Chapter 15 | Carole Levesque

(continued)

Many researchers approach the topic of traditional knowledge by comparing it, and indeed contrasting it, with science. In this perspective, the emphasis is placed on such characteristics as the oral nature of this knowledge, its basis in observation and experience, its holistic, intuitive and qualitative aspects, and the fact that it is not directed toward the domination of nature. Conversely, science is understood as a system of knowledge specific to the Western worldview. It is based principally on written documentation; it is taught and learned out of context; it is compartmentalized, analytical and quantitative; and its ultimate aim is the domination of nature and the world. In this way of thinking, it is important to establish the greatest possible distance from science since, from the outset, the objective is to distinguish traditional knowledge by defining it as a very different and autonomous field of knowledge. In stressing how distant it is from science, researchers generally point to the spiritual dimension of traditional knowledge or, in other words, the aspect that ultimately differentiates it from science. Unlike science, these researchers claim, traditional knowledge does not create a separation between nature and culture, and it is seen as the expression of a fundamental and unified understanding of the place of human beings in the universe (Berkes, 1999; Simpson, 1999).

At first glance, it is easy to see the weaknesses of an approach that so strongly emphasizes contrasts, an approach that more often than not tends to set up hermetic categories and to rank criteria by placing them in a relationship of superiority or inferiority. The setting up of a duality of this kind, i.e. Indigenous knowledge vs. science, is directly in line with a number of persistent and deeply-rooted oppositions: tradition vs. modernity; rational vs. irrational; universal vs. local, science vs. myth and religion, etc. On the other hand, often inspired by a need to define the intrinsic nature of this knowledge “from within,” and by a desire to demonstrate its legitimacy, this approach, when it goes beyond a fundamental dichotomy, can lead to a profound questioning of human beings’ various types of knowledge, since it introduces the perspective of the coexistence of these various types of knowledge, and indeed their right to coexist.

Since the mid-1990s, as the topic of traditional knowledge has gained greater visibility and acquired greater legitimacy, perceptions have changed on its relationship with science. The emphasis is now on incorporating Indigenous knowledge into scientific studies. For example, specialists studying climate change or the migrations of caribou populations often ask local populations about their own observations concerning these phenomena. This approach of incorporating or integrating traditional knowledge is currently the most popular strategy. But even when it is the focus of constructive initiatives and real efforts are made to satisfy the requirements of this approach, it is still generally influenced by the positivistic dictates of science. Traditional knowledge is then robbed of its significance. At best, it is absorbed and assimilated into a particular type of data, generally empirical, or instead, reduced to simple geographic data or isolated bits of information obtained in response to specific questions, such as: Where do you hunt for caribou? How far out does the bay freeze?, etc. Traditional knowledge is thus judged and measured according to standard scientific indicators.

More often than not, traditional knowledge is used to validate scientific data. A phenomenon observed by a scientist and subsequently confirmed by a hunter, in whole or in part, is immediately given “experimental veracity,” without anyone ensuring its actual validity or looking at the status of the person transmitting the information in question. Isn’t traditional knowledge then likely to become a new testing area for scientific experiments in many regions, especially the North, where there are a growing number of studies on environmental phenomena and where the people most directly concerned by these phenomena are Indigenous people?

Such a trend is increasingly occurring in the field of environmental assessment in the Indigenous milieu, particularly in the North. Environmental assessment processes, which are governed by Canadian and Québec laws on environmental protection and quality of the environment (such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which I mentioned earlier), provide a normative framework for the carrying out of development projects (mining, oil and gas, hydroelectric, road projects, etc.) where it is important to determine the impacts and effects, both positive and negative, on the physical and social environment before the project begins. The guidelines issued by the various review committees in Canada consequently urge proponents of these major projects to study the anticipated project impacts and to recommend mitigation or remedial measures designed to limit, as much as possible, any adverse environmental effects. In the past few years, these guidelines have included provisions for incorporating Indigenous knowledge into the studies in question. But there are generally very few instructions or indications accompanying such requirements, so that they are applied in a wide, and often surprising, variety of ways.5

Chapter 15, continued >

home | about grubstreet books | return to this book's table of contents
e-mail: | |

web site: