A Study for Unstableness and Nonexistence of Spirit : a case of Nat Worship in Burma

セイレイ ノ ジツザイ ヲ メグル フカクテイセイ ト ヒ ジツザイセイ ノ ケンキュウ ノタメノ イチコウサツ ビルマ ノ ナッ シンコウ ノ バアイ

ヤマモト, アヤコ

Yamamoto, Ayako

オオサカ ダイガク ダイガクイン ニンゲン カガク ケンキュウカ シャカイガク ニンゲンガク ジンルイガク ケンキュウシツ

Sociology, Anthropology and Philosophy, Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University

不確定性

非実在性

信念

コミュニケーション空間

Nat

unstableness

nonexistence

belief

the communication space

Conventional studies about Nat worship said people in Burma believed in and worship Nat. However most of the people in Burma aren’t sure of or deny the very existence of Nat. Firstly This paper points out the gap between the recognition toward Nat worship that conventional studies have treated and assumed and one that people in Burma usually have. In this paper I examined three conventional arguments, that is, psychological analysis by Spiro, analysis from social function by Nash, symbolical analysis by Tamura. We can understand this gap from the idea of communication space by Hamamoto, a Japanese anthropologist, who studies possibility of description of other’s belief in anthropological studies. Hamamoto argued that a description by an anthroplogist ‘They believe S.” means that he or she judges S won’t be recognized as true in communication space in which he or she belongs to. On the contrary an anthropologist describe other’s practice as “They know P.” when he or she judges P will be recognized as true in communication space in which the speaker belongs to. From this argument, returning to the unstableness and nonexistence of Spirit, anthropologists haven’t described such recognition as belief. Practices described as belief are supposed to be questioned because of the nature of incomprehensibleness. That explains why anthropologists have treated only people who believe in and worship Nat and ignore people who regard Nat as something unstable or nonexistence.