studies is not to make everything rational but to put a check on the inevitable irrationality.

TEK strikes me as usually a lot more rational, sensible, and so on than practicing Western science. However, TEK usually grows by accretion, without the merciless white light of open publication and verification trials. Thus, it winds up encoding a lot more stuff, but a lot of the stuff is just wrong. (So is a lot of Western science. I have seen a lot of the underpinnings of Western science disproved during my lifetime.)

Beyond that, I don't think you can generalize. The claims that TEK is somehow spontaneously in tune with the universe, while Western science is rationalized and divorced from it, are sort of silly. There are all kinds of TEK, from highly religious to exceedingly practical, matter-of-fact and tightly verified. It really isn't easy to generalize about the knowledge of 2600-3000 ethnic groups!

Actually, as the Chinese invention of case/control experimentation should remind us, "Western" science isn't just Western; it is mainly the product of late-Renaissance speculation in western Europe, to be sure (Francis Bacon being the key player), but it had international ancestry and is now, of course, totally international. Moreover, what do you do with the Western science that is TEK, like the folk knowledge of farming, hunting, and forestry that I picked up in my youth from my family and other traditional workers on the land? This gets worse when people talk about "Western medicine" to mean modern international biomedical science.

Western medicine includes all kinds of spirit healing, herbal remedies, and magical practices that biomedicine rejects. Conversely, biomedicine has, from the start, been an international enterprise (one thinks of founding fathers like Shiga, Wu, etc.). This is getting off the subject, so I'll close.

best-Gene Anderson

From: Daniel Clément

There is an epistemological problem in your question. On the first hand, it assumes that there is such a thing as TEK (outside an intellectual construct), i.e. such common elements in all or most of all non Westerners' ways of thinking that would add to something uniform which could be contrasted with another way of thinking shared by Western societies. On the other hand, it supposes a comparison between whole oral traditions (TEK) with one specific manifestation of ways of thinking of certain societies (Science).

There are several ways to solve these problems. For example, we can interrogate the history of the evolution of concepts used to qualify non Western societies mode of thinking; such a history shows that Other Societies' ways of thinking have always been situated in an inferior state in an hierarchical model that assumes that Science is the most advanced, refined, sophisticated way of perceiving the universe, and here, more especially, the environment. Among the various concepts used for Others' ways of thinking, in the past century or so, we find the following: "folklore", "popular beliefs", "natural history", ethno-something (as in ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnobiology), "knowledge", etc. but very seldomly, Science. The same is true for the components of these ways of thinking (i.e. the evolution from a denial of any classification among "primitive" people to a recognition of very sophisticated systems of classification among the now called Indigenous Peoples).

Considered now from the perspective of the concepts themselves, what researchers are trying to compare here has nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with the supernatural, or nothing to do with mythology. Most of the time, what is at sake is knowledge of certain components of the environment from a very utilitarian point of view (see different articles in J. Inglis; Plants and People handbook, TEK dissertations as the one by D. Nakashima). If this is the case, why are the different knowledge not called the same? For my part, I call them science in both cases (science means knowledge).

Finally, if we look into the people who promote TEK, not surprisingly, we find (at least in Canada, as long as I am more aware of the situation here) many politicians, administrators, and the like. The history of anthropology is helpful in assessing such a situation. Anthropology has started by colonialism and TEK seems to me but another form more sophisticated of the same endeavor. In Canada, northern industrial development has become very prominent in the last decade and there is some resistance to that development from northern indigenous communities. The new way to try to pursue that development is to present to Native people a new candy called TEK, trying to have them believe that now their opinions are considered as important as any other knowledge in that development and, parallely, trying to integrate them in the process. I have just finish a report concerning the implantation of a nickel mine in Voisey's Bay in Labrador (Canada) where there is a small community of Innu people. I have been at the public hearings and presented the Aboriginal knowledge of the area (what you call TEK). Although it is mandatory to take into account Aboriginal Knowledge in these kind of procedures (=Environmental Impact Assessments) here since the beginning of the 1990s and it is mandatory to consider this knowledge equally, the attitude of the Company and the Government Panel when we made our presentation indicated quite clearly that this is only on paper not a reality.

There are no such thing as two different ways of thinking as TEK versus Science. This is an arbitrary construct useful only to Westerners for the reason mentioned above. Science is only an artificial part of Western societies' ways of thinking and as such, if comparison there should be, should be contrasted with its equivalent in non Western societies, i.e. the same kind of knowledge only, mostly empirical data. If not, then compare the whole way of thinking of oral societies with Western societies and then you will have to incorporate in the latter one, astrology, religion, etc.

Daniel Clément

From: John Bradley

There are a number of issues which need to be identified in the relationship between western science and indigenous knowledge. One is of course, from the Australian experience at least the contestation the western science engages in relation to the knowledge held by indigenous people and secondly one of the bigger issues is that of western sciences thinking they know all about indigenous science because they have been in the field an made a list. By a list I mean the basic information that is often first recorded which may be the indigenous term, scientific term and common term of any particular species if known. There are if course many such publications and in parts of Australia their are section within Government environmental units which spend a lot of time and money doing this. The trouble with this is we may find out a lot about what indigenous people know but never understand how it is known. That is how is the knowledge embedded within the structures of the community. Such lists can and have in some situations deprived indigenous people of any sense of empowerment in relation to their own knowledge structures. One of the other issues that comes into consideration here to is quite often scientists make great distinctions between the natural, the spiritual and the social world, that is they are view as very distinct entities which are sometimes not even taken into consideration. Indigenous systems of knowledge needs to have a term such as "spiritual" taken int0o consideration, realizing as Bulmer said it is a slippery term, but for may indigenous people much ecological knowledge is encoded in mythology, narrative and song and all become important in terms of understanding the environment that people call home. The last comment I want to make is that often science does not take into account the ownership and control of cultural resources, they fail to realize that in many indigenous communities that cultural resources which are owned are not just things like language and song but can equally include plants, animals and landscape. Sure I believe that science and indigenous people with their knowledge can work together but science has to remove its coloured glasses of superiority.

From: Alan White

November 4

You asked about how we perceive the relationship of TEK and western science and whether they, as forms of knowledge, should be kept separate, integrated or used in a complimentary manner? I have several reactions to this based on my own experience of learning and also what I observe among scientists and in my work.

1. By definition, western science tends to be reductionist in thinking and learning and there are those scientists who see the world through the eyes of the laboratory and what can be proven given certain techniques and analysis of data. Then there are those western scientists who put more value on experience and intuition in their learning. Often, this tendency becomes more pronounced and important with age-at least for those who are more immersed in the world at large.

2. I was trained in chemistry and physics to the point of thinking when I was about 24 years old that most physical phenomena could be explained through these sciences and their powerful tools of analysis. After all, physics is an incredibly refined and all encompassing way of explaining our physical world. But as I traveled and read, I became interested in psychic phenomena which defy the generally accepted rules of physics. To make a long story short, I have been able to witness, without known trickery, physical changes in solid objects associated with psychic forces. I would have never believed this was possible but I saw this repeatedly in a setting in the Philippines. This has since changed the way I see physics and the way I understand energy and how energy affects our lives.

3. As to whether TEK and Western science should be kept separate, I would say a definite no. We have to learn to integrate the best of different worlds to continue to grow and to enhance the larger knowledge. Whether we consider these forms of knowledge for integration or to be complimentary, I think is not so important. This will vary with the situation and exact information and experience of concern. In the end, I would hope that TEK and western science can be complimentary. I think they can both benefit from the other. I see this all the time in the merging of marine science and traditional ideas in Philippine coastal communities. There are now many examples of both forms of knowledge working together to improve the management of coastal resources in the Philippines.

This is enough for now!

Regards, Alan White

From: Darrell Posey

We are all one species (and sub-species). There is no reason to think that if we can communicate through language between cultures that we cannot communicate between sciences and reflections (and sub-sets) of cultures...TEK is for translation, therefore both and neither complimentary, separate, or the same as local knowledge. Dap

From: Gene Anderson

I agree, on the whole, with Daniel Clément. I think the term TEK can be salvaged from the exploiters, but it will take some doing. But, if we are to drop every word that's misused by scoundrels, we'll have to drop all the words in all the languages in the world, I fear.

He does make one mistake that should be corrected: he says anthropology comes from colonialism. This is a glib claim that is simply wrong. Anthropology was started by no less than Immanuel Kant ("Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View," 1798) as part of an Enlightenment humanist endeavor. The British Ethnological Society began life as the British Anti-Slavery Society, and the American Ethnological Society started as an Indian advocacy group ("Indian lovers" in the pejorative term of that time). And so it went. Some anthropologists got coopted by colonialists in the 1920s and 1930s, but most remained staunch advocates of the people they studied: Boas, for instance. This glorious heritage of advocacy and militant resistance to slavery and exploitation has been not only lost, but forgotten, by modern anthropologists (shame, you sell-outs). It should be taught and propagated. All praise to people like Daniel Clément and Darrell Posey, to say nothing of David Maybury-Lewis, Jon Marks, and others, who keep up the old tradition. Maybe that's OUR TEK.

Anyway, to the substance of this enterprise: No, there is no one TEK, there are thousands of local traditions that qualify as various streams of TEK. This INCLUDES all the traditional components and sources of western science: foxglove for digitalis, willow leaves and spiraea for aspirin, etc. How can you draw a line between TEK and western science when all western science grew out of the west's particular sets of TEK?

As I said, I think there is a difference: modern international science works by rigidly controlled experiment and confirmation procedures. TEK grows by accretion, without very good procedures for weeding out nonsense. otherwise I don't see how you can make valid blanket generalizations. IF TEK means anything (beyond being some sort of pejorative term, as Daniel Clément suggests), it has to be a very general cover term for all sorts of knowledges in all sorts of contexts.

I would recommend Peter Worsley's book KNOWLEDGES for a good take on all this, with lots of examples.

best-Gene Anderson

From: Ray Pierotti

This issue has become a major focus of my research, and as a field biologist, who is also an indigenous person, I have had to deal with various ramifications of this question throughout my career. It is easy to do a compare and contrast between TEK and Western science, but I think that the relationship is more subtle, and that Western science has borrowed liberally from TEK, often without attribution.

In my own case, I feel that I have become a much more perceptive scientist because of the way I was raised to view non-humans as individuals and to think that they have much to teach us if we pay close enough attention. In fact, the reason that I became an ecologist is that it was the academic discipline most suited to my way of looking at the world. Over the years, I have come to think of evolution as linked strongly to ecology, and to realize that, despite the opinions of many on both sides, that evolution is also linked to TEK. The simplest way to look at this is Ecology is the branch of science that demonstrates that all things are connected, whereas Evolution is the science that demonstrates that all things are related.

Problems with this approach are that 1) many individuals on both sides fail to discern these links, and 2) I have become somewhat controversial as a scientist. I am well published, with over 50 articles, but I always try to push the envelope to make my colleagues understand how complex and unique our fellow non-humans can be. I am willing to expand upon this theme for those who are interested, but in this forum I will not say more than I feel that Western science gives us a very limited understanding about the complexity and intelligence of non-humans. TEK has a much better appreciation of these points. For these reasons I feel that integration between TEK and Science is essential if the human species is to learn to co-exist with non-humans, and that co-existence is necessary for the survival of human sanity.

I was saddened, but I understood what Larry had to say about the lack of enthusiasm among indigenous people to share knowledge with Western science. I know that many of my Western colleagues are insensitive and arrogant, but I also know that there are legions of young people of all races and cultures who are hungry for understanding, and most of these are dissatisfied with Western science and its narrow approach. Combining TEK and Western science gives these young people, and many older ones as well, a greater appreciation of the natural world. I hope that we can learn to integrate, because if we cannot do this I fear that we be doomed.

Ray Pierotti

From: Eugene Hunn

I could paraphrase my argument in my article "The Value of Subsistence for the Future of the World" set to appear shortly in the volume Ethnoecologies edited by Virginia Nazarea (U. Arizona Press). TEK are plural, MEK (if I might introduce a contrasting term: Modern Environmental Knowledge; though some might consider it an oxymoron) is singular. TEK are local; MEK is self-consciously global, generalizing, part of the Western scientific project of understanding the universe in terms of first principles. TEK are fragile (because they are created and sustained by communities of people who live in intimate interdependence with particular places on the Earth); they live or die with the communities that created them. MEK is powerful, no denying it. But MEK is not all powerful and TEKs often achieve superior empirical knowledge and understanding of their local places. That is what motivates pharmaceutical companies to seek out TEK in hopes of exploiting it. However, I believe that is not the essence of the value of TEK. I study TEK in order to appreciate (and to share my appreciation and wonder) how all TEK reflect our common humanity, our common scientific spirit (not another oxymoron, in my view). TEK provide beautiful examples of how human minds grasp the reality that surrounds them. Those examples contribute to a universalist scientific investigation of the nature of mind. Finally, I believe TEK deserve our support for their continued survival as living adaptations, as part of the totality of living cultural diversity upon which the evolutionary future of humanity collectively depends.

Gene Hunn.