著者

藤森 かよこ Kayoko FUJIMORI 桃山学院大学文学部

雑誌

国際文化論集 = INTERCULTURAL STUDIES (ISSN:09170219)

巻号頁・発行日

no.15, pp.91-117, 1997-02-20

---

There is fairly general agreement that Sue Harrison's trilogy published from 1990 to 1994 is one of the literary fruits that multiculturalism has fostered. Harrison vividly and impressively represents the life and culture of the ancient Alute people, ancesters of Native Americans, based on her research and field work over many years, supported and stimulated by her own rich imagination. But it is not my present purpose to explore this area. My concern is in a feminist approach to this trilogy. Today's writers who try to create feminism-conscious stories confront much more sensitive and challenging problems than before. Liberal feminism originated from Europe in the 18th century. In the United States, in response to the civil rights movement in the 1960's, it developed into women's liberation movement in the 70's. However, with the permeation of multiculturalism in the 80's, propelled by the current of postmodernism, black feminists (womanists), lesbians and other minority groups' feminists have been criticizing the Caucasian/West/Judeo-Christian/middle-class/heterosexual-centerdness of liberal feminism. Nowadays feminists are expanding their argument into investigating the origins and structures of various discrimination systems, with and beyond the inquiry about how to reduce or end sexual discrimination. Some feminists fear that the present feminism agenda may neglect the problems peculiar to women and may result in delaying the dissolution of social unfaireness about women. Yet most feminists realize that it is one of their tactics, as well as one of their imperatives, to emphasize and promote their relationships and cooperative efforts with other discriminated groups. Thus contemporary writers must incorporate the above-mentioned feminist problems into their works if they want to satisfy feminist readers. We can safely state that Sue Harrison has achieved this challenge in writing Mother Earth Father Sky, My Sister the Moon, and Brother Wind. This trilogy is classified as a traditional and popular happy-ending fiction for women, in which a young heroine finally attains happiness through a series of torturous experiments and disasters; in the end she gets her own special protector, in most cases, her husband. Harrison's books also end with the heroine's delightful marriage or long-waited reunion with their family. In addition to this, we should note that the setting is in the prehistoric era, from B. C. 7056 to 7023. This means that Harrison's fictions have the advantage of being completely invulnerable from feminist critics' attacks. Criticizing the sexual dichotomy in the prehistorical setting is useless. Because writers must represent the factual aspects of their subjects in their realistic novels, even if some descriptions are offensive to feminists. Above all it is unfair to reproach the defects of past ages from a contemporary view point. But we are mislead if we regard this trilogy as a mere prehistory Harlequin Romance. Interestingly Harrison's books can satisfy not only non-feminist readers but also feminist ones. A close reading of these three books leads us to find many devices and episodes to demistify and invalidate patriarchism. In authentically traditional fictions, heroines cannot be really happy without being bound to some patriarchal family ststem. Harrison's heroines, even though they finally return to their male-dominated families and communities, are clearly characterized by a self-independence, self-respect and aggressiveness that we rarely see in women in the fictions with today's setting. Under the disguise of an obviously gender-biased traditional story, Harrison has inserted some unforgettable gender-free characters, female and also male, into her fictions. Harrison succeeds in fictionizing her materials from the standpoints of multiculturalism and feminism which the literary critics in the present postmodern era are ready to find in new novels. At the same time, Harrison fulfills the contradictory desire of conservative readers, who are in the majority, to consume their familiar plots in unfamiliar sceneries.

著者

藤森 かよこ Kayoko Fujimori 桃山学院大学文学部

出版者

桃山学院大学総合研究所

雑誌

英米評論 (ISSN:09170200)

巻号頁・発行日

no.21, pp.55-82[含 英語文要旨], 2007-03

---

What is called "American feminism" in this article means liberal feminismor radical feminism. Many critics, especially French ones such as ElizabethBadinter and Emmanuel Todd, underestimate American feminism in the pointthat its pro-violence tendency hinders feminism from its mature developmentand further prevalence. This article does not share their view. As explainedlater, the pro-violence attitude of American feminism might be able to present aprototype of "a citizen of the world" in the coming (?) borderless, post-nationstatesworld promoted by globalization. Here "globalization" does not mean thelatest stage of American imperialism. Here globalization is "the process of increasinginterconnectedness between societies such that events in one part ofthe world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away."It is true that not a few of American feminists regard violence as one of theiroptions to protect themselves. American radical feminists such as Naomi Wolfand D. A. Clarke assert that women should not hesitate to counterattack againstdomestic violence and other sexual violence. Paxton Quigley recommendswomen's owing guns against crimes. Martha McCaughey, a physical feminist, advocateswomen's going into training in martial arts for self-defense. The NationalOrganization for Women (NOW), which is a representative of liberal feminists inUSA, is positive about woman soldiers' service in war battles for national defense.Yet they are not especially pro-violent, because their attitude is necessarilyresulted from American core values.Some American feminists regard their position as "militia" or contemporarycitizen soldiers. Militia is a military force that engages in a rebel or terrorist activitiesin opposition to a regular army. Militiamen, ordinary people with theirown guns used for their hunting for food (never for pleasure) won the victory inthe American War of Independence, though some researches say that it is nothingbut a myth, not a historical fact. Myth or fact, in this point, militia symbolizesAmerican core values : freedom, independence, individualism, equality and democracy.Once American people feel that their "unalienable Rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are threatened by others,governments or any organizations or individuals, they might be ready to use theirown weapons. Weapon ownership is a key aspect of citizenship under democraticgovernment for some American people. They believe that the Constitution ofthe United States of America supports their view.Certainly Amendment 2 of Bill of Rights enacted in 1791 says "A well regulatedMilitia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the peopleto keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The survey of ABC News in2002 shows that seventy three percent of the American citizens think thatAmendment 2 guarantees their right to keep and bear weapons for self defense.American people against gun control are not only what antigun critics call "gunenthusiasts." According to one research, gun owners believe that society is aviolent place; so they prepare for the possibility of doing violence themselves ;they view this position to be the most responsible one they have to take in relationto their own safety ; they are also aware that many oppressive governmentsdo not permit firearms to be owned by the general people, because gun ownershipcan potentially threaten the government through a citizens' revolt. SomeAmerican feminists share this view with gun owners.This article does not mean that American feminists' pro violence attitudeshould be positively considered because their views are resulted from Americancore values. Even if American feminists regard themselves as militiawomen,contemporary citizen soldiers, such kind of attitude can be called caricatural.There is a hypothesis that the peripheral members in a given society try to moreradically embody the society's most sweeping ideologies than the central members.American feminists who try to be regular citizens, never "second citizens",may be more stimulated to achieve American core values as completely as possible.We should notice that this kind of caricatural American feminists providesus with a prototype of a citizen of the coming world developed by globalization,where order in world politics emerges not from a balance of power among nationstatesbut from the interactions between many layers of governing arrangements.Nation-states demand its constituency to be subject to their policies andlaws, and in exchange for its subordination, they are supposed to offer their peoplebenefits and protection. But history has been showing the examples thatnation-states could be the worst oppressor and violator for people. However,globlization might permit people to traffic the many layers of governing institutions,depending on their own needs and profits. Then, nation-states will be ableto be optional, not fatal.The political philosophy of the coming, globalized world is the most radicalform of republicanism, also called civic humanism. The coming world might beable to be the most expanded republic, a new world order governed by and forthe people. Then, people will not be able to rely on nation-states as their protectors,if people don't want state interference. In other words, future citizens ofthe world must be ready to be citizen soldiers, caricatured form of militia,"American feminists." As citizens of a republic, American feminists who premisethat they can't trust the government and its agents, do not invite the state to beresponsible for their safety, even though dependency is so seductive.Some people wonder if such a world can be the greatest prison, the mostelaborate "Matrix" controlled by invisible power. Whether the biggest republic,the new world order may be utopian dystopian, a pro-violent, pro-counterattackAmerican feminist is a prototype of a citizen of the post-nation-states world.

著者

藤森 かよこ Kayoko Fujimori

雑誌

英米評論 = ENGLISH REVIEW (ISSN:09170200)

巻号頁・発行日

no.21, pp.55-82, 2007-03-15

---

What is called "American feminism" in this article means liberal feminismor radical feminism. Many critics, especially French ones such as ElizabethBadinter and Emmanuel Todd, underestimate American feminism in the pointthat its pro-violence tendency hinders feminism from its mature developmentand further prevalence. This article does not share their view. As explainedlater, the pro-violence attitude of American feminism might be able to present aprototype of "a citizen of the world" in the coming (?) borderless, post-nationstatesworld promoted by globalization. Here "globalization" does not mean thelatest stage of American imperialism. Here globalization is "the process of increasinginterconnectedness between societies such that events in one part ofthe world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away."It is true that not a few of American feminists regard violence as one of theiroptions to protect themselves. American radical feminists such as Naomi Wolfand D. A. Clarke assert that women should not hesitate to counterattack againstdomestic violence and other sexual violence. Paxton Quigley recommendswomen's owing guns against crimes. Martha McCaughey, a physical feminist, advocateswomen's going into training in martial arts for self-defense. The NationalOrganization for Women (NOW), which is a representative of liberal feminists inUSA, is positive about woman soldiers' service in war battles for national defense.Yet they are not especially pro-violent, because their attitude is necessarilyresulted from American core values.Some American feminists regard their position as "militia" or contemporarycitizen soldiers. Militia is a military force that engages in a rebel or terrorist activitiesin opposition to a regular army. Militiamen, ordinary people with theirown guns used for their hunting for food (never for pleasure) won the victory inthe American War of Independence, though some researches say that it is nothingbut a myth, not a historical fact. Myth or fact, in this point, militia symbolizesAmerican core values : freedom, independence, individualism, equality and democracy.Once American people feel that their "unalienable Rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are threatened by others,governments or any organizations or individuals, they might be ready to use theirown weapons. Weapon ownership is a key aspect of citizenship under democraticgovernment for some American people. They believe that the Constitution ofthe United States of America supports their view.Certainly Amendment 2 of Bill of Rights enacted in 1791 says "A well regulatedMilitia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the peopleto keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The survey of ABC News in2002 shows that seventy three percent of the American citizens think thatAmendment 2 guarantees their right to keep and bear weapons for self defense.American people against gun control are not only what antigun critics call "gunenthusiasts." According to one research, gun owners believe that society is aviolent place; so they prepare for the possibility of doing violence themselves ;they view this position to be the most responsible one they have to take in relationto their own safety ; they are also aware that many oppressive governmentsdo not permit firearms to be owned by the general people, because gun ownershipcan potentially threaten the government through a citizens' revolt. SomeAmerican feminists share this view with gun owners.This article does not mean that American feminists' pro violence attitudeshould be positively considered because their views are resulted from Americancore values. Even if American feminists regard themselves as militiawomen,contemporary citizen soldiers, such kind of attitude can be called caricatural.There is a hypothesis that the peripheral members in a given society try to moreradically embody the society's most sweeping ideologies than the central members.American feminists who try to be regular citizens, never "second citizens",may be more stimulated to achieve American core values as completely as possible.We should notice that this kind of caricatural American feminists providesus with a prototype of a citizen of the coming world developed by globalization,where order in world politics emerges not from a balance of power among nationstatesbut from the interactions between many layers of governing arrangements.Nation-states demand its constituency to be subject to their policies andlaws, and in exchange for its subordination, they are supposed to offer their peoplebenefits and protection. But history has been showing the examples thatnation-states could be the worst oppressor and violator for people. However,globlization might permit people to traffic the many layers of governing institutions,depending on their own needs and profits. Then, nation-states will be ableto be optional, not fatal.The political philosophy of the coming, globalized world is the most radicalform of republicanism, also called civic humanism. The coming world might beable to be the most expanded republic, a new world order governed by and forthe people. Then, people will not be able to rely on nation-states as their protectors,if people don't want state interference. In other words, future citizens ofthe world must be ready to be citizen soldiers, caricatured form of militia,"American feminists." As citizens of a republic, American feminists who premisethat they can't trust the government and its agents, do not invite the state to beresponsible for their safety, even though dependency is so seductive.Some people wonder if such a world can be the greatest prison, the mostelaborate "Matrix" controlled by invisible power. Whether the biggest republic,the new world order may be utopian dystopian, a pro-violent, pro-counterattackAmerican feminist is a prototype of a citizen of the post-nation-states world.

著者

藤森 かよこ Kayoko Fujimori

雑誌

英米評論 = ENGLISH REVIEW (ISSN:09170200)

巻号頁・発行日

no.24, pp.115-136, 2010-03-19

---

This paper aims to demonstrate the logical affinity between gender feminists and Libertarians by clarifying and reconsidering the exact connotation of "gender." Now it is a common knowledge to distinguish sex as the biological state of being male and female from "gender" as the socially and culturally constructed state of being male or female. However, by the end of 1990s, as Joan Wallach Scott says in the preface to the revised edition of Gender and the Politics of History, "gender" in generally accepted usage had become something quite different from what it really means. Some regard "gender" as a synonym for the differences between the sexes. Some think that "gender" denotes the social rules imposed on men and women. Some misunderstand that gender feminists aim to eliminate the difference between men and women. Some warn that gender feminists attack manhood, womanhood, masculinity, femininity, fatherhood, motherhood, heterosexuality, marriages and family values. These misinterpretations are caused by their failure to grasp the exact meaning of gender concept. The earliest meanings of "gender" were "kind," "sort" and "type or class of noun." Since the 14th century the word gender has been used as a grammatical term, referring to the classes of nouns and pronouns in Latin, French, Greek, German, Russian and other languages designated as masculine, feminine, neuter and common. In other words, "gender" is a way to recognize things by classifying them. We cannot see innumerable things as they are. To categorize them to classes according to shape, size, color and other distinctions is the first step for human beings to perceive the world. However, this perception is a judgment based on an illusion. In fact, properties, numbers and sets are merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Only particular, individual objects exist. To classify things never leads us to know them, since we cannot have a true appreciation of all attributes that an individual thing has. Thus we can safely say as follows : Once you know that gender is "the knowledge that establishes meanings for bodily difference," we are necessarily induced to accept nominalism that universals or general ideas are mere names or inventions without any corresponding reality. That's why gender feminists have been resisting the consolidation of women into homogeneous categories. Such gender feminists are destined to become Libertarians. Libertarianism has a greater affinity for a nominalistic view about human existence than any other political thoughts, since it advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action. Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary. All schools of Libertarianism take a skeptical view of "the common good," though they embrace viewpoints across a political spectrum, ranging from pro-property to anti-property (sometimes phrased as "right" versus "left"), from minarchist to openly anarchist. Libertarians share the notion that "the common good of a collective-a race, a class, a state-was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men," as Ayn Rand, one of representative Libertarian thinkers, says in The Fountainhead, her novel. This is why Libertarians hold that activities such as drug use and prostitution that arguably harm no one but the participants should not be illegal ; people are free to choose to live any kind of life on their own risks on condition that their activities never violate other people's rights. Thus gender /Libertarian feminists refuse the general, collective image of women as victims and the oppressed. They seek to celebrate or protect the individual woman. They encourage women to take full responsibility for their own lives. They also oppose any government interference into the choices adults make with their own bodies, because they contend that such interference creates a coercive hierarchy and suppresses the individual woman.

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

福山市立大学都市経営学部

雑誌

都市経営 : 福山市立大学都市経営学部紀要 = Urban management : bulletin of the Faculty of Urban Management, Fukuyama City University (ISSN:2186862X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.3, pp.9-26, 2013

---

自由主義に対抗する意味での「保守党」なる政党が創立されたことはないアメリカ合衆国において,ある種の人々が,1940年代から50年代にかけて,自分たちを「アメリカの保守主義者」として意識し,保守主義運動を起こす契機になったのは,フリードリッヒ・A・ハイエクの『隷属への道』(The Road to Serfdom,1944)だった.ハイエクは,ナチスの国家社会主義と同じ風潮が自由主義を生んだ英国を浸食していることに危惧を抱き,自由主義の大義を訴えた.その頃,アメリカでは,1930年代大恐慌期のローズヴェルト政権時代のニューディール政策の社会主義的,統制経済政策が,アメリカ国民にもたらした精神の変質と冷戦期のソ連台頭への危機感に苛立つ人々がいた.彼らは,リベラル左派知識人が指摘するように,「旧家族アメリカ人集団」と,「社会的に地位の向上しつつある人種集団」と「新興の成金集団」という,ある種の劣等感と利己主義からアメリカ建国の理念に固執する社会集団であったのかもしれない.しかし,ともあれ,『隷属への道』は,リベラル左派系知識人が「極右」と軽蔑する人々に,思想的基盤と大義を与えた.

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

福山市立大学都市経営学部

雑誌

都市経営 : 福山市立大学都市経営学部紀要 = Urban management : bulletin of the Faculty of Urban Management, Fukuyama City University (ISSN:2186862X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.6, pp.11-28, 2014

---

『肩をすくめるアトラス』(1957年)に対する保守主義言論界から放たれた悪意に満ちた書評に応えて,アメリカの保守主義者たちの思想の矛盾と哲学的立脚点の曖昧さに対するアイン・ランドの攻撃が始まった.アイン・ランドとアメリカ保守主義の対立は決定的になった.以下のようにアイン・ランドは主張した.保守主義者たちは,建国の理念を寿ぐ.しかし,建国の理念が必然的に導き出す政治経済体制であるところの資本主義を明確に支持しないのは,なぜか.彼女の定義による資本主義とは,長期的視野に基づいた合理的自己利益を実現したい個人が,そのような個人と,各自の労働による生産物を,互恵的に交換することである.資本主義の弊害は,資本主義の過剰から起きるのではなく,資本主義の欠如から起きる.道徳としての資本主義を理解しない保守主義者たちは,利他主義の道徳を市民に強制する国家主義(リベラル)に敗北するしかない.さらに彼らは,アメリカが伝統を打破して建国されたことを忘れている.伝統を守ると言いつつ,現状維持したいだけである.また,アメリカの保守主義者が,家族を過度に重視するのは,一種の部族主義,集団主義である.個人の独立と自由を守るべく王制を否定し,共和国を史上初めて立ち上げたアメリカ建国の祖(Founding Fathers)は,人間の知力,理性以外に頼るものはなかった.しかし,現代の保守主義者は,人間の理性の力を認めず,政教分離したはずのアメリカで宗教を奉じ,神の存在に疑問を持つ知性の自由を恐れる.Ayn Rand's break with conservatism was caused by the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957. She was ostracized from American conservatives'circle.Ayn Rand's most specific attack on conservatism was developed in her essay, "Conservatism,an Obituary." Rand said as follows:The most crucial problem is that the conservatives do not stand for capitalism, because conservatives evade the conflict between capitalism and the morality of altruism; USA was founded on capitalism whose principle is that man has the inalienable rights to exist for his/her own sake, neither sacrificing himself/herself to others nor sacrificing others to himself/herself, and that men must deal with one another as traders by voluntary choice to mutual benefits; altruism holds that man has no right to exist for his/her own sake; self-sacrifice is his/her highest moral duty, virtue and value; the social systems based on altruism are socialism, fascism, Nazism,communism and statism, which immolate men for the benefit of the group, the tribe, the society and the state.Ayn Rand believed that conservatives and she shared the political philosophy, Enlightenment thought, emphasizing reason and individualism, on which USA was based. But some conservatives defend capitalism on the ground of man's depravity. Because men are lack of rationality, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility. They say that a free society is the proper way of life for human beings as imperfect creatures. They deny the power of man's mind as his/her basic means of survival. They also desecrate Western civilization which was founded as the product of reason and rationality.Ayn Rand also criticizes the worship of "tradition" of conservatives: some conservatives uphold the status quo, the given, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, though USA was created by men who broke with all political traditions. Rand maintains that conservative obsession with the "Family" was a sort of tribalism; the Family is an institution that undercuts the individual's independence and autonomy.

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

福山市立大学都市経営学部

雑誌

都市経営 : 福山市立大学都市経営学部紀要 = Urban management : bulletin of the Faculty of Urban Management, Fukuyama City University (ISSN:2186862X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.2, pp.113-128, 2013

---

1930年代ニューディール(New Deal)政策の社会主義的,統制経済的政策は,アメリカ精神の劣化をもたらしたと考えた人々は,アメリカのソ連化を阻止するべく結集し,保守主義陣営を結成した.彼らは,ソ連からの亡命者アイン・ランドの作品がアメリカ的価値観や自由放任資本主義を祝福するものであったので,彼女を大いに歓迎した.しかし,それもランドが1957年に『肩をすくめるアトラス』(Atlas Shrugged)を発表するまでのことだった.アイン・ランドをアメリカの主流保守言論界から追放し,かつ文化左翼リベラル系知識人をしてランドを蛇蝎視させることになった『肩をすくめるアトラス』は,アイン・ランドが「客観主義」と名づけた哲学を基礎としている.「客観主義」は,形而上学的には客観的現実(Objective Reality),認識論的には理性(Reason),倫理的には自己利益(Self-interest),政治的には自由放任資本主義(Laissez-faire Capitalism)の立場を採る.ランドは,地上のことは,人間の有能さと努力と創意工夫が解決するべきものであり,人間に責任があることを指摘した.その意味での人間の英雄性を肯定し,無神論を支持した.また,利他主義の欺瞞性を指摘し,個人の長期的視野に基づいた徹底した利己主義の発露こそが,個人の集積である社会に平和と秩序をもたらすと主張し,その文脈から自由放任資本主義を唯一の道徳的体制として支持した.『肩をすくめるアトラス』は,出版以来,アメリカの草の根の国民文学であり続けている.

著者

藤森かよこ編 岩田和男 [ほか著]

出版者

世織書房

巻号頁・発行日

2004

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

金城学院大学

雑誌

金城学院大学論集. 英米文学編 (ISSN:04538862)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.34, pp.171-187, 1993-03-20

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

福山市立大学都市経営学部

雑誌

都市経営 : 福山市立大学都市経営学部紀要 = Urban Management : Bulletin of the Faculty of Urban Management, Fukuyama City University (ISSN:2186862X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.10, pp.35-52, 2018-02-28

---

アメリカの国民作家・思想家のアイン・ランド(Ayn Rand)の思想は毀誉褒貶が激しく,特にその徹底した合理主義(rationalism)は,日本人読者にとって敬遠されやすい.ところが,実は,アイン・ランドの思想の核となる彼女の資本主義観は,日本人にとって意外に理解しやすく共感を得やすい.それは,百田尚樹の『海賊とよばれた男』という経済歴史小説と,ランドの代表作の『肩をすくめるアトラス』を比較するとわかることである.これら二作品は,どちらも「資本主義の精神」を祝福し,どちらもリバータリアニズムの立場にある.マックス・ヴェーバーが論じたように,資本主義の精神を構成するのは,「労働が宗教的救済となること」と「目的合理的な経営」と「利潤の正当化」である.山本七平が発見したように,その資本主義の精神は江戸期の日本にも生まれていた.だからこその明治以降の日本の近代化が可能であった.ランドの資本主義観は,一見奇異に見えて,ヴェーバーが論じた資本主義の精神の世俗化した形である.この文脈で,ランドの説く道徳としての資本主義は,日本人にとって理解しやすいものである.ただし,ランドが「いまだ実現していない理想」として説く資本主義の精神においては,日本的資本主義に見られるように,企業という機能集団は,共同体と未分化ではない.日本人がランドの資本主義から学べることは,個人を共同体に溶解させることによって機能集団を機能不全にすることを抑止する個人主義である.個人の尊厳である.Ayn Rand's defense of capitalism has infuriated anti-capitalists, including many American intellectuals. In popular usage in the context of literary criticism, the word "capitalism"is a synonym of evil. In such an anti-capitalist American intellectual milieu, Ayn Rand dared to refuse to renounce the concept of capitalism.Ayn Rand's view of capitalism is derived from the following ideas: reality exists as an objective absolute, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears; reason is man's only means of perceiving reality, man's only source of knowledge, man's only guide of action, and man's means of survival; every man is an end in himself/herself, not the means to the ends of others; man must exist for his/her own sake, neither sacrificing him/her to others nor sacrificing others to him/her; the pursuit of man's own rational self-interests based on a long-term vision and the achievement of his/her own happiness are the moral purposes of his/her life; therefore, the ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism, because it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit; the government acts only as a protector of man's rights; for the above-mentioned reasons, of all the social systems in human history, capitalism is the only system based on morality, though a pure system of capitalism has never yet existed even in America; that is to say, capitalism is the system of the future or the unknown ideal.Thus we can safely say that Ayn Rand's view of capitalism seems to be "humanistic" rather than "capitalistic." Ayn Rand's defense of capitalism as a moral system makes readers recognize that protection of individual rights and creation of prosperity as its result depend on the spiritualization of political-economic life through the recognition and practice of morality, or on the true spirits of capitalism which was previously discussed by Max Weber.

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

福山市立大学都市経営学部

雑誌

都市経営 : 福山市立大学都市経営学部紀要 = Urban management : bulletin of the Faculty of Urban Management, Fukuyama City University (ISSN:2186862X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.9, pp.17-33, 2016

---

「アイン・ランドは新自由主義の源泉のひとつである」と批判的に言われている.このアイン・ランド批判は2点において知的怠慢の産物である.第一の怠慢は,新自由主義(neoliberalism)に関する理解不足である.新自由主義を「強欲資本主義」と同義語として邪悪なものとしてみることは,現行の知的風土の前提である.しかし,新自由主義と「新自由主義と呼ばれる現象」とは別である.新自由主義の実践が,その原則からかなり逸脱したものであることは,新自由主義批判者が認めている.そもそも賢人政治的期待を政府は満たすことはできない.現代と未来は,新自由主義的経済政策の「創造的破壊」を通過するしかないのかもしれない.新自由主義は未完のプロジェクトなのだ.第二の知的怠慢は,ランドが唱える思想に使用される言葉の意味を検証せずして,ランドは利己主義を肯定したのだから強欲資本主義の提唱者であると断じることである.彼女が肯定した「利己主義」とは,長期的視野に基づく合理的なものである.「気まぐれな自分勝手」では長期的には自己利益は確保できない.ランドが支持した「道徳としての資本主義」は,あくまでも等価交換をする自由な交易者どうしの関係を意味する.搾取と物理的強制力から解放された自由な個人間の関係を条件にしている.1980年代から各国で採用された新自由主義政策が生み出したサイバー資本主義や金融資本主義や,21世紀になってからの金融危機など,アイン・ランドの思想とは遠く離れている.Some critics say that Ayn Rand is the "fountainhead" of neoliberalism. This notion is the result of intellectual negligence in the following two points.First, this notion is based on the premise that neoliberalism is a sort of villain. Neoliberalism has been blamed as the ideology behind the outbreak of the economic crisis that shocked the world in 2008 and 2009 and the present economic recession. But there are the contradictions between neoliberalism in principles and that in practice. Even those against neoliberalism notice that systematic divergences from the template of neoliberalism are apparent.Second, this notion fails to grasp Ayn Rand's thoughts, "Objectivism." Rand stated that the proper purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest) and that the only social system consistent with this morality is laisse-faire capitalism with a separation of state and economics. Because full respect for individual rights is embodied in laissez-faire capitalism. Rand proposes a limited government that has a coercive monopoly on the use of physical force. Rand argues that the harmony of interests of individuals is inherent in the nature of a trade. A trade is an exchange from which both parties expect to derive a mutual benefit. We can safely say that Rand's views about capitalism as morality have no connection with neoliberalism in practice.

著者

藤森 かよこ Kayoko Fujimori 桃山学院大学文学部

雑誌

桃山学院大学総合研究所紀要 = ST.ANDREW'S UNIVERSITY BULLETIN OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ISSN:1346048X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.33, no.3, pp.49-57, 2008-03-18

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

金城学院大学

雑誌

金城学院大学論集. 英米文学編 (ISSN:04538862)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, pp.183-207, 1995-03-20

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

桃山学院大学

雑誌

桃山学院大学総合研究所紀要 (ISSN:1346048X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.33, no.3, pp.49-57, 2008-03-18

著者

藤森 かよこ

出版者

桃山学院大学

雑誌

英米評論 (ISSN:09170200)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.13, pp.71-92, 1998-12-21

---

Much description about sexual troubles, conflicts or oppression, in Winesburg, Ohio has been stimulating the readers to clarify its significance and functions. This issue was one of the reasons why the novel was unfavorably ctiticised just after its publication. Still in 1919 there survived the remains of puritanically genteel tradition in literary criticism, which regards sexual matters as unworthy to think of. However, in the post Freud era, the readers never fail to perceive Sherwood Anderson's insight about sexuality as real aspects of human existence. Even rough reading leads us to find the mutual permeation between the sexual desire and spiritual aspiration which the characters are tortured with. Sex cannot be explained only from sex; spirit cannot be explained only from spirit. This is one of the recognitions we share in the present, postmodern age when all kinds of dichotomy, including a binal oppsition of flesh and soul, already have been deconstructed. Some feminist critics notice that the sexual conflicts of the female characters are more compassionately described than those of the male ones. As one feminist points out, this is because the author identifies the feminine with a pervasive presence of a fragile, vulnerable, hidden something that seeks tenderness, communication and deep relationship in body and soul. Yet this kind of criticism should be blamed for its essentialism, since it presupposes that the feminine belongs to women. Women are not necessarily feminine; men are not always masculine. Anyway it is certatin that the author sympathizes more with the female characters, but it does not mean that this novel is in favor of feminism. In the novel men are allowed to leave their small town, but women are confined within their suffocating life with frustration and irritation. Men are qualified to consume and use women's love and concerns, though women are expected to be exploited by men. As a whole, Winesburg, Ohio is one of the stereotyped, male-centered novels in which various kinds of victimization of women are repeatedly presented. But what we should pay more attention to about this novel is not the author's sympathetic but traditionally sexist attitudes toward women, but the occasional, brilliant moments when something beyond the gender system are revealed. A strange man in "Tandy" confesses that he has been longing and looking for an ideal woman, "something more than man or woman." In "Sophistication," George and Helen feel embarrassed in their encounter, because their respect and love to each other is impossible to be represented in the customs and codes which the gender-bound society implicitly forces lovers to accept and obey. Kate in "Teacher" does not know how to express her love except in eccentric ways, because she is too sensible and too intelligent to get involved to the sexual relationships which the gender-bound society expects her to have. Gender is a hierarchial order of sexes; gender devides people into men as upper, dominant class and women as lower, subordinate class. The sexual troubles of the female characters are caused by their gender-bound society, which makes it difficult to create and keep equal, fair sexual relationships and communication between men and women. Needless to say such a sexual hierarchical system obstructs not only the fulfilment of women's love but also that of men's. Some male characters also suffer from sexual expoitation, because they are required to be strong enough to be utilized by women. Love is impossible in the gender-bound system. Sexual relationship is likely to be mutual exclusive and mutual expoitative there. The significance of a prevalent presence of sexual troubles in Winesburg, Ohio lies in that the distortions and absurdities that the gender-bound system impose on people are exposed through them. Although Anderson did not know about a "gender" concept at all, which has been academized since 1970s, his insight and sensibility enabled him to grasp what we call the gender troubles. Winesburg, Ohio is gender-bound in the episodes and anecdota, but it dreams and visions "something more than man or woman" in a utopia beyond gender. If this novel's tone sounds dark and gloomy, it is partly due to the impossibility of a utopia.