Anthony Moore 153588 CRS100 Major

What happens when different knowledges speak to each other?

Of all aspects of Australia’s indigenous knowledge systems, it is perhaps the use of fire which has received the most recognition from western science for relevance in modern life. Numerous studies in Australia have indicated that traditional regimes are robust models for application in modern management (Bowman et al. 2008, Russell-Smith et al. 2003, Whitehead et al. 2003). Perhaps this has eventuated only after the findings of western science have agreed with indigenous knowledge that controlled anthropogenic burns are generally of benefit, from both ecological and human safety perspectives. Regardless, this rare agreement between the dominant western science and the indigenous knowledge systems offers an excellent opportunity for productive interaction.

There are positive indications that to some degree, this productive interaction is already occurring. Indigenous knowledge is becoming fundamental in the fire regimes designed and implemented by natural resource managers in the tropical savannas and arid centre (Bowman et al. 2008, Whitehead et al. 2003). Increasingly, indigenous people are being given the opportunity to take personal responsibility for the health of their lands, regaining some of the power lost during the last two centuries of European settlement. In the Northern Territory for example, Aboriginal ranger groups from more than 20 remote communities implement fire regimes based upon traditional knowledge, an initiative operating on government funding (Northern Land Council 2006).

In the eastern states there is less evidence of indigenous involvement in fire management today. This may be due to the fact that the more intensive European settlement has caused greater disruption to indigenous presence on the land in these areas, forcing an inability to follow traditional practices and eventually leading to loss of indigenous knowledge. The proportion of people with indigenous knowledge systems compared to dominant culture is also far lower in the eastern states, reducing the ‘voice’ of this alternative knowledge in modern policies.

It must be considered the responsibility of the dominant knowledge system to provide room for indigenous knowledge to prosper; the benefits offered by doing so explain the accommodation given thus far. Regardless of the benefits to the dominant culture, there is a strong moral argument for accepting and encouraging indigenous knowledge to have greater importance in modern life. Where this knowledge has been allowed more equal space and consideration in dealing with fire, examples show that results are positive and extend beyond the direct impacts of fire to include social and cultural benefits. This agrees with the Yolngu metaphor of ‘ganma’ in which the knowledge systems are likened to streams of water, where complex interaction and mixing of the streams produce concentrated abundance at the confluence (Watson 1989).

Ideally the interaction between the two knowledge systems will produce a new knowledge, one that is better equipped to manage fire within modern contexts. This new system will essentially hold elements relevant to holders of both knowledges, allowing for enhanced communication and growth into the future. Informed fire policies can be designed that take into account the full diversity of impacts and prioritise these from a more balanced perspective. Ultimately, fire management will likely improve, as well as relations between the dominant culture and indigenous people. Thus the issue of fire, in which the importance of indigenous knowledge is already well recognised, could lead the way for improved interaction and increased equality in other aspects of Australian life.