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.

＊国立民族学博物館民族文化研究部

　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.

＊カリフォルニア大学サンディエゴ校　UCSD

Key Words：cultural studies, cross-hemispheric, four-fields, culture wars
キーワード：カルチュラル・スタディーズ，半球横断的，四分野制，文化戦争

　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.

＊京都大学人文科学研究所

Key Words：subaltern studies, anthropology, history, agency, social change
キーワード：サバルタン研究，人類学，歴史，行為主体性（エージェンシー），社会変化

　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’.

＊オーストラリア国立大学大学院考古学・人類学研究科

Key Words：anthropology in Australia, Australian multiculturalism, Aboriginal studies, Melanesian studies, anthropology at home
キーワード：オーストラリアにおける人類学，オーストラリアのマルチカルチュラリズム，アボリジニ研究，メラネシア研究，「ホーム」研究

＊国立民族学博物館研究戦略センター

Key Words：folklore, cultural anthropology, European ethnology, history of discipline, methodology
キーワード：民俗学，文化人類学，ヨーロッパ民族学，学問史，方法論

　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.

　「持続可能な農業」という言葉が世間に流布しているが、その意味は多様で矛盾すらはらんでいる。この言葉は通常、中小規模、多品種栽培、農民主体の農業生産を表すために使用されてきた。しかし一方で、世界規模の人口増加や農業の生物圏への全体的な影響という文脈では、産業的な農業システム、すなわち大規模、単一作物栽培、主として企業主体の農業、の増強を正当化するために用いられている。そこでは、今日および今後の食料需要が強調され、需要を満たすには現行の高収量農業のみが妥当であるとされる。この場合、重要な研究課題は、産業的な農業が、その生産性を維持しながら、どうやって負の生態学的影響を緩和するかということになる。 このように、持続性の評価において、食糧「需要」はきわめて重要な要素である。しかしながらその食料需要の将来予測は、不完全で疑わしい点も多い農業生産に関する統計や、見解が大きく相違する食料の調達、消費、廃棄に関する複数の推定に基づいている。そのため、地球全体の食料の「需要倍増」という予測は同語反復になっている。なぜならば、需要予測が、それ自体、産業的な農業生産システムの結果である現在の消費パターンを前提としているからである。このような同語反復的な需要予測をすることは、将来のありうるべき農業を考えるための、現状認識と想像力を誤らせることになりかねない。 小規模であれ大規模であれ、自分たちの規模に合致した分析のみを絶対視し、もう片方の洞察と分析を受け入れない「持続可能な農業」を、ここでは“orthodoxies”と呼んでおく。そのうえで本論では、どちらの視点も農業の持続性に関して重要な洞察を提供しうるのだが、それぞれがorthdoxyに留まる限り、その可能性を実現できないことを示す。これまでの両者の伝統的な研究は、お互いが対話することにより、実り多いものになるのである。

＊Visiting Researcher, National Museum of Ethnology, Research Communications Coordinator, RIHN

Key Words：sustainable agriculture, alternative agriculture, industrial agriculture, demand, ecological impact
キーワード：持続的農業，オルタナティブ農業，産業的農業，需要，環境インパクト

　宗族とは中国における父系の出自集団であり、明清代の16 世紀から20 世紀初頭にかけて、村落社会の政治経済的な側面に大きな機能をはたしてきた。本稿は、王朝の終焉後、中華民国期の社会変動のなかで、宗族組織がいかに変容していったかを明らかにしようとするものである。
　王朝の終焉にともなう科挙の廃止と、民国政府が進めた税制と統治システムの改革によって、宗族の有力者であり村落社会のリーダーでもあった郷紳エリートにかわって大天二と呼ばれる者たちが台頭した。彼らは政府の代理人として人々から厳しく税を取り立てるのみではなく、収奪的な行為によって私腹を肥やすなどした。
　こうした国家と村落間関係の変動と村のリーダーの性質の移り変わりは、匪賊の襲撃にさいしての宗族の足並みの乱れや、祠堂建設と族譜編纂の停止といった、いわば宗族的な規範のゆらぎとも形容できる状況をもたらした。さらに1945 年をすぎるころになると、新たな有力者たちは村の利権をめぐって外部の勢力も巻き込みながらはげしい争いをくりひろげた。こうして、民国期の後半にいたり、宗族がとりもってきた村落社会の秩序は瓦解の途についていったのであった。

　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.

＊国立民族学博物館　機関研究員

Key Words：lineage, kinship, Late Imperial China, Republican period, Pearl River Delta
キーワード：宗族，親族，後期帝政期，中華民国期，珠江デルタ