Context

While entwined within the intricate tapestry of a politically complex ontological existence, oscillating between the roles of a subject and an object of research, I have consciously endeavored to reconcile the nuances between my academic and personal selves. This reconciliation has been particularly challenging, given the myriad methodological discrepancies that often confront individuals within academia, revolving around the concepts of ‘objectivity’—often equated with ‘neutrality’—and ‘universality,’ which posits the applicability of knowledge across diverse temporal and spatial dimensions. These imperatives are frequently championed by Western European theorists as fundamental to the research process.

However, as I delved deeply into the intricacies of research on Tribal issues throughout the years, I’ve come to a profound realization regarding the problematic nature of universalization. This tendency tends to manifest as homogenization within the political landscape, perpetuating the subtle reproduction of colonialism through the very categories meant to serve as objective and universal foundations. I argue that such issues stem from a somewhat dogmatic and naive adherence to the value and efficacy of knowledge produced within Western European frameworks.

My rejection of epistemological premises advocating for this particular line of thought is not solely based on their role in perpetuating colonial reproduction. I now comprehend that these frameworks lack the intrinsic capability to capture and provide profound insights into diverse eco-epistemic realities outside the normative Western European gaze. A critical discrepancy arises when viewing eco-epistemic realities through a Western European lens, leading to dissonance between the lived experiences and theoretical constructs. This dissonance becomes particularly evident when embarking on a re-exploration of Tribal realities through colonial archives and writings.

My realization, based on this process, highlights the challenge many Tribes face in experiencing their history in ways that align with their organic structures, practices, and daily lives. The frames of reference through which Tribes seek to comprehend history often result in numerous epistemic discrepancies, manifesting as contradictions in the socio-cultural and political realms. The endeavor to reconcile these contradictions is no simple task at the individual level, as it requires an understanding of both the overarching discourse that subsumes the self and the meta-rules that structure day-to-day processes.

History holds a pivotal role in shaping human societies, exerting its influence universally and unfolding in a way that deeply impacts our collective existence. Firstly, societies find themselves confined by history, tethered to its before and after, with none able to escape its grasp. Secondly, the challenge arises in the way history is transcribed compared to how it is experienced—entering the realm of historiography, creating an ontological gap between the written text and the lived context.

For many societies burdened by the historical weight of colonialism, relying on texts crafted by colonialists for historical documentation poses significant challenges. These texts, rooted in colonial epistemology, inherently construct and categorize within a universalist paradigm, neglecting the nuances of contextualist perspectives.

Location

Reflecting on my journey as a researcher, I’ve consistently felt the need to explicitly articulate my ontological and epistemological assumptions regarding the demarcated context of my research. This stems from my discomfort with the structuring of knowledge pursuit within the confines of colonial epistemology. Approaching a context from a universalist viewpoint, seemingly devoid of preconceived notions, and adhering to preformulated methods claiming objectivity and neutrality has always felt disconcerting.

Delving into the politics of colonial epistemology unveils the challenges faced by Tribal scholars researching within a Tribal context. Colonial epistemology, intricately linked with epistemicide—a term employed by indigenous scholars worldwide—represents the obliteration, destruction, demeaning, or devaluation of indigenous epistemologies by Western European counterparts over centuries of colonization.

My rejection is not directed at epistemology as a concept but specifically at Western European epistemology, founded on the operationalization of epistemicide. It’s crucial to note that when referring to the “West,” I do not speak geographically but as an epistemology and a positionality. The pervasive influence of Western epistemology, bolstered by colonialism, has permeated the Indian reality, intersecting with dominant epistemologies of caste society. Tribes, caught in the crossfire, become passive recipients of this complex blend, resulting in the assimilation of “received theories” that embody a problematic synthesis of Western and Caste epistemologies.

Operating within the framework of Western-Caste epistemology, the pursuit of knowledge transforms into an act of power rather than truth-seeking. The acquisition of power, seemingly the ultimate aim of these epistemologies, takes precedence over the transformative potential of insights gained. Scholars navigating this complex terrain find themselves compelled to conform to these dominant epistemologies, overshadowing alternative perspectives. The recognition and authority bestowed upon these epistemologies within academic circles further perpetuate their dominance.

Critical Tribal scholars acknowledge the challenge of experiencing their own history and reality through frameworks imposed by dominant Western European and caste epistemologies. The complexities of academic engagements and university structures provide little support in demystifying these processes. The discomfort intensifies as Tribal scholars submit themselves to frameworks that diverge from their organic community contexts.

In this article, I aim to expose alternate epistemic frameworks in knowledge pursuits, acknowledging the formidable task ahead. While articulating a succinct alternative epistemological frame proves challenging, the imperative to attempt its recovery for the benefit of self and other critical Tribal scholars remains pressing. Despite the difficulties, a subjective urge persists to reclaim some organic Tribal epistemology, recognizing its political, theoretical, and methodological significance.

Positionality

In any pursuit of knowledge, I contend that the concept of theory is enveloped within methodology, and every methodology is encapsulated by its context. It is within the context that both theory and methodology take tangible form. Each context inherently embeds its unique epistemology, communicating its social struggles and cultural processes to the knowledge seeker in its distinct terms and references. Consequently, any theoretico-methodological framework that fundamentally positions knowledge production as an objective endeavor with universal applicability, as advocated by Western and caste-based epistemologies, clashes with a research process that places context at the core of the knowledge enterprise.

While it is not erroneous to assert that every knowledge project, regardless of perspective or origin, commences with fundamental questions pertinent to any researcher, the context perspective diverges. Generic questions such as (i) the purpose of one’s research for personal truth-seeking and the dynamic Tribe/Tribal community, (ii) the meaningfulness of the questions to both the researcher and the Tribe under study, and (iii) the essence of what one seeks to know and why are posed by all researchers. However, for those grounded in a contextual approach, the identification of qualifying data and the methodology are derived and cultivated from the context itself. The context assumes the role of the teacher, demanding that the researcher possesses the capability to discern its various articulations, both overt and nuanced. This epistemological stance challenges the conventional perception of preconceived methodologies claiming universality in the research process.

On the matter of epistemological consideration, I wish to emphasize that, as a researcher, I do not perceive myself as detached from the context. Every effort to answer the questions mentioned earlier is a quest for a ‘dynamic self in context,’ shaped by conditions that are relative. I term this approach ‘Engaged Observation,’ underscoring the importance of context and perspective, which sees the self as subsumed within the context. My advocacy for Engaged Observation is not an attempt to uncover an authentic tone or reality that exists independently; rather, it seeks to unravel the context, with all its subjectivities, and gain deeper insights into its underlying and sublime realities.

Since reclaiming my agency in knowledge production, I have favored an approach that initiates a knowledge project by first attempting to articulate a ‘conceptual kit.’ Despite recognizing the inherent problematic nature of concepts, which are not innocent or devoid of politics, the desire to pursue the truth of a particular condition infused with conceptual and theoretical elegance has consistently guided my knowledge pursuits. At times, I attribute this embedded urge to my Tribal reality—albeit distorted by colonialism, yet, to some extent, internally unmarred by rigid social and hierarchical classificatory systems that fragment being and obliterate epistemology.

Concluding Remarks

In my approach to research, I tread carefully, guided by fundamental epistemological principles concerning social reality. These include viewing reality as diverse, understanding knowledge as multiple, considering knowledge production a dialogical process, experiencing the self as a reflexive conscious being in context, entering the universe of study as a context, and studying it through engaged observation.

As my exploration extended to historical narratives, I recognized the limitations of relying too heavily on the accounts of ‘colonizers.’ While colonial writings offer valuable insights into historical events, time, and place, caution is necessary. Taking colonial writings as absolute truths about the conditions of a Tribe is precarious, as these writings often perpetuate colonialism through their conceptualizations of the ‘other’ and their desired political constructs of social reality.

In response to the discursive dominance of colonial writings and their construction of social conditions, I actively turned towards histories emerging from local sources. These narratives, rooted in the organic day-to-day experiences, ideas, dialogues, and practices of the people, provide a counterbalance to the colonial perspective.

The future trajectory of Tribal scholarship remains uncertain, and predicting its course is challenging. However, the imperative for Tribal scholars to reclaim agency in knowledge production remains critical. The act of challenging dominant narratives and seeking alternative perspectives from local sources becomes essential for a more nuanced and authentic understanding of Tribal histories and realities.

Dr.bodhi s.r. is Associate Professor of Dalit and Tribal Studies and Action, and Chairperson Centre for Social Justice and Governance, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Have you like this article?