Epistemic injustice in agricultural development: Critical reflections on a livestock development project in rural Mozambique
Keywords:epistemic justice, development, agriculture, goat keeping, Africa, epistemologies, indigenous knowledge
For decades Western development projects have been intervening in Africa?s agriculture with the aim to reduce poverty and hunger. Since colonization and beyond the political independence of Africa, the West, primarily but including other countries, has practiced exclusion, systematic and structural suppression of African ways of knowing and doing. This constitutes epistemic injustice. In this paper I address a central question that has gained little attention so far. It is: do Western agricultural development projects in Africa maintain, reinforce, or even cause epistemic injustice? To answer this question, I draw on studies in African philosophy, Western philosophy and Western sociology. To empirically study epistemic injustice, I reflect critically on a livestock development project in rural Mozambique (2011-2013) via qualitative analysis of 27 project documents. The findings show that the answer to the main question is affirmative. The findings of this study are deeply concerning, because it means that epistemic injustice towards Africa continues, but is covered under benign concepts like 'reducing poverty' and 'reducing hunger.' The thesis defended here is that restoring epistemic justice is an essential part of social justice for Africa.
All references are listed in the manuscript
Copyright (c) 2021 Birgit Boogaard
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.The copyright of the articles published in this journal remains the property of the authors. For liability reasons, the title belongs to the Foundation for the Support of the Knowledge Management for Development Journal. The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License. This journal is currently an open access journal as it has a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. From the BOAI definition  of "open access", we support the rights of users to "read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles." However, some of the content (2009-2012) is only available on the Taylor and Francis website. Within the next few months, this issue too will become available on the OJS.  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess