Cultural Relativism=Lousy Excuse

Is it just me or are the Japanese particularly sensitive to criticism. It seems that every time they are criticized, they resort to the cultural relativism argument. Parental abduction? Cultural difference. Eating dolphins? Cultural difference. 

Here are some quotes from the mixed reactions from the documentary “The Cove” about the dolphin slaughter in Taijima:

Junko Inoue, a resident of Saitama, said she found the final scene, where dozens of dolphins trapped in a hidden cove are speared by fishermen, turning the water blood red, “shocking.” But she didn’t think the hunt should be stopped entirely. “There are a lot of cultural differences in people’s eating habits,” she said.



“Westerners say it’s OK to kill and eat cows, but not dolphins,” said Hiroshi Hatajima, a 42-year-old office worker from Tokyo. “That kind of special treatment isn’t going to register with a lot of Japanese. We have to eat animals to survive. It’s a cultural clash.” The film, while well-made, “comes across as somewhat propaganda-like,” he said.


Sorry, eating dolphins is NOT like eating beef. I like to think that I can admit that America is not perfect and needs a lot of reforms both politically and culturally. We drive uneconomic cars too much, eat large portions of unhealthy food, and have some dubious policies in regards to international politics and health care.

Anyway, I found Sawa Kurotani, author of “Behind The Paper Screen” column in The Daily Yomiuri, to be another cultural apologist, which is troubling since she is an anthropologist by training. In her latest column she questions the westerns assumptions about “hikikomori” (young people who withdraw from society and stay shut in their homes):

I was thinking of my memory of being shut out, as I read Michael Zielenziger's Shutting out the Sun, which centers on hikikomori, or "shut-ins" who literally confine themselves in their bedrooms and avall social contact for months and years. Zielenziger's analysis, albeit well researched, is not without problems of its own. His perspective on hikikomori is explicitly and implicitly influenced by his own (read "American" or "Western") ideals of individualism, self-reliance and independence, and as a result, he labels hikikomori as a uniquely "Japanese" phenomenon. However, he does make an important suggestion that the uchi-soto distinction and the extreme concern for maintaining sekentei or public appearance tightly surround the private sphere of uchi, and once hikikomori shut themselves in, there is no way out of this self-imposed seclusion.

If I remember correctly, he even surveyed other Asian countries and lo and behold-it IS a uniquely “Japanese” phenomenon. In fact I saw a BBC report which also came to that conclusion-which also supports her western-centric view. But instead of addressing to how to combat it or agree that it is counterproductive to a society that won’t have enough workers in their near future to run its economy, she cites lack of understanding of the culture as the focus of the article.

I think there is something akin between my childish craving for the safety of home and the decision of young adults to cocoon themselves inside their uchi. To put it another way, I suspect that the impulse of hikikomori to shut themselves in may be an infantile reaction to the difficulty of childhood-to-adulthood transition and an avoidance of adult social relationships that are not always pleasant or easy. In fact, many anthropological studies document the difficulty of transition to adulthood experienced in many societies and the ubiquity of elaborate rituals to mark this critical transition. If so, might teenagers and young adults from different social and cultural backgrounds have similar experiences and thus at least a degree of empathy for the plight of Japanese hikikomori? While I had no way of truly testing this notion, I could at least find out what young Americans thought of this. I assigned the book for my "Japanese Society and Culture" class, to see what my students might have to say about this.

Perhaps I should not be surprised, but no one in my class seemed to relate to hikikomori whatsoever. My students were first perplexed, and then upset, that seemingly bright and talented young people would choose to shut themselves up in their rooms and entirely depend on their parents to take care of them. It was very difficult for them to wrap their heads around the idea that there is a place on Earth where expressing one's individuality was discouraged, where being "different" in any way can result in such harsh bullying by their peers. They discussed in disbelief how Japanese parents do not express their affection much and are unable or unwilling to intervene in their children's lives in decisive and effective ways. They are also shocked at how extreme forms of bullying are allowed to go on in Japanese schools.

Their responses are, more than anything else, telling of the social and cultural environment in which these American students were raised. They were socialized with firm beliefs in individuality and independence. They place a great deal of importance in the emotional ties among family members, but they also define such ties as connection between individuals, which need to be regularly expressed and affirmed, and the kind of amae or "indulgence" typical in Japanese family is not considered appropriate for adult children.

I really find this concept of “amae” really counterproductive to critical thinking and autonomy, which many of my students lack in addressing their studies as college students. I would say this is on par with the culture of acceptance in America where it is OK to be fat or that everyone should get to pass because everyone is good at something. These are not productive norms and should be challenged.

Their comments also point to a disciplinarian approach of the contemporary American school system. Despite the common perception to the contrary, American schools, in fact, closely monitor students, ready to quickly intervene and strictly punish any antisocial behavior. Most importantly, they are taught to look outwardly, beyond the safety of private family sphere and the comfort of a narrow but familiar world, and carve out their own niches as unique individuals in a broader social universe. Not that all of my students would achieve these ideals, but shutting themselves in the privacy of their homes is not even a viable option in their worldview.

And that’s not a good thing? If you quit your job and stop going to school in America you’re going to get kicked out on the curb. I can’t think of many other societies that have NEETS (people not in employment, education or training) either. This is another example of the permissive culture and it’s “amae.” In America we call NEETS, bums or freeloaders. 

Comments

[DG]

I'm under the impression there are a fair number of NEETs in the U.K. -- that's where the term originated, apparently -- although the definition there is more limited.

However, I think where the cultural relativism falls apart in that case is that hikikomori seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon. If it's so tied to the traditional culture, why don't we see reference to it going back much earlier than the '70s?

[Micheal O'Luain]

Hello! Mike Lambe here. A friend of mine sent me a link to this today saying "Not sure why I was thinking of you when I read this, but I like this guy's mind and think you would too." Small world, eh? His name is Ted by the way and he has his own blog up here: http://notesfromthenog.blogspot.com/ Speaking of lame excuses - I was unwise enough to get into a "discussion" about whaling at a local bar one night. Most of the people about me visibly bristled when I cheerfully proffered my own anti-whaling opinion and the rather tired (and inaccurate) excuse that "it is traditional!" was trotted out and then repeated in dogmatic and increasingly angry terms. A Japanese friend of mine though answered me with a smile: "I don't know about all that tradition and stuff - and I don't really care about it either. I just like the taste of whale bacon. So that's why I want to eat it. Whale tastes good." At least he was honest, eh?

[MC]

Hey Mike, Ted often drops by here and makes comments. I think we have a common love of literature among other things. So I'm familiar with his blog as well. As for the tired whaling issue, much like the child abduction defense "to protect" wives/children from DV-it is dishonest and tired as you mention. The tastes good defense is more to my liking as well.

[Edward]

The whaling issue is quite a big deal here, especially as a lot of it happens in or near our waters (down towards the antarctic), and the the anti-whaling boats tend to leave from Australian shores. Just a month or two ago a Japanese whaling ship sank a small protest vessel.
I'm anti-whaling too, because whales are beautiful and unusual animals - too good for these reasons to eat them, (and not to mention the tourism dollars involved in Australian whale watching operations). I can defend cultural relativism though, except not via tradition. Simply put, Japanese don't value whales very much except as food. We kill and eat plenty of cows, (I'm right up there), but a Hindu Indian would not of course. There's little difference between these situations - both involve cultural differences in the value placed on these animals. The only diffference with whaling is that most countries don't eat whale meat (...anymore), and of course the oceans are not controlled by any one country - so in common waters the Japanese can get away with whaling in a way that we couldn't get away with killing Indian cows (for example). If we want to stop the Japanese whaling, we cannot rely on moral arguments unless they are endangered - which the Japanese deny. To avoid this we could simply ask them not to do it anymore because we really like whales and are offended by their eating them. Or perhaps we could try making furniture out of Japanese sakura to prove a point...

[MC]

Edward, I have to disagree with you here. Killing cows and whales are very different because there aren't many whales and we can' t breed them like we breed cows. That's why that particular defense doesn't work. I should have been more explicit about it in my post above.

Rush Limbaugh (an American right wing talk show host) used to argue that forrest preservation was flawed by comparing it to corn: "You never hear anyone say save the corn!" Same thing applies there, trees take a life time to grow, trees to make a forest and provide habitat for a number of species. Corn is a crop that can be gown naturally in many different places for consumption.

Even if the Japanese deny that they are not endangered doesn't make it true. They do that with everything.