Access count of this item: 37
|Other Titles:||<ARTICLES>Who Saved Nara Park?: Debate on Closure of Parkland from 1939 through 1951|
|Author's alias:||DOUMOTO, Naoki|
|Journal title:||京都社会学年報 : KJS = Kyoto journal of sociology|
|Abstract:||The purpose of this paper is to examine the conflict that arose when ownership of the historic cultural property called Nara Park was changed from Nara Prefecture to a shrine and temple company. There was a dispute as to which party should be responsible for preservation of the distinctive ancient scenery. If it were to be managed by Nara Prefecture, it could be maintained as a park. However, if the shrine/temple company managed it, it would become private property, making it impossible for the property to be a freely accessible park. In order for privately owned land to be opened to the public, its manager must adopt a public position. Traditionally, acceptance of the concept of public management of such places for the purposes of modernization had become widespread. On the other hand, shrine and temple companies saw public management as unknown knowledge. They focused on their daily religious practices in the process of seeking the return and transfer of land. That was known knowledge. Today, most people think that the park is not owned by anyone; rather, it is a space that can be used freely. This undercurrent is the concept of public space. However, in the Meiji Era, that logic, together with the concept of space utilization as parks, was introduced from the West (1873). Therefore, it did not exist in pre-modern Japan and it took a long time to gain acceptance in modern society. The parcel of land which gave rise to the park in the first place was one that the Meiji New Government confiscated from the shrine and temple company (1871). However, the Religious Organization Act of 1939 and the Japanese Constitution of 1947 introduced the proposition that these lands would be returned to the original owners. The shrine and temple companies are not obliged to open returned shrines to the public. Nevertheless, the modern Nara Park is open to tourists. There has been discussion about repositioning the public nature of such spaces in order to open up private land for public benefit.|
|Appears in Collections:||第26号|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.