Abstract
One of the most controversial aspects of the access and benefit-sharing debate is the way in which traditional knowledge is used and commercialized. Many critics have pointed out the inherent contradictions between traditional knowledge systems, which are typically collective, based on sharing and of a non-barter nature, and Western approaches to knowledge protection such as patenting, which by contrast are monopolistic and individualistic. Few, if any, empirical studies have documented the relationship between these systems and community perceptions of the so-called commodification of traditional knowledge. Based on fieldwork conducted in South Africa, Namibia and Botswana, this chapter examines how these issues are perceived by San communities.
While indigenous peoples are often portrayed in the literature as homogeneous groups voicing uniform opinions, the scenario surveys used in the fieldwork clearly indicate that within the communities studied, there were many different opinions on whether or not to commodify traditional knowledge. This diversity of voices is not surprising when one takes into account the local context or the current and historical socio-economic and political circumstances of individuals and communities.
Although there was widespread acceptance of commodification in principle, it is important to be aware of its cultural, symbolic, and economic value. At the same time, the scenario surveys showed that many respondents wanted to keep control of their knowledge rather than part with it for economic benefit (royalties) only. Notably, a gender divide could be observed, with women more likely to settle for royalties – to finance their children's education, for instance – and men more likely to either reject all commodification or opt to be co-holders of patents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
1 Soleri and Cleveland (1994) argue that the scenarios they have developed are ‘an instructive example of the sort of questionnaire that can be effective for assessing and clarifying attitudes toward the proper use of traditional cultural knowledge’.
- 2.
2 This relatively large and diverse San community is located in West Tsumkwe district, Namibia (part of an area that during apartheid was known as ‘Bushmanland’).
- 3.
3 Because of very high mobility, poor communication facilities and questionable census data, statistically representative sampling of the San was not a realistic or useful approach. People typically relate themselves to places through their extended family, but many family members are ‘away’ at any given time – for instance, working (or looking for work) on farms or staying with relatives. However, scenario interviews were carried out with a diverse range of community members (across age groups, genders and socio-economic positions) until saturation was achieved (i.e. when no new or additional insights were gained). The sample was thus considered large enough to reflect fairly the range of views held by community members present at the time of the survey.
- 4.
4 Not all the participants knew their ages. The government officials who issued their identity cards often simply made up the birthdates.
- 5.
5 The scenarios were first tested in West Tsumkwe. The results of that pilot study are not incorporated in this study.
- 6.
6 A substantial caloric intake consists of ‘wild’ food that is collected in the bush, such as nuts, tubers and watermelons.
- 7.
7 N!oresi (plural for n!ore) are named territories without fixed boundaries. Usually important resources can be found on n!oresi, such as permanent and semi-permanent waterholes or highly valued food or medicines.
- 8.
8 The NGO CRIAA SA-DC started to organise groups of registered harvesters in order to set up networks of knowledge exchange about sustainable resource use and management. Harvesters became increasingly involved in ecological surveys to determine sustainable harvesting quotas and to monitor compliance with the surveys and quotas. As a result of this pilot scheme, the harvesters deal directly with the exporters and are getting a much better price for harvested devil's claw.
- 9.
9 Interview with Andriesvale informant, 17 October 2004. Interview translated from Afrikaans to English.
- 10.
10 See, for example, Robins (2001) for more details on the intracommunity tensions between the self-assigned ‘traditionalists’ and the ‘western’ or ‘modern’ ¹Khomani San.
- 11.
11 Interview with Andriesvale informant, 21 June 2007. Interview translated from Afrikaans to English.
- 12.
12 For more information on the land claim see Chennells (2002).
- 13.
13 Field notes, June 2007.
- 14.
14 Interview with Andriesvale informant, 21 June 2007. Interview translated from Afrikaans to English.
References
Appadurai, A. (Ed.) (2005). The social life of things: commodities in cultural perpsective. Cambridge (first published in 1986): Cambridge University Press.
Becker, H. (2003). The least sexist society? Perspectives on gender, change and violence among southern African San. Journal of Southern African Studies, 29(1), 3–23.
Castree, N. (2003). Bioprospecting: from theory to practice (and back again). Transactions of the Institute British Geographers, 28(1), 35–55.
Chennells, R. (2002). The ≠Khomani San of South Africa. In J. Nelson & L. Hossack (Eds.), Indigenous peoples and protected areas in Africa: from principles to practice. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme.
CRIAA SA-DC (2003). The Namibian national devil's claw situation analysis: socio-economic analysis of devil's claw harvesting and trade issues in Namibia. Centre for Research Information Action in Africa and Southern African Development and Consulting, Windhoek.
Davenport, W. H. (2005). Two kinds of value in the Eastern Solomon Islands. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dove, M. R. (1996). Center, periphery, and biodiversity: a paradox of governance and a development challenge. In S. B. Brush & D. Stabinsky (Eds.), Valuing local knowledge: indigenous people and intellectual property rights. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ertman, M. M., & Williams, J. C. (Eds.) (2005). Rethinking commodification: cases and readings in law and culture. New York: New York University Press.
Felton, S., & Becker, H. (2001). A gender perspective on the status of the San in Southern Africa. Windhoek: Legal Assistance Centre.
Gibson, J. (2005). Community resources: intellectual property, international trade and protection of traditional knowledge. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Greene, S. (2004). Indigenous people incorporated? culture as politics, culture as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting. Current Anthropology, 45(2), 211–238.
Gudeman, S. (1996). Sketches, qualms, and other thoughts on intellectual property rights. In S. B. Brush & D. Stabinsky (Eds.), Valuing local knowledge: indigenous people and intellectual property rights. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Guenther, M. (1999). Tricksters and dancers: Bushman religion and society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Guenther, M. (2002). Independence, resistance, accommodation, persistence: hunter-gatherers and agropastoralists in the Ghanzi veld, early 1800s to mid-1900s. In S. Kent (Ed.), Ethnicity, hunter-gatherers, and the ‘other’: association or assimilation in Africa. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Halbert, D. J. (2005). Resisting intellectual property. Abingdon: Routledge.
Heath, C., & Weidlich, S. (2003). Intellectual property: suitable for protecting traditional medicine? Intellectual Property Quarterly, 1, 79–96.
Katz, R., Biesele, M., & St. Denis, V. (1997). Healing makes our heart happy: spirituality and cultural transformation among the Kalahari Ju/'hoansi. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International.
Kent, S. (1993). Sharing in an egalitarian Kalahari community. Man, 28, 479–514.
Kopytoff, I. (2005). The cultural biography of things: commoditisation as process. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambidge University Press.
Lee, R. (2003). cf. Solway, J. The politics of egalitarianism. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 151.
Malinowski, B. ([1935] 1978). Coral gardens and their magic: a study of the methods of tilling the soil and of agricultural rites in the Trobriand Islands. London: Allen and Urwin.
Moran, K., King, S. R., & Carlson, T. J. (2001). Biodiversity prospecting: lessons and prospects. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 505.
Nijar, G. S. (1996). In defence of local community, knowledge and biodiversity. Penang: Third World Network.
Posey, D. A. (2002). Commodification of the sacred through intellectual property rights. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 83(1), 3–12.
Radin, M. J., & Sunder, M. (2005). The subject and object of commodification. In M. M. Ertman, & J. C. Williams (Eds.), Rethinking commodification: cases and readings in law and culture. New York: New York University Press.
Riley, M. (Ed.) (2004). Indigenous intellectual property rights: legal obstacles and innovative solutions. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Robins, S. (2001). NGOs, ‘bushmen’ and the double vision: the ≠Khomani San land claim and the cultural politics of ‘communty’ and ‘development’ in the Kalahari. Journal of Southern African Studies, 24, 17–24.
Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge. MA: South End Press Boston.
Shiva, V. (2001). Protect or plunder? Understanding intellectual property rights. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Soleri, D., & Cleveland, D. (1994). Gifts from the creator: intellectual property rights and folk crop varieties. In T. Greaves (Ed.), Intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples: a sourcebook. Oklahoma City, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.
Strathern, M. (2000). Multiple perspectives on intellectual property. In K. Whimp & M. Busse (Eds.), Protection of intellectual, biological and cultural property in Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.
Takeshita, C. (2001). Bioprospecting and its discontents: indigenous resistances as legitimate politics. Alternatives, 26, 259–286.
Tobin, B. (2000). The search for an interim solution. In K. Whimp & M. Busse (Eds.), Protection of intellectual, biological and cultural property in Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.
Vermeylen, S. (2007). Between law and lore, unpublished PhD thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford.
Zerda-Sarmiento, A., & Forero-Pineda, C. (2002). Intellectual property rights over ethnic communities' knowledge. International Social Science Journal, 54(171), 99–114.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Additional information
In the old days we had animal folk tales, and these were our lessons in those times. These tales were narrated by our grandparents, parents and elder people, and included animal songs, bird songs etc. and it was a lesson of life, and our leisure times. It was done in the evening when it got dark and the lesson was to teach us the way of life for the future generations. (Peter Goro, Tobere, Botswana)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vermeylen, S. (2009). Trading Traditional Knowledge: San Perspectives from South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. In: Wynberg, R., Schroeder, D., Chennells, R. (eds) Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3122-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3123-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)