Global COE Program - Kyoto University - In Search of Sustainable Humanosphere in Asia and Africa

Date:December 14, Tue. 2010
Venue:Room No. 332, Inamori Foundation Hall, CSEAS, Kyoto University

Co-organizers:
G-COE Initiative1 and Initiative 4, Contemporary India Area Studies (KINDAS)

Title: "Changing Position of India in World Politics and Security"
 

 

＜Programme＞
15:00-15:40 Keynote Speech by Swaran Singh (Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University)
 

15:40-16:15 Discussion

16:15-16:30 Break

16:30-18:00 Session: Security Issues of India

16:30-16:45 Hiroki Nakanishi (Ph.D. Candidate, ASAFAS)
“Rethinking U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: Trade-off between India’s Right of Nuclear Test and Nuclear Cooperation”

16:45-17:00 Shiro Sato (Researcher, CSEAS)
“On the Possibility of Treaty of Non-First Use of Nuclear Weapons between India and China”

17:00-17:15 Tomoko Kiyota (Ph.D. Candidate, Takushoku University )
“India’s Arms Procurement Policy: Equilibrium between Requirement of Indigenous Production and Acquisition” 

17:15-18:00 Discussion
 

 

【Activity Report】
The purpose of this international symposium was to re-examine India’s changing position in world politics and security. Professor Swaran Singh of Jawaharlal Nehru University gave the keynote speech titled “Locating India in the Twenty-first Century: Political and Security Architecture.” He examined the relationship between India as an emerging power and both the United States and China. The next session focused on the security issues of contemporary India. First, Hiroki Nakanishi (a PhD candidate at ASAFAS) re-considered the U.S.–India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Second, Shiro Sato (a researcher at CSEAS) critically examined the possibility of concluding a treaty on the ‘non-first-use’ of nuclear weapons between India and China. Third, Tomoko Kiyota (a PhD candidate at Takushoku University) discussed India’s arms procurement policy in order to understand India’s related intentions and capabilities. During the discussion, the contributors were asked numerous questions from the floor and these three young researchers responded with fruitful and constructive comments.
(Shiro Sato）

 

Date: November 1, 2010 14:00－16:00
Venue: Room Number 331, Inamori Foundation, CSEAS 
 
Title:
"The Function of Mutual Assistance through the Elderly and Children's Inter-household Mobility in Rural Cambodia"

Presentation:
Nao Sato（Researcher, CSEAS)

 

 

Contact:
Masaaki Hirai (7815)

Date: 13 July, 2010 (Tue.) 14:00～16:00
Venue: Small Meeting RoomⅡ, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall, Kyoto University

http://www.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/about/access_ja.html

This seminar will be held in collaboration with Initiative 1 and 4.
 

 

Presentation:
Speaker1: Masaaki HIRAI (G-COE Researcher, CSEAS)
Title: Techniques and institutions of resources use in densely populated area: A case from Sereer of Senegal
 

Speaker2: Rumiko MURAO (JSPS Researcher)
Title: Reconstraction of livelihood strategies in high mobility societies of western Zambia: with special reference to cash income activities of women

* This seminor will be held in Japanese.

Date: June 27, 2010 13：30～16：30
Venue: Room Number 107, East Building, CSEAS
 

Chair：
Shuhei Kimura （Fuji Tokoha University）
 

Presentation:
Tamaki Endo (Saitama University)
Yuji Hara （Wakayama University)
 

Commentator:
Atsuro Morita（Osaka University）

Date: May 15, 2010 13:00~18:30
Venue: Room 332, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall, CSEAS
 

Record of Activity>>

Date: 19 April, 2010 (Mon.) 13:30～15:00
Venue:Meeting Room, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall, Kyoto University

Speaker: Shuhei Shimada (Professor, ASAFAS)
Title: Regional conflict and environmental problem: What is happening at oil producing area in Nigeria

Commentators:
1. Sato Shiro（G-COE Researcher, CSEAS）
2. Toru Sagawa (JSPS Researcher)

 

【Abstract】
Lots of studies showed that regional conflict on the Niger Delta had entered into new phase since Mid-1990. Ibaba (2009) says that Mid-1990 to 2009 is characterized as the period when people started to respond against the state and the oil MNCs by civil mobilization and militant action. In this period, violent action has become prevalent and more severe.
Many literatures have discussed on the cause of outbreaks of violent conflict in the area. Some explanations were given as fundamental reasons, such as; longstanding neglect by the Federal Government in economic development, marginalization in national politics, and unfulfilled compensation by the government and MNCs for the destruction of environment.
As for the upsurge of heavy armed violence since 1990s, the influence of global and semi-continental change in politics and economy has been examined; the impact of democratization and market liberalization; the influence of ceased fire in West African countries, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire. The impact of social change in local level is also pointed out; the destruction of the social structure which permitted ramified militia groups commit more criminal activity.
Transition from oppressive military government to civilian government on 29 May, 1999 marked epoch in Nigerian politics. However it seems to be the turning point alike when regional conflict had turned to be more severe. People’s frustration on the Derivation Principle has rather increased in spite of improvement the allocation rate from 3% to 13% in 2000. And oil-related litigation asking for compensation for environmental destruction has increased.
In this lecture, I would like to illuminate the complicated background of regional conflict on the Niger Delta where more than 30 million people live mainly on agriculture, fishery and trading, and the MNCs produce oil at the same time which is the mainstay of Nigerian economy.

 

【Record of Activity】

Conflicts in local society represent a serious threat to an area’s basis of livelihood. In this workshop, Prof. Shuhei Shimada discussed the Niger Delta of Nigeria, where conflicts have taken place over oil development by the state and multinational companies, and gave an analysis from a broad perspective of the different factors behind the conflicts.

The first factor is the history of inter-ethnic relations. While it is true that conflicts in the Niger Delta, an oil-producing area, have intensified since the 1990s, as seen by the frequent occurrence of mass movements and violent actions, Prof. Shimada sees the historical development of inter-ethnic relations in that country as one cause of the conflicts. The inhabitants of that region, who in the period before Independence, “while being a minority, ruled over the large ethnic groups by contributing to the slave trade,” after Independence, as the regimes and trade structure underwent transformation, changed in position to “a political-economic minority, even while living in the Niger Delta, which as an oil-exporting region became the main pillar of state finances.” This past experience of oppositional inter-ethnic relations intertwined with oil development in recent years to become one core of the conflicts. 

The second factor concerns the negative relationship between the multinational companies engaged in oil development and local residents. The ecological environment of the region includes sea, brackish water, and freshwater areas, so that in addition to a range of fishery work and agriculture, there was a rich history of trading using water routes. However, oil development proved to be a major disruption of the living spaces these provided, and the local residents became increasingly dissatisfied, with this dissatisfaction developing into domestic and external lawsuits and movements to occupy oil-related facilities. On the other hand, while offering scholarship programs and employment opportunities to local people, the companies have attempted to sustain their operations by co-opting local politicians and influential figures.

The third factor is the negative relationship between the federal government and the local people. In order to appease the people living in the oil-producing areas, the federal government raised the ratio of subsidies, but many of the people feel they should be entitled to even higher subsidies. As a result, the residents feel politically and economically alienated, and have taken to carrying out violent acts including the destruction and sabotaging of oil-related facilities, and the kidnapping and murder of employees. The federal government responded to this through military means, leading to an increase in the intensity of the conflicts.

The fourth factor involves conflicts in neighboring countries. Conflicts are or were also occurring in neighboring countries, and along with democratization and the transition to free markets in those countries, weapons began to flow into Nigeria. At the same time, the federal government’s continuation and strengthening of its policy to defend the multinational companies led to a rising backlash among residents, and the number of armed youth bands and private armies organized by influential local figures increased.

As shown here, the conflict process in the Niger Delta appears to be a result of the proximal causes of oil development and environmental destruction, but in fact is governed by the complex interactions between diverse factors including the history of inter-ethnic relations, and the actions of the multinational companies, federal government, and neighboring countries.

In response to the presentation, the commentators gave the following opinions. First, GCOE Research Fellow Shiro Sato, focusing on the arming of youth groups, stated that rather than being rooted in conflicts of interest over resources and territories or values such as identity, violence itself seemed to be the goal of these conflicts. Next, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Researcher Toru Sagawa focusing on the names of armed groups and the small scale of livelihood units stemming from the contingent nature of ecological conditions in the Delta, stated that is little unity in the ideology of the residents toward the conflicts. Many opinions were also expressed from the floor. One that was particularly memorable was the statement by Prof. Akio Tanabe that since the colonial period, the Niger Delta has had, as an attribute, the aspiration to negotiate with outside society, and that the resentment its residents harbor today originates in the feelings of oppression coming from the construction of relations between themselves and the global environment. In response to a question concerning how to find a path toward internally generated regional development, Prof. Shimada stated that he believes it is important, even while reviewing traditional livelihood patterns and systems, to accumulate small efforts that are achievable today.
 

(Masaaki Hirai)

【Record of Actvity】

Date: March 14-16, 2010
Venue:KKR Biwako
 

【Record of Actvity】

The Second Symposium was attended by nearly 40 junior researchers, affiliated with eight universities mostly in the Kansai area, specializing in areas such as anthropology, area studies, sociology, architectural history, and urban planning. During the three days, ten presentations were given in five sessions, and there was vigorous discussion on the themes chosen for this symposium, such as the nature of humanosphere and associations in the globalizing world. The outcomes of this symposium are planned to be published as academic journal articles or GCOE working papers, etc.. In addition, we see as an important fruit of this symposium that “associations” of young scholars were been creating beyond universities and disciplines. Such “associations” would surely lead to future results.
 

After the three-day discussion, the participants understood that despite different research interests and methodologies, they shared the following contemporary directions: (1) a tendency not to use clear dichotomies such as self/other, people/authority, and society/environment as premises, but rather to recognize indivisible and complex relations (or associations) between the two as being formed, and (2) an attempt to clarify the nature of these associations—not only between person and person, but also with the deceased and/or nonhumans, going beyond substantial and spiritual associations—and to identify the significance and values they have, and to trace how they are being transformed. Pursuing this type of association, as pointed out by one of the participants, should be backed up by thick field data. And it is also true that our research itself can be greatly constrained institutionally, ethically by the relationship between the research subjects and the investigator. In the plenary discussion, participants came to share an awareness that the circumstance surrounded them was highly uncertain than it had used to be, and that they have to think more deeply about how to explore the issues and how to disseminate words based on field research on them.

(Shuhei Kimura)

Date: 20 November, 2009 (Wed.) 16：30～18：00
Venue:Room No. 401, the 4th floor of Research Bldg. No. 2 Yoshida Main Campus, Kyoto University
 

Presentation:
Nayumi Ono (Tokyo University)

Commentator:
Naomi Hosoda (AFASAS, Kyoto University)

Date: November 6, 2009 (Fri.)　16：00‐
Venue:Room Number 105, 1st floor, East Building, CSEAS, Kyoto University

Title:

Reference: Cori Hayden, When Nature Goes Public: The Making and Unmaking of Bioprospecting in Mexico（Princeton UP, 2003）

Record of Activity>>

Date: September 30, 2009 (Wed.) 15：15～20：00
Venue:
 

(Schedule)
15:15　JR Takatori Station（Kobe）
15:20　Departure(by walk）
15:30-17:30　Takatori Community Center http://www.tcc117.org 

18:00-20:00　「Sogenren」（Mongolian Restaurant http://www.ehappy-t.jp/shop_info.php?b=b001&shop_id=1002394

Presentation:
Si Qin Fu(Assistant Professor, Global Collaboration Cenber, Osaka University)

 

【Record of Activity】

This was the first field trip of Initiative 4. While this was a small gathering, it was a positive opportunity that brought home once again the importance of “getting out of the university.”
 

The first place we visited was the Takatori Community Center, a network of NPOs located within the premises of the Takatori Catholic Church, including “Radio FMYY” and “Multilanguage Center FACIL.” Group representative Shizuyo Yoshitomi guided participants as she and FMYY’s Junichi Hibino answered various questions about ongoing activities, which have confronted and overcome an array of problems in the 15 years since the Great Kanto Earthquake.
 

The area where the church is located is highly multicultural. In addition to a large original population of zainichi Koreans (descendents of those who were forcibly moved to Japan from the Korean peninsula before and during WWII), the area has also attracted many people from South America seeking work, such as Brazilians of Japanese descent, as well as refugees from places such as Vietnam. While many parts of the Takatori Catholic Church were destroyed by fire when this district was ravaged by the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, it nonetheless developed into a base for earthquake disaster reconstruction efforts headed by the church’s priests.
 

The church was already acting as a support center for foreigners prior to the earthquake, and recognized the importance of making connections with local communities and of developing those communities. They explained that when the earthquake hit, it turned everyone into victims, with the effect of dissolving the barrier between the “locals” and the “outsiders”; from abstractions such as “Japanese” and “Vietnamese,” people became Ms. and Mr. “so-and-so,” individuals with a recognizable identity. With the shift in 1999 from the earthquake itself to efforts focused on multicultural coexistence, an increasing awareness developed of the importance of building connections with the local community. The lesson of the earthquake, that minorities and the weak can be consciously and unconsciously completely excluded during a state of emergency, has prompted efforts focusing on the need to make these people “visible” in an everyday context, in order to avoid this type of situation from reoccurring. In particular, these efforts emphasize multicultural community development of a kind which, through the use of radio, overcomes differences in nationality and race. In respecting different languages and cultures, however, this radio also takes care to teach its listeners about the language and culture of Japan, the country in which they are now living. The efforts have also resulted in changes in the way that the local government is administered, and have received recognition from local shop owners. Mr. Hibino repeated how important the connection with the local community is, noting that without it, efforts become isolated and close-minded. Along with expressions of admiration and praise, the GCOE members also recalled their own field work, and wondered what kind of latent regional potential it is that keeps efforts like this going.
 

In the latter half of the seminar, there was a talk in a yurt by Dr. Si Qinfu about the Mongolian view of nature and cosmology, which starts from the yurt, and this was also a valuable experience. The meaning of the yurt colors (white of the earth and blue of the sky), the names and meaning of its various parts, and the transitional changes in the time and season of its use, are all elements that are extremely dense with meaning. Yurts are very deeply connected with the Mongolian nomadic lifestyle, and for the nomadic Mongol people, they are a cultural contact point with the gods and with nature, and an extremely fundamental part of Mongolian daily life. The expression Dr. Si uses to describe the yurt, “creating a place inside a flow, a place not tied to any location,” is very suggestive in thinking about people who live in the globalized, fluid world of today.
 

In a conversation that stretched from his own career to his recent studies in Siberia, to the status of Russian literature and ethnography, Dr. Si situated deep questions from his experience in the field based on a research standpoint, leaving a deep impression on all of us.
 

(Shuhei Kimura)

Date: Septermber 26, 2009 (Sat.)　15：00‐
Venue:Conference Room (AA415), Research Bldg. No. 2, Yoshida Main Campus, Kyoto University

Title: Study group for STS and Ethnographies related with Environmental Issues and Institutions  

Reference: Arun Agrawal、Environmentality: Technologies Of Government And The Making Of Subjects　（Duke UP、2005）  

Date: July 13, 2009 (Mon.) 14:00～15:30　→13:00～14:30
Venue: Room 409, Common Building, CSEAS, Kyoto University
http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/campus/map6r_b.htm  

Presentation:
Mitsuhiro Iwasa (National Museum of Ethnology, Research Fellow)

Date: July 7, 2009 (Tue.)
Venue: Room 105, East Building, CSEAS, Kyoto University
 

Preference:
Nevins, Joseph and Nancy Lee Peluso (eds.) 2008 Taking > Southeast Asia to Market. Cornell UP　
 

Contact: Ubukata Fumikazu（fumi [at] cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp              
            or   Kimura Shuhei（skimura [at] cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp）

Date: June 30, 2009 (Tue.)
Venue: Room 105, East Building, CSEAS, Kyoto University
 

Preference:
Tsing, Anna（2005）Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection.Princeton UP. 　
 

Contact: Shuhei Kimura (G-COE assistant professor)
              skimuracseas [at ] kyoto-u.ac.jp

Date: June 2, 2009 (Tue.)
Venue: n/a
 

Preference:
Tsing, Anna（2005）Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection.Princeton UP.　
 

Contact: Shuhei Kimura (G-COE assistant professor)
              skimura[at]cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Date: June 1, 2009 (Mon.)    16:30～18:30
Venue: Room Number 330, Inamori Foundatation Memorial Bldg.

Presentation:
1. Mizuho Matsuo　（JSPS／Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University）

2. Akira Takada   (ASAFAS, Kyoto University)

Date: May 26, 2009 (Tue.) 15:00-17:00
Venue: MTG Room, the 4th floor, East Bldg.CSEAS

Presenation:
Youhei Ishikawa
（Research Center for Next Generation Technology, Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.) and (Professor, RISH, Kyoto University)　

Date: January 23-25, 2009
Venue: KKR Hotel Biwako

Photo>>

 

【Record of Activity】

This symposium was attended by some 40 junior researchers specialized mainly in anthropology and area studies, and in five sessions over the three-day period, a total of ten research reports were presented. Intensive discussions were held aiming at a new style of research, one capable of coping with regional/social changes in contemporary society. Through discussions at these sessions and at the fellowship banquet, it became clear that the researchers at the gathering, specialized in diverse geographical regions and themes, face common circumstances and challenges, captured under the heading of “the contemporary.”
 

In Session 1, held on the first day and titled “Market-Oriented Economic Reform and Spatial Reorganization,” Yu Nishigaki noted that in the Ulan Bator City of Mongol, where rapid market-oriented economic reforms were introduced, public space was reproduced through interactions between the formation of the yurt district of nomads and the activities of NGOs stationed there. Naomi Hosoda followed, touching upon the relation between people’s experience of migration from rural areas into urban areas and changes in the world of magic in the Philippines. In the debate session, discussions centered on a contemporary situation in which market-oriented economic reforms have brought about a new social space.
 

In Session 2, entitled “Subsistence-supporting Livelihood and Ecological Dynamics,” held on the second day of the symposium, Miyo Nagakura took as research subject a mountain people in Lesotho, presenting empirical evidence on the relation between social change before and after the migrant labor boom, and way that this people took advantage of altitude differences in its use of land. Reiji Suzuki highlighted long-term changes in Myanmar’s forest vegetation resulting from the burn agriculture of local farmers and the influence of government policy in recent years. Following these two reports, debates took place on how dynamics of the ecology should be positioned with respect to their relation to political circumstances.
 

In Session 3, entitled “Dynamism of Religions and Changes in Local Community,” Hisashi Ogawa pointed to the friction and conflict introduced into local communities by the Thai Islamic Revival Movement, and Akimitsu Ikeda followed with a presentation of his views on the categories of religions and religious sects in the context of the Lebanese civil war.
 

In Session 4, entitled “Humanosphere Base in the midst of Conflicts,” Toru Sagawa argued that alternation between the two modes of battle and hospitality among the Ethiopian pastoral people emerged between the collectivity of warfare and social relations among individuals. Tadayuki Kubo delivered an interesting argument about the reality of various assistance activities carried out in Burmese refugee camps and the situation of multiple confrontational identities.
 

In Session 5, entitled “State Welfare Policy and the Living World” and held on the last day of the symposium, Teruhiro Yamakita presented arguments on the possibility of communities in Japan embracing the homeless through local community “welfare.” Makoto Kurata showed that the structuring process for health and medical services in Samoa evolved through interaction between the settlers, state administration and indigenous people.
 

At the general discussion session held in the afternoon of the final day, participants debated the question of how researchers should overcome ethical value confrontations with local communities given the contemporary situation faced by area studies, and also discussed how to go about linking success in this area to actual practice.
 

In addition to the eight working papers that emerged out of discussions at this symposium, a network of junior researchers, based mainly in the Kansai district, also came together through the meeting. With all these successes, the symposium turned out to be a very fruitful event indeed.
 

 （Keichiro Matsumura, Shuhei Kimura）

Date: January 20, 2009 (Tue.) 14:00～16:00
Venue: 331, the 3rd of floor, Inmori Memorial Hall

Presentation:
1. Shuhei Kimura (G-COE Assistant Professor)
"Natural Disaster and Networks for Life in Istanbul, Turkey"

2.Makoto Nishi (G-COE Researcher)
"A Virus, Democracy and Sustainable Society"

【Record of Activity】
First, Shuhei Kimura gave a presentation looking at the linkage between humanosphere and geosphere by tracing back the history of Istanbul. In response, opinions were raised that taking into account the time constraints on the presentation, the threads of the story could have been made simpler and more specific. In addition to thatparticular, there was a comment that residents’ organizations were difficult to understand unless figures and the structure of those organizations were presented more specifically and clearly. Another participant suggested that further examination was needed on the frequently used term “linkage,” and that when talking in Japan about Turkish earthquakes, the distance from case in Japan needed to be considered in an appropriate way. Also, it was proposed that at the coming international conference the presenter further clarify the following arguments: (1) various forms of knowledge that differ from science (are not aligned with it) are necessary, and are actually emerging, and (2) linkages among people can help their well-being if such linkages follow the mechanism of the geosphere.

Comments in response to the presentation by Makoto Nishi were that it was difficult to understand how comparing the “individual approach” and “risk approach” to HIV/AIDS related to the issue of democracy, the main theme of his presentation. Another participant stated that it was necessary to clarify which of the two cases that were presented as local residents’ efforts against HIV/AIDS, (i.e. the premarital checkup campaign and the “cultivating the gardens and fields of neighboring house” campaign) would fall into either of the two approaches. In addition, one questioner stated that if the presenter dealt with the topics of democracy and sustainability, it would be inadequate for the presenter to only appeal the need to support the livelihood of people living with HIV, and that the reporter needed to define who should assume what responsibility for the HIV/AIDS issue, and furthermore, what policy or schemes he hoped to propose.

(Shuhei Kimura, Makoto Nishi)

 

Date: December 20, 2008 (Sat.) 14：00～18：00
Venue: Meeting Roon, the 3rd floor, Inamori Foundation Memorial Hall

 

Presentation:
・Kazuyoshi Sugawara
(Professor, Graduate School of Humand and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University)

・Takeo Funabiki
(Professor, The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Arts and Sociences)

【Record of Activity】
It’s been almost 40 years since the days of the student movement at the end of the 1960s as symbolized by the Zenkyoto (All-campus Joint Struggle Council) movement. It is said that the student movement that took place on a global scale emerged from the social situation at the time but also changed the situation, leading to a philosophical transformation in the academic fields of the humanities and social sciences. Looking back at the history of anthropology in Japan, however, it is apparent that there has been no examination as to how this era influenced research and the ideas of anthropology.

How did people who had set their hearts on becoming anthropologists live through this era and engage themselves in this situation? How did that experience influence the formulation of their thoughts? At this symposium, based on the reports of two anthropologists who lived through the Zenkyoto era, we discussed the student movement at the time and examined the relationship between the student movement and anthropologists. Both Kazuyoshi Sugawara and Takeo Funabiki spoke in detail about the situation at the time, albeit from a personal point of view, to quote their words, and expressed their views on the relationship between that experience and modern philosophy. After the reports, Masanori Oda presented some comments on today’s activism and anthropology, and Shimpei Ota examined the situation from the perspective of a comparison with the reminiscences of former labor movement activists in Korea.

(Naomi Hosoda)

Date: December 13, 2008 (Sat.) 14:00-17:00PM
Venue: Seminar Room, in the 3rd floors, Inamori Memorial Hall, Kyoto University

Presentation:
・Akio Tanabe (Associate Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities)
・Masayoshi Shigeta (Associate Professor, ASAFAS)
・Hiromu Shimizu (Professor, CSEAS)

【Record of Activity】

Date:December 3, 2008 (Thu.) 18：00～20：00
Venue: AA447, Research Building No.2, Yoshida Campus, Kyoto University
 

Presentation:
・Kaoru Sugihara (Professor, CSEAS)
・Yasushi Kosugi (Professor, ASAFAS)
・Akio Tanabe (Assosiate Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities )
・Yasushi Tonaga (Assistant Professor, ASAFAS)

Moderator:
Tatsuro Fujikura (Associate Professor, ASAFAS)

 【Record of Activity】

Professor Kaoru Sugihara, representing the Department of Sustainable Humanosphere, began the seminar with his presentation. He argued that with the advance of globalization, and with growth in Asian and African regions making remarkable advances recently, the traditional paradigm centered on the temperate region was no longer capable of representing the entire world. It is thus necessary, he argued, to shift the basis of the paradigm from one that is centered on the temperate region to one that is centered on the tropical region, and to shift from the “earth’s surface,” as seen in land ownership and national borders, to the “sustainable humanosphere,” which includes as subject of research all space that affects human lives.
 

The next presentation was given by Professor Yasushi Kosugi, representing the Department of Islamic World Studies. Looking back on his decade-long experience of graduate school education at ASAFAS, Prof. Kosugi reflected on the fact that the discipline called “area studies,” which discusses the characteristics and uniqueness of geographic areas, has gradually made a space for itself within the academic community. He further pointed out that activities at ASAFAS and KIAS (Center for Islamic Area Studies at Kyoto University) have contributed to the gradual development of a foundational structure for promoting world-leading research and for facilitating studies by junior researchers. In concluding his presentation, Prof. Kosugi noted that the Division of Global Area Studies, to be initiated in the next academic year, would mark a further contribution to the field of area studies.
 

Associate Professor Akio Tanabe, representing the Department of South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies, followed with his presentation. Associate Prof. Tanabe first introduced the situation faced in contemporary South Asia, focusing on India through the use of a diverse set of statistical data on politics, economy and society. He went on to explain that South Asia has become very dynamic due to the interactions of politics, economics, society, and thought, noting that in the future the region will play an important role in the world. Associate Prof. Tanabe then pointed out that, in the field of research as well, South Asia has produced various studies which have contributed to the benefit of the entire world. He concluded his presentation with a mention of specific cases that provide an indication of the promising future potential of South Asia studies.
 

Finally, Assistant Professor Yasushi Tonaga gave a presentation from the view of literature study. Specialized in the study of thought, Assistant Professor Tonaga looked back over his ten years of experience providing guidance at graduate school and listed a number of possibilities for bridging literature study and field work in area studies. He noted that for future researchers of area studies, specialization in field work alone will be insufficient, as will specialization in literature study alone. Through a presentation of specific cases and concrete evidence, Assistant Prof. Tonaga argued that the ideal researcher of area studies will be the one who “straddles” these two worlds.
 

Following each presentation, questions were addressed to presenters, and comments were raised regarding different regions and viewpoints concerning the vision for area studies outlined in each presentation. These questions, comments and discussions expressed great anticipation about the future of area studies to come.
 

(Shin Yasuda)

 

Date: November 14, 2008 (Fri.) 16:30-18:00PM
Venue: AA447, Research Bldg., Kyoto University

Presentation:
Keiichiro Matsumura (Assistant Professor, Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science)

Date: November 4, 2008 (Tue.) 11:00-17:00PM
Venue: AA447, Research Building No.2, Yoshida Campus, Kyoto University

Presentation:
・Taeko Udagawa (Associate Professor, National Museum of Ethnology)
・Hideki Sunagawa (Jissen Woman's University)
・Masako Kudo (University of Tokyo)
・Nanami Suzuki (Professor, National Museum of Ethnology)



【Record of Activity】
At this symposium, four speakers introduced interesting cases concerning new “relationships” that are not easily grasped under existing ideas of kinship. What’s common in these cases is, as pointed out by Professor Yoko Hayami in the general discussion period, the fact that individuals who “choose” new relationships exist and that they are faced with a number of constraints from the existing society and legal system.

In the case of same-sex partnership, reported by Dr. Sunagawa, because of their demand to be accepted by society, and due to the legal restrictions they face in their daily life, , many choose to become relatives through adoption instead of marrying. On the other hand however, if same-sex marriage is legally allowed, alternative relations that same-sex couples have created may be excluded.

Dr. Udagawa reported the institutionalization of safe reproductive technologies in Itary and mentioned that such process can result in a situation where people who want these technologies no longer have access to them. In addition, the “choices” of individuals can be affected by society’s moral values for families and new “relationships.”
Citing cases involving an international marriage with a Pakistani husband and international adoption, Dr. Wakana Shiino suggested in her comments the need for further examination of the social background that produces such “relationships.”

In this symposium the potential of new “relationships” to complement family and kinship ties was introduced. One participant expressed the view that these negative aspects should be discussed as well. Additionally, the loose relationship of being together without any specific reason and “unsavory ties” are also important forms of human relationships, along with strong ties. Another participant also mentioned the need for discussion on filling the gap of the binary framework of blood relationship/ideal relationship based on individuals’ choices. Moreover, as Professor Masakazu Tanaka said in his comments, an important key for examining this issue would be, instead of capturing new “relationships” as a representation of actual existence, to investigate the process of formation of those relationships.

(Masato Kasezawa)

Date: October 21, 2008 (Tue.) 16:30-18:00PM → Time Change　14:00～15:50PM
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building,CSEAS → Venue Change     AA401, Research Building No.2, Yoshida Campus, Kyoto University

Presentation:
Naoki Shinohara (Associate Professor, Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere)

【Record of Activity】

This presentation, starting from the issue of the role of the outer space development for building a sustainable humanosphere, analyzed the relationship between Malthusian fatalism and science and technology.

Malthus’s theory of population (that poverty is the inevitable result of overpopulation and that epidemics and wars are the solutions) is said to have been historically overcome by technological progress. From this, some adopt the position that the theory articulated in The Limits to Growth in the 1970s and recent concerns on environmental crisis can be solved by technological progress, including the development of outer space. This belief in solution by science and technology seems, in the final analysis, to be a view of human beings as “naked apes,” or as beings fraught with excessive desires due to our weakness as living things.

On the other hand, human beings are social beings. Therefore, one can adopt the position that human beings can control their desires through cooperation and discipline and thus secure the humanosphere. When comparing these positions, it is difficult to put complete faith in the position that everything can be solved by ethics. On the other hand, however, the belief that problems can be solved by science and technology alone seems to be, in reality, an implicit acceptance of Malthusian fatalism. In order to secure the humanosphere, it is necessary, while proceeding with outer space development as a means to deal with human desires, to simultaneously consider social ethics or norms.

After the presentation, the following discussion took place. First, considering that this presentation was premised on the framework of an expansion of individual desires, one participant argued that since people’s desires are not necessarily oriented toward quantitative expansion and that there are social desires such as “satisfaction” and “trust,” arguments must be formulated based on consideration for the qualitative transformation of the desires themselves. Concerning the ideal form of society and the desires of people living within it, there was a comment that, instead of premising discussion on a single development path based on the Malthusian historical view, there is a need to think about multiple development paths, taking into consideration the values embedded in the condition of the period and society.

(Makoto Nishi and Naoto Kasezawa)

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)

Par2. “Life and Risk”
・Mizuho Matsuo (Kyoto University)
・Akitomo Shingae（Nagoya City University）
・Makoto Nishi (G-COE Researcher, )
Commentator: Shuichi Kato (Meiji Gakuin University)

Par3. “Impasses of a risk society”
・Shuhei Kimura　(Assistant Professor)
・Kentaro Azuma (Miyazaki Municipal University)
Commentator: Takeshi Mikami (Kobe University)

Par4. General Discussion

 

【Record of Activity】

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)

Date: October 10th, 2008 (Fri.) 17:00-
Venue: Research Building No.2 (Formerly Engineering Bldg No.4), AA401

Title: Nepal: Journey to Republicanism

Presentation: C. K. Lal
Moderator: Tatsuro Fujikura

This seminar is co-organized by Institute for Research in Humanities.

Date: July 26, 2008 (Sat.) 14:00-18:00PM
Venue: AA407, Research Bldg. No.2

Title:
Self-reliance, Solidarity, & Subsistence: Dialogue between Sociology and Anthropology on "Poverty" in the Era of Neoliberalism

Presentations:
1. Hideyuki Hirai (JSPS Research Fellow)
2. Igo Yoshinobu (Yokohama National University)
3. Nihei Norihiro (JSPS Research Fellow)
4. Morita Yoshinari (Osaka University)
5. Sayaka Ogawa (JSPS Research Fellow)



【Record of Activity】

The present research seminar was held with the aim of considering, through the interaction of sociology and anthropology, the problem of “survival” as it pertains to circumstances through which a new poverty class has been born, triggered by the move toward self-reliance (interpreted as individualism) promoted by neoliberalism.

Hideyuki Hirai, upon reviewing arguments regarding neoliberalism, noted the fact that complex disputes originating in this term co-exist among both conservatives and reformists, and pointed to the need to seek an understanding of “neoliberalism” from a discussion of the “two sides” of conservatism and leftism, not considering it an absolute or an illusion.

As a prototypical example of the neoliberalist employment organization, Yoshinobu Igo emphasized the distribution system in convenience stores, and clarified that the system of price and royalty calculation in such stores enables the head office to ingeniously offload the burden of disposal losses and uncertainty in elements such as weather and so on onto franchise stores.

Having situated the state of the Japanese welfare society in a post 1960s historical context, Norihiko Nihei pointed out that from the 1990s onwards, a new form of homelessness has emerged among Japan’s homeless population. Nihei also examined critically the “self-reliance measures” aimed at homeless in recent years, highlighting the oppressive control over people’s lives contained in the word “self-reliance.”

Yoshinari Morita drew attention to people engaged in waste collection in West Timor, noting that their attitude towards livelihood and consumption cannot be understood from the point of view of computational rationality. This attitude is a form of living which is a passive “waiting” and is incompatible with the demand for “self-reliance” indicated by Nihei. It is one that brings out the abnormality of the move toward self-reliance (individualization) in Japan.

Through the use of a variety of documents, Sayaka Ogawa illustrated the state of business and human relations among street merchants of secondhand clothes in Tanzania. In urban areas made up of young people from farming communities, Ogawa demonstrated that neither are social relations rich and closely-knit, nor are individuals cut off, and yet even where “cheating” and “betrayal” are used, a flexible social infrastructure has been built up that anticipates and permits such actions.

Teruhiro Yamakita, the commentator at the seminar, pointed to the fact that whereas sociology announces the types of problems to be solved, anthropology stresses positive aspects of the objects of study. Having highlighted this situation, Yamakita questioned what kind of social circumstances or political settings provide the background for the world written about in anthropology. Evaluating positively the fact that limitations and new possibilities have come into view as a result of the dialogue between sociology and anthropology, Naoki Kasuga furthermore raised the idea of actively focusing attention not on the problem of individualization, nor on governing solidarity, but on the areas of fantasy and nothingness.

Through each presentation and discussion, various aspects of “survival” were illuminated, suggesting the need for an approach toward issues not captured by governance perspective.

(Keiichiro Matsumura)

This seminar is co-organized by Iniviative 4, Junior Researchers Seminars and Exploratory Research "Searching for an Area Studies Approach to Disaster Prevention and Rehabilitation from Experiences of Involvement in Rehabilitation Work"

Date: July 11-12  2008 (Fri.-Sat.)
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS

Program>>


【Record of Activity】

 On the first day, cases of sudden disasters – earth quakes, tsunamis, fires – were introduced. The discussion focused on “community” in the context of disaster prevention and recovery and its relationship with government and aid organizations. While community is considered the key player in disaster prevention and recovery, there are some cases where close ties between community members do not exist, at least in the sense assumed by policy makers, and disasters precipitate increasing polarization and antagonism among community residents.

 In the general discussion on the first day, there was discussion on understanding approaches by communities/research when a disaster happens, taking into account the divisions and disparities among the victims. It was pointed out that for people in a given locale, participation in disaster prevention or recovery itself may serve as the starting point for developing closer ties within the community. In addition, some cases of communities that have reached out to other communities which have experienced similar disasters to form a kind of “disaster victims network” were introduced. Furthermore, the importance of taking an issue-oriented approach to area-studies research by examining the relationship of stakeholders, such as researchers or aid workers involved with the community in question, and the disaster victims themselves was emphasized.

 On the second day, cases of slowly progressing disasters – climate change, water shortage, salinization, HIV/AIDS – were introduced. It was shown that these issues were deeply related to various aspects of globalization, such as the market economy, the modern concept of ownership, and the spread of democratic ideals.

 In the general discussion on the second day, two main points – what role area studies researchers can play in disaster relief, and how researchers should view and deal with local knowledge – were discussed.

 Area studies researchers have viewed “area” from the standpoint of individual lives, and taking into account pre-existing social conditions and various issues and, have advised policy makers and NGOs on how to deal with problems arising from a disaster which are unique to that “area.” However, in some cases the information provided by area studies researchers is seen as different from the “objective data” needed by public aid agencies or to conflict with the opinion of technical experts who are involved in recovery efforts. The opinion was expressed that for area studies researchers to work with others involved in recovery efforts, it is necessary to establish communication between stakeholders.

 Related to this issue, several participants expressed similar criticisms that up to now too much emphasis has been placed on knowledge from “objective” analyses as a basis for decisions regarding recovery efforts. It was also suggested that the researchers need to critically reexamine the existing idea of “knowledge” which simply tries to make a decision on the “correct” path of recovery and thus fixes the identity and integrity of the region. Furthermore, some argued that area studies research should strive to fulfill the role of connecting multi-faceted knowledge.

(Shuhei Kimura, Masato Kasezawa, Makoto Nishi)

Date: July 4, 2008 (Fri.) 13:30-15:30PM
Venue: Room No. 101, Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
http://www.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/kotu.html

Presentation:
Yoko Hayami (Professor, CSEAS)
Title: Imagining Ways of Relatedness of Life: Cultures of Reproduction from Three Karen Cases

【Record of Activity】

The presenter first criticized the fact that in traditional anthropology kinship or “reproduction” were considered strictly in the domestic realm, and then argued that in light of recent advances in reproductive technology, it is necessary to rethink the concept of “relations.” Using the examples of the Karen people in 3 locations, she proposed a new dynamic conceptualization of kinship, which includes the body in a biological sense, and that would provide a common ground for understanding and discussing kinship with scientists in other social and natural sciences.

In the question and answer session, discussant Yasuko Fujikura of the New School for Social Research, explained that in current American anthropology, kinship is treated/educated as one form of Bio-politics and suggested that it would be worth comparing the concept of kinship proposed by Dr. Hayami with the concept of Bio-sociality proposed by Rabinow. This comment elicited responses from the general audience regarding the universal, individual, social, and biological aspects of kinship. In addition, it was suggested that Dr. Hayami investigate how social and policy changes influence her concept of kinship. Furthermore, the comment was forwarded that if she was deconstructing the current conceptualization of kinship, that she should not be limited by the terminology related to that conceptualization.

In each of the Karen case studies, it was shown through seemingly trivial practices how kin members exhibited uniqueness and differentiation, and how this was passed down from generation to generation. On the other hand, this passing down of culture from generation to generation is a form of biological reproduction and can be considered a universal truth for all humans and as such touches on the issue of global and local which is the concern of GCOE. Thus, it can be grasped at a point of entry into the overall issues of the GCOE. Furthermore, the question of what to pass down and what to get rid of encompasses the issue of “value,” which is the topic of Initiative 4. In examining how societies determine which practices and knowledge are important for a good life and what is passed down to the next generation, kinships research plays a key role in understanding how value can be assigned to human survival. The question was raised by natural scientists, that assuming it is possible for humanity as a whole to make a collective decision as hypothesized by the kinship researchers, what contribution would anthropologists make? The response from the anthropologist’s side was that it necessary to start by not thinking of nature and society as separate entities that stand in opposition to one another and by clarifying the interrelatedness of the two. This discussion hinted at the potential of reaching a universal human knowledge and understanding.

(Shuhei Kimura, Makoto Kasezawa)

Date: June 20, 2008 (Fri.) 14:00-17:00PM
Venue: Room101, the 1st floor of Institute for Research in Humanities

Presentation:
1. Shuhei Kimura (G-COE Assistant Professor)
    Title: An Introduction to Networks of People, Things and Technologies

2. Akira Adachi (Professor, ASAFAS)
    Title: Varieties of knowledge in activity

【Record of Activity】

This seminar introduced current debate on social studies of science and technology such as Actor-Network Theory and generated an active discussion among natural and social scientists.

Based on previous STS research and network theory, Mr. Kimura Shuhei observed the possibility of sustainable Humanosphere, taking a look at the situation of today’s scientific technology and comparing it with zairai-chi (indigenous, local knowledge) of local communities. He introduced the dynamic perspective of “flexible steadiness”, not stabilization, of communication among persons, things and nature. Dr. Adachi Akira, on the other hand, linked together arguments from actor networks with ecological psychology and activity theory, and presented an examination of how this may relate to concrete actions and problem-solving.

A question was raised by Dr. Fujita about whether there was any significance or utility whatsoever to opening the “black box” of technology.In response, both presenters affirmed that opening the black boxes and focusing on social aspects of technology have important implications in contexts where technologies are applied within society.

In the question and answer session, a question was raised by Dr. Sato about the presenters’ way to deal with science and technology without paying attention to the differences among them. Dr. Shinohara Naoki, who is involved in research of Solar Powered Satellites (SPS), suggested that the reason that SPS have not been implemented is that technologies had become “stabilized” within existing knowledge and discourse, and hinted at the possibility that this “stabilization” itself might be obstructing technological innovation. Making reference to the way zairai-chi should lead to fluctuating but steady communication among agencies, Kimura explained that steadiness should be seen as something different from stabilization.

In addition, responding to a comment that network theory is ambiguous about the issues concerning power and authority, Dr. Adachi suggested the possibility of theoretical evolution, based on the fact that the theory presented here is not constrained by the existing power structure. And a participant pointed out that there is a need to put into question the idea itself that technology and knowledge are “good for everyone,” emphasizing the importance to reexamine the issue of Value.” In this context, it is important to return to the fundamental question of unit of humanosphere repeatedly.

The seminar was a meaningful occasion to discuss technoscience beyond the boundary between humanities and science. More than a few people, however, found it difficult to understand certain topics in discussions of the range and effectiveness of social studies of science and technology. It would seem, therefore, that there is a need to spend more time in the future in order to adequately discuss these topics.

(Makoto Kasezawa)

Date: June 17, 2008 (Tue.) 1300 - 14:30PM 
Venue: E207, 2nd floor of East Building, CSEAS

Title: Simulating the Solar Power Satellite (SPS) 2000 System operation: From field surveys in countries around the equator

Presentation:
Patric Collins (Azabu University)

 

【Record of Activity】

At the 1991 SPS research conference, a proposal by Japanese researchers was recognized as having the greatest potential for realization of an operational demonstration of the “SPS2000” solar power satellite. The proposal entailed launching a solar power satellite into low earth orbit above the equator which would provide power to countries and regions along the equator. The power generation panels have been improved, and furthermore, because the rectennas (receiver antennae) would be wires or mesh construction, land where they were installed could be used for agriculture or other uses. Aside from the publication of many research articles regarding SPS2000 in 12 countries, the project’s originators, Prof. Matsuoka and Prof. Collins, have visited many of the equatorial countries where they have repeatedly consulted with researchers and government representatives regarding the implementation of SPS. The countries visited include: Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, Brazil, Indonesia, Ecuador, the Maldives, Malaysia, Columbia, Nauru, Kiribas, Gabon, and Sao Tome and Principe. As a result, representatives from each of these countries have expressed interest in the project and numerous sites for rectenna installation have been considered.

There are 3 recent developments which should be highlighted.

1. From a technical standpoint, the greatest risk lies in the assembly of the power generators in space. However, the European Space Agency (ESA) in cooperation with the Russian Federal Space Agency are planning to have a Soyuz rocket, capable of manned flight along an equatorial orbit, ready for launch at the Kourou Space Center in Guiana in 2009. If this becomes a reality, it will be possible to reduce the risks associated with power generator assembly.

2. India and China, which have an intrinsic high demand for energy, should be included in the list of potential of SPS energy recipients. For this to happen, the SPS transmission must cover up to 6 degrees latitude north and south of the equator. This would also bring the majority of African countries into potential range. Technical improvements are necessary to enable this increase in range.

3. While energy is related to a country’s security, it is hoped that SPS2000 will be a significant part of Japan’s peaceful contribution to the international community. Given the relative lack of interest by Europe and the United States in SPS, Japan’s role in this project is important.

(Masayuki Yanagisawa)

Date:June 12, 2008 (Thu.) 17:00-19:30PM
Venue: No.1 Lecture Room, Department of South and West Asian Area Studies, Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Research Building No.2, 4th floor, Kyoto University

Presentation:
Speaker1: Dr. Devin Joshi (Assistant Professor, University of Denver)
Title: Comparing Human Development in India & China

Abstract: This presentation examines the relative contributions of government performance and economic growth to advancing human development (HD) in India and China over the period from 1950 to 2005. Within human development I focus on maternal and child health (MCH) and compulsory elementary education (CEE) achievements as crucial indicators of poverty reduction and future development in these two nations. To empirically assess the impact of good governance as distinct from economic growth I examine government effectiveness for HD at the macro and micro levels through public finance and policy implementation. Contrary to neo-liberalism and other growth-centered development explanations, I find that government performance and social equality explain as much or even more than economic growth regarding HD performance.

Speaker 2: Dr. Giorgio Shani (Associate Professor, Ritsumeikan University)
Title: Globalization, The 'War on Terror' and Human In/Security in South Asia

Abstract: This presentation will seek to examine the effects of neo-liberal globalization and the war on terror upon human security in South Asia. It will be argued that economic liberalization in South Asia in general and its most populous country, India, in particular has resulted in unbalanced growth which has disproportionately benefited, and politically empowered, members of the dominant classes, religious communities and castes at the expense of the rural and urban poor. This has had profound consequences for members of South Asia's religious minorities and subaltern castes and classes who find themselves increasingly marginalized by national discourses derived from the majority religious tradition. These trends have been reinforced by the post 9/11 political climate and the introduction of anti-terrorism legislation which has contributed to a greater securitization of society in general and the targeting of ethno-religious minorities.

Discussants: Prof. Patricio N. Abinales, Prof. Koichi Fujita, Dr. Akio Tanabe
Moderator: Tatsuro Fujikura

 

【Record of Activity】

  The two presentations dealt with similar subjects in contrasting ways. To handle the issues concerning Human Development, Prof. Joshi concentrated his focus on child health (MCH) and compulsory elementary education (CEE), and presented the concept of effective governance. Then he showed various statistical datum related to human development (MCH and CEE), effective governance and economic growth in China and India, to compare the situations in those two countries. National and provincial datum were compared in order to examine complex relationships between those indicators. Based on his assessment, he found that government performance and social equality explained as much as, or even more than economic growth regarding HD performance, and highlighted the importance of the state in prioritizing human development.

 Dr. Shani started his presentation with the examination of the general concept of human security. With regard to human security, he distinguished two existing approaches: narrow and broad. He criticized them on the ground that they are prone to fall into “democratic imperialism” and/or “securitization of development”. He also noted how the post 9/11 political and economic situations of South Asian countries have created “war on terror” situations which have intensified ethno-religious and caste conflicts (and hence human insecurity) in the area, and he further expressed concerns about the impact of neo-liberal globalization and the “securitization” led by the states.

 According to Dr. Shani, a critical approach to human security is necessary to address issues such as poverty and gender inequality.

 The discussion started with the comments from the three discussants. First, Prof. Fujita (CSEAS) commented mostly on Dr. Joshi’s presentation. He pointed out that the correlation between the indices of human development and effective governance might be somewhat tautological, in the sense that they included the same components. In addition, he maintained that the presenter should take into account the importance of social, cultural and historical backgrounds and the internal disparities of the two countries. Second, Prof. Abinales (CSEAS) enhanced the discussion. Referring to the Philippino-Muslim case as an example, he highlighted that the relationship between democracy and state power is indeed very complicated.

 Third, Prof. Tanabe (Institute for Research in Humanities) summed up the similarities and differences of the two presentations, and raised questions regarding the role of the state and the ways to progress people’s welfare. Mentioning the concept of “Humanosphere-sustainable development”, he stressed that we should adopt a broader perspective which took into account not only the social but the ecological environment as well as something that supports human well-being. Finally, the attendants reached a consensus on the significance of the concept of “Humanosphere-sustainable development” and a number of constructive exchanges of views among attendees was developed.

(Fumikazu Ubukata and Shuhei Kimura)

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)

【Record of Activity】

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)

Date:May 9, 2008 (Fri.) 14:30 - 16:20PM
Venue:Room AA447, Research Bldg. No.2

Presentation:
Akio Tanabe (Associate Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities)
Title: Towards Anthropology of Life

 

【Record of Activity】

 This seminar presented the idea and possibilities of “the anthropology of life,” which attempted to reunite the biological and cultural aspects of human beings, focusing on contemporary technology and institutions that have intervened in the interaction between these two aspects. 

 In the anthropological literature, most scholars have recently been discussing the body through the concept of “biopolitics”. According to Foucault, individuals had been disciplined and controlled by the state through a series of technological and institutional apparatus surrounding their body. To resist this control by state power, TANABE Shigeharu attempted a breakthrough by emphasizing “social practices that expand the scope for individuals to exercise freedom in the face of the ruling power.” The presenter objected to this idea as being based on the traditional framework of responsible “subjects” constructed under authority in modern society and thus the foundation of freedom was itself unclear.

 Based on this criticism, the presenter reexamined what Foucault conceptualized as “art of life” (techne tou biou). It should not be applied to autonomic subjects within the network of governmentality or power; rather, this art should be grasped as the practical and ethical act of constructing “self” and “world” simultaneously through living in an eco-social environment. The presenter refered to this approach as a “biomoral” one. In this seminar, the presenter suggested the need to introduce this “biomoral” perspective through scrutinizing a case study involving political changes in village communities in India.

  During the question and answer period some attendees asked questions about the concept of “biomoral”, especially about the difference between “biopolitics” and “biomoral”. There were active discussions on how to understand the relation between the intervention of the state and institutions into the body, and biomorality in everyday practice. Additionally, an attendee asked whether the adoption of biomoral as an analytical framework included the analyst’s values and another stated that “biomoral” converged with Foucault’s biopolitics. The presenter responded that, rather than simply understanding “biomoral” as an antithesis to “biopolitics”, or as being on an opposite axis, it should be understood as coming close to Foucault’s arguments, and that we should attempt to go beyond the current comprehension of the mechanism that subjects were (re)produced by power and search for alternative possibilities by utilizing this new concept.

　(Masato Kasezawa)

Date:April 21 (Mon.) , 2008
Venue:Room E207, 2nd floor of East Bldg. CSEAS

Presentation:
・Gen Yamakoshi (Associate Professor, ASAFAS)
Title: Construction of rural landscape: An eco-history of a sacred forest and chimpanzees in Guinea

・Takashi Kamei (Associate Professor, Institute of Sustainability Science )
Title: Research on utilization of house-window for optimizing urban energy demand

【Record of Activity】

Gen Yamakoshi:
The presenters discussed the existence of knowledge with a local perspective for “living in harmony” with the forest and chimpanzees, which contrasts with a science-based approach to nature conservation. In order to better understand this “Zairai-chi” (indigenous, local knowledge), the discussion was developed, referring to arguments by conservative controversialists likeYamazaki Masakazu and Nakajima Takeshi. This Zairai-chi did not arise as a resistance against some external interventions, nor is it something abstract and theorized. The presenter suggested that Zairai-chi should be seen as long-sustained local traditions or practice.

Dr. Shinohara Naoki suggested that Zairai-chi may also be connected to a universal knowledge (if we collect data regarding the former knowledge in order to elucidate the conditions, then the former would be eventually be unified with the latter). As such, Shinohara insisted, while the case presented here clearly demonstrates the usefulness of Zairai-chi, it is necessary to consider the contexts of this knowledge as well as its unique characteristics. In this case study, the forest, as Dr. Yamakoshi outlined at the presentation, is unique as a habitat for chimpanzees in terms of closeness to human habitation.But it is because of this uniqueness that have this investigation enabled, and that the local knowledge was found. Further developing the discussion on Zairai-chi, conducting comparative studies with cases in other areas, and introducing them into the concrete policies and actions could help to clarify the interrelation of local characteristics and local knowledge.

In the question and answer session, the opinion was expressed that it might be better to think of this Zairai-chi not as something that exists in a closed-community but in relation to the outside world. In this investigation (as in others), one cannot separate out the influence of the investigator on the society that he is studying. While the difficulty of doing so was acknowledged by Dr. Yamakoshi., Because Zairai-chi is “local” knowledge, it is necessary to consider how (and if) it is influenced by external factors. Related to this point, a discussion was held on clear definition of Zairai-chi. In order to use it as a conceptual framework in the future, we have to judge whether it was appropriate to include in it all knowledge in the locality that does not fall under the rubric of modern rationalism and what should be considered the opposite of “local knowledge”.

Kamei Takashi:
The presenter analyzed data obtained from surveys conducted to this point in Kyoto and Okinawa regarding use of windows in the context of regional climatic characteristics. In addition, a plan was introduced for broadening the scope of his investigation to Southeast Asia. In relation to this issue, the commentator, Dr. Shinohara Naoki, suggested that we investigate how windows are used in the well-sealed houses and buildings in the U.S. and Europe, before looking at Southeast Asia. There were also comments from participants of the seminar that we should take into accounts other factors to open and close windows such as social structure or cultural mentality as well as comfort. For example, in Southeast Asia, although it is common to leave one’s window open, there are iron bars over the windows to prevent crime. Japanese people would probably not consider this situation very pleasant. Also, it is possible to list other indices when we investigate why local people open and close windows. For example, tropical customs such as siesta and “Okinawa-time” may be alternative ways to adapt hot weather. Moreover, air conditioner or other artificial cooling system can change human feeling of comfort. It is necessary to consider not only individual dwellings, but also to see the city or district as a whole, focusing on the construction of houses, the arrangement of buildings, and the structure of the cities including the influences of Feng Shui.

In response to these comments, the presenter noted that it would be extremely difficult to adequately assess the specific lifestyles and societal context of individuals by using questionnaire surveys. There was an active debate both on the methodology and on how it would be possible to elucidate such an interaction with various social factors or a broad social nature.

(Masato Kasezawa)

 

Date： February 14(Thu.)-15(Fri.) ，2008
Venue： Ras Amba Hotel Conference Room

 

 

1st Day (14th, Feb.)
Opening Session
10:30-10:50	Gebre Yntiso Opening Speech
10:50-11:20	Masayoshi Shigeta Introductory Remarks: “Formation of African Local Knowledge and Positive Practice: An Area Studies Approach”
11:20-11:50	Yoko Hayami “Seeds and Taboos: Cultural Reproduction and Domestic Networks among Karen in Bago Mountains, Burma”
12:00-13:15	Lunch Break at Ras Amba Hotel
Session 1: Craft Works and Livelihood [COORDINATOR: Morie Kaneko]
13:15-13:45	Getaneh Mehari “Weaving, Migration and Livelihood Patterns among the Dorze”
13:45-14:15	Morie Kaneko “Pottery Making as Local Knowledge: The Case of Open Firing Practice among the Ari Potters in Southwestern Ethiopia”
14:15-14:30	Commentator: Mamo Hebo
14:30-14:45	Break
Session2: Diversity and Plant Utilization in African Homegardens [COORDINATOR: Yasuaki Sato]
14:45-15:15	Tesfaye Abebe “Plant Species and Use Diversity of Enset-Coffee Homegardens in Southern Ethiopia”
15:15-15:45	Deborah Karamura “Analysis of Banana Based Homegardens Management Practices: A Farmer's Perspective towards Maintaining Diversity on Farm”
15:45-16:15	Yasuaki Sato “The Multi-valued Setting of Banana-based Homegardens among the Baganda, Central Uganda”
16:15-16:45	Satoshi Maruo “The Developent Process of Banana-based Homegarden: A Case Study of the Haya, Northwestern Tanzania”
16:45-17:00	Commentator: Zemede Asfaw
18:00-20:00	Reception at Ras Amba Hotel
2nd Day (15th, Feb.)
Session 3: “Traditional” Healing Practices [COORDINATOR: Mamo Hebo]
10:00-10:30	Mamo Hebo “Healing Through the Mediation of the Spirits: The Case of Jaarii among the Arsii Oromo of Kokossa District”
10:30-11:00	Setarge Kenaw “Knowledge Production in Zar: A Study in the Dynamism of Healing Practices”
11:00-11:15	Commentator: Asseffa Torella
11:15-12:30	Lunch Break at Ras Amba Hotel
Session 4: Forest Coffee Production and Environmental Management [COORDINATOR: Yoshimasa Ito]
12:30-13:00	Endashaw Bekele “Origin of Coffea arabica and the Significance of Its Conservation on Human Culture.”
13:00-13:30	Yoshimasa Ito “Human Influence on the Forest of Coffee”
13:30-14:00	Getachew Berhan “Importance of Wild Coffee in Forest Genetic Resources Conservation in Ethiopia”
14:00-14:15	Break
Session 5: Development, Resource, and Indigenous Social Organizations [COORDINATOR: Makoto Nishi]
14:15-14:45	Getachew Godana “The Potentials of Indigenous Knowledge for the Conservation of Natural Resources: The Case of Nach Sar National Park (NNP)”
14:45-15:15	Makoto Nishi “Community-based Rural Development and the Politics of Redistribution: The Experience of the Gurage People’s Self-help Development Organization”
15:15-15:30	Commentator: Endashaw Bekele
15:30-15:45	Takeshi Matsui “Closing Remarks”
15:45-15:55	Bekele Gutema “Closing Remarks”
18:00-20:00	Reception at Top View

Date: Janurary 18, 2008
Venue: E207, East Building, CSEAS

Presentation:
Tatsuro Fujikura (Associate Professor, ASAFAS)
Setsuko Nakayama (Researcher, ASAFAS)

Date: December 4, 2007
Venue: Room 447,  Faculty of Engineering Bldg No.4, ASAFAS

Presentation:
Akio Tanabe (Associate Professor, Institute for Research in Humanities)
Makoto Fukushima (Associate Professor, University of Tokyo)
Naoki Shinohara (Associate Professor, RISH)
Fumikazu Ubukata (G-COE Assistant Professor, CSEAS)
Akira Adachi (Professor, ASAFAS)

Commentation:
Gen Yamakoshi (Associate Professor, CSEAS)
Tetsuro Nakaoka (Professor, Osaka City University)

Date: November 13, 2007
Venue: Room 447,  Faculty of Engineering Bldg No.4, ASAFAS

Presentation:
Masayoshi Shigeta (Professor, ASAFAS)
Kozo Matsubayashi (Professor, ASAFAS)