Showing papers by "Michael R. Dove published in 2002"

Linking ecological and social scales for natural resource management

Abstract: Natural resource management has moved from a single disciplinary and one resource management approach to an interdisciplinary and ecosystem-based approach Many conceptual models are being developed to understand and implement ecosystem management and forest certification initiatives that require an integration of data from both the social and natural systems (Vogt et al, 1997, 1999a,b) These changed approaches to natural resource management arose from a perception that variables critical in controlling the health and functioning of an ecosystem could only be determined by integrating information from both the social and the natural sciences (Vogt et al, 1997) However, it has been difficult to take many of the theoretical discussions and the frameworks or conceptual models that they have produced and to operationalize or put them into practice on the ground

Hybrid Histories and Indigenous Knowledge Among Asian Rubber Smallholders

Abstract: Practically since its inception as a discipline, anthropology has interested itself in the knowledge systems of indigenous peoples. This interest can be traced from early ethnographic work on local patterns of environmental relations and systems of resource-use, to more recent work in ethnoscience and ethnobotany (e.g.). Within the past two decades, however, the object of this interest has been redefined and reified as “Indigenous Knowledge”; anthropologists have been joined in its study by other social scientists, as well as development scholars, planners, and activists; and it has become the focus of newly established institutes and publications (cf. Warren, Slikkerver, and Brokensha, 1995). This burgeoning interest in Indigenous Knowledge is premised on the belief that many failures of development and under-development are due to the privileging of modern, global, scientific knowledge over local, traditional indigenous knowledge. A corollary premise is that a reversal of this imbalance, based on the study and utilization of Indigenous Knowledge, will have salutary effects. The challenge of successful development, therefore, is seen as ethnographic and pedagogical in nature: ignorance of knowledge that lies outside modern scientific traditions is seen as the problem, which can be remedied through the unearthing and study of this knowledge. This critique of the dominant paradigm of development was initially heralded as a great step forward; but within the past five years in particular, questions have been raised regarding its genuineness. Both of these perspectives are reflected in a recent issue of “Current Anthropology”, in which the lead author Paul Sillitoe refers to this new study of Indigenous Knowledge as a “revolution”, whereas one of the commentators, Carmen Ferradas, calls is just another “self-privileging antinomy” (Ferradas, 1998:240; Sillitoe, 1998:223,246). My purpose in the present analysis is to consider the truth in both of these views of Indigenous Knowledge. I will base this analysis on my own study of one system of Indigenous Knowledge, that of Southeast Asia’s smallholder cultivators of Para rubber.

Hybrid histories and indigenous knowledge among Asian rubber smallholders

Abstract: Michael R. Dove is Margaret K. Musserprofessor of social ecology and chair ofthe Council on South-East Asian Studiesat Yale University, F&ES, 205 ProspectStreet, New Haven, Connecticut 06511–2189, US. An anthropologist who hascarried out fieldwork in both Indonesiaand Pakistan, his current research inter-ests include contemporary and historicalenvironmental relations in South andSouth-East Asia, the sociology ofresource-related sciences, and the studyof developmental and environmentalinstitutions and discourses.Email: michael.dove@yale.edu

Histoires et savoirs autochtones hybrides chez les petits cultivateurs d'hévéa d'Asie

Abstract: Cet article remet en cause les hypotheses a la base du concept de « savoir autochtone », a partir d’une etude de cas qui porte sur un systeme de savoirs autochtones apparemment exemplaire, celui des petits cultivateurs modernes d’hevea dans le Sud-Est asiatique. L’analyse debute par un bref historique des techniques de culture de l’hevea, avec notamment le transfert de l’Hevea brasiliensis depuis l’Amerique du Sud jusque dans le Sud-Est asiatique et l’edification d’un savoir relatif a la culture de l’hevea pendant et apres ce transfert. Cette histoire d’edification d’un savoir s’est caracterisee par deux ruptures essentielles, qui ont consiste a separer l’hevea de son contexte conceptuel d’origine, puis a experimenter des techniques de production extensive du caoutchouc. Chez les petits producteurs asiatiques, le systeme de culture qui en est resulte n’est, comme beaucoup d’autres systemes de cette nature, ni exogene ni indigene mais plutot de nature hybride, et cette idee d’hybridite est vivement contestee par les principales parties concernees, a savoir les petits producteurs d’un cote, et le secteur des proprietes d’Etat de l’autre. L’auteur en conclut que le concept de savoir autochtone est un type de « pratique divisante », qui masque une histoire faite d’interactions et de contestations et que ce concept a connu un « cycle de vie », au cours duquel il a d’abord ete recu et utilise avant d’etre rejete et de tomber en desuetude.