“Women in Traditional Agricultural Knowledge”: Mexican Ethnobotany in the 1970s

Today, “traditional knowledge” is a widely used term in many fields and social movements. It is and has been linked to alternative ways of living beyond capitalist and imperialist impositions in many parts of the world. Often, traditional knowledge has been associated with food production systems and ways of creating more local, culturally appropriate, accessible, and sustainable agriculture. In the face of environmental and social hazards resulting from the so-called Green Revolution, traditional knowledge rose as a banner of change and justice in the 1970s.

In Mexico, the term received attention from a variety of circles that questioned the growing modernizing and developmentalist strategies of the state (Hewitt de Alcántara 1976; Jennings 1988). With the rise of anticolonial and antiracist politics, during the 1970s scholarly approaches to the traditional emerged from anthropology and ethnobotany. These attempted to frame Mexico’s diversity of cultures and ethnicities as a positive unifying factor rather than as an impediment to progress, as portrayed by the state’s paternalistic indigenista policies (Bonfil Batalla 1987). Whilst anthropologists’ endeavor was visible in the structural change of the National Indigenous Institute (INI), ethnobotanists focused on countering monocrop and large-scale agriculture through re-valorizing traditional agricultural systems. In doing so, this group of scientists re-imagined and re-framed their field as one that aimed at promoting the role of traditional agricultural systems as an alternative option for rural development. This made “ethnobotany” a political endeavor and, very importantly, assigned meaning to “the traditional” as a category delineated by this group of scholars. Within this conceptualization, one important aspect has been overlooked: How were women placed whilst defining this term? What was their role, according to these scientists, in traditional agricultural knowledge? 

Celebrated figures such as Efraím Hernández Xolocotzi and Javier Caballero, early advocates for the inclusion of local traditional agricultural systems in Mexican ethnobotany, underlined the relevance of culture and local knowledge for understanding crop diversity and production (Hernández Xolocotzi 1977; Caballero 1979). Along with a new generation of scholars, Xolocotzi et al. framed “the traditional” as the main strategy to counter “the modern”, and as an alternative method to use ecosystem resources in a more conscientious way (Caballero 1979, 15). Therefore, ethnobotanists in the 1970s forged their role as mediators between scientific and local or Indigenous worlds. This meant that, in a way, they held the key to how traditional knowledge was to be translated into agricultural science and, possibly, into rural policy. 

Ethnobotany before the 1970s mainly focused on economic botany, or the use of plants for human ends, generally implying economic benefit (Camou-Guerrero et al. 2016). The reconstruction of Mexican ethnobotany during the 1970s and 1980s, however, focused on acknowledging—and sometimes romanticizing—the work of small farmers or campesinos in domesticating and diversifying crop landraces throughout generations. In addition to the adaptation of varieties to local environmental conditions, ethnobotanists recognized that these crops were valued for their culinary characteristics, especially flavor. In fact, Hernández Xolocotzi framed food preparation processes as vital for understanding the use of natural resources and socio-economic organization, which he posed as one of the foundational questions of ethnobotanical research (1979, 7). However, even though women generally enacted “culinary knowledge production” by preparing, cooking, and managing the household’s foodstuffs, they were not considered to be epistemically significant agents in the domestication, diversification, and conservation of crops in ethnobotanical works of this period. 

These early works in ethnobotany and agroecology focus on male agricultores as the main stewards of traditional agricultural knowledge. Since these scientists focused on agricultural techniques, they gave most of their attention to the male farmers who were generally the ones working directly on the land and usually regarded as heads of families. Even when describing culinary characteristics as triggers for the perpetuation of crops, ethnobotanists credited male farmers. This is visible in several textbooks from the 1970s, where the use of Spanish masculine pronouns (he/his) and the words “man” and “men” dominate the narratives. Hernández Xolocotzi discusses how a good farmer, a good gardener, or a good agricultural scientist is defined by “his” ability to create a good environment for a desired outcome in cultivation despite the expansion of Western culture and historical oppression experienced by colonialism, where “his women” were often kidnapped (1970, 16). Even though masculine pronouns are used when generalizing and when using the plural in Spanish, this coupled with the representation of women in subordinate roles, demonstrates the authors’ strongly gendered understanding.

A good example that illustrates how women were seen as property of men is the ‘family unit’ in which women were framed not as individual actors but as components of a male-led system. The family became an important analytical tool for ethnobotanists (Jiménez Sánchez 1977, xxii) as they considered it to be the main social structure in rural societies. Within the family, women had an important role as caregivers and the potential for “improving the community” (Jiménez Sánchez 1977, xxvii) whilst also possessing very limited visibility in given spaces and tasks (for example, women campesinas were not described as possessing creative agricultural knowledge equal to male campesinos). Hernández Xolocotzi recognized the knowledge of women in maintaining house gardens (1970, 14) and situated campesinas as intermediarias (intermediary or trader women), responsible for selling the harvest in local markets (1975, 6). Hernández Xolocotzi also explained how markets were important spaces for ethnobotanical research and outlined housewives’ (not campesinas, who in his mind occupied a lower social status) interest in finding the best products and prices. Women, then, were restricted to specific arenas and portrayed as responding to external factors rather than directing actions.

 Consequently, spaces like kitchens and the situated processes that happen within them were seen as part of the family unit and thus disregarded as sites actively contributing to agricultural knowledge (Jiménez Sanchez 1977, xxvii). As mentioned earlier,  these scholars identified culinary elements such as flavor as an important aspect of understanding the diversification and conservation of crops. Yet they did not pursue profound interactions with women and their expertise, despite their intimate involvement in the selection of plant characteristics, their processing, and the conservation of landraces. 

Undoubtedly, early Mexican ethnobotanical research exemplified patriarchal attitudes that affected the ways researchers interacted with women in many regions of Mexico. However, their focus on male farmers may have been partly due to their limited access to women rather than clear-cut indifference. Mexican ethnobotanical research in the 1970s, and academia more generally, was—and still is—overwhelmingly carried out by men with strong educational backgrounds and a set of social advantages. Most of these scientists held degrees in biology or agricultural science from big universities such as the National Autonomous University of Mexico, University of Chapingo, and some even from universities abroad. The first women to study at the University of Chapingo enrolled in 1967, which suggests that not a lot of attention was paid to women in academic research (Castro and Gomez 2007; Caire-Pérez 2016). Even when defining how Mexican science was to be developed, scholars repeatedly used the word “men” to describe the future of research (Jiménez Sánchez 1977, xxv). Situated in these circumstances and this moment, it is not surprising that women and their knowledge did not figure as a central avenue in ethnobotanical research. 

Ethnobotanical research made critical contributions: the field was vital for the revalorization of Indigenous knowledge and sovereignty. These ethnobotanists highlighted an aspect of rural Mexico that had been abandoned by the state for decades, crediting Indigenous farmers for their knowledge and heritage and pushing for Indigenous rights and conservation policies. Yet even though patriarchal dynamics were not unique to the ethnobotanical or academic context, it is important to revisit how women were placed and defined in specific contexts within this work. In the case of Mexican ethnobotany in the 1970s, women were defined within the conceptualization of the traditional; in a reduced fashion and limited to the family unit. Considering that the term was a concept with enormous social and political baggage in Mexico, the relegation of women says a lot about the power dynamics present in even the most progressive academic circles.

More so, it gives an insight to explain why women were rendered invisible. The acknowledgement of women’s crucial role in biocultural conservation has only been recently approached and largely by female scholars. More than forty years down the line, overlooked spaces such as kitchens start to be valued in the field as sites of conservation and the creation of knowledge (Pérez-Volkow et al. 2022). Therefore, the argument here is not to deem researchers as “bad” but to signal that despite the general celebratory discourse around Mexican ethnobotany, this field was also hierarchical and gendered. This had political consequences too, as did their endeavor to revalorize cultural and ethnic diversity. 

How is it possible that women continued to be largely invisible in Mexican ethnobotany until the twenty-first century, when even the field’s initial research questions in the 1970s included culinary traditions? I think we should ask this more in other fields, too. Greater engagement with questions of this order can help us cut through the daily assumptions, generalizations, oversights, and discrimination that still happen today in research (as both observer and observed). In this sense, historical narratives can push us to question previous approaches in order to reflect and construct more responsible ways of working in the future. Most crop diversity has been preserved to date because of the daily connections that local people have with their ingredients. Culinary knowledge, mainly carried and perpetuated by women in this context, thus teaches an important lesson to those of us in academia: sometimes it is not in books or words that we find the real story, but in embodied practices and flavors that have the power to make us care, perpetuate, resist. 

Read another piece in this series.

Works Cited

Bonfil Batalla, G. 1987. México profundo, una civilización negada. SEP-CIESAS, México.

Caballero, Javier. 1979. “Perspectivas para el quehacer etnobotánico en México.” In La Etnobotánica: tres puntos de vista y una perspectiva, edited by A. Barrera, 10-13. Cuadernos de Divulgación Nº5, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones sobre Recursos Bióticos.

Caire-Pérez, Matthew. 2016. A Different Shade of Green: Efraím Hernández Xolocotzi, Chapingo, and Mexico’s Green Revolution, 1950-1967. PhD Diss., University of Oklahoma.

Camou-Guerrero, Andrés, Alejandro Casas, Ana Moreno Calles, Jahzeel Aguilera, David Garrido Rojas, Selene Rangel-Landa, Ignacio Torres-García, Edgar Pérez-Negrón, Leonor Solis-Rojas, José Vázquez, Susana Rodríguez, Fabiola Parra, Erandi Rivera Lozoya. 2016. “Ethnobotany in Mexico: History, Development, and Perspectives.” In Ethnobotany of Mexico: Interactions of People and Plants in Mesoamerica, edited by Rafael Lira, Alejandro Casas, and José Blancas, 21-39. New York: Springer.

Castro, Roberto, and Verónica Gómez. 2007. “La universidad como espacio de reproducción de la desigualdad de género. Un estudio de caso en la Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, México.” XXVI Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología, Guadalajara, México.

Hernández Xolocotzi, Efraim. 1970. Exploración etnobotánica y su metodología. Colegio de Postgraduados, Escuela Nacional de Agricultura, Chapingo, México. 

________. 1977. Agroecosistemas de México: contribuciones a la enseñanza, investigación y divulgación agrícola. Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, México.

________. 1979. “Estudios etnobiológicos. Definición, relaciones y métodos de la etnobiología.” In La Etnobotánica: tres puntos de vista y una perspectiva, edited by A. Barrera, [p. 6-9]. Cuadernos de Divulgación Nº5, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones sobre Recursos Bióticos.

Hernández Xolocotzi, Efraim, Jorge Montes Meneses, and Teodoro Gómez Hernández. 1975. Guía de la excursión y de las prácticas de etnobotánica. VI Congreso Mexicano de Botánica 21-26 de septiembre de 1975, Xalapa, Veracruz.

Hewitt de Alcántara, Cynthia. 1976. Modernising Mexican Agriculture: Socioeconomic Implications of Technological Change, 1940-1970. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.

Jennings, Bruce. 1988. Foundations of International Agricultural Research: Science and Politics in Mexican Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Jiménez Sánchez, Leobardo. 1977. “Los agroecosistemas, el desarrollo agrícola y el bienestar de la familia campesina en México.” In Agroecosistemas de México: contribuciones a la enseñanza, investigación y divulgación agrícola, edited by E. Hernández-Xolocotzi, xxi-xxix. Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, México. 

Pérez-Volkow, Lucía., Stewart A. Diemont, Theresa Selfa, H. Morales, and Alejandro Casas. 2023. “From Rainforest to Table: Lacandon Maya Women are Critical to Diversify Landscapes and Diets in Lacanjá Chansayab, Mexico.” Agriculture and Human Values 40 (1): 259-275.