ランキング (合計) - Ceek.jp Altmetrics

This paper aims to challenge various traditional views of the Russian Empire: that it was a ruthless "Russirier"; that it had a universalistic and hannonious principle for integration; that in its last stage the empire was transforming itself to a nation-state. I try to do so by examining history of two unsuccessful projects of the Russian Empire in Central Asia, that is, Christianization as propagation of a universalistic ideology, and military conscription as a tool of nation building. Debates on Christianization of Central Asians began in the 1860s. The Kazakhs and Kyrgyz were considered to be half-Muslims, unlike Tatars and Uzbeks ("Sarts"), and therefore relatively easy targets for propagation of Orthodoxy. Opponents to Christianization, however, maintained that it could antagonize Muslims (including Kazakhs and Kyrgyz) and cause disorders. In Turkistan, whose Muslim sedentary population was called "fanatic," Governor-General Kaufman practically prohibited missionary activities. He did not object to General Kolpakovskii's support to missionary activities among the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Kalmyks in Semirech'e, but the results of proselytism there were meager. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century, only about one thousand Central Asian natives converted to Orthodoxy. The Tsar's manifesto of religious toleration in April 1905, which conditionally sanctioned conversion from Orthodoxy to other faiths, dealt a final blow to missionaries. Most of the baptized Central Asians went back to Islam and almost no one was newly converted after this. Scenes of the revolt of 1916 in Semirech'e, where rebels killed monks and Russians in arms gathered in church squares, were highly symbolic in the sense that the Orthodox Church, after all, belonged to the Russians, not the native peoples of Central Asia. The second part of the paper examines discussions on military conscription of Central Asians, who were exempted from it as inorodtsy (aliens). One of the arguments for conscription was the necessity of strong cavalry in preparation for possible wars with China and Afghanistan. Officers cited the high quality of Central Asian nomads as horse-riders, and emphasized that military service was a powerful tool of Russification and the best school to teach public order. Again, a major argument against military conscription was the possibility of disturbances. Many officers feared that military service would give the population leaders for possible insurrections. Some also insisted that the conditions of military service radically contradicted the mode of life of nomads who were accustomed to unlimited freedom. Overall, they alleged that Central Asians' "low blagonadezhnost' (trustworthiness) and grazhdanstvennost' (level of civic development)" was a fundamental obstacle to their conscription. Officers evaluated the combat ability of various ethnic groups differently. They generally regarded the sedentary population of Turkistan as cowards and called the Kazakhs excellent horsemen but not necessarily courageous warriors, but were fascinated by the splendid quality of the Turkmen as warriors. This fascination gave birth to the exceptional case of the Turkmen irregular cavalry. After 1905, Russian nationalists increasingly asserted that Russians bore an unjustly heavy burden in defending the empire, and called for drafting inorodtsy. During World War I, the Ministry of War drew up a bill to draft almost all the ethnic groups of the empire, but the Ministry of Interior nixed it. In 1916, the government suddenly decided to mobilize Central Asians not as soldiers but as laborers, which gave rise to a huge revolt. On the whole, discussions of military service by Central Asians (which continued for more than half a century) took the character of a chicken-and-egg problem. Would military service enhance their grazhdanstvennost' and Russify them, or did military service require a sufficiently high level of grazhdanstvennost' and Russification? Eventually, officials who mistrusted inorodtsy always managed to block conscription proposals. Reasons for the failure of the two projects were partly rooted in the Russian bureaucracy. Permission for missionary activities was often given after much delay or was not given at all. The Orthodox Church itself had a hierarchical and bureaucratic structure. By contrast, Muslim mullahs went into the steppe as peddlers and healers without bureaucratic procedures, and could easily adapt themselves to local society. Moreover, officials' grasp of local situations was shaky. They thought that native administration of volosts and villages formed an "impermeable curtain" and hindered them from knowing Muslim life. The most important point of my analyses is the particularistic features or Russian policy. Many officials shared the view that it was desirable to Russify Central Asians, but there was hardly any resolute determination to carry out concrete measures for this purpose. They were interested in passive maintenance of stability rather than active integration and Russification. They did not just differentiate Central Asians from the Russians, but also differentiated nomads from sedentary people, the steppe oblasts from Turkistan. Officials were obsessed with the idea that they had to discuss the pros and cons of a policy measure in relation to every single region or ethnic group. This attitude of alienating (or otherizing) Central Asians and classifying them is what I call particularism. Particularism partly derived from a character inherent to autocratic empires. In such empires, a subjugated country or people pledged allegiance separately to the monarch, and were given peculiar privileges and obligations. But in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, quasi-academic discourses on ethnic characters added new meanings to particularism. Courageousness, warlikeness, trustworthiness and grazhdanstvennost' were considered to be characters of ethnic groups rather than qualities of individuals. This tendency to attach excessively great importance to ethnic characters was a product of Orientalism and the mind of the colonial state.

2022-10-03 14:29:45
2 + 4 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/2115/39246

2 0 0 0 OA 17世紀のロシア人探検家が見たカムチャツカの先住民族 : アトラソフの『第二の話』に基づいて

著者: スクーチナイリーナ
出版者: 北海道大学大学院文学研究院北方研究教育センター
雑誌: 北方人文研究 (ISSN:1882773X)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.15, pp.23-42, 2022-03-25

本研究は、17世紀にカムチャツカ半島を訪れたロシア側の探検家がまとめた資料を歴史的な背景を配慮しながらエスノグラフィーとして読むことによって、ロシア人は当時、カムチャツカ半島南端とカムチャツカに近い千島列島の島に居住していたクリル民族をどのように捉え、どのように表象したかということに焦点を当て、その意味と理由を考察することを目的とする。カムチャツカ半島は、17世紀の半ばにロシア帝国のコサックにより「発見」され、1697年にアトラソフの探検隊によってロシア領とされた。ロシアの一部となった他のシベリア地域のように、カムチャツカもあらゆる側面から調査の対象となった。もちろん、ロシア人はカムチャツカの先住民族にも興味をひかれたので、その身体的な特徴や言語、生活様式についても記述している。その先住民族の中の1つが、カムチャツカ南端と、半島から南に延びる千島列島の島々に住む「クリル人」とロシア人に呼ばれていた民族であった。19世紀の初めにその民族の姿がカムチャツカから消滅したが、カムチャツカを探検した人からの記述が少々残されている。その内の1つがコッサックのウラジーミル・アトラソフの『第一の話』、『第二の話』として知られている報告がある。本研究では特に『第二の話』を中心に、先住民族とロシア人との関係性、また先住民族に対するロシア人の姿勢を見ていく。

2022-10-02 23:54:48
2 + 2 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/2115/84604

2 0 0 0 OA 宗教と社会開発 : 東北タイの開発僧

著者: 櫻井義秀
出版者: 北海道印度哲学仏教学会
雑誌: 印度哲学仏教学 (ISSN:09128816)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.19, pp.245-275, 2004-10

本稿では、東北タイの開発僧と呼ばれる僧侶の社会開発実践を紹介する。その際、宗教が社会制度や社会運動として、社会形成に貢献する条件を一般的な開発論と、タイの社会史的コンテキストの中で考察する。一章では20世紀後半のグローバリゼーションと反グローバリゼーションの運動をテロリズムの背景を探るという形で、社会階層論から説明を試みる。二章において、宗教が社会形成に果たす機能を考察するために、社会開発論における文化的な社会資本論について言及し、宗教制度が社会資本になりうる可能性を論じる。三章は、タイの上座仏教全体について説明し、開発僧に関わる先行研究の議論を紹介した上で、本稿のハイライトである開発僧の事例を筆者の調査研究の知見から説明する。

http://hdl.handle.net/2115/839

2 0 0 0 OA 五道神と武塔神

著者: 山口建治ヤマグチケンジ
出版者: 神奈川大学人文学研究所
雑誌: 人文学研究所報 = Bulletin of the Institute for Humanities Research (ISSN:02877082)
巻号頁・発行日: no.49, pp.1-14, 2013-03-25

2022-10-02 14:38:50
2 + 2 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/10487/12238

2 0 0 0 OA 運動部活動での挫折からの立ち直りについての質的研究 -支えになった他者との関わりに着目して-

著者: 竹田光輝畑琴音八巻秀鈴木伸一
出版者: 早稲田大学人間科学学術院心理相談室
雑誌: 早稲田大学臨床心理学研究 (ISSN:24363707)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.21, no.1, pp.49-56, 2021-12

2022-09-30 18:11:56
2 + 0 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/2065/00082748

2 0 0 0 OA 映像化する京都、映像化される京都 : 京都イメージの転換と映像産業における京都の意味の変化

著者: 中川涼司
出版者: 立命館大学国際関係学会
雑誌: 立命館国際研究 = Ritsumeikan kokusai kenkyu / The Ritsumeikan journal of international studies = 立命館国際研究 = Ritsumeikan kokusai kenkyu / The Ritsumeikan journal of international studies (ISSN:09152008)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.32, no.3, pp.1-39, 2020-02

2022-09-29 19:44:38
1 + 2 Twitter
1 + 1 Wikipedia

2 0 0 0 OA 高等学校における「二項定理」の指導を通して

著者: 榎本里志 Enomoto Satoshi
出版者: 神奈川大学
雑誌: 神奈川大学心理・教育研究論集 (ISSN:02884674)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.34, pp.101-105, 2013-11-30

指導法・実践報告

2022-09-29 18:23:38
2 + 2 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/10487/12327

2 0 0 0 OA カントにおける充足根拠律の変容

著者: 河村克俊 Katsutoshi Kawamura
雑誌: 言語と文化 (ISSN:13438530)
巻号頁・発行日: no.20, pp.53-71, 2017-03-01

2022-09-29 15:13:28
2 + 1 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/10236/00025657

2 0 0 0 OA 日本の「戦略的パートナーシップ」外交 -全体像の俯瞰

著者: 白石昌也
出版者: 早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター
雑誌: WIAPSリサーチ・シリーズ (ISSN:2185131X)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2, pp.1-585, 2014-03-27

2022-09-27 13:49:50
2 + 3 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/2065/45288

2 0 0 0 OA 関係性の違いによる異性の対人魅力

著者: 川名好裕
出版者: 立正大学心理学部
雑誌: 立正大学心理学研究年報 (ISSN:21851069)
巻号頁・発行日: no.2, pp.1-8, 2011-03-31

Fifty-four males and 128 females at the age of around twenty years old were asked about the importance of 47 items in three kinds of man-woman relationships. They are the sexual relationship, the romantic love relationship and the marital relationship. Factor analysis extracted 3 different kind of attraction, which are the mental attraction, the practical attraction and the hedonic attraction. The mental attraction is more valued in the romantic love relationship and the marital relationship. The practical attraction is valued gradually in romantic love relationship through the marital relationship. The women value the practical attraction most in the marital relationship. The hedonic attraction is valued most in the sexual relationship.