ABSTRACT
In Thailand, through a range of “scientific” forest management regimes, upland forests have notoriously been classified in ways that restrict access to people who live in those forests, giving rise to significant debate and protest over the role of people in forests. The histories of these contests for control (and claims to that control) over land and forest in Thailand represent an important transformation in debates and contests over “science” and conservation. We examine the debates and discourses of science alongside debates on the role of local people in management and decision-making of natural resources. We argue that this history illustrates key shifts or transformations in the relationship between science, local knowledges and local movements. What was once largely seen as “anti-science” has emerged as drawing part of its legitimacy from science, exposing how science has changed, how local people’s movements have been a significant part of that, and how attitudes toward and engagements with science have changed. We identify that part of this historical shift is due to the greater deployment of “technologies of humility” (Jasanoff 2003), where claims based on science as well as local knowledge are understood in more nuanced and complementary (vs. adversarial) terms. We incorporate a reflection of our own efforts at solidarity science and the ways that humility has been a critical component of successful collaborations, and recognize that there are gaps to address in terms of understanding these shifts as gendered and racialized. This matters because these shifts in how the community forest movement has understood and employed science has direct implications for how communities make claims of expertise and legitimacy in Thailand.
