{"created":"2023-06-20T15:59:07.753014+00:00","id":4166,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"12750fbd-c263-42e7-b1e4-a4dadfdc9169"},"_deposit":{"created_by":17,"id":"4166","owners":[17],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"4166"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004166","sets":["345:419"]},"author_link":["3538"],"item_9_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"1997-03-28","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"4","bibliographicPageEnd":"875","bibliographicPageStart":"807","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"21","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"国立民族学博物館研究報告"},{"bibliographic_title":"Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_9_description_4":{"attribute_name":"抄録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"The purpose of this paper is not to propound an overview of the\nliterature of postmodern anthropology, but to consider what questions\nsome recent controversies by postmodernists about Edward Said's Orientalism,\nthe issue of ethnographic realism, and cultural construction remain\nunconsidered because of the postmodernist paradigm which\noveremphasizes a theoretical opposition between essentialism and constructionism.\nPostmodernists as cultural constructionists stand in opposition to\ncultural essentialism. They criticize a set of reductive and specific\ncategories, such as `culture', `tradition', 'race' and 'nation', through\nwhich academic ethnographers confer a discrete or specific identity and\nuse to survey other cultures. For postmodernists, realism, objectivism\nor essentialism inevitably turns out to be neocolonialism, racism or Orientalism.\nPostmodernists insist on casting out ethnographic realism,\nwhich assumes that an ethnographer can represent objectivery the\nessence of a particular culture as a whole, and which assures anthropologists\nof their ethnographic authority to define culture and to tell\n`authentic' culture from something `impure' or `spurious' .\nSaid's Orientalism [1978] is a critical study of cultural essentialism.\nSaid points out that Orientalism is \"a Western style for dominating,\nrestructuring, and having authority over the Orient\", and a systematic\ndispline which enabled European culture to gain a consistent identity by\nsetting itself off against the Orient.\nRecently, Said has been criticised for his essentialism or realism by\nsome postmodernists. They accuse him of \"Occidentalism\", reversed\nOrientalism, to blame the West. However these postmodernists' objections\nagainst Said are not to the point, and they show their own dilemma,\nnot Said's.\nPostmodernists or postcolonial anthropologists have also criticized\nThe Invention of Tradition [1983], edited by Eric Hobsbawm and\nTerence Ranger, for not relinquishing objective distinctions between `genuine'\ntraditions and 'spurious' ones, that is, for essentialism or objectivism.\nBut, on the other hand, when indigenous nationalist practice or\ndiscourse is subject to the analysis of cultural invention, not only an objectivist\nanalysis (e.g., Keesing) but also a constructionist one (e.g., Linnekin)\nare politically blamed by native nationalists or postcolonial elites\nfor disturbing the natives' recovery of their `specific identity' or 'authentic'\ntradition.\nThe Postmodernists' standpoint of thoroughgoing constructionism\nor 'deconstruction', from which they criticize Hobsbawm and Keesing\nfor being politically incorrect, has kept them in a predicament, because if\nthey stick to such constructionism they could themselves be accused of\npolitical incorrectness.\nI believe that their predicament comes from the misleading\ndichotomy between essentialism and constructionism. Within this\nframework, we are given the false choice of 'politics of identity' based on\na consistent and specific identity such as nationality, ethnicity and sexuality,\nor 'deconstruction' of even fragmentary or partial truths the\n'subalterns' live by. This choice is a red herring because it conceals the\nprobability that one gains a postive self according to circumstances\nwithout a consistent self-identity.\nConstructionists are wrong in their Enlightenment assumption that\none should act or speak consistently and rationally according to his/her attribution.\nThey have a tendency to consider cultural construction or 'objectification'\nto be conscious manipulation about culture, because they\nthink that it contains ethnographic authority at its base to point out\ncultural construction which other people have done without knowing it.\nHowever such thought is not free from the Enlightenment thought about\n'knowledge' .\nWithout being a prisoner, it is not impossible to distinguish the\npopular culture where there is no need of, and no room for, consistent or\nspecific identity, from the elite culture, that is, the modern technology of\nhegemony, which forces people to maintain their consistent or specific\nidentity. For example, Benedict Anderson [1983] distinguishes modern\n`imagined communities' such as nations from premodern imagined communities\nsuch as kingdoms. \"Communities are to be distinguished, not\nby their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.\"\nIn premodern communties, the ties by which people were connectedt\no others they have nevers een werei magined\" as indefinitelys tretchable\nnets of kinship and clientship.\" To the contrary, in modern nations,\nthe individual is immediately connected to the abstract whole.\nI point out that `specific identity' such as national identity is invented\nby changing an indefinite network of metonymical relations such\nas kinship and clientship into a relation between whole and part, synecdoche.\nFirst, such structurist argument has the advantage of showing\nthat popular cultures are not unities discontinuously separated from\ndominant cultures, but in arts of everyday practices, that is, `tactics' as\nagainst 'strategy' (Michel de Certeau) or bricolage (Levi-Strauss).\nSecondly, from this viewpoint, within the colonial or postcolonial\ndichotomized system of neotraditional culture, such as between a world\nof skul and that of kastom, a subaltern as bricoleur is able to cross the\nborder between two worlds by tying a fragment to another along\nmetonymical/metaphorical relations with `transversity'. Thirdly, being\nincorporated into a dominant culture, these `bricoleur tactics', which\nseem merely a compromise or obedience in the eyes of both constructionists\nand indigenous elites, turn out to be a degree of unconscious but\nflexible and tenacious resistance to the dominant culture.\nOur notice of such resistance in 'the field of everyday life' shared by\n`subaltern' people and ourselves keeps us free from the false dichotomy\nbetween essentialism and constructionism, and from 'the politics of\nidentity' or the modern technology of hegemony.","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_9_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.15021/00004158","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_9_publisher_33":{"attribute_name":"出版者","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"国立民族学博物館"}]},"item_9_publisher_34":{"attribute_name":"出版者（英）","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_publisher":"National Museum of Ethnology"}]},"item_9_source_id_10":{"attribute_name":"書誌レコードID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN00091943","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_9_source_id_8":{"attribute_name":"ISSN","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"0385-180X","subitem_source_identifier_type":"ISSN"}]},"item_9_version_type_16":{"attribute_name":"著者版フラグ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_version_resource":"http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85","subitem_version_type":"VoR"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"小田, 亮"},{"creatorName":"オダ, マコト","creatorNameLang":"ja-Kana"},{"creatorName":"Oda, Makoto","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2015-11-19"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"KH_021_4_003.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"4.8 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"KH_021_4_003.pdf","url":"https://minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/4166/files/KH_021_4_003.pdf"},"version_id":"7622f18b-6e34-4949-a023-65fe1d20c510"}]},"item_keyword":{"attribute_name":"キーワード","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"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","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Orientalism｜essentialism｜politics of identity｜invention of tradition｜'bricolaze'","subitem_subject_language":"en","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"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","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"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"},{"subitem_title":"The Price of Postmodern Anthropology","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"9","owner":"17","path":["419"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2010-02-16"},"publish_date":"2010-02-16","publish_status":"0","recid":"4166","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["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"],"weko_creator_id":"17","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2023-06-20T17:18:44.009243+00:00"}