Developing and Systematizing Death and Life Studies

Masao Tachibana (Dean of Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology/Faculty of Letters, Psychology/ Visual Neuroscience)

The G l o b a l C en t e r o f Ex c e l l e n c eProgram, “Development and Systematization ofDeath and Life Studies (DALS)” builds on theresults of the 21st Century COE Program,

“ Construction of Death and Life Studiesconcerning Culture and Value of Life” (2002-2006). The aim of the 21st Century Program wasto compare views about life and death in the pastand present, East and West, and by taking intoaccount theoretical studies about valuesconcerning life and death, to seek answers to themyriad issues that arise on the ground whereclinical medicine and medical care are performedand where life and death come to the forefront inmodern society. In so doing we have developedand formed a cutting-edge line of inquiry whichwe believe has met the highest internationalstandards. The team of scholars and youngresearchers from the Graduate School ofHumanities and Sociology led by ProfessorSusumu Shimazono, gained familiarity withresearch being done in the Graduate Schools ofMedicine and Education and deepened theirinterchanges with practicioners on the groundinvolved in patient care and medical treatment.Their enthusiasm and energy have helped carveout the new academic field of Death and LifeStudies. In April 2007, the Uehiro Chair on DALSwas established as part of the Center for EvolvingHumanities, set up by a grant from the UehiroFoundation on Ethics and Education, under thecharge of Professor Tetsuro Shimizu and HiroshiYamazaki, lecturer. This has functioned to promotefurther the success of the 21st Century COEProgram. The high marks received by the DALSproject has led to its being selected for the GlobalCenter of Excellence (G-COE) Program,

“Development and Systematization of Death andLife Studies (DALS)” in 2007. The Program'scentral aims will be the further development ofDALS and the training of young researchers.

W e h a v e d e c i d e d o n t h e E ng l i s htranslation of “Death and Life Studies” ratherthan the more commonly used “Thanatology”because our program is not concerned only withdeath. DALS looks directly at issues arising fromthe cutting-edge of Life Science and fromcontemporary practical clinical medicine, such asgene therapy, regenerative medicine, AssistedReproductive Technology (ART), cloningtechnology, anti-aging medicine, and terminal care.However, it is unsurprising that there should beinconsistencies between the (still unformed)concepts of life and death according to the rapidlyexpanding fields of Life Science and Medicine andthe common-sense understanding about themdeveloped by human beings over the centuries.Even with the enormous amount of knowledge

that is being accumulated, we remain ignorantabout the dramatic emergence of material being,life, and consciousness; modern Life Science is stillasking how life was created from matter andneuroscience cannot even explain consciousness.Under these circumstances, there is no meaning inquestioning which is superior, the “old-fashioned”humanities or modern science. With thedevelopment of DALS, it is necessary to tackle in adown-to-earth way the task of clarifying theconceptual differences between the two.

How the concepts of life and death areunderstood differs vastly according to civilizationand culture. In clarifying these differences it isextremely important that we engage in academicexchanges with countries not only in Europe andAmerica but in Asia as well. I am delightedtherefore that this program will include shortresearch trips abroad for young scholars.

Rather than trying to understand “Life andDeath” or “Death and Life” as temporaryphenomena marking the beginning and ending oflife, we have to come back to the question askedby the Humanities and Social Sciences, “What is ahuman being?” if we want to comprehend thebroader question, “How should we live our lives?”Hence we must attempt to deepen ourunderstanding of the meaning of both life anddeath, through an active interchange betweenDALS and the traditional Hhumanities and SocialSciences. Also essential in this is dialogue with thefields of philosophy, ethics, and law over ethicaland legal issues arising out of current practices. Inthis sense, the development of DALS through theGraduate School of Humanities and Sociology isclosely concerned, not only with connectionsbetween other graduate schools at the universityand society, but with the way we expect theHumanities and Social Sciences to grow in thenext generation. I have great hopes for the healthydevelopment of this program as it tackles thesediversified and important issues.

2

What is DALS?

Initiating the Global Center of Excellence “Development and Systematization of Death and Life

Studies (DALS)” Program

Susumu Shimazono (Leader of the COE Program, Professor, Graduate School of theHumanities and Sociology, Religious Studies)

Death and Life Studies (DALS) is a new fieldof study. It seeks first of all to be a point of linkagebetween medicine and the humanities and socialsciences. Modern hospitals have to expend a lot ofcare on patients facing death, yet they do notreally know how to, being familiar only withmodern medicine based on the natural scienceapproach. The Hospice movement has made rapidstrides in the west since the 1960s, encouragingeducation and research into thanatology in orderbetter to meet the needs of both patients and theirfamilies.

At the same time, though, a number of ethicalissues have arisen concerning bioethics. Organtransplantation, in vitro fertilization, and geneticdiagnosis are all possible, greatly increasing thefeasibility for people to realize their desires bysurmounting difficulties that were unconquerablein the past. However, as medical treatmentbecomes more and more potent, we have to askourselves the difficult question whether we needat some point to draw a line on its intervention.This has meant that ethical judgments based onhow life and death are to be understood are nowbeing asked routinely of those working in clinicalmedicine and medical research.

Concerns have been raised demanding thateducational institutions conduct “death education”to instruct children about respect for life. Certainly,modern people have lost sight of the need toconfront death, and seem to be bewildered by it.Funerary rites and the burial system have beenchanging rapidly in recent years and people areperplexed. Disputes have erupted too overmemorial services and mourning. The relationshipbetween the living and the dead varies accordingto culture, and this is a fact strongly recognizedtoday. Also, since life and death are the reverseand obverse of the same coin, it is a concern ofDALS to think about issues related to how we facethe critical events of life, such as conception andbirth, as well as illness and old age.

But DALS is more than simply questionsabout how such crises are tackled. It cannot avoidthe basic human questions of what is life and whatis the meaning of life and death. While for themoment we are linking DALS to practical ,contemporary issues, we need also to study thephilosophies and religions of both East and West,of the past as well as the present, in order topursue a new method of understanding. It isimportant for us to inquire again into thephilosophical and ideological dimensions of themodern, new scientific knowledge regarding viewsabout life and evolution. Issues revolving aroundenvironmental ethics and the relationship betweenhuman beings and animal and plant life, andpractical philosophical questions about war and

punishment are also part of its area of concern.As early as 1904 a book called “Views of

Death and Life” (Shiseikan) was published inJapan, and so in one sense Japan led the West inresearch into life and death. Under the influence ofWestern culture at the time, there was a strongconsciousness of how East Asians, and theJapanese, viewed life and death. Today peoplefrom all parts of the world are seeking to confrontthese new conditions by comparing varying viewsabout these issues.

Such were the circumstances under whichthe Graduate School of Humanities and Sociologyat the University of Tokyo instigated in 2002, withthe cooperation of the Faculties of Medicine andEducation among others, the 21st Century COEProgram, “Construction of Death and Life Studies( D A L S ) . ” T h e G l o b a l C O E P r o g r a m ,

“Development and Systematization of Death andLife Studies (DALS),” scheduled to run from 2007to spring 2012, will be based on this project,emphasizing the systematization of a strongeducational and research program with the aim ofdeveloping a new field of study and educatingyoung researchers in it. It thus has a heavyresponsibility as the second stage of the Universityof Tokyo DALS project.

I have already mentioned that this secondstage is regarded as the developmental andsystematization phase of the project, building onthe “construction” phase of the first stage, and inorder to secure the long-term growth of DALS,there are a number of topics that should beaddressed. Three in particular stand out: (1)comparative research into the culture of life anddeath; (2) theoretical and philosophical inquiry into

3

the ethics and actuality of life and death; and (3)how to apply DALS in modern, practical terms tothe humanities. Regarding the first two points,DALS seeks a specific direction of research inorder to develop, based on the accumulation ofresults gained from previous education andresearch conducted by the Graduate School ofHumanities and Sociology. The aim is to describe anew horizon by bringing together non-Westerntraditions with theoretical and cultural studies onthe theme of life and death undertaken throughthe initiative of Western thought and scholarship.Calling what is known in the West as DeathStudies or Thanatology “Death and Life Studies”suggests a way that this new horizon may bedrawn. The third topic involves a large number ofnew concerns for the Graduate School ofHumanities and Sociology, since they involveactive issues about practical care, meeting theneeds of patients facing death, people saying theirgoodbyes to the dying, those who wish to be withthe dying, those who are feeling the pressure oflife and death crises and decisions, and those whocare [i.e., medical care] for all of these people. DALSthus seeks an interchange with on-the-groundmedical treatment, education, and care. Theexample of palliative care for cancer patients is acase in point. In particular, there should becontinuing education for those working at the fore-front of treatment. DALS should consider what itcan contribute to society from the study ofhumanities, while learning a great deal from theactual issues which the Faculty of Medicine andpeople in charge of medical treatment in theuniversity face in their work. There is the prospecttoo that such studies will revitalize these fields ofscholarship.

As we move from Stage 1 to Stage 2 of theProgram, we would like to stress the followingtwo points: (1) putting serious effort into educatingand training young scholars, and (2) deepeningscholarly interchange with other regions of Asia.First, we want to stimulate the participation ofyoung researchers and graduate students inconstructing academic knowledge concerningDALS, taking seriously into account the kind ofhuman resources society needs. We will create, orlook for possibilities of doing so, DALS as a newspecialist field of academic knowledge,contributing at the same time to the strengtheningof traditional specialist knowledge. We will alsoaim to communicate our research results throughpublic relations activities in foreign languages.Second, there is a clear indication that there is agrowing interest in DALS in China and Korea. Atthe same time, we will of course continue ourresearch exchanges with Western countries andseek to expand them further. Our aim is tocontribute to the development of DALS on a globalscale, taking into consideration the situation inIslamic countries and in the various regions ofAsia.

I am not optimistic that we will be able toachieve in five years a complete blueprint for thefuture of DALS. Forming and bringing tocompletion a new field of study necessitates a longperiod of time and the efforts of a great manypeople. However, we will work to create a roughsketch for the long term development of DALS inthe time allocated to us. Despite these limitations, Ihope we will be able to form a field of study andan approach to scholarly exchange, that are newon a global scale, and that DALS will become onesmall wellspring to revitalize global society.

4

DALS: A Developing Framework Training Scholars for International Engagement

Points of Contact - Death and Life Studies and

Cancer Treatment

Keiichi Nakagawa (Director, Department of Palliative Medicine, the University of Tokyo Hospital)

Having lost their contact with nature andreligious faith while enjoying a rapid increase in lifeexpectancy, today's Japanese appear to be under theillusion that they will never die. It is true that in urbanlife, death appears nonexistent as a daily-lifephenomenon, and is absent even from people's thoughts.Death eventually comes to everyone, but now 95percent of Japanese people die isolated in hospitals,making the death of others something most people nolonger experience with their senses. Our country nolonger engages in war or requires military service, sothe image we now associate most directly with death iscancer. Cancer is very much our era's “memento mori.”

Very simply put, cancer can be thought of asthe aging of cells, and as the Japanese are the mostlong-lived people in the world, they also suffer fromcancer more than any other nation. In fact, one out ofevery 2 Japanese people will contract cancersometime in their lives. However, for those under theillusion that they will not die, cancer－that lonereminder of death－is seen exclusively as somethingthat happens to other people, never to oneself. Theresult is that Japanese people's knowledge andattitudes regarding cancer and Japan's system ofmedical treatment for cancer are remarkablybackward among the industrialized countries.

This can be observed most particularly in theimbalance between curing and caring for cancerpatients. The overall mood among both patients andmedical staff is that death equals defeat and is the worstpossible outcome that must be avoided; this situation intreatment facilities can be expressed diagrammaticallyas “cure >> care.” However, “chi-yu,” the Japaneseword for “healing,” is made up of two Chinesecharacters; taken singly they are used for the verbs

“naosu,” meaning “cure” and also “iyasu,” meaning“care.” This in fact illustrates that the duty of alldoctors and nurses in all medical institutions is to bothcure and care for patients.

For incurable cancer patients and patients withpain or other severe conditions, in the United Statesand Europe the main thrust of treatment involves aholistic approach that aims to make both the mentaland physical suffering of patients and familymembers more bearable, and this has given rise tothe concept of palliative care. This approach has itsorigins in the Christian spirit of the European MiddleAges, which prompted the establishment ofhospitium (a term from which the words “hotel”and “hospital” arose), places for taking care ofpilgrims, the sick and the poor.

By contrast, the element most lacking inJapan's system of cancer treatment is palliative care.An emblematic example is the issue of dealing withcancer pain. Mitigating cancer pain is the mostimportant task performed in palliative care, and themain method used is to administer morphine or othersimilar drugs as medicine. Most people have a

negative image of morphine as an addictive drug, butthe method used to relieve people in pain is safe andwithout risk of addiction. The amounts of morphineused in Japan are about one seventh of the amountsused in Canada and Australia, and about one fourthof those used in the United States and France －Japan uses the lowest levels of morphine of anyindustrialized nation.

If we look at all the opioid drugs includingmorphine and related compounds, the levels used inJapan are lower than the world average - as low as onetwentieth of what is used in the US. In other words,patients in Japan have to suffer that much more severepain. However, at present, patients who are without painbecause they are given appropriate treatment withmorphine or other pain medications in fact tend to livelonger. Naturally enough, they can take nourishment andget some sleep, but for some reason it is still difficult todispel morphine's evil image. Could this be because of thesame “cure >> care” mindset? Far from prolonging lifeeven for a short time, increasing the duration of sufferingin fact shortens life. The recent transformation ofJapanese attitudes towards death and life is resulting inactual harm to patients undergoing treatment for cancer.

To begin with, the close link between cancertreatment and Death and Life Studies is clear in the corecurriculum for the faculty of medicine in Japaneseuniversities drawn up by the Ministry of Education,Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, as shown inthe treatment of Life and Death Studies quoted below.

Objectives Relating to Human Death

1) Ability to explain the concept of death, how the factof death is established, and individual biological death.

2) Ability to conceptualize the basic principles of Deathand Life Studies.

3) Ability to explain how to care for family members inthe case of death.

4) Ability to explain the concepts of dying with dignityand euthanasia.

5) Ab i l i ty to exp la in the d i f ference between avegetative state and brain death.

I have recently been privileged to join the GlobalCOE “Development and Systematization of Death andLife Studies” research group; in fact, one of myobjectives when I started working on palliative care inThe University of Tokyo Hospital was to promoteresearch on death in every department of TheUniversity of Tokyo. In the future, the COE programwill also emphasize putting the lessons of liberal artsstudies into practice in actual, present-day situations, andso this represents a dream come true for me. I lookforward to further expansion of contact between COEand the field of cancer treatment, and a dynamic processof development in which liberal arts and medicine willbe stimulating one another.

5

6

Death and Life Studies and the Humanities

Masahiro Shimoda (Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Indian Philosophy)

The give-and-take involved in starting aninquiry is somehow like the process of creating alife. It is inter-generational, inter-sexual, andrequires the presence as well as the collaborationof others. Moreover, the life that emerges,whatever it may be, is something brand newcreated by the participants. It is the same when aninquiry is started, as there is the side that conveysthe initial inquiry and the side that takes it in, andwhen the inquiry is jointly engaged in andfollowed-up with persistence, something new isborn out of this cooperative effort.

When an inquiry has been conveyed andjoint work on it is to begin, the object of thisinquiry does not have to be clearly outlined beforebeing handed over to one's partner in this process.Rather, the receiving party must be givenconsideration so it can be the one to establish aframework. Such inquiries do not existindependently, but in the context of the inquirer.It's not unusual for the subject of the inquiry totransform with the progress of the study. Howeverif the inquiry is to continue to be effective, it doesnot depend upon the immutability of the object ofthe question to be consistent; rather, it depends onthe persistence of the inquirer. As long as theinquirer continues to have a strong desire topursue the matter, even if the subject of theinquiry is not obvious at the start, or if it changesover time, the previously unknown subjectultimately emerges in a distinct shape according tothe inquirer's interests and academic stance.

The field of Death and Life Studies thathas emerged within the field of humanities has noprecedent as a form of inquiry, and it remains asubject with an unknown profile. Revealing thenature of what Death and Life Studies actually isinvolves nothing short of giving birth to it. Thehumanities have the power to make Death andLife Studies into an academic inquiry, and wemust work to have it sprout deep within thehumanities and grow as much as possible. What isnecessary at this point is not for Death and LifeStudies to determine its own profile and pass thison to the humanities, but rather that it remains theobject of inquiry by the humanities and continuesto be sought. In this way, Death and Life Studiescan find its own identity in the context of itsrelationship with the humanities. The realization ofa true inquiry that brings to light something thatlay hidden inside the inquiry and is not simply apseudo-inquiry in which the answers have alreadybeen determined beforehand depends on theinquirer. If Death and Life Studies are to be a trueinquiry the humanities have to take on the role ofinquirer in order to determine the framework.

Death and Life Studies did not necessarilycome into being through a demand from within

the humanities. Instead, the humanities havereceived “questions” from the outside fromseveral different quarters, due to such things asthe pressing issues surrounding medical care,nursing and caregiving, and rapid changes inattitudes toward death and life due to changes intechnology and society. One major role of Deathand Life Studies is to act as a bridge betweenthose who need answers and those who canfurnish them.

The traditional academic discipline of thehumanities is not accustomed to problemsoriginating from the outside. The humanities haveaccepted the externally driven question of Deathand Life Studies with sensitivity; for it to flourishwithin the humanities it must be cultivated withcare. We in the humanities, in response to these

“questions” from a place unheard of before, mustnurture this embryo within our own field, a tinyimage held out in front of us, and give birth to adistinct and new concept. It is inconceivable thatthe humanities would not show an interest inissues relating to death and life. Indeed, the variousdisciplines of the humanities already carry withinthem an awareness of the issues that cause thedevelopment of Death and Life Studies. If deathand life studies, as the kernel of an inquiry fromthe outside, are transplanted into this womb withgreat care, the humanities will nurture Death andLife Studies and incubate them; I am certain thehumanities will have the power to give birth to anew life from within its own interior, and this willtransform them into an even stronger existence.

Published Matters by DALS Project

7

Random Thoughts

Sumihiko Kumano (Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Ethics)

On weekends I usually go shopping withmy wife. Since we are a so-called working couple,we go shopping to buy food for the week. On thetop floor of our nearby shopping center there's apet store that sells small animals such as rabbitsand hamsters in addition to dogs, cats, and smallbirds. When we go shopping, we first go up to thatfloor to spend a little time looking at the animals.At the beginning, my wife liked the dogs while Imyself preferred the cats and birds, but these dayswe stop exclusively at the rabbits and hamsters.Week after week, we invariably have the sameconversation.

“They're cute, aren't they?”“Yes, they're so cute.”“There's such a thing as a ‘cute size' for livingthings, isn't there?”

“Oh yes, these are just the perfect cute size!”“Should we buy a pet?”“Should we?”“Well...”

The conversation always ends the sameway.

“But we're not home very much, and it wouldn't befair to them.”

“And also…”“Also…”“…They'd die so soon.”“Yes, and it would be heartbreaking to have themdie."

Without fail, we have the same conversation.When you've been married for 20 years, that'swhat happens. We sometimes think that if we hada child, we'd probably buy a hamster for him orher. Even though when the hamster died, the childwould certainly cry a lot. But even so…It would begood for a child to experience such things as well.It would be good for him (or her) to experience thelife cycle of an animal first-hand, to see itsbeginning, living with it, and taking care of it,following its ups and downs until the time its lifeis no more.

＊

Every person has only one individual life tolive. Yet nobody remembers being born, and at thetime of our own deaths none of us can witnessthat final moment, nor can we know what comesafter we depart this life. Yet our own lives cannotbegin until we are born into this world, and theycan only be complete when we die. Thus we're notable to witness or fully know the entire span ofour own lives. Perhaps it is fair to say that Death

and Life Studies tries to consider the entireexpanse of birth and death (shouji), including thedeath and life (shisei) of one's individual existence.As with all fields of study, Death and Life Studiesare not necessarily free of the tendency toobjectify the subject of one's study. But is thiseven theoretically possible? Is it actually possibleto try to objectify the entire expanse of death andlife in detail, including one's own individualexistence? At the present I think the answer wouldhave to be “no.”

But then again…I can consider the opposite.It is generally in the nature of any field of study toattempt to reach for things that have hitherto beensomehow considered impossible. If we can say thatthe principle of incompleteness is part of the ethosof all fields of study, then a longing to overcomethat incompleteness gestates within, and thislonging is the basis for attempts to reach for the

“impossible.” These are the things I'm thinkingabout as we face the second stage of constructingDeath and Life Studies. But I'm in no hurry to findthe answers.

8

Death and the 21st Century American Fiction

Motoyuki Shibata (Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Contemporary Literary Studies/ English)

Humor was the strong point of the 19thcentury American author Mark Twain, and manyof his masterful jokes are still remembered. One ofmy favorites is the following comment, issued byhim after a newspaper stated that he had died.

“The report of my death was an exaggeration.”

Life and death － the two are usually thoughtof as having a most serious and clear demarcation;this joke is funny because it treats the two asbeing continuous. Reading recent American novels,I often wonder if the boundary between life anddeath is really so clear.

“Imagine that a dead man arrives in a city. Fordays he stumbles about, the way the dead, if theycame back to life, might stumble from their graves;pale and puffy-eyed as though they'd slept badly,rubbing a three day's growth of stubble andwondering what place this was. . . .” (PaulLaFarge, The Artist of the Missing, 1999)

“In the afterlife, Rachel lived alone. She had aclapboard cabin and a yard full of gray geesewhich she could feed or not and they would dofine. Purple morning glories grew by the kitchendoor. It was always an early summer morning andhad been since her death.” (Maureen F. McHugh,

“Ancestor Money,” in Mothers & Other Monsters,2005)

“There once was a man whose wife was dead. Shewas dead when he fell in love with her, and shewas dead for the twelve years they lived together,during which time she bore him three children, allof them dead as well, and at the time of which Iam speaking, the time during which her husbandbegan to suspect that she was having an affair,she was still dead.” (Kelly Link, “The GreatDivorce,” in Magic for Beginners)

Whereas I had wondered, in the 1980's, whyAmerican authors always depicted so muchreality, the American authors of the 21st centuryseem to find it surprisingly easy to shift, withinthe same story, from the ordinary to thesupernatural world. They write about thesupernatural as if it were the ordinary, or as if thetwo were jumbled together. Within this world ofthe supernatural, the realm of death is apparently apopular “destination.” An increasing number ofwriters try to convey the real feel of life byportraying the worlds of life and death asreflecting each other, like mirrors face to face.

We can see that what these works have incommon is that their depictions of death or of theafterlife,rather than striking up vivid sensations of

fear, have a somehow comical, fairy-tale aspect tothem. There is obviously no way of knowing theraw materials authors draw on to create theirwork, but my sense is that these authors use theimages of death that have made an impression onthem by way of stories and television, more thanany strong real-life experiences from close contactwith death, and each in their own way shapesthese through the power of their own imagination.

Why do contemporary American authorswrite like this? My own hypothesis is that it maybe in large part due to the fact that those authorswho have been active since the beginning of the21st century have been inundated by televisionand films since their childhood; they have becomea generation whose subconscious has, in a sense,been formed by pop culture. One could commentthat writing like this causes a loss of any directconnection to not only death but to reality, andlament the poverty of a contemporary society thatonly experiences things entirely through images;but lamenting gets one nowhere. Ultimately,however much you try to observe death with yourown eyes at close range, it will not be your owndeath, and so one could say that the last bitbecomes a job for your imagination. To start with,aren't people (and especially children, although it isnot wise to overemphasize the sensibilities ofchildren) capable of experiencing the true feelingof death as death, even if it is from bad televisiondramas? Even the three works quoted above, whilestarting from fairy-tale like, humorous setups, allarrive at some poignant sentiments.

9

My Thoughts on Being Re-employedas a Specially Appointed Researcher with the COE

Death and Life Project

Hiroe Shimauchi (COE Program Specially Appointed Researcher, Cultural Anthropology)

Two and a half years ago in the spring of2005, the 21st Century COE Program

“Construction of Death and Life Studies (DALS)"had reached a turning point. At that time I wasjust another unemployed PhD, and happened tonotice an advertisement for COE researchers.Thinking there was no harm in trying, I applied,and much to my surprise was lucky enough to getthe job. When I was recently re-hired as a speciallyappointed researcher for the Global COE Program

“Development and Systemization of Death and LifeStudies (DAL),” I recalled the surprise and joy Ifelt on the day I received my intial appointmentnotice, as well as the nervousness I felt the firsttime I spoke with Professor Susumu Shimazono,head of the program.

Though it is mere speculation on my part,I assume I was chosen for the job at least partlydue to the doctorate thesis I submitted at WasedaUniversity, “An Examination of the Ethnology ofDeath － the Feuermann Tradition and Perceptionof Death in Western Europe,” based on a longperiod of overseas study and analysis of traditionsin Germany. Regardless, the Spring of 2005marked a new beginning for me at Todai.

Until this point in time, I had never hadany contact with The University of Tokyo, butthanks to the project leaders, senior andcontemporary researchers, and office staff, I wasable to carry out my work. This included doingresearch in my own field of cultural anthropologyas it relates to Death and Life Studies, contributingpapers to the bulletin “Death and Life StudiesResearch,” and submitting or presenting papers atmeetings. I have also worked to support the projectby helping prepare for symposia, doing budgetsand other paperwork, and editing pamphlets andother publications. During the launch of the GlobalCOE Program “Development and Systemization ofDeath and Life Studies (DALS),” I have beenassigned as the leader of the specially appointedresearchers who have been entrusted with much

of the office work; while feeling refreshed by thenew departure, I also feel the weight of theresponsibilities. The recollection of how hard ourbrilliant senior researchers worked and the imageof the bright future waiting for the field of Deathand Life Studies help me carry my heavy dailyworkloads.

To tell the truth, at first I was somewhatdazzled by the glamour of working at TheUniversity of Tokyo, and although some of theglitter has worn off, for me the COE Death andLife Studies project has been an irreplaceableresearch platform that constantly supplies me withintellectual stimulation.

For example, when I meet people in fieldsof study that would normally have little incommon with my own, the subject of “death andlife” usually provides a common thread that leadsto a fruitful conversation. Even through suchmodest means, I hope to develop my own study ofdeath and life. While contending with such ideas,but yet in a state of comfortable enough tension, Iam constantly aware of the good fortune of beingable to do my research here and so I enjoy everyday.

This unique research platform is supportedof course primarily by its leader, ProfessorSusumu Shimazono, and by the enthusiasm of themany other associated professors who have beendedicated to the “construction” and now to the

“development and systemization” of death andlife studies. The professors who decided tocontinue with Death and Life Studies for the 21stCentury COE Program and into the Global COEProgram have exhibited a level dedication thatdefies description. In any event, my involvementso far with the COE Death and Life StudiesProgram means that, even if my situation changes,I will continue to be interested in some way withthe field and monitor its progress. I welcome anyguidance and instruction that might be offered,and look forward to leaning more in future.

10

What “Death and Life Studies” Means to Me

Go Kurihara (COE Program Specially Appointed Researcher, Ethics)

Five years have swiftly passed since I havebeen employed as a researcher in the Death andLife Studies research projects that are now movingfrom the 21st Century COE Program's

“construction” phase into the Global COEProgram's “development and systemization”phase. What have “Death and Life Studies”meant to me so far, and what will they mean tome in the future? I feel the time has come toexpress this in words, even though this might bedifficult. If I were to boldly sum up the questionsthat have continued to confront me as I took partin numerous symposia and other events, the resultwould be as follows.

What about the people who are facing deathright now? And what about those who are beingborn right now? (And, what about the people whoare with them and taking very personal care ofthem?) What happens when such people are reallybefore my very eyes, close enough for me to touchand facing me, what can I really say or do asstudents of ethics, or more broadly, as student ofthe humanities? My questions regarding Death andLife Studies can be boiled down to this.

Last summer I was with my grandmotherwhen she passed away after a long period ofhospitalization. Several years before that, I wasalso with my sister, who is only two yearsyounger than me, when she gave birth to her firstchild. At both these times, I was a student of ethicsand of the humanities and was already aresearcher in the Death and Life Studies project.However, this gave me not a single advantage inhelping my loved ones deal with the actual eventsof death and life. All I could do was very little －watch over them, quietly hold hands, gently touchtheir feet, or give them a hug. At these times, therewas nothing I could do about the feelings wellingup within me except hold back the tears.

In reality, these solemn moments clearlyconstituted truths that were miles ahead of theinsignificant fact that my professional fields ofstudy were ethics, the humanities, and even Deathand Life Studies. Compared with these experiences,scholarship and the methods it uses to attempt totouch truth are wretchedly slow and laggard. Thefields of medicine, religion and the arts, forexample, most probably contain more direct waysand means that can catch up to and engage withthe solemn majesties of death and life. However,scholarship itself is bound to lag behind when itcomes to the actual events of death and life.

Speaking for myself, when I bring up thenames of my professional fields, such as “ethics”or “history of Japanese ethical thought,” I feelthat I ought to append some kind of modifier suchas “laggard” or “tardy” to indicate howscholarship actually works. At the same time, I am

also aware that this is a given condition of thenature of scholarship, and also aware that it is aprerequisite for scholarship. We cannot attainachievement in any field of study if we feeldissatisfaction because it falls behind reality.

However, when it actually comes tohanging out my shingle as a “Death and LifeStudies researcher,” the situation changes a bit.What can I really say right now, and what can Ido? My recent experiences forced me into a corneron this, but such questions may in fact preciselyrepresent the daring challenges being taken up byDeath and Life Studies as a new field ofscholarship. Being naturally somewhat dull-witted,I came to realize this bit by bit, but eventuallyquite acutely, during the 5 years I have been withthe project. I consider this an important perception.

When the 21st Century COE Program“Construction of Death and Life Studies (DALS)”was closed in last spring, our leader, ProfessorSusumu Shimazono, addressed the youngerresearch associates, and one of the things he toldus was, “I hope you will pursue studies in yourown field together with Death and Life Studies asa double-feature program.” Professor Shimazonohad put together the project, and remains on thefront lines in his determination to meet realpeople's needs, and I believe he chose theinnocuous term “double feature” out of hisunsurpassed consideration for us, the followinggeneration that even now probably does not feelthe pressures he has to bear. How do things occuras a double phenomenon? How will the roots of atree that happens to grow up with two trunks beconnected underground, and which way will itsbranches grow? As the death and life studiesprojects enters its new Global COE phase, and alsoas project researchers continue their own processof self-realization, I feel strongly that the qualitiesof “development” and “systemization” will bevery much in demand.

11

Report on Prof. Gary Laderman’s Lecture

“Death in the United States: Past, Present, and Future”

Susumu Shimazono (Leader of the COE Program, Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Religious Studies)

On August 2 , 2007 , Professor GaryLaderman presented a lecture entitled “Death inthe United States: Past, Present, and Future” inRoom 219 of the Faculty of Law and LettersBuilding No. 1 on the Hongo Campus. Prof.Laderman is Professor of American ReligiousHistory and Cultures at Emory University, outsideof Atlanta, and is well-known for his research onthe history of American funerals. He is the authorof The Sacred Remains: American AttitudesToward Death, 1799-1883 (Yale University Press,1996), and Rest in Peace: A Cultural History ofDeath and the Funeral Home in Twentieth-Century America (Oxford University Press, 2003),among other books.

In his talk, Professor Laderman summed uphis research to date, and presented an overview ofthe entire history of funerals in the United States.The biggest change in US funerals came about inthe latter half of the 19th century, after the end ofthe Civil War, when embalming techniques fordressing corpses were established and theprototype for the current "American-style" funeralcame into being. The next change occurred afterthe 1960's.

That was also the time when JessicaMitford's The American Way of Death (Simon &Schuster, 1963) was published, harshly criticizingthe way that funerals had become commercialized,although that did not bring about a change infuneral trends. During that period, however, therewas a growing trend for various ethnic groups inthe States to conduct funerals according to theirown ways, and funerals became increasinglydiversified. I believe the future of American

funerals can be discerned from this process ofdiversification.

There were many questions from membersof the audience interested in the changes that havetaken place in funerals, the funeral servicesindustry, and cemeteries in Japan, East Asia,Europe, and the United States. From the end of the20th century and into the early 21st century therehave been major changes taking place in funeralsin East Asia and Europe, apparently even moredramatic than those that accompanied theurbanization of the 19th century, and there werediscussions of how their circumstances differedfrom those in the United States. It was confirmedthat in East Asia the spread of cremation, changesin kinship structures, and changes in governmentregulations have combined to bring about thesecomplicated and ongoing shifts.

This field of inquiry is an important partof Death and Life Studies, and I would like to

include meetings and exchangessuch as this one in our researchprograms in the future. I wouldl i k e t o a l s o a cknow l edgethe cooperat ion of NanzanUniversity, the Japan-UnitedStates Educational Commission(JUSEC) (Fulbright Association),and Le Centre national de larecherche scientifique (CNRS)of France in presenting thislecture.

12

Report on Professor Ying-shih Yu’s Lecture

Tsuyoshi Kojima (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology,Chinese Philosophy)

Dr. Ying-shih Yu is an authority ofinternational stature in the field of Chineseintellectual history, and is at present Gordon Wu'58 Professor Emeritus of Chinese Studies atPrinceton University. Dr. Yu's area of research isextensive, but within its vast scope lays thesubject of the spirit (soul) in Confucian thought.This is a theme that is also closely connected tothe issues in which the "The Development andSystematization of Death and Life Studies" projectis interested. In addition, in fiscal 2007, KansaiUniversity inaugurated a Center of Excellenceprogram entitled “Project for the CulturalInteraction Studies of East Asia by PeripheralApproach” (Project leader: Tao Demin, Professorof Kansai University (http:// www.kansai-u.ac.jp/Kouhou/ globalcoe/ globalcoe1.html)), and itinvited several professors and arranged for aseries of lectures to be delivered for theinternational symposium commemorating itsinauguration. Taking this good opportunity, theUniversity of Tokyo also arranged a lecturemeeting, and asked Prof. Yu to present a paper onConfucian views of life and death, which hedelivered on October 9, 2007.

The title of his lecture was “Chinese Viewsof Life and Death: With Special Reference to theConfucian Tradition.” At the outset of his lecture,he quoted a saying of Confucius from TheAnalects, “You do not understand life yet; howcan you understand death?” and spoke about howConfucian thought concerned itself with life firstand then death, and not with death first and thenlife. Based on this saying of Confucius, there is atendency to think that Confucianism does not talkabout death, and this view serves as the basis forthe pervasive view that Confucianism is not areligion. However, in several documents related toConfucianism, one can find explanations pertainingto the souls of the dead. While introducing theseexamples, Prof. Yu elucidated the ancient Chineseviews of life and death.

This lec ture was sponsored by theDepartment of Chinese Philosophy of the Facultyof Letters at the University of Tokyo, and heldunder the joint auspices of the university's Centerfor Evolving Humanities and Maritime Cross-Cultural Exchange in East Asia and the Formationof Japanese Traditional Culture: InterdisciplinaryApproach Focusing on Ningbo, as well as theuniversity's Global COE Program "Developmentand Systematization of Death and Life Studies(DALS)," which served as the managingorganization. Originally, it had been planned to useclassroom 211 in the Faculty of Law and LettersBuilding No. 1 on the Hongo campus, but so manypeople were drawn by Prof. Yu's renown that theaudience exceeded the venue's capacity, so it wasquickly arranged to change the venue to LectureHall No. 3.

Prof. Yu had already spoken in Chinese atKansai University and Nagoya University at the59th Annual Conference of the Sinological Societyof Japan (held October 6－ 7), and for theUniversity of Tokyo the co-sponsors requestedthat Prof. Yu make his presentation in English.Despite his busy schedule before he came to Japan,he willingly consented to prepare three differentmanuscripts. A brochure containing an editedversion of Prof. Yu's paper with an introductoryarticle on him was passed out at the lecture venue.Motonori Arata, a graduate student of theDepartment of Chinese Philosophy; MisatoMinemura, of the office of the Maritime Cross-Cultural Exchange in East Asia and the Formationof Japanese Traditional Culture; and Kenta Suzukiof the Global COE Program of DALS wereresponsible for editing and publishing thebrochure. In addition, it is planned to publish Prof.Yu's paper, translated into Japanese, together witha detailed explanation of the technical terms usedin Chinese philosophy, in a forthcoming issue ofThe Journal of Death and Life Studies.

13

Report on the Workshop“A Re-reading of the Lebensphilosophie of Bergson in Les Deux Sourcesde la morale et de la religion (The Two Sources of Morality and Religion)”

Izumi Suzuki (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Philosophy)

The are several conferences taking place in 2007 allover the world in commemoration of the centennial of thepublication of Henri Bergson's third work, L'Evolution creatrice(Creative Evolution), and in Japan, three internationalworkshops were held October 16-20 in Tokyo (Oct. 16-17) andKyoto (Oct. 20). Planned in conjunction with this, a workshopwas given on Bergson's fourth work, Les Deux Sourcess de lamorale et de la religion (1932), the topic of which is very closelyrelated to the interests of the Global COE Program

“Development and Systematization of Death and Life Studies(DALS).” (October 18, 10:00 am ̃ 6:00 PM, in the commonroom of the Faculty of Law and Letters Building No. 2 on theHongo campus. Co-sponsored by the Steering Committee of theInternational Symposium to Commemorate the Centennial ofBergson's L'Evolution creatrice; with the support of theEmbassy of France in Japan and the Societe pour la Philosophiede Bergson (Society for the Philosophy of Bergson).

Published in his later years, in Les Deux Sources(1932), Bergson (1859-1941) reexamined the essence ofmorality and religion from the viewpoint of his unique theoryof life, and in this book, which is his philosophical legacy, hemay be said to have extended his thinking onto a wide varietyof themes that were based on the two genres of “closedmorality/static religion”and “open morality/dynamic religion.”Even taking the revolutionary advances in the life sciences inthe latter part of the last century and large-scale changes insocial structures into account, as well as the advance ofsecularization, this classic work still remains pertinent today.The main purpose of the workshop was that, through diggingup the significance of Bergson's thought regarding theessenceof morality and religion, which serve to support ourfundamental concepts of human life and death, severalcontributions might be made in the principle area of death andlife studies. Furthermore, it was also hoped that this workshopwould serve to create a substantive debate between theJapanese and French participants.

On the Japanese side, five researchers read papers thathad been sent to the French participants ahead of time, so theworkshop was arranged around hearing the papers and thecomments of the French side. There were 80 eager participants,and their participation helped bring about an intense debate, aswe had hoped.

After the opening comments by Prof. SusumuShimazono, leader of the G-COE, the first session (Facilitator:Izumi Suzuki) began with two presentations: “Hajime Tanabe,Lecteur des Deux Sources-un cas de reception du bergsonisme

dans 《l'Ecole de Kyoto》,” by Haruhiko Sugimura (Universityof Kyoto), and “Les Deux Sources dans l'histoire des religions,”by Fumiaki Iwata (Osaka Kyoiku University). These paperswere followed by enthusiastic comments from Frederic Worms(Universite de Lille), at present the leading expert on Bergson inFrance, and a brief discussion. Further discussion waspostponed until the general debate.

In the afternoon, the second session (Facilitator: Prof.Masanori Tsukamoto [Associate Professor, University ofTokyo]) was held, consisting of a presentation entitled “LesDeux Sources adossees a une esthetique de l'analogie,” byIchiro Taki (Osaka Kyoiku University), to which the young anddistinguished Arnaud Francois (xxx [title], Universite de Lille)made substantive comments, and a lively debate between thetwo ensued. This was followed by the third session (Facilitator:Naoki Sugiyama [Associate Professor, Gakushuin University]),which began with two papers, “Les Deux Sources de la moraleet de la religion dans l'histoire du mysticisme-Une lecture parun historien des religions,” by Yoshio Tsuruoka (Professor,Univeristy of Tokyo), and “Morale du philosophe et Les DeuxSources de la morale et de la religion,” by Yumiko Nakamura(Ochanomizu University), after which Francois once morecommented, followed by a reading of the comments of Jean-Christophe Goddard (Universite de Poitiers), who was unable toattend due to illness. After a short question-and-answer period,the general discussion was opened (Facilitator: Shin Abiko[Professor, Hosei University]), and a lively debate ensuedcentered on the ardent questions from the floor.

After the workshop ended, participants moved to theFaculty of Engineering for a friendly reception, where, after agreeting from Prof. Masao Tachibana, Director of the GraduateSchool of Humanities and Sociology, the fervent debates thathad begun during the workshop continued.

The quality of the papers presented by the Japaneseside, the straight-forward responses of the Frenchcommentators, and the extraordinary work of the interpreters(Hisashi Fujita [Japan Society for the Promotion of Science] andKaoru Taniguchi [Lecturer, Shikoku University]), in the friendlyatmosphere amid all the participants, all helped to bring about asubstantive debate and create an opportunity in whicheveryone left with a sense of satisfaction. Beginning with thesubject of fellowship with the dead, innumerable importantthemes concerning death and life studies were debated, and thedetails of those discussions can be found in the soon-to-be-published minutes of the symposium (to be released in aJapanese and French edition).

14

Report on the Workshop

“Contemporary French Philosophy and Theories on Life”

Izumi Suzuki (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Philosophy)

On the afternoon of October 19, 2007 (1:00pm ̃ 4:00 pm), in the Sanjo Conference Hall on theHongo Campus of the University of Tokyo, aworkshop entitled “ Contemporary FrenchPhilosophy and Theories on Life,” to which Prof.Pierre Montebello (Universite de Toulouse II-LeMirail) had been invited, was held. In 1994, Prof.Montebello published his voluminous doctoraldissertation on Maine de Biran (1766-1824), Ladecomposition de la pensee (Millon), followed, in 2003,by a work on the philosophy of nature as being

“another type of metaphysics,” which focused onRavaisson, Tarde, Nietzsche, and Bergson titledL'autre metaphysique. Essai sur Ravaisson, Tarde,Nietzsche et Bergson (Desclee de Brouwer). Lastautumn he published the subsequent volume, Natureet la subjectivite (Millon). One can say that he is acentral philosopher in contemporary French thought,who, mainly drawing on French philosophical ideasand based on his own unique concept of thephilosophy of nature, deepens our observations aboutsubjectivity as it relates to life and the body. As afellow researcher in death and life studies, inprinciple, I promote fundamental research on l i ferather than on death, and am planning to holda series of seminars next year entitled

“Contemporary French Philosophy and Theories onLife,” and it was as a kind of preview for theseseminars that I invited Professor Montebello, who isthe perfect representative of this field, on thisoccasion and decided to organize this event in theform of a workshop, which would guarantee asubstantial discussion.

As Prof . Montebello is in the midst ofpreparing a publication on the representativecontemporary French philosopher Gilles Deleuze(1925-95) entitled Deleuze, philosophie du paradoxe(Vrin), I had asked him to present part of his researchin this workshop, to which I added comments aboutthe total scope of the professor's work, which wasfollowed by a discussion.

In the hour-and-a-half presentation, “How DoWe Think About Nature?,” Prof. Montebelloprimarily presented a lucid reading of the “The

T o p o g r a p h y o fM o r a l i t y ”chapter in MilleP l a t e a u x :C a p i t a l i s m e e tschizophrenie, byGilles Deleuze andPierre-Felix Guattari(Paris: Minuit, 1980)(the fundamentalconcepts of this

wo rk a r e o f t e n presented in a very eccentricmanner) and then elucidated on the significance ofDeleuze's philosophy of nature. Although the thoughtof Deleuze (and Guattari) had been given attention ina somewhat journalistic manner in Japan at onepoint, even in France there is still no comprehensivetreatment of it . Prof. Montebello's lecture wastherefore extremely interesting as it accurately shedlight upon the importance of the dehumanistic aspectof Deleuze and Guattari's thought, through lucidlyextracting the topography of their various concepts.

Fol lowing the r ise of modern Frenchphilosophy, which was based on the idea thathumans only exist as part of nature and society, anotion that gained influence against background ofthe development of structuralism and the lifesciences, there was a return to various forms ofhumanism. However, humans are merely a productof nature and therefore it is exactly for this reasonthat Professor Montebello's reading of the thought ofDeleuze and Guattari, which stresses antihumanismin the sense that humans can also become somethingother than human, is extremely valuable.

Based upon this, there were discussions andcomments for about 30 minutes upon points ofcontention concerning the explication of the overallview of Deleuze's philosophy. After that, there wereso many questions asked by the approximately 20participants--including Yoshio Tsuruoka (professor inthe Department of Religious Studies, Faculty ofLetters, The University of Tokyo) and MasanoriTsukamoto (associate professor at the Department ofFrench Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters,The University of Tokyo)--concerning thesignificance of Deleuze's methodology and histheories of language (as well as Deleuze's relationshipto the contemporaneous philosopher Michel Henri[1922-2002]) and his thought, that everyone forgot totake a break. We enjoyed a most fulfilling sessionthat lasted for more than three hours.

How the central achievements of Death andLife Studies and this type of unique thought can belinked and joined together will no doubt be a topic forthe future, and I would like this inquiry to developinto the seminar series that will begin this year.

15

example, “My fatherdied.” This implies adistinction betweendeath of the body anddeath of a person, asseen in the story ofIzanagi and Izanami,male and femaledeities in Japan'screation myth. Izanamidies in giving birth to afire deity, and Izanagi

Report on the 19th Death and Life Studies Workshop

(24 October, 2007)

Tetsuro Shimizu (Professor, Ueihiro Chair for DALS, Graduate School of Humanitiesand Sociology, Philosophy/ Clinical Ethics)

The Death and Life Studies workshop seriesprovides younger researchers in this program anopportunity for study, and were started during the 21stCentury COE Program phase of the program. Eighteenworkshops have so far been held, and the 19th was the firstone to be held since the program shifted into its Global COEphase. Our specially appointed researchers and researchassistants mostly started on their jobs in mid-September orearly October, so this workshop in one sense marked thestart of the Global COE phase of the program.

The workshop was held from 16:30 to 18:00 inRoom 312 of the Faculty of Law and Letters Building No. 1in the Hongo Campus; as one of the project leaders, I gave atalk entitled “The Range of Clinical Death and Life Studies.”Six professors and 21 younger researchers attended. As thespeaker assigned to give this lecture, my understanding wasto recognize the G-COE program's responsibility to activelymeet the needs of society and to consider its potential formaking a contribution to actual, on-site health care serviceas the Death and Life Studies program moves from the

“construction” phase under the 21st Century COEprogram into the “development and systemization” phaseunder the Global COE program. I also felt that this was anopportunity for me to express my understanding of myduties in view of my appointment starting this year to theUehiro Chair for Death and Life Studies, a position fromwhich support for the Global COE Program is expected.

So, now that it comes time to record a summary ofmy talk, I am somewhat concerned because I find it difficultto distinguish among what I intended to say, what I thoughtI said, and what I actually did say. What follows is what I, asspeaker, thought I said.

In the first half of my talk I explained my views onthe field of death and life studies and how clinical death andlife studies can meet social needs from its position withinthat field. In the second half, I related two examplesinvolving Death and Life Studies/Clinical Death and LifeStudies, and pointed out their instructive potential. [Deathand Life Studies/Clinical Death and Life Studies] is not onlya promising academic field but, more importantly, is theobject of special expectations from society. Theseexpectations involve the potential for Death and Life Studiesto discover and offer some kind of practical knowledge fordealing with the fact that everybody, and not just otherpeople, will eventually die. In the course of actual medicaltreatment and care that deal with death and life, it is ClinicalDeath and Life Studies that need to meet these expectations,as they serve as people's point of contact for Death and LifeStudies in the real world. Also, communicating withpractitioners at the actual site of health-care service, ClinicalDeath and Life Studies promotes “active research,” inwhich research is practically applied and practicalapplications contribute to research. (For more on activeresearch, see Newsletter No. 18, p. 11).[Topic 1: On understanding “death”]

The verb “to die” in Japanese (shinu) is usedboth transitively and intransitively, that is, it is used to sayof a subject “He/she/it is dead,” and also in saying, for

comes after her to the land of the dead where he speaks toher and tries to convince her to come back to the land of theliving, but abandons her when he discovers the horror ofher rotting corpse. This has some correspondence with thedifference between biological life and what I callbiographical life, or life's story line. Also, we understand aperson's death as an irreversible severing of communication(or “departure”) [but] as seen in the way we speak of

“joining the long line of the dead,” we [also] accept thewisdom that assumes people are not rendered completelysolitary by death.[Topic 2: What is “Hope” for Those Facing Death?]

“Hope” in the face of imminent death fromserious illness or other causes does not involve expecting a

“cure” or hoping for “life after death;” rather it is thehope that one can muster the courage to live what remainsof life in a positive way. What supports such courage is anunderstanding of one's situation in the sense that “we arenot alone, but are perforce part of a network of otherpeople.” This realization serve as a crucial point forunderstanding how the opportunity to communicate withothers supports people when their lives are entering theirconcluding phase.

After the workshop, a party to commemorate thelaunch of the Global COE Program was held at the Nemu-no-ki restaurant at the University of Tokyo Hospital. Manyof the program leaders and young researchers gathered forthe event, which began with a short speech by projectleader Professor Susumu Shimazono. With the project beingextended for the next 5 years, all resolved to do their best,and enjoyed a pleasant evening.

16

Report on Dr. Sara Heinamaa’s Lecture“Phenomenologies of Sexual Difference: From

Fecundity to Generosity”

Tetsuya Sakakibara (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Humanities andSociology, Philosophy)

Over the past 10 years a new movement hasbeen observed in Scandinavian countries, where thesway of analytic philosophy has always been quitestrong. Members o f a compara t ive ly younggeneration have been grouping together in the nameof phenomenology and have become active. Youngphilosophers from five countries - Denmark, Sweden,Norway, Finland, and Iceland - banded together in2001 to form the Nordic Society for Phenomenology,and have been exchanging their research ever since.The following is a short report on a lecture presentedon November 7 by Dr. Sara Heinaamaa, Docent ofPhilosophy at the University of Helsinki, Finland, andthe current President of the Nordic Society forPhenomenology.

Dr. Heinaamaa, the author of Toward aPhenomenology of Sexual Difference: Husserl,Merleau-Ponty, Beauvoir (Rowman & Littlefield,2003), is an up-and-coming scholar of phenomenologywho has approached severa l ph i l osoph ica lissues concerning sexual difference based onthe phenomenology of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, andBeauvoir. In recent years she has widened herinterest to include the thinking of Husserl andLevinas on ethical issues. In light of our Global COEprogram “Construction and Development andSystematization of Death and Life Studies (DALS),”however, for this lecture Dr. Heinaamaa presented aphenomenological inquiry on the subject of sexualdifference, based on her most recent studies of thephilosophical differences between Heidegger andLevinas on the subject of death and life.

Her lecture, “Phenomenologies of SexualDifference: From Fecundity to Generosity,” can besummarized by the following four points:

1) Levinas criticized Heidegger, who stipulated thatDasein, or being-in-the-world, should anticipate death,which cannot be overcome, by existing in the face ofbeing-toward-death and claiming it as one's own.From the standpoint of Levinas, this overlooks thepossibility of a different future as seen in the sensoryrelationships of Eros found in parent-childrelationships (or between the "father-and-son"

relationship).2) Present-day feminists, however, have criticizedLevinas' thinking regarding Eros and the father-sonparenthood/relation, because such relationships arenot seen as being the sole means for the future thatis passed along to children and such thinking isinherently patriarchal.3) Beauvoir, who was a contemporary of Levinas, hadalready criticized him for overlooking sexualdifference; according to Beauvoir, men and womenhave fundamental differences in that there is anessential difference between male and female sexualdesire.4) In spite of this, from the above, one can see inBeauvoir the suggestion for the possibility ofrealizing a willing (or intentional) form of mutualgenerosity through the Erotic relationships of menand women.

The paper was extremely stimulating, andafter the lecture a lively question-and-answer sessioncontinued past the scheduled time, centering on twoquestions. The first question was, which was did sheconsider the more fundamental, sexual difference asdelineated by Beauvoir or the existential construct ofthe more general Dasein (being-in-the-world) asargued by Heidegger? The second question was how,if there is a fundamental difference in sexual desire,can there be generosity? Dr. Heinaamaa seems totake the term “generosity,” as used by Beauvoir, tomean recognizing differing sexual intentionalitybetween men and women. I was very impressed byher comment regarding the second question, that

“cultivating this difference” was itself veryimportant.

Dr. Heinaamaa responded to the first questionby using the example of a pregnant woman thatexperiences space and time in a completely new anddifferent way when she becomes pregnant. It wasfelt that both the sexual difference point of viewdemonstrated here and the intercultural point of viewthat has been attracting attention in recent years areextremely important to our Global COE project,which is trying to further develop and systematizethe study of issues concerning death and life.

‥

‥

‥

‥

‥

17

Report on the Workshop“Collaboration between Life Science and Death

and Life Studies”

Masaki Ichinose, (Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Philosophy)

A workshop entitled “A Collaboration BetweenLife Science and Death and Life Studies” was heldunder the joint sponsorship of DALS and the AppliedEthics Education Program from 11 AM on Saturday,December 1, 2007 in the common room of the Faculty ofLaw and Letters Building No. 2 on the Hongo Campus ofthe University of Tokyo. DALS inevitably calls to mindthemes connected with the humanities, such as bioethics,the right to self-determination, and views about thenature of life and death, but in fact this academic areahas a broader implication, crossing the borders betweena wide variety of research fields and covering themessuch as medical decision making, homicide, capitalpunishment, war, food, and environment ethics. As thewords “Life Studies” in the title suggest, there is anecessary cross-over into Life Science. The workshopwas held based on this understanding, that we need tocreate a starting point to work together with LifeScience, and to this end we invited leading scholars inthe fields of evolutionary theory, radiology, psychiatry,and genetics to participate.

The workshop opened with a welcome addressfrom Professor Susumu Shimazono, leader of ourprogram. Masahiro Shimoda, associate professor in theDepartment of Indian Philosophy and Buddhist Studies,and Sumihiko Kumano, professor in the Department ofEthics, presided over the meeting. In the first session,Professor Ken'ichi Aoki of the School of Science at theUniversity of Tokyo presented a paper entitled “TheDrama of the Shift between Neanderthal Man and HomoSapiens.” Professor Aoki made extensive use of themost recent research and empirical data to discuss whyNeanderthals became extinct in the course ofcompetition with Homo Sapiens. His argument took theform of a comparative study of a number of rationalhypotheses from the standpoint of evolutionary theory,based on contrasting individual and social learning, andusing a mathematical approach. With the intention ofdeepening the discussion, the commentator, MasakiIchinose, brought up basic points of concern, such aswhat is evolution as it is understood here, how is itdifferent from genetic drift, and is it possible todistinguish at the level of molecular biology betweenindividuals and social learning?

The paper of the second session entitled “WhyDo People Commit Suicide?” was given by YoshinoriCho, associate professor (Psychiatry) at the TeikyoUniversity School of Medicine Hospital. Professor Chofirst of all stated that there are many types of suicide.Though suicides can occur based on a self-determined,rational decision, he stressed that a large number stemfrom psychological factors like melancholia brought onthrough circumstances in the social environment, suchas stress, bullying, and financial problems. Hepersuasively backed up his argument with a largeamount of practical data. Accordingly, psychiatrictreatment should be recognized as having the potential toprevent suicide, he added. Professor Sei'ichi Takeuchi

commented on this issue from an ethical standpoint,indicating that suicide needs to be seriously consideredthrough the influence it has on human relationships.

Session Three was presented by (do youactually say this? Changed the sentences for session 1and 2 above) Associate Professor Kei'ichi Nakagawa,director of the Department of Palliative Medicine at theUniversity of Tokyo Hospital, under the title “CancerTreatment and Ideas about Life and Death Held by theJapanese.” This is a topic already closely linked withDALS. Professor Nakagawa pointed out that while Japanhas the highest life expectancy in the world, it also hasthe highest incidence of cancer, with one in two Japanesesuffering from it at some stage in their life. Despite this,the Japanese have little knowledge about cancer itself, itstreatment and care, and palliative medicine. As a result,there is a vital need to educate the Japanese about theseissues. Professor Tetsuro Shimizu of the Graduate Schoolof Humanities and Sociology at the University of Tokyomade a comment concerning the differences betweencure and care, pointing out that we need to address howwe understand ambiguities caused by the differencesbetween these two words.

Session Four was the final presentation of theday and in it Professor Shoichi Ishiura of the GraduateSchool of Arts and Science at the University of Tokyogave a paper entitled “Workings of the Mind at aMolecular Level.” Professor Ishiura used a great numberof fascinating studies to explain how human illness,character, and disposition can be clarified at a certainlevel through a molecular biological and genetic analysisemployed to study the workings of the mind and geneticstructure. This seems to suggest in principle thepossibility of improving the human condition and thatthere is hope that this condition will be improved in thefuture. Professor Shimazono brought up the notion thatthe comfort and competence achieved through thetechnologies of the natural sciences can be seen asconstituting a false self, and he explained that thisworkshop served as a new meeting-point between LifeScience and the Humanities. Finally, Professor Sei'ichiTakeuchi, chairman of the Applied Ethics EducationProgram, brought the workshop to a close. Theparticipants went on to the Sanjo Conference Hall, on theuniversity campus, for a welcome party, where theywere greeted by Professor Masao Tachibana, director ofthe Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology.Discussions continued during the party, the culminationof a meaningful day of academic pursuits.

Future development and continuity of thecollaboration between Life Science and DALS will testifyhow successful the first attempt at collaboration hasbeen. The fact that the first step has been taken is ofparticular significance. I look forward to furtherassociation with fields such as nutritional science,pharmacy, ethology, forest ecology, and others.

18

Report on the Symposium“Interrelationship of Relics and Images: An Attempt at

a Comparative Art History”

Akira Akiyama (Associate Professor, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Art History)

The Global Center of Excellence (=G-COE) hosteda public, international symposium, "Interrelationship ofRelics and Images: An Attempt at a Comparative ArtHistory," on December 16, 2007. The event took place1:00 PM on the Hongo Campus, in Lecture Hall No. 1 ofthe Faculty of Law and Letters Building No. 2. Between130 and 140 people attended the meeting, more than wehad anticipated, so it was our happy misfortune that the150 copies of handout materials we had prepared fordistribution soon ran out.

The symposium consisted of two sessions. Thefirst was devoted to presentations by four scholars--twospecializing in Buddhist art and two specializing inChristian art . To start things off , Prof. SusumuShimazono, the leader of the G-COE Program"Development and Systematization of Death and LifeStudies (DALS)," offered welcoming remarks and spokeabout the G-COE project.

Prof. Romi Hida (Waseda University) then spokeon “The Cult of Sarira and Sovereignty” and thehistorical evolution of the veneration of Buddha relics inChina. Her comments about how relics were tied in withsovereignty, the various aspects of their presentationand display, and the sense that some Chinese had thefeeling of being in a remote region [remote from the"center of civilization," i.e., India] was of interest toscholars of medieval Christianity for purposes ofcomparison, and I was impressed to see our twoparticipants from overseas vigorously taking notes.

Next, Prof. Erik Thunφ (Rutgers, The StateUniversity of New Jersey) discussed the SanctaSanctorum Chapel in Rome, which houses the enameledreliquary cross, the Reliquary of the True Cross thatcontains a fragment of the True Cross and, also in Rome,the mosaics of the Basilica of Santa Prassede. He alsodiscussed the diverse reciprocal relationships betweenrelics and images of early medieval Christianity.

Following this, Prof. Scott B. Montgomery(University of Denver) presented fascinating examplesof figured reliquaries, which proliferated during the latemedieval period. Explaining their use in religious rites,he discussed his own research and argued for thepossibility that the saints, their relics, and the reliquaries

were considered to be one and the same.F ina l ly , P ro f . Kensuke Nedach i (Kyoto

University) discussed Japanese portrait images and theirintimate connection with the veneration of the bones ofthe deceased, commenting on earlier examples for thispractice in China. Going beyond the narrow frameworkof relic cults, I believe his remarks suggested to Westernscholars the possibility of comparative research (forexample, of wax portrait images) from the viewpointthat three-dimensional function as substitutes for thehuman body.

For the second session, citing Hans Belting, Icommented briefly on possibilities of an East-Westcomparison of the correlation of relic and image. Thiswas followed by a discussion based on the first session.Details will appear in proceedings due to be published inthe next academic year. Although the session went overthe scheduled time, the topics for discussion were notexhausted, and succeeded in heightening interest in thetopics of relics and an attempt at an East-Westcomparison. Over half of the attendees were scholars ofWestern culture, however, and as noted in the closingremarks by Prof. Shigetoshi Osano, vice-director,Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Facultyof Letters, it is hoped that henceforth scholars ofJapanese culture will actively play an increasing role inimplementing comparative studies that are morethoroughly international.

More than a few of the participants came froma considerable distance. Furthermore, many attendeeskindly filled out the questionnaires that were handed outat the meeting, and the responses included valuablesuggestions and proposals. We will refer to these, whichwill enable us to plan symposiums with enricheddiscussions. In closing, in addition to the professors whomade presentations I would like to thank everyone whoparticipated, as well as the research staff and studentswho helped so much in the preparation andmanagement of the event.

This symposium was held as "'Death and Life'and Visual Culture I." “'Death and Life' and VisualCulture II" will be held on May 31 (Saturday) with thetheme, "Miraculous Images in Christian and BuddhistCulture." Details will follow.

19

DALS TEACHING STAFF

PROGRAM LEADER

SHIMAZONO Susumu Religious Studies

AKIYAMA Akira Art HistoryANDO Hiroshi Japanese LiteratureIKEZAWA Masaru Religious StudiesICHINOSE Masaki PhilosophyOTOSHI Tetsuya West Asian HistoryKUMANO Sumihiko EthicsSATO Kenji SociologySHIMIZU Tetsuro Philosophy/

Clinical Ethics

SHIMODA Masahiro Indian PhilosophySUZUKI Izumi PhilosophyTAKAHASHI Miyako Public Health/

Psycho-Oncology/Internal Medicine

TAKEUCHI Seiichi EthicsNAKAGAWA Keiichi Palliative MedicineYAMAZAKI Hiroshi Medical Sociology/

Qualitative Research

REPRESENTATIVES

AKAGAWA Manabu SociologyICHIKAWA Hiroshi Religious StudiesONUKI Shizuo ArchaeologyOSANO Shigetoshi Art HistoryKARASAWA Kaori Social PsychologyKINOSHITA Naoyuki Cultural Resources StudiesKOJIMA Tsuyoshi Chinese PhilosophySAKAKIBARA Tetsuya PhilosophySHIBATA Motoyuki Contemporary Literary Studies/

English and American LiteratureTSUKAMOTO Masanori French Literature

TSUKIMOTO Masayuki Japanese PhilologyNOJIMA Yoko Japanese HistoryHAYASHI Toru LinguisticsFUKASAWA Katsumi Occidental HistoryFUJII Shozo Chinese LiteratureHONDA Hiroshi Korean Studies/

Social AnthropologyYANAGIHASHI Hiroyuki Islamic StudiesYOKOZAWA Kazuhiko PsychologyWATANABE Hiroshi Aesthetics

AFFILIATED PROFESSORS(WITHIN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIOLOGY)

AKABAYASHI Akira Biomedical Ethics(Graduate School of Medical Science)

ISHIURA Shoichi Molecular Cognitive Sciences(Graduate School of Arts and Sciences)

OUCHI Yasuyoshi Reproductive,Developmentaland Aging Science

(Graduate School of Medical Science)KAI Ichiro Social Gerontology

(Graduate School of Medical Science)KANAMORI Osamu Ethics of Science

(Graduate School of Education)KAWAMOTO Takashi Ethics/

Social Philosophy(Graduate School of Education)

KITO Shuichi Environmental Ethics(Graduate School of Frontier Sciences)

EINOO Shingo South Asian Studies(The Institute of Oriental Culture)

NISHIGAKI Toru Fundamental Informatics(The Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies/

Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies)HIGUCHI Norio Anglo-American Law

(Graduate School for Law and Politics)MIYASHITA Mitsunori Palliative Care Nursing

(Graduate School of Medical Science)MUTO Kaori Sociology/

Medical Welfare Studies(The Institute of Medical Science)

AFFILIATED PROFESSORS(FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS)