Identifying Plants as a Process of Cultural Cognition: Comparing Knowledge Production and Communities of Practice in Modern Botanical Science and Nuaulu Ethnobotany
{"title":"Identifying Plants as a Process of Cultural Cognition: Comparing Knowledge Production and Communities of Practice in Modern Botanical Science and Nuaulu Ethnobotany","authors":"R. Ellen","doi":"10.1177/02780771231194153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We all seek to identify plants in our ordinary lives, or as professionals, yet what we mean by ‘identifications’ and our intentions in seeking them are not always the same. Moreover, the ‘identifications’ we achieve are often subject to disagreement. This paper compares the practices of contemporary professional taxonomists in producing herbarium reference collections, and plant naming among Nuaulu subsistence cultivators in eastern Indonesia. I examine how these communities of practice differ as groups and among themselves in the identifications they make of plants. I argue that the differences between them arise from the way material presents itself in radically different socio-cultural contexts, and the purposes for which the identifications are made. Differences between the groups arise from the ways individuals prioritise different kinds of information as it becomes available. Ethnobotanists often seek to translate between different worlds of identification by seeking one-to-one correspondences between scientific and local categories that we describe as taxa, but sometimes fail because the material used to identify plants, and the purposes of identification, are so different. I conclude by asking how intra-cultural and cross-cultural translation might operate in in-between hybrid spaces, such as para-taxonomy, where different assumptions and practices overlap or collide.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"43 1","pages":"208 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771231194153","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
We all seek to identify plants in our ordinary lives, or as professionals, yet what we mean by ‘identifications’ and our intentions in seeking them are not always the same. Moreover, the ‘identifications’ we achieve are often subject to disagreement. This paper compares the practices of contemporary professional taxonomists in producing herbarium reference collections, and plant naming among Nuaulu subsistence cultivators in eastern Indonesia. I examine how these communities of practice differ as groups and among themselves in the identifications they make of plants. I argue that the differences between them arise from the way material presents itself in radically different socio-cultural contexts, and the purposes for which the identifications are made. Differences between the groups arise from the ways individuals prioritise different kinds of information as it becomes available. Ethnobotanists often seek to translate between different worlds of identification by seeking one-to-one correspondences between scientific and local categories that we describe as taxa, but sometimes fail because the material used to identify plants, and the purposes of identification, are so different. I conclude by asking how intra-cultural and cross-cultural translation might operate in in-between hybrid spaces, such as para-taxonomy, where different assumptions and practices overlap or collide.
期刊介绍:
JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between.
Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology.
JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.