「現地人の視点（from the native's point of view）」から民族誌を部外者が描き出すのだという 視点からの脱却をめざす。

まず「現地人の視点」か らという命題を最初に提出したブロニスラウ・マリノフスキーの『西太平洋の遠洋航海者』（1922）から引用する。

"These three lines of approach lead to the final goal, of which an Ethnographer should never lose sight. This goal is, briefly, to grasp the native's point of view, his relation to life, to realise his vision of his world. We have to study man, and we must study what concerns him most intimately, that is, the hold which life has on him. In each culture, the values are slightly different ; people aspire after different aims, follow different impulses, yearn after a different form of happiness. In each culture, we find different institutions in which man pursues his life-interest, different customs by which he satisfies his aspirations, different codes of law and morality which reward his virtues or punish his defections. To study the institutions, customs, and codes or to study the behaviour and mentality without the subjective desire of feeling by what these people live, of realising the substance of their happiness is, in my opinion, to miss the greatest reward which we can hope to obtain from the study of man." - Malinowski (1922:25) - SUBJECT, METHOD AND SCOPE, in "Argonauts of the Western Pacific." Routledge.

次に、オリエンタリズム 批判から、フィールドワーカーの視点だけが批判されていたのではなく、それを可能にしかつ継続的なもの（＝持続可能）にする社会文化的状況を批判している のだという、エドワード・サイードの指摘を以下に記す。

"At this point I should say something about one of the frequent criticisms addressed to me, and to which I have always wanted to respond, that in the process of characterizing the production of Europe’s inferior Others, my work is only negative polemic which does not advance a new epistemological approach or method, and expresses only desperation at the possibility of ever dealing seriously with other cultures. These criticisms are related to the matters I’ve been discussing so far, and while I have no desire to unleash a point-by-point refutation of my critics, I do want to respond in a way that is intellectually pertinent to the topic at hand.What I took myself to be undertaking in Orientalism was an adversarial critique not only of the field’s perspective and political economy, but also of the sociocultural situation that makes its discourse both so possible and so sustainable. Epistemologies, discourses, and methods like Orientalism are scarcely worth the name if they are reductively characterized as objects like shoes, patched when worn out, discarded and replaced with new objects when old and unfixable. The archival dignity, institutional authority, and patriarchal longevity of Orientalism should be taken seriously because in the aggregate these traits function as a worldview with considerable political force not easily brushed away as so much epistemology. Thus Orientalism in my view is a structure erected in the thick of an imperial contest whose dominant wing it represented and elaborated not only as scholarship but as a partisan ideology. Yet Orientalism hid the contest beneath its scholarly and aesthetic idioms. These things are what I was trying to show, in addition to arguing that there is no discipline, no structure of knowledge, no institution or epistemology that can or has ever stood free of the various sociocultural, historical, and political formations that give epochs their peculiar individuality."

- Edward W. Said is Parr Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. His most recent contribution to Critical Inquiry is “An Ideology of Difference"- Edward W. Said, Representing the Colonized: Anthropology's Interlocutors. Critical Inquiry 15 (2):205-225 (1989)

サイードの批判を、 フィールドワーカーの知識生産と現地への還元という観点から考えるとどうなるだろうか？（→「フィールドワークと民族誌の民主化」）　フィールド ワーカーは「現地人の視点」 という認識論を会得するのみならず、現地で調査する人たちをどのようにみて、また現地人の人たちが様々な観点から感じるような政治経済的な不均衡状態に置 かれていること、等々の政治的・社会的・文化的状況についての把握も可能になる道も拓かれる。それを人類学者の個人的共感や同情のレベルに留めておくので はなく、フィールドワークの成果である民族誌記述（あるいは制作）に盛り込むとすれば、どのようなアウトカムが期待できるだろうか、ということなのであ る。

「「現地の人々の視 点」から、これまで民族誌的仕事を人類学者は行ってきている(と信じていた)のに、それが評価されるどころか、新植民地主義 的であるとして厳しく非難される。サイード(Said 1989)がいうように、マリノフスキーが主張した「現地の人々の視点から」というスローガンの意味は、いまでは人 類学的認識論の基盤ではなく、代弁＝表 象する権利を分配してほしいという現地側からの要求となっているのである。これを不条理な経験として処理する か、それとも学問それ自体の存在意義を再考す るための重要な経験として生かすか、意見は別れよう。ここでは「文化について語る権利」、ならびに「言説の個別性」について、人類学者も真剣に考え始めて いることをとりあえず確認したい」（太田 2009:46）。

リンク

• エドワード・サイード『オリエンタリズム』ノート
  
• インディオ・メスティソ・ラサ：ラテンア メリカにおける人種的カテゴリー再考（研究ノート）
• フィールドワークと民族誌の民主化
• La mentalité primitive (4e édition) / par L. Lévy-Bruhl, 1922
• リュシアン・レヴィ＝ブリュル
  

文献

• 民族誌的近代への介入：文化を語る権利は誰にあるのか / 太田好信著、京都：人文書院、2009年
• Clifford Geertz, "From the Native's Point of View": On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Oct., 1974), pp. 26-45
• Edward W. Said, Representing the Colonized: Anthropology's Interlocutors. Critical Inquiry 15 (2):205-225 (1989) 
  

その他の情報