Date:May 19, 2008 (Mon.) 14:00-15:50PM → Time Change 13:30-15:20PM
Venue:Room E207, 2nd floor of East Bldg, CSEAS
Presentation:
Hiromu Shimizu (Professor, CSEAS)
The presentation was followed by a Nandemo-miru-kai (We’ll watch anything) session in which the movie “Future in the Ashes—the Aeta Tribe of the last 20th Century,” edited by the presenter, was screened. Through both this report and the movie, we saw that while the unexpected eruption of Pinatubo forced a change in the Aeta people’s lifestyle, it also gave chanceto realize their identity. The discussion extended to how we as researchers should approach field work. Dr. Shimizu argued that we should commit the field and people living there not as subjects of our research (“Genchi”, andInfômanto) but as places where various events/issues occur and as people who involved in those events (“Genba”, and Tôjisha). In that sense, he suggested, we can set “area” in according to each issue of study, not using existing area such as “South-east Asia” or “Monsoon Asia”, which hints at potential future directions for anthropological and area studies.
In the question and answer section, a question was raised whether it is better after a natural disaster to aim for “restoration to the original condition” or “construction which improves on the status quo”. The response was that a return to the original condition is ideal but, if different issues should come to light because of a disaster, these might also be dealt with during restoration. The increased interaction of the local participants with outsiders after a disaster may bring to the surface other pre-existing issues – which is not always negative, as this can be a chance to make improvements in the society and life. Based on lessons learned through this case, it is anticipated that concrete recommendation can be made to recovery aid after future disasters in other locations.
Also, a question was raised by young researchers regarding the proper method for study or research focusing on an event, asking whether it would be improper to decide on a research theme after entering the field. Dr. Shimizu responded by relating how he himself just happened upon this issue after arriving in the field and suggested that Anthropology as a discipline that has responsibility to “Genba” would be developed by researchers with acute sensitivity for local people’s concern.
In addition, questions were raised about whether an event-based approach could really make “sustainable humanosphere” research possible, and whether, although it is necessary to keep track of long-term changes over the course of time, it is even possible with anthropological methods. In response, noting that Dr. Shimizu’s focus on events was ground-breaking because anthropology traditionally focuses on every day life, Dr. Tanabe commented that it is necessary for area studies researchers to broaden their viewpoint by cooperating and collaborating with researchers in other disciplines which use a variety of methodologies/approaches.
(Makoto Kasezawa)