Identifying Plants as a Process of Cultural Cognition: Comparing Knowledge Production and Communities of Practice in Modern Botanical Science and Nuaulu Ethnobotany

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Journal of Ethnobiology Pub Date : 2023-08-09 DOI:10.1177/02780771231194153
R. Ellen
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
识别植物作为文化认知的过程:比较现代植物学和努奥鲁民族植物学的知识生产和实践社区
我们都在日常生活中或作为专业人士寻求识别植物,但我们所说的“识别”和我们寻找它们的意图并不总是一样的。此外,我们所达成的“认同”往往存在分歧。本文比较了当代专业分类学家在制作植物标本馆参考集和印尼东部努奥卢自给栽培者植物命名方面的做法。我研究了这些实践群体在对植物的识别方面是如何作为群体和彼此之间存在差异的。我认为,它们之间的差异源于材料在完全不同的社会文化背景下的表现方式,以及识别的目的。群体之间的差异源于个人在获得不同类型的信息时对其进行优先排序的方式。民族植物学专家经常试图通过在我们称为分类群的科学类别和地方类别之间寻求一一对应来在不同的鉴定世界之间进行翻译,但有时会失败,因为用于鉴定植物的材料和鉴定目的非常不同。最后,我想问一下,在不同的假设和实践重叠或冲突的混合空间中,文化内和跨文化翻译可能如何运作,比如准分类学。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Ethnobiology
Journal of Ethnobiology Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
21
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Vegetal Agency in Street Tree Stewardship Practices: People-Plant Involutions Within Urban Green Infrastructure in New York City Cotton Monocultures and Reorganizing Socioecological Life in Telangana, India Cycad Regulation and Community Creation: South African Stakeholder Perspectives on Conservation What Do We Know About Threshing Traditional Grains in Australia? Indigenous Traditional Knowledge on Wild Edible Mushrooms: Cultural Significance, Extraction Practices, and Factors Leading to Changes in Their Abundance in Central Mexico
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1