著者

太田 好信

出版者

国立民族学博物館

雑誌

国立民族学博物館研究報告 (ISSN:0385180X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, no.3, pp.p453-494, 1993

被引用文献数

1

---

This paper is an examination of implications that postcolonialcriticism adumbrates for anthropological theories. Although recent advancesin critical theories in literature seem, prima facie, to have very littlein common with anthropological theories, they now constitute astrong critique of many assumptions inherent in anthropological theoriesand practices. Among these critical theories the most relevant for anthropologistsis exemplified in the text of Edward Said's Orientalism[1978]. Said points out that Orientalism, a discourse on the Orient byWestern scholars, systematically reduces the multiplicity of the Orient toa stereotypic image, often sexualized, and essentializes the Orient as theresidual category of the Occident. Moreover, he interprets Orientalismas a form of power which disempowers the people of the Orient by claimingthe objectivity of scientific methodology. Now, is anthropology akind of Orientalism as defined by Said?The fact that for anthropologists Orientalism may have remainedfor a while an enigmatic text suggests a quite complex answer to thatquestion. This is because Orientalism seems to criticize the interpretivestance of hermeneutically oriented anthropological thinking, asrepresented by Clifford Geertz's; while at the same time it explicitly exoneratesanthropology by distinguishing it from other forms of Orientalism--Said lauded the very Geertz as a typical anthropologist in thissense.It is James Clifford who has first recognized two positions Said hadassumed toward anthropology. One position, critical of realistepistemology, is based on the philosophy of Foucault, who has analyzedthe discursive nature of academic disciplines in the human sciences. Theother is that of the humanist in search of authentic encounters with theOther. These two mutually contradictory positions from which Said haslaunched his critique of Orientalism may have been a source of theenigma mentioned above, and, as a consequence, the virtual neglect ofthis text in anthropological circle until 1987, when at the annual meetingsof American Anthropological Association Said was invited to deliver apaper entitled "Representing the Colonized: Anthropology's Interlocutors."In this presentation Said is no longer generous with hispraises for anthropology; he attacks the fact that many anthropologistshave still remained oblivious to those world-historical conditions thatenabled 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 ignoreSaid's postcolonial critique of the disciplinary foundation. But, such are-evaluation of Said's work has occurred rather recently; Clifford'sreview of Orientalism has been a sole exception. In his reading of OrientalismClifford [1988] has formulated many questions directly relevantfor the future of anthropology: for example, "Can one ultimately escapeprocedures of dichotomizing, restructuring, and textualizing in the makingof interpretive statements about foreign cultures and traditions?"My assessment of Clifford's reading of Orientalism is that he has producedan epistemological reading of it, as opposed to a political one, the latterbeing 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 epistemologicalreadings as abstract; consequently, the epistemological reading privilegesthose already in power, while disempowering the marginalized in thename of objectivity. Thus, after exposing those contradictory positionsin the text—discursive and humanist-realist perspectives—this papercalls for an oppositional, political, rather than a merely epistemological,reading of Orientalism.A political reading of the text points to the more socially situatedunderstanding of anthropological theorizing. For example, what does itmean to suggest that the aim of anthropology is to understand theOther? Who is the Other? Does the Other mean the same thing for anthropologistsin the United States, Japan, Indonesia, of African countries?What is the purpose of this understanding in the light ofeconomic 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 soquickly changing that anthropologists are now faced with challengesfrom "native peoples" all over the world: the era of anthropological innocenceis gone.In the days of Malinowski, "native" people questioned neither theright (nor a lack thereof) of anthropologists in conducting field researches,nor the authority of anthropologists' scholarship. But, now, bothright and authority are called into question. In Oceania, for instance, adiscourse on "the invention of culture," a discourse anthropologists havesuccessfully constructed with purely academic interest alone, has beenunder attack from leaders of native cultural movements, for it disempowersthe local people of Oceania to define what is rightfully their owntradition. No anthropologists could remain immune to this kind ofpolitical development in which a discourse on culture is constantly contestedby local political leaders of cultural movements.In Japan, an Ainu women has raised a voice of protest against an anthropologistwho used her photo without her permission in the book shedoes 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 ofindividual right (to be photographed) as the nature of anthropologicaldiscourse, which is, to borrow a phrase from Clifford [1988], purely "entropic":the Ainu culture has disappeared already. An entropic narrativeof culture displaces the Ainu people to the past, denies their currentstruggles 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 adiscourse on their own culture? Should (and will) and Ainu people excludethe "Japanese" (wajin) scholars from studying their culture? AsSaid's answer to Orientalism is not Occidentalism, nativism is not myrecommendation for dealing with this political predicament.As one of Japanese anthropologists with interest in studies on ourown culture as well as other cultures of the world, how can I re-imagineanthropology in these complex political conditions of the late twentiethcentury? How do anthropologists situate themselves in relation to anthropologiesof metropolitan centers in Europe and the United States?Is it possible to envision anthropology as a discourse on the Otherwithout entailing domination of the Other?Certainly these questions cannot be answered easily. Nevertheless,following a suggestion from Mitsuru Hamamoto, I propose, first, thatethnographic authority be abandoned in favor of a mode which allowsconstant re-writing and re-editing not only by anthropologists alone butalso by whoever has access to it, as is already happening in electronicallymediated communications. What is needed, with assistance from newlydeveloped communicational technology, is doing away with ethnographicauthority for a more anarchical presence of voice carefully articulatedto subvert the authorial intention; my suggestion here differs fromClifford's: his is representing textually (in ethnography) the polyvocalquality of ethnographic encounters.Second, I recommend a form of anthropological practice that doesnot circumvent political contests, taking the side of the politically oppressedand always critical of hegemonic history; and I also recommenda form of "narrative" that acknowleges the emergence of new culturaldifferences. Such an entanglement in political contests does not alwayscall for every anthropologist to become a political activist; however, itcertainly calls for an explicit awareness of the political nature of every anthropologicaldiscourse and a clear recognition of the anthropologist'srelationship to the local people. A relation between fans and the performinggroup (such as a rock group) may serve as a possible analogy in reimaginingthe future relationship between anthropologists and the peoplethey study or work with.Although a constant questioning of ethnographic authority has beenjudged to be counter-productive in conducting fieldwork and writing anethnography, these two activities many no longer be the characteristicsdefining anthropology. What is anthropology, then? Waning ofauthority to speak on someone else's culture will bring this question tothe center of attention among anthropologists. Lost innocence is notthe end of anthropology; it is only the beginning of re-imagining anthropologyfor the future.