E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 3, 2018

Summary Report on the Symposium

Nobuo FUJIKAWA
Osaka University
Satoshi TANAKAThe University of Tokyo

1. Summary of the Symposium “The Future of Inquiry into Human Beings” andReport Outlines
Reports on the symposium’s topic were submitted from three different research fields:
primatology, anthropology and philosophy of education. Speakers included professor
Juichi Yamagiwa, president of Kyoto University, who has conducted his research ongorillas in the field of primatology, professor Naoki Kasuga of Hitotsubashi University,
who has led the “ontological turn” of anthropology and its further development in Japan,
and professor Satoji Yano of Kyoto University from the field of philosophy of education(titles omitted below).
Yamagiwa calls for a reinvestigation of the incest taboo, which has been thought tobe peculiar to human beings and which as shaped the characteristics of human society.
He suggests this via focusing on the relation between physical characteristics and social
structure to seek out the reason for incest avoidance observed in primate society.
Kasuga’s critical consideration of the Ida ritual of the Umeda people in Papua New
Guinea as analyzed by anthropologist Algred Gell, presents the possibility of an“asymmetric and bidirectional analogy” between the two fields of everyday life and ritual.
Thereby, he also presents a possibility to transform today’s anthropology since theadvocacy of the “ontological turn” into what can be called “ontology” in the original
sense beyond an anthropology that “follows the natural sciences blindly” (for example
anthropology of Algred Gell or Victor Turner).
Employing a critical anthropological perspective, which launches a re-inquiry intoSummary Report on the Symposium

13

what makes human beings human, Yano traces back the intersection point between
primatology and anthropology to Jean-Jaques Rousseau, and points out the importanceof “self-consciously staying on the borderline of the binary opposition” of humanbeings/animals, culture/nature, and adult/child. Here, the task of education is thetransmission of the proper art of “how to close or open” this borderline.

2. Outline of Discussion
The discussion following these presentations included a Q&A session first between
presenters and then between presenters and the floor.
The first question by Kasuga was directed at Yamagiwa: How can primatology
explain the “neither distant nor near“ relationship with exchange partners in exchange
and marriage relations within “primary” human society? Yamagiwa’s answer: Unlike
other Primates, the relationship with one’s descent group is maintained even after
marriage in the case of human families and communities, and this functions as bond
between different groups. At the same time, “cross cousin marriage” is located on theboundary between cutting and keeping of the relationship with descent group. Kasuga
also asked if and to what extent it is possible to talk about early human beings by drawing
analogies to chimpanzee troops. To this question Yamagiwa answered that it is impossible
to talk about early human beings by drawing analogies to chimpanzee society, becausemonogamic society comes from society where notable swelling of sex skin is notobserved whereas this physical characteristic is notably observed in chimpanzee society
characterized by promiscuous sexual-marriage relationship. Yano asked Yamagiwa to tellhis views on the difference between learning and education from the perspective ofprimatology. Yamagiwa’s answer was that in order for education to take place, certain
behaviors need to be displayed: educator and educand understanding the knowledge
disparity between them and the educator teaching the educand even if it leads to loss of
his/her own profit. According to Yamagiwa, such behaviors may have developed in theevolution process of human beings because of an over-development of our ability tosympathize with others.
Next, questions were directed at Kasuga. Yamagiwa asked him on his views on thelimits of our ability to merely use visible things (as base-analog) in analogy, or theasymmetry between invisible and visible things in analogy. Kasuga suggested that naturalsciences are thought to search for patterns (visible things), whereas human and social
sciences take up intention (invisible things). But in fact both of them are connected to
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 3, 2018

14N. FUJIKAWA AND S. TANAKA

each other: Similar to researchers in the human and social sciences, a physicist sees whathe/she intends to see and understand what he/she intends to understand. Yamagiwa also
asked Kasuga why symbols do not remain at the level of simple analogy in rituals, butrather are extended toward flamboyant decoration. Also, what meaning does this have forhuman beings? As to this question, Kasuga gave his opinion in reference to Gregory
Bateson supposing that play sets the logical level in a different, meta-, or excess
dimension. Human culture’s characteristic of extending analogy in this way comes fromsuch play.
Then, Yano asked Kasuga whether an anthropologist as an observer of the Ida-ritual,
which establishes a passageway and traffic between the world of everyday life and theworld of ritual by analogy, adds another layer of analogy from the outside. As to thisquestion, Kasuga gave the example of anthropologist Marilyn Strathern. Strathernattempted to save anthropology out of the so-called “crisis of representation” into whichanthropology had fallen in the 1970s by adding one analogy to another and thereby also
trying to describe the chain movement of analogy in observation targets. Yano also asked
Kasuga how the possibility for human beings to understand other cultures is explainedby the analogy concept. As a response, Kasuga mentioned that anthropology has
attempted to represent local knowledge on the one hand, and tried analogy on the other
hand in order to understand other cultures. Marcel Mauss made one such attempt in his
article “The Gift”. Here, Mauss tried to make invisible things visible by means of analogy,using broad concepts of “gift” and “money” – concepts, which might not even exist
within target populations.
Finally, questions were asked for Yano’s presentation. Kasuga, citing ‘The Lives ofAnimals’ in John Maxwell Coetzee’s novel “Elizabeth Costello”, asked Yano about hisviews on the dangers accompanying the crossing of the boundary to de-humanizing.
Yano replied to this with reference to his own previous studies on animal picture books.
Acknowledging differences between feral child, feral man and savage, who are locatedat the boundary between human and non-human, and the inherent violence that lurks indiscussing them all together, Yano explained that it is his attempt to make an inquiry into
commonalities and issues which do not come into view until we dare to discuss themunder the common theme of ‘boundary line’. Then, Yamagiwa cited Junichiro Itani’s“Discourse on Equality” in which he criticizes Rousseau’s feral man having no influence
from others and asserts an evolutionary stream from ‘original equality’ through‘transcendental inequality’ to ‘conditional equality’. He asked Yano about his opinion onsuch thought that human beings are unequal with regard to their bodily properties, butalso have directionality to produce equal society by adding a variety of conditions
Symposium: The Future of Inquiry into Human Beings: In Search for Contact Points between Primatology,
Anthropology, and Philosophy of Education

Summary Report on the Symposium

15(observed even in play of Japanese macaque). To this Yano remarked that he did not givehis presentation along Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” and suggested theimportance of reconsidering the way of connection from animal world to human worldalong Itani’s argument. Further, Yamagiwa pointed out that Yano did not discuss sexuality,
despite it being one of the important conditions for society’s construction, as well as oneof the important moments of boundary crossing between child and adult. Yano admitted
that Yamagiwa’s comment positively “shocked” him, recognizing that unlike adults whointeract with children every day, the tradition of philosophical and pedagogical thought(except for Sigmund Freud and others in his line of thought) has regarded and excluded
sexuality as animal affair.
Moderator Tanaka asked if “sympathy”, which Yamagiwa mentioned in hisexplanation of the difference between learning and teaching, is a sort of analogy.
Yamagiwa answered that it is analogy, which is carried out “in a temporal gap”. This
analogy is formed by either the teacher or the person taught on the basis of the image ofthe latter’s grown-up condition. Further, Tanaka asked both Yamagiwa and Kasuga ifanalogy (analogia) between creature and “invisible” god has been taken into
consideration in primatology and anthropology. Yamagiwa expressed the following
view: Since human beings have come to control the night by use of fire and mutuallycommunicate analogical illusions created in the night’s darkness by means of symbols
including language and gesture, they acquired an ability to express something like god
which does not exist in reality. Kasuga suggested as his imagination the possibility thatto feel someone’s intention in the night darkness and an adult pointing a finger to call achild’s attention to something are related to each other. In addition, Yano pointed out theimportance of inventing various ways to draw boundary lines, especially since Europeanand American thought based on monotheism has drawn clear, uncrossable boundary lines
between god/human/animal, whereas in Japan the crossing between the three has been
regarded as possible. Tanaka asked further whether the Japanese way of drawing
boundary lines and Rousseau’s “pity of all living beings” (handout, p.7) overlap. Yanosuggested the possibility of a new way of thinking by returning to “St. Paul’s Christianity”
as a classical source of “cosmopolitanism” (handout, p.6) and start a re-inquiry as to its
importance, which is different from Henri-Louis Bergson, who extended the thought of“cosmopolitanism” and reconsidered its possibility, no matter whether that can be called
Japanese way of thinking. Further, Yamagiwa asked Yano how pedagogy understands
our current state of transition in which science and technology change the ways of
producing human life and thereby have the potential to make the realm of sexuality,
which has been regarded as important for society’s construction, more ambiguous. As toE-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 3, 2018

16

N. FUJIKAWA AND S. TANAKA

this question, Yano suggested the necessity to cross swords with the dimension ofreligious thought and to accept knowledge of advancements in leading fields of scienceand technology to contrive various teaching tools according to learners’ growth stages,
because it is religion that has dealt with questions on the boundary line between life anddeath as well as between before-birth and birth.
Following the panelists’ discussion, the discussion was opened up to the floor.
Itakura (Waseda University) pointed out the following three points: First, those whodiscussed the boundary line between animality and humanity in the eighteenth century towhich Yano pays attention attempted to destroy the realistic meaning and importance ofChristianity, and were situated within dynamics between god, human, and animal,
because they thought that unsettling the boundary line between human and animal would
lead to an unsettling of the boundary line between human and god. Second, in relation to
the problematique which Yamagiwa pointed out concerning Yano’s argument, despitesexuality being the most important theme in and after the fourth chapter of “Emile”, thatis in its two thirds, pedagogy established in academism in response to teacher training in
the nineteenth century has interpreted and used this book by ignoring most of this part.
Third, Rousseau’s theory of “great cosmopolitan souls” is located within the context of
his criticism of the lost of ability to sympathize with other’s pain among large parts ofpeople in society in those days and therefore understanding this as aim just as Yano didleads to an overvaluation of Rousseau.
Yamagiwa’s response to Itakura was that in his opinion eighteenth century
discussions of natural law centered on how humans, not god, are able to create society
within the natural law. Therefore, not only god but also animals did not appear there. Also,with regards to the issue of sexuality, Yamagiwa expressed his opinion that sexuality
occupied a very important position in “Emile” in relation to “telling lies”. After that, Yano
explained that he took up the theory of “great cosmopolitan souls” with reference to thecontext which he developed in the second half of his presentation.
Then, Atsushi Suzuki (Oita University) asked Yamagiwa for his opinion on the ideathat the animal world is in principle characterized by high birth and death rates, whereas
in the human world fecundity became useless due to advancements in science andtechnology, so that also in education as well as pedagogy a discourse on considering
human maturity (adulthood) as intellectual maturity instead of sexual maturity wasproduced. To this, Yamagiwa presented his opinion that if machines could substitutesexually mature bodies for reproduction, the physicality of human beings would
gradually become insignificant (even though we do not know how this might changetaboos). This could lead to discrimination against those who have not reached certain
Symposium: The Future of Inquiry into Human Beings: In Search for Contact Points between Primatology,
Anthropology, and Philosophy of Education

Summary Report on the Symposium

17levels of intellectual development, but it could also lead to feedback of our physicality.

3. Summary
The fact that Japanese primatology started with the application of sociological methods
to Primates research and that findings from Primatology have given sociological research
new suggestions makes us realize that the history of these disciplines is one example of“asymmetric and bidirectional analogy” (Kasuga). Also, in the parts on primate society
analysis in his books, Yamagiwa conducts a careful search for “patterns” by paying
attention to many exceptions, and develops daring opinions in those sections that discuss
human society. Could this be an expression of his “intention” toward analogy, whichcrosses the boundary line between animal and human? Further, the connection between
Yano’s argument of “self-consciously staying on the boundary line of the binary
opposition between human and non-human beings” and Kasuga’s argument of“asymmetric and bidirectional analogy” is very strong. We can also see this from thematerial, which Yano distributed entitled “Personification and Contra-Personification as
Subjects of Thought concerning Boundary Line”.
As mentioned at the beginning of this symposium, its purpose was to “provide achance to take an academic deep breath through knowing new tendencies in humansciences adjacent to pedagogy”. The topic contained the risk of dispersing the discussion,
but it was in large measure thanks to the presenters’ thoughtful attention to theme
selection that the discussion was focused on some central topics. Especially, theproceeding of the symposium benefitted largely from Yano’s discussion of points ofintersection between primatology, anthropology and pedagogy in the first half of thesymposium. Allow us to use this opportunity to offer our thanks to the presenters.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 3, 2018