Folklore in The Midst of Social Change

Folklore in the Midst of Social Change:
The Perspectives and Methods of Japanese Folkloristics
Takanori Shimamura
Executive, Folklore Society of Japan
Kwanseigakuin University
Translated by James E. Roberson

Professor of Anthropology
Kanazawa Seiryō University
1. What are Folkloristics?
Folkloristics began in the 17th century with the work of Giambattista Vico (1668-1744),
and in the social context of the anti-hegemonic and anti-enlightenment movements of 18th
and 19th century Germany was formed from the confluence of the Philology strongly
promoted by Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803) and the Grimm brothers (Jacob
Ludwig Karl Grimm [1785-863] and Wilhelm Karl Grimm [1786-1859]) with the Local
Studies of Justus Möser (1720-1794). Folkloristics subsequently spread around the world
and uniquely developed as a discipline in each area. It is a scholarly field that engenders
knowledge that―based on subjective understandings which incorporate the relationships
between human life as developing from dimensions different than the social topologies of
authority, the universal, the center and mainstream―overcomes and relativizes bodies of
knowledge composed from the criteria of the latter (Shimamura 2017).
What is most important for an understanding of Folkloristics is that it was first fully
formed in Germany as a form of resistance to the Napoleonic hegemonism which aimed to
control Europe and to the France-centered Enlightenment movement of the 18 th and 19th
centuries. And, it is important to note that, whether having been directly or indirectly
inspired by Germany, folkloristics was independently especially strongly formed in other
societies that like Germany shared an anti-hegemonic context. More concretely, folkloristics
developed in areas such as Finland, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Wales, Scotland,
Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology, vol. 18-1, 2017

192 Takanori Shimamura
Japan, China, Korea, the Philippines, and India, as well as in America, Brazil and
Argentina.1
Generally speaking, modern social sciences are bodies of knowledge born of the social
topologies of authority, the universal, the center and the mainstream. However, folkloristics’
powerful originality lies in giving birth to knowledge that relativizes and overcomes this
tendency. Throughout its history, folkloristics has consistently investigated human life in/of
dimensions other than those of the social topologies of authority, the universal, the center
and mainstream, and it has inquired into the knowledge engendered by such a focus. It thus
follows that, while itself also one of the modern social sciences, folkloristics is an alternative
discipline vis-à-vis the wider modern social sciences.
Folkloristics aims to be such a discipline, and thus inclusion of life actors (seikatsuhsa)
themselves as research objects has been one important method in the research process.
Since in addition to researchers affiliated with the academy (universities and other
specialist research institutions) folkloristics includes various other actors as researchers, it
has been referred to with such labels as “the discipline of the folk by the folk” (No no
Gakumon; Suga 2013) or “the intimate Other of the academy” (Noyes 2016:14). This comes
from the historical fact that, as a means to gain a subjective understanding of research
objects, local life-actors (seikatsuhsa) as directly involved agents (tōjisha) have been included as
important actors for folkloristic research. This is something that is true not just of
folkloristics in Japan, but which with some degrees of difference may be seen in the
folkloristics of America and other countries.
2. Yanagita Folkloristics as The Study of Social Change
The reception of folkloristics in Japan began, as “Dozokugaku (土俗学),” at the end of the
19th century under anthropologist Shōgoro Tsuboi and others. However, after the 1910s, its
development was lead by the scholarly activities of Kunio Yanagita (1875-1962). One
scholarly media that performed an important function for early folkloristics in Japan was
the journal Kyōdo Kenkyū (Local Studies), first published in 1913 by Yanagita and others. In
this journal, Yanagita presented one after the other research findings that became
important in the history of Japanese folkloristics. Through this journal, many people in the
provinces became interested in local studies, and from among these there also arose lay
folklore researchers.
Publication of Kyōdo Kenkyū was stopped in 1917, but afterwards folkloristics related
journals such as Dozoku to Densetsu (Folklore and Legends; 1918-1919), Minzoku (Nation; 1925-
1 For details on the history and current conditions of folkloristic research around the world, see Bendix and
Hasan-Rokem (2012).
Folklore in the Midst of Social Change 193
1929), and Minzokugaku (Folkloristics; 1929-1933) were published. Through such journals,
Japanese Folkloristics grew with the accumulation of resources and the research results
based on these. Furthermore, these journals played a major role in cultivating as folklorists
local intellectuals in the provinces and of organizing them as members of a network with
Yanagita at its center.
However, as Kazuko Tsurumi (1997) points out, what is important here is that Yanagita
imagined Folkloristics not as research aiming to investigate folk traditions as discrete
resources but rather as a one type of “social change studies.” Yanagita’s study of social
change was not a simplistic application of western “modernization theory” taking western
modernization as a universal standard, and it differed from theories of social change then
prevalent in sociology.2 Instead, Yanagita’s concern was with the human life-world3 and how
the humanistic elements born of it—such as language, arts, emotions, beliefs, the relations
of humans and nature, women’s everyday experience, and the cultural creativity of
children—are related to social change. How, in the midst of structural changes of society, do
these change? Which should be abandoned or kept? Or, what new elements should be
introduced? How should survivals and newly introduced elements be combined in
approaching the future? For Yanagita, furthermore, consideration of such things should be
carried out by the concerned life actors themselves (seikatsu tōjisha jishin).4
This study of social change of Yanagita’s was itself the folkloristics he conceived, and the
primary resources needed for the development of such folkloristics as the study of social
change were the folk traditions born of and surviving in the life-worlds of currently living
people. The folk traditions Yanagita systematically collected became the corpus for the
development of his study of social change.
However, from the second half of the 1930s, the further formalization and manualization
of folkloristics progressed—seen in the 1935 founding of the Folk Tradition Society (Denshō
no Kai), initial publication of the journal Minkan Denshō (Folk Tradition), and the publication of
the introductory book Kyōdo Seikatsu no Kenkyūhō (Research Methods of Homeplace Life). With
2 Kazuko Tsurumi (1997:446) points out that Yanagita’s study of social change assumes the multilineal
development of societies around the world and does not employ the perspective of unilineal development
taking western modernization as standard.
3 The concept of “life-world” here is that (lebenswelt) proposed in the phenomenology of Edmund Gustav
Albrecht Husserl (1859-1938) and as advanced in the field of sociology by Alfred Schütz (1899-1959).
4 Among the concrete works that correspond to Yanagita-style studies of social change, it is possible to
mention the following: focusing on language, Kokugo no Shōrai (1939a); focusing on emotions and the arts in
everyday life, Fukō naru Geijutsu (1953); focusing on belief, Ujigami to Ujiko (1947); focusing on the relation of
humans with nature, Yasō Zakki, Yachō Zakki (1940) and Koen Zuihitsu (1939b); on the women’s everyday
experience, Momen Izen no Koto (1939c); on the cultural creativity of children, Chīsaki Mono no Koe (1942); and,
more broadly touching on various humanistic elements contained in sensibilities and emotion, Meiji Taishō Shi:
Sesōhen (1931). In various places in these works, Yanagita argues that folkloristics is a method for realizing
the importance of the fact that the selection of various old and new humanistic elements is something that
living actors themselves decide in response to societal change.
this, understandings of Folkloristics that differed from Yanagita’s conceptualization and

that saw Folkloristics as research on Folk Traditions as such (for example, as the
investigation of essentialistic meanings and of the origins and historical changes in Folk
Traditions) rapidly gained strength.5 Even after the Second World War this didn’t change
and continued into the 1990s.6
3. Folkloristics as Folk Tradition (Minkan Denshō) Research
3.1 Debates on the Character of Folkloristics: “Contemporary Science” or

“Historical Science”?
In 1949, the until then informal research group The Folk Tradition Society (Minkan Denshō
no Kai) was reorganized as the Folklore Society of Japan (Nippon Minzoku Gakkai), and
corresponding with this the journal Folk Tradition (Minkan Denshō) was designated as the
official journal of the latter society. The first issue of the reborn journal Minkan Denshō
included an article by Tarō Wakamori (1949) on “On the Methods of Folklore Studies.”
Wakamori notes that “The research object of Japanese folkloristics is to be limited to the
historical character and meanings of Japanese folk traditions,” (1949:5) and that the
research methods of, for example, sociology or geography are not to be approved.
In contrast to this, Keiko Seki (1949a, 1949b) objected that the goal of folkloristics is not
the reformulation of “folk history” envisioned by Wakamori but the explication of the
contemporary significance of the folk. Shigeru Makita (1951) also criticized Wakamori as
well as Toshijirō Hirayama (1951), who emphasized folkloristics as a kind of historical
research. Makita writes that, foremost, folkloristics should advance regarding its
propositions concerning “Who are the Japanese?” and “What is Japanese culture?” by
employing the resources of folk tradition transmitted to the contemporary period. Wakamori
(1951) responded to these criticisms in his article on “On the Character of Folklore Studies.”
He explains that his argument in his prior article regarding historical character and
meaning was not a rejection of the contemporaneous character of folkloristics but rather was
a statement regarding the historical character and meaning that may be discovered in folk
traditions transmitted into the contemporary era. He further notes that the meaning of
5 Further, in addition to this movement, there arose from the 1920s a movement―centering on a string of
graduates from the History Department in the School of Literature at Kyoto Imperial University including
Kazuo Higo, Akihide Mishina, Toshijirō Hirayama and Kenichi Yokota―to designate folk traditions as
historical resources and to include these in historical research. Referred to as “culture history,” it is possible
to locate this current as one part of “history.” However, at the same time, if this is something that “engenders
knowledge that―based on subjective understandings which incorporate the relationships between human life
as developing from dimensions different than the social topologies of authority, the universal, the center and
mainstream―overcomes and relativizes bodies of knowledge composed from the criteria of the latter,” then it
is possible to locate that current as part of folkloristics as “historical folkloristics.” And, again from the 1920s,
beginning with a line of research begun by literary scholar Shinobu Orikuchi, there arose a movement to view
folk traditions as resources for literary research and to incorporate these within Japanese literary research. If
such is the case, it is also possible to locate this literary studies movement as part of folkloristics.
6 Even now, the understanding of folkloristics in general society is often an extension of this kind of line.
(Japanese) folkloristics is, thus, “Within comparative research on contemporary folk culture,
the search for the original nature of the Japanese people”(1951:35).
In the history of Japanese folkloristics, the above debate is referred to as the “Folkloristics
Character Debate” (Minzokugaku Seikaku Ronsō). This debate began with arguments as to
whether Japanese folkloristics was a science of the contemporary or an historical science.
And, it may be said in summation that Wakamori, who at first emphasized that folkloristics
is an historical science, later revised his position to that of seeing folkloristics as a
contemporary science which pays careful attention to the historicity of things.
3.2 Cultural Essentialism

In the above debate, there appeared opinions that the issues which folkloristics should
explain were those of “who the Japanese people are,” “what Japanese culture is” and of “the
original nature of the Japanese.” The posing of these as issues was influenced by the
perspective of Eiichirō Ishida, who prior to this had proposed that “Folkloristics has to the
end the goal of the intensive understanding of the uniqueness or ‘ethnos’ of the ‘single’
ethnic group [‘tan’ minzoku no kosei—ethnos—]” (1948:211), and that “the highest goal of
Japanese folkloristics must be the revisiting and recording of the ethnos in each farming,
mountain, and fishing village and in every corner of each city, as well as the integration and
understanding of this as the living form of the ethnic cultural collective as a whole”
(1948:213). Ishida’s thesis that “something ethnic equals something racial, that is, ethnos”
(1948:210) had a large influence on the postwar world of folkloristics. Various introductory
texts, etc., expressed the same view of folkloristics as that noted by Tokutarō Sakurai when
he wrote that “The scholarly goal of Japanese Folklorisitics is to investigate the ethnos or
volkstum of the Japanese race [Nippon Minzoku] through the investigation of the traditional
lifeways thus far lived or being presently pursued by the Japanese race” (1957:112).
However, Keigo Seki has aptly criticized this, writing: “How are we to grasp this Ethnos?
Even though one may be able to contemplate this at one’s desk, how are we to capture just
what should be abstracted as this Ethnos from our actual folklore surveys and social
research? Given the current stage of our research techniques, it is surely impossible to grasp
even a glimpse of it. The posing of Ethnos may provide researchers with a sense of security,
but Folkloristics is a positivist science the results of which must be knowable by anyone”
(1958:154). The theories of Japan (Nippon-ron), as theories of Ethnos which were seen in
Japanese Folkloristics at this time were nothing other than essentialistic culture theories
and it goes without saying that they fundamentally differed from the problem consciousness
in folkloristic studies of social change pointed to in the preceding section of this paper.
3.3 Written Materials on the Method of “Proof by Re-Citation” and on

“Peripheral Zone Theory”
Discussion of Folkloristic Theory such as that above occurred during the 1950s. Excluding
this, the contents of the journal of the Folklore Society of Japan was long occupied by case
studies of individual examples of Folk Tradition. Concerted debate on methodology next
occurred in 1969. In that year, there was a special issue (Volume 60) of the Society’s journal,
Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, that dealt with “Folkloristics Methodology,” with contributions on
the three themes of “the method of proof by re-citation” (jūshutsu risshō-hō), “peripheral zone
theory’ (shūken-ron), and “archival resources and folk resources.”
“The method of proof by re-citation” is a methodology proposed by Kunio Yanagita (1934)

which drew on the theories of George Laurence Gomme (1908) of England. It was a method
to reconstruct history from fragmentarily existing materials of folk traditions by juxtaposing
these as a kind of “multiple exposure photograph.” There were six essays which investigated
the effectiveness of this method, those by: Tanaka (1969), Noguchi (1969), Ushijima (1969),
Doi (1969), Kawakami (1969) and Inokuchi (1969a).
“Peripheral Zone Theory” is the theory that cultural elements diffuse from geographic
centers to peripheries in concentric circles and that older conditions are thus distributed
(survive) in peripheral zones. Kunio Yanagita (1930) first pointed this out regarding spoken
dialects, and afterwards other folklorists attempted to generalize this as applicable to
particular aspects of general folk traditions. Five articles in the special issue examined the
validity of this theory, those by: Fukuta (1969), Hirayama (1969a), Ogawa (1969), Ono
(1969) and Inokuchi (1969b).
There were seven essays in the 1969 special issue concerning the theme of “archival
resources and folk resources.” As many of the “folk resources” that Folkloristics deals with
are those of tradition obtained through field interviews, these essays addressed the issues of
how to incorporate archival resources (mainly historical writings) and of how to balance the
use of these different kinds of written and unwritten resources. Essays included those by:
Kameyama (1969), Inokuchi (1969c), (Kazuhiko) Hirayama (1969b, 1969c), Miyata (1969),
Makita (1969), and (Toshijiro) Hirayama (1969).
As seen above, this special issue on methodology included numerous articles, but almost
all stopped at discussing the handling or interpretation of folk tradition resources and
materials. The one exception to this was an essay by Kazuhiko Hirayama (1969c), in which
he argues that, regarding methodology, discussion must be held concerning the scholarly
worldview that should be placed at the base of methodology, as in the “keisei-saimin”7principle

of Kunio Yanagita. In the special issue there was also not, for example, debate about how to
use folk tradition materials in developing discussions of social change. In this respect, one
can catch a glimpse here of the state of affairs in Japanese Folkloristics in which Yanagita’s
study of social change has been nearly forgotten.
4. Omens of Change
4.1 The Influence from Anthropology

From the mid-1960s, research based on methodological concepts other than those of “proof
by re-citation” and “peripheral zone theory” also began to appear. These newer concepts
were those from structural-functionalist theory of social anthropology. This was especially
seen in research based on fieldwork in Okinawa, including work by Higa (1965), Mabuchi
(1965), Matsuzono (1970), Muratake (1967), Sudō (1971), Takahashi (1978), Ushijima and
Noguchi (1967), Watanabe (1970 1971a, 1971b), and Yamaji (1971). Many of these authors,
it should be noted, claimed social anthropology, not folkloristics, as their scholarly discipline.
It may thus be seen that at this time there were many researchers who, while
anthropologists, did field research in Japan and who published their research results in the
journal of the Folklore Society of Japan. At this time, then, the boundaries between these
two disciplines were rather loose.8
This sort of functionalist research also influenced researchers from Japanese folkloristics
proper. In such cases, it was characteristic that they were not simply doing synchronic
functionalist analyses, but reformulating methodologies that articulated these with analyses
of historicity. Ajio Fukuta (1984) argued that a methodological change should be made from
research based on the prior perspective of nationwide comparisons using the notions of
“proof by re-citation” and “peripheral zone theory.” He instead advocated surveys and
research that could grasp the organic links among folk traditions occurring in “regional
7 “Keisei-saimin” (経世済民) is the principle that folkloristics should ultimately be of some practical “help to the
world, help to the people.” It may be thought of as a call to do what might be termed “public folkloristics” in
the same sense as “public anthropology.”
8 In Japan, together with the minzokugaku (民俗学) meaning Folkloristics, there is also a minzokugaku (民族学)
meaning Ethnology (Social-Cultural Anthropology). Though written with different Chinese characters, since
both share the same pronunciation as “minzokugaku”, it is customary to refer their relationship as the two
minzokugaku. It is possible to summarize the relationship between these two minzokugaku in Japan as follows:
Until the first half of the 1930s, the “two minzokugaku” were in a nearly undifferentiated condition. However, in
1934, The Japanese Society of Ethnology ( 日本民族学会 ; now called the Japanese Society of Cultural
Anthropology, 日本文化人類学会) was established and the next year, 1935, The Folk Tradition Society (民間伝
承の会, Minkan Denshō no Kai; the current Folklore Society of Japan, 日本民俗学会) was established. From this
time, the division between the two gradually progressed, with Ethnology conducting research abroad and
Folkloristics conducting research domestically. However, even after this, not a few researchers have been
active in both Societies, and this continued into the 1980s. With the exception of a small number of
researchers, the tendency to participate in both has since declined. Kuwayama (2004) provides details on the
relationships of these two minzokugaku.
social contexts” (denshō botai) comprised of a single community (shūraku) and the related
regional folk histories incorporating these. This methodology was labelled “individual
analysis” (kobetsu bunseki-hō; Fukuta 1984) or “regional folkloristics” (chiiki minzokugaku;
Miyata 1985). Fukuta and others strongly criticized the elementism of research based on
“proof by re-citation” and “peripheral zone theory” as failing to pay attention to regional
social contexts. At this time, debates thus developed concerning folkloristic ethnographies
and the recording of folk traditions using the methods of “individual analysis”and “regional
folkloristics” (see: Chiba 1977; Ebara 1977; Hashimoto 1977; Inokuchi 1977; Iwasaki, et al.
1977; Moriyama 1977; Ohba 1977; Sakuma 1977; Takeda 1977; Takizawa 1977; and
Yamaguchi 1977).
From the latter half of the 1970s and into the 1980s, work related to structuralism and
symbolic theory appeared, including that by Kawada (1987), Nozawa (1982, 1983), and
Suzuki (1979, 1982, 1984).
4.2 Urban Folkloristics

Another trend that began from the 1970s was the appearance of research which takes
cities, in addition to rural villages, as research objects. At first, this research attempted to
grasp the nature of traditional castle towns, which were formed centered on castles during
early modern times, and which exist between rural villages and contemporary cities. For
example, in 1980 a special issue (Volume 129) of The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan on
“The Folk Traditions of Castle Towns” included articles by Hotta (1980), Iwamoto (1980),
and Kobayashi (1980), while another special issue in 1981 (Volume 134) on “The Folk
Traditions of Cities: Focusing of Castle Towns” included papers by Amano and Miyata (1981),
Iwamoto (1981), Kobayashi (1981), and Kuraishi (1981).
Such urban research was has been further deepened by work by Miyata (1982) and Tano
(2008) dealing with the Tokyo and Osaka metropolitan areas. However, such urban research
was not necessarily carried out using methodologies clearly different than those of prior
folkloristic research taking rural farming, mountain and fishing villages as field sites, and
there was not a little urban research that stopped at investigating folk traditions surviving
in the cities.
Takahiro Ōtsuki criticized this situation and, using the debates about folkloristics as
material, he attempted to fundamentally reconsider both urban and rural folkloristic
methodological approaches. Around the time of the publication of his essay on “The
Essential Characteristics of ‘Urban Folklore Studies’” (Ōtsuki 1985), he and other younger
researchers of the same generation began a movement to rethink folkloristics from its very
roots. Based on an examination of Kunio Yanagita’s folkloristics thought, Ōtsuki clarified
that for Yanagita “folkloristics” was a movement to create “a database accessible by anyone
in [Japanese] society―at a time when [Japan] had established itself in a modern form and a
real popular society at begun to arise―in oreder to find answers to the various doubts,
distress and difficulties that, without any way to be clearly comprehended, were emerging
one after the other and accumulating before their eyes” (Ōtsuki 2004:171). According to
Yanagita, this movement would have as members citizens living outside of academics and it
would be a type of civic education cultivating critical abilities regarding knowledge and
information—and, based on this, it would provide people with the ability to choose their own
futures (Ōtsuki 2004).
5. Developments in Contemporary Folkloristics
Upon entering the 1990s, Japanese Folkloristics began to fundamentally change. Research
that probed for the roots of and historical changes in folk traditions as such, as well as
research that explored for essentialistic meanings, receded into the background. Meanwhile,
research that placed in its field of vision engagement with contemporary society, and
particularly with changes in society, became central to folkloristics. This change in
folkloristics may be thought to have been the outgrowth of the trend from the 1970s toward
urban research, in which researchers were groping for new methods and issues or concerns
that differed from the framework of prior research on the folk traditions of rural (farming,
mountain and fishing) villages.
Two theoretical articles that clearly show the changes in folkloristics during this period
are those by Yukihiko Shigenobu (1989) and Michiya Iwamoto (1998). Shigenobu―who
together with Takahiro Ōtsuki, mentioned above, led the movement to reform Japanese
folkloristics―notes that originally folkloristics was “an intellectual tactic with which to,
while simultaneously relativizing oneself, talk about oneself from the ground up, and that it
was a method to weave words narrating the self as relativized against one’s ‘everyday’”
(1989:2). He argues that from this, for example, it becomes possible to understand the
contrivance of “the modern”—itself constituted by changes in the nature of daily life due to
the transcendence of everyday life beyond an embodied human scale—as a shared space of
“listening-writing” in which “listeners” and “narrators” as people mutually living “the now”
reconcile their queries (1989:2,29.9
Iwamoto, meanwhile, based on a re-investigation of Yanagita’s folkloristics thought, notes

that for Yanagita, folkloristic research was intended to solve “questions spreading before
real daily life in society” and from this to “lead the future of human daily life toward
happiness” (1998:26. Iwamoto criticizes as “the cultural resource studies-ization” (bunkazai
gaku-ka) the fact that folkloristics afterwards turned into a discipline whose goal became just
the study folklore as such, forgetting the problem consciousness of Yanagita in which
9 This claim was afterwards argued in more detail (Shigenobu 2012, 2015).
folklore, as “knowledge of/from the past” was to be used as resources in addressing social
issues. Iwamoto argues that it is necessary to turn from being a discipline that studies
folklore and return to being a discipline that studies using folklore.10
While neither Shigenobu or Iwamoto used the word “study of social change” (shakai
hendōron) as such, it is possible to say that the content of their discussions clearly aspire to
Yanagita-style social change studies, and that in this aimed for the re-departure of Japanese
folkloristics as the study of social change. I label Japanese folkloristics as seen from the
1990s as “Contemporary Folkloristics,” and below introduce a number of examples of
research that relatively clearly display the special characteristics of this (a more
comprehensive introduction of work based on fields of research will be included in the next
volume of JRCA).
The research taken up below shares the point of attempting to clarify how people’s life-
worlds are adjusting within and to changes in social structures, through analyses of the
concrete dynamics of experience, understanding and expression—that is, of
folklore―occurring in life-worlds. Much of this research, that interprets social change from
within the life-worlds of the people undergoing it, also holds the potential to develop
discussions which consider how it is possible for people in the midst of social change to
imagine better life-worlds; and in this, it possible to see the folkloristic studies of social
change initiated by Kunio Yanagita.
5.1 Birth-Aging-Illness-Death (Shōrōbyōshi)

Volume 232 (2002) of The Bulletin, was a special issue on “Birth and Life,” which included
articles dealing with the reproductive revolution and new reproductive technologies (Uesugi
2002), changes in the sense of shame regarding giving birth and the issue of introducing
male obstetric assistants (Sasaki 2002), and changes in thinking about and disposal of the
placenta (ena; Saruwatari 2002). Folkloristic research about life in an aging society has also
been accumulating. For example, The Power of Maturity: Towards a Rich “Old Age” (Miyata,
Mori and Amino, eds., 2002) was published as part of the 50th year celebration of the
founding of the Folklore Society of Japan. Prior to this, Volume 213 (1998) of The Bulletin
consisted of a special issue on “Aging and the Elderly,” which included a number of articles
(Tadenuma 1998; Kawamori 1998; Ōishi 1998; Miyata 2000; see also: Nomoto 2000;
Morikuri 2000; Amino 2000) arguing for the use of folkloristic perspectives to discover and
understand the richness of aging, or the “strength of maturity.” Research has also appeared
that deals with care/nursing (Shibuya 2001; Ōshiro 2011; Muguruma 2012, 2015), or that,
labelling “reminiscence therapy” carried out in sites of care as an application of a folkloristic
practice, experientally considers its potential uses (Iwasaki 2004, 2008).
10 This claim was later developed further by Iwamoto (2002).

Regarding illness and medical treatment, the work of Noriyuki Kondō (1992) considers
how “the culture of death” has changed with the introduction of modern medicine. He argues
that folkloristic research on hospitals should expand to include “hospital ethnographies.”
The work of cultural anthropologist Emiko Namihira (2001) is also rich in suggestion for the
future of the folkloristics of medical treatment. Namihira takes as forms of folklore, and thus
as new themes for folkloristic medical research, such things as: “the meanings and values
attached to doctors, nurses and other medical specialists, to medical institutions and the
treatment practiced there, and to relationships between medical patients and practitioners;”
“the customs and systems that have become established in medical institutions, regardless
of their not being included in the formal educational curricula for doctors or nurses, or in the
internal rules of hospitals or of the medical association;” “the private decisions regarding the
use of purchased or household drugs;” “daily customs and foods believed to be effective in
maintaining health or preventing illness;” and, “‘medicines’ which while not modern medical
pharmaceuticals are treated as such by the people using them.”(2001:243-244). Regarding
death, funerals and burials in contemporary times, in addition to Kondō’s (1992) work,
which also dealt with death while in hospital, there is folkloristic work dealing with
funerary changes such as the introduction of funeral companies or of cremation
(Yamada1995, 1996; Hara 1999; Hata 2002; Katō 2002), or with changes in burial systems
(Maeda 2001).
5.2 Beliefs, Rites and Rituals

There has been much research dealing with changes in beliefs, rites and rituals occurring
in the midst of broader social change. Among these many publications are: Takanori
Shimamura’s (1996) discussion of the process of being a believer of a new religion among
Okinawan people searching for solutions to the differences between new civil laws and
customary laws regarding the succession of mortuary tablets (ihai) occurring with estate
inheritance; Masataka Ichida’s (2001) analysis of the many roles played by religious ritual at
times when, with the entry into the modern period, regionally held understandings of
history were relocated inside a national history; Jirō Koshikawa’s (2000) discussion of how
temples and shrines, among which previously there were not a few which produced and
distributed medicines to followers, responded to restrictions in such practices after WWII
due to the passage of The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; Kazuhisa Nakayama’s (1997) analysis
of the “invented pilgrimages” of the modern period, using the case of pilgrimages to sacred
sites in the Kantō area of eastern Japan; Kazuyo Nakamura’s (2010) analysis of the process
by which village festivals were transformed into cultural symbols of the nation-state;
Takeshi Kaneko’s (2009) discussion of conflicts regarding the creation of new festivals with
women as leaders; and, Tōru Anami’s (2007) analysis of local athletic meets created in the
modern era as celebratory festivals.
5.3 Family, Kinship and Local Society

Until the 1980s, research on family and kinship developed as structural-functional
analyses or, based on these, as static classifications. However, from the 1990s, research
began to appear that described family and kinship dynamically, including how these are
practiced, managed or narrated based on individual subjective choice and action. For
example, such analyses included those of Kaoru Ishizuki (2002), who discussed the life-world
of mainland Japanese women living as wives in Okinawa; Shino Yamamoto (2010), who used
individual diaries to analyze farming women’s urban employment; Yōko Taniguchi (2008),
who explicated the meanings for families and local society of women’s apprenticeship
experiences; and, Yōji Yukawa (1998), who advocated analyses focusing on individual
practice in villages undergoing hollowing-out.
In addition, folkloristic research with the clear character of being studies of social change
included other work such as Shunichi Horie’s (1991) discussion, based on articles in women’s
magazine, of early 20th century “Yamanote Life; ” Akira Nakamura’s (1990, 1991, 1994)
analyses, based on “life advice” articles, of contemporary family consciousness; and, Michiya
Iwamoto’s (2002) analyses, using case studies of parent-child double-suicide (oya-ko shinjū)
and of reproductive medical technologies, the conditions in which the until then not
seriously considered consciousness of “blood relations” (ketsu-en) had in the modern period
expanded, become taken-for-granted and regulated the consciousness and behavior of
contemporary people.
5.4 Consumer Society and Scientific Technology

Also from the 1990s, discussions were made of the necessity to analyze the relationships
between the consumer economy and life-worlds. The first to argue this was Tōru Anami
(1998), followed by Takehisa Kadota (2010), who further advanced the theoretical
arrangements here. Case studies include: Takehisa Kadota’s (2010) analysis of how
participants as consumers re-interpret as their own pilgrimages that have been pre-readied
as consumer goods; Elemer Veldkamp’s (2011) discussion of how electronic toys have been
brought into life-worlds and normalized; and, Kenichi Noguchi’s (2011, 2016) descriptions,
based on famers’ subjective life-world understandings, of modern industrialized agricultural
sites that utilize scientific technologies.
5.5 Folklorism, Homeplace, Cultural Heritage and Tourism

Folklorism (the performance of “folklore-ness” or the secondary use of “folklore”) became a
major topic in Folkloristics from the 1990s. There were special issues of The Bulletin and a
great accumulation of research on this, including work by Kōno (2003), Yagi (2003), Hokkyo
(2003), Iwasaki (2003), Aoki (2003), Morita (2003), Kawamori (2003), Kahara (2003),
Kagawa (2003), Hamada (2003), Yamada (2003), and Yano (2003). Included in this was the
work of Kawamura (2003), who pointed out that authentic “folklore” did not exist as such
but was “folklorism” formed through the intervention of the media. In the background to the
formation of “folklorism” was the nostalgic gaze that takes “folklore” as something “nostalgic”
(natsukashī). This gaze is intimately related to city dwellers’ views of “homeplace” (furusato),
which has been analyzed by Tōru Yagi (1996), Keiichi Yano (1997), Manami Yasui (1997),
and others.
Upon entering the 21st century, some “folklore” items have been designated Intangible
Cultural Heritage by UNESCO. Michael Dylan Foster (2013) clarifies how the practitioners
of “folklore” designated as intangible cultural heritage understand the fact of this
designation and insert their own subjectivities it into. And, research by Shinya Morita (1997,
2003), and Naoko Andō (2002) analyzes how the directly concerned parties (tōjisha) of folklore
act when folklore becomes inserted into tourist contexts. Here as well, these authors portray
the conditions in which the directly concerned parties incorporate tourism into their own
life-worlds and subjectively use it.
5.6 War
Folkloristics research on war was also something begun from the 1990s. Kunimitsu
Kawamura (1998) analyzes reports and editorials published during the Second World War in
Folk Tradition, the official journal of The Folk Tradition Society. He shows that while on the
one hand these aided the heightening of wartime morale, the reality of a degree of control
could also be seen. And, he notes that although based on Society members’ case-study
reports there was an accumulation of records of the wartime creation of war folklore by the
common people, these reports were cut short due to the direction of the editorial board.
Yasuaki Maruyama (2004), incorporating also the existence of suppressed memories,
discusses the politics regarding the monument built to remember and console the spirits of
the 120 soldiers who died in 1902 during training in the snowbound mountains of Aomori
Prefecture. Riko Kitamura (2006), meanwhile, while reviewing the literature on war and
folklore, and while drawing on her own fieldwork, makes sharp points regarding the problem
of the emotions of those directly concerned parties who debunk the fictitiousness of the “war
dead” (senbotsusha) and “spirits of the war dead” (literally, hero-spirits, eirei) and the problem
of the consoling of spirits not contained/able in the Yasukuni Shrine.
6. Further Investigation of Methodologies
As can be seen above, it may be said that the folkloristics of social change as widely
defined has become a nearly commonly held stance in contemporary Folkloristics. However,
on this common base, there are also a number of discussions and debates that inquire into
yet more radical methodologies. These include, for example: the reformulation of
understandings of “oral tradition,” long a key concept in folkloristics, as more individually-
oriented via research using narrative approaches (Kadota 2007); the positive evaluation of
individual creative performance that transcends set narratives (Kawamori 2007); the call for
collaborative ethnographies between folklorists and concerned parties (tōjisha) that actively
incorporate “concerned party’s narratives” (tōjisha no katari; Kawamori 2012); and the
proposal of viewpoints that do not take “oral tradition” and “literate culture” as opposites but
that employ grounded analyses of their mutual influence and coalescence (Koike 2013;
Watanabe 2013).
As one form of the participatory academics (shimin sanka-kei no gakumon) now being
demanded by contemporary society, there is a growing movement to re-evaluate the
character of Folkloristics as a “grassroots discipline, or discipline of the folk by the folk (no no
gakumon),” which describes one line of the academism of Folkloristics (Shinno 2006). And,
also appearing are movements to debate, based on concrete examples of practice, the social
practice of folklorists as research methodology. Thus, for example, Morikuri (2005) discusses
the roles to be played by folklorists as facilitators of town (re)development in cases of natural
disaster recovery, while Suzuki (2012) argues that interviews and dialogues with disaster
victims function as a kind of “attentive listening” (keitoku). Such achievements, which may be
called “public folkloristcs” (kōkyō minzokugaku; see Suga 2010; Baron 2013), are important as
methodologically substantive instantiations of the “keisei-saimin” (for the world, for the
people) orientation of Yanagita Folklorisitcs that has been investigated by Takashi Fujii
(1993).
The internationalization of Folkloristics has witnessed rapid development in the 2000s.

Much work introducing theoretical/methodological trends in the Folkloristics of the West,
East Asia and other regions (Kaschuba 2010; Lehmann 2010; Herlyn 2010; Hokkyō 2010;
Tamura 2009; Wang 2009; Nam 2009; Lee 2009; Huang 2009; Konagaya 2010, 2016), or that
offers translations of folkloristic articles from America and China (Bauman 2013; Cashman
2013; Gao 2013; Shi 2003; Liu 2013), has appeared in The Bulletin of the Folklore Society of Japan.
In parallel with this, there has also been an effort to re-locate the concepts and lineages of
Japanese Folkloristics within a global context (Shimamura 2014). Kunio Yanagita (1986:53-
56) himself discussed his vision of a “World Folkloristics” that would find completion when
the folkloristics of all of the countries of the world, including Japan, having been constructed
by the people living in each country, were brought together on a global scale. This was in the
1930s. This vision, which argues for overcoming the binary opposition between “the West as
researcher” and “the non-West as researched,” and for non-Western peoples to study
themselves, is none other than a philosophy (shisō) that attempts to relativize the system of
knowledge dominated by the West. It is an argument that is fully applicable to the
postcolonial conditions of today. Takami Kuwayama (2000) lauds this vision and argues for
the positive unification of so-called “native anthropology” and folkloristics.
REFERENCES
Amano, Takeshi and Noboru Miyata 天野武・宮田登

1981 「第 32 回年会シンポジウム「都市の民俗 ― 城下町を中心に ― 」 (Report on the
Symposium on “he Folklore of Cities: Focusing on Castle Towns,” held at the 32nd Annual
Meeting of the Folklore Society of Japan)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of
the Folklore Society Japan) 134: 1-4.
Amino, Fusako
2000 「『中洲の町』向島における老いのあり方」(Nakasu Town: Aging in Mukaijima)『老熟の力
―豊かな〈老い〉を求めて―』(In The Power of Maturity: Towards a Rich “Old Age”). 宮田
登・森謙二・網野房子編 (Noboru Miyata, Kenji Mori and Fusako Amino, eds.). 東京：早稲田大
学出版部 (Tokyo: Waseda University Press) pp. 131-144.
Anami, Tōru 阿南透
1998 「『消費』の民俗学的理解に向けて」(Toward a Folkloristics Understanding of “Consumption”)
『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 216: 40-55.
2007 「運動会のなかの民俗―釧路市民大運動会の事例から―」(Folklore in Public Sports Days:
Examples from the Citizens’ Sports Day of Kushiro [Hokkaido]) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 249: 1-37.
Andō, Naoko 安藤直子
2002 「地方都市における観光化に伴う「祭礼群」の再編成―盛岡市の六つの祭礼の意味付けをめぐ
る葛藤とその解消―」(The Impact of Tourism on the Restructuring of a “Festival Cluster” in
a Regional City: Conflict and Resolution in the Redefinition of Six Festivals in Morioka City)
Aoki, Toshiya 青木俊也
2003 「昭和 30 年代生活再現展示とノスタルジアにみるフォークロリズム的状況」(The State of
Folklorism as Seen in an Exhibition Reproducing Life in the Shōwa 30s [1955-1965] and
Nostalgia)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan)236:
82-91.
Baron, Robert バロン，ロバート
2013 「アメリカにおける公共民俗学―その課題・実践・展望―」(American Public Folklore:
Issues, Practices and Prospects) (吉村亜弥子・室井康成共訳, Ayako Yoshimura and Yasunari
Muroi, trans.)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan)
273: 96-127.
Bauman, Richard バウマン，リチャード
2013 「ヴァナキュラーの文献学」(The Philology of the Vernacular) (谷口陽子訳, Yoko Taniguchi,
trans.)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 273: 9-16.
Bendix, Regina F. and Galit Hasan-Rokem, eds.
2012 A Companion to Folklore. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cashman, Ray キャッシュマン，レイ
2013 「北アイルランドにおける批判的ノスタルジアと物質文化」(Critical Nostalgia and Material
Culture in Northern Ireland) (渡部圭一訳, Keiichi Watabe, trans.)『日本民俗学』(Nihon
Chiba, Tokuji 千葉徳爾

1977 「民俗誌の目的」 (The Purposes of Ethnography) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 113: 27-32.
Doi, Takuzi 土井卓治
1969 「重出立証法の適用について」(On the Application of the Method of Proof by Re-citation)『日本
民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 8-9.
Ebara, Yoshimori 恵原義盛
1977 「民俗誌私見」(A Reconsideration of Ethnography)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Foster, Michael Dylan フォスター，マイケル・ディラン
2013 「視覚的想像―「甑島のトシドン」における見る／見られる関係の一考察―」(The Optic
Imaginary: Thoughts on the Relationship of Seeing and Being Seen in “Koshikijima no
Toshidon”) (塚原伸治訳，Shinji Tsukahara, trans.)『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Fujii, Takashi 藤井隆至
1993 「民俗学の社会的意義―柳田國男の場合―」(The Social Significance of Folklore: The Case
of Kunio Yanagita)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 196: 1-21.
Fukuta, Ajio 福田アジオ
1969 「周圏論の歴史」 (The History of Peripheral Zone Theory) 『日本民俗学会報』 (Nihon
Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 13-15.
1984 『日本民俗学方法序説―柳田國男と民俗学―』(An Introduction to Japanese Folkloristics
Methods: Yanagita Kunio and Folkloristics). 東京：弘文堂 (Tokyo: Kyōbundō).
Gao, Bingzhong 高丙中
2013 「無形文化遺産研究の課題としての民間信仰」 (Folk Beliefs as a Topic for Research on
Intangible Cultural Heritage) (西村真志葉訳，Mashiba Nishimura, trans.)『日本民俗学』
(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 273: 171-193.
Gomme, George Laurence
1908 Folklore as a Historical Science. London: Methuen & Co.
Hamada, Takuji 濱田琢司
2003 「民芸と民俗―審美的対象としての民俗文化―」(Folk Crafts and Folklore: Folk Culture as
Aesthetic Object) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 236: 127-136.
Hara, Tomoaki 原知章
1999 「儀礼と社会変動―沖縄・与那国島における死者儀礼の事例より―」(Ritual and Social
Change: Funeral Rites on Yonaguni Island in Okinawa Prefecture) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
Hashimoto, Tetsuo 橋本鉄男
1977 「私の民俗誌体験」(My Ethnographic Experience)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Hata, Sōichirō 畑聰一郎
2002 「葬儀と墓制の変化―愛知県日間賀島における両墓制の崩壊・火葬の受容―」(Changes in
Funerals and Graves: The Disintegration of the Two-Graves System and the Acceptance of
Cremation in Himaka Island, Aichi Prefecture)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin
of the Folklore Society Japan) 231: 97-110.
Herlyn, Gerrit ヘアリン，ゲリット
2010 「人生記録研究・日常文化研究のテーマとしての科学技術」(Science and Technology as Themes
for Research on Human Documentation and Everyday Culture) ( 池松瑠美訳 , Rumi
Ikematsu, trans.) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 263: 57-74.
Higa, Masao 比嘉政夫
1965 「村落の祭祀組織と＜ハラ＞の祭祀組織―沖縄南部における事例から―」(Village and “Hara”
Kinship Group Ritual Organizations: Case Studies from Southern Okinawa)『日本民俗学会報』
(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, Bulletin of Folklore Society Japan) 39: 20-28.
Hirayama, Kazuhiko 平山和彦
1969a 「周圏論をめぐる諸問題」(Problems Regarding Peripheral Zone Theory)『日本民俗学会報』
(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 15-21.
1969b「民俗学と「歴史」の問題」(The Problem of Folklore Studies and “History”)『日本民俗学会報』
1969c 「方法論および問題意識ということ」(Regarding Methodologies and Problem Consciousness)
『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60:
42-44.
Hirayama, Toshijirō 平山敏治郎
1951 「史料としての伝承」(Oral Traditions as Historical Materials)『民間伝承』(Folk Tradition)
154: 2-9.
1969 「亀山慶一氏の文章を読んで」(On Reading Keiichi Kameyama)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon
Hokkyō, Hakaru 法橋量
2003 「ドイツにおけるフォークロリスムス議論のゆくえ―発露する分野と限界性―」(The
Folklorism Controversy in German Volkskunde: The Emergent Field and Its Limitations)『日
本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 236: 49-71.
2010 「現代ドイツ民俗学のプルーラリズム―越境する文化科学への展開―」(Pluralism in
Current German Folklore: The Development of an Interdisciplinary Culture Studies)『日本民
俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 263: 5-30.
Horie, Shunichi 堀江俊一
1991 「明治末期から大正初期の『近代的家族像』―婦人雑誌からみた『山の手生活』の研究―」
(The Image of Modern Family from the Late Meiji Period to the Early Taishō Period: A Study
of “Yamanote Life” as Seen from a Women’s Magazine)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Hotta, Yoshio 堀田吉雄
1980 「城下町の民俗試論」 (An Essay on the Folklore of a Castle Town [Matsuzaka, Mie
Prefecture])『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 129:
1-10.
Huang, Lie-Yun 黄麗雲
2009 「現代台湾民俗文化研究の動向について―研究と実践の重層性―」(Currents in Modern

Taiwanese Folklore Studies: The Reduplication of Research and Practice)『日本民俗学』(Nihon
Ichida, Masataka 市田雅崇
2001 「〈歴史の共有〉と宗教儀礼―気多神社平国祭の事例から―」(“Sharing History” and
Religious Observances: The Example of the Kunimuke Festival of Keta Shrine)『日本民俗学』
Inokuchi, Shōji 井之口章次
1969a 「重出立証法をめぐって」(Regarding The Method of Proof by Re-citation)『日本民俗学会報』
1969b 「周圏論以外」(Beyond Peripheral Zone Theory)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō,
The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 25-27.
1969c 「文献資料と民俗資料」(Archival Resources and Folklore Resources)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon
1977 「民俗誌小考」(A Study of Ethnography)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
Folklore Society Japan) 113: 32-36.
Ishida, Eiichirō 石田英一郎
1948 「歴史科学としての民俗学と民族学」(Folkloristics and Ethnology as Historical Science)『人文』
(Jinbun) 2(1): 60-70.
Ishizuki, Kaoru 石附馨
2002 「ヤマトゥンチュ嫁試論―現代沖縄の“生活者たち”を考えるために―」(Observations on
Mainlander Wives: Who Are “Members” in Contemporary Okinawan Life?)『日本民俗学』
Iwamoto, Michiya 岩本通弥
1980 「城下町の社会と民俗―茨城県古河の常民生活誌から―」(The Social Organization and
Folklore of a Castle Town: From a Commoner’s Lifestyle Magazine in Koga, Ibaragi
Prefecture)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 129:
32-51.
1981 「鳶の社会史―城下町古河の社会と民俗―」(The Social History of “Tobi” Workers: The
Society and Folklore of Castle Town Koga [Ibaraki Prefecture]) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
1998 「「民俗」を対象とするから民俗学なのか―なぜ民俗学は「近代」を扱えなくなってしまった
のか」(Is it Folklore Studies because its Object is “Folklore”? Why Has Folklore Studies
Become Unable to Deal with “The Modern Age?”)『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The
2002 「『家』族の過去・現在・未来」(The Past, Present and Future of the Ie of Families)『日本民
Iwasaki, Masaki, Michihiro Suzuki, Seiichirō Matsuda and Tadamoto Yamamoto 岩崎真幸・鈴木通
大・松田精一郎・山本質素
1977 「＜民俗誌＞の系譜」 (The Genealogy of Ethnography in Japan) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
Iwasaki, Takehiko 岩崎竹彦
2003 「フォークロリズムからみた節分の巻ずし」(Setsubun Sushi Rolls as Seen from Folklorism)『日

2004 「回想法と民俗学」(Reminiscence and Folkloristics)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
2008 『福祉のための民俗学―回想法のススメ―』(A Folkloristics for Well-being: Recommending
Reminiscence) 東京：慶友社 (Tokyo: Keiyūsha).
Kadota, Takehisa 門田岳久
2007 「対話と信心―巡礼経験者の語りにみる自己・他者・社会―」(Dialogue and Belief: An
Analysis of Pilgrim Narratives, Focusing on Self, Others and Society)『日本民俗学』(Nihon
2010 「巡礼ツーリズムにおける『経験』の解釈―サービスと宗教性の交叉的生成に基づく間身体的
共同性―」(Commercialism, Religious Experience, and Inter-corporality: The Interpretation
of “Experie” in Contemporary Pilgrimage Tourism)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Kagawa, Masanobu 香川雅信
2003 「郷土玩具のまなざし―趣味家たちの「郷土」―」(A Look into Rural Toys: The Hometown
(Kyōdo) of Hobbyists)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 236: 119-126.
Kahara, Nahoko 加原奈穂子
2003 「地域アイデンティティ創出の核としての桃太郎―岡山における桃太郎伝説の事例から―」
(Momotaro (the Peach Boy) as a Core for the Creation of Local Identity: The Case of the
Momotaro Legend of Okayama)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
Society Japan) 236: 109-118.
Kameyama, Keiichi 亀山慶一
1969 「これまでの文献資料と民俗資料に対する考え方」(Ways of Thinking to the Present Regarding
Archival Resources and Folklore Resources)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The
Kaneko, Takeshi 金子毅
2009 「もう一つの戸畑『提灯山笠』―『女山笠』創出をめぐる葛藤の構図―」(An Alternative
Tobata “Paper Lantern Float” (Chōchin Yamakasa): Focusing on the Conflict Surrounding the
Creation of a “Women’s Float”)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
Kaschuba, Wolfgang カシューバ，ヴォルフガング
2010 「ヨーロッパとグローバル化 ― ヨーロッパ民族学の新たな挑戦 ― 」 (Europe and
Globalization: New Challenges for European Ethnology [Europa und die Globalisierung: Neue
Herausforderungen fur die Europaische Ethnologie]) (エルメル・フェルトカンプ訳 (Elmer
Veldkamp, trans.)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 263: 75-93.
Katō, Masaharu 加藤正春
2002 「焼骨と火葬―南西諸島における火葬葬法の受容と複葬体系―」(Cremation and Changes
in the Double Funeral System in the Amami and Okinawa Societies of Japan)『日本民俗学』
Kawada, Makito 川田牧人

1987 「妖怪の交響楽 ― 奄美・加計呂麻島における妖怪譚の構造分析論 ― 」 (The Ghost’s
Symphony: A Structural Analysis of Ghost Folk Tales on Kakeroma Island, Amami)『日本民俗
学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 169: 37-72.
Kawakami, Kazuo 河上一雄
1969 「重出立証法についての私見」(A Personal Perspective on the Method of Proof by Re-citation)
『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 9-
10.
Kawamori, Hiroshi 川森博司
1998 「昔話と老人の語り」 (The Elderly and Narrating of Folk Tales) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
2003 「伝統文化産業とフォークロリズム―岩手県遠野市の場合―」(The Traditional Cultural
Industry and Folklorism: The Case of Tōno City, Iwate Prefecture)『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
2007 「昔話の語りの変容と語り手の実践―伝承の衰退の議論を読み替える―」(Change of
Narrative and the Practice of the Storyteller in Japanese Folktales: Beyond the Devolutionary
Premise in Japanese Folklore Studies)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
2012 「柳田の口承文芸論と柳田以後の昔話研究―伝承と社会の変化を視点にして―」(Yanagita’s
Oral Literature Theory and Post-Yanagita Folk Tale Research: Focusing on Folk Tale
Transmission and Social Change) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
Kawamura, Kunimitsu 川村邦光
1998 「戦争と民俗／民俗学」(War and Folklore/Folklore Studies)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku,
Kawamura, Kiyoshi 川村清志
2003 「フォークロリズムとメディア表象―石川県門前町皆月の山王祭りを事例として―」
(Folklorism and Media Representations: The Case of the Sannō Festival of Minatsuki in
Monzen-town, Ishikawa Prefecture)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
Kitamura, Riko 喜多村理子
2006 「戦争と民俗―戦場の死の受け止め方をめぐって―」(War and Folklore: Responses to
Battlefield Deaths)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 247: 195-218.
Kobayashi, Tadao 小林忠雄
1980 「伝統都市における民俗の構造 ―城下町金沢の年中行事を中心に ―」 (The Folkloric
Structure of a Traditional City: Annual Events in Castle Town Kanazawa [Ishikawa
Prefecture])『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 129:
11-31.
1981 「伝統都市における民俗の構造（ 2 ） ― 金沢の民間信仰を中心に ― 」 (The Folkloric
Structure of a Traditional City 2: Folk Beliefs in Kanazawa)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku,
Koike, Junichi 小池淳一

2013 「文字文化を扱うことで民俗研究の視界はどのように広がるか―文字の伝承と書物の民俗―」
(The Potential for Broadening Folklore Studies Through Inclusion of Literate Culture: The
Transmission of Writing and the Folklore of Written Materials) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
Konagaya, Hideyo 小長谷英代
2010 「パフォーマンス理論 ―「ポスト」領域の民俗学 ―」(Performance Theory: Folklore
Studies in a Post-Disciplinary Era)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
2016 「『ヴァナキュラー』―民俗学の超領域的視点―」 (Vernacular: A Supra-disciplinary
Perspective for Folkloristics)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
Kondō, Noriyuki 近藤功行
1992 「死を迎える文化の変容―島嶼社会の調査分析から―」(Cultural Transformation in Facing
Death: From Investigative Analyses of Island Society)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Kōno, Shin 河野眞
2003 「フォークロリズムの生成風景 ― 概念の原産地への探訪から ― 」 (The Formative
Background to Folklorism: Searching for Conceptual Origins) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
Koshikawa, Jirō 越川次郎
2000 「薬と信仰―身延日蓮宗寺院の諸薬とその法的規制をめぐって―」(Medicine and Belief: In
Connection with the Various Medicines of the Nichiren Sect of the Minobu Temples and Their
Legal Regulation)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 222: 33-63.
Kuraishi, Tadahiko 倉石忠彦
1981 「マチの民俗と民俗学―都市民俗学成立の可能性―」(Folklore and Folklore Studies in
Urban Areas: On the Possibility of Establishing an Urban Folklore Studies)『日本民俗学』
Kuwayama, Takami 桑山敬己
2000 「柳田國男の『世界民俗学』再考―文化人類学者の目で―」(A Reconsideration of Kunio
Yanagita’s “Global Folkloristics”: Through the Eyes of A Cultural Anthropologist)『日本民俗学』
2004 Native Anthropology: The Japanese Challenge to Western Academic Hegemony. Melbourne:
Trans Pacific Press.
Lee, Seung-Soo 李承沫
2009 「韓国における現在の民俗学状況」(The Current State of Folklore Studies in Korea)『日本民俗
Lehmann, Albrecht レーマン，アルブレヒト
2010 「意識分析―民俗学の方法―」(The Analysis of Consciousness: The Method of Folkloristics
[Bewußtseinsanalyse: Methoden der Volkskunde]) (及川祥平訳，Shōhei Oikawa, trans.)『日本民
Liu, Zongai 劉宗迪

2013 「書面パラダイムから口頭パラダイムヘ―民間文芸学のパラダイムシフトとディシプリンの自
立について―」(From Written Paradigm to Oral Paradigm: On Paradigm Shifts in Folk
Literary Studies, and the Autonomy of the Discipline) (西村真志葉訳, Mashiba Nishimura,
trans.)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 273: 194-
214.
Mabuchi, Tōichi 馬淵東一
1965 「波照間島その他の氏子組織」(Cult Group Organization on Hateruma Island and Other
Islands)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 41: 1-11.
Maeda, Shinichirō 前田俊一郎
2001 「両墓制の再検討―近代に成立した両墓制をめぐって―」(Reexamination on the Double
Grave System: In Connection with the Double Grave System Formed in Recent Times)『日本
民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 225: 35-66.
Makita, Shigeru 牧田茂
1951 「民俗の時代性と現代性 ― 日本民俗学の目標について ― 」 (The Temporality and
Contemporaneity of Folklore: Regarding the Goals of Japanese Folklore Studies)『民間伝承』
(Folk Tradition) 157: 32-37.
1969 「資料の年代をめぐって」 (Regarding the Age of Resources) 『日本民俗学会報』 (Nihon
Maruyama, Yasuaki 丸山泰明
2004 「モニュメントと記憶―八甲田山雪中行軍遭難事件をめぐる記憶の編成―」(Monuments
and Memories: The Formation of Memory Regarding the Hakkōda Mountains Death March
Incident)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 238:
56-88.
Matsuzono, Makio 松園万亀雄
1970 「沖縄座間味島の門中組織」(Munchū Organization of Zamami Island, Okinawa)『日本民俗学』
(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 71 :1-28.
Miyata, Noboru 宮田登
1969 「文献と伝承」(Written Materials and Tradition)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō,
1982 『都市民俗の課題』(Issues in Urban Folkloristics) 東京：未来社 (Tokyo: Miraisha).
1985 『新版日本の民俗学』(Japanese Folkloristics, New Edition) 講談社 (Kodansha).
2000 「老人文化と民俗学」(Culture of the Elderly and Folkloristics)『老熟の力―豊かな〈老い〉
を求めて―』 (In The Power of Maturity: Towards a Rich “Old Age”). 宮田登・森謙二・網野房
子編 (Noboru Miyata, Kenji Mori and Fusako Amino, eds.). 東京：早稲田大学出版部 (Tokyo:
Waseda University Press).
Miyata, Noboru, Kenji Mori, and Fusako Amino (eds.) 宮田登，森謙二，網野房子編)
2000 『老熟の力―豊かな〈老い〉を求めて―』(The Power of Maturity: Towards a Rich “Old
Age”). 東京：早稲田大学出版部 (Tokyo: Waseda University Press).
Morikuri, Shigekazu 森栗茂一
2000 「21 世紀の都市モデル・向島―都市化と老いの世相変化から―」(Mukaijima, 21st Century
Model City: Seen From Changes in Urbanization and Aging)『老熟の力―豊かな〈老い〉を

求めて―』 (In The Power of Maturity: Towards a Rich “Old Age”). 宮田登・森謙二・網野房子
編 (Noboru Miyata, Kenji Mori and Fusako Amino, eds.). 東京：早稲田大学出版部 (Tokyo:
Waseda University Press) pp. 81-95.
2005 「神戸の地蔵信仰と復興まちづくり―伝承再構築支援の民俗学―」(Jizō Belief and Town-
Planning Recovery in Kobe: Folkloristics and Assistance for the Reconstruction of Tradition)
Morita, Shinya 森田真也
1997 「観光と「伝統文化」の意識化 ― 沖縄県竹富島の事例から ― 」 (Tourism and the
Consciousness of “Traditional Culture”: An Example from Taketomi Island in Okinawa)『日本
2003 「フォークロリズムとツーリズム―民俗学における観光研究―」(Folklorism and Tourism:
On Tourism Research in Folklore Studies)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of
Moriyama, Taitarō 森山泰太郎
1977 「民俗誌のあり方―二、三の提言―」(A Model of Ethnography)『日本民俗学』(Nihon
Muguruma, Yumi 六車由美
2012 『驚きの介護民俗学』(Surprising Care Folkloristics) 東京：医学書院 (Tokyo: Igakushoin).
2015 『介護民俗学へようこそ―『すまいるほーむ』の物語―』(Welcome to Care Folkloristics:
The Story of “Smile Home”). 東京：新潮社 (Tokyo: Shinchōsha).
Muratake, Seiichi 村武精一
1967 「日・琉族制研究における構造論―柳田民俗学と社会人類学―」(Structural Theory in
Studies of Family and Kinship Systems in Japan and the Ryūkyūs: Japanese Folklore Studies
and Social Anthropology)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the
Nakamura, Akira 中村彰
1990 「『人生相談』にみるイエ意識―現代民俗学のひとつの試みとして―」(The Concept of Ie as
Viewed from Personal Affairs Advice Columns: An Attempt at Modern Folklore Studies)『日本
1991 「『人生相談』にみる結婚観」(Views on Marriage as Seen from Personal Affairs Consultation
Columns)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 185:
92-104.
1994 「メディアのなかの男と女―『人生相談』にみる現代日本の主婦―」(Men and Women in
Media: Present Day Japanese Husbands and Wives As Seen in Their Consultatations about
Their Personal Affairs)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 198: 91-103.
Nakamura, Kazuyo 中村和代
2010 「村の『民俗』から国家のシンボルへ―韓国河回別神グッタルノリのナショナル・ブランド化
過程―」(From Village “Folk Custom” to National Symbol: the Process of the National
Branding of the Pyolshin-Gut T’al-Nori Folk Play in the Korean Village of Hahoe)『日本民俗
Nakayama, Kazuhisa 中山和久

1997 「巡礼と現代―関東三十六不動霊場を中心として―」(Pilgrimages and the Present Day:
Centering on the Pilgrimage to the Thirty-Six Fudō Temples in the Kantō Region)『日本民俗
Nam, Kun-Wu 南根祐
2009 「韓国民俗学の現在 ―「民俗」の文化財化と観光資源化を中心に ―」 (Contemporary
Folklore Studies in Korea: The Transformation of “Folklore” into Cultural Assets and Tourist
Resources)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 259:
5-27.
Namihira, Emiko 波平恵美子
2001 「『民俗』の再考と再生をめざして」 (Aiming for the Reconsideration and Rebirth of
“Folklore”)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 227:
237-244.
Noguchi, Kenichi 野口憲一
2011 「農村・農業研究に関する『当事者』研究の提案―蓮根生産農業の『当事者』研究を事例に
―」(A Proposal for “Actor” Self-Research in Relation to Research on Agricultural Villages
and Farming: the Example of “Actors” involved in Lotus Root Production)『日本民俗学』
2016 「〈産業としての農業〉を営むという実践を理解する―徳島県におけるレンコン生産農業の事
例から―」(Operating Agriculture as an Industry: A Case Study of Lotus Root Production in
Tokushima Prefecture)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 285: 57-77.
Noguchi, Takenori 野口武徳
1969 「重出立証法に対する問題提起」(Problems with the Method of Proof by Re-citation)『日本民俗
学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 3-6.
Nomoto, Kanichi 野本寛一
2000 「老熟者の座標―民俗社会の伝統の中で―」(Coordinates of the Mature Elderly: In Folk
Society Tradition)『老熟の力―豊かな〈老い〉を求めて―』(In The Power of Maturity:
Towards a Rich “Old Age”). 宮田登・森謙二・網野房子編 (Noboru Miyata, Kenji Mori and
Fusako Amino, eds.). 東京：早稲田大学出版部 (Tokyo: Waseda University Press) pp. 22-46.
Noyes, Dorothy
2016 Humble Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Nozawa, Kenji 野沢謙治
1982 「身体のフォークロア―糞尿・ツバ・裸・髪―」(Folklore of the Human Body: Feces,
Saliva, Nudity and Hair) 『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
1983 「続・身体のフォークロア ― 強食・大食の論理 ― 」 (Folklore on the Human Body,
Continued: The Rationality Behind Coercive Offerings of Food and Overeating)『日本民俗学』
Ogawa, Tōru 小川徹
1969 「周圏論に対するコメント」(A Comment on Peripheral Zone Theory)『日本民俗学』『日本民
俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 21-23.
Oguma, Makoto 小熊誠

2015 The Study of Japan through “Japanese Folklore Studies.” Japanese Review of Cultural
Anthropology 16: 237-250.
Ohba, Yoshimi 大庭良美
1977 「島根の民俗誌」(Ethnography of Shimane Prefecture)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Ōishi, Yasuo 大石泰夫
1998 「民俗芸能における『老いと老人」(“Aging and the Elderly” in Folk Performing Arts)『日本民
Ono, Jūrō 小野重朗
1969 「実践的周圏論を」(Concerning a Practical Peripheral Zone Theory)『日本民俗学』『日本民俗
学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 23-24.
Ōshiro, Hiromi 大城博美
2011 「介護現場の民俗誌―『呼び寄せ型』の人たちを中心に―」(Documenting the Folklore of
Nursing Care Sites: Focusing on “Called-for Type” People)『現代民俗学研究』(Journal of
Living Folklore) 3: 47-57.
Ōtsuki, Takahiro 大月隆寛
1985 「「都市民俗学」論の本質的性格」(The Essential Characteristics of “Urban Folklore Studies”)
『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 157/158: 81-103.
2004 『全身民俗学者』(Whole-body Folklorist). 東京：夏目書房 (Tokyo: Natsume Shobō).
Sakuma, Junichi 佐久間惇一
1977 「民俗誌のことども」(On Ethnography)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
Sakurai, Tokutarō 櫻井徳太郎
1957 「日本史研究との関連」(Relations with Japanese History Research)『日本民俗学』(Nihon
Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 4(2): 111-119.
Saruwatari, Toki 猿渡土貴
2002 「近・現代における胞衣習俗の処理習俗の変化―胞衣取扱業者の動向をめぐって―」
(Changes in the Customs of Disposing the Placenta in the Modern Ages: Concerning the
Attitude of the Occupation of Placenta Disposal) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Sasaki, Michiko 佐々木美智子
2002 「男性助産婦導入問題と出産観」(The Problem of the Introduction of Male Midwives and
Concepts of Childbirth)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society
Japan) 232: 70-85.
Seki, Keigo 関敬吾
1949a 「民俗学方法の問題（上）―和歌森氏の所論に関連して―」(Problems of Folklore Studies
Methods (I): Regarding Wakamori’s Thesis)『民間伝承』(Folk Tradition) 134: 15-21.
1949b 「民俗学方法の問題（下）―和歌森氏の所論に関連して―」(Problems of Folklore Studies
Methods (II): Regarding Wakamori’s Thesis)『民間伝承』(Folk Tradition) 135: 39-48.
1958 「歴史科学としての民俗学」(Folkloristics as Historical Science) in『日本民俗学大系：第２巻：
日本民俗学の歴史と課題』(Survey of Japanese Folkloristics: Vol. 2: History and Issues of
Japanese Folkloristics) 東京：平凡社 (Tokyo: Heibonsha) pp. 242-258.

Shi, Aidong 施愛東
2013 「フィールドよさらば」(Farewell to the Field) (西村真志葉訳，Mashiba Nishimura, trans.)
Shibuya, Ken 渋谷研
2001 「その後の人たち―老人介護のフォークロア」(People Needing Care: The Folklore of Elder
Care)『国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告』(Bulletin of the National History of Japanese History)
91: 411-425.
Shigenobu, Yukihiko 重信幸彦
1989 「『世間話』再考―方法としての『世間話』へ―」(Reconsidering “Sekenbanashi” [Small
Talk] as Research Method)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
2012 「『声』のマテリアル―方法としての『世間話』・柳田國男から現代へ―」(The Material of
“Voices”: “Sekenbanashi” [Small Talk] as Research Method, From Kunio Yanagita to the
Present)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 270:
85-110.
2015 「民俗学のなかの『世間話』―『明治大正史世相篇』（一九三一）から―」(“Sekenbanashi”
[Small Talk] in Folklore Studies: From “Meiji and Taishō History: Social Conditions” (1931))
Shimamura, Takanori 島村恭則
1996 「沖縄の民俗宗教と新宗教―龍泉の事例から―」(New Religion and Folk Religion in
Okinawa: As Seen from the Case of Ijun)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
2014 「フォークロア研究とは何か」(What is Folkloristics?)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 278: 1-34．
2017 「グローバル化時代における民俗学の可能性」(The Potential of Folkloristics in the Age of
Globalization)『アジア遊学』(Asia Yūgaku) 215 (印刷中) (to be published).
Shinno, Toshikazu 真野俊和
2006 「野の学問はどこに行くのか」(Wither the Discipline of the Folk by the Folk?)『日本民俗学』
Sudō, Kenichi 須藤健一
1971 「喜界島の親族組織」(The Kinship Organization of Kikaijima, Amami Islands)『日本民俗学』
Suga, Yutaka 菅豊
2010 「現代アメリカ民俗学の現状と課題 ―公共民俗学 (Public Folklore) を中心に ―」 (The
Current State of American Folklore Studies and Future Issues, Focusing on “Public Folklore”)
2013 『「新しい野の学問」の時代へ―知識生産と社会実践をつなぐために―』(Toward the Era
of the “New Discipline of the Folk by the Folk”: Connecting Knowledge Production and Social
Practice) 東京：岩波書店 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten).
Suzuki, Masataka 鈴木正祟
1979 「荒神神楽にみる自然と人間」(Man and Nature in the Kōjin Ritual Dance)『日本民俗学』
1982 「対馬・木坂の祭祀と村落空問」(The Rites and Village Space in Kisaka, Tsushima Island)
1984 「対馬・仁位の祭祀と村落空間」(Rituals and Village Cosmology in Nii, Tsushima Island)『日
Suzuki, Iwayumi 鈴木岩弓
2012 「いま、震災被災地で民俗学者ができること」(Now, What Folklorists can do in Earthquake
Disaster Areas)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan)
270: 232-237.
Tadenuma, Yasuko 蓼沼康子
1998 「日本民俗学における老いと老人―家族の側面から―」(Aging and the Elderly in Japanese
Folklore: From a Side View of the Family)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of
Takahashi, Tōichi 高橋統一
1978 「宮座の構造とその周辺」(The Structure and Surroundings of Parish Guilds)『日本民俗学』
Takeda, Akira 竹田旦
1977 「民俗誌と民俗学」(Ethnography and Folklore Studies)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Takizawa, Shūichi 滝沢秀一
1977 「地域住民の手で綴る民俗誌を」(Toward Ethnographies Composed by Local Inhabitants)『日
Tamura, Kazuhiko 田村和彦
2009 「中国民俗学の現在―現地調査と民俗志を中心に―」(Contemporary Chinese Folklore
Studies: Focusing on Fieldwork and Ethnographies)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Tanaka, Senichi 田中宣一
1969 「重出立証法の歴史」(History of the Method of Proof by Re-citation)『日本民俗学会報』(Nihon
Taniguchi, Yōko 谷口陽子
2008 「女性の奉公経験と家族および地域共同体における評価―山口県豊北地方の漁業集落矢玉を事
例として―」(The Valuation of Family and Community Based on Women’s Experiences as
Hōkōnin [Live-in Servants])『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
Tano, Noboru 田野登
2008 『水都大阪の民俗誌』(The Ethnography of Water Metropolis Osaka) 大阪：和泉書院 (Osaka:
Izumi Shoten).
Tsurumi, Kazuko 鶴見和子
1997 「社会変動論のパラダイム―柳田國男の仕事を軸として―」(Paradigms of Social Change
Theory: With the Work of Yanagita Kunio as Axis)『鶴見和子曼荼羅Ⅰ、基の巻』(In Tsurumi
Kazuko Mandala I: Basics) 東京：藤原書店 (Tokyo: Fujiwara Shoten) pp. 442-483.
Uesugi, Tomiyuki 上杉富之
2002 「生殖革命と新生殖技術―出産及び生命観に及ぼす社会・文化的影響―」(The Reproduction

Revolution and the New Reproductive Technologies: Socio-Cultural Implications for the
Concepts of Birth and Life)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
Ushijima, Iwao 牛島巌
1969 「重出立証法に対するコメント」(Comments Concerning the Method of Proof by Re-citation)『日
本民俗学会報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 60: 6-7.
Ushijima, Iwao and Takenori Noguchi 牛島巌・野口武徳
1967 「沖縄本島東部島嶼社会の門中と祭祀組織―与那城村宮城島における事例を中心として―」
(Munchū Kin Groups and Ritual Organization in the Society of the Eastern Islets off the Main
Island of Okinawa: Focusing on Cases from Yonashiro Village, Miyagi Island)『日本民俗学会
報』(Nihon Minzokugaku-Kaihō, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 50: 13-30.
Veldkamp, Elemer フェルトカンプ・エルメル
2011 「科学技術とフォークロア―『たまごっち』の生と死に対する文化的反応―」(Scientific
Technology and Folklore: the Cultural Reaction to Life and Death of Tamagotchi)『日本民俗学』
Wakamori, Tarō 和歌森太郎
1949 「民俗学の方法について」(On the Methods of Folklore Studies)『民間伝承』(Folk Tradition)
132: 2-9.
1951 「民俗学の性格について」(On the Character of Folklore Studies)『民間伝承』(Folk Tradition)
159: 34-37.
Wang, Xiaokui 王暁葵
2009 「人類学化と「非物質文化遺産保護」―現代中国民俗学研究について―」(Anthropology and
“Non-material Cultural Heritage Protection”: On Contemporary Chinese Folklore Studies
Research)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 259:
111-137.
Watabe, Keiichi 渡部圭一
2013 「周縁の史料学の可能性」(The Possibilities of the Documentary Study of Peripheries)『日本民
Watanabe, Yoshio 渡邊欣雄
1970 「機能契機にみるムラ構成とその変化―千葉県安房郡旧平群村の事例―」(Structure of a
Village Organization and Change as Seen in Function-Opportunities: The Case of in Awa
District, Chiba Prefecture)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
1971a 「沖縄北部農村の門中組織 ― 大宜味村字田港の事例 ― 」 (The Munchū Kin Group
Organization of Farming Villages in Northern Okinawa Island: The Case of Taminato, Ogimi)
1971b 「沖縄の世界観についての一考察―東村字平良を中心として―」(A Study of Okinawan
Cosmology: Centering on Taira, Higashi Village) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The
Yagi, Tōru 八木透
1996 「家・女性・墓 ― 女性たちにとっての故郷 ― 」 (Homes ・ Women ・ Graves: Furusato
[Hometowns] for Women)『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore

Yagi, Yasuyuki 八木康幸
2003 「フェイクロアとフォークロリズムについての覚え書き―アメリカ民俗学における議論を中心
にして―」(Notes on Fake-lore and Folk-lore: Focusing on the Controversy in Folklore
Studies in the United States)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore
Yamada, Shinya 山田慎也
1995 「葬制の変化と地域社会―和歌山県東牟婁郡古座町の事例を通して―」(Changes in Funeral
Rites and Local Community: A case of Kozachō in Wakayama Prefecture)『日本民俗学』(Nihon
1996 「死を受容させるもの―輿から祭壇へ―」(How To Accept Death?: From Bier to Funeral
Altar)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 207: 29-
57.
2003 「葬儀とフォ-クロリズム」(Funeral Rites and Folklorism)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku,
Yamaguchi, Asatarō 山口麻太郎
1977 「民俗誌私論」 (On Ethnography) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
Yamaji, Katsuhiko 山路勝彦
1971 「＜門中＞と＜家＞に関する覚書」 (Preliminary Report on Munchū Kin Groups and Ie
Households)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore Society Japan) 78:
44-51.
Yamamoto, Shino 山本志乃
2010 「市稼ぎの生活誌―農家日記にみる定期市出店者の生活戦略―」(A Report on the Life of
Urban Migrant Workers: Life Strategies of Regular Migrant Workers from Farming Villages
to Cities, as Seen from Their Diaries)『日本民俗学』(Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the
Yanagita, Kunio 柳田國男
1930 『蝸牛考』(Considering Cochlea) 東京：刀江書院 (Tokyo: Tōkōshoin).
1931 『明治大正史』(Meiji Taishō Shi Meiji and Taishō History) 4, 世相篇 (Sesōhen) 東京：朝日新聞社
(Tokyo: Asahisinbunsha).
1934 『民間伝承論』(Folk Tradition Studies) 東京：共立社 (Tokyo: Kyōritsusha).
1935 『郷土生活の研究法』(Hometown Life Research Methods) 東京：刀江書院 (Tokyo: Tōkōshoin).
1939a 『国語の将来』(Kokugo no Shōrai The Future of the National Language) 大阪：創元社 (Osaka:
Sōgensha).
1939b 『孤猿随筆』(Koen Zuihitsu Fox and Monkey Essays) 大阪：創元社 (Osaka: Sōgensha).
1939c 『木綿以前の事』 (Momen Izen no Koto Regarding before Cotton) 大阪：創元社 (Osaka:
Sōgensha).
1940 『野草雑記・野鳥雑記』(Yasō Zakki, Yachō Zakki Remarks on Wild Plants and Birds) 京都：甲鳥
書林 (Kyoto: Kōchō Shoin).
1942 『小さき者の声』 (Chīsaki Mono no Koe Voice of the Little Ones) 東京：三国書房 (Tokyo:
Sangoku Shobō).
1947 『氏神と氏子』 (Ujigami to Ujiko Local Shrines and Parishioners) 東京：小山書店 (Tokyo:
Koyama Shoten).
1953 『不幸なる芸術』(Fukō naru Geijutsu The Unhappy Art) 東京：筑摩書房 (Tokyo: Chikuma
Shobō).
Yano, Keiichi 矢野敬一
1997 「『ふるさとの味』の形成に見る家族の戦後―菖蒲の節句の行事食・笹団子の名産品化を通し
て―」(The Postwar Period of the Family as Seen in the Evolution of “Hometown Taste”: The
Iris Festival’s Ritual Food and Changes in its Speciality, the Sasa-Dango)『日本民俗学』
2003 「ノスタルジー／フォークロリズム／ナショナリズム―写真家・童画家・熊谷元一の作品の受
容をめぐって―」(Nostalgia, Folklorism and Nationalism: In Connection with the Works of
the Photographer and Painter for Children, Motoichi Kumagai) 『日本民俗学』 (Nihon
Yasui, Manami 安井眞奈美
1997 「「ふるさと」研究の分析視角」(The Analytical Vision of Furusato [Hometown] Research)『日
Yukawa, Yōji 湯川洋司
1998 「伝承母体論とムラの現在」(The Theory of the Traditional Unit of Folkways and the Village)

Folklore in The Midst of Social Change

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Folklore in The Midst of Social Change

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Folklore in The Midst of Social Change

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Folklore in the Midst of Social Change:

The Perspectives and Methods of Japanese Folkloristics

Translated by James E. Roberson

1. What are Folkloristics?

Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology, vol. 18-1, 2017

2. Yanagita Folkloristics as The Study of Social Change

this, understandings of Folkloristics that differed from Yanagita’s conceptualization and

3. Folkloristics as Folk Tradition (Minkan Denshō) Research

3.1 Debates on the Character of Folkloristics: “Contemporary Science” or

3.2 Cultural Essentialism

3.3 Written Materials on the Method of “Proof by Re-Citation” and on

“The method of proof by re-citation” is a methodology proposed by Kunio Yanagita (1934)

worldview that should be placed at the base of methodology, as in the “keisei-saimin”7principle

4.1 The Influence from Anthropology

4.2 Urban Folkloristics

5. Developments in Contemporary Folkloristics

Iwamoto, meanwhile, based on a re-investigation of Yanagita’s folkloristics thought, notes

5.1 Birth-Aging-Illness-Death (Shōrōbyōshi)

10 This claim was later developed further by Iwamoto (2002).

5.2 Beliefs, Rites and Rituals

5.3 Family, Kinship and Local Society

5.4 Consumer Society and Scientific Technology

5.5 Folklorism, Homeplace, Cultural Heritage and Tourism

6. Further Investigation of Methodologies

The internationalization of Folkloristics has witnessed rapid development in the 2000s.

Amano, Takeshi and Noboru Miyata 天野武・宮田登

Chiba, Tokuji 千葉徳爾

2009 「現代台湾民俗文化研究の動向について―研究と実践の重層性―」(Currents in Modern

2003 「フォークロリズムからみた節分の巻ずし」(Setsubun Sushi Rolls as Seen from Folklorism)『日

Kawada, Makito 川田牧人

Koike, Junichi 小池淳一

Liu, Zongai 劉宗迪

Model City: Seen From Changes in Urbanization and Aging)『老熟の力―豊かな〈老い〉を

Nakayama, Kazuhisa 中山和久

Oguma, Makoto 小熊誠

Japanese Folkloristics) 東京：平凡社 (Tokyo: Heibonsha) pp. 242-258.

2002 「生殖革命と新生殖技術―出産及び生命観に及ぼす社会・文化的影響―」(The Reproduction

[Hometowns] for Women)『日本民俗学』 (Nihon Minzokugaku, The Bulletin of the Folklore

You might also like