Towards co-evolution of knowledges and sciences: No shortcut in integrating local and global knowledge

Abstract

This paper presents experiences with and visions on the relationships between different forms of knowledge and sciences. The position is taken that, on a global level, there are numerous cultures, each having its own ways to deal with knowledge. This includes shared assumptions and beliefs about the real world; ways of learning, teaching and experimenting; ways to share information; concepts, and general principles and their application in technologies, as well as social and spiritual activities. Integrating these ways of knowing does not simply imply adding the best parts of each system; we argue that sustainable integration can only be achieved if the particularities of the forms of knowledge involved, with its political, methodological and epistemological dimensions, are addressed. In all cultures and ways of knowing, attention is given to the question WHY things happen as well as to HOW things happen. But the emphasis and importance attached to these two dimensions may vary greatly. Western science places more emphasis on the ‘how’ questions, leaving the question on why things happen largely unanswered. Many of the so called ‘local’ ways of knowing focus more on the question ‘why’ things happen. Further, also the sources of knowledge may differ: The importance attached to rationality, measuring and quantification can be combined or can exclude intuitive ways of acquiring knowledge and insights. The question how different ways of knowing can be bridged is addressed by looking at a typology of intercultural relationships, which also influences the relationships between knowledges. The political character of the relationships between and the cultural dimensions of knowledges are considered. Depending on its historic context, the relative power of each way of knowing differs: domination, suppression, integration or isolation may occur. The investments in knowledge development as well as the ways to articulate and modify knowledge have differed. Looking at knowledge from an indigenous perspective suggests the inclusion of a wider historical, social, economic, cultural and policy contexts. This requires mechanisms to deal with cultural protocols, values and behaviours. For example, local notions of space, time, territory, numbers, sacred, rituals, visions, seniority, duality and morality need to be accepted and to be given space. Knowledge from a global or western perspective is observed to have a dominant position in the world today, to have a bias towards rationality and to give a secondary position to more intuitive and spiritual ways of acquiring knowledge. In order to establish a relationship between different ways of knowing and sciences that benefits all parties involved, the agenda of activities to bridge western and ‘local’ ways of knowing requires careful planning. Recovering its own mechanisms for knowledge production and reproduction should enhance local knowledge. This includes ways of learning, mobilisation of resources, revitalisation, transformation and coevolution. Western knowledge should become much more modest, recognising its own methodological and