Introduction: Research Context and Research Area
The efforts of my research group at Cornell coalesce around high-altitude montane societies and high-latitude Arctic and boreal forest communities. This work is based on an action research approach in which Indigenous and rural communities participate in the design, implementation, and application of results.
These strategic regions of the globe are characterized by a long history of colonialism, imperialism, and sustained efforts at cultural erasure (and in some instances genocide). Specifically, the Arctic regions and the Pamir Mountains of Central Asia are at the frontiers of the “Cold War” that has now been recharacterized as the “Clash of Civilizations.” These regions continue to be part of the “great game” to extract valuable renewable and non-renewable resources for economic gain while environmental principles and human rights are summarily ignored. Furthermore, structural poverty due to overdetermined effects of the historical forces described above is endemic in these regions, destabilizing human societies and their habitats. Finally, these regions are at the vanguard of climate change. Concurrently, this climatic variation and concomitant extreme weather events are exacerbating existing inequities.
In spite of the challenges described above, the peoples who live within these regions are not mere passive victims; rather, they have their distinct knowledge and cultural systems moored to their habitat. Their homelands continue to be rich in biological and cultural diversity. These regions are pregnant with renewable and non-renewable resources. The people practice varied ecological professions such as farmer, fisher, hunter, orchardist, and pastoralist. Simultaneously, they are very much part of the global economy. Therefore, in the third millennium, while vulnerable, these societies represent viable ontological alternatives to ways of knowing and living.
The sociocultural and ecological challenges that these regions face include threats to food and health security, deterioration in conditions of women, substance abuse, loss of biological and cultural diversity, and negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change. These challenges are often referred to as “wicked problems” not because they are inherently evil, but because they demand multiple ways of knowing to creatively address them. The root causes of the problems are difficult to perceive, and therefore, to understand. Hence, these problems resist easy formulaic resolutions because of constantly changing sociocultural and environmental circumstances. The antecedents of the problems are contingent and highly context-dependent. Conflicting perceptions and values exist among community members, policy makers, and researchers, so their responses to these problems will be varied. Furthermore, issues like the impacts of anthropogenic climate change are emergent and characterized by scientific uncertainty. A permanent optimal solution is unattainable because every time one issue is resolved, another problem will appear that points to a different optimality. By way of example, consider the impact of DDT as a response to malaria and its subsequent effects on the environment, or CFCs as means for long-term storage of food and their consequent impact on the ozone. Similarly, there is no singular optimal solution; it is more like a range of optimalities to be first identified and then achieved. Thus, effective responses to the challenges in the region where I work require collaborative, transdisciplinary, and informed iterative actions.
- Participatory Research and Multiple Ways of Knowing
A participatory approach is necessary to respond to “wicked problems” on intellectual grounds, as well as for pragmatic reasons. First, cognitive diversity drawn from a variety of life experiences is essential. Collaboration includes communities of enquirers (researchers) and communities of practice (civil society, government institutions, and the specific cultural groups who inhabit the region). A meaningful response cannot rely on any one type of expertise because the problem itself is multidimensional, demanding different ways of knowing. In our research work, “transdisciplinary” does not refer only to thoughtful collaboration between communities of enquirers, such as researchers in the humanities and the biological and social sciences, from project inception to application of findings, but also to all of them in active conversation with communities of practice, such as farmers, fishers, herders, hunters, orchardists, and teachers.
Second, a participatory approach is essential for very practical reasons. Given that the problems are emergent and context-specific, with multiple optimalities, the process must include all parties concerned. In any complex engagement of sociocultural and ecological systems, there are bound to be a range of outcomes, some beneficial and others detrimental (think of DDT or CFCs described above). Therefore, there must be commitment to work collectively and iteratively by adapting responses to the challenges of the region.
- Human Ecological Relations
The core of my applied research activities focuses on human ecological relations. Specifically, these relations express the complex connectivity between people and their environment, including the relations between humans and other animals, plants, and their habitat. The Greek word oikos, which is the root for the disciplines of ecology and economics, is often narrowly translated into English as “household.” However, it is more accurately conveyed by the idea of “habitat” or “homeland” because it is a more complete representation of the phenomenological space of living organisms. Therefore, my research is a narrative of human beings’ developing a sociocultural system on the foundation of their oikos or their habitat. Social institutions, including political decision making, have a significant bearing on human environmental decisions. People are not only variables affecting ecosystems, but also participants in an ecosystem, which includes the practice of science itself. Thus, social justice and ecosystem health are not separate or separable concerns but are interconnected. Recognition that human beings live with and within their oikos underlies my research activities. I have chosen to focus on the relationship between biological and cultural diversity as a lens through which to discern these relationships.
- Biocultural Diversity and Pluralism
In my research, I employ the concept of diversity to make a case for conservation of biological life and cultural systems in the face of mass extinction. Several decades of human ecological research experience with Indigenous and rural communities have demonstrated to me that biological and cultural diversity are not only linked, but also mutually reinforcing. Diversity is the basis of pluralism. The notion of pluralism asserts diversity both in the habitat or oikos and in cultures. It recognizes that change is a normal part of ecological and sociocultural processes. Pluralism not only accepts difference, but values it. While sociocultural and ecological diversity are empirical facts, pluralism is a value because it seeks to enhance and safeguard diversity. Historically informed evidence from the Arctic, the boreal forest, and the Pamir Mountains has repeatedly shown me that in the context of social and ecological change, pluralism enables diverse groups to work for mutual food and livelihood security even in regions where we are witnessing continuous civil war, such as Afghanistan.
Development of Curriculum
A major outcome in all research projects for which I am principal investigator is development of curriculum material (including films and art) along with other research outputs. This way research findings are immediately accessible for use through the education system in the regions where we are working. In addition to meeting conservation objectives related to environmental education, our research presents co-created transdisciplinary knowledge that combines biological and social sciences, as the well as the humanities, with local place-based or Indigenous knowledge. Curriculum development from research findings has immediate impact on institutionalized education systems, conserving local insights and learning by situating the temporal and spatial context of the community within a global system.
Why Indigenous and Rural?
I am often asked, why do you choose to work with rural or Indigenous communities in these remote regions of Asia and the Arctic? It is true that, from the point of view of a metropolis, these regions may seem remote and on the margins; yet the historical evidence of trade routes such as the “Silk Road(s)” and vibrant relations between diverse human communities reveals that these regions of Central Asia were not so isolated as we think. In the circumpolar Arctic, we have archeological evidence of complex human societies that existed for thousands of years, engaging in trade and negotiating peace with each other. Furthermore, despite significant disruptions due to colonization, war, and even genocide caused by invasive settlers, these Indigenous communities living in high-latitude, boreal forest, or mountainous regions continue to exist. Their homelands are places of biological and cultural diversity endowed with renewable and non-renewable resources. In the twenty-first century, it is precisely in these regions that the best young minds, such as students from these communities, are needed – not only to correct historical injustices perpetrated by humanity on itself and its diverse habitats, but also because the continued presence of these Indigenous cultures is living testimony to human agency and hope. These are places of insight where different ways of knowing may illuminate the path of humanity through the third millennium. Evidence consistently demonstrates that it is at the margins – or as some like to say, among the “outliers” – that both biological evolution and cultural change take place. In school textbooks, we are taught to associate Europe and the so-called “Western Civilization” with the Enlightenment, but we must not forget that in the “Dark Ages” that preceded that time, Europe was at the margins, and not the center, of human civilization. It was the knowledge of other societies and their intellectual cultures that “enlightened” Europeans. My research experience suggests that at present, hope and wisdom may reside elsewhere – in places that some consider as the margin. It is there that a methodology and pedagogy of hope can emerge.