@article{oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00003939,
 author = {大野, あきこ and Ono, Akiko},
 issue = {3},
 journal = {国立民族学博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology},
 month = {Feb},
 note = {Australian society has been transformed from a settler colony to a multicultural
nation state, having passed through the racially discriminative White
Australia Policy. The problems of present-day anthropology in terms of disciplinary
survival among the competing social sciences derive from the historical
particularities which this process of transformation of Australian society
has generated. This paper briefly reviews the discourses of official Australian
multiculturalism, followed by a history of anthropology in Australia. It then
explores the present-day problems and possibilities of anthropology. Lastly, I
offer some suggestions as to what might be useful in the task of solving these
problems.
Multiculturalism was introduced into Australia to serve the official policy
of controlling the diversification of domestic ethnic minority groups. Its
fundamental concept consists in maintaining integration into the public social
system while aiming at controlling the ethnic minority groups of immigrants
from hundreds of different cultural backgrounds. The official discourses of
Australian multiculturalism have emphasised the national identity which is
expected to grow on the basis of the mainstream ‘Anglo-Celtic’ culture. As
to the development of the institutionalisation of anthropology in Australia,
it is important to look at past national expectations of the uses of anthropology
for colonial administration at home and later in Papua New Guinea especially,
and also, in the present, to the diversifying interdisciplinary enterprises
and projects in the applied social sciences, although the history of the push to
institutionalise Australian anthropology was driven by intellectual fascination
with Aboriginal societies and cultures. There has never been an Australian
school or even style of anthropology in Australia. Expatriates have occupied
the majority of the Australian chairs over the years, which has led ‘anthropology
in Australia’ (rather than ‘Australian anthropology’) to be influenced by
most of the schools and currents to be found elsewhere. Postgraduate training,
however, today seems to be overly project-centred, i.e., being exposed to
a higher educational milieu in Australia does not necessarily mean one can
internalise the discipline’s own codes and standards of research, theoretical
frames of reference and so on. Aboriginal studies have been resurrected by
the need for involvement in land claims and native title cases regarding which
anthropologists must deal with the frame of recognition of ‘unchanging’ tradition
and culture imposed by legislators. Those who attempt to do anthropology
at home are extending their research interests beyond ethnic minority
groups and white Australian communities into such differences as gender,
class and so on. I conclude by suggesting that anthropology’s challenges lie in
better appreciating the role of fieldwork and ethnography as well as rethinking
the dichotomy between ‘home’ and ‘the field’.},
 pages = {359--395},
 title = {「マルチカルチュラル」オーストラリアにおける人類学},
 volume = {33},
 year = {2009},
 yomi = {オオノ, アキコ}
}