ローカル・コモンズにおける地域住民の「主体性」の所在 : 実践コミュニティの生成と権力関係について  [in Japanese] The Subjectivity of Local People in the Management of Local Commons : Formation of Power Relationships within a Community of Practice  [in Japanese]

Access this Article

Search this Article

Author(s)

Abstract

近代化とグローバル化の進展にともない、ローカル・コモンズの管理における地域住民の主体性が問い直されている。本稿では、タイ東北部の事例を参照しながら、まず、ローカル・コモンズの主体のあり方を整理し、その上で、ローカル・コモンズの主体としての地域住民と社会に散在する権力との関係について考察する。「実践コミュニティ」の概念を用いることで、村落コミュニティのメンバーシップとは境界を異にするローカル・コモンズ管理への実質的な参加者を把握することができる。実践コミュニティと外部者との間のインタラクションは、ブローカーによって媒介され、外部の環境によって変化する。知識の権力はこうしたインタラクションを考える上で重要な視点である。共有資源管理においては、持続可能性に関する科学的な知識が地域住民の主体性を脅かしている。これに対し、地域住民は、持続可能性の意味を再交渉し読み替えを行うエイジェンシーとして彼らの主体性を守ろうとする。この読み替えによる対抗言説形成の過程に知識人が参画すると、地域住民にとって助力となると同時に、主導権を握られ、生活者の視点が、知識人のイデオロギーに再度、読み替えられ、結局、生政治的な知識の権力に従属することにもなりかねない。こうした状況を打破し、ローカル・コモンズ管理における住民の主体性を保つためには、実践レベルで公表された言説を緩やかに実行することで生活世界を防衛しつつ、地域住民自身が外部の知識の読み替えができるような能力を持つように学習・経験を積み重ねることが必要である。

<p>The management of communal resources by local people has recently emerged as one approach to establishing a system of sustainable natural resources. Thus far, the ability of local residents to manage resources has been discussed in terms of social organization, local wisdom, and adaptation to modernization. However, the rapidly increasing flow of people and information resulting from globalization has increased the diversity within communities and networks of people. The assumption that "local people" can be defined in terms of local commons based on geographical neighborhoods is no longer tenable. This article applies the notion of communities of practice to understand the subject of local commons in terms of actual participation. We also address the power relationship between local people as a community of practice and outsiders, and examine how local people can maintain the subjectivity with which they construct their own living environments by interacting with the natural environment. Villages in the area around Pha Taem National Park in Northeast Thailand manage their own community forests. The first community forest in this area was located near Na Pho Klang village. The villagers fought for their traditional communal forest, which the forest department originally planned to turn over to a private company for use as a plantation. Finally, the government formally agreed to allow the villagers to manage the forest as a communal resource. With the assistance of forestry personnel and NGO staff members, the villagers established written rules, organizational management guidelines, and patrol systems. Despite several early instances of broken rules, non-compliant behaviors were eventually eliminated. As a result of the revival of the forest and the greater availability of its natural products, villagers came to understand the importance of a community forest. At present, despite differences among themselves, all the villagers participate in community forest management activities to some extent. Indeed, even villagers who do not utilize resources derived from the community forest participate in its collective management to contribute to the welfare of the entire village community and future generations. The idea of community forests has expanded from Na Pho Klang to the surrounding villages. Villages in the same tambon, or sub-district, formed the "Dong Na Tham Forest Network" to facilitate collaboration in the management of community forests. That network further expanded to neighboring tambons, where new community forests were established. After the establishment of community forests in an area, leaders of the network, forestry officers. and NGO staff members visited nearby villages to encourage residents to establish their own community forests. They organized village meetings and explained the basic framework of community forests. They then allowed villagers to create their own rules and organizational structures according to their own preferences. In addition, the funding for community forests provided by the government and international organizations also attracted villagers to those projects. However, that funding system changed the mental set of villagers from that of volunteers. When the funds were subsequently exhausted, the network became inactive, and some villages discontinued their regular participation in management activities. The aforementioned example illustrates a community of practice involving local commons. Community forests were established on the basis of village communities. Yet, members of the communities of practice were not necessarily residents of the villages. Understanding the identities of actual participants and interpreting changes in patterns of participation in terms of the notion of a community of practice can clarify the actions of local people and the power relationships within communities and between communities</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>

Journal

  • Japanese Journal of Cultural Anthropology

    Japanese Journal of Cultural Anthropology 76(2), 125-145, 2011

    Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology

Codes

  • NII Article ID (NAID)
    110008749821
  • NII NACSIS-CAT ID (NCID)
    AA11958949
  • Text Lang
    JPN
  • ISSN
    1349-0648
  • NDL Article ID
    025187181
  • NDL Call No.
    Z8-240
  • Data Source
    NDL  NII-ELS  J-STAGE 
Page Top