はじめによんでください

コスモポリタンの思想圏

The Cosmopolitan Sphere of Thought

池田光穂

☆There is a theoretical term in this field that has always intrigued me. It is a term deeply involved in the construction of the identity of the acting subject, and it also functions as an adjective to describe the nature of things. That term is “cosmopolitan.”... When we view social groups that encompass cosmopolitans in contrast to the nation-state (Nishikawa 1998), politics, religious groups, or civilizations (Huntington 1993)—which we compulsively recall almost every day—we catch a glimpse of the limitations of our imagination. In today’s political language, while we do assume the broadest possible group to which human beings—as similar beings—belong, the result can only be described as an anarchist—a term carrying even greater intensity than “internationalist.” In Shōwa 12 (1937), Kiyoshi Miki explained that the liberal stance of the cosmopolitan is neither a political system nor culturalism, and argued that “a cosmopolitan is a person who has lost trust in politics” (Miki 1967). This is a reasonable view. In fact, the term “cosmopolitan” is used with the nuance that it refers to someone who is furthest removed from any actual political group to which one belongs. Alternatively, it could be described as a “political marker” that can be enjoyed on a privileged basis by practitioners of beliefs and practices not considered to belong to any political group—such as the “art of medicine” (iatrike techne), which will be discussed below—and which is, in other words, immune to political ideology.

私がこの問題系において、常々気になっている理論用語がある。それは行為主体のアイデンティティの編制に深く関わる用語であり、また、形容詞となって事物の様態を指し示すものにもなる言葉である。コスモポリタン（cosmopolitan）という言葉がそれだ。
 There is a theoretical term in this field that has always intrigued me. It is a term deeply involved in the construction of the identity of the acting subject or agency, and it also functions as an adjective to describe the nature of things. That term is “cosmopolitan.”
この言葉は、紀元 前５世紀頃の古代ギリシャの都市シノペ出身のディオゲネスに由来する。彼は禁欲と質素を旨とし、奴隷の身にやつしながらも、自己 のプライドを高くもち、精神と行動の自由を謳歌する実践的態度を貫いた人だと、後の評伝は伝える。３世紀初めに彼について短い消息を書いたディオゲネス・ ラエルティオスによると次のごとくである（ディオゲネス・ラエルティオス　1984；なお、ページ数は引用文献の該当箇所を、／は改行を表す］）。
 This phrase originates from Diogenes, a native of the ancient Greek city of Sinope who lived around the 5th century B.C. Later biographies describe him as a man who embraced asceticism and frugality; despite being reduced to slavery, he maintained a strong sense of self-respect and consistently upheld a practical attitude that celebrated freedom of mind and action. According to Diogenes Laertius, who wrote a brief account of him in the early 3rd century, the story goes as follows (Diogenes Laertius 1984; page numbers refer to the relevant sections in the cited work, and “/” indicates a line break).
「とにかく自分 ［＝シノペのディオゲネス—引用者］は、／祖国を奪われ、国もなく、家もない者。／日々の糧をもの乞いして、さすらい歩く人間。／な のだから。しかし彼は、運命には勇気を、法律慣習には自然本来のものを、情念には理性を対抗させるのだと主張していた」（p.141）。
 “In any case, I [= Diogenes of Sinope—cited by the author] am / one who has been stripped of his homeland, with neither country nor home. / A man who wanders about, begging for his daily bread. / That is why. Yet he maintained that one must oppose fate with courage, legal customs with what is natural, and passions with reason” (p. 141).
「あなたはどこの国の人なのかと訊ねられると「世界市民（コスモポリテース）だ」と彼は答えた」（p.162）。
 “When asked which country he was from, he replied, ‘I am a citizen of the world (cosmopolitan)’” (p. 162).
「彼は、高貴な生 まれとか、名声とか、すべてそのようなものは、悪徳を目立たせる飾りであると言って冷笑していた。／また、唯一の正しい国家は世界 的な規模のものであると。／さらにまた、婦人は共有であるべきだと言い。そして結婚という言葉も使わないで、口説き落とした男が口説かれた女と一緒になれ ばいいのだと語っていた。そしてそれゆえに、子供もまた共有であるべきだと。／また神殿から何かを持ち去るとか、あるいは、ある種の動物の肉を味わうとか することは、少しも異様なことではないし、さらに、人肉を食べることさえも、異国の風習から明らかなように、不敬なことではないとした」（p.170）。
 “He scoffed, saying that noble birth, fame, and all such things were merely trappings that served to highlight vice. / He also claimed that the only just state was one on a global scale. / Furthermore, he said that women should be held in common. He avoided using the word ‘marriage’ altogether, stating that a man who had seduced a woman should simply live with her. And for that reason, he argued, children should also be held in common. / He also maintained that taking something from a temple or tasting the meat of certain animals was not at all unusual; furthermore, he asserted that even eating human flesh was not sacrilegious, as was evident from the customs of foreign lands” (p. 170).
ディオゲネスの生 き方を、今日的に表現すれば既述したように、禁欲と質素を旨とし、自己のプライドを高くもち、精神と行動の自由を謳歌する実践的 態度を貫くということであろう。もちろんここで問題としたいのは、世界市民つまりコスモポリタンが意識する自己の帰属集団とアイデンティティについてであ る。コスモポリタンが帰属する「唯一の正しい国家は世界的な規模のもの」である。世界的な規模とは、包摂するものがないことと紙一重である。「自分は世界 市民である」という言明は、人間の属する集団としてもっとも広い集団に属するが、他方ではそれは「自分は人類だ」と言明するのと同じで、世界市民を包摂す る現実的社会集団は、現実にはどこにも存在しないということになる。
 To express Diogenes’ way of life in contemporary terms, as mentioned earlier, it would mean adhering to a practical attitude centered on asceticism and frugality, maintaining a strong sense of self-pride, and fully embracing freedom of thought and action. Of course, the issue I wish to address here concerns the sense of belonging and identity that a world citizen—that is, a cosmopolitan—is conscious of. The “only correct nation” to which a cosmopolitan belongs is one on a global scale. A global scale is a hair’s breadth away from being inclusive of nothing. The statement “I am a citizen of the world” means that one belongs to the broadest possible group to which a human being can belong; on the other hand, it is equivalent to stating “I am humanity,” which implies that no real social group exists anywhere that encompasses all citizens of the world.
コスモポリタンを包摂する社会集団を、我々が脅迫的にほとんど毎日のよ うに反復して想起している国民国家（西川　1998）や政治、宗教集団ある いは文明（Huntington 1993）との対比の中で見ると、我々の想像力の有限性がかいま見える。今日の政治言語だと、類的な存在としての人間のもっとも広い帰属集団を想定はする が、国際主義者（internationalist）よりももっと強度のある無政府主義者としか言いようがないものになるからだ。昭和12（1937）年 に三木清は、コスモポリタンにおける自由主義の立場が、政治システムでもなく、かといって文化主義でもないと説明し、「コスモポリタンとは政治への信頼を 失つた人間のことである」と主張している（三木　1967）。もっともな見解であろう。実際、コスモポリタンという言葉は、現実の政治的帰属集団から最も 遠いところにいるというニュアンスで使われる。あるいは、政治的な集団に帰属しないと考えられている信条や実践——以下で展開する〈医術〉（イアトリ ケー・テクネー）もそのひとつである——の行使者が、特権的に享受することができる、つまり政治的イデオロギーから免疫された〈政治的標識〉と言うことも できよう。
 When we view social groups that encompass cosmopolitans in contrast to the nation-state (Nishikawa 1998), politics, religious groups, or civilizations (Huntington 1993)—which we compulsively recall almost every day—we catch a glimpse of the limitations of our imagination. In today’s political language, while we do assume the broadest possible group to which human beings—as similar beings—belong, the result can only be described as an anarchist—a term carrying even greater intensity than “internationalist.” In Shōwa 12 (1937), Kiyoshi Miki explained that the liberal stance of the cosmopolitan is neither a political system nor culturalism, and argued that “a cosmopolitan is a person who has lost trust in politics” (Miki 1967). This is a reasonable view. In fact, the term “cosmopolitan” is used with the nuance that it refers to someone who is furthest removed from any actual political group to which one belongs. Alternatively, it could be described as a “political marker” that can be enjoyed on a privileged basis by practitioners of beliefs and practices not considered to belong to any political group—such as the “art of medicine” (iatrike techne), which will be discussed below—and which is, in other words, immune to political ideology.

目次［表 紙に戻る］

Credit: Reexamining Globalized Modern Medicine and Ethnic Medicine. Mitzub'ixi Quq Chi'j, 2002.

リ ンク

文 献

そ の他の情報


CC

Copyleft, CC, Mitzub'ixi Quq Chi'j, 1996-2099