I am sorry but the difference in method of reasoning between scientific knowledge and lokavidya (folk knowledge?) is not clear to me. What is the conception of scientific knowledge employed here? I think this is a derivative notion. There is only scientific method and it is purely validatory in function (This might be unregenerate Popperism but what exactly is the alternative we are positing?). It is of course possible to argue that there are indigenous knowledge systems whose elements may not be amenable to existing protcols of scientific procedure. But that can only be an argument for an expansion/reform of scientific method. Whether it would justify a classification and whether such a classification would be of great practical value, I am doubtful.
I have problems also with the idea of rationality or method of reasoning used here. It is true that a completely contingent content has been given to rationality, making it conform to certain western forms of life. What we need to do in this context is to insist on a less substantive, more rigorously formal notion of rationality. I myself prefer to insist on defining rationality in terms of being in possession of good reasons for one’s behaviour, grounding what constitutes ‘good reasons’ in diverse ways of life without necessarily lapsing into arbitrary relativism.
The second paragraph I find frankly poetic in the sense of being suggestive and evocative but full of hermeneutic pitfalls. The underlying idea seems to be draw an analogy with or extend the idea of instinct to human behavior in certain situations. This seems to me to be bristling with dangers. The invocation of instinct in human contexts can entail all sorts of bizarre consequences. Moreover, why should we take the confessedly atypical behaviour exhibited in extreme or abnormal situations as constituting the norm even for those group of people? Are we not risking reducing lokavidya to survival oriented unreflexive responses?
I have not understood the specific way in which the contrast between inductive and deductive reasoning is sought here. I must confess that I find the third paragraph even more problematic. It is one thing to say – using my own paradigm – that agents may not be conscious of the good reasons that prompt their action, and quite another to equate that action with unreflective behaviour that may not be in any way rationally or ethically justifiable according to the norms of that very group of people.
It is all right to use of the context of diplacement to understand the rationale of a certain behaviour but beyond that I do not see how we can relate the question of such action with the issue of displacement per se, the latter being an issue for a debate on models of development. Here my position is that it is simplistic and counterproductive to declare development as evil. We have to unpack the notion of developoment and return its various strands to where they belong – such as some vested interests and some thoughtless and insensitive policies originating in a certain kind of governmentality.
I must also say that the rhetoric of the concluding statement makes me uneasy. It is not clear to me what it is supposed to entail. It is possible that in saying all this I have been guilty of precisely the way of thinking implicitly under criticism in the lokavidya approach. But it would be useful to have a more explicit criticism.
I am sure that those who have been thinking about the idea of lokavidya and related issues have clarity on all these questions and have good answers. But I am also sure that there are a lot of people who are not clear on these questions and a debate on them will help them understand and join this movement with greater conviction and enthusiasm.
Please treat these remarks only as an attempt to initiate such a debate. This may not be the most important debate in this context but it will certainly help many others like me.
Syed Sayeed
Professor, Art Aesthetics and Comparative Philosophy,
English and Foreign Languages University,
Hyderabad
