Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., … & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 17-25.
A recent turn in interdisciplinary climate sciences is the recognition of the need to re-evaluate the age- old attitudes of the Western scientific knowledge system towards local and Indigenous knowledges. In Finland, Dr. Tero Mustonen of the Snowchange Cooperative, refers to this reflection and integration of traditional and local knowledges as “braiding” (see Mustonen & Huusari, 2020) while others prefer to use the word “weaving” (Tengö et al., 2017). It is interesting to note how tactile the chosen words are to describe this change of attitude and approach to knowledge systems that fall outside the Western model. Braiding or weaving, both are embodied and experiential activities that rely on muscle memory among the experienced and skilled. And, these words reflect the diversity of the ways of “knowing” that fall outside that which can be measured and quantified, or peer-reviewed and published.
Indigenous and local knowledge systems: a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving and governed by adaptive processes and handed down and across (through) generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment. (Tengö et al., 2017)
Phronetic Wisdom
“… phronesis is the knowledge that comes with experience, from knowing the particular context within which management decisions are taken and should function. Phronesis is,in essence ethical, based on the sound judgement of what constitutes a good life, a good society, and a good management process and outcome.
Linke & Jentoft (2014)
It involves social choices and a reasoned stand on how to confront dilemmas on a day-to-day basis as well as in formal settings when important interests and social values are at stake.”
Jentoft (2006) argues for the contribution of “phronetic” (after Aristotle’s phronesis, i.e. practical wisdom) to reflect these type of knowledges, in contrast to the “scientific” (Aristotle: episteme) contribution of the natural sciences. Jentoft’s arguments and concepts are a valuable contribution to understanding the role and place of practical wisdom, such as that embodied by experienced rural livelihood entrepreneurs (for ex. farmers, foresters, fishers, artisans, craftsmen and more). A few snippets from Linke & Jentoft (2014) follow to introduce phronetic wisdom of livelihood actors and its value in the sustainable governance of natural resources.
“….this paper examines if and how the Aristotelian concept of phronesis (meaning ‘prudence’, ‘practical experience’ or ‘wisdom’) can be applied in understanding the relevance and contribution of stakeholders and their experience-based knowledge in [
fisheriesnatural systems] governance.”
“Our perspective also has relevance beyond fisheries, given the move towards more interactive forms of governance emphasising stakeholder engagement, which is now occurring in many sectors of society, as a result of making policy decisions more participatory and democratic and thus more socially legitimate and robust.”
[…]
“Phronesis in Aristotle’s explanation relates to practical knowledge, ethics and sound judgement. It is concerned with ‘doing things right’, making decisions according to ethically and socially justified goals, such as equity and equality.
In other words, the phronetic dimension takes care of those aspects that stakeholders would refer to as being the reasonable thing to do, even if these things may go against what one would regard as rational from an instrumental point of view.
Phronesis is often translated as ‘practical wisdom’ or, in Aristotle’s own terms, as being ‘prudent’.”
[…]
“…phronesis is the knowledge that comes with experience, from knowing the particular context within which management decisions are taken and should function. Phronesis is, in essence ethical, based on the sound judgement of what constitutes a good life, a good society, and a good management process and outcome. It involves social choices and a reasoned stand on how to confront dilemmas on a day-to-day basis as well as in formal settings when important interests and social values are at stake.”
How can we ensure it takes its place at the negotiating table?
This is a social design challenge that we intend to undertake as part of our own internal development of operating models, frameworks, and processes for surfacing and making visible different types of embedded and embodied knowledges.
As Svein Jentoft (2006) holds, this situation should be ‘replaced by a multi- or, ideally, inter-disciplinary approach to fisheries management, where the social and economic issues are examined as thoroughly and systematically as those of the natural systems’.
Salmi, 2012
This then makes clear that there is a role for exploratory user research using methods from design ethnography as a means to build a foundation of understanding the socio-economic ecosystems that govern livelihoods dependent on and interdependent with the natural environment. Jentoft & Chuenpagdee (2019) offer an argument “for why it is essential to cross the disciplinary boundaries of sciences, and to ground it in the local knowledge and practice of small-scale fisheries stakeholders.”
Good small-scale fisheries governance calls for transdisciplinary knowledge, which involves more than the universal knowledge of natural science and the context specific knowledge that social science offers. Transdisciplinary science integrates knowledge of multiple academic disciplines and the contextual and ethically founded ‘phronetic knowledge’ of stakeholders (Flyvbjerg 2001; Jentoft 2006).
Jentoft & Chuenpagdee (2019)
Transdisciplinary governance, on the other hand, is about understanding how the wicked problems raise issues that are about social values, on which scientists have no supreme authority, and are, therefore, not the only relevant voice.
We aim to facilitate the emergence of such local knowledge and practices through the collaborative creative practices of the arts and design. One of our current creative challenges is to develop an operating model and processes for surfacing and sharing such phronetic wisdom in a respectful manner that foregrounds the agency of embodied knowledge possessed by the practitioner.
References
Linke, S., & Jentoft, S. (2014). Exploring the phronetic dimension of stakeholders’ knowledge in EU fisheries governance. Marine policy, 47, 153-161.
Jentoft, S. (2006). Beyond fisheries management: The Phronetic dimension. Marine Policy, 30(6), 671-680.
Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2019). The quest for transdisciplinarity in small-scale fisheries governance. In Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance (pp. 3-14). Springer, Cham.
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., … & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 17-25.
