Search

鈴木赳生訳, 本稿はTim Ingold ed., 1996, “1989 Debate: The Concept of Society Is Theoretically Obsolete, ” Key Debates in Anthropology, London; New York: Routledge, 45-80.の全訳の後半部である。, Reproduced from KEY DEBATES IN ANTHROPOLOGY, 1st Edition by Tim Ingold, published by Routledge. © 1996 Tim Ingold, selection and editorial matter; individual chapters, the contributors. Reproduced by arrangement with Taylor & Francis Group.

鈴木赳生訳, 本稿はTim Ingold ed., 1996, “1989 Debate: The Concept of Society Is Theoretically Obsolete, ” Key Debates in Anthropology, London; New York: Routledge, 45-80.の全訳の前半部である。, Reproduced from KEY DEBATES IN ANTHROPOLOGY, 1st Edition by Tim Ingold, published by Routledge. © 1996 Tim Ingold, selection and editorial matter; individual chapters, the contributors. Reproduced by arrangement with Taylor & Francis Group.

新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）の拡大防止のために、2020年度前半、日本の大学では、いまだかつてない規模でフルオンラインの授業が実施され、これまで進んでこなかったICT（情報コミュニケーション技術）を活用した教育が一気に進められた。京都大学においても、2020年度前期はフルオンラインで授業を実施することとなった。これを支援するべく、筆者の所属する高等教育研究開発推進センターでは、情報環境機構と連携して、サポートサイトであるTeaching Online@京大を構築し、学内研修会、学内教員調査を実施してきた。2020年度後期に入り、現在はハイブリッド型授業が合わせて実施されており、そのサポートが行われている。コロナ禍によりいわば「強制的」に全国の大学教員がオンライン授業に取り組んだ結果、オンラインでも教えられる教育内容・対面でしか教えられない教育内容の存在が浮き彫りになるとともに、オンライン授業あるいはハイブリッド型授業の質をどのように担保していくかが課題となっている。本稿ではオンライン授業・ハイブリッド型授業実施に対する京都大学の支援体制がどのようなもので、また、高等教育研究開発推進センターがそれをどのように支援してきたのかについて整理し振り返るとともに、今後不可逆的に普及が進むであろうオンライン授業・ハイブリッド型授業について、その質を向上させる際の論点を整理する。

新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）の拡大防止のために、2020年度前半、日本の大学では、いまだかつてない規模でフルオンラインの授業が実施され、これまで進んでこなかったICT（情報コミュニケーション技術）を活用した教育が一気に進められた。京都大学においても、2020年度前期はフルオンラインで授業を実施することとなった。これを支援するべく、筆者の所属する高等教育研究開発推進センターでは、情報環境機構と連携して、サポートサイトであるTeaching Online@京大を構築し、学内研修会、学内教員調査を実施してきた。2020年度後期に入り、現在はハイブリッド型授業が合わせて実施されており、そのサポートが行われている。コロナ禍によりいわば「強制的」に全国の大学教員がオンライン授業に取り組んだ結果、オンラインでも教えられる教育内容・対面でしか教えられない教育内容の存在が浮き彫りになるとともに、オンライン授業あるいはハイブリッド型授業の質をどのように担保していくかが課題となっている。本稿ではオンライン授業・ハイブリッド型授業実施に対する京都大学の支援体制がどのようなもので、また、高等教育研究開発推進センターがそれをどのように支援してきたのかについて整理し振り返るとともに、今後不可逆的に普及が進むであろうオンライン授業・ハイブリッド型授業について、その質を向上させる際の論点を整理する。, To prevent the spread of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19), Japanese universities conducted fully online classes on an unprecedented scale in the first half of 2020, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) utilization was promoted at once. At Kyoto University, online classes were introduced in the first half of 2020. To support online teaching, the Center for the Promotion of Excellence in Higher Education, to which we belong, in collaborating with the Institute for Information Management and Communication, has built a support site, Teaching Online @ Kyoto University; holds FD workshops; and has conducted a faculty survey. In the latter half of 2020, we supported hybrid classes. As a result of university teachers working on online teaching by force of circumstances due to the pandemic, it has been realized what can be taught online and what cannot. The challenge is how to ensure the quality of online classes or hybrid classes. In this paper, the support system of Kyoto University for online and hybrid classes is described, and we summarize how the Center for the Promotion of Excellence in Higher Education supports online education. Finally, the issues of quality assurance of online and hybrid teaching are discussed.

There are 4 kinds of Jinkōki published from 1641(*the 18th year of Kan'ei) to 1643(*the 20th year of Kan'ei). Three kinds of Jinkōki were published in 1641. One of them was the so-called Idaibon. The second was published by YASUDA Jūbei and the third was published by TENNŌJIYA Ichirōbyōe. NISHIMURA Matazaemon published Jinkōki in 1643. YASUDA, TENNŌJIYA and NISHIMURA were commercial publishers. In addition to that, Idaibon was a mathematics book which had only problems without answers. The term "Idai" has been used since Edo era. And in early Edo era the word "Konomi" was used. I think it is possible that Idaibon Jinkōki was written by YOSHIDA Mitsuyoshi himself and published by SUMIKURA. Jinkōki published by YASUDA is a similar book of Jinkōki published in 1627(*the 4th year of Kan'ei ) and 1631(*the 8th year of Kan'ei). I think that Jinkōki by TENNŌJIYA is so-called "atozuri" later edition. It was reprinted original Idaibon Jinkōki after about 100 years. NISHIMURA Matazaemon published Jinkōki in 1643 based on Idaibon Jinkōki. There were misprint and miscalculate. But it became reference of after ages and similar books were reprinted. When I review Jinkōki in term of publisher, I am able to analyze differently. In this paper, I investigated Jinkōki in term publisher. Until now, TENNŌJIYA Jinkōki has not received any attention or investigation. I found that the TNNŌJIYA Jinkōki had been the same as the original Idaibon Jinkōki. However, it turned out that the Jinkōki by TENNŌJIYA had been republished about 100 years after original Idaibon Jinkōki., Study of the History of Mathematics 2019. September 2-4, 2019. edited by Naoki Osada. The papers presented in this volume of RIMS Kôkyûroku Bessatsu are in final form and refereed.

The first edition of Jinkoki 塵劫記 published in the 4^{th} year of Kan'ei 寛永4年, 1627, and it has a lot of riddles. The author thinks that YOSHIDA Mitsuyoshi (吉田光由 ) did not involve in this edition directly because the 1627 edition has no YOSHIDA's signature and seal of "Kao" 花押.In other hand, the 8^{th} and 11^{th} year of Kan'ei editions of Jinkoki, had them. Moreover the 4^{th} year of Kan'ei edition of Jinkokirevises them with black at the postscript. Originally there were publisher's names in that place. It is quite possible that YOSHIDA Mitsuyoshi had nothing to do with this publication and its publisher's name was hidden. The publication year of Jinkokiprinted by old wood block 古活字版, SUGITA's Jinkoki 杉田版塵劫記 and 5 volume edition of Jinkoki 五巻本塵劫記 are unknown yet, although they are old edition and are important. As medical doctor, SUGITA Ryoan Gen'yo 杉田良庵玄与 closely related to YOSHIDA Mitsuyoshi through MANASE 曲直瀬family. So SUGITA's Jinkoki is a matter of great importance. The edition the 9^{th} year of Kan'ei edition Jinkoki 寛永9年版塵劫記 in 1632, was published by the name of NAKANO Ichiuemon 中野市右衛門, which is similar with the 5 volume edition of Jinkoki similar publication. But NAKANO was famous publisher in Kyoto, it must be the false edition., "The study of the history of mathematics 2018". September 18-21, 2018. edited by Shigeru Jochi. The papers presented in this volume of RIMS Kôkyûroku Bessatsu are in final form and refereed.

本稿は、他者の包摂をうたう多文化主義思想において他者性が認められない逆説的状況を問題化し、批判的人類学の挑戦がこうした多文化主義思想の限界を批判し乗り越えていくために生かせることを主張する。この仕事は、「異質な他者といかに関係を築くか」という問いに応じるために異なる知の領域同士の生産的な協働をはかる、というより大きな研究プロジェクトの一部をなす。この試みの一環として、本稿は人類学的批判理論家ガッサン・ハージの研究を再構成する。多文化主義に対する鋭い批判で知られるハージは、他者の排斥-包含の連続性を理論的に解明するとともに、この一組の統治機構にとらわれない社会関係を探究してきた。この探究に生かされるのが、自己とは根本的に異なる他者性を知ろうとする人類学の営為である。ハージはこの批判的人類学の営為に、異質な他者との別様な関係構築法を探る方途を見出す。本稿は「飼いならし」という鍵概念を軸に、乖離するかにみえる彼の多文化主義批判と批判的人類学を接続する。最後にハージの議論に対する疑問を検討するなかで、彼の、そして本稿の議論の位置づけが明示される。自他の区分を前提とする立論は、そもそも両者の明瞭な区分などできず、その前提自体が人々のあいだに不要な分断を持ち込んでいるのではないか、と問われうる。本稿はこうした疑問を受け止めつつも、自他が暴力的に分け隔てられる政治的状況が議論の背景にあることを再確認する。そのうえでハージの批判的人類学、とくにその多現実論が提起する多元性のとらえなおしが、多文化主義思想の隈界を超えていこうとする批判理論の再出発点を示していると主張する。, This article problematizes a paradoxical situation whereby otherness is disavowed in multiculturalist thought, which promotes inclusion of others, and argues that a critical anthropology perspective can contribute to critiquing and going beyond such limitation of multiculturalist thought. This work is part of a larger research project aimed at establishing a field of creative collaboration among different spheres of knowledge in order to respond to the question: How can we build relations with different others? As an approach to that goal, the article reconstitutes the study of anthropological critical theorist Ghassan Hage. Hage, who is known for his trenchant critique of multiculturalism, has not only clarified theoretically the continuity of exclusion-containment of others but has a l so searched for social relations that are not imprisoned in this set of governmental apparatus. It is an anthropological approach to know fundamentally different otherness that is activated in this search. By adopting a critical anthropological perspective, Hage finds an approach to alternative ways of building relations with others. This essay articulates his seemingly distant critique of multiculturalism and critical anthropology, finding a key concept of "domestication" as the point of articulation. Finally, in examining the question against Hage's arguments, the positionality of these arguments and my argument is made clear. Arguments which presuppose a distinction between self and other can be questioned as follows: Is there such a clear distinction as it is? Is it not the case that such presupposition itself gives rise to needless divisions among people? While recognizing that question, the essay reconfirms that, in the background of the arguments, there are political situations whereby "we" and "they" are violently divided. It concludes that the critical anthropology of Hage, especially its multi-realities theory which suggests a reconceptualization of multiplicity, highlights a restarting point for critical theory which struggles to go beyond the limitation of multiculturalist thought.