Indigenous agriculture and the politics of knowledge.

In this paper, we argue that to “optimize” the contribution of indigenous knowledge to agriculture, it is crucial to recognize that no form of knowledge – even technical knowledge – is impervious to politics. Defining a particular body of knowledge or practice as “indigenous” or “traditional” should not be understood as a statement about the specific content of that knowledge or practice, but rather a relational statement, containing value-judgments. In this paper we draw from ethnographic and historical data to consider case-studies from Indonesia, India, Ireland, and Ecuador, examining in each site how agricultural practices or technological propositions dialogue with larger currents of political power. These examples shed light on tactics through which politically powerful groups may use the designation of what is “indigenous” and what is “modern” to legitimize practices enabling the accumulation of material or political power. They also demonstrate that not all groups’ innovation is equally recognized, and that some groups’ practices may be more amenable to recognition that others in a given political context. Acknowledging the malleable and deeply political nature of TIAK, we conclude, is crucial to optimizing the ongoing contributions of indigenous and traditional peoples’ agricultural knowledge and skills. Such efforts should not be limited to agricultural practices and techniques, but must also be linked to the broader inclusion of the voices, values, and aspirations of indigenous people in agricultural decision-making.