Dr. Vandana Shiva: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Intellectual Colonization == | == Intellectual Colonization == | ||
See also: [[Traditional Ecological Knowledge]] and [[Knowledge | See also: [[Traditional Ecological Knowledge]] and [[Knowledge commons]] | ||
<Blockquote>The disappearance of local knowledge through its interaction with the dominant western knowledge takes place at many levels, through many steps. First, local knowledge is made to disappear by simply not seeing it, by negating its very existence. This is very easy in the distant gaze of the globalizing dominant system. The western systems of knowledge have generally been viewed as universal. However, the dominant system is also a local system, with its social basis in a particular culture, class and gender. It is not universal in an epistemological sense. It is merely the globalized version of a very local and parochial tradition. Emerging from a dominating and colonizing culture, modern knowledge systems are themselves colonizing.<Ref> | <Blockquote>The disappearance of local knowledge through its interaction with the dominant western knowledge takes place at many levels, through many steps. First, local knowledge is made to disappear by simply not seeing it, by negating its very existence. This is very easy in the distant gaze of the globalizing dominant system. The western systems of knowledge have generally been viewed as universal. However, the dominant system is also a local system, with its social basis in a particular culture, class and gender. It is not universal in an epistemological sense. It is merely the globalized version of a very local and parochial tradition. Emerging from a dominating and colonizing culture, modern knowledge systems are themselves colonizing.<Ref> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
<Blockquote>... The first level of violence unleashed on local systems of knowledge is to not see them as knowledge. This invisibility is the first reason why local systems collapse without trial and test when confronted with the knowledge of the dominant west. The distance itself removes local systems from perception. When local knowledge does appear in the field of the globalizing vision, it is made to disappear by denying it the status of a systematic knowledge, and assigning it the adjectives 'primitive' and 'unscientific'. Correspondingly, the western system is assumed to be uniquely 'scientific' and universal. The prefix 'scientific' for the modern systems, and 'unscientific' for the traditional knowledge systems has, however, less to do with knowledge and more to do with power. The models of modern science which have encouraged these perceptions were derived less from familiarity with actual scientific practice, and more from familiarity with idealized versions of which gave science a special epistemological status. Positivism, verificationism, falsificationism were all based on the assumption that unlike traditional, local beliefs of the world, which are socially constructed, modern scientific knowledge was thought to be determined without social mediation. Scientists, in accordance with an abstract scientific method, were viewed as putting forward statements corresponding to the realities of a directly observable world. The theoretical concepts in their discourse were in principle seen as reducible to directly verifiable observational claims. New trends in the philosophy and sociology of science challenged the positivist assumptions, but did not challenge the assumed superiority of western systems. Thus, Kuhn, who has shown that science is not nearly as open as is popularly thought, and is the result of the commitment of a specialist community of scientists to presupposed metaphors and paradigms which determine the meaning of constituent terms and concepts, still holds that modern 'paradigmatic' knowledge, is superior to pre-paradigmatic knowledge which represents a kind of primitive state of knowing.<Ref>Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the Mind—Understanding the Threats to Biological and Cultural Diversity. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 39(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119930304</Ref></Blockquote> | <Blockquote>... The first level of violence unleashed on local systems of knowledge is to not see them as knowledge. This invisibility is the first reason why local systems collapse without trial and test when confronted with the knowledge of the dominant west. The distance itself removes local systems from perception. When local knowledge does appear in the field of the globalizing vision, it is made to disappear by denying it the status of a systematic knowledge, and assigning it the adjectives 'primitive' and 'unscientific'. Correspondingly, the western system is assumed to be uniquely 'scientific' and universal. The prefix 'scientific' for the modern systems, and 'unscientific' for the traditional knowledge systems has, however, less to do with knowledge and more to do with power. The models of modern science which have encouraged these perceptions were derived less from familiarity with actual scientific practice, and more from familiarity with idealized versions of which gave science a special epistemological status. Positivism, verificationism, falsificationism were all based on the assumption that unlike traditional, local beliefs of the world, which are socially constructed, modern scientific knowledge was thought to be determined without social mediation. Scientists, in accordance with an abstract scientific method, were viewed as putting forward statements corresponding to the realities of a directly observable world. The theoretical concepts in their discourse were in principle seen as reducible to directly verifiable observational claims. New trends in the philosophy and sociology of science challenged the positivist assumptions, but did not challenge the assumed superiority of western systems. Thus, Kuhn, who has shown that science is not nearly as open as is popularly thought, and is the result of the commitment of a specialist community of scientists to presupposed metaphors and paradigms which determine the meaning of constituent terms and concepts, still holds that modern 'paradigmatic' knowledge, is superior to pre-paradigmatic knowledge which represents a kind of primitive state of knowing.<Ref>Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the Mind—Understanding the Threats to Biological and Cultural Diversity. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 39(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119930304</Ref></Blockquote> | ||
= Earth Democracy = | = Earth Democracy = | ||
Revision as of 22:10, 11 June 2023
Dr. Vandana Shiva founded Navdanya in 1987 when she
... heard the coprorations spell out their vision of total control over life through genetic engineering and patents on life and seeds... Navdanya was formed to protect our seed diversity and farmers' rights to save, breed, and exchange seed freely. For me, life-forms, plants, and seeds are all evolving, self-organized, sovereign beings. They have intrinsic worth, value, and standing. Owning life by claiming it to be a corporate invention is ethically and legally wrong. Patents on seeds are legally wrong, becasue seeds are not an invention. Patents on seeds are ethically wrong, because seeds are life-forms-- they are kin members of our Earth Family.[1]
Since its inception Navdanya has helped establish more than one hundred community seed banks in local Indian communities to help "reclaim seed diversity and seed as a commons."
Farmer Suicide
Because of overwhelming debt around 30 Indian farmers kill themselves everyday. In 2020 more than 10,000 farmers committed suicide.[2] Dr.Vandana Shiva speaks on the crisis of farmer suicide:
"Lee Kyung Hae martyred himself while wearing a sign reading "WTO kills farmers" at the Cancun WTO ministerial to attract attention to one of the worst genocides of our times -- the genocide of small farmers through the rules of globalization... Thirty thousand farmers have been killed by globalization policies in India over a decade. According to India's National Crime Burea, 16,000 farmers in India committed suicide during 2004. During one six-month span in 2004, there were 1,860 suicides by farmers in the state of Andhra Pradesh alone."[3]
This crisis has its roots in the introduction of the so called green-revolution and the subsequent results which created a "rural society dominated by a class of powerful notables under whom live a class of smallholders, microfund farmers or sharecroppers, while a proletariat of agricultural workers depends on the goodwill of the owners who employ them and of whom they are often creditors for life." [4]
Monocultures of the Mind
Intellectual Colonization
See also: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Knowledge commons
The disappearance of local knowledge through its interaction with the dominant western knowledge takes place at many levels, through many steps. First, local knowledge is made to disappear by simply not seeing it, by negating its very existence. This is very easy in the distant gaze of the globalizing dominant system. The western systems of knowledge have generally been viewed as universal. However, the dominant system is also a local system, with its social basis in a particular culture, class and gender. It is not universal in an epistemological sense. It is merely the globalized version of a very local and parochial tradition. Emerging from a dominating and colonizing culture, modern knowledge systems are themselves colonizing.[5]
... The first level of violence unleashed on local systems of knowledge is to not see them as knowledge. This invisibility is the first reason why local systems collapse without trial and test when confronted with the knowledge of the dominant west. The distance itself removes local systems from perception. When local knowledge does appear in the field of the globalizing vision, it is made to disappear by denying it the status of a systematic knowledge, and assigning it the adjectives 'primitive' and 'unscientific'. Correspondingly, the western system is assumed to be uniquely 'scientific' and universal. The prefix 'scientific' for the modern systems, and 'unscientific' for the traditional knowledge systems has, however, less to do with knowledge and more to do with power. The models of modern science which have encouraged these perceptions were derived less from familiarity with actual scientific practice, and more from familiarity with idealized versions of which gave science a special epistemological status. Positivism, verificationism, falsificationism were all based on the assumption that unlike traditional, local beliefs of the world, which are socially constructed, modern scientific knowledge was thought to be determined without social mediation. Scientists, in accordance with an abstract scientific method, were viewed as putting forward statements corresponding to the realities of a directly observable world. The theoretical concepts in their discourse were in principle seen as reducible to directly verifiable observational claims. New trends in the philosophy and sociology of science challenged the positivist assumptions, but did not challenge the assumed superiority of western systems. Thus, Kuhn, who has shown that science is not nearly as open as is popularly thought, and is the result of the commitment of a specialist community of scientists to presupposed metaphors and paradigms which determine the meaning of constituent terms and concepts, still holds that modern 'paradigmatic' knowledge, is superior to pre-paradigmatic knowledge which represents a kind of primitive state of knowing.[6]
Earth Democracy
Who Really Feeds the World
Sources
- ↑ Dr.Vandana Shiva,Who Really Feeds the World, page 80-81
- ↑ https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/17/opinions/india-farmer-suicide-agriculture-reform-kaur/index.html
- ↑ Dr.Vandana Shiva, Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace, Page. 107
- ↑ Sociotechnical Context and Agroecological Transition for Smallholder Farms in Benin and Burkina Faso Parfait K. Tapsoba , Augustin K. N. Aoudji, Madeleine Kabore, Marie-Paule Kestemont, Christian Legay and Enoch G. Achigan-Dako
- ↑ Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the Mind—Understanding the Threats to Biological and Cultural Diversity. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 39(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119930304
- ↑ Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the Mind—Understanding the Threats to Biological and Cultural Diversity. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 39(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119930304