東文研国際シンポジウム

タイトル：‘Partition and Independence in Heterogeneous Time’
日　時：　2006年３月17日（金）午前10時〜午後６時
場　所：　東京大学東洋文化研究所第１会議室（３階）
問合せ先：中里成章（nakazato@ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp; 03-5841-5864; +61-3-9479-3467）

参加者と発表テーマ
Partha Chatterjee: (refugees in Bengal)
Directorand Professor of Political Science,Centre for Studies in Social
Sciences, Calcutta VisitingProfessor of Anthropology, Columbia University
Janaki Nair: ‘After the State: The Kannada Mannina
Maga (son-of-the-soil) in mid-Twentieth Century Mysore’ (tentative)
Professor of History, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta
Nariaki Nakazato: ‘Partition Riots and Post-independence Riots in
Calcutta: A Comparison’(tentative)
Gyanendra Pandey: ‘Nobody's People: The Dalits of Delhi’ (tentative)
Asa Griggs Candler Professor of History,Emory University, Atlanta
Ajay Skaria: ‘Gandhi and the Question of Democracy’ (tentative)
Chiharu Takenaka: ‘Gandhi and Politics of Violence’ (tentative)

趣意書から
In conceptualizing our theme, we draw your attention to what Partha
Chatterjee has, in his recent work on The Politics of the Governed,
characterized as the antinomy between a ‘homogeneous national’ and a
‘heterogeneous social’ (p.36). Amplifying Michel Foucault’s concept of
‘govermentality’, he develops a theoretical scheme built on an
opposition between the ‘lofty political imaginary of popular
sovereignty’ which give rise to the ‘homogeneous national’, on the one
hand, and the effects of ‘mundane administrative reality’ and
‘governmentality’ giving rise, on the other, to the ‘heterogeneous
social’ (Foucault’s ‘population’). In this workshop we will revisit
claims of the ‘homogeneous national’, and consider more closely the
production of the ‘heterogeneous social’ as a consequence of multiple
negotiations and manifold adaptations in uncounted places. Our focus is
on the disputed criteria of ‘citizenship’ and of acceptable ‘community’
(which includes national, regional, religious and other social groups),
and on the contest over these as it is played out in diverse local
arenas, all of which are likely to have been shot through at this
juncture with powerfully articulated ideas of the ‘national’