Japan and the Other

Today in English class we were discussing the idea of the Other. To summarize the concept, the Other is essentially what "we" (whatever the norm is in a given culture) are not. That is, if we are male, the Other is female. If we are white, then the Other is a racial minority. In this way, all cultures (not just ours) define themselves, establishing a firm identity by contrasting it with alternatives. In a sense, the Other is essential to understanding the Self. Still, use of the Other becomes problematic when a culture becomes too dominant and exploitative, uses the Other to mark those who don't belong, and uses violence or other means to exclude them. Creating the Other can also greatly hamper cross-cultural communication, since the Other can be construed as an inferior, and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously or without a contribution to be made.

Obviously, these problems carry over to our relationship with Japan. To avoid rephrasing something in a worse form than the original, here's the abstract to an excellent paper on the subject, which I will continue to cite throughout this paper:

This paper tries to show how cross-cultural conflict often occurs between Japan and Westerners as the result of imposing one's own cultural meanings onto another culture. Interpretations of Japan, as well as other Asian cultures, often carries an implicit assumption that the West is rational (and superior) whereas the East is bound by ancient traditions (and is inferior). "Orientalism" has been identified as the particular form that Western stereotypical understandings of Asian cultures has taken. Intercultural communication becomes highly problematic as long as stereotypes are held and as long as the other culture is seen as foreign and wholly other. By transcending this "Orientalism" we will be in a better position to understand and communicate with those from another culture without having to set up a dichotomous boundary between "us" and "them." Conflict with Japan is focused on 1) because there seems to be a lot of it, and 2) because Japan represents a unique culture field which is, in some ways, both modern and familiar, yet in other ways seemingly foreign to Western interpretive structures. This paper will call into question some of the stereotypes that Westerners often project onto Japan as being a monolithic culture which is excessively authoritarian, hierarchical, and patriarchal. We will try to offer some other interpretive options for understanding a culture which has suffered from intercultural communication problems for so long.

Some of what's going on in that abstract requires certification higher than a middle school diploma to fully flesh out (don't worry, I'll have a high school diploma soon), but, without getting bogged down in some of the more esoteric terminology or concepts, and perhaps staying away from the gritty details of the field of Japanese cultural studies, we can draw out a few key points.

-We stereotype and assume superiority when trying to understand Japan

When understanding Japan, we all too often imagine Japanese as efficient, dependent, and polite. The implication becomes that Japanese are conformist- incompatible with Western ideals of the individual and rights, and simply different and inferior.

-That makes it hard to communicate across cultures

When we assume someone is that inferior, it makes hard for us to imagine any benefit to communication. Additionally, some aspects of the stereotype- such as Japanese being unable to express their opinions or communicate without Japanese- make it seem to us as if we are unable to communicate with Japanese. That only furthers the stereotype, because there's no chance for it to be broken down.

-There are ways to end this predicament

Rosen (in the article cited above) has a few suggestions from other sources: Using an idea from Hinduism to open ourselves to other ideas, and learning the same language so communication is easier.

Though those options seem less than practical, it probably is important to bear in mind the stereotypes we use to understand people, and actively resist them. Pointing out and acknowledging them is the first step.

A personal touch-

While I'm familiar with the stereotypes and attitude explained above- especially in the extreme forms portrayed in the media like a Japanese takeover of our economy- I have to say I've had so little personal experience with either ethnic or native Japanese that these stereotypes, no matter how distilled or thought through, are truly all that dictate my understanding of what a Japanese person is like. Accordingly, when I read an article about something like Japanese politics, my only context for really understanding Japanese political dynamics is to assume their politicians behave as we do. The problem is when Japanese politicians do and say things American politicians would never do or say. See sub-point #3 here. In these cases, statements like that of Ichiro Ozawa (saying he was not worthy of office but would run anyway) can only be understood within a narrative of Japanese compliance and humility, which, even if true in a way, without context creates a sense of inferiority instead of respect.

For the last few years, my neighbors across the street have been a Japanese businessman and his family. There have been two families so far, each here for two year terms. Only the men have known (some) English, although the kids and mom have an English teacher every week. I don't speak Japanese, a problem Rosen anticipates. A cultural barrier straight down the middle of my street.

Maybe it's time to ask the English teacher to do some translating.