Seeing Like A State Book Summary

How governments simplify complex societies for control and efficiency, and the resulting impacts on diverse social structures and traditions.

The purpose of the Book:

James Scott's research initially set out to understand why states often find themselves at odds with nomadic groups. This conflict, however, is not confined to any particular region. Throughout history, states have consistently encountered challenges with various mobile groups like nomads, hunter-gatherers, Gypsies, vagrants, homeless people, and serfs. The state's efforts to settle these groups, known as sedentarisation, have been a common, yet largely unsuccessful, objective.

In examining these sedentarisation attempts, Scott uncovered that they were part of the state's broader strategy to organise society in a manner conducive to its primary functions. These functions included effective taxation, military conscription, and quelling rebellions. He began to recognise the concept of Legibility is the key component in state governance.

Historically, states grappled with limited knowledge about their citizens' wealth, property, locations, and even identities. They lacked a comprehensive "map" of their territories and people and did not possess a standardised system for measuring and recording information. Consequently, their interventions were often ill-informed and ineffective.

Efforts such as the establishment of permanent last names, standardisation of weights and measures, creation of population registers, land surveys, the introduction of freehold property, uniform language and legal practices, city planning, and transportation organisation were all directed towards making society more legible and manageable for the state. These initiatives involved transforming complex, locally-rooted practices, like land ownership customs or naming systems, into standardised formats that could be centrally recorded and monitored.

The book also probes into the reasons behind the failure of utopian social schemes. Scott concludes that these schemes often failed because their architects greatly overestimated their own understanding and underestimated the wisdom of the populations they aimed to serve or reform.

How societal transformations go wrong:

It's not difficult to understand how conflicts among different ethnic groups, religious sects, or language communities have led to tragic losses through organised violence. Yet, it's a more complex task to grasp why many well-intentioned efforts to improve humanity have ended in disaster. James Scott seeks to provide a thorough explanation for why some significant utopian social engineering projects of the 20th century failed.

Scott pinpoints 4 factors that, when combined, lead to catastrophic outcomes in state-led societal changes !

1. The first factor is the state's simplification and organisation of society and nature. These efforts, while fundamental to modern governance, can serve to enhance citizen welfare and liberty, but can also bolster oppressive regimes. Such changes lay the groundwork for defining citizenship and providing social benefits, but they also have the potential for more sinister uses, such as the roundup of marginalised groups.

2. The second factor Scott identifies is high-modernist ideology. This is characterised by a robust belief in scientific and technological progress, increased production, and the creation of a socially rational order based on scientific principles. Originating in the West, this ideology borrowed the legitimacy of science and technology but lacked critical skepticism about its ability to comprehensively plan human society and production. When this ideology merges with the administrative ordering of society, it forms a potentially hazardous mix.

3. The third component, as outlined by Scott, is the existence of an authoritarian state capable of enforcing high-modernist ideologies through coercion. Historically, conditions such as war, revolution, economic crises, and national liberation movements have been conducive to the rise of authoritarian regimes. These periods often lead to the adoption of emergency powers, the overthrow of existing governance structures, and the emergence of leaders with radical plans for societal overhaul.

4. Lastly, the fourth factor is a weakened civil society incapable of resisting these authoritarian plans. Social upheavals, revolutions, and economic challenges can significantly debilitate civil society, rendering it more susceptible to change. This vulnerability in the social fabric allows for the easier implementation of state-led agendas, often to the detriment of the populace.

The pitfalls of order:

James Scott also goes on to highlight the vital role of hands-on experience, informal procedures, and adaptability in managing uncertainty. He critiques planned social structures for their tendency to oversimplify complex realities.

Scott argues that focusing narrowly on a subject allows for deeper insight into a specific facet of a broader context. This approach simplifies the subject, enhancing its legibility and facilitating more precise measurement and analysis. When combined with similar methods, it leads to a thorough, albeit selective, understanding of reality, enabling better control and manipulation.

However, Scott notes that formal structures heavily rely on informal processes they often don't acknowledge but are essential for their survival and effectiveness. These informal methods, unrecognised by formal systems, are indispensable for their creation and continued operation.

Part 1 - State Projects of Legibility and Simplification

Running a State – The Forestry Analogy:

The concept of "fiscal forestry" in state systems transformed the multifunctional, living tree into a mere abstract unit of lumber or firewood volume. This approach led to the idea of "restoration forestry," which aimed to recreate forest ecologies in a controlled manner, yet often overlooked the crucial element of diversity inherent in natural forests.

This shift to production forestry underlines the perils of simplifying complex and poorly understood ecological relationships to focus on a single utilitarian value. Driven by the goal of commodity production, this process eliminated aspects of the forest that hindered efficient production and disregarded elements unrelated to this goal.

The resulting simplified forest was easier to manage and experiment with, as it reduced variability. This simplification allowed for the application of novel forest management techniques in near-experimental conditions. Linear arrangements of same-age trees and the removal of underbrush streamlined processes like clearing, felling, extraction, and replanting. Even inexperienced workers could follow standardised protocols in these uniform forests. The standardisation of log sizes simplified yield forecasts and facilitated the marketing of homogeneous timber to contractors and merchants. While this approach maximised returns from timber, it was apt for centralised management but disregarded the forest's wider ecological and social roles.

From an anthropological perspective, the state's focus on timber production neglected the diverse, socially negotiated uses of the forest—such as hunting, gathering, pasturage, and cultural practices like worship or refuge.

While the state's approach to forestry and taxation shared similarities in simplification for administrative ease, the analogy breaks down considering the political agency of taxpayers. Unlike trees, people subjected to taxation can resist, flee, or revolt, making it crucial for the state to understand not just the economic conditions of its subjects, but also the level of tax burden they would tolerate. Without accurate data on sustainable timber yields, the state faced the risk of overexploiting its forests or failing to maximise potential revenue.

The Utilitarian language that underpins our modern times:

The language used to categorise nature often reflects the priorities of those using it. Instead of using the term “nature,” utilitarian language often refers to “natural resources,” highlighting the aspects of nature that can be utilised for human purposes.

Similar logic is applied to plants and animals, where valuable species are given positive labels such as “crops,” “timber,” or “game” or “livestock,” while those that compete or harm them are designated as “weeds,” “pests,” “predators,” or “varmints.”

Schematics of Social Order:

Simplifying Complexity:

James Scott argues that governments inherently simplify the complexity of real-life communities. The intricacies of any community are too vast for complete bureaucratic capture. Governments, like foresters, don't document entire social or ecological realities. Instead, they abstract and simplify based on objectives like taxation, control, and conscription, especially before the 19th century, using basic techniques for these limited goals.

Standardising Local Practices:

Scott notes a recurring theme: the interaction between local knowledge and state administrative processes. States often found local practices, like land measurement and ownership, too complex for their administrative frameworks, leading to their simplification or modification into a manageable form.

Uniformity in Measurement Systems:

Locally evolved measurement systems, though diverse, presented challenges to state-imposed uniformity. Many early measurements were based on human scales and varied by location and person. For instance, distances could be measured in "stone's throws" or volumes in "cartloads," which differed widely.

Measurements were also contextual. For example, the distance to a village might be given in time units like “three rice-cookings,” reflecting travel time rather than physical distance. These local measurements, deeply tied to regional activities and specificities, resisted standardisation due to their inherently local nature and relevance.

The value in local measurements and why they aren’t of use to states:

Local measurement practices are typically imprecise, tailored to the demands of specific tasks. For instance, rainfall's impact on a crop is more crucial than its exact amount in inches. Similarly, the variability in rice yield is better understood through a range than a precise average.

These traditional measurements are deeply context-specific, relevant to particular situations, times, and locations. Modern, abstract measurements like hectares or acres often don't resonate with the practical realities of those working the land. For example, informing a farmer about acreage without considering factors like labor or technology is inadequate.

Customary measures reflect practical significance, such as the days required for plowing in labor-scarce regions. These metrics evolve with regional conditions like crop cycles and weather patterns.

If the state were to directly incorporate these local measurements, the resulting data would be too complex and varied for straightforward aggregation and comparison by state officials. This highlights that measurement is not just about objective accuracy; it's shaped by power dynamics and the interests of various social groups, from aristocrats to serfs. Understanding these early measurement practices requires considering the influence of power and social structures.

The Metric Revolution – Empowering the State:

The transformation to standardised measurements, known as the "metric revolution," was driven by three key factors.

1. The first was the growth of market exchanges, which necessitated consistent measurement standards for ease of trade.

2. The second factor stemmed from Enlightenment ideals and public support, both of which favoured a unified measurement standard in France.

3. Lastly, the French Revolution and Napoleon's subsequent nation-building efforts played a crucial role in implementing and spreading the metric system across France and its territories.

The Role of Commerce in Standardising Measurements:

Large-scale trade and commercial exchange are powerful motivators for the standardisation of measurements. While small-scale transactions, like grain trading, could operate with a variety of measures, extensive commercial activities over long distances required a common standard for efficiency and transparency. This standardisation helped streamline processes between unknown buyers and sellers.

The Emergence of a Homogeneous Citizenry in Early Modern France:

The unification of measurement systems was intertwined with the political concept of uniform citizenship. In an era where legal inequalities existed among different groups, there were also disparities in measurement rights. The Encyclopedists of the Enlightenment saw the plethora of measurements, laws, and regulations as obstacles to French unity. They advocated for centralising reforms to establish a single national community with uniform laws, measures, and customs. This vision of national citizenship aimed at fair and equal conditions across the kingdom, seeking not just administrative ease but also a transformation of the French populace. The goal was to replace a mosaic of local communities with a nationally legible society from the centre, fostering unity through uniformity in customs, beliefs, and actions, thus creating the concept of the French citizen.

Measuring Land Tenure – The formation of the Cadastral Map:

Modern states' drive for fiscal and administrative efficiency mirrors the principles of scientific forestry, particularly in standardising and documenting land ownership. The varied traditional forms of land tenure were seen as too complex to accommodate.

Liberal states typically simplify land ownership into individual freehold tenures. Here, land is owned by legal entities with rights to use, inherit, or sell it, evidenced by a standardised title deed backed by state law.

The epitome of this process is the cadastral map, a detailed, scale-accurate survey of land holdings. These maps, linked to property registries, identify each parcel and its owner, primarily for tax purposes. This system parallels scientific forestry's methods, where maps and records facilitate resource exploitation.

Initial Goals of Cadastral Maps:

Cadastral maps were created to bring precision, clarity, generality, and uniformity to land ownership and taxation. Their primary function was to facilitate a tax system that directly linked each land parcel to its owner, who bore the tax responsibility.

The state's previous lack of detailed knowledge stemmed from the intricacies of local production and deliberate underreporting by local officials to lessen tax and conscription burdens. They often manipulated data to reduce their obligations.

Cadastral maps and registries aimed to eliminate these feudal practices and streamline tax collection, similar to how a scientific forester catalogs trees for optimal commercial use. While these maps make local land ownership transparent to external authorities, local communities, already familiar with land holdings and their values, have less need for such detailed mapping.

Where the Cadastral map gets it wrong:

The advantage of the cadastral map for the state lies in its uniformity and standardisation. The idea is that the same objective criteria can be applied throughout the country to produce a comprehensive and clear map of all property holdings, regardless of local differences. The map’s simplicity, which results from its abstract nature, is crucial to its completeness. However, this simplicity often leads to a mismatch between the state’s expectations and the reality of rural life.

The farmer’s experience is rarely average, with crops and weather conditions varying greatly. This has resulted in many rural tax revolts throughout history. The rigid and uniform nature of the cadastral system makes it difficult to fairly administer, as it fails to take into account the complexity of the farmer’s experience. Similarly, the scientific forestry schemes are limited in their ability to reflect the intricacies of the natural forest.

One major limitation of the cadastral map and assessment system is that it only considers the land’s value as a productive asset or commodity for sale, ignoring its importance for subsistence or the local ecosystem. The values of the land for purposes such as aesthetics, rituals, or sentiment are disregarded.

How shorthand formulas create incentives to game:

The tax formulas used by officials don't just observe reality; they often shape it, akin to a fiscal version of the Heisenberg principle. This transformation occurs as people adapt to game the system.

For instance, France's door-and-window tax, levied based on the number of windows and doors as a proxy for property size, led to architectural changes to reduce tax liability.

This highlights not just the impact of state simplifications but also how society can adapt, resist, or even defy these impositions. There's often a discrepancy between official land records and actual land usage, a gap that becomes especially apparent during social unrest. Even in stable times, unofficial land-tenure practices might differ significantly from state records, underscoring that local customs may not align with state-designed theories.

The origins of the Modern State:

The cadastral survey was just one tool in the arsenal of the modern utilitarian state. Unlike the pre-modern state that only needed basic information to maintain order, collect taxes, and raise armies, the modern state aimed to take control of the nation’s physical and human resources and improve their productivity. This required a more comprehensive understanding of the society. Therefore, creating an inventory of land, population, income, occupation, resources, and deviance was a logical starting point.

The state's evolving goals influenced the type of information collected. For instance, 19th-century Prussia emphasised tracking the age and gender of migrants to prevent draft evasion and maintain military readiness. This shift towards gathering more detailed data on various aspects like health, education, and resources signified an expansion and intensification of the state's traditional objectives in a modern context.

Naming Practices as a State Tool:

The social categorisations we use today originated from state efforts to standardise and simplify, such as the adoption of permanent surnames.

These state-imposed naming conventions, like mapping, were often tied to taxation and met with resistance. Historical uprisings, like the 1381 Wat Tyler Rebellion in England, were partly fueled by tax registrations and assessments. Widespread use of last names, a relatively modern concept, facilitated the tracking of property, inheritance, taxes, legal matters, military conscription, and public health. The move towards a comprehensive population inventory, coupled with emerging concepts of citizenship including voting and conscription, played a key role in standardising these naming practices.

State Tool – Standardising Language:

Using a specific language can act as a barrier, shielding a community from external comprehension and preserving its cultural identity, history, and heritage. This linguistic exclusivity often poses a challenge to state control and can underpin autonomy.

The push towards a standardised language, like French in France, often places the dominant culture, represented by institutions like the Académie Française, at the top of a cultural hierarchy. This process relegates local dialects to mere provincialism. Mastery of the standard language opens doors to social and material benefits, while non-compliance can lead to disadvantages. Such efforts by the state are not just about cultural unification but also about asserting control and centralising power.

Summary so far:

Modern state officials are often detached from the societies they administer, and their perception is shaped by the simplified tools they use. Tools like maps, censuses, and standardised measurements are fundamental for governance, yet they distill complex realities into basic categories.

This simplification aids in understanding and data collection, but it inevitably leads to a partial grasp of societal nuances. As Charles Tilly noted, the development and application of these abstractions have significantly bolstered state power, giving officials unprecedented direct insight and influence over society.

Part 2 -Transforming Visions

The Pursuit of Legibility by the State:

State officials' continuous quest to deeply understand society, known as the "project of legibility," involves using tools like maps, censuses, and measurements. These simplifications, while informative, are often tainted by inaccuracies, omissions, and biases. The drive behind these efforts, despite technological advances, remains largely focused on control, manipulation, and appropriation.

This detailed classification of societal segments, however, can lead to detrimental outcomes. An example is the map used in Amsterdam during Nazi occupation, which led to the deportation of 65,000 Jews, made possible by data from population and business registries.

The ability of a government to effectively control and manipulate society hinges on its capability to identify and monitor various components like citizens or land parcels. This visibility is essential for various state functions like health programs or taxation. The level of information needed correlates with the scale of intervention. Thus, more ambitious manipulative efforts necessitate greater legibility.

While increasing legibility augments the state's capacity for specific actions, it's crucial to recognise that such power can be wielded for both beneficial and harmful purposes.

Understanding State Simplification in Governance:

Firstly, these simplifications capture only the data deemed relevant for official purposes.

Secondly, they predominantly exist in written formats, using either textual descriptions or numerical data.

Thirdly, these records are typically static, representing a snapshot in time.

Fourthly, they often compile individual data points into collective metrics, like transportation network density or statistics on employment and literacy.

Finally, for comprehensive analysis, officials standardise the data, enabling them to categorise and assess populations in averages or distributions, facilitating broader governance measures.

Understanding State Simplification:

State simplification entails two primary processes in the representation of knowledge.

1. Firstly, it involves presenting information in a consistent, repeatable manner, applicable across different scenarios. This leads to facts being framed in a streamlined, schematic way, categorised into broader classes.

2. Secondly, the assimilation of comprehensive data often means overlooking or amalgamating details that might be important in other contexts.

State authorities wield the power to enforce these simplifications, as they have the means to impose their structured categorisations. Over time, these artificially created categories by surveyors, census officials, and other state agents, though initially abstract, become embedded in everyday life through state institutions, influencing societal perceptions and experiences.

Forming Complex Truths Through Aggregated Facts:

Standardising and aggregating facts involve a three-step process.

1. Firstly, there's the creation of common measurement units or codes, like tree size classes, freehold tenure systems, metric measurements for land and grain, uniform naming systems, prairie land divisions, and standardised urban lots.

2. Secondly, each entity is quantified and categorised using these units. For instance, a tree is classified by size, a land parcel is plotted on a cadastral map, jobs are sorted into employment categories, and individuals are named following a standardised system.

3. Finally, this process yields collective data, such as tree counts by size, population demographics, farm sizes, or health statistics like tuberculosis cases. These data, when cross-referenced, reveal intricate patterns, like correlating tuberculosis prevalence with socioeconomic factors and geographic locations in cities.

Understanding the Modern Map:

State simplifications, much like maps, are designed to capture specific aspects of a complex world that interest their creators, while disregarding others. Criticising a map for lacking detail is only valid if it fails to include information crucial for its intended purpose.

A map is a tool with an objective, which can be judged as either noble or objectionable, but its effectiveness depends on how well it serves its designed function.

The transformative impact of maps stems not from the maps themselves but from the authority and intent of those utilising them. For instance, a corporation focused on maximising timber yields will map and manipulate its environment to align with this objective, exerting its influence to ensure the dominance of its mapping logic.

Catastrophes in State Development:

Many catastrophic events in state development during the late 19th and 20th centuries stemmed from a perilous combination of three elements.

1. Firstly, there's the ambition to administratively order nature and society, akin to what's seen in scientific forestry but on a grander scale, often termed “High Modernism.”

2. Secondly, these plans often involved the unchecked exercise of state power.

3. Lastly, a crucial factor was the presence of a weak or vulnerable civil society unable to counteract these ambitions. When an undemocratic ruling elite pursued these utopian ideals with unrestrained power, and society lacked the means to oppose, the consequences were often disastrous.

The Evolution of the states role in Society:

The state's use of simplification and rationalisation, previously confined to areas like forestry and taxation, expanded to encompass the entire societal structure. This shift marked the onset of large-scale social engineering, with the state assuming the primary role over private entities. This new vision of the state's purpose was transformative, focusing on enhancing the well-being of society at large, rather than solely augmenting sovereign wealth and power.

Statistical data about the population empowered the state with a deeper understanding of its citizens, similar to scientific forestry's insights into forests. This evolution in state function opened limitless possibilities for managing and transforming society based on contemporary moral and scientific principles, transforming society from a historically and customarily shaped entity to one actively managed and potentially engineered by the state.

Understanding High Modernism:

High modernism's central flaw lies in its over-reliance on scientific knowledge as the sole means to improve human life, often discounting other forms of understanding.

Characterised by a departure from historical and traditional norms, high modernism advocates for rethinking and redesigning everything through scientific rationale. It inherently supports an authoritarian mindset, privileging those with scientific expertise as the only qualified decision-makers and sidelining or re-educating dissenters.

High modernism prioritises the domination of nature for human benefit and safety, resonating with those who gain status and power from this perspective. This ideology is typically embraced by bureaucrats, technicians, planners, and engineers, who play pivotal roles in nation-building and societal restructuring.

Modernism and City Planning:

In high modernism, formal simplicity and functional efficiency are not just parallel objectives; rather, formal order is considered a prerequisite for efficiency. This belief underpins the rationale for segregating functions: planning becomes simpler when each urban area, pedestrian path, or forest serves a single purpose. However, integrating multiple functions into one design introduces complexities, and accommodating diverse objectives can be daunting.

Le Corbusier's urban planning philosophy exemplifies this approach, promoting single-purpose spaces and standardisation. Yet, the practical implementation of such urban designs faces real-world challenges. Planners must navigate the preferences, financial constraints, and resistance of various stakeholders, similar to how scientific foresters deal with nature's unpredictability and diverse stakeholder goals.

Jane Jacobs critiqued this approach, arguing against the assumption that functional order equates to repetitive and standardised forms. She posited that complex systems often lack surface regularity and their deeper, functional order is tied to their purpose, not their appearance. Jacobs championed a functionalist view, assessing structures based on their effectiveness in fulfilling intended roles—a perspective at odds with Le Corbusier's focus on visual uniformity. Her critique highlighted the need to understand the complex, multi-functional nature of urban spaces and structures.

Lenin: The Revolutionary Visionary

Lenin’s revolutionary strategy mirrored Le Corbusier's urban planning ethos. Both viewed their tasks as complex, requiring expert implementation. Lenin, embodying high modernism, believed in a scientific, unified approach executed by an enlightened intelligentsia. He emphasised a vanguard party's role in guiding the proletariat, holding a monopoly on revolutionary knowledge.

His ideology transcended national lines, framing class consciousness as an exclusive truth held by the party's leaders. Lenin likened ideological purity to hygiene, maintaining the party's 'sterile' environment.

Despite different arenas, Lenin and Le Corbusier shared a high modernist vision, prioritising systematic solutions and dismissing traditional practices, albeit through authoritarian means.

The Art of Crafting History by Victors:

In the aftermath of a revolution, the accuracy of the history written by the victors is often secondary to its political utility. This sanitised, orderly narrative gains traction among the populace, bolstering their confidence in their leaders' vision and capabilities.

Such historical accounts typically simplify the complexities of the revolutionary process to serve political ends. Revolutionary leaders, like Lenin, have a vested interest in portraying themselves as pivotal to the revolution's success. This crafted narrative, fitting the leaders' ideological framework, consolidates their legitimacy and presents the revolution as a cohesive, inevitable progression.

As these leaders transition the narrative of the revolution into official records and education, they emphasise their strategic roles and minimise the influences of chance, framing their actions as both decisive and brilliant.

Part 4 - The Missing Link

Types of Knowledge:

The short-term focus in scientific studies is not inherent to the scientific method, rather it arises from institutional and commercial influences.

The scientific method requires isolating specific variables and disregarding interaction effects outside the experimental model, leading to greater clarity in the outcomes. This clarity is advantageous, but it also results in ignoring important aspects of reality such as blind spots, peripheral details, and long-term implications.

The relationship between scientific and practical knowledge is deeply entwined in a political struggle for dominance by experts and their institutions. In this light, approaches like Taylorism and scientific agriculture are seen not merely as production methods but also as means of control and exploitation.

Technical Knowledge:

The Relation with Episteme and Techne :

For the Greeks and particularly for Plato, episteme and techne represented knowledge of an order completely different from mētis. Technical knowledge, or techne, could be expressed precisely and comprehensively in the form of hard-and-fast rules (not rules of thumb), principles, and propositions. At its most rigorous, techne is based on logical deduction from self-evident first principles.

Where mētis is contextual and particular, techne is universal. In the logic of mathematics, ten multiplied by ten equals one hundred everywhere and forever

Techne is characteristic, above all, of self-contained systems of reasoning in which the findings may be logically derived from the initial assumptions. To the degree that the form of knowledge satisfies these conditions, to that degree is it impersonal, universal, and completely impervious to context.

But the context of mêtis, is characteristically “situations which are transient, shifting, disconcerting and ambiguous, situations which do not lend themselves to precise measurement, exact calculation, or rigorous logic.

Techne and Science:

If the description of techne as an ideal or typical system of knowledge resembles the self-image of modern science, that is no accident. The actual practice of science, however, is something else again. The rules of techne are the specification of how knowledge is to be codified, expressed, and verified, once it has been discovered.

No rules of techne or episteme can explain scientific invention and insight. Discovering a mathematical theorem requires genius and perhaps mētis; the proof of the theorem, however, must follow the tenets of techne.

Thus the systematic and impersonal rules of techne facilitate the production of knowledge that can be readily assembled, comprehensively documented, and formally taught, but they cannot by themselves add to that knowledge or explain how it came into being

Implications of Quantification:

Techniques in various fields have been developed to translate key variables into numerical terms. This includes representing a country's wealth via Gross National Product, public opinion through polls, and personal values via psychological surveys.

In neoclassical economics, for example, consumer preferences are assumed and quantified, effectively sidelining taste as a variable. Entrepreneurial activities and innovations, being hard to measure and predict, are often excluded. This focus on quantifiable risks leads to the neglect of inherently unpredictable areas, such as ecological challenges and shifts in consumer preferences.

Practical knowledge:

A lot of scientific insights are probably quite accurate. But are hardly practical. The hallmark of most practical, local knowledge: it is as economical and accurate as it needs to be, no more and no less, for addressing the problem at hand.

Understanding Mētis:

Mētis is evident in the historical local measures of area, weight, and volume, where the goal was to serve a specific local purpose, like measuring a farm's size by the number of cows it supports, rather than fitting a universal measurement unit.

This type of vernacular measurement often provided more locally relevant information than abstract units. Its inherent variability made it unsuitable for standardised state use.

Indigenous communities' classification of plants is another example. They categorise flora based on practical uses, such as medicinal properties or construction materials. This contrasts with scientific classifications, which are often based on less visible, theoretical criteria.

Effectiveness of Practical Knowledge:

Practical knowledge is highly effective due to its focus on detailed observation of the environment, especially evident among traditional cultivators for two main reasons:

1. These cultivators are directly invested in the outcomes of their observations, relying solely on their own knowledge for decision-making. Unlike modern farmers, they don't have the luxury of consulting external experts.

2. Economic constraints or marginal living conditions often drive these cultivators to be more observant and innovative. For instance, a fisherman dependent on a less abundant river will be more motivated to develop new fishing techniques and closely monitor fish behaviours than one with a plentiful supply.

Valuing Practical Solutions:

The widespread adoption of variolation across continents exemplifies the eagerness of traditional societies to embrace methods that address critical issues.

This pattern repeats with inventions like sewing machines, matches, flashlights, kerosene, plastic bowls, and antibiotics. These innovations, by solving crucial problems or reducing drudgery, were quickly integrated into daily life. The success of these products underscores the importance of practical effectiveness in mētis knowledge. Essentially, people are drawn to knowledge and innovations that offer tangible solutions to real-world challenges.

Factors Contributing to the Disregard for Practical Knowledge:

Three main reasons contribute to the undervaluing of practical knowledge:

1. Firstly, there's professional competition. Practical knowledge often challenges the authority and relevance of specialists and their institutions.

2. Secondly, the ethos of high modernism tends to dismiss historical and traditional knowledge, with scientists often considering themselves superior and discounting the value of age-old wisdom.

3. Lastly, the incompatibility of practical knowledge with scientific methodology is a significant factor. Scientific standards demand evidence from controlled experiments, and knowledge derived outside this framework is often dismissed. This scientific hubris acknowledges only information obtained through empirical methods.

How to make development planning better:

Improve your Planning (Development):

Stephen Marglin highlights a crucial challenge in planning: the future's unpredictability makes rigid planning ineffective. Based on this insight, here are strategies to enhance development planning:

1. Embrace Incremental Steps: Acknowledge our inability to foresee all intervention outcomes. Adopt a cautious approach, taking small steps, observing the results, and then planning the next action.

2. Prioritise Reversibility: Choose actions that can be reversed if needed. Irreversible actions carry permanent consequences, particularly in ecosystem interventions. As Aldo Leopold advised, it's wise to maintain all components during modifications.

3. Expect the Unexpected: Opt for plans that can adapt to unforeseen changes. In agriculture, this could mean preparing land for various crops; in housing, building in flexibility for changing family dynamics; in manufacturing, choosing versatile locations and equipment.

4. Count on Human Ingenuity: Assume that future participants will bring or develop insights to refine the project, and design with their potential contributions in mind.