Skip to main content

Institutions and Solidarity: Wild Rice Research, Relationships, and the Commodification of Knowledge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In this paper I express pessimism about the ability of universities and other knowledge-producing institutions to be in genuine solidarity with food justice and food-sovereignty movements, given the way these institutions treat knowledge as a commodity. Using a distinction between worldviews that treat knowledge as a commodity with worldviews that do not, I endeavor to understand a particular case concerning attitudes toward knowledge about wild rice and their role in the struggle to repair the relationship between University of Minnesota researchers and the Anishinaabe people. The tendency to treat knowledge as a commodity is hard to avoid within universities and other knowledge-producing institutions, given entrenched norms that support the colonizing role these institutions historically have played. Attention to the effects of commodifying knowledge ought to be a priority if we are interested in producing knowledge that supports rather than harms movements for liberation, sovereignty, and justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I will not provide a substantive definition of solidarity in this paper since I think such an account is a bigger project than can be addressed here. I mean the term to describe the relationship of trying to stand with or advocate with people who are fighting for their own rights, respect, or liberation when one is not a member of that group. This includes people oppressed in different ways by similar structures (e.g., Latinx and Black coalitions against racism) who wish to work in coalition, as well as a subset of people who benefit from the structures against which the group is struggling, but who nonetheless are interested (at least superficially, if not when it really comes down to it) in dismantling those structures. I am inclined to think that “solidarity” describes a relationship rather than a state, and that it includes reflexivity and growth. For one characterization of various kinds of solidarity, see Scholz (2008).

    Food justice refers to “a transformation of the current food system, including but not limited to eliminating disparities and inequities” (Gottlieb and Joshi 2010, ix). Food sovereignty is the concept popularized by La Via Campesina, which defines it as “The right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations” (2007, 1). For a discussion of the uses and meaning of “food justice” and “-sovereignty”, see Cadieux and Slocum (2015).

  2. 2.

    The University of Minnesota was funded by the 1862 Morrill Act which created land-grant universities by giving federal land to states, which were then to sell the land to settlers to create endowments for the universities. In Minnesota, this land was acquired by the federal government through a series of treaties with the Dakota, often procured under duress. The nominal payment to the Dakota was dramatically delayed, and the resulting privation led to the US—Dakota War in 1862, after which 38 Dakota were executed in the largest mass-execution in US history, and the Dakota were forced out of Minnesota.

  3. 3.

    Of course, these categories are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the participation of people who straddle this boundary has been important and fruitful as they have knowledge from within both worlds. I will nonetheless continue talking about “scientists” and “Anishinaabeg” as synecdoche for a worldview characteristic of each.

  4. 4.

    The risk of biological contamination is related in a different way to the gap in understanding at issue here: wild rice is at risk from sulfate runoff from mining operations, and many scientists are interested in doing research that can help “save” wild rice from this pollution. This has been one contested area of possible (depending who you ask) collaboration between scientists and Anishinaabeg.

  5. 5.

    It is worth noting here, that the meaning and use of species is not uncontentious. There has been much discussion among philosophers and scientists about the concept (for one compendium of this discussion, see Wheeler and Meier 2000), so appeals to species membership are far from conclusive.

  6. 6.

    Here is a focus on governance that illustrates another important difference between commodified Western knowledge and Indigenous knowledge. As Kyle Powys Whyte explains in an effort to resist the instrumentalization of Indigenous knowledges by interested non-Native academics and policy-makers, one central feature of Indigenous knowledges is their role in Indigenous governance (Whyte 2015).

  7. 7.

    In point of fact the University of Minnesota does not to my knowledge hold patents on the 6 varieties of wild rice developed as a result of its research. The harms to wild rice that concern Anishinaabeg are distinct from the sort of concerns characteristic of small farmers resisting the influence of patent-hoarding corporations like Monsanto. Nonetheless the habits of treating knowledge as property plays an important role in this harm.

  8. 8.

    Tuck and Yang use incommensurability as a powerful tool to describe moves to settler-innocence that try to incorporate Indigenous worldviews into existing colonial epistemologies in their paper, “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” (Tuck and Wayne 2012). Incommensurability may be another productive way of thinking about the gulf between University of Minnesota researcher’s and Anishinaabe attitudes toward knowledge.

References

  • Association for Molecular Pathology et. al. v. Myriad Genetics Inc., et al. 569 U.S. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, D. A., Cavanaugh, M., Clark, K., Karsch-Mizrachi, I., Lipman, D. J., Ostell, J., and Sayers, E. W. 2013. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research, 41 (Database issue): D36–D42. doi:10.1093/nar/gks1195.

  • Cadieux, Valentine, and Slocum, Rachel. 2015. What does it mean to do food justice? Journal of Political Ecology 22: 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code, Lorraine. 2008. Advocacy, negotiation, and the politics of unknowing. The Southern Jounal of Philosophy 46: 32–51. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2008.tb00152.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, S., E. Cameron, and M. Greenwood. 2012. Participatory and community-based research, indigenous geographies, and the spaces of frienship: A critical engagement. Canadian Geographer 52: 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deibel, E. 2014. Open genetic code: On open source in the life sciences. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-10-2.

  • Derickson, Kate Driscoll, and Paul Routledge. 2015. Resourcing scholar-activism: Collaboration, transformation, and the production of knowledge. The Professional Geographer 67 (1): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerfler, Jill. 2015. Those Who Belong: Identity, Family, Blood, and Citizenship among the White Earth Anishinaabeg. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerfler, Jill. 2003. Where the food grows on water: The continuance of scientific racism and colonization. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dotson, Kristie. 2008. In search of Tanzania: Are effective epistemic practices sufficient for just epistemic practices? The Southern Journal of Philosophy 46: 52–64. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2008.tb00153.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, David. 2012. Knowledge Belongs to Everyone. Presentation at TEDxKyoto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA9Tv-OvoZU. Accessed 5 June 2016.

  • Escobar, Arturo. 2012. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N.G., and M.J. Selgelid. 2015. Biosecurity and open-source biology: The promise and peril of distributed synthetic biological technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (4): 1065–1083. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9591-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, R., and A. Joshi. 2010. Food Justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, Dan and Julin, Chris. 2002. Wild Rice at the Center of a Cultural Dispute. Minnesota Public Radio, September 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, B., H. Van Ditmarsch, P. Engel, S.O. Hansson, V. Hendricks, S. Holm, P. Jacobson, A. Meijers, S. Richardson, and H. Rott. 2011. A theoria round table on philosophy publishing. Theoria 77 (2): 104–116. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.2011.01097.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks, Bell. 1992. Eating the other: Desire and resistance. In Black looks: Race and representation, 21–39. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahler, Alex. 2015. University’s Research History Involving Wild Rice. Presentation at Nibi miinawaa Manoomin: New Pathways to a Shared Future. Onamia, MN (September 28–29).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmerer, Robin Wall. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teaching of Plants. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokotovich, Adam. 2014. Contesting Risk: Science, Governance and the Future of Plant Genetic Engineering. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Via Campesina. 2007. Declaration of Nyéléni. https://nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.

  • Nagar, R. 2014. Muddying the Waters: Coauthoring Feminisms Across Scholarship and Activism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, G.P., and A. Wylie. 2009. Archaeological finds: Legacies of appropriation, modes of response. In The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation, ed. James O. Young, and Conrad G. Brunk, 11–54. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • NMBWC (Nibi and Manoomin Bridging Worldviews Committee). 2013. Working Group Notes. http://www.cfans.umn.edu/sites/cfans.umn.edu/files/NMS_2013_WorkingGroupNotes_0.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2016.

  • Parker, M. 2013. The ethics of open access publishing. BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1): 16. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 2001. Reprint, Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regents of the University of Minnesota. 2016. Report of the Provost’s Grand Challenges Research Strategies: Advancing the research goals of the Twin Cities Campus Strategic Plan. https://strategic-planning.umn.edu/sites/strategic-planning.umn.edu/files/gc_research_report_umn_strategicplan.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2016.

  • Regents of the University of Minnesota. 2010. Openness in Research. http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/policies/Openness_in_Research.pdf. Accessed 5 June 2016.

  • Scheman, N. 2012. Toward a sustainable epistemology. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and Policy 26 (3–4): 471–489. doi:10.1080/02691728.2012.727194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, Sally J. 2008. Political Solidarity. State College: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd ed. New York: Zed Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuck, Eve and Yang, K. Wayne. 2012. Decolonization is not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 1 (1): 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellen, R. 2004. Taking on commercial scholarly journals: Reflections on the “Open Access” movement. Journal of Academic Ethics 2: 101–118. doi:10.1023/B:JAET.0000039010.14325.3d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Quentin D., and Rudolf Meier (eds.). 2000. Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitt, Laurie Anne. 1998. Cultural imperialism and the marketing of native America. In Natives and Academics: Research and Writing About American Indians, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah, 139–171. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, Kyle Powys. 2015. What do Indigenous Knowledges do for Indigenous Peoples? In Keepers of the green world: Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainability, ed. Melissa K. Nelson and Dan Shilling. https://www.academia.edu/11293856/What_do_Indigenous_Knowledges_do_for_Indigenous_Peoples.

  • Wild rice white paper: Preserving the Integrity of Manoomin in Minnesota. 2011. http://www.cfans.umn.edu/diversity/web%20text/Wild-Rice/WhitePaper–Final%20Version2011.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2016.

  • Wilson, Shawn. 2008. Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg: Fernwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. 2015. A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology. In Objectivity in science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, ed. F. Padoyani et. al., 198–210. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_10.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melanie Bowman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bowman, M. (2017). Institutions and Solidarity: Wild Rice Research, Relationships, and the Commodification of Knowledge. In: Werkheiser, I., Piso, Z. (eds) Food Justice in US and Global Contexts. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57174-4_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics