WEKO3
-
RootNode
アイテム
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/10.15021/000041586807d8e9-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 (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
|
|||||||||||
| 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 | |||||||||||
