著者

岩本 通弥

出版者

国立歴史民俗博物館

雑誌

国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告 (ISSN:02867400)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.132, pp.25-98, 2006-03

---

本稿は柳田國男「葬制の沿革について」に対して示された,いわゆる両墓制の解釈をめぐって,戦後の民俗学が陥った「誤読」の構造を分析し,戦後民俗学の認識論的変質とその問題点を明らかにし,現在の民俗学に支配的な,いわゆる民俗を見る視線を規定している根底的文化論の再構築を目的とする。柳田の議論は,この論考に限らず,変化こそ「文化」の常態とみた認識に立っており,その論題にもあるように,葬制の全体的な変遷を扱うものであった。ところが戦後,民俗を変化しにくい存在として捉える認識が優勢になると,論題に「沿革」とあるにも拘らず,変遷過程=「変化」の議論と捉えずに,文化の「型」の議論と読み違える傾向が生まれ,それが通説化する。柳田の元の議論も霊肉分離と死穢忌避の観念が超歴史的に貫徹する,あたかも伝統論のように解釈されはじめる。南島の洗骨改葬習俗と,本土に周圏論的に分布する両墓制を,関連のある事象として,これを連続的に捉える議論や解釈・思考法は,1960年代に登場するが,一つの誤読を定説化させた学史的背景には,民俗を変化しにくい地域的伝統と見做す,こうした根底的文化論が混入したことに尽きている。このような理解を生み出す民俗あるいは文化を,伝統論的構造論的に把捉する文化認識は,いわゆる京都学派の文化論を介して,大政翼賛会の地方文化運動において初めて生成された認識であるが,加えて戦後のいわゆる基層文化論の誤謬的受容によって,より強固に民俗学内部に浸透,定着化する。基層文化論は柳田の文化認識に近似していたナウマンの二層化説を,正反対に読解して受容したものであり,その結果,方法的な資料操作法のレベルにおいても,観察できる現象としての形(form)を,型(type)と混同して,民俗資料の類型化論として捉えられていく。In this paper, I explain the epistemological transformation of folklore in Japan following the Second World War and the issues it raises through a study of the structure of the "misreading" by Japanese folklore surrounding the interpretation of the so-called dual grave system demonstrated in response to Kunio Yanagita' s "A History of the Burial System." The paper' s aim is to reconstruct the theory of underlying culture that prescribes the approach to folklore and dominates folklore studies at the present time. Yanagita' s argument is not limited to this discussion for it is based on the recognition that the normal state of "culture" is none other than change itself, and as suggested in the title he covered the general changes in the burial system. However, when the perception that it was difficult to change folk customs gained ascendancy following the Second World War, despite the inclusion of the word "history" in the title, the argument that the process of transition equals "change" was not understood. This gave rise to the tendency to misinterpret his argument as one concerning the "type" of culture, which became accepted. Yanagita' s primary argument began to be interpreted as a kind of theory of tradition where the concepts of the separation of the soul and body and the avoidance of the defilement of death transcended history. The debate, interpretation and school of thought that viewed the custom of reburial following washing of the bones in Japan's southern islands and the dual grave system that spread in mainland Japan following the theory that customs spread by radiating outward from Kyoto as continuous and related phenomena emerged in the 1960s. The situation where one misinterpretation was allowed to become established theory was set against an academic backdrop that mixed in the theory of underlying culture, according to which folk customs are regarded as regional traditions that do not easily change. The perception of culture that interpreted the folklore and culture responsible for this kind of understanding as traditional and structural is a perception that was first generated among the movement for regional culture promoted by the Taisei Yokusankai (The Imperial Rule Assistance Association) by way of the Kyoto school of cultural theory. On top of this, the erroneous acceptance after the war of the so-called theory of underlying culture permeated right through to the inner echelon of folklore studies and became established theory. This theory of underlying culture led to the converse interpretation and acceptance of Naumann's dual-layer thesis, which resembled Yanagita's perception of culture. The result is that even at the level of methodic approaches for manipulating data there is confusion between the form and type of observable phenomena, which continues to be used in the classification of folklore materials.