The Larger Context in which TEK Exists

Question

During the past couple of weeks, we have discussed the terms TEK, traditional knowledge, etc. and some of the issues surrounding TEK and Western science. We would now like to take a step back from the terms per se, as many of you have already done, and ask you for your thoughts on the larger context in which TEK exists.

Or we might consider, what is not TEK?

On the practical side, is it useful to limit the concept? If so, how should we limit it or in what contexts?

- Kathy and Jamie

---

Responses

From: Gene Anderson

I don't think one can bound this term. I guess TEK is an open-ended set, referring to anything known about ecology that you can trace back to Granddaddy instead of to a book or the boob tube. (My experience is that people start calling knowledge "traditional" when they got it from grandparents' generation or around about then. If knowledge has been transmitted without much basic change for 100 years, it should easily qualify as traditional. Some even newer knowledge is traditional.) And of course the world's 3000 or so cultures all have their own TEK's. And one could no doubt define subcultural TEKs too. The limits of all these would probably vary according to culture. At one extreme are the Australian aborigines, for whom absolutely everything is connected to environment and ecology via the song cycles about the Dreamings. At the other extreme are modern western societies, which DO still have appreciable TEK, but it's marginalized as "herb lore" and "nature lore" and stuff like that. In terms of "traditional," it is, of course, impossible to say that a bit of knowledge becomes "traditional" after exactly 100 years (or 50 years, or 75 years). And it is equally impossible to say that herb lore ceases to be "traditional" at some exact point, e.g. when the active chemical in the herb is tested and analyzed, or when the tradition is misapplied to the wrong herb. By definition, "tradition" blends into whatever else there is. And we must remember Hobsbawm and Ranger's 1985 book THE INVENTION OF TRADITION-traditions can be phony, or highly modified, or whatever, and the modifications are systematic and interesting in their own right.

As to "ecological," we need to maintain a pretty wide definition here. The Chinese I worked with were rather like the Australian aborigines. An awful lot of things were "ecological' that aren't "ecological" to western scientists. For instance, much of a family's good luck and wealth depended on the ecological siting of the houses and graves of the family members.

So, one has to consider each culture and subculture separately, and define their TEK according to what they say. Maybe they don't have a concept of "ecology," or maybe they do, but they are sure to have some set of descriptors for human/environment interactions. One can work outward from those.

best-Gene Anderson

From: Ilarion Merculieff

The intent of your question is unclear; however, I will respond to what I think it is you are asking. The larger and deeper context of traditional knowledge and wisdom is spiritual. It is a way of knowing and understanding that comes from a connectedness to all that is sacred in Creation. The degree of connectedness determines the quality of the information and understanding. It is this aspect that most scientists find difficult if not impossible to reconcile with their "objective" science. It cannot be measured or quantified and thus is invisible in the western science radar screen. It is something that can be discussed but never understood until one actually experiences what this means in a deeply personal way. It is the "feminine mystery" which our left brains cannot grasp without help. Because it is based on this "feminine mystery" that masculine constructs do not know how to come to terms with it. It is an understanding and a knowing that there is a consciousness in all Creation which one can communicate with because we are a part of it. It is that part of us that everyone intuitively knows exists but do not know how to access because the ways have been forgotten.

Shantam

From: Alan White

The biggest difficulty for me in deciding what is not TEK concerns the habitats, fishing and use patterns of most present day coastal fishers in places like the Philippines where life has forced them to do beyond the limits. This, of course, is a world wide phenomena but is manifested in more severe terms where coastal fisheries are depleted and the human populations have gone beyond the carrying capacity of local resource systems to support them. In this context, there may still exist TEK but it does not play out in terms of sensitivity to natural resource systems because people are on the edge and pushed to the limit. Given this situation, I think we need to limit the use of TEK to areas where it still has an outward and possibly positive manifestation. Some say that even a dynamite fisher has some TEK from his experience, but I tend to dismiss this as no longer an appropriate use of the term and what it stands for.

Alan White

From: Daniel Clément

I think the expression "Traditional Ecological Knowledge" and the acronym TEK should be reserved for very general discussion or analysis or study of about anything one believes should be understood as such. Because of its obviously generalistic nature, the expression is used in a very different way according to experience: it means something very different if not opposite for a politician than for a Native or for an ethnobiologist. Theoretically it could create a bridge of understanding between these main users of the expression. But it does not seem to do so. For more specific aspects often included in TEK, I think one should use the correspondent specific concept: e.g. knowledge, science, belief, wisdom, etc.

Thank you.

Daniel Clément