| Project/Area Number |
19520548
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Historical studies in general
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Doshisha University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
MIZUTANI Satoshi Doshisha University, 言語文化教育研究センター, 講師 (90411074)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
HIRANO Chikako 武蔵大学, 人文学部, 教授 (00319419)
ARIMITSU Yasue 同志社大学, 言語文化教育研究センター, 教授 (20097075)
MITSUI Takashi 同志社大学, 言語文化教育研究センター, 准教授 (60425080)
NAGAFUCHI Yasuyuki 名古屋工業大学, 工学研究院, 教授 (30208045)
MATSUHISA Reiko 同志社大学, 言語文化研究教育センター, 教授 (40239075)
ITAGAKI Ryuta 同志社大学, 社会学部, 准教授 (60361549)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2007 – 2009
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥4,420,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,400,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,020,000)
Fiscal Year 2009: ¥1,430,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥330,000)
Fiscal Year 2008: ¥1,430,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥330,000)
Fiscal Year 2007: ¥1,560,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,200,000、Indirect Cost: ¥360,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 植民地帝国 / 日本 / ヨーロッパ / 比較 / 植民地近代性 / 植民地主義 / 混血 / 多文化主義 / 人種主義 / 文化 / 記憶 / 近代 / 教育 / 伝統の創造 / 医療・衛生 / 帝国 / アジア・アフリカ / 東アジア |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
Our project reexamined the colonial histories of both the Japanese and European empires (the British, French, Dutch, Spanish, and German) from a comparative perspective through analyzing specific themes concerning 'modernity'. Duly aware of both the necessity and danger of the vary act to 'compare', the project sought to pursue the possible terms and frames of comparison. The project brought together a range of different colonial experiences, and conducted an holistic analysis of them. Of particular importance was the complex relationship of these experiences to modern institutions and ideas such as sanitation, bureaucracy, 'race', and education. As a result, we came to notice a growing importance attached by contemporary scholars to the notion of 'colonial modernity'. We tried to clarify the notion's scope and limits, considering in detail their implications for collaborative comparative research. Second, but no less importantly, we found that 'comparative studies of colonialism' were themselves part and parcel of the imperial formations in the past. Empire-states themselves practiced comparison both to claim their individuality and to share across imperial boundaries the knowledge / skills of colonial governance. Therefore, what is required of us scholars of colonialism today is to engage in comparison, but with a view to transcending it by problematising its imperial trajectories in the past and its lingering relevance to our post-colonial present.
|
