Knowing from conflict: interculturality as a space of interaction for the production of knowledges

ABSTRACT

This article problematizes the interaction between diverse actors for the production of knowledges. From a phenomenological approach of three different experiences, I argue that the concept of interculturality and the practice of knowledge production based on it, will allow more symmetrical processes, with better knowledges, with a greater empowerment of non-academic communities, and with a more inclusive knowledge production from academic communities. I rely on political ontology to show that interactions cannot aspire (only) to dialogue and collaboration as a normative horizon, but that the production of knowledge requires the recognition of conflict. I consider interculturality can help to produce an interaction that incorporates conflict as an expression of ontological difference, which enhances its transformative character by recognizing asymmetries, establishing meeting points, and rethinking the methods used in interaction.

RESUMO

Este artigo probematiza a interação entre diversos atores na produção de conhecimento. Com base em uma abordagem fenomenológica de três experiências diferentes, defendo que o conceito de interculturalidade, junto com uma prática de produção de conhecimento baseada nele, permite processos mais simétricos, melhor conhecimento, maior capacitação das comunidades não acadêmicas, e uma produção de conhecimento mais inclusiva das comunidades acadêmicas. Eu recorro à ontologia política para mostrar que as interações não podem (apenas) aspirar ao diálogo e à colaboração como um horizonte normativo, mas que a produção de conhecimento requer o reconhecimento do conflito. Defendo que a interculturalidade pode ajudar a produzir uma interação que incorpora o conflito como expressão da diferença ontológica, o que reforça seu caráter transformador, ao reconhecer assimetrias, estabelecer pontos comuns e repensar os métodos usados na interação.

RESUMEN

Este artículo problematiza la interacción entre actores diversos para la producción de conocimientos. A partir de un acercamiento fenomenológico de 3 experiencias distintas, argumento que el concepto de interculturalidad y una práctica de producción de conocimiento basada en él, permitirá procesos más simétricos, con mejores conocimientos, con un mayor empoderamiento de comunidades no académicas, y con una producción de conocimiento más inclusiva desde las comunidades académicas. Me apoyo en la ontología política para mostrar que las interacciones no pueden aspirar (solamente) al diálogo y la colaboración como horizonte normativo, sino que la producción de conocimiento requiere reconocer el conflicto. Considero que la interculturalidad puede ayudar a producir una interacción que incorpore el conflicto como una expresión de la diferencia ontológica, que potencia su carácter transformativo al reconocer las asimetrías, establecer puntos de encuentro y repensar los métodos usados en la interacción.

KEYWORDS:

• Interculturality
• knowledge systems
• conflict
• knowledge production

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:

• Interculturalidade
• Sistemas de conhecimento
• Conflito
• Produção de conhecimento

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• Interculturalidad
• Sistemas de conocimiento
• Conflicto
• Producción de conocimiento

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 We can understand multiculturalism as an update of liberalism. Thus, instead of focusing on individuals, contemporary liberalism raises the question of cultures, groups, and communities. According to Charles Taylor (1993), we can find an example of multicultural politics in the Canadian state that proposes a relationship of recognition with the so-called “First Nations.” A relationship of tolerance is sought with the groups or communities, in this case with the indigenous nations. However, “critical interculturality” (Walsh 2010) goes beyond liberal tolerance and the recognition of rights towards a true intercultural dialogue that, ideally, will allow the transformation of the dominant, hegemonic culture in its interaction with subaltern cultures. We can also speak of “functional interculturality” when it is not a question of dialogue transforming us as a community, but as a sophisticated form of normalization or adaptation of subaltern cultures to the majority or dominant culture.

2 In this it differs from multiculturalism, which deals with difference in terms of majority/minority. In this regard, Cruz-Rodríguez (2013) draws attention to the white elites that hold power, who are really few in comparison to subalternized majorities: black communities, peasants, indigenous people, women, etc.

3 In the scientific system, as well as in the indigenous, local or activist system, there are also power and asymmetry relations that generate disputes and dissent on which knowledge is mobilized, produced, and transferred (Flórez 2007; Tengö et al. 2017).

4 It happens, even with indigenous communities, that sustainability is neither a practice nor a concern within their ontology.

5 From the STS field, Reyes-Galindo and Duarte-Ribeiro (2017) systematize four models for intercultural communication: trading zones, trust, interactional expertise, and boundary objects.

6 Viveiros de Castro (2010) states that Amazonian multinaturalism does not speak of multiple natures but of nature as variation. What makes a difference between what is perceived by the species is not the nature or the perceived category, but the body with which they experience it.

7 In this regard, we can review proposals such as the metodoestesis of Patricia Noguera, Colombian philosopher (Noguera, Ramírez, and Echeverri 2020). Also, the proposal on "more than-human participatory research" (Noorani and Brigstocke 2018).

Additional information

Funding

Part of this research was funded by a postdoctoral grant (2021–2022) and a doctoral grant (2016–2019) from the Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The postdoctoral fellowship was completed during a research stay at Coporación para el Desarrollo de la Dignidad Humana-CORPODIHVA, in the city of Mitú, Vaupés.

Notes on contributors

Adela Parra-Romero

Adela Parra-Romero is Director of the Social Appropriation of Knowledge Unit (UASCU) of the Corporación Universitaria del Meta-UNIMETA. She holds a PhD in Science and Technology Policy from the University of Campinas, Brazil. She is a Member of the Laboratory on Technologies and Social Transformations (University of Campinas, Brazil). She has developed her research in ethnically and environmentally diverse territories in Colombia. She currently explores the production and social appropriation of knowledge in intercultural contexts and the challenges of researching from and with conflict, with the body and experience.