Sustainability lessons from the ‘uncivilised’?

When compared with Western worldviews and knowledge, non-Western indigenous counterparts seem to possess more potential for human sustainability due to their spatial orientation as opposed to the Western temporal orientation. Turning to Native American culture, Pierotti and Wildcat (1999) reveal two sustainability themes that emerge in their cultural stories, namely connectedness and relatedness. These themes fall in line with two tenets of modern Western science – ecology and evolution, respectively. They conclude that, due to their evolving relationship with their local natural environment, Native Americans stand a better chance of survival in the face of extreme environmental changes. However, they emphasise that, to preserve their superior survival capability, Native Americans should not allow the disconnected Western way of thought to become dominant among their people.

(The following write-up by Asitha Jayawardena is mainly based on Pierotti and Wildcat (1999). For enhanced readability, the main reference (i.e. Pierotti and Wildcat, 1999) is usually mentioned at the beginning of a section only. My position is clearly differentiated, usually by way of using ‘I’ or ‘my’.)

Challenge of human sustainability

What is the challenge of human sustainability?

I strongly agree with Maiteny and Parker (2002: 62), who state that the challenge is to achieve ‘a reconciliatory “fit” between cultural worldview and ecological and social (and psychological) necessity’; that is, ‘to live according to worldviews that do not undermine ecological, social and personal wellbeing.’

Can scientific knowledge on our damaging effects on the life-support systems and the consequent threat to life on Earth influence us towards sustainable behaviour?

No, reply Maiteny and Parker (2002) and explain why. Mere awareness of a crisis does not change behaviour. For behavioural changes, scientific knowledge should be blended with cultural outlook and emotional engagement with the issues. They further highlight that scientific knowledge would have very different impacts in two societies if their cosmovisions view that humans are part of and dependent on nature and that humans are separate from and independent of nature. That is, the impact of a society’s knowledge on that society as well as on its environment depends on its worldview.

Such differences are evident in Western and non-Western indigenous cosmovisions (or worldviews).

Worldviews and knowledge: Western and indigenous

Let’s explore, firstly, Western worldviews and knowledge and, then, non-Western indigenous worldviews and knowledges.

Firstly, on Western worldviews and knowledge.

A number of scholars criticise the Western worldview’s nature-unfriendliness, which adversely affects its sustainability potential significantly. For example, Berry (1987), in Norgaard (2002), discusses this aspect in length. According to him, every culture has a ‘life story’ that explains the creation of the heavens and Earth as well as the relations between plants and animals and between humans. The problem is, modern science has replaced the natural part of the Westerners’ life story with an incomplete alternative that deliberately avoids how humans harmoniously fit into the overall picture. Moreover, this story fails to address how humans should relate to each other in harmony – directly, through nature and over time.

Funtowicz and Ravetz (2002), in Weaver and Jansen (2004: 7), see modern science’s model of human-nature relationship as one of conquest and control (by the former) rather than one of ‘respecting ecological limits, …. expecting surprises and adapting to these.’

Berman (1981: 15-17), in Maiteny and Parker (2002: 64), perceive Western scientific consciousness as ‘alienated consciousness,’ stating that ‘there is not ecstatic merger with nature, but rather a total separation from it.’

Hartmann (2001) argues that modern (Western) stories that humans are not an integral part of nature but are separate from it and that humans’ destiny is to subdue and rule the rest of nature, are speeding our demise.

As Holtzman (2003) reveals, in the early modern West, prioritisation of materialistic needs produced a Western scientific knowledge with a technological orientation for exploitation of nature.

In this context, Berry (1987), in Norgaard (2002: 844), proposes that we need a new story, a whole integrated one ‘making sense of the world, who we are, and why we are here.’

But what about the (non-Western) indigenous worldviews and knowledges? Can we learn from such ‘uncivilised’ people and cultures how to live in harmony with nature, without becoming a threat to our own existences?

Now, we turn to non-Western indigenous worldviews and knowledge.

As observed by Parker (2001: 186), ‘Our living global environment is composed of a patchwork of unique localities where human habitation has resulted in local knowledges, often but not always in harmony with local ecologies.’ This statement locates the local indigenous knowledges in their rightful place; they are contextually relevant knowledges for sustainable lifestyles as opposed to the Western (universal) knowledge that promotes ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for diverse contexts.

But sustainability is primarily a scientific concept (Maiteny and Parker, 2002). Are indigenous knowledges scientific enough to be of use for sustainability?

As Maiteny and Parker (2002) reveal, there is no Western monopoly over science. The practice of science is a fundamental characteristic of all human societies (Bronowski, 1981, in Maiteny and Parker, 2002) and all cultures practise science (Dunbar, 1996, in Maiteny and Parker, 2002). And scientific understanding of ecology and sustainability is evident in non-Western societies, too (Maiteny and Parker, 2002).

Indigenous ecological knowledge is ‘a cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs, handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings with one another and with their environment’ (Berkes, 1993, in Maiteny and Parker, 2002: 37). It encompasses ‘local knowledge of plants, animals, soils, etc, and the associated experience and wisdom of human interactions with the environment’ (Maiteny and Parker, 2002: 37).

Indigenous peoples have their own learning systems compatible with their livelihoods (CONFINTEA, 1999). For example, a team of researchers engaged in a project in Bolivia realised that the ‘uneducated’ farmers possess a wide knowledge of soil and water management relevant to their context (Thiele and Terrazas, 1998).

As Slikkeveer (1999), in Maiteny and Parker (2002), describes, indigenous knowledge has developed insitu, encompassing the holistic, interdisciplinary wisdom, practices and experiences of indigenous communities. Their holistic cosmovision refers to the way their community perceive their world, cosmos or universe. Its totality includes spiritual elements (e.g. spirits, ancestors, future generations) as well as natural elements (e.g. plants, animals, humans), viewing humans as belonging to nature rather than the reverse.

For example, Shiva (1989), in Sachs (1992: 34), describes the Indian villagers’ conception of Prakriti, ‘the active and productive power which permeates every stone or tree, fruit or animal, and sustains them along with the human world’; Prakriti grants nature’s blessings as a gift and should therefore be honoured and wooed. As Sachs (1992) observes, such cultures perceiving nature as a living being tend to act with care and respect for nature as they expect a hostile response if a critical limit is passed.

Such indigenous perspectives together with the associated knowledges tend to encourage humans to live in harmony with nature.

Human sustainability and Western and non-Western indigenous worldviews and knowledge

Let’s compare Western and non-Western indigenous worldviews and knowledge in relation to human sustainability.

Slikkeveer (1999), in Maiteny and Parker (2002: 38), perceives indigenous and Western knowledge systems as ‘alternative pathways in the human/scientific quest to come to terms with the universe, resulting from the same intellectual process of creating order out of disorder.’

The fundamental difference between indigenous and Western worldviews is their emphasis on orientation – spatial and temporal, respectively (Pierotti and Wildcat, 1999; Gone, 2008).

Slikkeveer (1999), in Maiteny and Parker (2002), suggests that, in certain respects, non-Western scientific knowledge offers better understanding of human-nature relationship than its Western counterpart. Perhaps that’s why, as Sachs (1992) reveals, the centrally designed environmental resources management schemes baffle indigenous/tribal communities, who have practised provision for future generations since time immemorial.

Therefore, it appears that (non-Western) indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems posses a higher sustainability potential than their Western counterparts. And the world, especially the West, is gradually waking up to this fact.

As CONFINTEA (1999) suggests, if humankind wants to survive this century, the world needs and must value indigenous knowledges. Such knowledges so vital for the survival of the parts and the whole need therefore to be saved, argues Parker (2001).

Many scientists, researchers and corporations in the West (Parker, 2001) as well as some policymakers around the world (Parker and Wade, 2001) are gradually recognising the existence of huge banks of useful and valid knowledge in non-Western societies.

In fact, as CONFINTEA (1999) observes, an understanding of the distinctive but complementary roles of indigenous and Western knowledges can help build bridges towards a brighter future for humankind. In fact the 1992 Earth Summit emphasised the need to ‘develop methods to link the findings of the established sciences with the indigenous knowledge of different cultures…’ (Parker and Wade, 2001: 156).

Pierotti and Wildcat (1999) explore in depth the sustainability potential of the worldview and knowledge system of an indigenous people – the Native Americans.

Native American worldview and knowledge and human sustainability

As described by Pierotti and Wildcat (1999), the key difference between the worldviews and knowledge bases of Native Americans and the ‘dominant’ Western culture is that the former is spatial and the latter is temporal in orientation. Native American peoples gather knowledge by carefully observing fellow beings and the environment they live in. By way of detailed stories told again and again, this knowledge is passed onto others and to future generations.

Among the themes of such stories, two are of vital importance to sustainability:

• All things are connected (i.e. connectedness)
• All things are related (i.e. relatedness)

Pierotti and Wildcat (1999) firstly cover connectedness in detail.

Connectedness is a realisation that any single organism cannot exist without the connections it has to many other organisms. It is a fundamental tenet of ecology in modern science, namely cycling.

Native Americans include natural objects and non-human living beings as members of their community by way of clan names and totems. Such names and totems together with ceremony are a ceremonial and cultural acknowledgement of ecological connectedness. Moreover, in nearly all native creation stories, animal-persons and plant-persons existed before human persons and non-humans are recognised as teachers and elders.

Native Americans recognise that the life of non-human living beings has a meaning on its own. Therefore, they consider that a take of such life represents a loss of life to a fellow being with a meaningful life. This perspective leads to two conclusions: (1) don’t take non-human lives frivolously, and (2) non-human life forms exist on their own terms and not solely for human use or exploitation.

Such recognition that individual survival is not possible without collective survival is important for human sustainability.

Pierotti and Wildcat (1999) then discuss relatedness in length.

Relatedness emerges from the concept of connectedness and is a central tenet of Western science of evolution.

Native Americans possess an advanced knowledge on evolution. They understand that individuals vary within species and that the appearance and behaviour of animals and plants are shaped by the surroundings they live in. They have also known a fact that Western science discovered relatively recently. That is, evolutionary changes can occur within a relatively short period of time, such as a few generations. Moreover, they are aware that humans evolve in a similar manner as non-humans.

An important implication to sustainability arises from Native Americans’ awareness of inheritance between generations. For example, they believe that corn is a gift from the creator; therefore, when selecting seeds for planting corn, they select seeds from a variety of ears because discrimination against small ears is perceived as a show of lack of appreciation for the gift. While preserving genetic diversity, such an approach recognises several important concepts: that individuals vary within a species, that diversity among individuals is a gift from nature, and that plants (and animals) depend heavily on the surrounding natural conditions. Moreover, they acknowledge that traits can be passed from one generation to the next.

Recent Western agricultural practices on the other hand have deliberately selected fewer and fewer highly productive lines, adversely affecting genetic diversity. Therefore, such Western agriculture may not possess the necessary genes to respond to future environmental changes.

Moreover, in nearly all Western belief systems, creators tend to be human or human in form. In Native American myths, however, creators are typically animals such as raven, wolf and bear. An important implication of such Native American belief systems is that the idea that humans came from non-human organisms does not trouble them. Another is that animals existed before humans. Their clan systems acknowledge this human-animal relatedness and their creation stories recognise the important role played by non-humans in developing human culture.

Sustainability potential of Native American worldview and knowledge

Finally, Pierotti and Wildcat (1999) compare the survival ability of the Native American and Western cultures.

Because of their spatial orientation, Native Americans experience spirituality in their encounters with fellow beings in places they live in. For them, the world always offers new experiences and knowledge, so they adjust their verbal traditions to respond to changing environments. Thus their instructions for living are fit to the current context.

The source of Native American knowledge and spirituality is the physical and biological environment that is part of daily life. As environmental conditions change and as the knowledge and experience gained through daily interaction with that environment change, their attitudes and beliefs evolve.

Suppose the environment eventually changes to such a level that the dominant Western culture cannot survive. Still, Native Americans are likely to continue to survive due to their close, evolving relationship with nature.

However, Pierotti and Wildcat (1999) emphasise that, in order to survive, Native Americans must not allow the Western way of thought (i.e. being disconnected from nature) to become dominant among their people.

They then close with a dream and a nightmare.

Their dream is ‘that all peoples can be educated to be native to the places where they live and to live their lives as though the lives of all beings were important and had meaning on their own terms. If this can be achieved, humans will recover their place as one species among many, no longer the measure of all things, but at home in places where they belong, and part of a large family of related beings’ (Pierotti and Wildcat, 1999: 199).

Their nightmare is ‘that not only will the dream not happen, but that our own children will lose this knowledge, and when they lose this knowledge, it may not be possible to regain it. What is at risk is that our descendants will not follow our views, but those of the dominant culture. If this happens, a rich tradition of knowledge based on long experience may be lost, and with it may go the hope of humans to coexist with our non-human kin in a spiritually fulfilling way, as well as hope for the future of our planet’ (Pierotti and Wildcat, 1999: 199).

Their dream and nightmare seem to be relevant to the survival of us all – Western or otherwise.

The way forward

Despite my modern science background, Pierotti and Wildcat (1999) influenced to me seriously consider the human sustainability potential embodied in non-Western indigenous worldviews and knowledges.

Here, I believe that Parker’s (2001: 186) observation, namely ‘Our living global environment is composed of a patchwork of unique localities where human habitation has resulted in local knowledges, often but not always in harmony with local ecologies,’ is important for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that it is the locals (or the indigenous) that possess useful sustainability knowledge relevant to their respective localities. Secondly, it reminds that our ancestors were not always living in harmony with nature.

Turning to the second point, Ridley (1996), for example, describes in length how some of our ancestors devastated the rest of nature. Moreover, two Russian meteorologists, who developed a new theory dubbed the ‘biotic pump’, argues that the coastal forest burning by the Aborigines eventually turned once-forested Australia into an arid continent (Pearce, 2009). Therefore, we need to be careful in learning from the indigenous peoples as well as from the past.

But then, we can always follow the ‘good’ practices and refrain from repeating the ‘bad’ ones – we need not reinvent the past mistakes! That, I think, is sound strategy towards a sustainable future.

References

BERKES, F. (1993) Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective In: INGLIS, J.T. (ed) Traditional ecological knowledge: concepts and cases. International Development Research Centre, Canada. (In Maiteny and Parker, 2002).

BERMAN, M. (1981) The reenchantment of the world. New York: Cornell University Press. (In Maiteny and Parker, 2002).

BERRY, T. (1987) Economics: Its effects on the life systems of the world In: LONERGAN, A., and RICHARDS, C. (eds.) Thomas Berry and the new cosmology. Mystic: Twenty-third Publications.

BRONOWSKI, J. (1981), The ascent of man. London: Futura. (In Maiteny and Parker, 2002).

CONFINTEA (1999) Cultural citizenship in the 21^st century: adult learning and indigenous peoples, Paper 1b in a series documenting workshops held at the Fifth International Conference on Adult Education, Hamburg, Germany, 1997. Hamburg: UNESCO In: PARKER, J. and REA, V. (eds.) (2001) Unit 3 Reader: Values and participation. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

DUNBAR, R. (1996) The trouble with science. London: Faber and Faber In: MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2002) Unit 6 Reader: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

FUNTOWICZ, S., and RAVETZ, J. (2002) Post-Normal Science – Environmental Policy under conditions of Complexity. [Online] Available from: http//www.nusap.net.

GONE, J.P. (2008) ‘So I can be like a whiteman’: The cultural psychology of space and place in American Indian mental health. Culture and Psychology, 14(3), pp. 369-399.

HARTMANN, T. (2001) Younger culture stories about how things are In: The last hours of sunlight: waking up to personal and global transformation, pp. 118-134. London: Hodder and Stoughton In: MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2002) Unit 6 Reader: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

HOLTZMAN, S. (2003) Science and religion: The categorial conflict. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 54(2), October, pp. 77-99. [Online] Available from: Springerlink http://0-www.springerlink.com.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk/content/w150v6476t23822p/fulltext.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2009].

MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (2002) Unit 6 Study guide: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

NORGAARD, R.B. (2002) Can science and religion better save nature together? BioScience. [Online] Available from: http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/52/9/pdf/i0006-3568-52-9-842.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2008].

PARKER, J. (2001) Indigenous/local/traditional knowledges: issues for education in support of Agenda 21. Adapted from a paper to be published in New Era in Education, 81(1) In: PARKER, J. and REA, V. (eds.) (2001) Unit 3 Reader: Values and participation. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

PARKER, J. and WADE, R. (2001) An entitlement curriculum for sustainable development issues in the politics of knowledge. Paper presented at the UKFIET Oxford conference 2001 In: CLARKE-PATEL, A. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2001) Unit 4 Reader: Local and global. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

PEARCE, F. (2009) Keep the planet’s heart pumping. New Scientist, 4 April, pp.6-7.

PIEROTTI, R., and WILDCAT, D.R. (1999) Traditional knowledge, culturally-based worldviews and western science In: POSEY, D. Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. London: UNEP and Intermediate Technology In: MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2002) Unit 6 Reader: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

RIDLEY, M. (1996) The origins of virtue. London: Penguin In: MAITENY, P. and WADE, R. (eds.) (2003) Unit 5 Reader: Theories and perspectives in environment and development. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

SACHS, W. (1992) Environment In: The Development Dictionary. Zed Books, pp. 26-37 In: DOUGLAS, L. and PARKER, J. (eds) (2000) Unit 1 Reader: Introduction to environmental and development education. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

SHIVA, V. (1989) Staying alive: Women, ecology and development. London: Zed books. (In Sachs, 1992).

SLIKKERVEER, L.J. (1999), Ethnoscience, “TEK” and its application to conservation In: POSEY, D. Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. London: UNEP and Intermediate Technology In: MAITENY, P. and PARKER, J. (eds.) (2002) Unit 6 Reader: Science and culture in education for sustainability. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

THIELE, G. and TERRAZAS, F. (1998) “The wayq’os (gullies) are eating everything!”: Indigenous knowledge and soil conservation In: PLA Notes 32: Participation, literacy and empowerment. London: International Institute for Environment and Development In: PARKER, J. and REA, V. (eds.) (2001) Unit 3 Reader: Values and participation. London: Distance Learning Centre, South Bank University.

WEAVER, P.M., and JANSEN, J.L. (2004) Defining and evaluating “science for sustainability”. Paper presented at the International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science, Auckland, New Zealand, July. [Online] Available from: http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference/2004/Session5/63%20Weaver.pdf [Accessed 16 December 2008].