This is the second special edition on World Anthropologies. The first was based on the annual meeting of the Kansai Branch of the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology held on October 15^th 2005, and appeared in volume 31(1) of the same bulletin. This second special edition is also based on the annual meeting of the Kansai Branch, held on July 7^th 2007.
Thus, the form of the two editions is the same, but their content is quite different. Following the development of anthropological thought in the four leading countries in Anthropology (the United States, France, Britain, and China), the first edition tried to make clear the characteristics of each Anthropology. Emphasis was put upon their educational systems, considering these to be a key to predicting the future of each Anthropology.
The second edition, in contrast, changes the target countries and the object of discussion. Taking up four countries, the United States, Germany, India and Australia, this edition focuses on the relationship between Anthropology and its related disciplines: Cultural Studies in the US, Ethnology in Germany, Subaltern Studies in India, and Multiculturalism in Australia. Why do we choose this topic? There are two reasons. Firstly, although they are branches of cultural studies like Anthropology, these other disciplines generally aim at culture on the national scale, while anthropological investigations are often carried out on minority or ethnic group cultures. Secondly, they show a strong tendency to focus on the political aspects of cultural practices, while anthropological studies often neglect these. If there is a methodological difference between Anthropology and these other disciplines, it will be fruitful to examine them closely to rethink Anthropology, which has been said to be in difficulties.

The article concerns the relationship between cultural studies and anthropology in North America. Despite some anthropologists' attempts to “otherize” cultural studies, many cultural and social anthropologists since the mid-1980s post-structuralist turn—exemplified by the discipline's incorporation of works by such continental theorists as Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Franⅽฺois Lyotard, as well as such post-colonial scholars as Edward Said, Homi Bhaba, and Gayatri Spivak—have produced influential works that in practice can be deemed cultural studies. The article then asks: what was and is at stake in the still persistent effort to repudiate cultural studies when in fact cultural studies has constituted an integral part of cuttingedge anthropological investigations? The article begins by exploring a brief history of cultural studies in English-speaking North America from the early 1990s, when cultural studies emerged as a trans-disciplinary intellectual project that often instigated disturbances within established disciplines, to the current moment in which cultural studies has become accepted as a legitimate academic field and institutionalized into programs and department curricula. A quick look at its trajectories over the past two decades reveals how cultural studies has offered a site of knowledge production that disrupts and decenters the taken-for-granted assumptions about the “West” and the rest, national belongingness, and ideas about the self and other. I argue that it is this selfcritical and unsettling nature of cultural studies knowledge that feeds the anxiety of those who aspire to the idea of anthropology as a stable and holistic discipline modeled after the positivist natural sciences. Drawing on Daniel Segal's and Sylvia Yanagisako's observation, the article concludes that the current debates over the “four-fields” in North America serves as a surrogate “culture war” for anthropology, a discipline initially built on clear demarcations of self/other, inside/outside, and home/field.

Key Words:cultural studies, cross-hemispheric, four-fields, culture wars

This article discusses the relationships between Subaltern Studies and South Asian anthropology. After surveying the mutual influences between the two, the article argues the following: 1) the field of historical anthropology that pays attention to the history and structure of workings of power, subjectformation and the role of agency, has the potentiality of fruitfully combining anthropological knowledge and inspirations from Subaltern Studies; 2) there is a need to pay attention to the role of cultural re-imagination by the subalterns in the contemporary process of political group formation; 3) in addition to understanding the social structure and/or moments of change represented by revolts, it is necessary to consider the dynamics of social “becoming”, that is, the process of transformation of social relationships and patterns through every day events. Lastly, the article argues that care should be taken to note the change in the semantics of the term ‘subaltern’ under the present day globalization. Attempts to locate the presence of the ‘subaltern’ in the present situation can function to identify a group as a holder of particular resources-e.g. genetic resources or medicinal knowledge-instead of shedding light on alternative viewpoints. This would only work to enrol the subalterns in global capitalism instead of appreciating and respecting their way of life. We need to be extremely careful about studying the subaltern under such conditions.

Key Words:subaltern studies, anthropology, history, agency, social change

Australian society has been transformed from a settler colony to a multicultural nation state, having passed through the racially discriminative White Australia Policy. The problems of present-day anthropology in terms of disciplinary survival among the competing social sciences derive from the historical particularities which this process of transformation of Australian society has generated. This paper briefly reviews the discourses of official Australian multiculturalism, followed by a history of anthropology in Australia. It then explores the present-day problems and possibilities of anthropology. Lastly, I offer some suggestions as to what might be useful in the task of solving these problems.
Multiculturalism was introduced into Australia to serve the official policy of controlling the diversification of domestic ethnic minority groups. Its fundamental concept consists in maintaining integration into the public social system while aiming at controlling the ethnic minority groups of immigrants from hundreds of different cultural backgrounds. The official discourses of Australian multiculturalism have emphasised the national identity which is expected to grow on the basis of the mainstream ‘Anglo-Celtic’ culture. As to the development of the institutionalisation of anthropology in Australia, it is important to look at past national expectations of the uses of anthropology for colonial administration at home and later in Papua New Guinea especially, and also, in the present, to the diversifying interdisciplinary enterprises and projects in the applied social sciences, although the history of the push to institutionalise Australian anthropology was driven by intellectual fascination with Aboriginal societies and cultures. There has never been an Australian school or even style of anthropology in Australia. Expatriates have occupied the majority of the Australian chairs over the years, which has led ‘anthropology in Australia’ (rather than ‘Australian anthropology’) to be influenced by most of the schools and currents to be found elsewhere. Postgraduate training, however, today seems to be overly project-centred, i.e., being exposed to a higher educational milieu in Australia does not necessarily mean one can internalise the discipline's own codes and standards of research, theoretical frames of reference and so on. Aboriginal studies have been resurrected by the need for involvement in land claims and native title cases regarding which anthropologists must deal with the frame of recognition of ‘unchanging’ tradition and culture imposed by legislators. Those who attempt to do anthropology at home are extending their research interests beyond ethnic minority groups and white Australian communities into such differences as gender, class and so on. I conclude by suggesting that anthropology's challenges lie in better appreciating the role of fieldwork and ethnography as well as rethinking the dichotomy between ‘home’ and ‘the field’.

Key Words:anthropology in Australia, Australian multiculturalism, Aboriginal studies, Melanesian studies, anthropology at home

In order to introduce German Volkskunde as a neighboring discipline to cultural anthropology, I try to shed light on the historical process of this discipline at research institutes in German universities, especially after World War II. German Volkskunde had established its position as an academic discipline, with a chair of its own at a university, under the National Socialist regime, and ideologically had played no small part in supporting Nazism. It naturally follows that since the end of the war German scholars have had to keenly reflect on and firmly criticize the discipline's past. They have begun to define and redefine theoretically their conceptions of the discipline, as well as its boundaries with related disciplines. They have brought many old concepts of Volkskunde to an end and sought to turn the discipline into an applied cultural science, concerned with the analysis of both the past and present. In this process German Volkskunde has come to call itself cultural anthropology. This article argues this process with special reference to the University of Tüingen, and considers the current methodological orientation of professional education referring to the Humboldt University of Berlin. I discuss in conclusion the developing relationship between German Volkskunde and cultural anthropology.

Key Words:folklore, cultural anthropology, European ethnology, history of discipline, methodology

The term ‘sustainable agriculture’ has much currency but multiple and even contradictory meanings. It is often used to indicate small- and mid-scale, agribiodiverse and farmer-centered agricultural production. At the same time, in the context of global population growth and agriculture's aggregate impact on the biosphere, the term ‘sustainable agriculture’ is mobilized to justify further intensification of industrial agricultural systems. In this view, current and future demand for food is writ large, and it is asserted that only high-yield conventional agriculture can meet it. The key research question is how to mitigate industrial agriculture's negative ecological impact while retaining its productivity.
‘Demand’ is therefore critical to assessments of sustainability. Yet future estimations of demand rest on incomplete and often dubious figures of present agricultural production and greatly varying assessments of food availability, consumption, and waste. As a consequence, the widely forecast ‘doubling of demand’ is tautologous: it presumes present patterns of consumption which are themselves the result of industrial-scale agricultural production. An agenda for agricultural development predicated on the need to meet a ‘doubling’ of demand therefore diminishes the real and imaginary territories in which alternative food futures lie.
Both small- and large-scale visions of sustainable agriculture can be called ‘orthodoxies’ in that the adherents of each vision assume their preferred scale of analysis is the essential one, while dismissing the insight and analysis offered by the other. This paper should demonstrate that both perspectives offer important insights into the problem of agricultural sustainability, but that neither can fulfill its potential so long as it remains an orthodoxy. The research traditions surrounding smaller-scale and larger-scale agriculture can be brought into fruitful dialogue.

Key Words:sustainable agriculture, alternative agriculture, industrial agriculture, demand, ecological impact

Lineage, called zongzu in China, served a crucial economic and political function in village society from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. In this paper I discuss how lineage organization changed during the social upheaval of the Republican period in the Pearl River Delta, Guangdong Province.
With the end of the Qing dynasty, the official examination service (ke ju) was abolished, and the Republican government launched the tax and administrative reforms. As a result, gently elites, leaders of lineages and village society, declined and local bosses called “dai tin yi” gained power. The latter strictly and excessively collected taxes and various other fees to enrich themselves.
This transition in the relationship between state and village, and the turnover of village leaders, destabilized the lineage norm. In the Republican period, ancestral halls were no longer constructed and lineage genealogies were not written. Lineages could not be united to prevent bandit invasions. In addition, in collusion with outside forces, local bosses struggled fiercely among each other for power. By the late Republican period, the social order supported by the lineage had collapsed.

Key Words:lineage, kinship, Late Imperial China, Republican period, Pearl River Delta