This paper aimed that to: 1) review the many anthropological/ ethnographical studies on Sarawak (Malaysian Borneo) that have been written against the trend of the anthropology and the global social condition; and 2) establish the distinctiveness and challenges of anthropological studies on Sarawak. “Anthropology of Sarawak” refers to anthropologic/ ethnographic studies that were compiled and conducted using Sarawak as their research field. The first part of the paper confirms that the current study situation has followed the ethnic category based on anthropology as an objective science, which was introduced by the United Kingdom. Indigenous people’s world of Sarawak was described by heroic explorers and distinguished district officers of Sarawak Kingdom under the Brooke family, who spoke Sarawak Malays fluently, in historical times. After the Brooke era, Sarawak was ravaged by the Second World War. The first indepth anthropological study in Sarawak was started in the 1950s by the British colonial service, headed by Edmund Leach. Subsequent studies adhere fundamentally to the ethnic category that was stated within that milestone research. After overview of the anthropological/ethnographical studies, this paper gives a description of the anthropologist, Peter Metcalf, who challenged the generally accepted category, and examines the significance of his work. The latter half of this paper shows an empirical analysis of the situation where the ethnic category does not reflect the everyday-life of these indigenous peoples. In contrast to the previous description, certain aspects of their identity have been enhanced within their life in the Tutoh basin, Northern Sarawak. Various small ethnic groups have occupied this area who are generally called Orang ulu, and the ethnic name, personal name, and the name of the place. This paper describes how the people negotiate their identity this complex situation, and how they choose an ethnic name in today’s particular situation.

The Bornean states of Sarawak and Sabah are considered important parts of Malaysia in terms of land area, population size, and economic scale. However, because of the differences in historical backgrounds, ethnic compositions, and administrative organizations, as well as their geographically separated locations, these states have often been treated separately. Moreover, these states’ political and administrative autonomy has been overemphasized. Sarawak and Sabah became independent states in 1963, constituting a new federal country, Malaysia. They began to be subject to political assimilation pressure from the federal government, which is called “Malayanization.” After the 1990s, social and economic relationships between the Bornean states and the peninsula have become stronger, which is also expressed as “peninsul ar connection.” Despite the delicate distance in recent years between Sarawak and the peninsula, as evidenced by the political slogan “Sarawak for Sarawakians,” the “peninsular connection” certainly exists in various aspects. It is now becoming difficult to treat Sarawak as an independent regional unit. Under such social, economic, and political circumstances, in what direction should research on Sarawak be aimed? In the latter part of this paper, I look back over the past half-century at the so-called “Sarawak studies” and explore the possibility of future development of Sarawak studies. Conventional research on Sarawak often focuses on culture and ethnicity, and, unlike peninsular-based studies, is not able to expand upon diversified research subjects such as politics, administration, religion, and literature. On the other hand, Sarawak-based studies have the benefit of collaborating with natural science fields such as ecology and the promotion of interdisciplinary research projects. However, most of these studies have been completed within the closed space of Sarawak. Given that the Sarawak-peninsular relations are changing, previous Sarawak studies need to be relativized. For this purpose, it is important to explore the possibility of articulating Sarawak studies to the so-called “Malaysian studies” that have been advanced on a peninsular basis. However, a part of the Sarawak studies has also taken into consideration its relations with Indonesia, Singapore, China, Oceania, the Middle East, etc., and also may be developed beyond the framework of the nation-state, Malaysia. Relativization of Sarawak studies should be promoted after taking into consideration various spatial scales and multidirectional regional networks.

本稿では，1980年代以降の英語圏における地理学者を中心に発展してきたポリティカル・エコロジー論（PE 論）が，いかにして独自の枠組みを発展させてきたのかについて検討する。特に本稿では，2000年代以降の PE 論における新たな展開として，スケールの議論に注目した研究に考察の焦点を絞る。PE 論の系譜をたどると，1980年代は文化生態学や生態人類学，新マルサス主義の分析視角に対する批判的検討を出発点として，生態学と政治経済学の統合的アプローチを提示した。1990年代には PE 論独自の枠組みを模索する中で，ポスト構造主義的な視点に基づく社会理論との接合を目指す研究が増加し，取り扱うテーマも環境・開発に関わる言説やジェンダー研究へと広がりをみせた。2000年代以降は再び生態学的な視点への関心が高まっており，こうした流れと連動するかたちでスケールの議論に関する研究が注目を集めている。特に PE 論のスケールに関する議論は，土壌や植生といった自然環境条件に基づく「生態的スケール」と，社会的・政治的なプロセスを通じて構築されるスケールとの相互作用に着目していることを特徴としている。今後の展望としては，地理学と生態学のスケールに関する議論を相互に参照しつつ，資源管理や環境ガバナンスのスケールに注目した実証研究を積み上げることで，PE 論独自のスケール論を発展させていくことが期待される。