Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia:
"Modern" Versus "Postmodern"
Scholarly Authority
| It is well known that land degradation is widespread and severe on the grasslands of |
| Inner Asia. In particular, the phenomenon of desert expansion across
the arid Chinese rangelands of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia has generated a great deal of anxiety. Official reports from China routinely assert alarming figures: over the last decade, once-fertile grassland has been lost to moving sand at a rate of 2,100 square kilometers per year, compromising the livelihood of 170 million people, and causing direct economic losses of US$2-3 billion annually (China State Council 1994:180-81; Wang et al. 1993:10). By some accounts, deserts now occupy 15.9% of Chinese territory, while moving dunes pose a "menace" to as much as one-third of the entire national landmass (Xu 1993). Although such estimates tend to vary inexplicably from one source to the next, all domestic reports do agree upon the fundamental premise of an accelerating ecological crisis. |
| Acute environmental problems have provided the context in which a variety of |
| multi-national and multi-disciplinary research efforts have been organized
to occur in both the Republic of Mongolia and the Chinese autonomous region of Inner Mongolia, primarily within the last five years. Asian scientists and officials, anxious to raise agricultural productivity in the grasslands (and to tap into international funding opportunities), have opened up to Western natural and social scientists in a number of large and small collaborative projects. |
| The most ambitious has been the Cambridge University MacArthur ECCIA project, |
| which covers Mongolia, China, and Siberia. Much of this research has
been published under the names of Caroline Humphrey and David Sneath 1996a; 1996b). Another initiative (limited to Mongolia) is the Policy Alternatives for Livestock Development (PALD), based at the Institute of Development Studies in Sussex. Much of this research has been published under the names of Jeremy Swift 1993) and/or Robin Mearns 1993). A third project (in China) was funded by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), and has produced publications under the names of John Longworth and Greg Williamson 1990; 1993). |
| In the United States, a loose organization of scholars identified by the acronym |
| GEMS (Grassland Ecosystem of the Mongolian Steppe) was nurtured by
the Committee on Scholarly Communication with China (CSCC) under the leadership of James Reardon-Anderson. Following upon the publication of a volume that surveyed the general state of grasslands and grassland sciences in China (NRC 1992), the GEMS project organized two working conferences and attempted to facilitate inter- disciplinary research networks among Mongolian, Chinese, European, and American scholars. |
| Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia: |
| "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority 2 |
| There have been numerous lower profile collaborative research efforts stimulated |
| by all this intellectual enthusiasm for Inner Asian grasslands. For
example, it was through participation in the GEMS project that I found a Chinese institution in Inner Mongolia willing to host my own dissertation fieldwork. I spent twelve months in 1993-94 conducting research in the Chifeng district of Eastern Inner Mongolia under the sponsorship of the Shenyang Institute of Applied Ecology. |
| The intention of this paper is to reflect analytically upon my recent experiences with |
| international and interdisciplinary scientific research efforts--both
as a participant in the GEMS forum and as an anthropologist living and working among Han Chinese natural scientists in a remote grassland ecosystem research station, itself embedded within a community of ethnic Mongolian herders. I hope to use these multiple frames of reference to investigate and illuminate some of the international, national, and local dimensions of scientific practice that critically condition the production of knowledge in Inner Mongolia. I argue that the three frames work together to amplify the influence of local (non-universal) circumstances in shaping scientific inquiry and data collection. |
| Without subscribing to a program of radical epistemological relativism, I contend |
| that scientific knowledge of Chinese grasslands derives to a significant
degree from the dynamics of situated social relations. In Inner Mongolia, as elsewhere, representations of nature do have their socio-cultural fingerprints, though they remain conspicuously unacknowledged and unexamined. It is time that someone take the post-modern challenge to expose them. |
| I start with the simple observation that, despite high expectations by many scholars |
| and funding agencies for comprehensive and influential research projects
in Inner Asia, overall results have been disappointing. Although most of the research has been fairly international in character, it has not been especially interdisciplinary, nor influential, nor pioneering. It seems to me this situation follows from a series of ideological oppositions which structure divergent social interests at the international, national, and local frames of reference. I will briefly discuss each in turn, beginning with the international frame. |
| Frame One A fundamental obstacle to interdisciplinary collaboration is the absence of a common |
| framework to talk about human-environment relations in nonconfrontational
terms. The language of scientific analysis cannot yet get beyond the familiar Nature-Culture dichotomy that requires privileging either nature or culture as a dominant force of environmental transformation. |
| Boundaries of Knowledge as Contested on Inner Asian Grasslands |
| Dee Mack Williams 3 |
| Natural scientists have historically been authorized to represent and speak for |
| nature, but their authority no longer goes unchallenged, either within
the academy or among the public at large. Social science literature increasingly interprets landscape as a social construction, which functions and evolves not in strict accordance with natural laws so much as to serve a community of symbol-creating members. |
| The theoretical distinctions that social scientists increasingly make between Nature |
| and nature-as-an-object-of-knowledge seriously problematize prospects
for interdisciplinary cooperation. For example, the closing discussion of the 1993 GEMS conference quickly reached an impasse over which discipline was best suited to organize and integrate the research. This tension was never resolved, but vented by muffled voices in hotel corridors. Predictably, the same unresolved problem surfaced again in 1996, when an edited volume of essays failed to gain acceptance for publication. Editors ultimately decided that the volume lacked a unified voice that could make all the articles fit together. |
| My point is simply that conferences, publication projects, and peer review have been |
| forums where disciplinary tensions over issues of scientific authority
in Asian grasslands have been vented, but left essentially unexamined and unresolved. At the GEMS conference, turf battles helped to channel participants into rather conservative research alliance strategies. For the most part, Western scholars collaborated with Chinese or Mongolian scholars from the same or closely related discipline. Rarely did collaboration occur between natural and social scientists, as originally intended. And when it did occur (as in my case), collaboration tended to be more logistical than cognitive. |
| These realities have direct implications for the production of scientific knowledge. |
| In the case of the GEMS project, the international frame of reference
helped to structure the kind of disciplinary collaboration that could occur, the kind of research questions that could be asked, the kind of data that could be collected, the levels of funding that could be expected, and the channels through which scientific information could eventually be disseminated. To observe some of these connections, it is necessary to move into the national and local frames of reference. |
| Frame Two In China, all grassland research occurs within an operative ideological framework--a |
| political discourse that helps to structure the scientific investigation
of nature in arid zones. It affects how scholars and officials gauge the scope and severity of degradation, how they spin a national narrative about the causes and culprits, and how they direct public interpretation of desert land. I have previously documented in some detail the characteristics of this discourse (see Williams 1997). Here, I do not |
| Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia: |
| "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority 4 |
| intend to verify again its existence, only to assert the parameters
and to discuss its relevance in the construction of scientific knowledge and grassland policy. |
| Chinese government officials and scholars widely attribute land degradation to past |
| and present anthropogenic forces. But they typically deflect responsibility
for environmental decline away from anyone associated with the current regime. This is accomplished by diverting blame in either of two directions: one in space, one in time. The spatial strategy is to place blame on local (minority) land users who are portrayed as ignorant, irrational, backward, or uncooperative. The temporal strategy is to lay responsibility at the feet of previous (irresponsible) regimes, especially the Qing, the Nationalists, and the Maoist zealots. |
| Here I am concerned with the deflection of blame toward local populations. Chinese |
| discourse often invokes a cultural element to explain both past and
present degradation of minority lands. Mongolian herders are widely criticized for holding to traditional, "rely upon heaven" (kaotian fangmu) methods of production. Influential scholars and officials argue that Mongols never concerned themselves with grassland preservation under the mobile conditions of their past. They never learned to look beyond their sheep to the soil, the theory goes, so today they have no regard for the land that farmers have long cherished (Li 1992; Guo 1993). Environmental restoration, it is believed, can only begin once "primitive" practices have been abolished: |
| The traditional pasture system that relied entirely on "Heaven" should be abandoned. |
| Sophisticated farming techniques should be employed to improve pastureland
and to cultivate supplementary feedstuffs. . . . In short, economic development and environmental quality will change to a higher and higher standard (Zhao Songqiao 1990:270). |
| For this reason, recent policy initiatives (informed by grassland science) attempt to |
| turn an extensive system of open-range grazing into an intensive "scientific"
production regime based upon enclosed pastures, irrigated forage production, stall feeding, machinery, improved breeding, and chemical fertilizer. The policies basically attempt to reproduce the spatial and ecological regimentation of Han farmland upon Mongol rangeland (see Williams 1996). |
| It is noteworthy that the work of grassland reconstruction in China is usually |
| contextualized in the language of scientific modernity. For example,
regional government positions are typically filled by officials explicitly "qualified" in science and technology, and there are thousands of rural households advantageously classified as "scientific households" (Tseren 1996:167). Also, media reports like to show how advanced technologies are utilized to dispel the ancient threats of sand drift that menace more backward peoples. Aerial seeding is a prominent weapon in this propaganda campaign. Likewise, afforestation projects achieve greater public |
| Boundaries of Knowledge as Contested on Inner Asian Grasslands |
| Dee Mack Williams 5 |
| reverence by invoking an aura of technological sophistication. For
example, one report boasted: |
| The composition of [the] shelterbelt forest system was based on countless laboratory |
| experiments involving computer modeling and wind-tunnel tests. As
a result, the shelterbelt forest was planted in a configuration designed to provide optimum protection for vegetation and the surrounding environment (Jiang 1994:18). |
| Through such devices, Chinese grassland policies and scientific investigations are |
| designed to wage ideological battle and assert political control over
public perception as much as they are intended to prevent ecosystem decline. They promote vital assumptions about the accomplishments of the reform era, the benevolence of the Chinese state, and the superiority of Han civilization. |
| Frame Three Local residents of Mongol ethnicity do not typically endorse the national Chinese |
| discourse. They perceive their environment, their land use, and their
lifestyle rather differently from the Han. Indeed, many herders are quite vocal about their opposition not only to national rangeland policies, but also to grassland scientists and the institution of grassland science. At my fieldsite, there was ample evidence of such tension. I begin with opposition to policy. |
| Residents do not generally look upon the erection of new fences in the benign |
| context of "dune fixation." They correctly understand enclosures
as a tool of economic exploitation. Those who can afford expensive wire command the largest and most fertile pastures, while those who cannot must watch their unguarded pastures turn to sand under constant grazing pressure from their neighbors. For this reason, fence construction has precipitated a great deal of vandalism and violent conflict between residents, which I have documented elsewhere (Williams 1996:684- 686). |
| Local residents also correctly understand the fence as a tool of external control. |
| They know that enclosures impose restrictions upon themselves as well
as the livestock. Through enclosure policies, Chinese scientists increasingly assume the authority to set parameters of household production, including the number and type of animals, the appropriate grazing strategy, culling strategy, and fodder production. Also, the prosperity of an entire region can rise or fall with scientific pronouncements over production potential that influence the relative size of government investments. For example, some scientists now favor investments in southern and western grasslands over those of arid Inner Mongolia (NRC 1992:140). The influence to control large populations and to shape regional prosperity are obvious manifestations of the increasing political power of grassland science in |
| Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia: |
| "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority 6 |
| China. It is no wonder then that the majority of residents feel vulnerable
and resent most of the transformations set in motion by government policy. |
| There is also much opposition directed toward the itinerant Han scientists as |
| individuals. Locals interpret the research station primarily as a
boondoggle. They believe that little has been accomplished after twenty-five years of intervention and great expenditures of capital. Others criticize the Han scientists not only for mismanagement, but also for ethical improprieties. They charge them with various forms of economic exploitation and opportunism. For example, the research station often hires local workers (usually children) at a meagre wage to provide much of the physical labor required to maintain the grounds, to carry equipment, and even to collect and record field data. The scientists also participate in the local economy by purchasing sheep, which they entrust to local herders for years at a time. This leads to unpleasant confrontations when the absentee owners suddenly appear and demand full accounting for the herd. It was reported to me that some members of the scientific community had even engaged in the trade of local livestock, buying low in the village while selling high in the cities to gain personal profit. For these and other criticisms, most of the residents would like to see the station closed down. |
| There is also animosity directed toward grassland science in general, which takes |
| both passive and active form. In polite conversation, local residents
all repeat formulaic praise for scientific methods of production. Yet the vast majority of them quickly admit that they are not scientific practitioners. They verbally praise the ideal, but feel content to persist in their "backward" traditional ways. When challenged to explain this contradiction, residents eagerly defer such conversation to their local "model citizens". These are individuals from the herding community who are praised by the scientific community and local government institutions for "exemplary" production techniques. In exchange for this ideological service they enjoy a wealth of special privileges, including political clout, production tutelage, bank loans, and enhanced grazing and mowing rights. Local herders are willing to praise these token households for practices which they have no intention of adopting anytime soon, apparently for the buffer it provides them from the scientists. |
| More active forms of opposition to grassland science can also be observed. For |
| example, herders do not usually implement the new rangeland policies
as intended. They do not follow a wide range of enclosure specifications, including the primary injunction to keep livestock contained within household fences. They generally do not sub-fence their land, or practice coordinated rotational grazing. There is also much vandalism explicitly directed at research station property and science equipment. In particular, fence-wire is frequently stolen and weather recording instruments are damaged. Even more threatening to the practice of local science, there is much deliberate human and livestock incursion upon the enclosed fields where scientists conduct their research experiments. Angry that so much land has |
| Boundaries of Knowledge as Contested on Inner Asian Grasslands |
| Dee Mack Williams 7 |
| been taken out of production for so long to serve as an experimental
control, herders frequently graze and mow vegetation within these boundaries. |
| Mongol herders also directly challenge the scientific authority of grassland science. |
| For example, they argue that the grasslands are more resilient than
the Han scientists know. They believe the worst degraded pastures can be restored to productivity (with no labor) within a mere three years time. They also insist that good grazing requires landscape diversity and mobility across large areas. Contrary to the scientists, they expressly value the various contributions that dune sand makes to their pastoral economy. They prefer indigenous breeds of sheep to exotic species, and refuse to abandon or limit goat husbandry. |
| Herders also denigrate grassland science on grounds of ineffectuality. They complain |
| that farmers enjoy the benefits of improved varieties of rice seedlings
while they must do without drought-resistant fodder crops. They ridicule aerial seeding as impractical and a waste of resources. They consider artificial insemination to produce weak and sickly animals. In short, they not only reject the Chinese national discourse that would scapegoat Mongol herders, they explicitly blame Beijing for causing (through colonialism) and perpetuating (through neglect) the land degradation that jeopardizes their livelihood. |
| Connecting the Frames The existence of ideological tension at all three frames significantly conditions the |
| ongoing production of scientific knowledge in China. Here I am interested
primarily in how the three frames fit together to amplify (rather than reduce) the relevance of local circumstance. I argue that oppositions within the scientific community at the international frame help to conceal the oppositions that exist at the national and local frame, and thereby promote their relevance. Concealed oppositions make it is quite easy for the foreign scientist (especially the natural scientist) to be unaware that alternative representations of nature even exist. The structure of engagement with local data generally compels them to endorse rather than challenge the Chinese discourse concerning land degradation. I witnessed this process in operation, as the research station hosted many international delegations during my year of residency. |
| Natural scientists from the West almost invariably rely upon Han scientists for access |
| to practically all field data. They do not speak local languages and
so receive their critical orientation primarily through the filter of translation. They do not stay long enough to explore beyond a pre-designated tour route. They gain no access to those in the community who dispute the research station's version of reality. Even if they do come across such people, they hear nothing unorthodox for want of time to establish a trusting relationship. But then they do not usually seek out local |
| Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia: |
| "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority 8 |
| inhabitants because they perceive no need. Western scientists naively
consider their hosts to be the "local expert", even though Han scientists see themselves as outsiders who work in an alien environment among alien people. Undoubtedly, Han scientists do develop an identifiable expertise through their ecological studies, but that experience must not be construed as "local", "insider", or "native", given the colonial history of Inner Mongolia. |
| Ultimately it matters to the construction of scientific knowledge that problems of |
| interdisciplinary collaboration at the international scale lead to
Western natural scientists working exclusively with Chinese natural scientists in a minority field setting. For example, it matters if Western scientists tour research enclosures to monitor the success of dune fixation without any knowledge that such enclosures are fiercely contested (and vandalized) by the residential community. It matters if they concern themselves with land degradation and resource development but never learn that Mongol herders have their own (conflicting) definitions of these concepts. It matters if they visit local households to evaluate community needs without knowing those individuals to be "model citizens" who are engaged in well rehearsed (and duplicitous) role-play. It matters if they utilize ecological and weather data that was collected and recorded at the hands of local workers who feel exploited by (and hostile to) their absentee urban employers. It matters because the field data is liable to be wrong and/or incomplete and/or significantly context dependent. |
| Of course, the problems of distortion and bias that can affect data collection are not |
| limited to the practices of natural scientists. They also deeply condition
the work of social scientists. I do not intend to privilege necessarily the social scientist over the natural scientist, although I do believe that long-term participant observation can improve the likelihood of gathering reliable field data. I have emphasized the credulity of natural scientists in China only because I was in a unique position to observe their manipulation, and because they tend to be less likely to admit the interpretive (and site-specific) dimensions of scientific knowledge production. |
| We must all take more seriously the influence of local circumstances in shaping |
| scientific inquiry. The sustained intellectual dichotomy between cultural
landscape and natural landscape carries adverse practical consequences for scientific investigation. At a minimum, it allows distortions of data to go undetected, it conceals the linkages between science and social power, and it prevents dialogue between competing knowledge systems that must occur in order to improve understanding of environmental transformation. |
| Boundaries of Knowledge as Contested on Inner Asian Grasslands |
| Dee Mack Williams 9 |
| References |
| China State Council 1994. China's Agenda 21: White Paper on China's |
| Population, Environment, and Development in the 21st Century. (Adopted
at the 16th Executive Meeting of the State Council on 25 Mar.). Beijing: China Environmental Science Press. |
| Guo Yong 1993. (Vice governor [fu qi zhang] of Wengniute banner). Interviewed |
| by author. 3 Sept. |
| Humphrey, Caroline and David Sneath [eds.] 1996a. Culture and Environment in |
| Inner Asia, Volume 1: The Pastoral Economy and the Environment. Cambridge, UK: White Horse Press. |
| Humphrey, Caroline and David Sneath [eds,] 1996b. Culture and Environment in |
| Inner Asia, Volume 2: Society and Culture. Cambridge, UK: White Horse
Press. |
| Jiang Wandi 1994. "Turning the desert green." Beijing Review 37, 44: 16-20. |
| Beijing. |
| Li Yutang 1992. (Executive vice-president of China Pratacultural Association and |
| Senior Economist for the Ministry of Agriculture). Interviewed by
author. 5 June. |
| Longworth, John [ed] 1990. The Wool Industry in China. Victoria, Australia: |
| Inkata Press. |
| Longworth, John and Gregory Williamson 1993. China's Pastoral Region: Sheep |
| and Wool, Minority Nationalities, Rangeland Degradation and Sustainable
Development. Wallingford, UK: CAB International in association with the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. |
| Mearns, Robin 1993. "Pastoral institutions, land tenure and land policy reform in |
| post-socialist Mongolia", PALD Research Report No.3, International
Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, Brighton. |
| (NRC) National Research Council [ed.] 1992. Grasslands and Grassland Sciences |
| in Northern China. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. |
| Swift, Jeremy and Robin Mearns 1993. "Mongolian pastoralism on the threshold |
| of the twenty-first century" Nomadic Peoples 33:3ff. |
| Tseren, P.B. 1996. "Traditional pastoral practice of the Oirat Mongols and their |
| relationship with the environment" IN Culture and Environment
in Inner Asia, Volume 2: Society and Culture, edited by C. Humphrey and D. Sneath. Cambridge, UK: White Horse Press, pp. 147-59. |
| Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia: |
| "Modern" Versus "Postmodern" Scholarly Authority 10 |
| Wang Lixian, Wang Xian, and Zhang Kebin [eds.] 1993. The Experiences of |
| Combatting Desertification in P.R. China. Beijing: College of Soil
and Water Conservation in the Beijing Forestry Univ. |
| Williams, Dee Mack 1996. "The barbed walls of China: A contemporary |
| grassland drama." J. of Asian Studies 55, 3: 665-691. |
| Williams, Dee Mack 1997. "The desert discourse of modern China." Modern |
| China 23(3):328-355. |
| Zhao Songqiao 1990. "The semi-arid land in Eastern Inner Mongolia--An area of |
| critical environmental change." Chinese J. of Arid Land Research
3, 3: 257- 71. |
Return to Representing Natural Resource Development in Asia
Return to the CSAC Ethnographics Gallery