In this essay, I discuss the problem of how to interpret these processes without imposing Western paradigms and "black-box" terms, and yet still produce useful comparisons of different knowledge-power systems. My purpose is to discuss the problematics of Western-derived classifications and lenses used in describing and interpreting knowledge and power systems. For example, essentialist categories such as "myth," "history," "science," and "art," as well as "sacred" and "secular" domains, are of limited value as a measure in crosscultural comparison, since they are derived from a Western episteme. Tuareg categories, I argue, need to be analyzed in relation to local social and epistemological distinctions./
