1.a kuwayama natives as dialogic partners

8/12/2019 1.a Kuwayama Natives as Dialogic Partners

1/7

'Natives' as Dialogic Partners: Some Thoughts on Native Anthropology

Author(s): Takami KuwayamaSource: Anthropology Today, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 8-13Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3695151.Accessed: 04/10/2011 06:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toAnthropology Today.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3695151?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3695151?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/7


3/7

'S;r6:

i ~ e r EYrg

Fig. 2. Traditional ousespreservedat a local themepark,Tono, watePrefecture.SinceKunioYanagitawroteTheLegendsof Tdno(1910),Tonohas been studiedextensivelyby Japaneseethnographers.

1. For criticismson thispoint,see Brettell(1993) andShahrani1994).2. If properly rained,natives can write about heircultureandhistory n waysuseful to professionalanthropologists.nJapan nthe 1930s, KunioYanagitaorganizeda nationalnetworkof amateur esearcherswhostudied heir owncommunity.3. AlthoughTrask s an'activist' native who is not ananthropologist y training,herarguments redirectlyrelated o the issue underdiscussion.4. For criticismsof thecore-periphery ichotomy,see van Bremen(1997).

Fig. 3. An old innpreservedin the TonoFolk Village,whichopenedin 1986. Thebustof Yanagitas displayed(left oreground).

centres of the West. For the purposesof this article,how-ever,natives arebroadlyunderstood o be people who areobjectsof anthropological esearch, egardlessof the tech-nological level of their country, especially in the non-Western world. Thus, the Japanese can be 'natives',despite their own colonial past, for they have been, andcontinue to be, studied and describedby Westernanthro-pologists.The definitionof 'nativeanthropologists's more com-plex than that of natives. At the most fundamental evel,these areanthropologistswho belongto the researchcom-munity by birth. However, professionally trainedresearchersare seldom found in the small communitiesanthropologists avetraditionally tudied.They ordinarilylive outsidethe immediateresearchcommunity,andmanyof themwork at educational nstitutions n the cities. Localanthropologistsare, therefore,native only in a secondarysense of the word. Yet they arepartof the larger societyunderobservation,and have common interestswith thepeople being studied. This distinguishesthem from non-native researchers,who may maintaina distance or evenwrite about hem from detachedviewpoints n the name ofscience.

I must hasten to add that native is a relationalconcept.Like the 'inside' and the 'outside',the categoryof peopledefinedby this term s not fixed:rather,t shiftsaccordingto the situation n which researchers ind themselves. Forexample, Japanese anthropologists from the citiesstudying rural communities in Japanare outsiders andnon-native to the community they research.They may,however,be considered nsiders and native in relation toforeignanthropologists tudyingJapan.Nativeis thereforea fluidcategorywhose meaning s dependenton the socialcontext. For a detailed discussion on this point, seeKuwayama 2000a).

I- -- I

YI.

Native anthropology: An epistemological issueIn major collections of articles on native anthropology(e.g. Fahim 1982, Messerschmidt1981), much space hasbeen devoted to discussion of the merits and demerits ofnative/insiderresearch.It has been argued,for example,that native anthropologistshave few language problemsand that they can quickly establish a rapportwith theirinformants. t has also been argued hatthis advantagehasits own problemsbecause the culturalproximitybetweenthe researcher and the researched makes it difficult toattainobjectivity.Anotherdisadvantageof native anthro-pologists, accordingto scholars from the ThirdWorld, sthatthey are often mistaken or governmentagents.Thereis, therefore, general agreement that native/insiderresearchhas bothadvantagesanddisadvantages.Theimportanceof suchargumentss obvious;theyhaveeven anticipated he currentanthropologicaldiscourse on'anthropologyat home'. They relate, however, mainly tofieldworkmethods,andthe significanceof native anthro-pology would be diminishedconsiderablyf the discussionwere limitedto thatof methodology.Because theproblemsposed by native academics- what we might call 'profes-sional others' - have the potentialto restructureanthro-pology,it is importanto addressnativeanthropology s anepistemological ssue, not simplya methodologicalone.The ethnographic triadThe place of natives in anthropologymay be clarifiedbyapplying insights derived from museum studies. Recentstudies of ethnologicalmuseums have shown the impor-tance of considering herelationshipbetween threeparties- the displayer,the displayed, and the viewer. Over thepastfew decades the debate on the politics of culturalrep-resentationanddisplayhas raisedawareness hatmuseumsare forums for 'dialogue' between the displayerand thedisplayed, between the displayerand the spectator,andbetween the displayed and the viewer, rather than 'tem-ples' wheresacredobjectsare enshrined.This observationmay neatlybe appliedto ethnographyas a genre of writing. Like museums, ethnographyinvolves threeparties- the writer,the described,and thereader- and they form what may be called the 'ethno-graphictriad'. Since this simple fact is frequentlyover-looked,it deservessome clarification.The firstparty n thetriad s the anthropologistwho does fieldwork,usually inothercultures,and writesupresearchresults n the form ofethnography.Anthropology s 'homemade',in the wordsof CliffordGeertz(1988:145), becausemany of its activi-ties are carriedout at home afterreturning rom the field.The second party in the ethnographictriad consists ofnatives who have been described n the ethnography.As Ihave already pointed out, native anthropologistsare notusuallyimmediateobjectsof study,buttheyarepartof thewidersociety that s being represented.The thirdpartyin the ethnographic riad has receivedlittle attention n previousstudies. I distinguish ourmajorcategorieswithin the ethnographic eadership: 1) peoplewho belong to the same linguisticand culturalcommunityas the writer in most cases, thesepeopleare the assumedreadersof ethnography,and they consist of both profes-sional scholars and readersat large;(2) natives who havebeen studied and described:they used to be recognizedonlyasobjectsof representation,utmanyof them arenowcompetent o readethnographic ccountsof theirculture nthe originalor in translation;23) native anthropologists,who often work in partnershipwith anthropologists uringfieldwork,but tend to be rivals n trade.Manyof them havelevelled harshcriticismsagainstWesternethnography, s Iwill discusslater; 4) peoplewho are neitherdescribersnorthe described: anthropologists in third-partycountriesbelong to this category.

ANTHROPOLOGYTODAY VOL 19 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2003 9


4/7

Fig. 4. Inside the inn, olktales are told by localcitizens or tourists. Thetelling offolk tales is one ofthemajorattractions nTono.

5. With more than 70research taff,Minpakusone of the largestemployersof anthropologistsworldwide.See Knight(1996) for an interview withMinpaku's ormerdirector.6. In 1994, Umesaowasawardedbunkakunsho theOrderof CulturalMerit), hehighesthonourawarded oJapaneseacademics.7. In terms of descent,neitherOhtsukanor Shimizuis a native of Ainu.Theydohave, however, ong-standingrelationshipswith Ainupeople.It is hopedthatKayano,who receivedadoctorate n anthropologyn2001, will respond o thedebatefrom an Ainuperspective.

Fig. 5. Traditionalarm toolsdisplayedat the TonoMunicipalMuseum.

N W W41

- c7

Keeping the ethnographictriad in mind, it becomesclear that the recentpostmoderncritiqueof ethnographyhas missed two importantpoints.First,as is symbolicallyexpressed n thetitleof Clifford& Marcus'scanonical extWriting ulture(1986), the postmodernists'concernwithreadingandwritinghas led them to passover thequestionof what it means to be the subjectof those writings.Thesecond partyin the ethnographic riad has been virtuallyignored. Second, the assumed readership s effectivelylimited to the firstcategoryof readers dentifiedabove(i.e.people who belong to the same communityas the writer).The absence of efforts at writingin the local languagetoengage in 'dialogue' with the people described clearlyattests to this.

Moreover,little has been said about how to communi-cate with anthropologistsoutside the Anglophoneworld.InAnthropologyas cultural critique(1986), Marcus andFischer proposed 'experimental' writing styles suitablefor conveying other culturalexperience.As they pointedout, new styles such as narratives are useful in stimu-latingthe assumed readers' maginationof other cultures.But the wordsandexpressionsused areculturally oaded,and their meanings are not immediatelyclear to foreignreaders from different cultural backgrounds.Experimentalwriting styles arepowerfulwithin the samelinguistic community,but they are not the best means ofengagingin 'dialogue' withreadersfromotherlinguisticcommunities.

Natives and their discontentThis 'dialogue' is not the dialogue between anthropolo-gists and their nformantsduring ieldworkwhich has beendebated among the proponentsof experimental ethnog-raphy.They are interestedprimarily n composingethno-graphictexts on the basis of the dialogue they have hadwith their nformants.They are,in otherwords,interestedin writing.By contrast, hedialogueI amproposingoccursafter the ethnographyis written, and it should ideallyengage all the people concerned,includingthe describerand the described.No one would seriously disagree that anthropology'spublicmission is topromoteculturalunderstanding mongdifferentgroupsof people. Ironically,people all over theworld have accused anthropologists n various occasionsof spreading 'misconceptions' of their culture, as theSamoans' persistent criticisms of Margaret Mead'sComing of age in Samoa show (Yamamoto 1994). In myview, these misconceptions have more to do with thenatives' outsider status in the study of their own culturethan with factual errorsanthropologistsmay have made.Native discontentstems from the structure f ethnographyitself, in which anthropologists' dialogic others' are thereaderswithin their own linguistic and cultural commu-nity, manyof whom are theirprofessional colleagues. AsJohannes Fabian (1983:85) put it, though in a differentcontext, natives are 'posited (predicated)',but are 'notspokento'. They are, in otherwords, excluded from thedialogiccircle of ethnography ndacquire egitimacy onlyas objectsof thought.Like the Samoans,many people studiedby anthropolo-gists have complainedabout what has been said of theirculturebecause, while they were extensively 'exploited'as sources of information during fieldwork, they areseldom consulted once it is over and the ethnography swritten. As the Native AmericananthropologistBeatriceMedicine(2001) has pointedout, it is not unusual hat thefinished products (i.e. books and articles) are not evenshown to them. Itwould, therefore,be incorrect o supposethat natives are merely contesting the accuracy of out-siders' representations,which almost inevitably includeerrors and misunderstandings,despite their revelatoryvalues.Native protestThe controversybetweenJocelynLinnekin and Haunani-Kay Trask about Hawaiian nationalism illuminates thispoint.3 n her pioneeringwork on the invention of tradi-tion, Linnekin(1983) maintainedthat the resurgenceofinterest n theirhistory amongurbanHawaiians s partof

IIIIL~i i di LL~[ .

i

bri,(?

10 ANTHROPOLOGYTODAY VOL 19 NO 1, FEBRUARY2003


5/7

IM ..,.. ...--Ialel i d ~ ~ 1 ) \ c \ \ l l i l ~ ,

,Pro --

Fig. 7. HeadedbyAkiraTakeda centre eft, in whitecap), students tudyinganthropologyandfolkloreatSoka University,Tokyo,arriveon the islandofOshima,off theBay ofTokyo, o receiveethnographic raining.

Asante,Molefi Kete 1999.ThepainfuldemiseofEurocentrism.Trenton,NJ:Africa WorldPress.Brettell,CarolineB. (ed.)1993. When heyread whatwe write.Westport,CT:Bergin& Garvey.Clifford,James & GeorgeE.Marcus eds) 1986.

Writing ulture.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Fabian,Johannes 1983. Time

and the other.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Fahim,Hussein(ed.) 1982.

Indigenousanthropologyin non-Western ountries.Durham,NC: CarolinaAcademic Press.

Geertz,Clifford 1988. Worksand lives. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Fig. 6. Afishing village inMokp'o,at thesouthern ipoftheKoreanpeninsula.AkiraTakeda onductedmuchofhis ieldworkin thisarea.

the new movement or cultural evival.In herview,the tra-ditionsthey admirehave been selectedarbitrarilynd thus'invented' o suit thepresentpolitical purposes,rather hanhavingbeen handed down from their ancestors.Linnekinthen cited the example of aloha 'dina (love of land),arguingthat it has become a convenient slogan in theHawaiians' demandfor the returnof Kaho'olawe Island,where their ancestorsareallegedlyburied.Linnekin's thesis is theoretically exciting, but she hasmet strongoppositionfrom Hawaiianswho accuse the USNavy of destroyingsacred groundfor militarytraining.Among her fierce critics is Trask,the author of From aNative daughter(1999), who contends that aloha 'aina isan authentic raditionof herpeople. She argues hat aloha'dinahas takenon a political meaningbecauseland use isnow contested, maintaining hat 'The Hawaiian culturalmotivation eveals thepersistenceof traditional alues,thevery thing Linnekin claims modem Hawaiians haveinvented ' 1999:128). Particularlymportantn our con-text is her assertion that outsiders' representationshavebeen privileged over those of natives. 'In a colonialworld,' Trask writes, 'the work of anthropologistsandother Western-trained specialists s used to disparageandexploitNatives.Thus, what Linnekin writes aboutHawaiianshas morepotentialpowerthan what Hawaiianswrite.' Traskarguesthat this is demonstratedby the US Navy's use ofLinnekin's argument that Hawaiian nationalists haveinventedthe sacredmeaningof Kaho'olawe. She furtherarguesthat statementsmadeby whitepeople areacceptedas 'facts' with little verification,whereas natives' asser-tions are subjected o strict examinationof evidence. Sheattributes hesedifferentstandards f proofto racism.Thissuggests thatanthropologycan be used not only to dele-gitimizenativeclaims,but also to legitimize possiblycoer-cive relationships by outsiders. Similar criticisms arefound n the writingsof Molefi Kete Asante(1999), a pro-ponentof Afrocentrism.

The 'worldsystem' of anthropologyThe discourse of native intellectuals should be distin-guished from that of laymen. The internaldiversityof anative communityshould also be noted. Generally,how-ever, natives' voice has seldom reached the metropolitanWest,where much of the esteemedknowledgeaboutthemis produced.Even when it is heard, t tends to be stigma-tized as 'biased' or simply ignoredas 'noise'. I submit hatthis situation derives from the imbalance of power in the'academicworldsystem',rather han rom theallegedlackof sophisticationof native discourse (Kuwayama2000a,2000b, forthcoming).

Everyacademic field constitutesa 'worldsystem'. Likethe economic world system described by ImmanuelWallerstein(1979), this system consists of two majorgroupsof countries or regions:the 'core' (centre)and the'periphery' margin). Forthe sake of simplicitythe groupthat falls in between - what Wallerstein called 'semi-periphery' is not discussedhere.)4Althoughtheynurturediverse traditionsof anthropology, he United States andGreatBritain,and to a lesser extentFrance,togethercon-stitute the core of anthropology.Even though there areinternaldifferences, their collective power is such thatothercountries, ncludingthosein the rest of Europe,havebeen relegated to the periphery.As the late SwedishscholarTomasGerholmaptlypointedout, therelationshipbetween the core and the peripherymay be likened to thatbetween the mainlandandremote slands(Gerholm 1995).People on the mainlandcango through heir ife obliviousof whathappensto the remoteislands,but the opposite ishardlytrue. Similarly,centralscholars can safely ignoreperipheralscholars without risking their career,whereasthe latterwill be labelled 'ignorant'or even 'backward' fthey are unfamiliarwith the former'sresearch.Thisasym-metricalrelationship hows that the core has the powertodictate the dominant modes of academic discourse. Theperiphery is forced to accept them, for example byadopting the central scholars' theories, methods, andwriting styles, if it wishes to be recognized nternationally.Under these circumstances,it is difficult for peripheralscholars o speakwith those at the centreon anequalbasis.Simply put,the worldsystemof anthropologydescribesthepolitics involvedin the production,dissemination,andconsumptionof knowledge about other peoples and cul-tures. Influential scholars in the core countries are in aposition to decide what kinds of knowledge should begiven authority and merit attention. The peer-reviewsystem at prestigious journals reinforces this structure.Thusknowledge producedon the periphery,howeversig-nificantandvaluable,will be buried ocally unless it meetsthe standards ndexpectationsof the core- hence theneg-lect of native discourse n the wider world.

Minorityscholarsin the United States often complainabout heirmarginal tatuswithin Americananthropology.The fact is, however, that their voice gets throughto therest of the world to a considerablygreaterdegreethanthatof natives in otherregionsbecausethey too are located atthe centre of the academic worldsystem.Skirmishes with 'peripheral'scholarsLet us take up the exampleof Japan o furtherclarifythispoint.In 1994, SandraA. Niessen contributed o MuseumAnthropologya review articleon thepermanent xhibitionof Ainu cultureatJapan'sNationalMuseum of Ethnology,known as Minpaku,5where she had spentsix months as aguest researcher.She presentedher article as a reflectionon the complexities of representation f indigenous peo-ples in local andinternational ettings.However,in Japanthe review was widely received as a severe criticism oflocal Japanesescholarshipandrepresentation f the Ainu.Her argumentsmay be summarizedas follows. (1) Since

-LIQrid

F?.0mwrilANTHROPOLOGYTODAYVOL 19 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2003 11


6/7

Fig. 8. An Ainu ritual calledkamuinomi god worship) sheldeveryyear at a chise(house)displayed nMinpaku.At the centre, ntraditionaldress, is ShigeruKayano.

Gerholm,Tomas 1995.Sweden:Centralethnology,peripheralanthropology.n H.FVermeulen& A.A. Roldhin(eds) Fieldworkandfootnotes, pp. 159-170.London:Routledge.Knight,John 1996.An interview with SasakiKomei,NationalMuseumof Ethnology.ANTHROPOLOGYODAY12(3):16-20.

Kuwayama,Takami2000a.Nativeanthropologists.Ritsumeikan ournalofAsia Pacific Studies6: 7-33.- 2000b. KunioYanagita'sglobalfolkloristicsreconsidered inJapanese].Bulletinof the FolkloreSociety of Japan 222: 1-32.- (forthcoming).The worldsystemof anthropology.nS. Yamashita, . Bosco &J. S. Eades(eds) Themakingof anthropologynEast and SoutheastAsia.Oxford:BerghahnBooks.Linnekin,JocelynS. 1983.Definingtradition.AmericanEthnologist10:241-252.

Marcus,GeorgeE. & MichaelM.J. Fischer 1986.Anthropology s culturalcritique.UniversityofChicagoPress.Medicine,Beatrice 2001.Learning o be ananthropologistandremaining native'.Chicago:UniversityofIllinois Press.

Messerschmidt,DonaldA.(ed.) 1981.Anthropologists t homeinNorthAmerica.CambridgeUniversityPress.Niessen, SandraA. 1994.TheAinu in Mimpaku.MuseumAnthropology18(3): 18-25.

- 1997.RepresentingheAinu reconsidered.MuseumAnthropology20(3): 132-144.

Fig. 9. Akira Takedaexchanges greetingswith avillager uponhis arrival inMokp'o. Tohis right sSumanNa, Takeda'sKoreancolleague,who teachesatMokp'oUniversity.

141?ur - r??? ~ ''*-r WL~i~u?a,; L?On

A 4 War

44,,lkJ

its openingin 1977, Minpakuhas had a close relationshipwith ShigeruKayano,the first Ainu to be elected to theJapaneseParliament.Although t was couchedin the con-text of a complex comparative argument, Japanesescholars took particular xceptionto the implication theyperceived n Niessen's article,namelythatKayano'sviewof Ainu cultureresembled hat of salvage anthropologists.(2) The ethnographic ilm madeby Minpakuat Kayano'shouse in Hokkaido was shot in 'sanitized'settings, thuscreatinga 'fictitious illusionof authenticity'. 3) The pol-itics of culturalrepresentations seldom discussedamongMinpakustaff. The museum has no official policy aboutwhat to displayandhow; exhibitions areprogrammed na case-by-casebasis. (4) The historyof strugglebetweenthe Ainu and the dominant Japanese is concealed inMinpaku'sexhibition.In NorthAmerica,similar exhibi-tions would be criticized as blatantattemptsto oppressethnic minorities.(5) Minpaku'sgallerycreates an idyllicimage of the Ainu people. It calls to mind the exhibitionThespirit sings, sponsoredby Shell in Canadaduring he1988 Calgary Olympic Games, at a time when the FirstNationpeoples representedn the exhibitionwere in con-flict with Shell aboutexploitationof resourceson their er-ritory.The exhibitionwas boycottedby Native Canadianpeoples, who gained internationalattention hrough heirprotests. (6) When Niessen asked Tadao Umesao, thenMinpaku'sdirectorgeneral, f such a reactioncould occurin Japan,he 'laughedincredulously', saying it was 'pre-posterous'6Two Japaneseanthropologistsat Minpaku, KazuyoshiOhtsukaand AkitoshiShimizu,raisedstrongobjections o

Niessen's review. Pointing out the trust and friendshipMinpaku has assiduously worked to forge with Ainupeople, Ohtsuka 1997) objectedas follows: (1) Niessen'scriticisms of Minpaku are scornful; (2) her 'surprisingmisunderstandings'derive from her failure to consultMinpaku'spublications, n which the museum'sexhibitionpolicies are clearly spelled out; (3) Niessen's article isbased on 'superficial impressions'. Had she consultedMinpaku taff beforepublishingherpaper,she couldhaveavoided much trouble andembarrassment;4) by misrep-resentingthe cause of Ainu people, Niessen has injuredtheir dignity,and especially Kayano's reputation; 5) the'illusion of authenticity'she problematizeds an exampleof her quixotic discourse. The depictedAinu themselvesquestioned her interpretation; 6) Niessen's claim thatMinpakushouldhighlightthe conflict between the domi-nantJapaneseand the Ainu shows how she was intent on'brainwashing' apanesewithherown ideas.

Shimizu's objection was more theoretical thanOhtsuka's.He was particularly ritical of Niessen's neg-lect of the Japanese-languageiterature.According o him,her neglect demoted Minpaku to an 'illiterate' status,'without history.' In Shimizu's opinion, Niessen inno-cently assumed she could understandMinpaku'sexhibi-tions by participant bservationonly, a methodoriginallydeveloped to study non-literatepeople. The 'imagined'Minpaku,said Shimizu, was thenjudged by the suppos-edly global standardsof North America. Shimizu con-cludedthat Niessen's article is 'a political text which hasthe effect of establishing the hegemony of the NorthAmerican tandardsof museums and anthropologyover

L IJI1/

i ,,

i: ;tZj~ z.r~L1 rr d d1QC ,t, ? t rr i.ly

1 ?I,~PLI' ~ -??~ 3 t;/ ;? ?Lr~?~~cr

54~

?,Y

+i.i4 CI Ir g-~ ~t~k;12 ANTHROPOLOGYTODAY VOL 19 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2003


7/7

~t~?t,r

IC-~-;, tu~4~ r; 1 .'&~~?~ ;iIr~5ilii ~?c

.i:~?? .?,? . I ~,si d r ,,

e~??~f~1.

Yr9

Fig. 10. Akira Takeda akesnoteswhile conductinganinterview n Koreanwith avillagerin Mokp'o.

Ohtsuka,Kazuyoshi1997.ExhibitingAinucultureatMinpaku.MuseumAnthropology 0(3): 108-119.

Said,E. 1978. Orientalism.New York:Pantheon.Shahrani,M. Nazif 1994.Honoredguestandmarginalman. In Don D.Fowler & Donald L.

Hardesty eds) Othersknowingothers,pp. 15-67. Washington:Smithsonian nstitutionPress.Shimizu,Akitoshi1997.

Cooperation,notdomination.MuseumAnthropology 0(3): 120-131.

Sinha,Vineeta 2000.Moving beyondcritique.SoutheastAsianJournalof Social Science 28(1):67-104.

Trask,Haunani-Kay1999.Froma Nativedaughter[2nded.]. UniversityofHonoluluPress.vanBremen,Jan 1997.

Prompterswho do notappearon the stage.JapanAnthropologyWorkshop ewsletter,26-27: 57-65.Wallerstein, mmanuel1979.Thecapitalistworld-economy. CambridgeUniversityPress.Yamamoto,Matori 1994.

Sexuality n anti-colonialism[inJapanese].Annalsof SocialAnthropology 0: 111-130.

theircounterpartsn Japan' Shimizu 1997:120).In her response to Ohtsuka and Shimizu, Niessendescribedtheir views as 'personaland sometimesunpro-fessional' (Niessen 1997:141). Niessen asserts that she infact sent a draftof her article or commentto herJapanesemuseum colleagues for feedbackbefore publication,butreceived no response. Although some of her points arewell taken,frommy pointof view her strategywas that ofa detached theorist. For example, she effectively disre-gardedOhtsuka'smeticulous comments on Ainu historyand its display at Minpaku,thereby avoiding a wranglewith Ohtsuka,an Ainu specialist. Instead she wrote atlength- with the benefit of hindsight- about the signifi-cance of her article,referring o some of the most recenttheories in museum studies in North America. AlthoughNiessen herself is Canadianandworks at a Canadianuni-versity,Ohtsukaand Shimizucriticized her for whattheyfelt was too strong an American orientation,involving'brainwashing' he Japaneseand strengtheningAmerican'hegemony'. Her defence was skilful and, insofar as thedebatetookplace in the context of Anglo-vernacularour-nals, the Japanesecame across as mostly intellectuallyimmatureandideologicallymotivated.I have not takenupthis debatewith the intentionof dis-paragingNiessen. She revieweda publicexhibitionon thestrengthof her abilities as a museumsspecialist,withoutclaimingto be an experton the Ainu or on Japan she is aspecialist on Indonesia), and without knowledge of theJapanese anguage whichthusprecludedher fromreadingMinpaku'spublications).However, this case does showhow certain ngredientscan and often do unintentionallycontributeto confrontationsbetween native and outsidescholars.'First, native texts (i.e. literaturewritten in thelocal language)are often taken too lightly. Generally,out-sidersarenot in apositionto take on board he nuancesandcomplexitiesof nativescholarship;ndeed,theyoften dis-regard t when they do not considerit directlyrelevant totheir mmediateresearch.Second,native ntellectuals endto be regardedas 'knowledgeable nformants'rather hanas equal research partners. Outside researchers areindebted o them for many things during ieldwork,but intheprocessof writingupresearch esultsthese researcherseffectively monopolize the rightto interpret he informa-tion provided by their 'informants'.Third, native dis-course tends to be seen as 'propaganda'promoting aparticularpolitical position, effectively keeping nativecommunities outside the respectableacademic commu-nity.Fourth, he researchers'moralresponsibility owards

their researchsubjects s frequentlyevaded in the name ofscholarship.Native claims that outsider representationsharm heir nterestsandreputation re often not consideredcarefully enough. If outside researchers ail to respondtonative objections, this can be experiencedas hidden,yetdeep-seated,contempt or nativeintelligence.The danger of cultural nationalismHavingsaidthis, we must remember hat native discoursehas oftensupported ulturalnationalism, speciallywhen itis connected with native rights movements. Moreover,nativediscourse ends o generate everseOrientalism r so-called 'Occidentalism'because it is constructedn opposi-tion to theprevailingdiscourse n the West. Onmore thanafew occasions native intellectuals, threatenedby over-whelming power, have attempted o gain spiritual nde-pendenceby eliminatingWesternnfluence.Unfortunately,their attemptshave largely failed because modernityhasbeenbroughtaboutunderWesterneadership. ts tracesarevisiblein almosteveryareaof everyday ife throughoutheworld. It is safe to say that there is hardly any genuinelyindigenous system of thought hat is completelyfree fromWesternnfluence,whetherpositiveornegative.Forpeoplein thenon-Westernworld, then,categoricallyrefusingWestern deas is tantamount o deprivingthem-selves of any intellectualpower. Indeed, over-emphaticclaims to difference have resulted in alienation in thewider world: a case in point is the marginalizationof'African social science' as describedby Vineeta Sinha.Sinha (2000) points out that althoughthis disciplinehasmerits of its own it has become increasingly'exotic' andmarginalizedbecause of its adamantrejectionof Westernintellectualtraditions.The studyof folklore in Japanmaybe cited as anotherexample of this kind of marginaliza-tion. Foundedby a group of ambitious scholars led byKunioYanagita 1875-1962), one of the intellectualgiantsof modem Japan,Japanese olklorestudies had the poten-tial to develop into an attractive, stimulating field.Yanagita was well versed with the works of leadingEuropean cholarsof his time,includingJamesFrazer,andhe occasionally expressedhis debt to them. His strongcul-turalnationalism,however,togetherwith his desire to beregardedas the undisputed ounderof the discipline, ledhim to intentionallyomit bibliographies rom his volumi-nous books. As a result, atergenerationsof Japanese olk-lorists were unable to trace the origin of Yanagita'sthought,and they have been isolated not only from theirinternational olleaguesbut also fromJapanesespecialistsin otherfields, includinganthropology,which has devel-opedunder he strong nfluence of Westernscholarship.ConclusionIn this article,I have interpreted he word 'native' in itsbroad sense and discussed the variousproblems nvolvedin culturalrepresentation rom the viewpoint of peoplewho are described. To avoid misunderstandings, mustpointoutin conclusionthat I am not advocating he exclu-sive rightof natives to study their own people. It is truethat he deepestlayersof a cultureare noteasily accessibleto outsiders,but therearemany thingsthatescapeinsiders'attention. f anything,some thingsmay betterbe analysedwhen seen fromthe outside than rom the inside. Problemsarise,however,whentemporary esidents ike anthropolo-gists assume the superiorityof their research skills andexcellence of theirinterpretationswhile neglectingnativereactions. Natives will object when foreign researcherselevate themselves to the status of ultimate udge on theirculture.Anthropologyhas become a global disciplineandis practised odayin manypartsof the world. The advanceof our discipline dependson whetheror not we are pre-pared o acceptnatives as 'dialogic partners'.*

ANTHROPOLOGYTODAY VOL 19 NO 1, FEBRUARY 2003 13

1.a kuwayama natives as dialogic partners

Documents