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

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

How have researchers treated social change in the religious arena, providing analytical concepts that can essentialize a religion into anthropological studies? Most anthropologists have criticized the use of terms that essentialize a religion due to the set of indigenousness before social change and the level of social change. How do people identify themselves concerning religion amidst social change? In this article, I deal with the "Sunnitization" of the Alevi community in the Republic of Turkey as a case study. Numerically, the approx. 15 million Alevis in Turkey constitute a large heterodox religious community. The Alevis are predominantly Turkish-speaking, but also include a great number of the Kurdish and Zaza speakers [VAN BRUINESSEN 1997]. During the Ottoman period, Alevism emerged from the numerous heterodox groups of Anatolia that had close religious and military links to the Safavids in Iran. Due to the relationship with the Safavids, the Alevis have been persecuted by Sunnis for a long time. The persecutions caused many to withdraw to remote areas to escape repression. From such social and geographical marginality, and after the decline of the political violence of the movement, Alevism appears to have emerged as a distinct socio-religious community [KEHL-BODROGI 1997]. The manifold radical social and political changes following the proclamation of the Republic divested the outside world of its hostile character, and led to the gradual opening of the community. Alevis welcomed the Republic, considering the basic principles of laicism and nationalism as the best guarantors for putting an end to their religious discrimination. The majority of them used to identify with Kemalists or secularists. However, a radical change occurred in the course of general political developments, triggered by the military coup in Turkey in 1980. Especially, the revival of the Islamist movement (Cemaat), along with a governmental Islamization policy, deeply influenced Alevism. Many Alevi people were forced to redefine themselves as Muslims against the Sunni majority. There is even the self-assertion that it is the Alevi people who are the real Turkish Muslims, rather than the Sunnis, and that it is the Alevis who practice the original Islam. Generally speaking, it is said that Alevis do not practice the five pillars of Islam. For example, it is said that Alevis do not go to the mosque to pray five times a day, and they do not fast during Ramadan. The social changes influenced by the Islamic revival have brought Islamic religious practices into the Alevi community. Some Alevis have begun to practice the five Islamic pillars. The previous studies concerning social changes of the Alevi community have regarded such phenomena as "Sunnitized Alevism." However, that point of view does not reflect the self-assertion of the Alevi people correctly. The purpose of this article is to reconsider the Sunnitization of the Alevi community in Turkey, to examine the reasons why previous studies often use the term Sunnitization incorrectly,and to suggest some ways to dissect the analytical problem of social change. The article first mentions that research about Alevi villages, in which people practice the five Sunni-Islamic pillars, consider themselves to be the "Sunnitized Alevi community," observing the superficial change of religious practices. I then show that reservations are needed to define it from the viewpoint of correct ethnographical understanding (Chapter II). In that respect, I refer to SASHIMA [2002] and SHANKLAND [1999; 2003a; 2003b] as objects of study. Secondly, I reveal that the most important thing for a person to identify himself or herself as an Alevi is to belong to an ocak structure. no matter whether they practice Alevi (Sunni) rituals or not. The term ocak literally means "household." In the Alevi community, ocak stands for the Holy

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

View full abstract

This paper considers the method of studying contemporary art from an anthropological viewpoint, focusing on the case of making installation art. In contrast to previous institutional studies, which focus on the modern Western system of art as the "art world" and the "art-culture system," it considers the making of art ethnographically following the interaction between human and non-human actors. In the field of contemporary art, such as galleries and art centers, an ordinary object hardly ever transforms suddenly into an object to be admired as a work of art. Becoming art is regarded, rather, as a gradual process. To study art in the making enables us to see the works of contemporary art not only as the result of a status elevation within the system of art, but also as a bundle of relationships formed through the process of the mutual transformation of human and non-human actors. Both Acord [2010] and Yaneva [2003] study the making of installation art and the installation of art referring to the Actor Network Theory. Their studies make it clear that artworks and exhibitions are generated through the continual interaction between human and non-human actors, including curators, artists, and the various materials found in museum settings. As Yaneva suggests, it is important to see artists not as sole creative actors but as the vehicles of other participants' agency [Yaneva 2003b: 178]. However, in the making of installation art, the discourses and practices of creativity are often more complex than Yaneva and Acord describe. The art historian, Claire Bishop, points out the "fine line" between installation art and the installation of art. On one hand, she says that installation art is made up of "the ensemble of elements within it" and regarded as a "singular totality," while the installation of art is "secondary in importance to the individual works it contains" [Bishop 2005:6]. Bishop indicates that the line has been ambiguously drawn by the actors dealing with contemporary art. That relates to discussions about the "creativity" of curators, who are often recognized as the authors of exhibitions, and even occupy the status of quasi-artists in the field of contemporary art. Although neither Acord nor Yaneva decipher a particular difference between them, that very ambiguity results from the nature of contemporary art, which should be carefully examined. By comparing those ethnographic studies, this paper uncovers the need to reconsider the lines drawn between artists and curators, as well as installation art and the installation of art, which blur the field of contemporary art by following actors to see how they separate and obscure the source of "creativity."

View full abstract

Mongolian nomads keep flocks and herds of grazing livestock near their camping places in vast grasslands, the techniques of which are related to their nomadism. as they deeply rely upon livestock management for subsistence. Concerning that topic, Dr. UMESAO Tadao proposed the hypothesis of "captive animal offspring", in which the separation of the lamb/kid/calf/colt from its mother leads the whole flock or herd to keep close to the nomads' camping place. This paper discusses indigenous techniques used by Mongolian nomads to keep each livestock flock (sheep, goats)and herd (cattle and horses) near their camping/places throughout the year, focusing on a case study of the T household, a nomad living in Dund-govi Province, Mongolia. Based on the preference of livestock to remain where it is accustomed to grazing, as well as its habit of remembering the route back to its owner's camping place, Mongolian nomads have utilized the following techniques to keep flocks and herds near their camping places: (1) the provision of well-water supply to livestock, (2) the separation of ewes/nannies/cows/mares from their offspring (the capture of lambs/kids/calves/colts), (3) the protection of livestock against extreme cold by keeping them in a wooden barn, (4) the supplementary feeding of livestock, and (5) visual checking by the nomad of the places where flocks or herds graze regularly using binoculars, and the interposition by the nomad into the flocks or herds as the occasion arises. During the three seasons of the year when the ewes/nannies/cows/mares are separated from their offspring (i.e., spring, summer. and autumn), Mongolian nomads mainly adopt the following techniques: (a) capturing the lambs/kids/calves/colts (separating them from their mothers-milking-sucking), (b) providing water supply, and (c) visual checking and interposition into the flock or herd. On the other hand, during the one season (i.e., winter) when the offspring stays with its mother (with freezing temperatures outside), various techniques are adopted by the nomads, as follows: (a) providing water supply, (b) protecting against extreme coldness, and (c) visual checking and interposition into the flock or herd. The paper concludes that Mongolian nomads have been able to keep livestock close to their camping places by utilizing the habits of ewes/nannies/cows/mares and their offspring, along with the changes in the natural environment, and adjust their techniques for livestock management depending on the season (i.e., whether or not the ewes/nannies/cows/mares were separated from their offspring). After investigating the actual situation of nomad T throughout the year, it became clear that UMESAO's hypothesis of "capturing animal offspring" is effective mainly between the last week of May and the first week of November, during the period that the lambs/kids/calves/colts are separated from their mothers. Livestock, however, is kept close to nomads' camping places by such techniques as providing water supply to them and protecting them against severe cold in wooden barns during the frozen season of winter. This paper proves the legitimacy of UMESAO's hypothesis during the period when ewes/nannies/cows/mares are separated from their offspring. It also clarifies other new techniques of flock/herd management when the offspring does stay with its mother-something that he did not fully grasp. The Mongolian plateau is located in northern Asia, with half the year being extremely cold. Conversely, the unique characteristic of the Mongolian nomad is his subsistence through utilizing the cold to manage livestock.

View full abstract