Allan Young 教授のリプライ
Allan Young(慶應義塾大学 社会学研究科 特別招聘教授)
(ヤング) Thank you. I would like to make two comments before I make my comments and the first comment is to express my gratitude to the speakers for such a close reading of my text and the depth of their understanding.
The second comment that I want to make before the comments is my envy of their supervisors to have such accomplished graduate students working, collaborating with them. Commentaries that I received and read, which were just made, were not only impressive but very stimulating for me and I have very little time and will just make some very quick comments and I apologize for how brief the comments must be because in both the cases each of these presentations is worthy of a seminar session and to spend two-three hours discussing the papers and the subjects.
First of all, with regards to Risa’s presentation, I have two comments, in no way a critique, but just to signal my own connection. This paper emphasizes a distinction that is most often ignored in the literature on PTSD and it is the distinction between trauma and PTSD, and trauma as described here very well and very poignantly is an extremely complex experience, full of contradictions and worthy of investigation. PTSD, on the other hand, works in exactly the opposite direction to simplify, to homogenize and I think that for anthropologists, who are interested in the patient’s perspective with regards to PTSD, must work very hard to do exactly what you have done and that is to make the distinction in your writing between the trauma, on the one hand, and PTSD is, what I would use is a very fancy word, an epistemic object, on the other hand.
Second comment that I want to make is your question of an ethical nature and that is having described and understood the way in which PTSD is deployed, one might say almost opportunistically one feels an obligation to one’s informants, to our patient population, not to betray them in some way. All that I can say is that the parallel with the veteran' s population for myself and for other PTSD researchers is quite, quite precise in that way and even though this is a very aging population, I am a veteran from these periods, you see how old I am. In this regard, but the controversy persists even today and explains why, when I finished my research in 1988, I published my book in 1995 and parts of that delay was this rest one with the issue that you have asked here and then so I have no simple answer, I do not need to have a complicated answer to that.
(宮坂) 要するに、トラウマと PTSD というのは違うわけです。トラウマは矛盾に満ちて極めて複雑な苦悩の経験、PTSD というのは、認識の一つの枠組みであるということで、多様で複雑なものを単純化して同質だとして認識した結果の産物である。そういうところが区別しないで論じられている研究が非常に多いのですが、ご発表はその区別を取り上げるという態度がありましたので、その点は非常に注目されました。
2番目の質問は倫理的な問題ですね。つまり、話をして教えてくれた人、あるいは患者の人々を PTSD だと認定していく方が、ある意味ではその人たちにとって有利な場合もある。それは、ある意味で不実なやりかたでもあるわけですね。そういう「倫理的なジレンマ」を含んでいることはよく分かるのです。というのは、アラン・ヤング先生自身がやはり同じ問題に直面していたからです。ベトナム戦争に徴兵され除隊した復員軍人であるという立場の先生が研究者として調査した。自分と同じ立場の人間がいわゆる PTSDに苦しみ、彼らがある意味で、社会的に救済されなければならないという同情、共感を持ちつつ、しかしながら、その現場で人類学者として PTSD 概念やその治療を認識の文化と見る場合には、さまざまな問題をやはり見据えなければいけない。そういうジレンマがあって、同じ問題を抱えていたわけですね。そのために 1988 年に調査が終わったにもかかわらず 95 年まで7年間も著作が出せないという遅れがありました。そうした倫理的葛藤を先生自身が抱えられていたからこそ、全体をまとめる作業が大幅に遅れてしまったということなのです。ですから、 今回の先生のコメントは通常の批判的コメントではまずなくて、 私も実はあなたと同じ問題を抱えている人間だという共感の表明ということになるわけです。
(ヤング) Thank you and apologize for the brevity of my comments. When I read Dr. Katayama’s comments, I became progressively more and more excited going through it and since he is a clinician I will tell him I just stopped before the point of hysteria. So, just the hyperexcited and particularly if I could just read one sentence that and just a follow up on the sentence, a point at which Dr. Katayama’s speaking about traumatic memory and writes I cannot understand them without understanding their current context. These memories identified as traumatic memories, every time they are repeated,are given meaning and are reweaved up in anew.
Well, I could not agree with you more and I feel very passionate about this and I think that if one could choose a single target in the discourse on post-traumatic stress disorder that deserves to have an arrow shot into it, it is precisely this point, the determination in the conventional discourse to treat traumatic memory as an essence. To treat it as if it were a photograph locked away in a file cabinet, somewhere in the minds or the brains, when we know that simply is not true.
We know this from neuroscience and particularly very recent developments in neuroscience involving functional neural imaging, the act of remembering draws together various parts of the brain simultaneously, it is not a little homunculus in the brain, going to a file cabinet, then pulling it out, and what is remarkable is we have known this for a long time. Arguably, the greatest book, maybe Professor Sato will tell us the third greatest book, but I think with regards to memory, a great landmark was published in 1932 by Frederick Bartlett on memory, but when he wrote this book he did not call it “memory,” he called it “remembering,” and he emphasized the fact that it is a creative effort, the assembling you do or spinning as Dr. Katayama describes in his paper, so I congratulate
you on this and I will put it in this frame.
In my talk today, I spoke about PTSD and the official version being a process, this is the way in which its represented: events, memories, symptoms, syndrome, and so on and so forth, but there is a second process that is involved and that is the process not at the level of post-traumatic stress disorder, but at the level of the individual trauma itself and that too is a process, it is not an essence, it is a process, and I am happy to say that I published an article just this year making exactly this point in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders, together with a close friend, a very famous epidemiologist.
I am very, very happy to say I agree with you in this regard.
Your emphasis on the idea of a site and a particular place, the site of remembering is, I again agree, absolutely important and it is important I think clinically, it is a important phenomena logically, and it should be important to anthropologists sociologically where those sites are and you put it in the context of a minority subject that I am not only interested in, but I think I know a lot from the inside as well as from the outside.
Unfortunately, there is not enough time to explore that and also your very provocative question about the injection of the ideology, again subject that I could go on and bore you for an hour with, but I must stop now.
(註2) Allan Younga and Naomi Bresla 2007 “Troublesome memories: Reflections on the future.” Journal of Anxiety Disorders, Vol.21, Issue 2:230-232.
(佐藤) アラン・ヤング先生、指定討論のお二人、どうもありがとうございました。それでは、時間ですので休息ということにしたいと思います。
Thank you for your very heartful comment, Professor Young. We should apologize to you because we had the manuscripts of students just last night, so you had much more hard homework after the banquet. It is time to break.
ちょっと時間が押していますので 15 分。So, we shall start at 3:30. 20 分と書いてありますが、15 分間休憩ということでお願いいたします。質問用紙に関しては、後ろに箱がありますので、そちらに入れてください。お手洗いにつきましては、先ほど申し上げたとおりで、入試を行っている関係上、できれば向かいの建物に行っていただきたいと思います。それでは休息15分よろしくお願いいたします。