This essay aims to reflect on the idea of landscape and our relationship with it by taking the Japanese notion of furusato (native place) in its ontological dimension. Grounded on Heidegger's 'phenomenology of Being' and 'ontology', it will be developed a phenomenological understanding of fieldwork experience in a Japanese rural community in order to rethink both the furusato and the 'Being-landscape' relation. As a consequence, we will be concerned not with how people speak about landscape, but with how the landscape speaks through people. What will be brought to light are the landscape's moral and relational dimensions: namely, (i) the responsibility towards both our communities and future generations and (ii) a more-than-physical understanding of landscape that alerts us to our belonging to a common world comprised of relationships and tasks.

The present article develops a theoretical and philosophical critique of the subjectivist paradigm that grounds a good part of present-day anthropological discourse. The main thesis is that by placing the individual and its subjective experiences at the beginning and end of the anthropological discourse, one never thoroughly acknowledges and accepts our non-subjective and finite modes of being, thereby replicating a distorted and shallow picture of what we are as humans. The article explores, first, how that subjectivist paradigm came about, as well as some of its problems; secondly, it considers ethics and morality as the domain where one can better grasp the limits of subjectivist orientations; and concludes by turning to Heidegger's perspective on the ontological finitude of Dasein in order to emphasize the need for contemporary anthropology to build its reflections from within human finitude, that is, the frailties and the practical, analytic and moral limits of human existence.

By taking as background a few examples from Japanese culture and society, as well as an ethnographic insight, this article reconsiders the way anthropology usually deals with and talks about issues regarding cultural differences in human relations. These issues, which start from the fact that different cultures articulate human relations in different ways, have as one of their main theoretical outcomes the analysis around the categories of “self” or “person.” However, within this move lies something akin to a “gestalt misconception” that reduces a shared moral understanding (human relations) to an analysis of conceptual categories and their cognitive, psychological, subjective (or other) processes. Alternatively, the article proposes a more dialogical approach informed by Gadamer’s idea of “dialog” and “fusion of horizons,” where one aims to learn from other cultures and not about them. As a result, some reflections of a philosophical, moral, and practical character are presented, leaving theoretical formulations about the “Japanese self” out of the equation. This article’s general purpose is not an exploration of “Japaneseness,” but rather a probe into the possibilities of Being.

No abstract