WEKO3
アイテム
オリエンタリズム批判と文化人類学
https://doi.org/10.15021/00004219
https://doi.org/10.15021/00004219cf55e392-5a23-4710-8189-fe09a906d097
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
KH_018_3_003.pdf (2.9 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 | オリエンタリズム批判と文化人類学 | |||||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||||
| タイトル | Anthropology and Postcolonial Criticism | |||||||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||||||||
| 言語 | ||||||||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||||
| 主題 | ポスト植民地主義批判｜『オリエンタリズム』(サイード)｜アイヌ肖像権問題｜ディスコース｜人類学理論 | |||||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | Other | |||||||||||
| 主題 | Postcolonial criticism｜Orientalism (Edward Said)｜nativism｜discourse｜anthropological theory | |||||||||||
| 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 | 10.15021/00004219 | |||||||||||
| ID登録タイプ | JaLC | |||||||||||
| 著者 |
太田, 好信
× 太田, 好信
|
|||||||||||
| 抄録 | ||||||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||||||||
| 内容記述 | This paper is an examination of implications that postcolonial criticism adumbrates for anthropological theories. Although recent advances in critical theories in literature seem, prima facie, to have very little in common with anthropological theories, they now constitute a strong critique of many assumptions inherent in anthropological theories and practices. Among these critical theories the most relevant for anthropologists is exemplified in the text of Edward Said's Orientalism [1978]. Said points out that Orientalism, a discourse on the Orient by Western scholars, systematically reduces the multiplicity of the Orient to a stereotypic image, often sexualized, and essentializes the Orient as the residual category of the Occident. Moreover, he interprets Orientalism as a form of power which disempowers the people of the Orient by claiming the objectivity of scientific methodology. Now, is anthropology a kind of Orientalism as defined by Said? The fact that for anthropologists Orientalism may have remained for a while an enigmatic text suggests a quite complex answer to that question. This is because Orientalism seems to criticize the interpretive stance of hermeneutically oriented anthropological thinking, as represented by Clifford Geertz's; while at the same time it explicitly exonerates anthropology by distinguishing it from other forms of Orientalism-- Said lauded the very Geertz as a typical anthropologist in this sense. It is James Clifford who has first recognized two positions Said had assumed toward anthropology. One position, critical of realist epistemology, is based on the philosophy of Foucault, who has analyzed the discursive nature of academic disciplines in the human sciences. The other is that of the humanist in search of authentic encounters with the Other. These two mutually contradictory positions from which Said has launched his critique of Orientalism may have been a source of the enigma mentioned above, and, as a consequence, the virtual neglect of this text in anthropological circle until 1987, when at the annual meetings of American Anthropological Association Said was invited to deliver a paper entitled "Representing the Colonized: Anthropology's Interlocutors." In this presentation Said is no longer generous with his praises for anthropology; he attacks the fact that many anthropologists have still remained oblivious to those world-historical conditions that enabled Western scholars to study non-Western cultures: that is, hegemony of the West over the rest of the world. Thus, it has become obvious that anthropologists cannot ignore Said's postcolonial critique of the disciplinary foundation. But, such a re-evaluation of Said's work has occurred rather recently; Clifford's review of Orientalism has been a sole exception. In his reading of Orientalism Clifford [1988] has formulated many questions directly relevant for the future of anthropology: for example, "Can one ultimately escape procedures of dichotomizing, restructuring, and textualizing in the making of interpretive statements about foreign cultures and traditions?" My assessment of Clifford's reading of Orientalism is that he has produced an epistemological reading of it, as opposed to a political one, the latter being the reading clearly more in line with Said's own representation. A political reading of the text positions a reader in actual social settings; therefore, it allows the reader to evaluate the epistemological readings as abstract; consequently, the epistemological reading privileges those already in power, while disempowering the marginalized in the name of objectivity. Thus, after exposing those contradictory positions in the text—discursive and humanist-realist perspectives—this paper calls for an oppositional, political, rather than a merely epistemological, reading of Orientalism. A political reading of the text points to the more socially situated understanding of anthropological theorizing. For example, what does it mean to suggest that the aim of anthropology is to understand the Other? Who is the Other? Does the Other mean the same thing for anthropologists in the United States, Japan, Indonesia, of African countries? What is the purpose of this understanding in the light of economic and political inequalities pervading throughout the world? Answers for these questions are not easily forthcoming; however, for anthropologists, the political circumstances of the world have been so quickly changing that anthropologists are now faced with challenges from "native peoples" all over the world: the era of anthropological innocence is gone. In the days of Malinowski, "native" people questioned neither the right (nor a lack thereof) of anthropologists in conducting field researches, nor the authority of anthropologists' scholarship. But, now, both right and authority are called into question. In Oceania, for instance, a discourse on "the invention of culture," a discourse anthropologists have successfully constructed with purely academic interest alone, has been under attack from leaders of native cultural movements, for it disempowers the local people of Oceania to define what is rightfully their own tradition. No anthropologists could remain immune to this kind of political development in which a discourse on culture is constantly contested by local political leaders of cultural movements. In Japan, an Ainu women has raised a voice of protest against an anthropologist who used her photo without her permission in the book she does not approve of. In a close reading of the published court proceeding, I suggest that what has been debated is not so much an issue of individual right (to be photographed) as the nature of anthropological discourse, which is, to borrow a phrase from Clifford [1988], purely "entropic": the Ainu culture has disappeared already. An entropic narrative of culture displaces the Ainu people to the past, denies their current struggles in gaining socially recognizable positions in Japanese society, and disempowers their existence in the guise of objective research. Then, is nativism an answer to this kind political predicament? Are the peoples of Oceania the only peoples to have a claim to a discourse on their own culture? Should (and will) and Ainu people exclude the "Japanese" (wajin) scholars from studying their culture? As Said's answer to Orientalism is not Occidentalism, nativism is not my recommendation for dealing with this political predicament. As one of Japanese anthropologists with interest in studies on our own culture as well as other cultures of the world, how can I re-imagine anthropology in these complex political conditions of the late twentieth century? How do anthropologists situate themselves in relation to anthropologies of metropolitan centers in Europe and the United States? Is it possible to envision anthropology as a discourse on the Other without entailing domination of the Other? Certainly these questions cannot be answered easily. Nevertheless, following a suggestion from Mitsuru Hamamoto, I propose, first, that ethnographic authority be abandoned in favor of a mode which allows constant re-writing and re-editing not only by anthropologists alone but also by whoever has access to it, as is already happening in electronically mediated communications. What is needed, with assistance from newly developed communicational technology, is doing away with ethnographic authority for a more anarchical presence of voice carefully articulated to subvert the authorial intention; my suggestion here differs from Clifford's: his is representing textually (in ethnography) the polyvocal quality of ethnographic encounters. Second, I recommend a form of anthropological practice that does not circumvent political contests, taking the side of the politically oppressed and always critical of hegemonic history; and I also recommend a form of "narrative" that acknowleges the emergence of new cultural differences. Such an entanglement in political contests does not always call for every anthropologist to become a political activist; however, it certainly calls for an explicit awareness of the political nature of every anthropological discourse and a clear recognition of the anthropologist's relationship to the local people. A relation between fans and the performing group (such as a rock group) may serve as a possible analogy in reimagining the future relationship between anthropologists and the people they study or work with. Although a constant questioning of ethnographic authority has been judged to be counter-productive in conducting fieldwork and writing an ethnography, these two activities many no longer be the characteristics defining anthropology. What is anthropology, then? Waning of authority to speak on someone else's culture will bring this question to the center of attention among anthropologists. Lost innocence is not the end of anthropology; it is only the beginning of re-imagining anthropology for the future. |
|||||||||||
| 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 18, 号 3, p. 453-494, 発行日 1994-02-28 |
|||||||||||
| 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 | |||||||||||
