Japan and Never mind

Japanese-American relations the last few years have been characterized by the dispute over the airbase at Futenma, and when and whether it will be removed. In the wake of the earthquake it became clear that relations were likely to stay high for a while, and resentment against an American military presence that was aiding in earthquake relief was likely to stay low.

Those intuitive trends have been institutionalized. As of yesterday, Japanese and American officials announced that Futenma will stay where it is, and a deadline for moving it was dropped. Not sure if this is truly a victory for anyone, but it surely is not one for the Okinawanans who have wanted this base moved since it was built.

Japan and Osama

It's interesting to me that in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, the most frequently the word "Japan" is mentioned in media coverage of the event is drawing parallels between the current celebration and that after the end of WWII. While Japan is not as instrumental or relevant as countries like Pakistan, England, or even Germany to the global fight against terrorism, it's interesting that Japan doesn't get mentioned at all, especially since it's one of our closest military allies.

The paradox inherent in the media coverage is interesting: Japan accrues the benefits of being a part, if not an organizing member, of the Western system of government and economics without having to take the blame. There are several potential explanations. First, a low percentage of the Japanese population is Muslim, so there is no fuel in Japan to start a global jihadist fire. Second, Japan was colonized by the West in a manner that may draw sympathy from jihadis. These reasons, while true, really aren't that compelling, since blaming a country as an active or complicit agent against Islam doesn't really require a tremendously sophisticated rationale. Neither of these factors prevent Japan from becoming a target, even if they explain it. The best reason is simply Japan's involvement in the world. Japan's constitution is explicitly Pacifist, and even though it does in some ways enable American military power, it has none of its own, and all of its interventions globally are humanitarian. That, coupled with a generous foreign aid budget, characterize Japanese foreign policy more than any attempt to further the imperialist agenda. So even though coverage of Osama's death barely involves the Japanese, they can't be complaining.

Japan and the Last Blog

For my last blog, I've been asked to impart a token of the vast knowledge I have acquired in the last 18 years unto the world. Hopefully this will connect to Japan, and hopefully this will connect to the Academy. This post will a discuss a central lesson I've learned through high school and this year, that I wouldn't mind teaching my children once they come into the world in a few months. I mean years. There's a song that sums up what I want to say well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVTbTOpaFb0

I would tell my son (or daughter if that mistake is made) to smile and hang out with intelligent people. The first lesson I learned from blogging about Japan, and the second from my time in the Academy.

It turns out the smiling crosses cultures. A basic course in psychology or human intuition could probably tell you as much, but it's worth noting that a smile can be disarming and signal trustworthiness, especially when it's genuine. Even though happiness (usually expressed by a smile) is an emotion that resonates worldwide, the specifics of a smile from culture to culture can vary. For instance, Americans and Japanese read smiles differently. Japanese tend to focus on the eyes while Americans look at the mouths. The clearest illustration of this fact can be seen through emitcons. In America happy is :) and sad is :( while in Japan happy is ^_^ and sad is ;_;

Intuitively, these sets of symbols all make sense as faces, but they become much more significant when you realize the eyes stay constant in the American version, while the mouth is constant in the Japanese version. Also interesting is that it's much easier to fake a smile in the mouth area than with the highly complex eye muscles. Must be why Americans get along so well; we can never tell when anyone is faking it.

The second part of the lesson is to hang out with intelligent people. My time in the Academy has taught me this lesson. Although apparently intelligent people are more likely to do drugs than their less intelligent counterparts (someone had to invent LSD), being around smart people seems like a good thing to do. Being around intelligent people challenges your mind. It makes you refine ideas and express them better. Intelligent people hold you accountable for what you have to say, but also give you the chance to learn about other perspectives, and develop intellectually. Smart people also can impart developed sets of values. None of this is to say dumb people are necessarily the opposite of any of these categories. However, the idea is to spend time with people who think and act intelligently, not cut off your entourage at an IQ of 140.

Thus my lesson to the world: smile and hang out with intelligent people. Be easy to trust and like, and surround yourself with people who challenge you and help you develop. If you follow both of these steps, it won't matter if the people around you are smarter than you are. At least they'll like you, because you'll smile a lot.

Japan and Poetry

In English class we've been working on quick, efficient, and sound analysis of poems, especially on initial encounter, in preparation for the AP Literature exam. While I won't be taking the exam (I already satisfied my whole humanities requirement for college last year!), the idea of poetic structure was interesting to me, so I did some research about poetry in Japan. While most grade school-aged Americans could tell you about Haiku, there are some other important forms.

Haiku- Old, shortest, originated by Basho. Have always contained a set number of syllables, even though originally had up to 100 verses versus the now common 1 verse of 17 syllables. Typically written about nature or daily life.

Here's one from Basho:

Fallen sick on a journey,
In dreams I run wildly
Over a withered moor.

Tanka- Older, longer. Typically written after an important event, focused on feelings and depth. Uses vivid imagery to discuss and issue of personal passion.

Here's a few verses from one:

as I sit in thought

she moves briskly

around the room,

stirring the chill

in the air

this complete enigma

of me wanting more solitude

then company in turn

on my terms

at just the right time

Ranga- More of a form of entertainment/game than poem. Allows two people to co-write a poem by adding on to each other. Can last up to 100 verses. Played at parties, and requires quick thinking and humor.

Here are a few verses from a poem:

silencing

the foursome at bridge

geese fly south

a rim of ice on the pond
oak leaves float on the water ** (Joyce Shriver)

silencing
the foursome at bridge
geese fly south
a splash on the river
circling ripples swirl ** (Donna Thomas)

If you're interested in reading more Japanese poetry in general, check here.

These styles of poetry have been adapted to English, but probably are more beautiful in the original Japanese. Regardless, poems in any culture express ideas personal and societal, and while the structure surely influences how ideas are expressed, the ideas themselves certainly do not change to the same extent. The skills we develop to understand poetry in one language are probably also applicable to analyzing poems from another. A poet's method of piecing together words and choosing them always reveals a deeper side of a poem than could be acquired by simply reading.

Japan and the Environment

Recently in English class we've been discussing the environment as its represented in literature. This extends to classics like Ray Bradbury's The Veldt. We've learned that characters' relationship with the environment, and the environment's role in their lives (not necessarily the same thing) strongly influences characters' actions and the course of the story. More interesting is adopting this critical approach to texts less overtly environmental- such as supermarket labels- and using them to understand our relationship to the environment. These conclusions are of course almost always culture-dependent, and while we all have some understanding what protecting the environment means in our culture, it is worthwhile to determine what it means in Japan.

There are two first impressions of Japanese environmentalism. The first associates the Kyoto Protocol with Japan and assumes Japanese policy helps the environment. The second is based on knowledge of things like whaling and assumes Japanese exploit the environment to no end. As a blogger discussing the differences between American and Japanese environmentalism explains, the answer is somewhere in between. While the Japanese government certainly has environmentally friendly policies, the environmentalism of the citizenry is generally limited to following government regulations. Despite claims of actively helping to preserve the environment, most Japanese only change their behavior insofar as the government mandates. While this doesn't necessarily contrast with environmentalism in the US, it's important to note that the aspects of consumer culture which prevent living in a way truly amenable with the environment apply there as well as here.

This tension reveals a broader tension in Japanese environmentalism: the difference between rhetoric and reality. This tension also gets to the heart of the ways we choose to represent the environment and what it says about culture. As one study shows, while the Japanese government is excellent at paying lip service to the environment and appearing to lead on the issue, in reality its model of development only creates crisis in other countries. This seems like a common tactic used by governments, corporations, and even individuals: Pointing to a single or small group of initiatives to prove ecological soundness while continuing policies and structures fundamentally opposed to the environment which are far more damaging. Often such policies are mere distractions while organizations continue to damage the environment.

We can see that Japan has a mixed record on the environment both in terms of actions and perceptions. In spite of continued problems with whaling and pollution, Japan has emerged as a leader on issues such as carbon emissions because of the Kyoto Protocol. Is this a positive development? Should Japan be held to a higher standard before being recognized as a leader? Anyone who argues Japan shouldn't be recognized as a leader on the environment is probably setting the bar much too high. In this world of consumer capitalist cultures which, the world over, have been too slow in taking action to help the environment, refusing Japan the role of leader doesn't mean we'll get a better leader, it means we're out of leaders, because few individuals, corporations, or countries meet that high of a standard. It's better to accept the good with the bad: acknowledge there are problems in the way we discuss and represent the environment, and even that there are contradictions in policy approaches, while continuing to work towards better policies. The issue is simply too complex.

The debate over nuclear power in the wake of the tsunami exemplifies this problem. Nuclear power emits less CO2 than most energy generating technologies, but also has the potential to create large scale environmental disasters. Just like any government policy there are major costs and benefits. Accepting the good with the bad is the only way to get more good. Behavior change is always gradual, and rather than throw the baby out with the rhetorical bathwater, we should teach the baby to walk, one step at a time.

Japan and Disaster

The most appropriate way to start off this week's blog is by extending my condolences to the Japanese families who have lost loved ones as a result of this week's earthquake and tsunami. I'd also like to express my hope for a full recovery of Japan in terms of both psychology and economics. Beyond these points, things get a little more complicated.

In case you aren't up to speed, there was a massive earthquake in Japan last Friday that measured a massive 8.9 on the Richter scale. It led to wreckage and huge tsunamis whose effects could be felt across the Pacific. Luckily, Japan's infrastructure is among the best in the world of its terms ability withstand earthquakes and tsunamis. Unfortunately, not every death was preventable, and around 10,000 dead are expected to be found, even as rescue attempts continue. That's the more human side of the disaster. Things get even more complicated from there.

As a result of the earthquake, Japan's economy has suffered a set back. Of greater immediate concern is the potential for the meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Fukushima. The earthquake prevented the plant from functioning, but the funny thing about nuclear power is even after you've stopped generating electricity with it you still need electricity to keep the fuel rods cool or they'll start exploding. They have. Although voices of reason point out that the language of disaster surrounding the potential catastrophe is a bit over-the-top, as comparisons to Chernobyl or the risk of a meltdown are overblown, there is a chance radiation will contaminate the plant's surroundings, and generate backlash to nuclear energy on whole.

Of course when people here about a tragedy of this proportion they want to help out. The US began relief efforts, taking advantage of its military presence in Japan, immediately. Private donations have also started flowing in. Here's a list of good options if you're interested in donating. And here's an article you to not spend your money foolishly.

One of the most interesting things when a disaster like this strikes is how it's covered in the media. And even if it seems a little soon to be analyzing coverage of this disaster, it's worth delving in to. Personally, I have found most interesting the tension between the way the media covers disasters in third world countries like Haiti or Indonesia as opposed to coverage of a disaster in first world Japan. In the same news report, reporters will praise Japan's excellent, state-of-the-art technology it invests in to effectively minimize the impact of earthquakes and tsunamis, and in the next breath use alarming rhetoric, calling the event a catastrophe or warning of a nuclear meltdown. This seems a bit silly and overblown. If any country in the world is prepared for a natural disaster, it is probably Japan. The country is natural resource-poor, inherently vulnerable, and culturally conservative in terms of risk taking. Even if reporters think sympathetic disaster coverage will sell or generate needed goodwill, it seems like a bit of a lie to make this story fit the traditional disaster mold. This doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to the Japanese who lost their lives, but it seems like we squander a potential learning opportunity when even successful disaster response is spun as being part of a catastrophe. A blog I stumbled across spoke about the limitations of language in the face of this tragedy. While it certainly is difficult to put language to work to express the scope of human suffering, perhaps we should instead employ language to speak about the lessons we can learn from Japan's response to a natural disaster, instead of repeating the obvious. 10,000 isn't 400,000 and the reason for that isn't dumb luck.

Update: Two days later Paul Pillar of the National Interest has made a similar point.

Japan and Mental Health

In English class we've been reading Hamlet. For those of you unfamiliar with the work, please take a brief primer on Western culture, and then return to this post. The rest of you will know that one of the major in themes in Hamlet is that of sanity. What constitutes insanity? How do we tell whether someone is insane or not? Where is the line? Is Hamlet sane? What about Ophelia?

As part of studying these issues, our class has talked a lot about whether and how being crazy or mentally unhealthy is culture-dependent. Western culture has defined sanity based on everything from balances in the four humors (fluids inside the body) to an individual's ability to maximize his or her happiness. Across time insanity has always been outside the norm. Sanity is normal, the insane are not. This leads to shifting definitions and treatments of insanity not only from time to time, but also from culture to culture in the same time period. One of the cultures that coexists with the American culture is that of Japan.

There are many who would tell you that Japanese culture as a whole is just plain insane. In writing this post I'll take a leap of faith in assuming that the Japanese do not see their culture the same way. The more interesting question is whether differing culture norms translate into different visions of insanity.

Rather than finding other cultures' models of mental illness harder to understand, it seems as if the opposite is coming true. In an excellent blog post summarizing a book, Christopher Lane, a professor at Northwestern, contends that America is essentially exporting it's ideas of insanity to other countries, including Japan. I encourage the reader to read that whole post, as it eloquently summarizes ideas I can only hope to re-summarize here.

The most interesting anecdote in the post is about Japan, so I'll expound on it. It's about drugs that treat depression. Conditions that could be labeled depression exist in most people in most societies. It's usually a matter of how an individual deals with inevitable sadness, and what society has to say about how much we should pity ourselves for how sad we feel. I would even postulate that depression symptoms fall under a type of negative Barnum Effect (things like horoscopes can apply to everyone because they're so vague), as anyone reading symptoms of depression can in some way connect. GlaxoSmithKline took advantage of depression's marketability in exporting the illness to Japan. Lane relates the story of how an aggressive marketing push corresponding with Paxil becoming available in Japan essentially created a mental health epidemic. The company made people sick to sell drugs to them.

This example is one of many related to Westerners' propensities to use their labels where they don't apply, leading to explosions in diagnoses of illnesses like PTSD in other countries. The question isn't whether symptoms that could constitute illness in a Western sense exist, but rather whether medicalization of these diseases according to an American model is the best solution. Telling people they're sick is a great way to get them to buy treatment, but probably not the best way to get them healthy.

Japan and Marxism

In reading Shakespeare's Hamlet, our English class has used a number of critical lenses through which the book can be read. One of them is a Marxist lens. Therefore, today we will look at Marxism and Japan, in timeline format since the end of WWII. See here for more detail.:

Pre-WWII- Japan rapidly develops and passes through the main stages of industrialization

1955-1973- Japan experiences an economic miracle, seeming to indicate capitalism might be the better choice

1973- Japan's Marxist party has significant power in the Diet- it's able to frustrate the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, hold a significant share of seats, and prevent the LDP from rolling through legislation that could've kept the LDP in power indefinitely.

1970s-1980s- Japan shifts to robotics and other high tech industries to avoid trade friction, leaving capital accumulated among the upper classes, translating into starkly little welfare services for Japan's poor

1980s-present- Japan continues to "lose" decades, throwing into question more it's relationship with the US than it's fundamental economics

A marxist reading of Japan would argue that its rapid development probably means it has been ready for a socialist revolution for some time, even as capitalist forces maintain power. It seems as if a capitalist reading would be much more informative, as Japan has been so committed to that system, understanding shortcomings in terms of how they can be fixed instead of why they're inevitable is probably more valuable.

Japan and Valentine's

Will you be mine?

If this were a normal blog, that question would be unsustainable, since I would have too many readers to fulfill the requisite Valentine's Day rites for all of them. However, since there probably are fewer than 15 people who will see this post, and half of them will reject me, I'd only have to buy Valentine's goodies for around 7 people. Does that seem like a lot? Well in Japan, it's the way it goes.

Japanese Valentine's Day customs might seem strange to Americans. In Japan, women are obligated to buy the men in their lives (that's right men, as in lover(s?), family, coworkers, etc.) chocolates. There are even different classes of gifts, luxurious chocolates for the lovers, and less extravagant chocolate for obligatory recipients, like coworkers. From a young age, girls are encouraged to participate and buy goodies for all of the boys in their lives. As they grow older, their mothers stop shopping for them, and they have to make the purchases themselves. Not surprisingly, in high school the number of chocolates one receives becomes a measure of popularity. It's not clear whether this is a sick plot to stage a popularity coup d'etat, by fattening the queen bee.

The whole thing is a commercial affair. Chocolatemakers make huge profits. Other companies, realizing this, decided that they should design a second day to make money off of obligation, I mean love. Accordingly, in the 1980's White Day was created. It started off as a chance for men to reciprocate, but it has gone far past that, as women expect their lovers to buy them clothes and jewelry. The holiday has grown past its purely commercial dimension to have some real meaning in Japan, but it's unlikely any clothes or jewelry companies are complaining.

It seems like Japan's version of this "holiday" would be fun to celebrate. Today, instead of watching people in relationships exchange chocolate and gifts, I would be receiving gifts from all the ladies I know, not just because I'm a lady killer, but also because there are girls who casually know me. The real benefit of Japan's Valentine's/White Days, from the single man's perspective, is that since I'm not in a big-deal relationship, my costs on White Day would be much lower than the average girl's. Although this is an awfully selfish approach to love, since either culture celebrates love, it seems fair to figure out how to get the best deal out of it. (Kidding, kind of)

Even though Japan's Valentine's customs might seem slightly bizarre, it's probably important keep our cultural criticism relative. After all, America is the land of Hallmark holidays. Multiple affairs, whether Valentine's, Father's Day, Mother's Day, Secretary's Day, etc., all exist for almost the sole purpose of allowing companies to make money selling cards and gifts. I have decided to protest them all by never participating. My family doesn't approve. Neither does my secretary. Japan has taken note of this most capitalist of trends, and even one-upped us. We have Valentine's Day, but Japan's White Day doubles the love, and profits. Thank-you-for-the-Valentine's Day-gift gift anyone?

Japan and Hamlet

In English class, we recently started reading Hamlet. Although I can't confirm it, as I today attended my fourth day of class on the beginning of the third week of the semester, I hear it's a decent story. In spite of not having discussed it with peers, I can surmise some of the themes of the play from reading articles about how Hamlet has played in Japan. These themes include corruption, inaction, and duty. Interestingly, these themes have found good reception in postwar Japan, as they relate to the character of Japanese society in light of defeat, rebuilding, and integration into the Western economic system.

In an article about a staging of the show in the 1980's, back when Japan was still relevant to something (joke?), the author discusses the adaptations the playwright made to the show. They include making Shakespeare's story into a play within a play, with an added beginning an ending. The beginning shows a defeated soldier coming home from war and being integrated into his family's acting troupe, which is performing Hamlet, as a lead and highly symbolic character. The rising status of the family and its society becomes clear even as they continue to perform the show, as their outfits become increasingly expensive as Japan redevelops and becomes an economic power. The question posed by the show thereby comes to question the value of this wealth in light of the cultural loss resultant from US influence and reconstruction. This pairs well with the themes of the play. As the article says:

The issues Shakespeare raises - of inaction, resolve, morality, corruption and duty - are those Mr. Fukada applies to Japan today. What is postwar Japan, the production seemed to ask, and where is it headed? The director does not supply any handy answers, but he asks the questions in a pointed way. Hamlet's famous soliloquy, ''To be or not to be,'' is often translated in Japanese as ''To live or die.'' In the translation prepared for this production, the phrase becomes, ''Should we go on as we are?''

The adaptation ends with a reincarnated Hamlet asking the audience if they should "go on as they are," aiming to shake the Japanese of their cultural complacency. Japanese are still struggling with their identity today, both relative to WWII and current military resurgence and in a racial sense. I'm not sure Hamlet helps with the latter, but it certainly provokes questions about the former.

The history of Shakespeare in Japan is also interesting. I will be severely abridging a very complete version of the story.

When Japan was opened by Commodore Perry in the mid-1800's, it led to the introduction of the English language, and English language culture. Shakespeare, of course, is a hallmark of that culture. As the article linked to above explains:

Shakespeare arrived in Japan as part of a flood of Western culture, explaining why Japanese responses to Shakespeare in general, and Hamlet in particular (the play which seemed to afford the best window into the Western mind), have, in complex ways, been bound up with larger questions of national self-identity and Japan's relationship to the West. From the start, Japan's attitude to the West was ambivalent: both fearful and emulative.

Hamlet plays into that history and culture. The play itself has come to speak to the relationship between East, West, and Japan both before and after WWII, as it symbolizes an internal conflict to be true to one's better self, and act accordingly. It's a struggle we all face, but I'd imagine it's harder after you're culturally occupied.

Japan and the State of the Union

The word "Japan" wasn't used in President Obama's State of the Union address once. To the consummate followers of this blog, that may come as a surprise, easily explained by Obama's continual focus on domestic policy. Nope. Japan's neighbors made their way into the speech. "China" was used four times, "India" three, "South Korea" five times, "Korean Peninsula" once, and "North Korea" once. Obama didn't say "Japan." The closest he came was referencing that he "strengthened Asian alliances" over the past year. Perhaps that was a way of claiming victory in the Futenma dispute without having to discuss the gritty details.

Not much has been written on the non-mention of Japan. The simplest explanation for this is simply that the US and Japan have such a long lasting alliance, and Japan is such an assumed partner of the US, that a mention wasn't necessary. England wasn't mentioned either. (Along with the United Kingdom and Britain)

While Japanese officials' public reaction was calm, there are some reports of shock among the Japanese government at their non-mention.

As concerning as this may seem, it's important to note that Obama hasn't mentioned Japan in past States of the Union. Additionally, Obama's central message was about US competitiveness, especially against rising powers, and as much as 2011 resembles the 80s, Japan as a rising power isn't a hot idea right now.

The bottom line is that language matters. Which countries Obama mentions and how many times clearly indicate where the United States will expend its foreign energy in the coming year. In some cases, like North Korea, it's to counter a military threat. And in others, like India and China, it's to counter an economic threat. Still, from Japan's internal governmental perspective, it can't be good when the President of the United States mentions every country in the neighborhood except Japan. It's kind of like being one of the last chosen for a pick up game of basketball. Your welcome on the team, but you're not worth a high pick. You probably also won't get passed the ball too much.