Skip to main content
Log in

Indigenous agricultural knowledge systems, human interests, and critical analysis: Reflections on farmer organization in Ecuador

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Indigenous agricultural knowledge (IAK) can be analyzed for its technical role in food production strategies, and for its role as cultural knowledge producing and reproducing mutual understanding and identity among the members of a farming group. IAK can also be approached from the perspective of critical theory, analyzing the relationship between knowledge and relations of power, with the goal of liberating indigenous farmers from forms of domination. The paper considers relationships between the different aspects of IAK, using examples of the influence of non-local technologies and ideas on indigenous agricultural practices in the Ecuadorian Andes. The examples elucidate how technical change is a signifier of the changing relationship between indigenous farmers and wider society. The political implications of these changes are ambiguous, however, because the change is not necessarily one of social and cultural assimilation. As indigenous peasant organizations in Ecuador now reflect on these changes, they are connecting the questions of IAK, indigenous cultural identity and political strategy. Some organizations speak of recovering and revalorizing indigenous technologies as a tool for, and symbol of, resistance to domination by wider society. Others see selective modernization of indigenous agriculture as a necessary strategy to sustain the social and cultural cohesion of the group, even if this implies social changes. The different perspectives reflect both different conditions facing the organizations, and their varying approaches. That peasant organizations have these discussions suggests that they should constitute an important meeting point for farmers and crop researchers to discuss technology development strategies as equal partners. The organizations can provide an institutional forum in which participants reflect critically on the agrarian knowledge that they have, why they have it, and what it can contribute to future strategies of agrarian and social change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agriculture and Human Values, 1989. Special Issue on Indigenous Knowledge, Summer 1989.Agriculture and Human Values. 4(3).

  • Altieri, M.A. 1987.Agroecology. The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Boulder. Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. and Merrick, L. 1987. “In Situ Maintenance of Crop Genetic Resources through Maintenance of Traditional Farming Systems.”Economic Botany, 41(1): 86–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. and Yurjevic, A. 1990.Towards an Agroecological Strategy for Sustainable Rural Development in Latin America. Latin American Consortium on Agroecology and Development. Santiago, Chile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, A.J. 1990.Indigenous Agriculture in the Central Ecuadorian Andes. The Cultural Ecology and Institutional Conditions of its Construction and its Change. Ph.D. dissertation. Graduate School of Geography, Clark University.

  • Bebbington, A.J. 1989.Institutional Options and Multiple Sources of Innovation. A Case Study from Ecuador. Overseas Development Institute Network Paper 11. London. Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. 1983.Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Oxford. Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, S.D. & Clay, E. 1981. “Sources of Innovation in Agricultural Technology.”World Development, 9(4):321–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., 1977.Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brokensha, D. Warren, D. & Werner, O. (eds) 1980.Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. Lanham. University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. 1978. “On Understanding Understanding: Two Views of Communication.”Rural Sociology, 43(3):450–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L.A. (eds) 1989.Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiriboga, M. 1987. “Movimiento Campesino e Indigena y Participacion Politica en Ecuador. La Construccion de Identidades en una Sociedad Heterogenea.”Ecuador Debate, 13:87–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAIE 1989.Nuestro Proceso Organizativo. Quito. Confederacion de Nacionalidades Indigenas del Ecuador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisemon, T.O. 1989. “Becoming a Modern Farmer: The Impact of Primary Schooling on Agricultural Thinking and Practices in Kenya and Burundi.” pp. 41–67 in D. Michael Warren, L. Jan Slikkerveer and S. Oguntunji Titilola (eds),Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development. Studies in Technology and Social Change No.11. Ames. Iowa State University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • FENOC 1988.Programa Agrario Campesino Indigena. Quito. Federacion Nacional de Organizaciones Campesinas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franquemont, C. 1987.Potato Breeding in High Altitude Environments in the Andes. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Ethnobiology, Gainesville, March 6th, 1987.

  • Giddens, A. 1982.Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory. London. MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S. 1981. “The Ecological Basis for the Application of Traditional Technology in the Management of Tropical Agroecosystems.”Agro-ecosystems, 7: 173–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, D.J. 1978.Ideology, Science and Human Geography. London. Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1987.The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2. London. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1984.The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1. Cambridge. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1971.Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston. Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, O. 1985. “Ecological Duality and the Role of the Center: Northern Potosi.” pp. 311–335 in Masuda, S.et al., (eds).

  • Keat, R. and Urry, J. 1982.Social Theory as Science. Second Edition. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, A.D. 1990.Democracy and Development in Latin America. Economics, Politics and Religion in the Postwar Period. Cambridge. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuda, S., Shimada, I. & Morris C. (eds) 1985.Andean Ecology and Civilization. An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Andean Ecological Complementarity. Tokyo. University of Tokyo Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthey, T. 1982. “Rationality and Relativism: Habermas' ‘Overcoming’ of Hermeneutics.” InHabermas: Critical Debates. Thompson, J. & Held, D. (eds). Cambridge. M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramon, V., G. 1988.Indios, Crisis y Proyecto Alternativo. Quito. Centro Andino de Accion Popular.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. 1977.Origins of Agriculture. Mouton Publishers. The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R.E. 1989. “The Role of Farmers in the Creation of Agricultural Technology.” pp. 3–9 inFarmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L.A. (eds). London. Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R.E. 1987.Farmers and Experimentation. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Discussion Paper No. 21. London. Overseas Development Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R.E. 1984. Breaking New Ground. Agricultural Anthropology. Lima. Centro Internacional de la Papa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R.E. & Bebbington, A. 1991. “Farmers who Experiment. Un Untapped Resource for Agricultural Research and Development.” In Indigenous Knowledge Systems: The Cultural Dimension of Development. D.M.Warren, D.Brokensha and L.JanSlikkerveer (eds). London. Kegan Paul International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R. & Booth, R. 1982. “Farmer-back-to-Farmer. A Model for Generating Acceptable Agricultural Technology.”Agricultural Administration, 11:127–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, P. 1987.Experimenting Farmers and Agricultural Research. Manuscript.

  • Richards, P. 1985.Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. Ecology and Food Production in West Africa. London. Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Parga, J. 1989. Faccionalismo, Organizacion y Proyecto Etnico en los Andes. Quito. Centro Andino de Accion Popular.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Parga, J. 1984. “Comportamientos Tecnologicos y Apropriaciones Simbolicas en el Campesinado Indigena de Cotocahi.” In Debate #6: Campesinado y Tecnologia, pp. 116–133. Quito. Centro Andino de Accion Popular.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santana, R. 1986. “La Cuestion Etnica y la Democracia en el Ecuador.”Ecuador Debate 12:101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. 1984.Method in Social Science. London. Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.C. 1985.Weapons of the Weak. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. London. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, S.J. 1987a. “New Approaches to the Study of Peasant Rebellion and Consciousness: Implications of the Andean Experience.” pp. 3–25 in Stern 1987b.

  • Stern, S.J. 1987b. Resistance, Rebellion and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World, 18th to 20th Centuries. Madison. The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrupp, L.A. 1989. “Legitimizing Local Knowledge: ‘Scientized Packages’ or Empowerment for Third World People.” pp. 138–153 in D. Michael Warren, L. Jan Slikkerveer and S. Oguntunji Titilola (eds),Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development. Studies in Technology and Social Change No. 11. Ames. Iowa State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B.L. & Brush, S. 1987.Comparative Farming Systems. New York. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo, J. 1987. “Comentarios a la Ponencia: Movimiento Campesino e Indigena y Participacion Politica.”Ecuador Debate 13:123–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • UCASAJ, 1989.Pueblo Indio. San Juan, Chimborazo. Union of Cabildos of San Juan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, D.M., Brokensha, D. and Slikkerveer L. Jan (eds) 1991.Indigenous Knowledge Systems: The Cultural Dimension of Development. London. Kegan Paul International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weismantel, M.J. 1988.Food, Gender and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S.K. 1989. The Recent Work of Jurgen Habermas. Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuquilanda, M. 1988.Tradicion y Actualidad en el Agro Serrano. Quito. CEDIME.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

Anthony Bebbington is a British geographer, teaching and working as a Post-Doctoral Researcher in the Centre of Latin American Studies at Cambridge University, England. He has conducted research in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile. His Ph.D. (Clark University, USA -1990) analyzed the relationships between resource poor farmers and institutions during the process of agrarian change in highland Ecuador. He is currently involved in a collaborative study of NGO-state relationships in agricultural research and extension in Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bebbington, A. Indigenous agricultural knowledge systems, human interests, and critical analysis: Reflections on farmer organization in Ecuador. Agric Hum Values 8, 14–24 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01579652

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01579652

Keywords

Navigation