I have to say that I was disappointed by Kate Elwood's latest Cultural Conundrum's column for The Daily Yomiuri. She has this discussion of the concept of amae:
Based on open-ended interviews with Japanese laymen informants describing their experiences with what they would personally label amae, human development researcher Kazuko Behrens proposes five distinct amae categories: 1) "affective" amae of infants, children and romantic partners, motivated by a desire for physical and emotional closeness and characterized by snuggling and playfulness; 2) "manipulative" amae of children and romantic partners, driven by a desire to manipulate and characterized by acting helpless and clingy; 3) "reciprocal" amae of child and adult friends and peers for emotional closeness and to reciprocate favors, seen in desperate conduct and deal making; 4) "obligatory" amae used by adult non-intimates of unequal status like bosses and subordinates and involving taking advantage of another by making unreasonable demands; and 5) "presumptive" amae of adult non-hierarchical distant acquaintances, marked by presuming inappropriately on another's good will.
Taking a different tack, cross-cultural psychologists Rees Lewis and Ritsuko Ozaki made a study comparing amae and "mardy," a dialect word in the English Midlands, which means soft or spoiled. The researchers asked Japanese informants to recall specific incidents when they and others behaved in an amae way, and similarly English respondents who had grown up in the region that uses the word "mardy" were asked the same questions regarding "mardy."
Lewis and Ozaki found considerable overlap regarding the two terms of emotion. However, they note that while amae was sometimes described in situations in a constructive way and sometimes in a negative way, "mardy" was exclusively bad. They conclude that the existence of "good" amae and "bad" amae is part of the reason that amae can be used to manipulate people, while "mardy," always viewed disapprovingly without any wiggle room for a positive spin, cannot succeed in such attempts.
In a paper published 20 years after The Anatomy of Dependence, Doi applies the concept of amae to Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince, suggesting the happiness of attachment and dependence the fox describes in being tamed by the boy corresponds to amae. Doi remarks that while amae is a normal Japanese word, Saint-Exupery could not express it except through a fable using an animal. Doi even goes as far as to suggest that humans keep pets so as to "enjoy vicariously the gratification of amae."
However, Elwood refuses to critically comment on this idea of Doi's that humans "enjoy vicariously the gratification of amae." It seems like a ridiculous statement and culturally specific since in most western traditions this "mardy" is seen negatively. Elwood refuses to take sides, why?
I can say that I was equally disappointed in Sawa Kurotani's most recent Behind The Paper Screen column for the same paper. that being said lately she has been addressing America-centric ideas that aren't particularly interesting or revelatory about Japanese culture in her analysis. Here she contemplates "personalism" in Japanese society and contrasts the concept with American individualism without drawing any real conclusions:
I wonder, however, what Japan's recent interest in home-improvement and its dissatisfaction with politics-as-usual may mean. Unlike the United States, Japan has very little historical background in rugged individualism--in fact, words such as shakai (society) and kojin (individual) had to be invented in the mid-19th century to translate the Western social philosophy--and social scientists have categorized the Japanese construction of selfhood as distinctly different than Western "individuals," emphasizing more overtly the social roles and relationships as essential constituents of a person.
Instead, I wonder if they are part of a larger trend that I may call "personalism." Many of Japan's recent fads have to do with a sort of cocooning into a personal world, as most dramatically exhibited in hikikomori (social withdrawals) and other asocial behavior, but also suggested in such ideas as iyashi (healing) and maibumu (my boom). The former focuses on personal healing and comfort in the midst of social upheaval and uncertainty, while the latter--an oxymoron in itself--suggests a solitary person buried in his or her own world of personal likes and dislikes. This indulgence in personal life also explains an increased attention to one's home and personal space. Similarly, the ever-shifting voter loyalty seems to be motivated not by political consciousness or social concerns, but by which party promises to satisfy one's own personal needs and tastes.
Both "rugged individualism" and "personalism" are what social scientists call "ideology": a system of ideas that guide people's thoughts and actions in a given social, historical moment, and as such, American individualism and Japanese personalism show us an intriguing trend that runs through two very different national societies. The return to the individual/personal signifies both Japanese and Americans are dissatisfied by their governments and societies, and, more fundamentally, disillusioned by the promise of modern society to provide happiness to all. This is a much bigger question than any one political candidate or political party can handle.
I would have liked to see Kurotani discuss the fedualistic attitudes that thwarted democratic thought and concept like individualism. I think saying that people feel governments are not serving the need of modern people is a pretty shallow conclusion-disappointing where she took this arguement.
Recent Comments