Date: October 11th, 2008 (Sat.) AM10:00～PM17:30
Venue: Clock Tower Centennial Hall, Kyoto University
Organization:
・Anthropology of Risk Research Group (funded by the Shibusawa Foundation for Ethnological Studies)
・Initiative 4 Seminar, G-COE Program "In Search of Sustainable Humanosphere in Asia and Africa, Kyoto University
Program:
Par1. "Humanosphere and Risk"
・Jumpei Ichinosawa（University of Tokyo）
・Naoki Matsumura（Nagoya University）
・Eijiro Fukui （Shimane University）
Commentator: Hiromu Shimizu (Kyoto University)
Par3. “Impasses of a risk society”
・Shuhei Kimura (Assistant Professor)
・Kentaro Azuma (Miyazaki Municipal University)
Commentator: Takeshi Mikami (Kobe University)
In Part 1, three reports were delivered on the theme of “Humanosphere and Risk.” First, Jumpei Ichinosawa classified t the ways how people perceive risk based on the case of the Japanese community in Phuket following the Indian Ocean Earthquake and tsunami at the end of 2004. Naoki Matsumura, using the case of arsenic-contaminated ground water in Bangladesh, which he has investigated as a JICA expert, discussed how the problem was discovered and how the administration and residents had responded to it. Eijiro Fukui addressed the issue of the elderly in Japan and explained the present situation where this problem had emerged as a risk, introducing the case of a group of families of dementia patients as a way of responding to the problem. As a commentator Hiromu Shimizu (CSEAS), suggested to place the issue of risk in the context of the world situation after the Second World War. And then he asked, in particular to Ichinosawa and Matsumura, whether those issues, having already arisen as problems, could be called “risks.” Questions were also raised from the floor regarding the characteristics of “anthropological” study in the framework of “risk.”
Part 2 featured three reports on the theme of “Life and Risk.” Mizuho Matsuo explained the case of reproductive medicine (surrogate pregnancy in particular) in India and pointed out that there rather seemed to be an absence of “risk” in local discourses. Then Akitomo Shingae took up the issue of mechanisms to prevent HIV infection among Japanese gay males.He analyzed how subjectswho tried to avoid contracting HIV infection and cared their well-being were being constructed, and pointed out that the problem is rather among those who are not included among the community of self-caring subjects. Makoto Nishi discussed the Gurage people in Ethiopia and explained their way to deal HIV: they didn’t exclude HIV careers but embraced them into the relationships of the local community. Commentator Shuichi Kato (Meiji Gakuin University) posed insightful questions concerning the contents of each report, asking the significance to use the ambiguous concept of “risk”, when addressing issues such as religion and life ethics that could not be dealt with using scientific data alone.
In Part 3, two reports were given on the theme of “impasses of a risk society.” Shuhei Kimura, after reviewing existing risk studies, expressed his view regarding a proper direction to be pursued by anthropological studies of risk. Kentaro Azuma, after pointing out the problems of the theories of “risk society,” argued that although “escaping” or “stepping off” is not a solution, it might be possible to find something transcending the risk society by “departing on a trip” from the risk society and becoming involved with others. Commentator Takeshi Mikami (Kobe University), based on the hope that while theories of the public sphere had come to a deadlock, an alternative framework might arise from anthropology, demanded the reporters to provide more concrete contents of what they implied.
The general discussion focused on the potential of the anthropological approach to describe how people deal with risk. Although it can be said that this symposium was successful as a starting point for allowing anthropology to approach the issue of risk that had not been addressed hitherto, this symposium revealed that, together with the potential of this study, there are important problems remaining such as to utilize the concept of risk more effectively in anthropological studies and to unfold the potential of “linkages between people” to deal with risk.
(Shuhei Kimura)