{"created":"2023-06-20T15:59:09.903561+00:00","id":4227,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"54071c38-d2e4-4704-bb94-3c4c8a06d86a"},"_deposit":{"created_by":17,"id":"4227","owners":[17],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"4227"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004227","sets":["345:432"]},"author_link":["11108"],"item_9_biblio_info_7":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"1994-02-28","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"3","bibliographicPageEnd":"494","bibliographicPageStart":"453","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"18","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":"This paper is an examination of implications that postcolonial\ncriticism adumbrates for anthropological theories. Although recent advances\nin critical theories in literature seem, prima facie, to have very little\nin common with anthropological theories, they now constitute a\nstrong critique of many assumptions inherent in anthropological theories\nand practices. Among these critical theories the most relevant for anthropologists\nis exemplified in the text of Edward Said's Orientalism\n[1978]. Said points out that Orientalism, a discourse on the Orient by\nWestern scholars, systematically reduces the multiplicity of the Orient to\na stereotypic image, often sexualized, and essentializes the Orient as the\nresidual category of the Occident. Moreover, he interprets Orientalism\nas a form of power which disempowers the people of the Orient by claiming\nthe objectivity of scientific methodology. Now, is anthropology a\nkind of Orientalism as defined by Said?\nThe fact that for anthropologists Orientalism may have remained\nfor a while an enigmatic text suggests a quite complex answer to that\nquestion. This is because Orientalism seems to criticize the interpretive\nstance of hermeneutically oriented anthropological thinking, as\nrepresented by Clifford Geertz's; while at the same time it explicitly exonerates\nanthropology by distinguishing it from other forms of Orientalism--\nSaid lauded the very Geertz as a typical anthropologist in this\nsense.\nIt is James Clifford who has first recognized two positions Said had\nassumed toward anthropology. One position, critical of realist\nepistemology, is based on the philosophy of Foucault, who has analyzed\nthe discursive nature of academic disciplines in the human sciences. The\nother is that of the humanist in search of authentic encounters with the\nOther. These two mutually contradictory positions from which Said has\nlaunched his critique of Orientalism may have been a source of the\nenigma mentioned above, and, as a consequence, the virtual neglect of\nthis text in anthropological circle until 1987, when at the annual meetings\nof American Anthropological Association Said was invited to deliver a\npaper entitled \"Representing the Colonized: Anthropology's Interlocutors.\"\nIn this presentation Said is no longer generous with his\npraises for anthropology; he attacks the fact that many anthropologists\nhave still remained oblivious to those world-historical conditions that\nenabled Western scholars to study non-Western cultures: that is,\nhegemony of the West over the rest of the world.\nThus, it has become obvious that anthropologists cannot ignore\nSaid's postcolonial critique of the disciplinary foundation. But, such a\nre-evaluation of Said's work has occurred rather recently; Clifford's\nreview of Orientalism has been a sole exception. In his reading of Orientalism\nClifford [1988] has formulated many questions directly relevant\nfor the future of anthropology: for example, \"Can one ultimately escape\nprocedures of dichotomizing, restructuring, and textualizing in the making\nof interpretive statements about foreign cultures and traditions?\"\nMy assessment of Clifford's reading of Orientalism is that he has produced\nan epistemological reading of it, as opposed to a political one, the latter\nbeing the reading clearly more in line with Said's own representation.\nA political reading of the text positions a reader in actual social settings;\ntherefore, it allows the reader to evaluate the epistemological\nreadings as abstract; consequently, the epistemological reading privileges\nthose already in power, while disempowering the marginalized in the\nname of objectivity. Thus, after exposing those contradictory positions\nin the text—discursive and humanist-realist perspectives—this paper\ncalls for an oppositional, political, rather than a merely epistemological,\nreading of Orientalism.\nA political reading of the text points to the more socially situated\nunderstanding of anthropological theorizing. For example, what does it\nmean to suggest that the aim of anthropology is to understand the\nOther? Who is the Other? Does the Other mean the same thing for anthropologists\nin the United States, Japan, Indonesia, of African countries?\nWhat is the purpose of this understanding in the light of\neconomic and political inequalities pervading throughout the world?\nAnswers for these questions are not easily forthcoming; however, for anthropologists,\nthe political circumstances of the world have been so\nquickly changing that anthropologists are now faced with challenges\nfrom \"native peoples\" all over the world: the era of anthropological innocence\nis gone.\nIn the days of Malinowski, \"native\" people questioned neither the\nright (nor a lack thereof) of anthropologists in conducting field researches,\nnor the authority of anthropologists' scholarship. But, now, both\nright and authority are called into question. In Oceania, for instance, a\ndiscourse on \"the invention of culture,\" a discourse anthropologists have\nsuccessfully constructed with purely academic interest alone, has been\nunder attack from leaders of native cultural movements, for it disempowers\nthe local people of Oceania to define what is rightfully their own\ntradition. No anthropologists could remain immune to this kind of\npolitical development in which a discourse on culture is constantly contested\nby local political leaders of cultural movements.\nIn Japan, an Ainu women has raised a voice of protest against an anthropologist\nwho used her photo without her permission in the book she\ndoes not approve of. In a close reading of the published court proceeding,\nI suggest that what has been debated is not so much an issue of\nindividual right (to be photographed) as the nature of anthropological\ndiscourse, which is, to borrow a phrase from Clifford [1988], purely \"entropic\":\nthe Ainu culture has disappeared already. An entropic narrative\nof culture displaces the Ainu people to the past, denies their current\nstruggles in gaining socially recognizable positions in Japanese society,\nand disempowers their existence in the guise of objective research.\nThen, is nativism an answer to this kind political predicament?\nAre the peoples of Oceania the only peoples to have a claim to a\ndiscourse on their own culture? Should (and will) and Ainu people exclude\nthe \"Japanese\" (wajin) scholars from studying their culture? As\nSaid's answer to Orientalism is not Occidentalism, nativism is not my\nrecommendation for dealing with this political predicament.\nAs one of Japanese anthropologists with interest in studies on our\nown culture as well as other cultures of the world, how can I re-imagine\nanthropology in these complex political conditions of the late twentieth\ncentury? How do anthropologists situate themselves in relation to anthropologies\nof metropolitan centers in Europe and the United States?\nIs it possible to envision anthropology as a discourse on the Other\nwithout entailing domination of the Other?\nCertainly these questions cannot be answered easily. Nevertheless,\nfollowing a suggestion from Mitsuru Hamamoto, I propose, first, that\nethnographic authority be abandoned in favor of a mode which allows\nconstant re-writing and re-editing not only by anthropologists alone but\nalso by whoever has access to it, as is already happening in electronically\nmediated communications. What is needed, with assistance from newly\ndeveloped communicational technology, is doing away with ethnographic\nauthority for a more anarchical presence of voice carefully articulated\nto subvert the authorial intention; my suggestion here differs from\nClifford's: his is representing textually (in ethnography) the polyvocal\nquality of ethnographic encounters.\nSecond, I recommend a form of anthropological practice that does\nnot circumvent political contests, taking the side of the politically oppressed\nand always critical of hegemonic history; and I also recommend\na form of \"narrative\" that acknowleges the emergence of new cultural\ndifferences. Such an entanglement in political contests does not always\ncall for every anthropologist to become a political activist; however, it\ncertainly calls for an explicit awareness of the political nature of every anthropological\ndiscourse and a clear recognition of the anthropologist's\nrelationship to the local people. A relation between fans and the performing\ngroup (such as a rock group) may serve as a possible analogy in reimagining\nthe future relationship between anthropologists and the people\nthey study or work with.\nAlthough a constant questioning of ethnographic authority has been\njudged to be counter-productive in conducting fieldwork and writing an\nethnography, these two activities many no longer be the characteristics\ndefining anthropology. What is anthropology, then? Waning of\nauthority to speak on someone else's culture will bring this question to\nthe center of attention among anthropologists. Lost innocence is not\nthe end of anthropology; it is only the beginning of re-imagining anthropology\nfor the future.","subitem_description_type":"Abstract"}]},"item_9_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.15021/00004219","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":"太田, 好信"},{"creatorName":"オオタ, ヨシノブ","creatorNameLang":"ja-Kana"},{"creatorName":"Ota, Yoshinobu","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_018_3_003.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"2.9 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"KH_018_3_003.pdf","url":"https://minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/4227/files/KH_018_3_003.pdf"},"version_id":"720561d9-2609-411d-8bf1-92fcc115dcfc"}]},"item_keyword":{"attribute_name":"キーワード","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"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","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"Postcolonial criticism｜Orientalism (Edward Said)｜nativism｜discourse｜anthropological theory","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":"オリエンタリズム批判と文化人類学","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"オリエンタリズム批判と文化人類学"},{"subitem_title":"Anthropology and Postcolonial Criticism","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"9","owner":"17","path":["432"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2010-02-16"},"publish_date":"2010-02-16","publish_status":"0","recid":"4227","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["オリエンタリズム批判と文化人類学"],"weko_creator_id":"17","weko_shared_id":-1},"updated":"2023-06-20T17:17:32.068140+00:00"}