- Graduate School of Arts & Letters
Tohoku University
Kawauchi 27-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8576
JAPAN
- Cultural Anthropology, Anthropology, Gender, Human Rights, Taiwan, Japan, and 43 moreHong Kong, Singapore, Political Economy, Culture Change, Disability Studies, Domestic Violence, East Asian Studies, Disaster Studies, Violence Against Women, Gender And Violence, Anthropology of Japan, Violence (Anthropology), Violence Prevention, Violence, Social Networks, Cosmopolitanism, Multiculturalism, Multicultural Education, Cross-Cultural Studies, Hybridity, Citizenship identities, Ethnic Identity, Ethnic Identities, Identity (Culture), Self and Identity, Transnationalism, Globalization, Cultural Identity, Cultural Globalization, Applied, engaged, and public anthropology, Citizenship, Cultural Citizenship, Cultural Relativism, Life history, Life Story; Biographic Narrative Research, Auto-ethnography, Auto Anthropology, Native Anthropologist, Masculinity, Masculinity Studies, Paternity, Sexual and Reproductive Health, and Reproductive Ethicsedit
- Currently writing auto-anthropological essays on cross-cultural and cosmopolitan life. Engaged in the advocacy for ... moreCurrently writing auto-anthropological essays on cross-cultural and cosmopolitan life.
Engaged in the advocacy for the victims and survivors of domestic violence and other gender-based violence.edit
Research Interests:
目次 序 政治的なことは個人的である Ⅰ 結婚と家族 第一章 「伝統」への挑戦 ―日本の夫婦別姓論争を香港の平等継承権論争と比較して 第二章 司法の場での夫婦別姓論争 コラム１ 「ニュー選択的夫婦別姓訴訟」をめぐって Ⅱ 男にとっての妊娠・出産・育児 第三章 〈産ませる性〉の義務と権利 ―男性にとってのリプロダクティブ・ヘルス／ライツを考える 第四章 家事・育児する男は少子化を止めるか？ コラム２ 父親の育児があたりまえの社会... more
目次
序 政治的なことは個人的である
Ⅰ 結婚と家族
第一章 「伝統」への挑戦
―日本の夫婦別姓論争を香港の平等継承権論争と比較して
第二章 司法の場での夫婦別姓論争
コラム１ 「ニュー選択的夫婦別姓訴訟」をめぐって
Ⅱ 男にとっての妊娠・出産・育児
第三章 〈産ませる性〉の義務と権利
―男性にとってのリプロダクティブ・ヘルス／ライツを考える
第四章 家事・育児する男は少子化を止めるか？
コラム２ 父親の育児があたりまえの社会
Ⅲ ドメスティック・バイオレンス（ＤＶ）
第五章 愛と暴力
―ドメスティック・バイオレンスから問う親密圏の関係倫理
第六章 被害者が加害者に変わるとき
―被害者にかかわるすべての人に求められるＤＶ理解
コラム３ ＤＶ加害者の実像と求められる対策
結 個人的なことは（やはり）政治的である
各章の成り立ち
本書に収録した論考は、夫婦別姓や育児やＤＶを自分自身の「個人的なこと」として受け止め、積極的に関与するなかで、「性／性別による差別と搾取と抑圧とを終わらせようという運動」に貢献しようとする一男性の立場から、「政治的なこと」を改めて学問的にも問い直そうと試みたものである。
第Ⅰ部のテーマは夫婦別姓だ。
第一章は、放送大学の教科書の一章に加筆修正を施したものである。二〇〇一年、当時放送大学教授だった文化人類学者の原ひろ子先生から、先生が企画しているジェンダーの授業の講師の一人になってほしいという電子メールが届いた。「絶対に断らないでください」と書いてあった。大先輩にそう言われたら断れるわけがない。そこで三回の講義を担当することになったのだが、その初回に夫婦別姓をめぐる論争を取り上げ、香港で起きていた女性の平等継承権論争と比較して、人権思想に立脚した「伝統」の問い直しを論じた。
第二章は、二〇一五年暮、夫婦別姓訴訟に関する最高裁判決について、仙台の別姓を考える会のニュースレター『別姓通信』に掲載した原稿を編集して再録したものである。もしかしたら画期的な判決が出るかもしれないと期待されていたのに、最高裁が大変ガッカリな判決を出したので、仙台の別姓を考える会では『別姓通信』の特集号を出すことになり、判決内容の分析と解説を私が担当し、古代ローマ以来の家父長制的法意識が判決に色濃く滲み出ていることを論じた。
コラム１は、現在進行中のいわゆる「第二次夫婦別姓訴訟」をめぐる論争について、『くらしと教育をつなぐＷｅ』誌上（二〇一八年一二／一月号、二〇一九年二／三月号）で論じたものを若干編集して再録している。論争の焦点は、何のための夫婦別姓かという問題だ。私の結論は、制度の柔軟性を拡大するなら建前は何でもいいじゃないか、より自由な社会へ向けて幅広く連帯しようというものだ。
第Ⅱ部のテーマは男性の育児だ。
第三章は、二〇〇〇年、国立婦人教育会館の研究紀要で「女性と人権」という特集を組むに当たり、リプロダクティブ・ヘルス／ライツ（性と生殖に関する健康と権利）について、女性については柘植あづみさんが書くので、男性について書いてほしいと依頼されて書いたものが元になっている。柘植さんはこの問題のスペシャリストだが、私はそうではないし、男性のリプロダクティブ・ヘルス／ライツなんて聞いたこともなかったが、自分自身は妊娠も出産もしない（生物学上できない）男性の生殖に関わる健康問題について調べ、また子どもができて父親になった男性にとっての義務と権利は何だろうかと考えた。息子がようやく小学生になった頃に、それまでの育児体験を振り返って書いたものだ。
第四章は、二〇〇五年、国際ジェンダー学会が、その機関誌の特集として少子化を取り上げるので、男性の視点から書いてほしいと依頼されて、いろいろな調査データを眺め直し、男性の結婚観・育児感が変わってきているのではないかと問題提起したものだ。一人っ子の父親であるという「個人的なこと」が出発点になっている。本書収録に際し、可能な限りデータをアップデートしたが、基本的な論旨に変更はない。
コラム２は、中央アフリカの狩猟採集民アカ人の父親に関する研究を簡単に紹介したものだ。父親の子育てがアタリマエの社会が実際にあることを、文化人類学が教えてくれる。『看護教育』（五二巻六号、二〇一一年六月）に書いた文章（この雑誌に連載したジェンダー論講座の一部）が元になっている。
第Ⅲ部のテーマはＤＶだ。
第五章は、二〇〇四年に岩波から出版された応用倫理学講義第五巻『性／愛』に、ＤＶについて書いてほしいと依頼された機会に、親密圏における暴力と愛情の混同を問題化しようとしたものだ。これは、ＤＶ被害者支援に関わりながら、ずっと考えてきたことだ。焦点は、男性が「支配者の甘え」を脱する必要性と可能性である。
第六章は、二つの刑事事件について裁判所に提出した意見書を書き直したものである。二つの事件とは、一つはＤＶ被害者が加害者を殺してしまった事件、もう一つはＤＶ被害者が加害者を殺そうとした事件である。どちらもＤＶ被害者が被告となった裁判で、被告弁護のために、ＤＶ被害者が加害者殺害にまで追い込まれてしまうのはなぜなのかを論じたものだ。被害者を加害者に変えてしまう最も深刻なＤＶ事案の分析を通して、「強圧的支配」というＤＶの本質を論じている。
コラム３は、ジェンダー法学会が編集した『講座ジェンダー法』第三巻「暴力からの解放」に書いたコラムの再録である。表のデータのみアップデートしている。ＤＶ加害者とはどういうものか、どんな対策が必要なのか、短くまとめたものである。
序 政治的なことは個人的である
Ⅰ 結婚と家族
第一章 「伝統」への挑戦
―日本の夫婦別姓論争を香港の平等継承権論争と比較して
第二章 司法の場での夫婦別姓論争
コラム１ 「ニュー選択的夫婦別姓訴訟」をめぐって
Ⅱ 男にとっての妊娠・出産・育児
第三章 〈産ませる性〉の義務と権利
―男性にとってのリプロダクティブ・ヘルス／ライツを考える
第四章 家事・育児する男は少子化を止めるか？
コラム２ 父親の育児があたりまえの社会
Ⅲ ドメスティック・バイオレンス（ＤＶ）
第五章 愛と暴力
―ドメスティック・バイオレンスから問う親密圏の関係倫理
第六章 被害者が加害者に変わるとき
―被害者にかかわるすべての人に求められるＤＶ理解
コラム３ ＤＶ加害者の実像と求められる対策
結 個人的なことは（やはり）政治的である
各章の成り立ち
本書に収録した論考は、夫婦別姓や育児やＤＶを自分自身の「個人的なこと」として受け止め、積極的に関与するなかで、「性／性別による差別と搾取と抑圧とを終わらせようという運動」に貢献しようとする一男性の立場から、「政治的なこと」を改めて学問的にも問い直そうと試みたものである。
第Ⅰ部のテーマは夫婦別姓だ。
第一章は、放送大学の教科書の一章に加筆修正を施したものである。二〇〇一年、当時放送大学教授だった文化人類学者の原ひろ子先生から、先生が企画しているジェンダーの授業の講師の一人になってほしいという電子メールが届いた。「絶対に断らないでください」と書いてあった。大先輩にそう言われたら断れるわけがない。そこで三回の講義を担当することになったのだが、その初回に夫婦別姓をめぐる論争を取り上げ、香港で起きていた女性の平等継承権論争と比較して、人権思想に立脚した「伝統」の問い直しを論じた。
第二章は、二〇一五年暮、夫婦別姓訴訟に関する最高裁判決について、仙台の別姓を考える会のニュースレター『別姓通信』に掲載した原稿を編集して再録したものである。もしかしたら画期的な判決が出るかもしれないと期待されていたのに、最高裁が大変ガッカリな判決を出したので、仙台の別姓を考える会では『別姓通信』の特集号を出すことになり、判決内容の分析と解説を私が担当し、古代ローマ以来の家父長制的法意識が判決に色濃く滲み出ていることを論じた。
コラム１は、現在進行中のいわゆる「第二次夫婦別姓訴訟」をめぐる論争について、『くらしと教育をつなぐＷｅ』誌上（二〇一八年一二／一月号、二〇一九年二／三月号）で論じたものを若干編集して再録している。論争の焦点は、何のための夫婦別姓かという問題だ。私の結論は、制度の柔軟性を拡大するなら建前は何でもいいじゃないか、より自由な社会へ向けて幅広く連帯しようというものだ。
第Ⅱ部のテーマは男性の育児だ。
第三章は、二〇〇〇年、国立婦人教育会館の研究紀要で「女性と人権」という特集を組むに当たり、リプロダクティブ・ヘルス／ライツ（性と生殖に関する健康と権利）について、女性については柘植あづみさんが書くので、男性について書いてほしいと依頼されて書いたものが元になっている。柘植さんはこの問題のスペシャリストだが、私はそうではないし、男性のリプロダクティブ・ヘルス／ライツなんて聞いたこともなかったが、自分自身は妊娠も出産もしない（生物学上できない）男性の生殖に関わる健康問題について調べ、また子どもができて父親になった男性にとっての義務と権利は何だろうかと考えた。息子がようやく小学生になった頃に、それまでの育児体験を振り返って書いたものだ。
第四章は、二〇〇五年、国際ジェンダー学会が、その機関誌の特集として少子化を取り上げるので、男性の視点から書いてほしいと依頼されて、いろいろな調査データを眺め直し、男性の結婚観・育児感が変わってきているのではないかと問題提起したものだ。一人っ子の父親であるという「個人的なこと」が出発点になっている。本書収録に際し、可能な限りデータをアップデートしたが、基本的な論旨に変更はない。
コラム２は、中央アフリカの狩猟採集民アカ人の父親に関する研究を簡単に紹介したものだ。父親の子育てがアタリマエの社会が実際にあることを、文化人類学が教えてくれる。『看護教育』（五二巻六号、二〇一一年六月）に書いた文章（この雑誌に連載したジェンダー論講座の一部）が元になっている。
第Ⅲ部のテーマはＤＶだ。
第五章は、二〇〇四年に岩波から出版された応用倫理学講義第五巻『性／愛』に、ＤＶについて書いてほしいと依頼された機会に、親密圏における暴力と愛情の混同を問題化しようとしたものだ。これは、ＤＶ被害者支援に関わりながら、ずっと考えてきたことだ。焦点は、男性が「支配者の甘え」を脱する必要性と可能性である。
第六章は、二つの刑事事件について裁判所に提出した意見書を書き直したものである。二つの事件とは、一つはＤＶ被害者が加害者を殺してしまった事件、もう一つはＤＶ被害者が加害者を殺そうとした事件である。どちらもＤＶ被害者が被告となった裁判で、被告弁護のために、ＤＶ被害者が加害者殺害にまで追い込まれてしまうのはなぜなのかを論じたものだ。被害者を加害者に変えてしまう最も深刻なＤＶ事案の分析を通して、「強圧的支配」というＤＶの本質を論じている。
コラム３は、ジェンダー法学会が編集した『講座ジェンダー法』第三巻「暴力からの解放」に書いたコラムの再録である。表のデータのみアップデートしている。ＤＶ加害者とはどういうものか、どんな対策が必要なのか、短くまとめたものである。
Research Interests:
高校生や大学生のために、様々な社会問題に関する〈実証的〉な研究への取り組み方と、それに基づくレポートの書き方を、わかりやすく解説した入門書。研究とは何か、研究に求められるインテグリティ（学問的な誠実さ）について、懇切丁寧に解説。出典明記とパラフレーズの大切さを説明し、そのやり方を具体的に明示。研究トピックと研究テーマの見つけ方を、具体的に説明。Googleの提供する各種無料サービスの使い方を詳しく説明。
Research Interests:
""本書の目的は、社会科学の視点から、初学者のための「台湾入門」を提供すると同時に、現代台湾社会の諸特徴に関する最新の歴史学的・社会科学的知見に基づき、１７世紀のオランダ統治時代以来の変化と対比しつつ、現代台湾社会の構造的特徴を明らかにすることである。 目次： 第一章 「台湾」～名称、自然、地理～ 第二章 オランダ統治時代から清朝統治時代まで～二元・二層構造の誕生～ 第三章 日本植民統治の時代～二元・二層構造の確立と徹底～... more
""本書の目的は、社会科学の視点から、初学者のための「台湾入門」を提供すると同時に、現代台湾社会の諸特徴に関する最新の歴史学的・社会科学的知見に基づき、１７世紀のオランダ統治時代以来の変化と対比しつつ、現代台湾社会の構造的特徴を明らかにすることである。
目次：
第一章 「台湾」～名称、自然、地理～
第二章 オランダ統治時代から清朝統治時代まで～二元・二層構造の誕生～
第三章 日本植民統治の時代～二元・二層構造の確立と徹底～
第四章 蔣介石政権の時代～二元・二層構造の持続～
第五章 蔣經國政権から李登輝政権の時代～二元・二層構造の変容と溶解～
第六章 政権交代の時代～多元・多層構造の誕生～
参考書
あとがき""
目次：
第一章 「台湾」～名称、自然、地理～
第二章 オランダ統治時代から清朝統治時代まで～二元・二層構造の誕生～
第三章 日本植民統治の時代～二元・二層構造の確立と徹底～
第四章 蔣介石政権の時代～二元・二層構造の持続～
第五章 蔣經國政権から李登輝政権の時代～二元・二層構造の変容と溶解～
第六章 政権交代の時代～多元・多層構造の誕生～
参考書
あとがき""
Research Interests:
台湾社会はますます複雑になっている。そのまとまりは強まるのか、それとも弱まるのか。エスニシティ、アイデンティティ、市民社会・社会運動からアプローチする。 目次： まえがき / 佐藤幸人 凡例 序章 台湾社会へのアプローチ / 沼崎一郎・佐藤幸人 第1章 社会の多元化と多層化——1990年以後のエスニシティと社会階層—— / 沼崎一郎 第2章 台湾の女性労働・高齢者労働——日韓との比較を通じて—— / 瀬地山角... more
台湾社会はますます複雑になっている。そのまとまりは強まるのか、それとも弱まるのか。エスニシティ、アイデンティティ、市民社会・社会運動からアプローチする。
目次：
まえがき / 佐藤幸人
凡例
序章 台湾社会へのアプローチ / 沼崎一郎・佐藤幸人
第1章 社会の多元化と多層化——1990年以後のエスニシティと社会階層—— / 沼崎一郎
第2章 台湾の女性労働・高齢者労働——日韓との比較を通じて—— / 瀬地山角
第3章 現代台湾社会をめぐる「求心力・遠心力」と原住民——ブヌンの事例を中心とした初歩的検討—— / 石垣直
第4章 台湾の本土化後にみる外省人意識 / 上水流久彦
第5章 多文化主義言説における新移民問題 / 田上智宜
第6章 台北故宮と「中華」との距離——「建院70周年」と「建院80周年」との間の連続性と非連続性—— / 松金公正
第7章 台湾系企業および台湾人企業家・経営幹部からみた台湾と中国の関係 / 佐藤幸人
第8章 「開発と環境」をめぐる台湾社会の変動と市民参加——公害・環境紛争と環境影響評価制度を中心に—— / 寺尾忠能
第9章 社会運動，民主主義の再定着，国家統合
——市民社会と現代台湾における市民的ナショナリズムの再構築（2008～2010年）—— / 呉叡人（若畑省二訳）
あとがき / 沼崎一郎
目次：
まえがき / 佐藤幸人
凡例
序章 台湾社会へのアプローチ / 沼崎一郎・佐藤幸人
第1章 社会の多元化と多層化——1990年以後のエスニシティと社会階層—— / 沼崎一郎
第2章 台湾の女性労働・高齢者労働——日韓との比較を通じて—— / 瀬地山角
第3章 現代台湾社会をめぐる「求心力・遠心力」と原住民——ブヌンの事例を中心とした初歩的検討—— / 石垣直
第4章 台湾の本土化後にみる外省人意識 / 上水流久彦
第5章 多文化主義言説における新移民問題 / 田上智宜
第6章 台北故宮と「中華」との距離——「建院70周年」と「建院80周年」との間の連続性と非連続性—— / 松金公正
第7章 台湾系企業および台湾人企業家・経営幹部からみた台湾と中国の関係 / 佐藤幸人
第8章 「開発と環境」をめぐる台湾社会の変動と市民参加——公害・環境紛争と環境影響評価制度を中心に—— / 寺尾忠能
第9章 社会運動，民主主義の再定着，国家統合
——市民社会と現代台湾における市民的ナショナリズムの再構築（2008～2010年）—— / 呉叡人（若畑省二訳）
あとがき / 沼崎一郎
Research Interests:
本書は、欧米人類学の親族理論や社会ネットワーク理論、日本における様々な「縁」の人類学的研究が提起する諸問題を受け止めつつ、漢族社会、沖縄、ルーマニアの親族、ラオスの出産、モロッコ移民や在日韓国女性のネットワーク、ナイジェリア・イボ社会の「伝統的」王やアラスカ先住民ユッピックの「伝統的」ダンスなどをテーマとして、人々は、何に「つながり」を見出し、どのように「つながり」を生きているかをエミックに描くことで、「つながりの文化」の多様性と可変性の民族誌を提供し、「つながり」の比較文化... more
本書は、欧米人類学の親族理論や社会ネットワーク理論、日本における様々な「縁」の人類学的研究が提起する諸問題を受け止めつつ、漢族社会、沖縄、ルーマニアの親族、ラオスの出産、モロッコ移民や在日韓国女性のネットワーク、ナイジェリア・イボ社会の「伝統的」王やアラスカ先住民ユッピックの「伝統的」ダンスなどをテーマとして、人々は、何に「つながり」を見出し、どのように「つながり」を生きているかをエミックに描くことで、「つながりの文化」の多様性と可変性の民族誌を提供し、「つながり」の比較文化研究を展望する。
《目 次》
序 章 髙谷紀夫 沼崎一郎
第一章 械闘未遂事件にみる親族の「つながり」の現在
−広東省珠江デルタの一村落の事例から— 川口幸大
第二章 台湾漢族の葬式通知にみる女性の位置づけとその変遷
−父系社会の再考— 上水流久彦
第三章 兄弟のつながりから地域社会のまとまりへ
−近代沖縄における移住者の社会形成— 玉城 毅
第四章 現代ルーマニア農村における家族のつながり
−家畜飼育の現場から— 杉本 敦
第五章 北ラオス村落社会における出産と養い
−親子のつながりの持続と変容— 吉田香世子
第六章 移民家族の定住過程における社会関係（つながり）
−在日コリアン一世の女性たちライフヒストリーから— 二階堂裕子
第七章 うわさのコントロールによる在仏モロッコ移民と出身地との国境を越えた社会関係（つながり）の変容と持続 渋谷 努
第八章 ナイジェリア・イボ社会における移民組織と王制
−王位を媒体とした《つながり》の構築と断絶— 松本尚之
第九章 伝統ダンス進展期における先住民と文化の関係−ユッピング・ダンスがつなぐ社会関係について— 久保田亮
《目 次》
序 章 髙谷紀夫 沼崎一郎
第一章 械闘未遂事件にみる親族の「つながり」の現在
−広東省珠江デルタの一村落の事例から— 川口幸大
第二章 台湾漢族の葬式通知にみる女性の位置づけとその変遷
−父系社会の再考— 上水流久彦
第三章 兄弟のつながりから地域社会のまとまりへ
−近代沖縄における移住者の社会形成— 玉城 毅
第四章 現代ルーマニア農村における家族のつながり
−家畜飼育の現場から— 杉本 敦
第五章 北ラオス村落社会における出産と養い
−親子のつながりの持続と変容— 吉田香世子
第六章 移民家族の定住過程における社会関係（つながり）
−在日コリアン一世の女性たちライフヒストリーから— 二階堂裕子
第七章 うわさのコントロールによる在仏モロッコ移民と出身地との国境を越えた社会関係（つながり）の変容と持続 渋谷 努
第八章 ナイジェリア・イボ社会における移民組織と王制
−王位を媒体とした《つながり》の構築と断絶— 松本尚之
第九章 伝統ダンス進展期における先住民と文化の関係−ユッピング・ダンスがつなぐ社会関係について— 久保田亮
Research Interests:
The purpose of this paper is to illuminate Leslie A. White’s conception of “culture” and “civilization”by examining his theory of evolution and revolution that transformed primitive culture into civilization. White’s conception... more
The purpose of this paper is to illuminate Leslie A. White’s conception of “culture” and “civilization”by examining his theory of evolution and revolution that transformed primitive culture into civilization.
White’s conception of “culture,” based primarily on his notions of symbol and energy, shows two major characteristics. The first is its mechanistic nature. He conceives culture as an extrasomatic, autonomous thermodynamic system that functions independently of human will, which in the course of development therefore cannot be controlled by human-beings living in or out of that culture. I call this the mechanistic conception of culture. The second is White’s view that culture consists of real things and events that take place in the external world outside of the minds of scientific observers. I call this the realist conception of culture, which stands in sharp opposition to more nominalistic views of culture held by many anthropologists in white’s time who conceived culture as some kind of abstraction.
White’s theory of cultural evolution can be regarded as a direct successor to that of Lewis Henry Morgan. Many arguments advanced in White’s The Evolution of Culture actually in fact confirm, with some modifications, major theses presented by Morgan in Ancient Society. White provides materialistic and energy-centered explanation, for example, for the Morgan’s contrast of societas and civitas and for the transition from classificatory to descriptive system of kinship.
White’s view of civilization after the Agricultural Revolution is indeed negative and critical. He laments the loss of liberty, equality and fraternity that characterized primitive culture in general, and points to the increased class antagonism, exploitation, and impoverishment of the masses in civilization. He, as a socialist, initially foresaw a possibility of future revolution that may transform unequal and unjust civilization into a new order of more liberal, egalitarian and fraternal nature. But shortly before his death, his mechanistic conception of culture and his observation of contemporary events forced him to abandon such a hope and he came to conclude that the present civilization, if it runs its course, may be doomed.
White’s place in the history of American anthropology is between Morgan before him and
Elman Service and other neo-evolutionists after him. White’s view of primitive culture and civilization has a striking resemblance to that of his contemporary, Robert Redfield, though their prospects for the future of civilization sharply differed.
White’s conception of “culture,” based primarily on his notions of symbol and energy, shows two major characteristics. The first is its mechanistic nature. He conceives culture as an extrasomatic, autonomous thermodynamic system that functions independently of human will, which in the course of development therefore cannot be controlled by human-beings living in or out of that culture. I call this the mechanistic conception of culture. The second is White’s view that culture consists of real things and events that take place in the external world outside of the minds of scientific observers. I call this the realist conception of culture, which stands in sharp opposition to more nominalistic views of culture held by many anthropologists in white’s time who conceived culture as some kind of abstraction.
White’s theory of cultural evolution can be regarded as a direct successor to that of Lewis Henry Morgan. Many arguments advanced in White’s The Evolution of Culture actually in fact confirm, with some modifications, major theses presented by Morgan in Ancient Society. White provides materialistic and energy-centered explanation, for example, for the Morgan’s contrast of societas and civitas and for the transition from classificatory to descriptive system of kinship.
White’s view of civilization after the Agricultural Revolution is indeed negative and critical. He laments the loss of liberty, equality and fraternity that characterized primitive culture in general, and points to the increased class antagonism, exploitation, and impoverishment of the masses in civilization. He, as a socialist, initially foresaw a possibility of future revolution that may transform unequal and unjust civilization into a new order of more liberal, egalitarian and fraternal nature. But shortly before his death, his mechanistic conception of culture and his observation of contemporary events forced him to abandon such a hope and he came to conclude that the present civilization, if it runs its course, may be doomed.
White’s place in the history of American anthropology is between Morgan before him and
Elman Service and other neo-evolutionists after him. White’s view of primitive culture and civilization has a striking resemblance to that of his contemporary, Robert Redfield, though their prospects for the future of civilization sharply differed.
Research Interests:
The purpose of this paper is to examine Robert Redfield’s conception of “culture” and “civilization” by examining his theories of “folk society” and of the transformation of the primitive societies into civilizations. From the... more
The purpose of this paper is to examine Robert Redfield’s conception of “culture” and “civilization” by examining his theories of “folk society” and of the transformation of the primitive societies into civilizations.
From the late 1920s to the 1940s, Redfield mostly wrote about the “folk,” “folk society” and “folk culture” based on his studies in Mexico. He first proposed to use the concept of “folk” in describing and analyzing the culture of Tepoztlán, an Aztec village near Mexico City. The focus of his study was culture change or the process of civilization in a rural society of which he conceived as an intermediate one between the truly primitive society and the modern urban society. He then studied four communities in the Yucatan Peninsula, the city of Merida, the town of Dztas, the villages of Chan Kom and Tusik, variously located on what Redfield called “the gradient of civilization.” In these studies, he conceptualized “Culture” with the capital C as the integrated and homogeneous ways of the folk in contrast to “Civilization” also with the capital C as the diversified and heterogeneous ways of city dwellers. He further hypothesized that the process of “deculturalization” or
“disorganization of culture” of the folk culture resulted as the impact of Civilization spread to folk societies.
After World War II, Redfield’s focus shifted from the folk society to civilization itself. He theorized that both folk culture and civilization consisted of two orders, moral and technical. He further theorized that the moral order predominated over the technical order in the folk societies but that the relationship between the two were more complex in civilization. In his view, civilization not only threatened and often destroyed the old moral order of the folk culture but also created new and qualitatively different moral order which is more sophisticated and speculative. Redfield also reformulated his idea of civilization as the systemic combination of the city and the peasant society. In this new formulation, the peasant society was no longer a whole community but a part-society dependent on the city and the state and its culture was also a part-culture or a mixture of the great tradition of the city and the little tradition of the peasant society.
Redfield thus offered original conceptions of both “culture” and “civilization,” which are heavily influenced by but are distinct from the ideas of the Boasian school. Redfield also proposed a unique theory of moral progress in human history and advocated the “double standards” of ethical judgement for the primitive and the civilized, and he call it “my version of cultural relativity.”
From the late 1920s to the 1940s, Redfield mostly wrote about the “folk,” “folk society” and “folk culture” based on his studies in Mexico. He first proposed to use the concept of “folk” in describing and analyzing the culture of Tepoztlán, an Aztec village near Mexico City. The focus of his study was culture change or the process of civilization in a rural society of which he conceived as an intermediate one between the truly primitive society and the modern urban society. He then studied four communities in the Yucatan Peninsula, the city of Merida, the town of Dztas, the villages of Chan Kom and Tusik, variously located on what Redfield called “the gradient of civilization.” In these studies, he conceptualized “Culture” with the capital C as the integrated and homogeneous ways of the folk in contrast to “Civilization” also with the capital C as the diversified and heterogeneous ways of city dwellers. He further hypothesized that the process of “deculturalization” or
“disorganization of culture” of the folk culture resulted as the impact of Civilization spread to folk societies.
After World War II, Redfield’s focus shifted from the folk society to civilization itself. He theorized that both folk culture and civilization consisted of two orders, moral and technical. He further theorized that the moral order predominated over the technical order in the folk societies but that the relationship between the two were more complex in civilization. In his view, civilization not only threatened and often destroyed the old moral order of the folk culture but also created new and qualitatively different moral order which is more sophisticated and speculative. Redfield also reformulated his idea of civilization as the systemic combination of the city and the peasant society. In this new formulation, the peasant society was no longer a whole community but a part-society dependent on the city and the state and its culture was also a part-culture or a mixture of the great tradition of the city and the little tradition of the peasant society.
Redfield thus offered original conceptions of both “culture” and “civilization,” which are heavily influenced by but are distinct from the ideas of the Boasian school. Redfield also proposed a unique theory of moral progress in human history and advocated the “double standards” of ethical judgement for the primitive and the civilized, and he call it “my version of cultural relativity.”
Research Interests:
This paper examines the concepts of culture in and the relativistic nature of the symbolic anthropologies of Clifford Geertz and David Schneider, and argues that the two anthropologists have advanced a new kind of cultural relativism,... more
This paper examines the concepts of culture in and the relativistic nature of the symbolic anthropologies of Clifford Geertz and David Schneider, and argues that the two anthropologists have advanced a new kind of cultural relativism, which can be called “Neo-Cultural Relativism,” the characteristic of which is the relativity not only of different cultures but also of anthropology itself. Both Clifford Geertz and David Schneider were educated in the Social Relations Department of Harvard University organized and led by the sociologist, Talcott Parsons, and the anthropologist, Clyde Kluckhohn, and others. As a result, both Geertz and Schneider developed their theories of culture under the heavy influence of Parsons’s theoretical treatment of culture as part of his overall theory of social action. Initially, Geertz developed his theory of culture as a system of symbols in accordance with the
Parsonian social theory. However, in “Deep Play : Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” and in “Thick Description : Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” both included in The Interpretation of Cultures, Geertz parted from Parsons and advanced his own symbolic theory of culture emphasizing the collective expression of culturally significant meanings in the flow of social action and the interpretive nature of ethnography that try to capture the overlapping layers of multiple meanings. His hermeneutic turn meant that ethnography is no longer an objective description of an alien way of life but is a “fusion of horizons” between the natives and the ethographer. David Schneider more faithfully followed Parsons in his theory of culture as a system of symbols and meanings in American Kinship. However, the symbolic anthropological study of kinship in the US forced him to reconsider the conventional anthropological study of kinship. He then conducted a restudy of Yapp kinship and a critical reexamination of “Western” anthropological approach to kinship, the result of which is published as A Critique of the Study of Kinship. In this book, Schneider declared that the conventional anthropological study of kinship is biased and ethnocentrically Euro-American and demanded that anthropologists ask not what kind of kinship a particular culture has but whether that culture has a kinship system at all. In conclusion, two features characterize the “Neo-Cultural Relativism” of Geertz and Schneider. First, their concept of culture is narrower in scope than the notion of culture as a way of life. Second, they not only insisted on the relativity of cultures in a conventional sense but also on the relativity of ethnographic practice and of anthropology itself. Their “Neo-Cultural Relativism” is a precursor to the later, more radically relativistic postmodern anthropologies and more recent anthropology beyond the human.
Parsonian social theory. However, in “Deep Play : Notes on the Balinese Cockfight” and in “Thick Description : Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” both included in The Interpretation of Cultures, Geertz parted from Parsons and advanced his own symbolic theory of culture emphasizing the collective expression of culturally significant meanings in the flow of social action and the interpretive nature of ethnography that try to capture the overlapping layers of multiple meanings. His hermeneutic turn meant that ethnography is no longer an objective description of an alien way of life but is a “fusion of horizons” between the natives and the ethographer. David Schneider more faithfully followed Parsons in his theory of culture as a system of symbols and meanings in American Kinship. However, the symbolic anthropological study of kinship in the US forced him to reconsider the conventional anthropological study of kinship. He then conducted a restudy of Yapp kinship and a critical reexamination of “Western” anthropological approach to kinship, the result of which is published as A Critique of the Study of Kinship. In this book, Schneider declared that the conventional anthropological study of kinship is biased and ethnocentrically Euro-American and demanded that anthropologists ask not what kind of kinship a particular culture has but whether that culture has a kinship system at all. In conclusion, two features characterize the “Neo-Cultural Relativism” of Geertz and Schneider. First, their concept of culture is narrower in scope than the notion of culture as a way of life. Second, they not only insisted on the relativity of cultures in a conventional sense but also on the relativity of ethnographic practice and of anthropology itself. Their “Neo-Cultural Relativism” is a precursor to the later, more radically relativistic postmodern anthropologies and more recent anthropology beyond the human.
Research Interests:
This paper examines the historical process by which the students of Franz Boas gradually transformed his civilizational relativism into so-called cultural relativism. It also traces how the anthropological arguments of cultural... more
This paper examines the historical process by which the students of Franz Boas gradually transformed his civilizational relativism into so-called cultural relativism. It also traces how the anthropological arguments of cultural relativity became known as cultural relativism.
Franz Boas never used the term “cultural relativity” in his major writing and always talked about the relativity of Western civilization vis-?-vis other civilizations, past, present and future. His focus was on emancipation from the “fetter of tradition.” In short, Boas’ civilizational relativism was a relativistic progressivism.
In the 1920s and 30s, the concept of cultural relativity was advanced by a philosopher, Alain LeRoy Locke and by an anthropologist, Ruth Fulton Benedict. Locke also developed a version of cultural relativism based on Josiah Royce’s notion of “loyalty to loyalty.” However, it was Benedict’s thesis on cultural relativity that was widely accepted as her book, Patterns of Culture, became a best seller.
In the 1940s, as the United States entered World War II, critical discourse on cultural relativity arouse as democracy as the American way of life was advocated as something worth defending against the totalitarian ways of life of the Axis powers. In response, anthropologists started to qualify and limit the scope of acceptable cultural relativity and also started to argue that American way was on a par with other ways of life. Margaret Mead advanced one of the strongest defenses of the American way of life in her And Keep the Powder Dry.
By the end of the World War II, the consensus emerged among American anthropologists that cultural relativity must be accepted in so far as it does not threaten the world peace. Both Clyde Kluckhohn and Ruth Benedict insisted the world must be made safe for differences.
In 1948, Melville Herskovits in his Man and His Works formally defined cultural relativism as the principle that “judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation,” and argued that cultural relativism is “a philosophy which, in recognizing the values set up by every society to guide its own life, lays stress on the dignity inherent in every body of custom, and on the need for tolerance of conventions though they may differ from one’s own.”
In conclusion, followers of Franz Boas made two “turns”: one from the relativity of one’s own civilization to the relativity of all “ways of life” and the other from the relativistic progressivism that emphasized emancipation from traditions to relativistic conservatism that emphasized the equal dignity and worth of all coexisting “ways of life.”
Franz Boas never used the term “cultural relativity” in his major writing and always talked about the relativity of Western civilization vis-?-vis other civilizations, past, present and future. His focus was on emancipation from the “fetter of tradition.” In short, Boas’ civilizational relativism was a relativistic progressivism.
In the 1920s and 30s, the concept of cultural relativity was advanced by a philosopher, Alain LeRoy Locke and by an anthropologist, Ruth Fulton Benedict. Locke also developed a version of cultural relativism based on Josiah Royce’s notion of “loyalty to loyalty.” However, it was Benedict’s thesis on cultural relativity that was widely accepted as her book, Patterns of Culture, became a best seller.
In the 1940s, as the United States entered World War II, critical discourse on cultural relativity arouse as democracy as the American way of life was advocated as something worth defending against the totalitarian ways of life of the Axis powers. In response, anthropologists started to qualify and limit the scope of acceptable cultural relativity and also started to argue that American way was on a par with other ways of life. Margaret Mead advanced one of the strongest defenses of the American way of life in her And Keep the Powder Dry.
By the end of the World War II, the consensus emerged among American anthropologists that cultural relativity must be accepted in so far as it does not threaten the world peace. Both Clyde Kluckhohn and Ruth Benedict insisted the world must be made safe for differences.
In 1948, Melville Herskovits in his Man and His Works formally defined cultural relativism as the principle that “judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation,” and argued that cultural relativism is “a philosophy which, in recognizing the values set up by every society to guide its own life, lays stress on the dignity inherent in every body of custom, and on the need for tolerance of conventions though they may differ from one’s own.”
In conclusion, followers of Franz Boas made two “turns”: one from the relativity of one’s own civilization to the relativity of all “ways of life” and the other from the relativistic progressivism that emphasized emancipation from traditions to relativistic conservatism that emphasized the equal dignity and worth of all coexisting “ways of life.”
Research Interests:
Based on my own experience as both a student and a teacher, this paper illuminates the “gap” between the systems of anthropology education in Japanese and American universities, and argues that the major “gap” between the Japanese and the... more
Based on my own experience as both a student and a teacher, this paper illuminates the “gap” between the systems of anthropology education in Japanese and American universities, and argues that the major “gap” between the Japanese and the American systems of anthropology education lies in the number of professional anthropologists in the unit of teaching and that small Japanese programs with just a handful of anthropologists can offer only general apprenticeship-type training while large American departments with at least fifteen or more anthropologists can provide a wide range of courses and advisory committees of specialists matching the areas of concentration chosen by graduate students. I conclude that this “gap” in the size and style of anthropology education explains why more “star” anthropologists are produced in America than in Japan.
Research Interests:
This paper is an exercise in what I would like to call “postimperial” reflection upon my perception of and reaction to the “things Japanese” that I discovered during my first fieldwork in Taiwan from 1986 to 1989. This paper focuses on my... more
This paper is an exercise in what I would like to call “postimperial” reflection upon my perception of and reaction to the “things Japanese” that I discovered during my first fieldwork in Taiwan from 1986 to 1989. This paper focuses on my casual encounters with the things Japanese, my casual encounters with those Taiwanese who speak Japanese and remember the colonial days, and my own feelings about these encounters. This paper therefore is a critical auto-enthnography of the encounter between a Japanese anthropologist and Imperial Japan in postcolonial Taiwan. In this paper, I would like to revisit my first encounter with “Japan” and “Japaneseness” in Taiwan some thirty years ago, recall my perceptions of and reactions then, and critically interrogate my own connection to (and severance from) Japan’s imperial past in order to clarify my personal, political, and academic positionality vis-à-vis postcolonial Taiwan.
Research Interests:
This paper examines the historical process by which the students of Franz Boas gradually adopted the concept of “way of life” as a key component of the definition of culture despite the fact that Franz Boas himself did not use the phrase... more
This paper examines the historical process by which the students of Franz Boas gradually adopted the concept of “way of life” as a key component of the definition of culture despite the fact that Franz Boas himself did not use the phrase “way of life” in his major writings let alone in his definition of culture.
It was Edward Sapir who first introduced the concept of “way of life” to characterize his notion of “genuine culture” in opposition to “spurious culture” as sheer manners in his classic article “Culture, Genuine and Spurious” (1924). Margaret Mead used the concept of “way of life” in her early writings such as Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) and Growing Up in New Guinea (1930) in order to contrast the “primitive” ways of life with the “civilized” or the American way of life. Ruth Benedict also used “way of life” to denote the basic attitude toward life in a particular culture.
Then, in the late 1930s, John Dewey insisted that democracy was not merely an political institution but was a “way of life” that permeated all aspects of everyday life. He implied that the democratic way of life characterized the United States of America in contrast to totalitarian “ways o life” in Fascist and Communist countries.
This theme of the clash of opposing and competitive “ways of life” was highlighted in Margaret Mead’s And Keep Your Powder Dry (1942), a treatise on the American way of life and on the character of American people. It was in this book that culture concept was equated with the concept of “way of life” for the first time in American Anthropology. Clyde Kluckhohn also published a short essay on the American “way of life” in Kenyon Review’s special symposium on the American culture (1941).
By 1945, major American anthropologists such as Ralph Linton and Clyde Kluckhohn were defining the anthropological concept of culture as “a way of life.” And this new definition was popularized by Melville Herskovits in his Man and His Works (1948) and by Clyde Kluckhohn in his Mirror for Man (1949), which was reissued in cheap paperbacks for a number of years and was translated into many foreign languages including Japanese.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II and in the shadow of the cold war, American anthropologists preached that anthropological outlook on diverse “ways of life” demanded tolerance of and respect for alien “ways of life,” each and every one of which had dignity and meaning for the peoples who lived in those ways. They also insisted that anthropologically informed understanding of diverse “ways of life” would foster world peace and that the post-World War II world “must be made safe for differences.”
It was Edward Sapir who first introduced the concept of “way of life” to characterize his notion of “genuine culture” in opposition to “spurious culture” as sheer manners in his classic article “Culture, Genuine and Spurious” (1924). Margaret Mead used the concept of “way of life” in her early writings such as Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) and Growing Up in New Guinea (1930) in order to contrast the “primitive” ways of life with the “civilized” or the American way of life. Ruth Benedict also used “way of life” to denote the basic attitude toward life in a particular culture.
Then, in the late 1930s, John Dewey insisted that democracy was not merely an political institution but was a “way of life” that permeated all aspects of everyday life. He implied that the democratic way of life characterized the United States of America in contrast to totalitarian “ways o life” in Fascist and Communist countries.
This theme of the clash of opposing and competitive “ways of life” was highlighted in Margaret Mead’s And Keep Your Powder Dry (1942), a treatise on the American way of life and on the character of American people. It was in this book that culture concept was equated with the concept of “way of life” for the first time in American Anthropology. Clyde Kluckhohn also published a short essay on the American “way of life” in Kenyon Review’s special symposium on the American culture (1941).
By 1945, major American anthropologists such as Ralph Linton and Clyde Kluckhohn were defining the anthropological concept of culture as “a way of life.” And this new definition was popularized by Melville Herskovits in his Man and His Works (1948) and by Clyde Kluckhohn in his Mirror for Man (1949), which was reissued in cheap paperbacks for a number of years and was translated into many foreign languages including Japanese.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II and in the shadow of the cold war, American anthropologists preached that anthropological outlook on diverse “ways of life” demanded tolerance of and respect for alien “ways of life,” each and every one of which had dignity and meaning for the peoples who lived in those ways. They also insisted that anthropologically informed understanding of diverse “ways of life” would foster world peace and that the post-World War II world “must be made safe for differences.”
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
本稿は、東日本大震災を契機として行われた被災地支援事業の一つである台南市青少年訪問団において、台南市の人々と仙台の青少年がどのように交流していたのかを明らかにしようとするものである。台南市青少年訪問団とは、仙台市が交流促進協定を結ぶ台南市と、台南市を本拠とする財閥奇美グループとが、３年間にわたり、被災者支援の一環として仙台市の青少年を台湾に招待した事業である。本稿は、台南滞在中のプログラムと団員たちの行動、訪問後も継続する仙台と台南の交流の実態を民族誌的に記述するとともに、文... more
本稿は、東日本大震災を契機として行われた被災地支援事業の一つである台南市青少年訪問団において、台南市の人々と仙台の青少年がどのように交流していたのかを明らかにしようとするものである。台南市青少年訪問団とは、仙台市が交流促進協定を結ぶ台南市と、台南市を本拠とする財閥奇美グループとが、３年間にわたり、被災者支援の一環として仙台市の青少年を台湾に招待した事業である。本稿は、台南滞在中のプログラムと団員たちの行動、訪問後も継続する仙台と台南の交流の実態を民族誌的に記述するとともに、文化人類学的な観光研究と儀礼研究の視点から、この事業の意義を明らかにしようとするものである。震災を経験した団員たちは、招かれたゲストとして受動的に事業に参加するだけではなく、自身の経験した東日本大震災を「資源化」して能動的にホストと交流しており、その交流の様態は儀礼的な性格の強いものであった。
Research Interests:
Re-examination of Franz Boas’ Concept of Culture (3): Universality and Relativity of Emotion and Reason This paper examines what role Franz Boas gave to human emotion and reason in his conceptualization of primitive culture and... more
Re-examination of Franz Boas’ Concept of Culture (3): Universality and Relativity of Emotion and Reason
This paper examines what role Franz Boas gave to human emotion and reason in his conceptualization of primitive culture and civilization, in his discussion of nationalism and internationalism, and in his understanding of physical science and cosmography, and thereby attempts to clarify the nature of his “civilizational relativism”?rational questioning of one’s own civilization in comparison with other civilizations that frees one from “fetters of tradition” and a demand for high tolerance of cultural differences?which he advocated throughout his life.
Boas generally believed that transition from primitive culture to civilization was made possible by the power of reason and the increase in rational knowledge. He criticizes emotionality of nationalism and argues for more rational internationalism on the basis of his observation that human history shows a constant expansion of the feeling of fellowship from a narrow grouping to bigger and bigger social unit. Yet, he also argues that individuality of nation ought to be preserved for it is the basis of a community of “sound emotional life” and the existence of cultural diversity is the source of critical self-reflection. Boas criticizes physical science for overemphasis on universal laws of nature and argues for emotionally motivated Humboldtian “cosmography,” which tries to understand “individuality in its totality,” as a model for geography and ethnology. Boas believes that cosmographic display of tribal cultures in ethnological museums is the best means to educate pubic on the relativity of civilizations.
This paper argues that the key to understanding his “civilizational relativism” is how Franz Boas understood the relationship between emotion and reason. Boas conceptualized a culture as the totality of socially shared, emotionally loaded habits, which are automatic behavior acquired through enculturation. Emotion thus make human beings stick to conventional behavior and prevent them from critically reflect on the rationality of their behavior. Reason on the other hand allows human beings to question and modify their habitual conducts thus freeing them from “fetters of tradition.” Reason therefore is the primary force in the progress of civilization. Emotion, however, has a critical role to play in reflexive activity in that it motivates human beings to appreciate different cultures and civilizations as individualities worthy of their affectionate concern. It is this emotional interest in “the Other” that is the motivational ground for “civilizational relativism.”
Finally, Franz Boas calls for continual search for different balance between emotion and reason in past, contemporary and future civilizations in order to achieve more justice, more freedom, and world peace.
This paper examines what role Franz Boas gave to human emotion and reason in his conceptualization of primitive culture and civilization, in his discussion of nationalism and internationalism, and in his understanding of physical science and cosmography, and thereby attempts to clarify the nature of his “civilizational relativism”?rational questioning of one’s own civilization in comparison with other civilizations that frees one from “fetters of tradition” and a demand for high tolerance of cultural differences?which he advocated throughout his life.
Boas generally believed that transition from primitive culture to civilization was made possible by the power of reason and the increase in rational knowledge. He criticizes emotionality of nationalism and argues for more rational internationalism on the basis of his observation that human history shows a constant expansion of the feeling of fellowship from a narrow grouping to bigger and bigger social unit. Yet, he also argues that individuality of nation ought to be preserved for it is the basis of a community of “sound emotional life” and the existence of cultural diversity is the source of critical self-reflection. Boas criticizes physical science for overemphasis on universal laws of nature and argues for emotionally motivated Humboldtian “cosmography,” which tries to understand “individuality in its totality,” as a model for geography and ethnology. Boas believes that cosmographic display of tribal cultures in ethnological museums is the best means to educate pubic on the relativity of civilizations.
This paper argues that the key to understanding his “civilizational relativism” is how Franz Boas understood the relationship between emotion and reason. Boas conceptualized a culture as the totality of socially shared, emotionally loaded habits, which are automatic behavior acquired through enculturation. Emotion thus make human beings stick to conventional behavior and prevent them from critically reflect on the rationality of their behavior. Reason on the other hand allows human beings to question and modify their habitual conducts thus freeing them from “fetters of tradition.” Reason therefore is the primary force in the progress of civilization. Emotion, however, has a critical role to play in reflexive activity in that it motivates human beings to appreciate different cultures and civilizations as individualities worthy of their affectionate concern. It is this emotional interest in “the Other” that is the motivational ground for “civilizational relativism.”
Finally, Franz Boas calls for continual search for different balance between emotion and reason in past, contemporary and future civilizations in order to achieve more justice, more freedom, and world peace.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
本稿は、学問的な誠実さ（academic integrity アカデミック・インテグリティ)を構成する正直、信頼、公正、尊重、責任、勇気とはどのようなものかを解説し、それは知識として習うだけで身に付くものではなく、これらの価値を実践する学習活動の積み重ねによって、学びの姿勢として習慣づけることが不可欠だと主張するものである。
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper examines Alfred Kroeber’s conception of “culture” and “civilization” by comparing the two versions of his classic textbook, Anthropology. The first version was published in 1923 and was widely used as a standard textbook in... more
This paper examines Alfred Kroeber’s conception of “culture” and “civilization” by comparing the two versions of his classic textbook, Anthropology. The first version was published in 1923 and was widely used as a standard textbook in introductory anthropology courses at American universities. The thoroughly revised and enlarged edition of some 850 pages was published in 1948, just two years after his retirement from University of California, Berkeley, where he taught for nearly a half century.
In the 1923 edition, Kroeber uses “civilization” and “civilizations” more frequently than “culture” or “cultures” as he did in his classic 1917 paper, “The Superorganic,” and in his 1919 “On the Principle of Order in Civilization as Exemplified by Changes of Fashion,” which examined the long-term trend of stylistic changes in women’s dress. The term civilization is used more or less synonymously with the term culture. Kroeber does not define either of the terms but his usage suggests that civilization is conceived as something social or cultural, that is, superorganic and superindividual, irreducible to heredity or psychology of organic individual.
In the 1948 edition, Kroeber adds new chapters devoted to the nature of culture. He now uses the term culture more often than the term civilization, but he continues to use them synonymously and interchangeably. He also continues to characterize culture as something superorganic and superindividual, although he distinguishes the social from the cultural. His conception of civilization now focuses on patterns and styles that differentiate one civilization from another but his main concern remains in the discovery of generalized principle of civilizational processes throughout human history.
In short, Kroeber treated culture and civilization as synonyms throughout his long academic career and devoted himself to the discovery of the general patterns in the development of human culture or civilization as such. I therefore conclude that Kroeber did not fully achieved paradigmatic shift to the modern anthropological conception of culture. He may not be alone in this, for eminent anthropologists as Robert Redfield, Ralph Linton, Leslie A. White, and Julian H. Steward also concerned themselves with the question of the macro history of human culture or civilization.
In the 1923 edition, Kroeber uses “civilization” and “civilizations” more frequently than “culture” or “cultures” as he did in his classic 1917 paper, “The Superorganic,” and in his 1919 “On the Principle of Order in Civilization as Exemplified by Changes of Fashion,” which examined the long-term trend of stylistic changes in women’s dress. The term civilization is used more or less synonymously with the term culture. Kroeber does not define either of the terms but his usage suggests that civilization is conceived as something social or cultural, that is, superorganic and superindividual, irreducible to heredity or psychology of organic individual.
In the 1948 edition, Kroeber adds new chapters devoted to the nature of culture. He now uses the term culture more often than the term civilization, but he continues to use them synonymously and interchangeably. He also continues to characterize culture as something superorganic and superindividual, although he distinguishes the social from the cultural. His conception of civilization now focuses on patterns and styles that differentiate one civilization from another but his main concern remains in the discovery of generalized principle of civilizational processes throughout human history.
In short, Kroeber treated culture and civilization as synonyms throughout his long academic career and devoted himself to the discovery of the general patterns in the development of human culture or civilization as such. I therefore conclude that Kroeber did not fully achieved paradigmatic shift to the modern anthropological conception of culture. He may not be alone in this, for eminent anthropologists as Robert Redfield, Ralph Linton, Leslie A. White, and Julian H. Steward also concerned themselves with the question of the macro history of human culture or civilization.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
" This paper compares the usages of “culture” and “civilization” in the revised edition of the Mind of Primitive Man published in 1938, and thereby re-examines Franz Boas’ conception of culture at the end of his long academic life.... more
" This paper compares the usages of “culture” and “civilization” in the revised edition of the Mind of Primitive Man published in 1938, and thereby re-examines Franz Boas’ conception of culture at the end of his long academic life.
During the 27-year interval between the first and the revised editions, many classic works as well as introductory textbooks were published in burgeoning American Anthropology both by the students of Boas—namely, A. L. Kroeber, A. A. Goldenweiser, R. H. Lowie, E. Sapir, P. Radin, R. Benedict, and M. Mead—and, by others such as C. Wissler, W. Wallis, and R. Linton. Examination of their writings shows that: (1) Boas’ students not only extended the term “civilization” to primitive peoples but also pluralized it and talked about early or aboriginal “civilizations.” (2) They continued to use the term “culture” or “civilization” in the singular—in a Tylorian sense—to designate the whole traditions, customs and habits of entire humanity. (3) Their definition of “culture” gradually focused on “habits” or learned “patterns” of thought and behavior. (4) Some started to focus on the individuality or personality of a particular culture, e.g. Sapir’s “national genius” and Benedict’s “configuration.”
Textual analysis of Boas’ revised edition reveals that he started to use the term “culture” in the “anthropological” sense as George W. Stocking, Jr. (1968[1966]) calls it, but Boas also retained more “humanistic” elements, such as reason and progress in his conceptualization of “culture.” In 1938, he was still preoccupied with primitive culture as such, not primitive cultures in the plural, and in this sense remained a Tylorian. Moreover, Boas’ conception of “civilization” did not change from the first edition. Unlike his students, he did not extend the term “civilization” to primitive peoples. He still talked about the transition from primitive culture to civilization as progress in rational thought, expansion of the feeling of fellowship, and individual freedom. And, Boas did not change a word in his first edition’s statement of the relativity of civilizations.
Boas’ conception of culture in 1938 was both anthropological and humanistic. Like Herder, he believed in the unity of human mind and the great variability in its cultural manifestations. He also believed in the power of critical reasoning and never-ending progress of humanity toward better knowledge, wider fellowship, and greater freedom. He was a universalistic “civilizational relativist” to the end."
During the 27-year interval between the first and the revised editions, many classic works as well as introductory textbooks were published in burgeoning American Anthropology both by the students of Boas—namely, A. L. Kroeber, A. A. Goldenweiser, R. H. Lowie, E. Sapir, P. Radin, R. Benedict, and M. Mead—and, by others such as C. Wissler, W. Wallis, and R. Linton. Examination of their writings shows that: (1) Boas’ students not only extended the term “civilization” to primitive peoples but also pluralized it and talked about early or aboriginal “civilizations.” (2) They continued to use the term “culture” or “civilization” in the singular—in a Tylorian sense—to designate the whole traditions, customs and habits of entire humanity. (3) Their definition of “culture” gradually focused on “habits” or learned “patterns” of thought and behavior. (4) Some started to focus on the individuality or personality of a particular culture, e.g. Sapir’s “national genius” and Benedict’s “configuration.”
Textual analysis of Boas’ revised edition reveals that he started to use the term “culture” in the “anthropological” sense as George W. Stocking, Jr. (1968[1966]) calls it, but Boas also retained more “humanistic” elements, such as reason and progress in his conceptualization of “culture.” In 1938, he was still preoccupied with primitive culture as such, not primitive cultures in the plural, and in this sense remained a Tylorian. Moreover, Boas’ conception of “civilization” did not change from the first edition. Unlike his students, he did not extend the term “civilization” to primitive peoples. He still talked about the transition from primitive culture to civilization as progress in rational thought, expansion of the feeling of fellowship, and individual freedom. And, Boas did not change a word in his first edition’s statement of the relativity of civilizations.
Boas’ conception of culture in 1938 was both anthropological and humanistic. Like Herder, he believed in the unity of human mind and the great variability in its cultural manifestations. He also believed in the power of critical reasoning and never-ending progress of humanity toward better knowledge, wider fellowship, and greater freedom. He was a universalistic “civilizational relativist” to the end."
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
"" This paper compares the usages of “culture” and “civilization” in the first edition of the Mind of Primitive Man published in 1911, and thereby re-examines Franz Boas’ conception of culture at the time of its publication. George W.... more
"" This paper compares the usages of “culture” and “civilization” in the first edition of the Mind of Primitive Man published in 1911, and thereby re-examines Franz Boas’ conception of culture at the time of its publication.
George W. Stocking, Jr. (1968[1966]) maintains that by 1911 Boas has cast away the humanistic and evolutionary conception of culture in the singular and adopted the anthropological conception of culture in the plural. Stocking (1968[1966]) further insists that he found no usages of the plural form “cultures” in writers other than Boas between 1890 and 1915. Joan Mark (1980), however, found that Frank Hamilton Cushing used “cultures” in his writings in the 1890s, and Takami Kuwayama (personal communication) argues that Lewis Henry Morgan wrote of historically specific cultures in Ancient Society.
This paper found the use of “cultures” in John Wesley Powell (1988), William Henry Holmes (1890, 1897), Otis Tufton Mason (1896,1899), Daniel Garrison Brinton (1894,1895), Jesse Walter Fewkes (1894); they all had the notion of ethnically, regionally or historically specific cultures—if only within the evolutionary framework.
In the Mind of Primitive Man, 1911, Franz Boas used singular “culture” 96 times and plural “cultures” 7 times, while he used singular “civilization” 99 times and plural “civilizations” 9 times. This paper found that none of Boas’ use of “cultures” denoted culturally distinct human groups; Boas does not use the plural “cultures” in modern anthropological sense. His notion of culture has only two meanings: (a) something independent of and opposed to biology, and (b) achievements and advancement of humanity in general. By contrast, his use of plural “civilizations” strongly indicates that Boas conceived of historically and regionally specific politico-religious entities as “civilizations,” sometimes in conflict and mutual contempt. In order that humanity shall overcome such prejudice, Boas advocated civilizational—not cultural—relativism and tolerance.
The Mind of Primitive Man, 1911, was a powerful declaration of the independence of culture from biology—especially from race. However, contrary to Stocking’s thesis, as of 1911, Franz Boas had not cast away the humanistic concept of singular “culture,” had not adopted the anthropological concept of plural “cultures,” and still conceived of the relativity of historically and regionally specific “civilizations,” which collectively were advancing in the course of human progress and were to do so in his days and beyond.""
George W. Stocking, Jr. (1968[1966]) maintains that by 1911 Boas has cast away the humanistic and evolutionary conception of culture in the singular and adopted the anthropological conception of culture in the plural. Stocking (1968[1966]) further insists that he found no usages of the plural form “cultures” in writers other than Boas between 1890 and 1915. Joan Mark (1980), however, found that Frank Hamilton Cushing used “cultures” in his writings in the 1890s, and Takami Kuwayama (personal communication) argues that Lewis Henry Morgan wrote of historically specific cultures in Ancient Society.
This paper found the use of “cultures” in John Wesley Powell (1988), William Henry Holmes (1890, 1897), Otis Tufton Mason (1896,1899), Daniel Garrison Brinton (1894,1895), Jesse Walter Fewkes (1894); they all had the notion of ethnically, regionally or historically specific cultures—if only within the evolutionary framework.
In the Mind of Primitive Man, 1911, Franz Boas used singular “culture” 96 times and plural “cultures” 7 times, while he used singular “civilization” 99 times and plural “civilizations” 9 times. This paper found that none of Boas’ use of “cultures” denoted culturally distinct human groups; Boas does not use the plural “cultures” in modern anthropological sense. His notion of culture has only two meanings: (a) something independent of and opposed to biology, and (b) achievements and advancement of humanity in general. By contrast, his use of plural “civilizations” strongly indicates that Boas conceived of historically and regionally specific politico-religious entities as “civilizations,” sometimes in conflict and mutual contempt. In order that humanity shall overcome such prejudice, Boas advocated civilizational—not cultural—relativism and tolerance.
The Mind of Primitive Man, 1911, was a powerful declaration of the independence of culture from biology—especially from race. However, contrary to Stocking’s thesis, as of 1911, Franz Boas had not cast away the humanistic concept of singular “culture,” had not adopted the anthropological concept of plural “cultures,” and still conceived of the relativity of historically and regionally specific “civilizations,” which collectively were advancing in the course of human progress and were to do so in his days and beyond.""
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
メルヴィル・J・ハースコヴィッツの主張を中心に、２０世紀アメリカ人類学の中心的思想の一つである文化相対主義について、その本来の意味を再確認するとともに、その現代的意義を検討する。
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The purpose of this essay is to question the conventional view that an increase in men's participation in household chores and childcare would promote women to get married and have children. From the perspectives of masculinity studies,... more
The purpose of this essay is to question the conventional view that an increase in men's participation in household chores and childcare would promote women to get married and have children. From the perspectives of masculinity studies, this essay explores historical changes in Japanese men's views on marriage and children and analyzes their impact upon shifts in marriage rates and birthrates. First, this essay presents some statistical data to show that such vies are closely linked with a decline in birthrates. the author argues that marriage is no longer a necessity for Japanese men but merely an option. In fact, many of them do not wish to get married for economic and other reasons or postpone marriage (sometimes indefinitely) until they find "the most ideal" partner. they choose marriage only when they decide to raise children. furthermore, the majority of Japanese men today do not regard children as life security in their old age but as pure joy or as a source of happiness. In economic terms, the utility of children is "consumption utility"; therefore, the "law of diminishing utility" applies to children. Besides, the total cost, both economic and psychological, of having children is on a steady rise, especially for those house-making, child-caring men; hence they are reluctant to have a second child. all these point to the conclusion that the Japanese government policy of encouraging men to participate in household work and childcare, by itself, is not likely to raise Japan's declining birthrates.
Research Interests:
This article argues that the concept of sexual harassment poses a radical challenge to the principles of objectivity and universality that underlie modern law by putting the emotional state of the alleged victim (his/her feeling of “not... more
This article argues that the concept of sexual harassment poses a radical challenge to the principles of objectivity and universality that underlie modern law by putting the emotional state of the alleged victim (his/her feeling of “not wanting” or “unwelcoming” the sexual advance of the alleged offender) as the sole criterion of whether the victim’s right to sexual freedom is violated or not and thereby “subjectifying” the right claims. This article also argues that the concept of domestic violence poses exactly the same challenge to modern law by defining violence as a means used by one spouse for generating fear in the other in order to dominate her/him. Here again, subjective state of mind—fear—is postulated as the criterion of whether an act of violence is committed or not. By “subjectifying” the right claims, the two concepts of sexual harassment and domestic violence radically individualizes and particularizes the criteria of wrongness of conduct. Ostensibly same conduct may or may not be judged as harassment or violence by the alleged victim depending on his/her subjective assessment of violation. The two concepts challenge the basic presupposition underlying modern law, namely, universal application of objective and conduct-based standards in deciding on the criminality or tort damages. The two concepts call for a new radically victim-centered standard of misconduct that places the victim’s sense of repulsion and fear as the sole criterion of harassment and violence. This article finally argues that in the context of a relationship of unequal power the stronger party is held liable for extra care not to offend or threaten the weaker party.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article examines the duties and rights of men as the "siring sex" in the realm of reproduction from a progressive male standpoint. Men as producers and suppliers of sperm are part of the "human reproductive system." Recent studies... more
This article examines the duties and rights of men as the "siring sex" in the realm of reproduction from a progressive male standpoint. Men as producers and suppliers of sperm are part of the "human reproductive system." Recent studies have produced evidence of male-mediated developmental toxicology and reproductive hazards. Male sexuality as constituted now also has deleterious effects on men's mental and social health. More attention needs to be paid to male reproductive health. Reproductive rights were advocated originally as "women's right to self-determination." Men as the "siring sex" are obliged to recognize and honor women's autonomy. The fact that men contribute sperm to reproduction does not grant them the right to force abortion or delivery. The sexual asymmetry and inequality in reproduction precludes men from sharing equal rights with women in this matter. In order to overcome patriarchy and male domination, and to uphold gender equality and justice, men ought to fulfill their duty to respect women's rights and children's rights in the reproductive realm. To do so, however, men need certain resources and economic, social, and political support systems. This leads the author to propose that the state and society grant men the "rights to fulfill duties" as a new set of social rights, which should include men's (fathers') right to reproductively safe work, health, and environment.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper describes a few examples of intricate human relationships that link large corporations in Taiwan, and thereby examines the role played by personal networks in the making of the so-called guanxiqiye or" related... more
This paper describes a few examples of intricate human relationships that link large corporations in Taiwan, and thereby examines the role played by personal networks in the making of the so-called guanxiqiye or" related enterprises," a Chinese version of business ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
To conserve space for the publication of original contributions to scholarship, the comments in this section must be limited to brief critiques. They are expected to address specific errors or flaws in articles and reviews published in... more
To conserve space for the publication of original contributions to scholarship, the comments in this section must be limited to brief critiques. They are expected to address specific errors or flaws in articles and reviews published in the AJS. Comments on articles are not to ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
... For instance, Cai Wanchun, a partner and coinvestor of Lin Dingli in Cathay Insurance Co. Ltd. founded in 1961, called upon his brother, Cai Wande, to establish a new and separate company, Cathay Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in 1962. ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
本報告では、藍弋丰による小説版『海角七号』を、魏徳聖映画『海角七号』のポストコロニアル批評の一例と捉え、その特徴を考察したうえで、魏徳聖映画『海角七号』がどのような作品として浮かび上がってくるかを論じる。
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
本報告は、台湾映画『ＫＡＮＯ～1931海の向こうの甲子園』（魏徳聖・黄志明・馬志翔2014、以下『ＫＡＮＯ』と略記）の描く植民地台湾と帝国日本が、「戦後」に「日本人」 として生れた「この私」にはどのように見えるかを反省的（reflexive）に検討する試みである。その課題は、旧帝国出身の人類学者が旧植民地を対象として研究を行う際、フィールドで遭遇する帝国的過去とどう向き合うべきかを、報告者自身の立場と経験に即して問い質すことである。... more
本報告は、台湾映画『ＫＡＮＯ～1931海の向こうの甲子園』（魏徳聖・黄志明・馬志翔2014、以下『ＫＡＮＯ』と略記）の描く植民地台湾と帝国日本が、「戦後」に「日本人」 として生れた「この私」にはどのように見えるかを反省的（reflexive）に検討する試みである。その課題は、旧帝国出身の人類学者が旧植民地を対象として研究を行う際、フィールドで遭遇する帝国的過去とどう向き合うべきかを、報告者自身の立場と経験に即して問い質すことである。
その題材として、1931年夏の甲子園大会に台湾代表として出場し、準優勝を果たした嘉義農林学校の史実を物語化した映画『ＫＡＮＯ1931海の向こうの甲子園』を取り上げる。それは、この映画が、台湾の植民地的過去と日本の帝国的過去をポストコロニアルに「表象／代表（represent）」する作品だからである。この映画を「観る」ことで、報告者は、日本のポストインペリアル状況と帝国的過去との連続と断絶を問い直すのみならず、ポストインペリアル日本とポストコロニアル台湾との関係性を見つめ直したいのである。
本報告の目的は、『ＫＡＮＯ』のチーフプロデューサーであり、脚本を執筆している魏德聖の製作意図を問うことではないし、『ＫＡＮＯ』をポストコロニアル作品として分析することでもない。そうではなくて、ひとりの「日本人」であり、人類学者であり、また台湾研究者でもあるという「この私」の立場性が、どのように『ＫＡＮＯ』を報告者に見せ、何を感じさせ、何を考えさせるのかを明らかにすることである。報告者は、1986年から1989年にかけて、博士論文研究のために台湾に滞在した際、思いがけず、日本の帝国的過去との生々しい出会いを体験し、自らが「帝国的過去に連なる者」であり、その立場性から決して逃れられないことを痛切に自覚した（沼崎2016）。しかし、同時に、そのような自己の立場性とどう向き合えばいいのか大いに困惑した。その困惑は、30年後の今も変わらない。本報告は、この困惑と向き合う2度目の試みとなる 。
本報告では、「東北人」という報告者の立場性も問題となることを、あらかじめ述べておきたい。それは、第1に『ＫＡＮＯ』が甲子園を描いているからである。この映画を観ながら、報告者は「東北」と甲子園の関係を思い出していた。そのことの意味も掘り下げてみたい。
その題材として、1931年夏の甲子園大会に台湾代表として出場し、準優勝を果たした嘉義農林学校の史実を物語化した映画『ＫＡＮＯ1931海の向こうの甲子園』を取り上げる。それは、この映画が、台湾の植民地的過去と日本の帝国的過去をポストコロニアルに「表象／代表（represent）」する作品だからである。この映画を「観る」ことで、報告者は、日本のポストインペリアル状況と帝国的過去との連続と断絶を問い直すのみならず、ポストインペリアル日本とポストコロニアル台湾との関係性を見つめ直したいのである。
本報告の目的は、『ＫＡＮＯ』のチーフプロデューサーであり、脚本を執筆している魏德聖の製作意図を問うことではないし、『ＫＡＮＯ』をポストコロニアル作品として分析することでもない。そうではなくて、ひとりの「日本人」であり、人類学者であり、また台湾研究者でもあるという「この私」の立場性が、どのように『ＫＡＮＯ』を報告者に見せ、何を感じさせ、何を考えさせるのかを明らかにすることである。報告者は、1986年から1989年にかけて、博士論文研究のために台湾に滞在した際、思いがけず、日本の帝国的過去との生々しい出会いを体験し、自らが「帝国的過去に連なる者」であり、その立場性から決して逃れられないことを痛切に自覚した（沼崎2016）。しかし、同時に、そのような自己の立場性とどう向き合えばいいのか大いに困惑した。その困惑は、30年後の今も変わらない。本報告は、この困惑と向き合う2度目の試みとなる 。
本報告では、「東北人」という報告者の立場性も問題となることを、あらかじめ述べておきたい。それは、第1に『ＫＡＮＯ』が甲子園を描いているからである。この映画を観ながら、報告者は「東北」と甲子園の関係を思い出していた。そのことの意味も掘り下げてみたい。
Research Interests:
This paper attempts to "view," from a "postimperial" perspective, the Taiwanese Film KANO, a story of a middle school baseball team of Japanese, Taiwanese and the Aboriginal players from Taiwan that went to the summer Koshien tournament... more
This paper attempts to "view," from a "postimperial" perspective, the Taiwanese Film KANO, a story of a middle school baseball team of Japanese, Taiwanese and the Aboriginal players from Taiwan that went to the summer Koshien tournament in 1931, and explore how a Japanese anthropologist—who grew up and lives in “postimperial” Japan and who has some field experience in “postcolonial” Taiwan—sees colonial and imperial landscapes depicted in the film. This paper is an exercise in what I envision as “postimperial” critique. By "postimperial" I mean a positionality occupied by anthropologists who originate in those former empires that possessed and ruled overseas colonies in the 19th and 20th centuries. Japan is one of those empires and I am a descendent of the dominant majority of Imperial Japan. It is my belief that as a “Japanese” anthropologist I must develop a “postimperial” perspective so that I will be able to engage in critical and reflexive dialogue with “postcolonial” critics. In this paper, I shall examine first the “Taiwanese” views of colonial and imperial landscapes of Taiwan and Japan in the 1930s and 40s and then the “Japanese” views of those landscapes. I shall present a “postimperial” view, which and discuss how it differs from both “imperial” and “anti-imperial” views that I find in the Japanese discourse on “KANO.” My discussion will revolve around the issues of imperial modernity and its masculine nature as well as around the continuities and discontinuities between imperial and “postimperial” Japan.
Research Interests:
本発表の目的は、旧帝国出身の人類学者が旧植民地を対象として研究を行う際、フィールドで遭遇する帝国的過去とどう向き合うべきか、台湾という日本の旧植民地を研究する「この私」の体験を素材として、反省的（reflexive）に問い質すことである。 発表者は、台湾をフィールドに選んだ時から、ポストコロニアリズムの挑戦をどう受け止めればよいのか悩み続けてきた。本発表は、この長年の悩みを誠実に悩み通す試みの一環である。... more
本発表の目的は、旧帝国出身の人類学者が旧植民地を対象として研究を行う際、フィールドで遭遇する帝国的過去とどう向き合うべきか、台湾という日本の旧植民地を研究する「この私」の体験を素材として、反省的（reflexive）に問い質すことである。
発表者は、台湾をフィールドに選んだ時から、ポストコロニアリズムの挑戦をどう受け止めればよいのか悩み続けてきた。本発表は、この長年の悩みを誠実に悩み通す試みの一環である。
ポストコロニアリズムと呼ばれる思想は、様々な分野に跨がり、様々な流れを含んでいるが、通底するのは「植民地支配の後遺症を幻想化し、あるいは忘却しようとする健忘症への理論的抵抗」（Gandhi 1998:4）であろう。ポストコロニアリズムと呼ばれる学問的実践は、「植民地支配と民族独立の境界を越えて流通」しうる「表象、読解実践、態度と価値の異質な諸形態」（McLeod 2010:6）を取り上げつつ、「植民地的過去を、再訪し、想起し、そして決定的に重要なことだが、審問する」（Gandhi 1998:4）取り組みである。
ポストコロニアリズム運動の主要な担い手は、旧植民地出身の知識人たちであった。彼らのポジショナリティは、旧植民地の側にあり、自らのポストコロニアル体験を基礎に、「植民地支配と民族独立の境界を越えて流通」する「表象、読解実践、態度と価値の異質な諸形態」を問題化したのであった。そうであったからこそ、ポストコロニアリズムの西洋批判は西洋アカデミズムの中心で一定の地歩を築きえたのであろう。
それでは、旧帝国出身の人類学者である「この私」のポジショナリティはどこにあり、「この私」はポストコロニアリズムとどう向き合えばよいのか。ポストコロニアリズムの挑戦を受けて、同じように「植民地支配と民族独立の間の境界を越えて流通」する「表象、読解実践、態度と価値の異質な諸形態」を問題化するとしても、「この私」のポジショナリティは旧帝国の側にこそあれ、旧植民地の側にはないし、「この私」にあるのはポストインペリアル体験であって、ポストコロニアル体験ではない。それならば、「この私」が再訪し、想起し、審問すべきは日本の帝国的過去であり、日本のポストインペリアル状況ではないのか。
そこで、本発表では、ポストコロニアリズムの対概念としてポストインペリアリズムという概念を提起し、旧帝国出身者による帝国的過去の「再訪、想起、審問」の方法論を探りたい。なぜなら、日本の台湾研究においては、ポストコロニアリズムが知的に「消費」されることはあっても、日本人研究者のポストインペリアルなポジショナリティが本格的に俎上に載せられたことは未だないからである。もちろん、この問題を誰も「忘れているわけではない」（植野2011:3）。そうではないが、帝国的過去を語る言葉を持ちえずにいたというのが、正直なところではないだろうか。自身が帝国的過去に連なる者の立場にいることを自覚化しつつ、帝国的過去を問題化する言葉を見出したいというのが、本発表の問題意識である。
発表者は、台湾をフィールドに選んだ時から、ポストコロニアリズムの挑戦をどう受け止めればよいのか悩み続けてきた。本発表は、この長年の悩みを誠実に悩み通す試みの一環である。
ポストコロニアリズムと呼ばれる思想は、様々な分野に跨がり、様々な流れを含んでいるが、通底するのは「植民地支配の後遺症を幻想化し、あるいは忘却しようとする健忘症への理論的抵抗」（Gandhi 1998:4）であろう。ポストコロニアリズムと呼ばれる学問的実践は、「植民地支配と民族独立の境界を越えて流通」しうる「表象、読解実践、態度と価値の異質な諸形態」（McLeod 2010:6）を取り上げつつ、「植民地的過去を、再訪し、想起し、そして決定的に重要なことだが、審問する」（Gandhi 1998:4）取り組みである。
ポストコロニアリズム運動の主要な担い手は、旧植民地出身の知識人たちであった。彼らのポジショナリティは、旧植民地の側にあり、自らのポストコロニアル体験を基礎に、「植民地支配と民族独立の境界を越えて流通」する「表象、読解実践、態度と価値の異質な諸形態」を問題化したのであった。そうであったからこそ、ポストコロニアリズムの西洋批判は西洋アカデミズムの中心で一定の地歩を築きえたのであろう。
それでは、旧帝国出身の人類学者である「この私」のポジショナリティはどこにあり、「この私」はポストコロニアリズムとどう向き合えばよいのか。ポストコロニアリズムの挑戦を受けて、同じように「植民地支配と民族独立の間の境界を越えて流通」する「表象、読解実践、態度と価値の異質な諸形態」を問題化するとしても、「この私」のポジショナリティは旧帝国の側にこそあれ、旧植民地の側にはないし、「この私」にあるのはポストインペリアル体験であって、ポストコロニアル体験ではない。それならば、「この私」が再訪し、想起し、審問すべきは日本の帝国的過去であり、日本のポストインペリアル状況ではないのか。
そこで、本発表では、ポストコロニアリズムの対概念としてポストインペリアリズムという概念を提起し、旧帝国出身者による帝国的過去の「再訪、想起、審問」の方法論を探りたい。なぜなら、日本の台湾研究においては、ポストコロニアリズムが知的に「消費」されることはあっても、日本人研究者のポストインペリアルなポジショナリティが本格的に俎上に載せられたことは未だないからである。もちろん、この問題を誰も「忘れているわけではない」（植野2011:3）。そうではないが、帝国的過去を語る言葉を持ちえずにいたというのが、正直なところではないだろうか。自身が帝国的過去に連なる者の立場にいることを自覚化しつつ、帝国的過去を問題化する言葉を見出したいというのが、本発表の問題意識である。
Research Interests:
This paper analyzes the Taiwanese authors’ views of Japan written in Japanese to be read by the Japanese audience and explores how I as a Japanese anthropologist may re-view them. A unique linguistic space of Japanese discourse across... more
This paper analyzes the Taiwanese authors’ views of Japan written in Japanese to be read by the Japanese audience and explores how I as a Japanese anthropologist may re-view them. A unique linguistic space of Japanese discourse across Taiwan and Japan has emerged as a result of the fifty years of Japanese colonial rule and the complex political, economic, social, and cultural connections in the post-colonial era. One significant component of this linguistic space is the Taiwanese authors’ interpretations and understandings of Japan and the Japanese people. The authors include journalists, business people, politicians as well as scholars. Some of the writings are obviously political in nature but nonetheless reveal how Taiwanese people “relate to” Japan under post-colonial conditions. They cannot be dismissed merely as propaganda. This paper attempts to re-view them from what I would like to call a “post-imperial” (as opposed to postcolonial) perspective. That is to say, I shall seriously and critically take into account my positionality of a Japanese specialist on Taiwan living and working in “post-imperial” Japan in my re-viewing of the Taiwanese writings. This paper strives to engage in a dialectics of post-colonial and post-imperial encounters in the hope that such an endeavor will contribute to better mutual understandings for transnational cooperation in East Asia today.
Research Interests:
This paper proposes “auto-anthropology” as a viable method of studying the individual anthropologically. I shall argue that anthropologically informed personal stories make a genuine contribution to the anthropology of the individual.... more
This paper proposes “auto-anthropology” as a viable method of studying the individual anthropologically. I shall argue that anthropologically informed personal stories make a genuine contribution to the anthropology of the individual. I shall also propose that every anthropologist should attempt at “auto-anthropological” story-telling of his or her own life.
Research Interests:
This paper proposes a new concept for grasping the social and psychological positionality of cross-culturally raised children in their “home” societies. Due to their acquisition of alien cultural habits, those boundary-crossing children... more
This paper proposes a new concept for grasping the social and psychological positionality of cross-culturally raised children in their “home” societies. Due to their acquisition of alien cultural habits, those boundary-crossing children feel that they are “different” and “strange” in the eyes of the people around them. These children, however, have a strong sense of connection to the people around them through kinship and other relationships, shared habits and tastes, common dialects, and so on. Same but different, separated yet connected—I would like to name this state of cultural awareness “ethnoperipheralism.” The naming is in contrast to ethnocentrism—the “natural” tendency of a group to regard its customs and practices as the only way and as superior to those of other groups. Ethnoperipheralism, I argue, is the “natural” tendency of children who have acquired alien cultural habits to regard the customs and practices of the “home” group neither as the only way nor as superior to those of the other groups of which they have concrete knowledge and experience. In this paper, I shall examine ethnoperipheralism in the life and work of Taiwanese anthropologist, David Y. H. Wu, as revealed in his autobiography, and compare his case with my own life and work.
Research Interests:
This paper tells stories of my life as a returnee kid in Sendai, a foreign student in Michigan, and an American-trained anthropologist in Sendai again, examines how the author's social and cultural positionality has developed and changed,... more
This paper tells stories of my life as a returnee kid in Sendai, a foreign student in Michigan, and an American-trained anthropologist in Sendai again, examines how the author's social and cultural positionality has developed and changed, and discusses how such swinging positionality has influenced the author's attitude to Japan studies.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper tells a story about my life as an anthropologist who is both “native” and “alien” to Japanese society. I am a native in that I was born to Japanese parents of prewar generation and was raised within a “genuine” Japanese family... more
This paper tells a story about my life as an anthropologist who is both “native” and “alien” to Japanese society. I am a native in that I was born to Japanese parents of prewar generation and was raised within a “genuine” Japanese family in Sendai, Japan. I consider Sendai home, where I now live and work, and I love the city in its entirety. I strongly identify myself with the people and culture of Sendai city and Tohoku region of Japan. I am also an alien, however, in that I spent two years of my early life from five to seven years old in Buffalo, New York, USA, which fact tuned me into a “returnee kid.” I later spent altogether five years at Michigan State University studying anthropology. I am doubly “Americanized.” I acquired American language and habits early on and I absorbed American anthropology in my early adulthood. Both became part and parcel of my way of life. As a result, I constantly oscillate between being a native and being an alien, between acting—as a native or an alien—and watching all that as an anthropologist. In this paper, I shall examine several episodes in which my native side collides with my alien side under the watchful eyes of my anthropologist side and discuss what that all means to me and potentially to anthropology as a discipline.
Research Interests:
This paper presents my personal experience of the Great East Japan Earthquake and its aftermath and my reflection on the historically constructed political and economic inequalities that made the region peculiarly vulnerable to... more
This paper presents my personal experience of the Great East Japan Earthquake and its aftermath and my reflection on the historically constructed political and economic inequalities that made the region peculiarly vulnerable to disasters. I argue first that the reconstruction must include rectification of inequalities that existed prior to the disaster and second that reconstruction ought not create new inequalities in the disaster-affected communities.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper reports what I tried in teaching about the "September 11" and its aftermath in my introductory anthropology classes at Japanese universities. Having watched the media coverage of the tragedies in New York and Washington DC and... more
This paper reports what I tried in teaching about the "September 11" and its aftermath in my introductory anthropology classes at Japanese universities. Having watched the media coverage of the tragedies in New York and Washington DC and the US reaction to them, I was alarmed by their presentation of "terrorism" as if there was a particular culture or faith behind the mass murder committed on September 11. To counter such a media campaign, I tried three things in the fall semester last year. First, I tried to deconstruct the media induced image of "turban, beard and machine gun" that implanted unwarranted fear of the "unknown other" in the minds of students. Second, I tried to familiarize so-called "fundamentalism" by pointing out fundamentalist tendencies in students' own everyday life. Third, I assigned an ethnography on Muslim society and provided alternative interpretations of the lives of Muslim women in order to put the media frenzy on "oppression of Afghan women" in an anthropologically informed perspective. By such methods, I strove to place the "September 11" in a wider cross-cultural context. From their response, I found out that my effort helped students acquire more critical attitude toward media and more tolerant attitude toward cultural differences. I hope this paper will offer a positive example in anthropological pedagogy for tolerance, peace, and culturally informed sense of justice.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
張小虹著（橋本恭子訳）『フェイクタイワン―偽りの台湾から偽りのグローバリゼーションへ』（東方書店、2017）の「解説」の中国語訳。原書：《假全球化》聯合文學出版社有限公司，2007。
Research Interests:
張小虹著（橋本恭子訳）『フェイクタイワン－偽りの台湾から偽りのグローバリゼーションへ』（東方書店、2017）の「解説」
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
「通り魔殺人」事件についてのエッセイ
Research Interests:
いわゆる「ニュー選択的夫婦別姓訴訟」一審判決へのコメント
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
２０１５年１２月１６日、最高裁大法廷が夫婦別姓を認めない民法７５０条を合憲とした判決の分析。
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The book under review is a collection of papers originally presented at an interdisci-plinary conference, cosponsored by National Taiwan University and the Univer-sity ofWashington and held in Seattle in the summer of 1990. In general, I... more
The book under review is a collection of papers originally presented at an interdisci-plinary conference, cosponsored by National Taiwan University and the Univer-sity ofWashington and held in Seattle in the summer of 1990. In general, I find the book full of significant findings ...
Research Interests:
HIS article focuses on laoban or “bosses” who own and manage small and medium-scale enterprises and analyzes their attitudes and behavioral patterns. This article also attempts to examine the structural features of the Taiwan society that... more
HIS article focuses on laoban or “bosses” who own and manage small and medium-scale enterprises and analyzes their attitudes and behavioral patterns. This article also attempts to examine the structural features of the Taiwan society that underlay and sustained the entrepreneurial activities by laoban, and thereby elucidate the social context in which private business developed in Taiwan. The reason for focusing on laoban is twofold. First, Taiwan’s economic development, especially export-oriented industrialization, is driven by tens of thousands of small and medium-scale shops and firms. Second, it is tens of thousands of laoban who founded those petty enterprises, expanded them to medium-sized operations, and sometimes developed them into large-scale business groups called guanxiqiye. For instance, Wang Yongqing, the founding father of Formosa Plastics Group which is one of the largest industrial guanxiqiye in Taiwan, started as the laoban of a tiny lumber shop (Numazaki 1992, pp. 131–37). Laoban are the driving force of Taiwan’s economic development. What type of entrepreneurs are laoban? Why did the Taiwan society produced so many laoban? In order to answer these questions, I shall describe the basic characteristics of laoban and analyze the structural and historical features of the Taiwan society that fostered and sustained the laoban-led development of business enterprises in Taiwan. But before doing so, I shall briefly outline the political and economic conditions to which laoban had to adapt. The Developing Economies, XXXV-4 (December 1997): 440–57
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Based on my own experience as both a student and a teacher, this paper illuminates the “gap” between the systems of anthropology education in Japanese and American universities, and argues that the major “gap” between the Japanese and the... more
Based on my own experience as both a student and a teacher, this paper illuminates the “gap” between the systems of anthropology education in Japanese and American universities, and argues that the major “gap” between the Japanese and the American systems of anthropology education lies in the number of professional anthropologists in the unit of teaching and that small Japanese programs with just a handful of anthropologists can offer only general apprenticeship-type training while large American departments with at least fifteen or more anthropologists can provide a wide range of courses and advisory committees of specialists matching the areas of concentration chosen by graduate students. I conclude that this “gap” in the size and style of anthropology education explains why more “star” anthropologists are produced in America than in Japan.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper proposes “auto-anthropology” as a viable method of studying the individual anthropologically. By reflexively examining one’s own life history in its cultural and social contexts “from inside” those contexts, “auto-anthropology”... more
This paper proposes “auto-anthropology” as a viable method of studying the individual anthropologically. By reflexively examining one’s own life history in its cultural and social contexts “from inside” those contexts, “auto-anthropology” can illuminate a peculiar way of life in the form of anthropologically informed personal story. I shall examine classics such as Paul Radin’s Crashing Thunder and Oscar Lewis’s Children of Sanchez as well as more recent reflexive autobiographies by anthropologists, and proposes that these “auto-anthropological” works should be read not as case illustrations of larger culture but as genuine attempts at the anthropological study of the individual. The individual and his or her “way of life” revealed and told through his or her own words and concepts may be or ought to be the most important “subject” of anthropology in the post-postmodernist/post-poststructuralist era. It is no longer possible to confidently speak of “culture” or “society” not only be...
Research Interests:
This paper proposes a new concept for grasping the social and psychological positionality of cross-culturally raised children in their “home” societies. Due to their acquisition of alien cultural habits, those boundary-crossing children... more
This paper proposes a new concept for grasping the social and psychological positionality of cross-culturally raised children in their “home” societies. Due to their acquisition of alien cultural habits, those boundary-crossing children feel that they are “different” and “strange” in the eyes of the people around them. These children, however, have a strong sense of connection to the people around them through kinship and other relationships, shared habits and tastes, common dialects, and so on. Same but different, separated yet connected—I would like to name this state of cultural awareness “ethnoperipheralism.” The naming is in contrast to ethnocentrism—the “natural” tendency of a group to regard its customs and practices as the only way and as superior to those of other groups. Ethnoperipheralism, I argue, is the “natural” tendency of children who have acquired alien cultural habits to regard the customs and practices of the “home” group neither as the only way nor as superior to...
Research Interests:
This paper tells a story about my life as an anthropologist who is both “native” and “alien” to Japanese society. I am a native in that I was born to Japanese parents of prewar generation and was raised within a “genuine” Japanese family... more
This paper tells a story about my life as an anthropologist who is both “native” and “alien” to Japanese society. I am a native in that I was born to Japanese parents of prewar generation and was raised within a “genuine” Japanese family in Sendai, Japan. I consider Sendai home, where I now live and work, and I love the city in its entirety. I strongly identify myself with the people and culture of Sendai city and Tohoku region of Japan. I am also an alien, however, in that I spent two years of my early life from five to seven years old in Buffalo, New York, USA, which fact tuned me into a “returnee kid.” I later spent altogether five years at Michigan State University studying anthropology. I am doubly “Americanized.” I acquired American language and habits early on and I absorbed American anthropology in my early adulthood. Both became part and parcel of my way of life. As a result, I constantly oscillate between being a native and being an alien, between acting—as a native or an ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article examines the nature of corporate interlocks among a select sample of the business elite in contemporary Taiwan. The work specifically focuses on a group of Taiwanese entre-preneurial families who entered the world of commerce... more
This article examines the nature of corporate interlocks among a select sample of the business elite in contemporary Taiwan. The work specifically focuses on a group of Taiwanese entre-preneurial families who entered the world of commerce and industry during the Japanese colonial period, then after the Second World War continued, transformed and expanded their enterprises, and became today the island’s business leaders. The present research is part of a planned larger project, the aim of which is to understand the social organization and power structure of the capitalist class in modern Taiwan and to reconstruct its historical development since the colonial era. This article, therefore, constitutes a preliminary study toward these long-range goals. Taiwan’s unprecedented economic growth in the past three decades has attracted considerable attention among social scien-tints. But, apart from a few studies on individual characteristics
Research Interests:
This paper proposes a concept for understanding a peculiar state of cultural awareness that some cross-cultura lly raised children develop in relation to their “home” society—that elusive entity to which they are nevertheless intimately... more
This paper proposes a concept for understanding a peculiar state of cultural awareness that some cross-cultura lly raised children develop in relation to their “home” society—that elusive entity to which they are nevertheless intimately connected through family, friends, food, clothing, speech, seasonal events, and other “trivial habits in daily living” (Benedict 2005[1946]:10). What I have in mind here is a situation where a child due to his/her acquisition of alien cultural habits feels that she/he is “different” from the people who he/she thinks are the “same” as her/himself. The child in such a situation experiences the dissonance between “I” and “They” although she/he retains the feeling that both “I” and “They” are part of “We.” In other words, the child identifies her/himself with the people around him/her yet at the same time realizes a sharp divide between her/himself and those people; he/she develops a sense of both sharp separation from and strong connection to those peop...
Research Interests:
This paper examines my own “ethnic experience” in Honolulu, Hawaii, and attempts to analyze the nature of connectedness that I felt in that experience. I was a “Japanese” intern at the East West Center for one year from October 1985 to... more
This paper examines my own “ethnic experience” in Honolulu, Hawaii, and attempts to analyze the nature of connectedness that I felt in that experience. I was a “Japanese” intern at the East West Center for one year from October 1985 to September 1986: 27 when I arrived and turned 28 when I left. Hawaii was but one page in my youthful life history and the most significant script on that page was my “ethnic” awakening. I experienced many things that appeared “ethnic” to me. As a student in anthropology, I knew the theories of ethnicity current at that time but I felt that none of them really helped me understand what I was experiencing. I tried to make sense of my “ethnic” experience but did not really think through it then; I had to leave Hawaii for my dissertation research in Taiwan, and the three years there would profoundly affect me.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article examines certain features of the conception of human rights as held by some ordinary Japanese by analyzing the contents of essavs that won prizes in the 2002 Junior High School Human Rights Essay Contest. Textual analysis... more
This article examines certain features of the conception of human rights as held by some ordinary Japanese by analyzing the contents of essavs that won prizes in the 2002 Junior High School Human Rights Essay Contest. Textual analysis shows that the essayists conceive of "human rights" (jinken ~n Japanese) as rights held by the physical or culturally different Other who suffers from prejudice and discrimination. The Japanese conception of human rights in short is a special right of "dehumanized" minorities, which differs from the "Western" notion of human rights as a set of universal rights of all human beings. In contrast to the Western emphasis on a "classic" set of political and civil rights of citizens vis-a-vis the state, the Japanese have developed a more "personalized" notion of human rights that focuses on recognizing and respecting human dignity in interpersqnal relationships in the private sphere.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
To conserve space for the publication of original contributions to scholarship, the comments in this section must be limited to brief critiques. They are expected to address specific errors or flaws in articles and reviews published in... more
To conserve space for the publication of original contributions to scholarship, the comments in this section must be limited to brief critiques. They are expected to address specific errors or flaws in articles and reviews published in the AJS. Comments on articles are not to ...
Research Interests:
... English-Language Journals in Social/Cultural Anthropology Published in Japan. Ichiro NUMAZAKI. Full Text: Subscribers Only.