Folklore in the Midst of Social Change: The Perspectives and Methods of Japanese Folkloristics Takanori Shimamura Executive, Folklore Society of Japan Kwanseigakuin University Translated by James E. Roberson Professor of Anthropology Kanazawa Seiryō University 1. What are Folkloristics? Folkloristics began in the 17th century with the work of Giambattista Vico (1668-1744), and in the social context of the anti-hegemonic and anti-enlightenment movements of 18th and 19th century Germany was formed from the confluence of the Philology strongly promoted by Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803) and the Grimm brothers (Jacob Ludwig Karl Grimm [1785-863] and Wilhelm Karl Grimm [1786-1859]) with the Local Studies of Justus Möser (1720-1794). Folkloristics subsequently spread around the world and uniquely developed as a discipline in each area. It is a scholarly field that engenders knowledge that―based on subjective understandings which incorporate the relationships between human life as developing from dimensions different than the social topologies of authority, the universal, the center and mainstream―overcomes and relativizes bodies of knowledge composed from the criteria of the latter (Shimamura 2017). What is most important for an understanding of Folkloristics is that it was first fully formed in Germany as a form of resistance to the Napoleonic hegemonism which aimed to control Europe and to the France-centered Enlightenment movement of the 18th and 19th centuries. And, it is important to note that, whether having been directly or indirectly inspired by Germany, folkloristics was independently especially strongly formed in other societies that like Germany shared an anti-hegemonic context. More concretely, folkloristics developed in areas such as Finland, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology, vol. 18-1, 2017 192 Takanori Shimamura Japan, China, Korea, the Philippines, and India, as well as in America, Brazil and Argentina.1 Generally speaking, modern social sciences are bodies of knowledge born of the social topologies of authority, the universal, the center and the mainstream. However, folkloristics’ powerful originality lies in giving birth to knowledge that relativizes and overcomes this tendency. Throughout its history, folkloristics has consistently investigated human life in/of dimensions other than those of the social topologies of authority, the universal, the center and mainstream, and it has inquired into the knowledge engendered by such a focus. It thus follows that, while itself also one of the modern social sciences, folkloristics is an alternative discipline vis-à-vis the wider modern social sciences. Folkloristics aims to be such a discipline, and thus inclusion of life actors (seikatsuhsa) themselves as research objects has been one important method in the research process. Since in addition to researchers affiliated with the academy (universities and other specialist research institutions) folkloristics includes various other actors as researchers, it has been referred to with such labels as “the discipline of the folk by the folk” (No no Gakumon; Suga 2013) or “the intimate Other of the academy” (Noyes 2016:14). This comes from the historical fact that, as a means to gain a subjective understanding of research objects, local life-actors (seikatsuhsa) as directly involved agents (tōjisha) have been included as important actors for folkloristic research. This is something that is true not just of folkloristics in Japan, but which with some degrees of difference may be seen in the folkloristics of America and other countries. 2. Yanagita Folkloristics as The Study of Social Change The reception of folkloristics in Japan began, as “Dozokugaku (土俗学),” at the end of the 19th century under anthropologist Shōgoro Tsuboi and others. However, after the 1910s, its development was lead by the scholarly activities of Kunio Yanagita (1875-1962). One scholarly media that performed an important function for early folkloristics in Japan was the journal Kyōdo Kenkyū (Local Studies), first published in 1913 by Yanagita and others. In this journal, Yanagita presented one after the other research findings that became important in the history of Japanese folkloristics. Through this journal, many people in the provinces became interested in local studies, and from among these there also arose lay folklore researchers. Publication of Kyōdo Kenkyū was stopped in 1917, but afterwards folkloristics related journals such as Dozoku to Densetsu (Folklore and Legends; 1918-1919), Minzoku (Nation; 1925- 1 For details on the history and current conditions of folkloristic research around the world, see Bendix and Hasan-Rokem (2012). Takanori Shimamura Folklore in the Midst of Social Change 193 Japan, China, Korea, the Philippines, and India, as well as in America, Brazil and 1929), and Minzokugaku (Folkloristics; 1929-1933) were published. Through such journals, Argentina.1 Japanese Folkloristics grew with the accumulation of resources and the research results based on these. Furthermore, these journals played a major role in cultivating as folklorists Generally speaking, modern social sciences are bodies of knowledge born of the social local intellectuals in the provinces and of organizing them as members of a network with topologies of authority, the universal, the center and the mainstream. However, folkloristics’ Yanagita at its center. powerful originality lies in giving birth to knowledge that relativizes and overcomes this tendency. Throughout its history, folkloristics has consistently investigated human life in/of However, as Kazuko Tsurumi (1997) points out, what is important here is that Yanagita dimensions other than those of the social topologies of authority, the universal, the center imagined Folkloristics not as research aiming to investigate folk traditions as discrete and mainstream, and it has inquired into the knowledge engendered by such a focus. It thus resources but rather as a one type of “social change studies.” Yanagita’s study of social follows that, while itself also one of the modern social sciences, folkloristics is an alternative change was not a simplistic application of western “modernization theory” taking western discipline vis-à-vis the wider modern social sciences. modernization as a universal standard, and it differed from theories of social change then prevalent in sociology.2 Instead, Yanagita’s concern was with the human life-world3 and how Folkloristics aims to be such a discipline, and thus inclusion of life actors (seikatsuhsa) the humanistic elements born of it—such as language, arts, emotions, beliefs, the relations themselves as research objects has been one important method in the research process. of humans and nature, women’s everyday experience, and the cultural creativity of Since in addition to researchers affiliated with the academy (universities and other children—are related to social change. How, in the midst of structural changes of society, do specialist research institutions) folkloristics includes various other actors as researchers, it these change? Which should be abandoned or kept? Or, what new elements should be has been referred to with such labels as “the discipline of the folk by the folk” (No no introduced? How should survivals and newly introduced elements be combined in Gakumon; Suga 2013) or “the intimate Other of the academy” (Noyes 2016:14). This comes approaching the future? For Yanagita, furthermore, consideration of such things should be from the historical fact that, as a means to gain a subjective understanding of research carried out by the concerned life actors themselves (seikatsu tōjisha jishin).4 objects, local life-actors (seikatsuhsa) as directly involved agents (tōjisha) have been included as important actors for folkloristic research. This is something that is true not just of This study of social change of Yanagita’s was itself the folkloristics he conceived, and the folkloristics in Japan, but which with some degrees of difference may be seen in the primary resources needed for the development of such folkloristics as the study of social folkloristics of America and other countries. change were the folk traditions born of and surviving in the life-worlds of currently living people. The folk traditions Yanagita systematically collected became the corpus for the 2. Yanagita Folkloristics as The Study of Social Change development of his study of social change. The reception of folkloristics in Japan began, as “Dozokugaku (土俗学),” at the end of the However, from the second half of the 1930s, the further formalization and manualization 19th century under anthropologist Shōgoro Tsuboi and others. However, after the 1910s, its of folkloristics progressed—seen in the 1935 founding of the Folk Tradition Society (Denshō development was lead by the scholarly activities of Kunio Yanagita (1875-1962). One no Kai), initial publication of the journal Minkan Denshō (Folk Tradition), and the publication of scholarly media that performed an important function for early folkloristics in Japan was the introductory book Kyōdo Seikatsu no Kenkyūhō (Research Methods of Homeplace Life). With the journal Kyōdo Kenkyū (Local Studies), first published in 1913 by Yanagita and others. In this journal, Yanagita presented one after the other research findings that became 2 Kazuko Tsurumi (1997:446) points out that Yanagita’s study of social change assumes the multilineal development of societies around the world and does