ログイン
言語:

WEKO3

  • トップ
  • ランキング
To
lat lon distance
To

Field does not validate



インデックスリンク

インデックスツリー

メールアドレスを入力してください。

WEKO

One fine body…

WEKO

One fine body…

アイテム

  1. 国立民族学博物館研究報告
  2. 21巻4号

ポストモダン人類学の代価 : ブリコルールの戦術と生活の場の人類学

https://doi.org/10.15021/00004158
https://doi.org/10.15021/00004158
6807d8e9-c18d-4921-8084-a90319578cdf
名前 / ファイル ライセンス アクション
KH_021_4_003.pdf KH_021_4_003.pdf (4.8 MB)
Item type 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1)
公開日 2010-02-16
タイトル
タイトル ポストモダン人類学の代価 : ブリコルールの戦術と生活の場の人類学
タイトル
タイトル The Price of Postmodern Anthropology
言語 en
言語
言語 jpn
キーワード
主題Scheme Other
主題 オリエンタリズム|本質主義|アイデンティティの政治学|伝統の発明|ブリコラージュ
キーワード
言語 en
主題Scheme Other
主題 Orientalism|essentialism|politics of identity|invention of tradition|'bricolaze'
資源タイプ
資源タイプ識別子 http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
資源タイプ departmental bulletin paper
ID登録
ID登録 10.15021/00004158
ID登録タイプ JaLC
著者 小田, 亮

× 小田, 亮

小田, 亮

ja-Kana オダ, マコト

en Oda, Makoto

Search repository
抄録
内容記述タイプ Abstract
内容記述 The purpose of this paper is not to propound an overview of the
literature of postmodern anthropology, but to consider what questions
some recent controversies by postmodernists about Edward Said's Orientalism,
the issue of ethnographic realism, and cultural construction remain
unconsidered because of the postmodernist paradigm which
overemphasizes a theoretical opposition between essentialism and constructionism.
Postmodernists as cultural constructionists stand in opposition to
cultural essentialism. They criticize a set of reductive and specific
categories, such as `culture', `tradition', 'race' and 'nation', through
which academic ethnographers confer a discrete or specific identity and
use to survey other cultures. For postmodernists, realism, objectivism
or essentialism inevitably turns out to be neocolonialism, racism or Orientalism.
Postmodernists insist on casting out ethnographic realism,
which assumes that an ethnographer can represent objectivery the
essence of a particular culture as a whole, and which assures anthropologists
of their ethnographic authority to define culture and to tell
`authentic' culture from something `impure' or `spurious' .
Said's Orientalism [1978] is a critical study of cultural essentialism.
Said points out that Orientalism is "a Western style for dominating,
restructuring, and having authority over the Orient", and a systematic
displine which enabled European culture to gain a consistent identity by
setting itself off against the Orient.
Recently, Said has been criticised for his essentialism or realism by
some postmodernists. They accuse him of "Occidentalism", reversed
Orientalism, to blame the West. However these postmodernists' objections
against Said are not to the point, and they show their own dilemma,
not Said's.
Postmodernists or postcolonial anthropologists have also criticized
The Invention of Tradition [1983], edited by Eric Hobsbawm and
Terence Ranger, for not relinquishing objective distinctions between `genuine'
traditions and 'spurious' ones, that is, for essentialism or objectivism.
But, on the other hand, when indigenous nationalist practice or
discourse is subject to the analysis of cultural invention, not only an objectivist
analysis (e.g., Keesing) but also a constructionist one (e.g., Linnekin)
are politically blamed by native nationalists or postcolonial elites
for disturbing the natives' recovery of their `specific identity' or 'authentic'
tradition.
The Postmodernists' standpoint of thoroughgoing constructionism
or 'deconstruction', from which they criticize Hobsbawm and Keesing
for being politically incorrect, has kept them in a predicament, because if
they stick to such constructionism they could themselves be accused of
political incorrectness.
I believe that their predicament comes from the misleading
dichotomy between essentialism and constructionism. Within this
framework, we are given the false choice of 'politics of identity' based on
a consistent and specific identity such as nationality, ethnicity and sexuality,
or 'deconstruction' of even fragmentary or partial truths the
'subalterns' live by. This choice is a red herring because it conceals the
probability that one gains a postive self according to circumstances
without a consistent self-identity.
Constructionists are wrong in their Enlightenment assumption that
one should act or speak consistently and rationally according to his/her attribution.
They have a tendency to consider cultural construction or 'objectification'
to be conscious manipulation about culture, because they
think that it contains ethnographic authority at its base to point out
cultural construction which other people have done without knowing it.
However such thought is not free from the Enlightenment thought about
'knowledge' .
Without being a prisoner, it is not impossible to distinguish the
popular culture where there is no need of, and no room for, consistent or
specific identity, from the elite culture, that is, the modern technology of
hegemony, which forces people to maintain their consistent or specific
identity. For example, Benedict Anderson [1983] distinguishes modern
`imagined communities' such as nations from premodern imagined communities
such as kingdoms. "Communities are to be distinguished, not
by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined."
In premodern communties, the ties by which people were connectedt
o others they have nevers een werei magined" as indefinitelys tretchable
nets of kinship and clientship." To the contrary, in modern nations,
the individual is immediately connected to the abstract whole.
I point out that `specific identity' such as national identity is invented
by changing an indefinite network of metonymical relations such
as kinship and clientship into a relation between whole and part, synecdoche.
First, such structurist argument has the advantage of showing
that popular cultures are not unities discontinuously separated from
dominant cultures, but in arts of everyday practices, that is, `tactics' as
against 'strategy' (Michel de Certeau) or bricolage (Levi-Strauss).
Secondly, from this viewpoint, within the colonial or postcolonial
dichotomized system of neotraditional culture, such as between a world
of skul and that of kastom, a subaltern as bricoleur is able to cross the
border between two worlds by tying a fragment to another along
metonymical/metaphorical relations with `transversity'. Thirdly, being
incorporated into a dominant culture, these `bricoleur tactics', which
seem merely a compromise or obedience in the eyes of both constructionists
and indigenous elites, turn out to be a degree of unconscious but
flexible and tenacious resistance to the dominant culture.
Our notice of such resistance in 'the field of everyday life' shared by
`subaltern' people and ourselves keeps us free from the false dichotomy
between essentialism and constructionism, and from 'the politics of
identity' or the modern technology of hegemony.
書誌情報 国立民族学博物館研究報告
en : Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology

巻 21, 号 4, p. 807-875, 発行日 1997-03-28
出版者
出版者 国立民族学博物館
出版者(英)
出版者 National Museum of Ethnology
ISSN
収録物識別子タイプ ISSN
収録物識別子 0385-180X
書誌レコードID
収録物識別子タイプ NCID
収録物識別子 AN00091943
著者版フラグ
出版タイプ VoR
出版タイプResource http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
戻る
0
views
See details
Views

Versions

Ver.1 2023-06-20 17:18:43.525889
Show All versions

Share

Mendeley Twitter Facebook Print Addthis

Cite as

エクスポート

OAI-PMH
  • OAI-PMH JPCOAR 2.0
  • OAI-PMH JPCOAR 1.0
  • OAI-PMH DublinCore
  • OAI-PMH DDI
Other Formats
  • JSON
  • BIBTEX

Confirm


Powered by WEKO3


Powered by WEKO3