What is the context? Are you thinking about traditional cultures or cultural traditions within broader societies?

I am thinking of the rich sets of sophisticated knowledge of the natural world, experience, understanding and explanation that societies from all parts of the world possess. The knowledge that determines the identity of a community...and is transmitted inter-generationaly.

I would look at the question from the discourse side: the concepts of traditional and civilizational would seem to be related to modes of transmission and representation. "Sophisticated knowledge of the natural world" encodes a bias, a privileging of a certain modality of discourse, cued by the term "sophisticated." In cultures where "knowledge of the natural world" is not what we would call "sophisticated," we may be judging from a Post-Enlightenment view ways of organizing the ontology that are neither as consistent nor as rigorous, yet which may work perfectly well for organizing time and social obligation. If we look closely at contemporary notions of "Science", for example, we see a form of discourse that excludes much that is symbolic, qualitative or imaginal. Often, this discourse system is elevated over alternative modalities, such that we come to believe that there are opposed forms of knowledge (i.e. traditional and civilizational), when in fact there is merely a spectrum of belief and trust that predisposes a society to privilege one end of the spectrum over another. (The resulting sense of polarization, I might add, would be what is behind such oppositional movements as Creationism, which seek to replace something that is sensed to have been lost by Enlightenment methods, yet which naively and erroneously attempt to restore the balance by mere inversion or opposition, rather than identifying and restoring the baby that was thrown out with the bath water.)

I agree with Bruce in that my concern is the apparent dichotomy, and somewhat 19th century world view, which the choice of traditional vs. civilized as oppositional terms sets up. Perhaps you could re-examine your research question in the light of seeing 'tradition' as part of civilization in a pluralist 20th century context. Social, cultural and critical philosopher Raymond Williams writings could be helpful here. Also, Anthropologist of human movement, Drid Williams writes articulately about this misunderstanding. Good Luck (from New Zealand)!

You might also check out the literature on indigenous knowledge (IK) and also referred to as indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) and local knowledge. Since at least the late 1970s, this apparent divide has been a huge point of discussion in development circles, particularly among development anthropologists and anthropologists of development. You might check out the work of Warren, Agrawal, Chamber, and Cernea among others.

Me parece que la dicotomía del presente es atender los conceptos de "revoluciones cientificas" tal como lo establece Khun. A mi entender, los conocimientos tradicionales corresponden a los antiguos paradigmas científicos y el conocimiento civilizador estaría en línea con los nuevos paradigmas de la ciencia, que tienden a establecer verdaderas revoluciones científicas, Un caso impresionante es la Física cuántica que ha derribado el conocimiento tradicional de la física cartesiana.

I think we should not use word VS between Traditional Knowledge and Civilizational Knowledge . up-course there are differences between these two terms and also there is interrelation and interdependence. Traditional knowledge is very important to know and study the civilization and civilizational knowledge.

Reading this thread, I believe there is a misunderstanding!

I think the question Nirekha da Silva meant to ask can be phrased this way: Should I call this type of knowledge "A" or should I call it "B"? What's the preferred term for this? And what's the difference between A and B anyway?

She did NOT introduce any dichotomy. On the contrary, she is having trouble picturing that there should be any difference between these two terms! That's the opposite of a dichotomy.

Am I right, Ms. da Silva?

Interesting response in the form of an argument to moderation in which a false dichotomy seems to result. In the interests of healthy debate, I can see that Mariza has indeed made a valid point. However in beginning the response by alluding to the question that Nirekha "meant to ask" only serves the purpose of reinforcing the question that Nirekha actually asked. The question that Nirekha asked could indeed lead to a moderate position of a perceived continuum of knowledge in which a potential dualism is avoided via prolonged and scholarly argument. The question she asked, however, could be read as raising some mutual exclusiveness in the interests of then overcoming the fallacy. Asking the question that she did is a valid approach to resolving an academic and ontological question. So are we both "right"?

Dear Linda,

We haven't of course even yet touched the outskirts of hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia but considering that half the hippo is under water (while the other half emerges), making the actual number of feet a subject of speculation, known to the animal only, assuming it can count and is sentient, I would rather overcome my fear of stampedes than assume six. Ah, on such I know I'm right!

Mariza

Hi Mariza,

A great many assumptions about hippos and water displacement here ;-) I guess that's why you're an hydraulic consultant and I'm in dance and education. Eureka! Linda

This dichotomy is artificial. In addition, traditional knowledge is also embedded in certain civilizational realm. Isn't it?

I think it depends on your audience. Traditional Knowledge is increasingly used in UN/NGO parlance (i'm thinking specifically of TEK, (traditional ecological knowledge) and biopiracy). Among anthropologists, the concept of "civilization" has become vilified to the point that there's sort of a disincentive to make reference to the term at all, however, to be fair, "traditional" has it's own, equally disturbing problems (the idea that indigenous knowledge is "traditional" is convenient if you'd like to keep culture locked away as a page in a textbook, but knowledge is positional, relational and changing: ideas evolve, grow in new contexts, and transform as they interact with other ideas-- they're never really "traditional." Personally, when I think of "civilizational knowledge" i think the anthropologist Guillermo Bonfil-Batalla's "civliizational trajectory", which he uses to describe the indigenous experience in constrast to the state's own civilizational trajectory. I would say is a better concept than "traditional knowledge", however I hesitate to use the term because of the response I know I'd get from anthropologists who prefer the term "traditional" due to the colonial and neo-colonial uses of the term civilization. Personally, for intellectual purposes i think the best way to go is probably "local knowledge" but again it all depends on your audience. In the right place, the term "traditional knowledge" can have a certain kind of agency the other terms won't.

I think it´s just an apparent dichotomy, like the difference between "primitive and advanced". I think that people who consider themselves as "civilised" sets this kind of difference. Every civilisation posseses tradition, knowledge that has been trasmited from generation to generation. This, according to Robert Merton, if defined as real has real effects on people, even if has´nt been cientifficaly proven (the scale of what many people considered "civilisational knowledge").

From other perspective, even in the cities and urban centres of what has been called "the occidental culture", where the "civilisational knowledge" is suposed to be born, there´s great amount of traditional knoledge (in a peyorative sense) because people, often, simply receives it and don´t think about it.

Another way to perceive Traditional knowledge is from the viewpoint of Native Americans, many of whom prefer to use the term in reference to knowledge passed down from the Elders of their communities. This knowledge is held in high regard as it has been transmitted through the ages by the ancestors of the people.

Traditional knowledge connates static, fixed wisdom whereas civizational knowledge implies knowledge that grows and builds civilization. In this age of cultural relativism and respect for difference, this distinction has been dropped and all knowledges  are now considered equally valid. The tragedy of this is that those who were supposed to benefit from this reversal of colonial thinking are indeed the losers. While the older colonial value distinction between tradition and civilization spured backward cultures to change and progress, the new values pluralism of the postmodern age has encouraged benighted tribal cultures to remain where their ancestors were.