Knowledges: Uprooting Western Hegemony & Biocolonialism

by Lara Roelofs

“Getting scientists to consider the validity of indigenous knowledge is like swimming upstream in cold, cold water. They’ve been so conditioned to be skeptical of even the hardest of hard data that bending their minds toward theories that are verified without the expected graphs or equations is tough. Couple that with the unblinking assumption that science has cornered the market on truth and there’s not much room for discussion” (Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass 160).

Western Knowledge Hegemony: Linguistic Background

Knowledge may be best understood in its plural version, knowledges. Yet in a colonized, Western world, the singular is almost exclusively used, exemplifying the hegemonic relationship Western society has with knowledges. Dian Million explores this hegemony, writing “it is the nature of Western disciplinary knowledge claims to either contest or extinguish rival knowledge claims…All the capitalist institutions in Western nation-states are invested (literally) in the production of knowledge, a knowledge production that is idealized at this point as universal” (Teves 340). The form of Western knowledge, enforced and perpetuated by its institutions, has been portrayed as the norm, the baseline off of which all knowledge is judged by. Scientific institutions and academia exemplify this, forcing published scientific knowledge into the strict confines and format of the scientific method.

Western institutions attempt to define indigenous knowledges, using terms such as “traditional knowledge or traditional ecological knowledge, local knowledge, indigenous knowledge or science, folk knowledge, farmers’ knowledge, fishers’ knowledge and tacit knowledge” (Mazzocchi). These modifiers seek to distinguish non-Western knowledges from the “universal” Western baseline. The labels also continue to enforce the singularity of the word knowledge, ignoring the complexity and diversity of non-Western knowledges. Jane H. Hill, in her exploration of languages and knowledges, emphasizes that this diversity “occurs not only among cultures and communities but within them. Kinds of knowledge in Native societies were distributed between humans and other than human beings, between human men and women, initiates and noninitiates, elders and mere adults, and across genres of talk and text, themselves differentially appropriate to different kinds of people” (Teves 320). Knowledge, singular, as portrayed in Western culture, fails to account for the diversity in form and function of knowledges that exist among and within Indigenous communities.

            The English language further informs the Western understanding of “knowledge” and restricts the ability of Western academia to grasp these diverse concepts in other knowledge systems. The word “knowledge” was first documented as coming from a verb that meant “to own the knowledge of, to confess, to admit as true” (Teves 320). From the beginning, knowledge was portrayed as something to own and hold as the universal truth. The roots of this knowledge are often from “European philosophical roots, i.e., Descartes, Bacon, and the Enlightenment” and in them, “humans are autonomous from, and in control of, the natural world” (Pierotti & Wildcat). In written conversation with Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg scholar Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, Sabrien Amrov explores how Western intellectualism “is indeed arrogant; it seeks to win something at some game… Indigenous intellectual practice, in my studentship, seeks to understand and works to make…constellations of care functional in all the possible ways, at all possible scales, in all possible seen and unseen worlds…” (Simpson & Amrov 23). Simpson and Amrov explore how Indigenous ways of knowing do not follow the same “arrogant” ideas of ownership that Western knowledge has been defined by since it was defined in the English language. Simpson further describes how she views knowledge as a “relational process” (18). As Hill also describes, indigenous knowledges can break the human-centric confines of Western knowledge, reaching all scales and existing between all forms of beings.

The English language, in addition to implying ownership when defining knowledge, continues to restrict understanding of these concepts of relationality and non-human knowledge at a linguistic level. This is exemplified by a lack of what Potawatomi scientist and writer Robin Wall Kimmerer calls the “Grammar of Animacy”. Kimmerer writes that “...I am discovering that the Potawatomi understanding of what it means to be animate diverges from the list of attributes of living beings we all learned in Biology 101. In Potawatomi 101…[b]eings that are imbued with spirit…Yawe–the animate to be…In English, you are either a human or a thing…Where are our words for the simple existence of another living being?” (Braiding Sweetgrass 56). At a linguistic level, the English language fails to grasp ideas embedded in the Potawatomi language. In English, as is portrayed in Western science, humans are often the central focus and primary living being, leaving little room for understanding that for some Indigenous cultures, “Animals, plants, and entities, such as water, are often considered as bearers of knowledge in their own right” and  “[h]umans must exercise respect in their requesting counsel from these knowledge bearers” (Whtye, Caldwell, & Schaefer 156).

The Role of Biocolonialism

Colonialism has greatly aided in the process of setting up the “universal” Western knowledge system. Western science has dismissed Indigenous knowledges as “primitive, folklore, unscientific, amethodological, insignificant, and lacking scientific objective” (Knopf 179). It has been claimed that Indigenous knowledges provide “nothing to the development of knowledge, humanities, arts, science, and technology” (Knopf 181).This so-called “cognitive imperialism”, as termed by Mi’kmaw scholar Marie Battiste, works to perpetuate colonial structures (Knopf 181-182). The dismissal of Indigenous knowledge systems is fraught with irony, as colonialism has simultaneously attempted to both discredit and utilize Indigenous knowledges for the benefit of colonial societies.

“Extractive biocolonialism” is characterized by the “the valued genetic resources and associated agricultural and medicinal knowledge of indigenous peoples sought, legally converted into private intellectual property, transformed into commodities, and then placed for sale in genetic marketplaces” (Whitt). Both knowledge and even genetic life itself have been commodified, as “depoliticization, corporate, academic, legal, and governmental institutions pool their interests and immense resources to extract from these knowledge systems what they find valuable in them…A pattern that began with indigenous land and tangible resources continues now with indigenous knowledge and genetic resources.” (Whitt 220). Many Indigenous peoples argue that “[t]he commodification of both knowledge and genetic resources entailed by biocolonialism results in the abandonment of crucial moral responsibilities to future generations”. The Zuni has a Cultural Resources Advisory Team, which has made it clear that Zuni seeds “should not be sold or given to outsiders for profit, resale, breeding or trademarketing.” (Whitt 50). When the seeds are commodified, use of the seeds become unknown, and the Zuni people would “no longer be able to discharge moral responsibility to ensure that these gifts are not abused” (Whitt 50). Commodification inherently changes the value of something, and “custodial responsibilities” are lost (Whitt 50). The Mauri people similarly acknowledge the issue of commodification of both genetic material and knowledge, as they describe how the knowledge of the natural world, one of the three Māori baskets of knowledge, is tapu, meaning “sacred and set apart, or removed from profane use” (Whitt 50). To Māori elders, Tapu should never be sold: “to them it is priceless. Money can never buy knowledge and when they teach they will tell people ‘This knowledge I am passing over to you must never be sold’. One is responsible for such knowledge and for how it will be used, or misused” (Whitt 52).

Resistance to biocolonialism is widespread, as Indigenous communities fight for even the acknowledgement of this continued colonialism and for the preservation of their knowledge systems. These communities have “mounted strong advocacy internationally for the inclusion of broader human rights standards in scientific research. Individual tribes and tribal members have initiated lawsuits to protect genetic materials and resources. And first, last, and always, they have insisted…on the recognition of their right as self-determining peoples to engage in decision making that impacts them, their resources, and future generations” (Whitt 221).

Knowledge Pluralism: TEK and Western Science

In a fight against biocolonialism and Western scientific hegemony, many indigenous scholars have pushed for more open dialogue and integration between Western and Indigenous knowledges, in ways that allow for “mutual respect, common understanding, and collaboration” (Knopf 180). Essential to this integration is the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Indigenous knowledges and of the exclusionary forces present in Western academia.

The integration of Western conservation and ecological science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge seems to be of particular interest to many scholars. In the 1980s, during a period of increased conservation research, the term Traditional Ecological Knowledge, or TEK, was first introduced (Isaac et al.). In the past few decades, TEK has increasingly emerged within Western science discourse, as scientists and policymakers explore its potential in “ecosystem management, conservation biology, and ecological restoration” (Kimmerer, “Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”). Kimmer broadly defines TEK as: “the knowledge, practice, and belief concerning the relationship of living beings to one another and to the physical environment, which is held by peoples in relatively nontechnological societies with a direct dependence upon local resources” (“Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”). As TEK becomes increasingly discussed, comparisons between TEK and Western science and conversations about the importance, risks, and possibilities for integration have emerged.

As with many Indigenous knowledges in colonial history, TEK has historically been dismissed by Western academic institutions. As Kimmerer notes, “[m]ost college ecology courses begin a history of the discipline with 19th-century Europe, neglecting the highly sophisticated precedents in indigenous knowledge systems” (“Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”). Generally, Western academia has “assigned primacy to knowledge based on reason, logic, science, and empirical proof and excludes knowledge based on observation, oral tradition, digressive thinking, and even the spiritual….Indigenous knowledges cannot belong to the legitimate materialistic worldview of true science, reason, and logic” (Knopf 181). This is despite the fact that Indigenous peoples in the United States and globally have extensive knowledge of native flora and fauna, and “inhabit areas with some of the highest remaining biodiversity on the planet and are actively engaged as partners in biodiversity conservation” (Kimmerer, “Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”). Kimmerer argues that TEK still has predictive power, and holds invaluable information on “population biology, resource assessment and monitoring, successional dynamics, patterns of fluctuation in climate and resources, species interactions, ethnotaxonomy, sustainable harvesting, and adaptive management and manipulation of disturbance regimes” (“Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”).

Despite similarities in predictive power and the focus on nature observation, the differences between Western science and TEK are very important. Kimmerer argues that “[t]raditional knowledge can rival Western science as a body of empirical information, but traditional knowledge may also extend its explanatory power beyond the strictly empirical, where science cannot go…TEK offers not only important biological insights but a cultural framework for environmental problem solving that incorporates human values.” (“Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”). While Western science has greatly increased human understanding and alteration of “simpler systems” it has not “been particularly successful when confronted with complex ecological systems,” and TEK may play a significant role in filling this gap (“Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”).

By bringing TEK into the forefront and allowing it to exist alongside and within Western science, different models of sustainability and conservation can be explored. Discourses between TEK and Western science can also allow for the integration of culturally diverse perspectives in the historically narrow & uniform curriculum of Western scientific institutions, increase collaboration across communities and fields, and the increase of Indigenous peoples in fields where they have been largely underrepresented (“Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”).

There remains the risk of TEK being exploited within Western science. Essential to incorporating TEK in scientific discourse is the acknowledgment of its legitimacy, but also of the history of TEK and Indigenous knowledges broadly being discredited, destroyed, and colonized. In emerging dialogue between TEK and Western science, Indigenous communities and scholars must be kept at the forefront of the interface (Isaac et al.). A respect for Indigenous sovereignty, self-determination, and control over their own knowledges must be prioritized. Not all Indigenous knowledge is freely available for the use of all. Respect for the intellectual tradition of TEK must also be present. As Kimmerer points out, “It may be tempting to extract “data” from TEK and import it to the more familiar context of Western science…But we do a disservice to our students and to the intellectual tradition of TEK if we don't also consider the cultural framework…” (“Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge”). With a history fraught in exploitation and appropriation, care must be taken to avoid perpetuating this past.

A pluralism in knowledge systems provides an alternative to the colonial model of Western knowledge hegemony. Acceptance that many forms of knowledge can be real and legitimate allows for a system where many knowledges can coexist and communicate effectively, without exclusion. This knowledge pluralism and integration has potential to lead to more comprehensive, diverse, and equitable solutions for complex local and global issues. A diversity of thought and intellectual models may in fact be necessary to address the largest environmental and ecological challenges that societies are beginning to face.

Works Cited

Caldwell, Chris, et al. “Indigenous Lessons about Sustainability Are Not Just for ‘All

Humanity.’” Sustainability, NYU Press, 2018, pp. 149–79, https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479894567.003.0007.

Isaac, Gwyneira, et al. “Native American Perspectives on Health and Traditional Ecological

Knowledge.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 126, no. 12, 2018, pp.

125002–125002, https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1944.

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass : Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the

Teachings of Plants. 1st ed., Milkweed Editions, 2013.

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. “Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education:

A Call to Action.” Bioscience, vol. 52, no. 5, 2002, pp. 432–38,

https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2.

Knopf, Kerstin. “The Turn Toward the Indigenous: Knowledge Systems and Practices in the

Academy.” Amerikastudien, vol. 60, no. 2/3, 2015, pp. 179–200.

Mazzocchi, Fulvio. “Western Science and Traditional Knowledge: Despite Their Variations,

Different Forms of Knowledge Can Learn from Each Other.” EMBO Reports, vol. 7, no.

5, 2006, pp. 463–66, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400693.

Pierotti, Raymond, and Daniel Wildcat. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge: The Third

Alternative (Commentary).” Ecological Applications, vol. 10, no. 5, 2000, pp. 1333–40,

https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1333:TEKTTA]2.0.CO;2.

Simpson, Betasamonsake Leanna, and Sabrien Amrov. “Indigenous: A Conversation”. The

Funambulist, vol. 50, October 25, 2023, pp. 18-27.

Teves, Stephanie Nohelani, et al., editors. Native Studies Keywords. 1st ed., The University of

Arizona Press, 2015.

Whitt, Laurelyn. Science, Colonialism, and Indigenous Peoples : The Cultural Politics of Law

and Knowledge. 1st ed., Cambridge University Press, 2009.