ABSTRACT
The idea that there is an epistemological or substantive distinction between indigenous knowledge and other kinds of knowledge (western, scientific, non-indigenous) has been, quite rightly, debunked (Agrawal 1995). Everyone has practical, usually tacit knowledge of their social and physical environment, a competence reflected in ‘knowing how to go on’ in the routine activities of everyday life, and the capacity to improvise and innovate when necessary (Giddens 1979). This is the kind of knowledge or disposition Bourdieu (1977) refers to as ‘habitus’. If such knowledge exists everywhere, in city and country, west and east, then the distinctive feature of ‘indigenous environmental knowledge’ is not its content but rather its location in particular agendas. As Gray (1995) argues, the term ‘indigenous’ is more imperative than descriptive, referring to a quality that emerges in the course of struggles over rights to territories, resources and cultural respect. Typically, these struggles pit local groups against encompassing nation states. It is in the context of such struggles that the concept of ‘indigenous environmental knowledge’ takes on meaning and relevance. International and national NGOs, donors, officials from various government departments, academics and tourist promoters have particular interests in supporting (or rejecting) the idea that ‘indigenous people’ have important knowledge. The diversity of agendas surrounding the concept of indigenous environmental knowledge forms a field of power within which alliances may be formed, struggles waged, claims made and rights asserted (or denied).
