دانش بومی و توسعه روستایی: ریشه‌ها وچالش‌ها

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار، گروه برنامه‌ریزی اجتماعی، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

در دهه‌های اخیر هم‌زمان با تحول پارادایمی در ادبیات توسعه با جهت‌گیری معرفتی درون‌گرایانه، دانش بومی به‌عنوان یکی از گزینه‌های مؤثر برای توسعه روستایی از سوی نظریه‌پردازان مطرح شده است. این مقاله به ارزیابی ظرفیت جایگزینی این رویکرد‌ می‌‌پردازد و با بررسی ریشه‌های پیدایش این رویکرد بر این باور است تأکید صرف بر آن نوعی افراط‌‌گرایی شبه معرفتی بوده و محل مجادله و مناقشه است. در این راستا، به دو عامل عمده اشاره می‌کند: تجربه نه‌چندان موفق برنامه‌های توسعه با ماهیت تکنوکراتیک آمرانه؛ و ظهور گفتمان‌های انتقادی مانند پسانوگرایی و پسااستعمارگرایی. مقاله استدلال می‌کند که این باور نوعی موضع‌گیری‌های رادیکالی (له و علیه) را نسبت به دو معرفت (بومی و علمی) سبب شده که ریشه در دوگانه‌گرایی تقابلی دکارتی دارد که در عمل به تقابل‌های قطبی مبالغه‌گرایانه و تجریدگرایی از واقعیت‌ها انجامیده است. مقاله نتیجه می‌گیرد که علی‌رغم مزیت‌های مطرح‌شده برای دانش بومی، این دانش مستعد چالش‌های مختلفی مانند رمانتیزه شدن، بی‌توجهی به تمایزپذیری و مناسبات قدرت، تمرکز بر تجارب و مهارت‌ها، خاص‌گرایی و وابستگی به جغرافیاها و متن‌ها ، خصلت ایستایی و غیره است. باتوجه‌به قدرت هژمونی بالای علم جدید/رسمی، برای ایجاد توازن شناختی، مقاله اقدامات عملی مشتمل بر ترویج آگاهی از دانش بومی به‌عنوان شکلی از آموزش استعمارزدایی تا توسعه کنش‌های جمعی پایدار سیاسی را برای مقابله با فرایند قدرت و سلطه توصیه می‌کند.  

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Indigenous Knowledge and Rural Development: Origins And Challenges

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Shakoori
Associate professor, Department of Social Planning, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

In recent decades, with the paradigm shift in development literature with an inward-looking epistemological orientation, theorists have proposed indigenous knowledge as an effective alternative for rural development. This article evaluates the alternative capacity of this approach. Having examined the origins of this approach, it is believed that the superficial emphasis on it is a kind of pseudo-epistemic extremism and is a source of controversy. Two significant factors are responsible: the not-so-successful experience of development programs with an authoritarian technocratic nature and the emergence of critical discourses such as postmodernism and postcolonialism. The article argues that this belief has caused a kind of radical stance (for and against) towards two knowledges (indigenous and scientific), which is rooted in Cartesian dualism. This has, in practice, led to exaggerated polar stances: abstractionism from realities. The article concludes that despite the advantages proposed for Indigenous knowledge, this knowledge is susceptible to various challenges such as romanticization, neglecting distinctiveness and power relations, focusing merely on experiences and skills, specificity, as well as dependence on geographies and settings, etc. Considering the high hegemonic power of new/official science to create a cognitive balance, the article recommends practical measures, including promoting awareness of indigenous knowledge as a form of decolonization education to develop sustainable political collective actions to confront the process of power and domination.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Science
  • Indigenous knowledge
  • Modernism
  • Postmodernism
  • Rural development
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x
Alatas, S. F. (1993). On the indigenization of academic discourse. Alternatives, 8, 307-338.
Behin, B. (2001). From modernism to postmodernism: from abstraction to the reality of life. Economic and Political Iinformation Magazine, 164-163, 114-121.
Bhabha, H. (1995). Signs Taken for Wonders. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths and H. Thiophene. (eds.) The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.
Briggs, J. (2005). The use of indigenous knowledge in development: problems and challenges. Progress in Development Studies, 5 (2), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993405ps105oa
Burkey, S. (1993). People First: A guide to self-reliant, participatory rural development, Zed Books.
Castellano, M. B. (1999). Updating Aboriginal Traditions of Knowledge. In G.J.S. Dei, B. Hall, and D. Goldin-Rosenberg (eds.) Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Reading of Our World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Chambers, R. (2001). The World Development Report: concepts, content and chapter 12 . Journal of International Development, 13, 299-306.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.784
Davis, D. (1996). Gender, indigenous knowledge and pastoral resource use in Morocco.  Geographical Review, 86, 284-298.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993405ps105oa
Dei, G., & Sefa, S. (2002). Rethinking the Role of Indigenous Knowledges in the Academy. NALL Working Paper. Available at: http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/ sese/csew/nall/res/58GeorgeDei.pdf.
Ellen, R., & Harris, H. (2000). “Introduction”. In Ellen R, Parkes P and Bicker A (eds) Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations (Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam), 1- 33.
Emadi,. & Abbasi, E. (1999) Ancient wisdom in the modern age: application of local knowledge in sustainable development, Tehran: Ministry of Jihad Construction. (In Persian).
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fanon, F. (1963). The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.
Farhadi, M. (2001). Traditional knowledge and technologies in the mirror of experts' knowledge and experience. Nemayeh Pajhohesh, Special Issue, 13-14. (In Persian).
Flavier, J.M., Navarro, C.S., & Warren, D.M. (1995). “The regional program for the promotion of indigenous knowledge in Asia”, pp. 479-487 in Warren, D.M., L.J. Slikkerveer and D. Brokensha (eds) The cultural dimension of development: Indigenous knowledge systems. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews, 1972-77. C. Gordon, (ed.). Brighton: Harvester Press.
Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2021). The dawn of everything: A New History of Humanity. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Harriss J. (1982). Rural development: Theories of peasant economy and agrarian change. London, UK: Hutchinson.
Hart, G. (2001). Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sac and promising paths.  Progress in Human Geography 25, 649-658.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913201682689002
Hobart, M. (1993). An anthropological critique of development: The growth of ignorance, Routledge.
Irvine, M. (2012). The postmodern, postmodernism and post modernity, available at: http://9georgetown .edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/pomo/html.
Jenkins, T.N. (2000) Putting Postmodernity into Practice: Endogenous Development and the Role of Traditional Cultures in the Rural Development of Marginal Regions. Ecological Economics, 34, 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009%2800%2900191-9
Jumapour, M. (2014). Localization in the field of rural development and the application of local knowledge in its process. Iranian Native Knowledge Journal, 1 (2), 50-79. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjik. 2016.1564. (In Persian).
Katouzian, H. (1981). Political Economy of Modern Iran.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keesing, R. M., & Jolly, M. (1992). “Epilogue”, in J.G. Carrier (ed.), History and Tradition in Melanesian Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Krugly-Smolska, E. (1994). An examination of some difficulties in integrating western science into societies with an indigenous scientific tradition. Interchange, 25, 325-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01435877
Kundiri, A. M., Jarvis, M. G., & Bullock, P. (1997). Traditional soil and land appraisal on fadama lands in northeast Nigeria. Soil Use and Management, 13, 205-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1997.tb00587.x
Mackay, R. E. (2022). An Indigenous critique: Expanding sociology and recognizing unique Indigenous knowledge. Frontiers, 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.1047812
Memmi, A. (1965). The colonizer and the colonized. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mohan, G., & Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly. 21, 247-268.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590050004346
Nyerere, J. K., & Members of the South Commission. (1990). The challenge to the south: The Report of the South Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2005). Theories of development, Guilford Press.
Pretty, J. N. (1994). Alternative systems of enquiry for a sustainable agriculture.  IDS Bulletin 25, 37-48.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1994.mp25002004.x
Pretty, J.N. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 23: 1247-1263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F
Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth, a non-communist manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Safinejad, J. (2012). Traditional knowledge and technologies in the mirror of experts' knowledge and experience, Nemayeh Pajhohesh, Special Issue, 13-14.  (In Persian).
Schroeder, R. A. (1999). Community, forestry and conditionality in the Gambia.  Africa 69, 1-21.  https://www.africabib.org/htp.php?RID=182940853
Shakoori, A. (2001). The State and rural development in the post-revolutionary Iran. New York: Palgrave.
Shakoori, A. (2019). Rural Development in Iran: A Survey of Policies and Outcomes. Journal of Developing Societies, 35(3), 346-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X19868316
Thiophene, H. (1995). Post-Colonial literatures and counter-discourse. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths and H. Thiophene, (eds.). The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 95-98.
Toffler, A. (1998). The Third Wave, translated by Shahindokht Kharazmi, persian translation, Tehran: Aghat Publications. (In Persian)
Townsend, C. (2019). Fifth Sun: A new history of the Aztecs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yousefi, A., Mahdian, S., & Khalaj, S. (2015). Recognising the factors determing multi-dimentional poverty in rural areas of Iran. Journal of Rural Research, 6 (4), 699-721. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20087373.1394.6.4.1.1