Introduction to Special Section on the Politics of Knowledge in Development

IF 0.3 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Madhulika Banerjee
{"title":"Introduction to Special Section on the Politics of Knowledge in Development","authors":"Madhulika Banerjee","doi":"10.1177/2321023021999159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The twenty-first century search of offering alternatives to the hegemonic development paradigm, whilst responding urgently to climate change, seeks to answer a specific question. What kind of knowledge of production in society could possibly be the best to opt for, to develop at this point in history? It is not the first time that this question has either been asked or an answer to it, attempted. Scholarly debates on the relevance and significance of ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge for development, wherever the failure of modern knowledge was clearly in evidence, had taken place earlier. Then why now, again? This Special Section of the SIP argues that in the last five decades, or so, several streams of practice on the ground have worked on this possibility to demonstrate a tangible significance of ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge as ‘alternative’ systems of knowledges to those of the modernist, capitalist knowledges of production and, therefore, deserve careful analysis. Second, that studies of how these have evolved towards contemporary relevance show a complexity of contestations at several levels and spaces that make it possible—namely, historical context, state policy, political economy, collective action and institutions. It is clear from the ground that all of these spaces actually contribute to the making of the epistemology of knowledge systems. Therefore, to understand whether already existing knowledge systems can contribute to contemporary processes of ‘development’ or ‘well-being’, it would be helpful to analyse how all these spaces actually transform or reconstitute them. So the debate on knowledge, which has focused in the main, on the realm of epistemology, needs to extend well beyond that—whether in the natural or social sciences. For this, an analytical frame that enables an understanding, analysis and interpretation of this process of transformation of these knowledges of production through all the above five spaces is required. The first article offers precisely this, naming it the ‘Politics of Knowledge’, as also offering a new term for ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge, namely, ‘already existing knowledge’. Using this frame as a point of reference, two articles are offered, each of which will take up a specific knowledge system and present an analysis of how that knowledge has adapted to the contemporary, helping it qualify as an alternative to the modernist/technicist/capitalist ones. These two articles are on seeds and flood management. Each of these has been selected because they are very important aspects of the essentials of people’s lives, forming a core component of ‘development’. They analyse how these five spaces interact in order to produce the structures of power these knowledges are located in. Together, these constitute the arguments of the politics of knowledge in development, though in a summary format. They also provide a framework of how other such knowledges may be studied. The intent is to offer another three articles on three other knowledge systems in subsequent issues of the journal, within the same framework. Introduction to the Special Section","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"76 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2321023021999159","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Indian Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2321023021999159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The twenty-first century search of offering alternatives to the hegemonic development paradigm, whilst responding urgently to climate change, seeks to answer a specific question. What kind of knowledge of production in society could possibly be the best to opt for, to develop at this point in history? It is not the first time that this question has either been asked or an answer to it, attempted. Scholarly debates on the relevance and significance of ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge for development, wherever the failure of modern knowledge was clearly in evidence, had taken place earlier. Then why now, again? This Special Section of the SIP argues that in the last five decades, or so, several streams of practice on the ground have worked on this possibility to demonstrate a tangible significance of ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge as ‘alternative’ systems of knowledges to those of the modernist, capitalist knowledges of production and, therefore, deserve careful analysis. Second, that studies of how these have evolved towards contemporary relevance show a complexity of contestations at several levels and spaces that make it possible—namely, historical context, state policy, political economy, collective action and institutions. It is clear from the ground that all of these spaces actually contribute to the making of the epistemology of knowledge systems. Therefore, to understand whether already existing knowledge systems can contribute to contemporary processes of ‘development’ or ‘well-being’, it would be helpful to analyse how all these spaces actually transform or reconstitute them. So the debate on knowledge, which has focused in the main, on the realm of epistemology, needs to extend well beyond that—whether in the natural or social sciences. For this, an analytical frame that enables an understanding, analysis and interpretation of this process of transformation of these knowledges of production through all the above five spaces is required. The first article offers precisely this, naming it the ‘Politics of Knowledge’, as also offering a new term for ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge, namely, ‘already existing knowledge’. Using this frame as a point of reference, two articles are offered, each of which will take up a specific knowledge system and present an analysis of how that knowledge has adapted to the contemporary, helping it qualify as an alternative to the modernist/technicist/capitalist ones. These two articles are on seeds and flood management. Each of these has been selected because they are very important aspects of the essentials of people’s lives, forming a core component of ‘development’. They analyse how these five spaces interact in order to produce the structures of power these knowledges are located in. Together, these constitute the arguments of the politics of knowledge in development, though in a summary format. They also provide a framework of how other such knowledges may be studied. The intent is to offer another three articles on three other knowledge systems in subsequent issues of the journal, within the same framework. Introduction to the Special Section
“发展中的知识政治”专题导论
在二十一世纪,在对气候变化作出紧急反应的同时,寻求提供霸权发展范式的替代方案,寻求回答一个具体问题。在历史的这个阶段,什么样的社会生产知识可能是最好的选择?这不是第一次有人提出这个问题,也不是第一次有人试图回答这个问题。在现代知识明显失败的地方,关于“传统”或“本土”知识对发展的相关性和重要性的学术辩论已经在早些时候发生过。那为什么是现在?SIP的这个特别部分认为,在过去50年左右的时间里,实地的几个实践流已经在这种可能性上工作,以证明“传统”或“本土”知识作为现代主义、资本主义生产知识的“替代”知识体系的切实意义,因此,值得仔细分析。其次,对这些问题如何演变成当代相关性的研究表明,在几个层面和空间上的争论是复杂的,这些争论使之成为可能——即历史背景、国家政策、政治经济、集体行动和制度。从基础上很明显,所有这些空间实际上都有助于知识系统的认识论的形成。因此,要了解现有的知识系统是否能够促进当代的“发展”或“福祉”进程,分析所有这些空间实际上是如何转化或重构它们的,将会有所帮助。所以关于知识的争论,主要集中在认识论领域,需要扩展到更远的地方,无论是自然科学还是社会科学。为此,需要一个分析框架,能够通过上述五个空间理解、分析和解释这些生产知识的转化过程。第一篇文章恰恰提供了这一点,将其命名为“知识的政治”,同时也为“传统的”或“本土的”知识提供了一个新名词,即“已经存在的知识”。以这一框架为参照点,本文将提供两篇文章,每篇文章都将采用一个特定的知识体系,并分析该知识如何适应当代,帮助其成为现代主义/技术主义者/资本主义的替代品。这两篇文章是关于种子和洪水管理的。这些都被选中是因为它们是人们生活必需品的非常重要的方面,构成了“发展”的核心组成部分。他们分析了这五个空间如何相互作用,以产生这些知识所在的权力结构。这些共同构成了发展中的知识政治的论点,尽管是以摘要的形式。它们还为如何研究其他此类知识提供了一个框架。其目的是在相同的框架下,在期刊的后续期刊中提供另外三篇关于其他三个知识系统的文章。专题介绍
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in Indian Politics
Studies in Indian Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: SIP will publish research writings that seek to explain different aspects of Indian politics. The Journal adopts a multi-method approach and will publish articles based on primary data in the qualitative and quantitative traditions, archival research, interpretation of texts and documents, and secondary data. The Journal will cover a wide variety of sub-fields in politics, such as political ideas and thought in India, political institutions and processes, Indian democracy and politics in a comparative perspective particularly with reference to the global South and South Asia, India in world affairs, and public policies. While such a scope will make it accessible to a large number of readers, keeping India at the centre of the focus will make it target-specific.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信