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.
Recent Comments