@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000673,
 author = {橋本, 裕之 and Hashimoto, Hiroyuki},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Nov},
 note = {application/pdf, 本稿の目的は民俗芸能研究が「地域」をいかなるものとして理解しているのか、その消息を検証するところにある。こうした関心に沿って民俗学でいう地域性論をとりあげたばあい、ある奇妙な偏向に気づかされることになる。民俗芸能研究はいかなる脈絡からも、地域差と地域性を主要な課題として位置づけていないのである。それは筆者のみたところ、民俗芸能の地域差がしばしば伝播によってもたらされた結果として十全に説明されてしまうからであった。民俗芸能はどうやら地域性論にふさわしくない、つまり地域性に規定されにくい対象であるらしい。
しかしながら、伝播が民俗芸能の地域差をもたらすものだとしても、自然的な伝播のみをもって民俗芸能の諸相を説明してしまっていいものか。ひとたび民俗芸能の芸能史的位相を視野におさめたら、民俗芸能が組織的な伝播によって当該地域にもたらされた消息を無視するわけにはいかないはずである。したがって、民俗芸能の地域的位相はむしろ芸能の祖型を指標として用いる試みによって浮かびあがる、いわば変容の諸相にこそもとめられなければならなかった。
そのばあい、「地域」は必ずしも個々の民俗社会にかぎらない。「地域」は対象の持つ性格にそくしながら、あくまでも可変的に設定されて然るべきなのである。というのも、民俗芸能にまつわる「地域」は民俗芸能に対する人々の熱情によって構成される可能性を持っている。「地域」はじつのところ、人々の熱情によってもたらされた結果のひとつでしかなかったのかもしれない。こうした視座は演者や演技の実際から「地域」を問いなおすものであり、あらかじめ「地域」を前提してしまう発想を根本的に転換させる契機たりうるものである。しかも、民俗芸能の地域性がそこから得られるものだとしたら、地域性論じたい批判的に検討もしくは再編されなければならないように思われる。, This paper aims to examine how studies on folk performing arts have understood “region”. When dealing with the study of regional character in folklore studies in line with this interest, we come to notice a strange inclination. Studies on folk performing arts do not rank regional variation and regional character as important subjects from any context at all. In my opinion, this is because the regional variation of folk performing arts is fully explained as being a result often brought about by diffusion. Folk performing arts seem to be an object that is not suitable for the study of regional character, in other words, it is not easily regulated by regional character.
However, even admitting that diffusion brings regional variation in folk performing arts, I wonder if the various aspects of folk performing arts can be explained solely by natural diffusion. Once the historical aspect of folk performing arts is brought into the field of vision, one cannot neglect the circumstances in which folk performing arts were brought into the region through organized diffusion. It follows that the regional phase of folk performing arts should have been sought, as it were, in the various aspects of transformation that become apparent in an attempt using the original pattern of the performing arts as an index.
In this case, “region” is not necessarily limited to an individual folk society. The “region” should above all else be set variably, based on the character under consideration. This is because where folk performing arts are concerned, a “region” can be constituted by the people's passion towards the folk performing arts. In fact, a “region” might have been nothing more than one of the results brought about by the people's passion. This viewpoint questions once more “region” based on actual performers and performances, and it can be an opportunity to change fundamentally the concept that presuppose the “region”. In addition, if the regional character of folk performing arts can be obtained from this, I consider that the study of regional character itself should be critically examined, or re-constructed.This paper aims to examine how studies on folk performing arts have understood “region”. When dealing with the study of regional character in folklore studies in line with this interest, we come to notice a strange inclination. Studies on folk performing arts do not rank regional variation and regional character as important subjects from any context at all. In my opinion, this is because the regional variation of folk performing arts is fully explained as being a result often brought about by diffusion. Folk performing arts seem to be an object that is not suitable for the study of regional character, in other words, it is not easily regulated by regional character.
However, even admitting that diffusion brings regional variation in folk performing arts, I wonder if the various aspects of folk performing arts can be explained solely by natural diffusion. Once the historical aspect of folk performing arts is brought into the field of vision, one cannot neglect the circumstances in which folk performing arts were brought into the region through organized diffusion. It follows that the regional phase of folk performing arts should have been sought, as it were, in the various aspects of transformation that become apparent in an attempt using the original pattern of the performing arts as an index.
In this case, “region” is not necessarily limited to an individual folk society. The “region” should above all else be set variably, based on the character under consideration. This is because where folk performing arts are concerned, a “region” can be constituted by the people's passion towards the folk performing arts. In fact, a “region” might have been nothing more than one of the results brought about by the people's passion. This viewpoint questions once more “region” based on actual performers and performances, and it can be an opportunity to change fundamentally the concept that presuppose the “region”. In addition, if the regional character of folk performing arts can be obtained from this, I consider that the study of regional character itself should be critically examined, or re-constructed.},
 pages = {49--78},
 title = {民俗芸能研究における「地域」},
 volume = {52},
 year = {1993},
 yomi = {ハシモト, ヒロユキ}
}