本研究は、現代中国のインディペンデント映画――政府の公式上映許可を得ていない、比較的低予算の映画；フィクションとドキュメンタリー双方を含む――の製作・配給・上映・鑑賞のあり方を、国際映画祭のような、中国国内事情を超える国際的な要素も視野に入れながら、現地調査による社会学的な観察とインタビューによって、明らかにすることを目的としています

本研究は、経営学及び経済社会学分野における、「市場経済化にともなう生産ネットワークの社会的構造化」の議論に貢献することを目的とした。「新古典派経済学」によれば、現代中国におけるような市場移行期の生産ネットワークは、匿名の生産アクター（本研究においては映画スタジオ）による一回性の「非繰り返し共同」（non-repeat collaboration）に向かうとされる。他方、経営学・経済社会学的アプローチは、市場経済における生産ネットワークも、社会的権力（例えば、国有スタジオに対する政策上の優遇）や過去の取引の惰性的継続のような社会構造・メカニズムに「埋め込まれており」（embedded）、「繰り返し共同」（repeat collaboration）のかたちをとった市場の「社会的構造化」が出現するものとみる。計量的ネットワーク・データ分析の結果、経済社会学的アプローチが予測するような、「繰り返し共同」のかたちをとった市場の「社会的構造化」――社会的権力（例えば、国有スタジオに対する政策上の優遇）や過去の取引の惰性的継続のような社会構造の存在――を示唆する結果が得られた。さらに、インタビュー、文献研究に基づく質的研究の結果、計量分析で示された「社会的構造化」に、国内の映画祭におけるフィルムマーケットが大きな役割を果たしていることが明らかとなった。加えて、研究開始当初には背景として十分に想定されていなかった、IT企業の映画製作への投資・参画も明らかになり、インターネット動画サイト等で配信される映画・コンテンツ製作をも視野に入れて、中国映画産業研究を進めてゆく必要性が認識された

過去35年間（1979～2013年）に生産された中国映画についての生産データ――どのスタジオが単独あるいは共同で映画を製作したか――に関するデータベースを作成し、ネットワーク分析の方法を用いることによって、スタジオ共同製作のネットワーク構造の変化・不変化を明らかにすることをめざした。パイロット分析の結果、経済社会学的アプローチが予測するような、「繰り返し共同」のかたちをとった市場の「社会的構造化」――社会的権力（例えば、国有スタジオに対する政策上の優遇）や過去の取引の惰性的継続のような社会構造の存在――を示唆する結果が得られた

明治学院大学文学部芸術学科・言語文化研究所共催シンポジウム「中国独立映画のプラットホーム ―俳優王宏偉の多様な貌」

Elucidations of technological aspects arecrucial to grasp the possibility of a sustainable automobile society precisely.“Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) was approved at the United NationsSummit held in New York on September 25, 2015; SDGs posit “Climate Action” astheir Goal 13. The development of sustainable automobile technologies is thekey to realizing carbon neutrality. The emerging technologies inelectrification and renewable resources, such as e-fuel, will be essential toachieve the goal in the coming years.At the same time, however, asthe academic field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) has amply shown,technology is “embedded” in society in the broadest terms. Adoptions oftechnologies are strongly influenced by political (e.g., government policies,laws, and regulations), economic (e.g., cost-effectiveness), and socioculturalforces (e.g., social and cultural acceptance of certain technologies) thatembed them.Hence, in this research, I examine the future potentialof “sustainable automobile culture” by elucidating the social dimension ofautomobile and automobile technologies. Since the invention of thesteam-powered tricycle by the French military engineer Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot in1769, the automobile has a history of more than two hundred and fifty years. Hence, the culturecentering and surrounding automobile also has a long history in various areasof human activities. From auto racing, “the car as a status good,” automobileentertainment (e.g., music to videos and games in more recent years), to “roadmovies,” there are abundant automobile cultures in Europe, where the technologyis invented, as well as in countries and societies all around the world, whereautomobiles are manufactured, sold, and used.The richness of automobileculture notwithstanding, academic studies on automobile cultures are few andfar between. In particular, there is a shortage of analyses of automobileculture in the age of sustainable development. I attempt precisely to fill thisgap in social scientific studies of automobile culture, especially in the eraof carbon neutrality and sustainable development. More specifically, Iselectively examine five types of automobile culture: auto racing, tourismfacilities focused on automobiles, “Japanese classic car” (kyūsha) boom, VRgames, and films. First, I argue that sociocultural images the automobile usershave of automobiles and related technologies are crucial in understanding theprospects of a sustainable automobile society. Second, I argue that we willrealize a genuinely sustainable automobile society by nurturing an automobileculture adapted to a sustainable society’s technological and social needs.

With the rise of digital platforms such as YouKu, TencentVideo, and Bilibili, a new sub-genre of documentary film called the “new mediadocumentary” (NMD) (xinmeiti jilupian) has emerged in China. Accordingto the Research Report on the Development of Documentary Film, the fourmajor video streaming platforms of YouKu, Tencent Video, Bilibili, and iQIYI invested1.1 billion yuan in documentary film production in 2018—an 83% increase fromthe previous year. NMD is often characterized by its highly diversified contents,relatively short length, and interactivity. In terms of contents, documentary filmson “food,” which is one of the most popular, can be diversified into numeroussubtopics—for example, those focusing on food in societies around the world, onbreakfast in a particular Chinese region, or exclusively on hotpot. As for the length,most NMD is relatively short—30 minutes or even shorter in the case of theso-called “micro documentary film” (wei jilupian). In terms ofinteractivity, due to the interactive nature of digital platforms in generaland the function of “barrage subtitling” (danmu) (Nakajima 2019) inparticular, active audience participation is often said to characterize theviewing practices of the NMD. NMD is “new” not only in its contentdiversification, short length, and interactivity—which may be the result of itsreliance on digital platforms for distribution and exhibition, but also in its modeof production squarely aiming at economic profit. This “market-orientedinstitutional logic” (Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury 2012) differs significantlyfrom the earlier “non-profit logic” of the state-sponsored newsreel traditionand CCTV programs, as well as the more recent “independent logic” of the NewDocumentary Film Movement (Berry, Lu, and Rofel 2010). To disentangle thesources of the market logic in the newly emerging “platform economy” (Steinberg2019) in China, I put to work the “six facets model” presented by thesociologist Richard Peterson (Peterson and Anand 2004): 1) technology (e.g.,audience interface), 2) law and regulation (e.g., IPR and ethics of documentaryfilm production including the protection of privacy and data gathering ethics),3) industry structure (relations among key organizational participants), 4)organizational structure (of each key participating firms), 5) occupationalcareer (e.g., directors/producers), and the 6) market (key consumers).

During theCultural Revolution (1966-76), the Chinese film industry experienced severepolitical turmoil; regular film production was suspended, and instead, highlypoliticized “model revolutionary operas” were made into films. Fast-forward tothe present. In 2023, North America (U.S. and Canada) topped the global box officewith 9.1 billion U.S. dollars, but China positioned a close second with 7.7billion U.S. dollars. In other words, the Chinese film industry has transformedfrom a “barometer of politics” to a “dream factory with Chinesecharacteristics.” Existing studies of the Chinese film industry have been divided into two approaches (for a review, see, e.g.,Wing-Fai Leung and Sangjoon Lee. 2019. “The Chinese Film Industry: EmergingDebates.” Journal of Chinese Cinemas 13(3):199-202). The “state capitalism”approach stresses the state’s continuing role—including the preferentialtreatment of state-owned studios—and argues that politics, includingcensorship, is trumping the market mechanisms. The “market transition” approachemphasizes the laissez-faire notion of free market and predicts the decliningrole of the state and politics, as long as the film content does not engagewith political issues. This project proposed an alternative to these two approaches by zeroing inon the role of organizations and institutions in the Chinese film industry. Forinstance, soon after China acceded to WTO in 2001, the distribution sector forChinese domestic films, which had long been the monopoly of the state-ownedChina Film Corporation, was opened up for market competition by numerousprivate film distribution companies. At the same time, however, the government’scontrol in the distribution sector was strengthened for economically lucrativeimported blockbuster films, when the government newly established thestate-owned Huaxia Film Distribution in 2003 and created the state-ownedduopoly of Huaxia and China Film Corporation. By meticulously process-tracing a numberof institutional events and incidents in the film industry in the past four decades,the project argued that what matters the most was not whether the state or the market was winning, but how the state and the market were mutually “embedded” (Karl Polanyi) and creating the uniqueinstitutional dynamics of the Chinese film industry.

「科学技術社会論」を援用し、20世紀の最初期、米国において、蒸気・電気・内燃機関の三種のパワートレーンがほぼ同じ割合で採用されていたにもかかわらず、自動車に対する社会・文化的イメージの変化を契機として、内燃機関車が一気に優勢になったとする先行研究を踏まえ、今日の電動化においても、自動車に関する社会的認知が重要な役割を果たすという議論を提出した。「経済社会学・組織研究」を援用し、次世代自動車産業に関わる自動車メーカー間のダイナミックスを理解するために、社会学的「場の理論」（field theory）が有効であることを確認した。「移動研究」の視点から、次世代自動車利用者の社会的認知に関して、聞き取りを行った。

One of keydimensions of the rising tension between the U.S. and China is advancedtechnologies such as AI, Big Data, and robotics. The conflict affects not onlythe U.S. and China, but also other countries in the Asia-Pacific includingJapan. For instance, in AI technology, an increasing number of Japanese firmsconduct R and D activities in the United States (e.g., Toyota ResearchInstitute). If these firms manufacture products and/or provide services usingthe AI technologies in China, they will be potential targets of the U.S.regulatory controls originally intended to confront the Chinese competition. Becauseindustrial firms cross-cut national borders, the U.S.-China relations cannot befully grasped without examining the multi-layered networks of firms andindustries that may or may not follow the perimeters of the nation-states. Inthis research, I disentangled such complexity of U.S.-China relations by discussingthe case of advanced technologies in the next generation automobile industry(autonomous driving and electric vehicle). Analytically, I put to work thetheory of “strategic action fields” (Fligstein andMcAdam), and argued that overfocusing on “international relations”—military andsecurity issues as well as state actors—might prevent us from seeing thecomplex components and interactions that make up the “U.S.-China tension.”