Introduction
This article analyzes the concept of decolonizing mycology and ecology based on the book Forest Euphoria. The text examines how power structures shape our knowledge of the natural world.
Readers will discover why simply changing species names is insufficient. They will be introduced to the Two-Eyed Seeing model, which integrates academic rigor with traditional wisdom to achieve a deeper understanding of the biosphere.
Decolonizing Mycology as a Critique of Power and Knowledge Structures
Patricia Ononiwu Kaishian argues that decolonizing mycology is more than just a vocabulary correction. Above all, it is an analysis of who possesses the right to describe the world and which organisms are deemed valuable.
This process challenges botanocentrism and the symbolic appropriation of nature. The author's goal is not a simple exchange of names, but rather a shift in procedures and the recognition of knowledge authorship that predates formal scientific descriptions.
An example of this is the analysis of eponyms and racist nomenclature. While changing a name may be ethically correct, it must account for the informational cost and the stability of communication systems between researchers.
The Distinction Between Discovery and Scientific Description
Patricia Ononiwu Kaishian points to the epistemological trap inherent in the term "discovery." The fact that a species has been scientifically described as new does not mean it was previously unknown.
There is a clear distinction between a formal taxonomic description and the actual knowledge of an organism held by local communities. Science frequently ignores centuries of observation by indigenous peoples.
The author cites the example of Laboulbenia lokonorum. While this name is intended to reveal a relationship with the Lokono people, the epithet itself does not replace equitable access to resources or the recognition of these communities' rights.
Institutional Asymmetries of Attention and the Materiality of Knowledge
According to the author, the distribution of scientific knowledge reflects economic interests rather than the inherent importance of organisms. The dominance of phytopathology led to fungi being perceived primarily as pests.
Institutions shape our worldview through the unequal distribution of funding. Topics deemed prestigious receive resources, creating a feedback loop that marginalizes research on symbioses or saprotrophs.
This mechanism is evident in the history of Mary Elizabeth Banning. Her work remained invisible not due to a lack of value, but because of the systemic exclusion of women from formal scientific structures.
Conclusion
True cognitive maturity requires a transition from technocratic data management toward a relational presence within the ecosystem. We must stop treating the biosphere exclusively as a resource.
The question remains: what part of our humanity have we lost by replacing a deep connection to place with productivity reports? The key lies in recognizing the rhythms of nature that cannot be measured by a clock.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the decolonization of mycology actually about, and why is it not merely a matter of changing mushroom names?
The decolonization of mycology is a broad process concerning who produces knowledge about fungi, what criteria are used for their classification, and to what extent local knowledge systems are taken into account. It is not merely about changing names because it concerns deeper issues of taxonomy and biological epistemology, and the change in nomenclature itself involves an informational cost and the risk of losing scientific data stability.
1. Does the fact that a species has been scientifically described as new mean that no one knew about it before?
2. No, the formal description of a species as new to science does not mean that it was previously unknown. It may have been perfectly well known to local communities for centuries before being officially diagnosed and named according to the taxonomic code.
3. Why are some aspects of fungal biology better understood than others, and how do institutions influence this state of affairs?
4. Some aspects of fungal biology are better understood due to the economic and institutional focus on plant pathogens, which has provided them with greater visibility, funding, and prestige. Institutions shape this situation through the unequal distribution of funds, creating a feedback loop: better-funded topics generate more knowledge, which over time is equated with the greater scientific importance of those organisms.
5. Did the marginalization of women in science result from the personal dislike of researchers or from broader institutional structures?
6. The marginalization of women in science resulted from broader institutional structures rather than necessarily from the personal dislike of researchers. Systemically limited access for women to formal education and institutions meant that their work was overlooked, even when mutual respect existed between scientists.
7. Does the decolonization of science mean rejecting objectivity in favor of subjective narratives?
8. No, the decolonization of science does not mean rejecting objectivity in favor of relativism or subjective narratives. It is based on the belief that a diversity of perspectives and social positions allows more research problems to be identified, which, combined with validation rigor, can actually strengthen objectivity.
9. Does the decolonization of mycology consist solely of changing species names?
10. No, the decolonization of mycology does not consist solely of changing species names, but rather in expanding the researcher's reflexivity and changing the economy of knowledge. It includes, among other things, documenting sources of knowledge, a fairer circulation of data, and analyzing who possesses research instruments and controls databases.
Does the decolonization of knowledge consist in opposing academic science to traditional knowledge?
Decolonization in this context requires moving away from a simplified division between homogeneous Western science and universal indigenous knowledge in favor of recognizing the pluralism of both traditions. The goal is the collaboration of different cognitive systems, such as academic science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), without subordinating one to the other.
Why is traditional ecological knowledge valuable for science, and how can it be combined with academic methods?
Traditional ecological knowledge is valuable because it is based on a multi-generational accumulation of observations over timescales inaccessible to individual research projects, which prevents the mistake of recognizing a transitional state as the norm. It can be combined with academic methods through the principle of Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing), which assumes the simultaneous use of the strengths of indigenous ways of knowing and Western sciences for the common good.
Does the decolonization of science consist in simply combining Western facts with indigenous values?
The decolonization of science does not consist in simply combining Western facts with indigenous values or in the mechanical summation of information. It requires genuine epistemic collaboration based on the recognition of knowledge sources, the negotiation of research questions, and respect for local protocols and data rights.
Does the pursuit of objectivity in science have to mean the rejection of local context and situated knowledge?
No, the pursuit of objectivity does not have to mean the rejection of local context and situated knowledge. Objectivity can result from a diversity of critical perspectives and an awareness of the researcher's position; in many cases, removing context does not increase universality but rather impoverishes the information.
How does the indigenous concept of kinship with nature differ from the Western approach to resource management?
The Western approach to resource management defines nature through the prism of its utility for humans, placing them at the center of the value system. In contrast, the indigenous concept of kinship (kincentric ecology) views humans and other elements of the ecosystem as members of an extended family, which changes the relationship from purely utilitarian to one based on reciprocity and ethical principles of participation.
How can traditional and scientific knowledge be combined in practice to avoid both naive idealism and colonial intellectual exploitation?
One should strive for co-learning without epistemic annexation, where both traditions mutually formulate questions and verify answers, without recognizing either as superior. In practice, this means treating local communities as co-creators of research and interpretation and ensuring procedures where the credibility of information is not automatically diminished due to the social position of the sender.
What is the difference between pluralism and relativism in the context of traditional knowledge, and how do different concepts of time influence the understanding of contemporary ecological changes?
Pluralism increases the number of acceptable models and sources of knowledge, whereas relativism abandons evaluation between them. Understanding ecological changes requires combining abstract (clock) time with communal time based on biological rhythms, because in the era of climate change, ecological desynchronization and the breakdown of former synchronies between species occur.
How can a non-indigenous person build a deep relationship with a place without appropriating an indigenous identity?
A non-indigenous person can build a deep relationship with a place through the 'Becoming Queer to Place' model, which separates origin from belonging. Such a bond is based on time, care, knowledge of the ecosystem, and responsibility and commitments toward local nature and people.
How can the rigor of academic science be combined with traditional knowledge without reducing either of these perspectives?
Combining both perspectives requires recognizing their distinct strengths and limitations and jointly correcting errors without reducing either one. Academic science provides tools for global analysis and detecting processes invisible locally, while traditional knowledge provides a perspective of long-term time, specific place, and normative responsibility.
