@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001920,
 author = {佐藤, 健二 and Sato, Kenji},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 本稿は近代日本における「民俗学史」を構築するための基礎作業である。学史の構築は、それ自体が「比較」の実践であり、その学問の現在のありようを相対化して再考し、いわば「総体化」ともいうべき立場を模索する契機となる。先行するいくつかの学史記述の歴史認識を対象に、雑誌を含む「刊行物・著作物」や、研究団体への注目が、理念的・実証的にどのように押さえられてきたかを批判的に検討し、「柳田国男中心主義」からの脱却を掲げる試みにおいてもまた、地方雑誌の果たした固有の役割がじつは軽視され、抽象的な「日本民俗学史」に止められてきた事実を明らかにする。そこから、近代日本のそれぞれの地域における、いわゆる「民俗学」「郷土研究」「郷土教育」の受容や成長のしかたの違いという主題を取り出す。糸魚川の郷土研究の歴史は、相馬御風のような文学者の関与を改めて考察すべき論点として加え、また『青木重孝著作集』（現在一五冊刊行）のような、地方で活躍した民俗学者のテクスト共有の地道で貴重な試みがもつ可能性を浮かびあがらせる。また、澤田四郎作を中心とした「大阪民俗談話会」の活動記録は、「場としての民俗学」の分析が、近代日本の民俗学史の研究において必要であることを暗示する。民俗学に対する複数の興味関心が交錯し、多様な特質をもつ研究主体が交流した「場」の分析はまた、理論史としての学史とは異なる、方法史・実践史としての学史認識の重要性という理論的課題をも開くだろう。最後に、歴史記述の一般的な技術としての「年表」の功罪の自覚から、柳田と同時代の歴史家でもあったマルク・ブロックの「起源の問題」をとりあげて、安易な「比較民俗学」への同調のもつ危うさとともに、探索・博捜・蓄積につとめる「博物学」的なアプローチと相補いあう、変数としてのカテゴリーの構成を追究する「代数学」的なアプローチが、民俗学史の研究において求められているという現状認識を掲げる。, This essay represents a preliminary attempt at constructing a “history of folklore studies” in the context of modern Japan. Because of the overwhelming number and range of studies documenting aspects of the Japanese folklore movement, it is necessary to engage in a process of “comparison,” as Émile Durkheim advocated. By reconsidering the current state of the field, we can investigate alternative ways of studying the subject from a “relativistic” or “holistic” perspective. This essay takes into account how previous historical studies took into account publications issued in local areas or by local research groups, and attempts to rectify the scholarly neglect of such contributions. Historical studies to date as a rule do not fully take into account concrete evidence provided by local folklore studies, even if they try to avoid so-called “Yanagita Kunio centricity.” By shifting our stance, we can take up issues concerning approaches taken up by researchers involving minzokugaku (folklore studies) on a localized level, kyōdo kenkyū (research on local history and culture), or kyōdo kyōiku (methods of teaching local history and culture).
For instance, through the investigation of the local history of folklore studies in Itoigawa, I have stressed the importance studying the work of a literary figure such as Sôma Gyofû. I have also taken into account the painstaking efforts involved in the publication of the discoveries of local researchers such as The Collected Works of Aoki Shigetaka (15 volumes published to date). Similarly, the research and compilation of proceedings of the Ōsaka Minzoku Danwa Kai (Osaka Folklore Discussion Society), led by Sawada Shirosaku, suggests that consideration of the “place,” where the local folklore studies were born plays an crucial role in the subsequent construction of a history of folklore in modern times. The investigation of the “place,” where multiple interests were exchanged and diverse persons interacted with each other can open the way to a revised history of “practice” and “method,” which differs greatly from a history according to “paradigm” and “theory.” In this essay, I evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the use of “chronological tables.” The “problem of origin,” as proposed by Marc Bloch, who was a close contemporary of Yanagita, is also raised. Furthermore, I propose that an “algebraic” approach, which treats the composition of categories as variables or values and analyses the relation of variables. Such a methodology, while contributing the construction of a revised history of modern Japanese folklore studies, also incorporates what might be called “ecological” or “natural historical” approaches, which focus on searching for research material on a widespread basis and acquiring material objects that are required for study.},
 pages = {13--45},
 title = {近代日本民俗学史の構築について／覚書（第Ⅰ部 学史研究の可能性～方法と射程）},
 volume = {165},
 year = {2011},
 yomi = {サトウ, ケンジ}
}