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 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.

Myths and Japan

In English class, which will provide topics for some posts, we're reading Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible. I would recommend it as a good read (at least through page 124). For a full plot summary, click here. The book tells the story of an American family led by a missionary father who goes to the Congo (prior to independence) in the 1960's. There they encounter an Africa strangely closed to their missionary manner of imposing openness, and not eager to be Christian. While reading the book, we've talked about myths that we have about the cultures we interact with, and how they influence our interactions. In this case, priorly held assumptions about Africans as backwards, incapable, and pliable lead to the mission's failure. I thought it would be instructive to contrast this to America's colonial experience with Japan.

The US pried Japan open. Japan had evicted Westerners after some exposure to early industrial ideas from Dutch missionaries, but as Western presence expanded, Japan evicted all Westerners except for a Dutch enclave at Nagasaki. This period of self-imposed isolation lasted until 1853, when Commodore Perry came and forced Japan to join the global economy. For a good recounting of these events, see this. If you have access to more databases than I do, you might find this interesting.

The question of myth in the Japanese context is very different than American myths in Africa. Because the US simply opened (versus settled) Japan, myth creation simply wasn't as necessary. Yes, there was probably racism towards the Japanese like there was towards most minority groups during that time period, but the government didn't need to create an image of the Japanese as needy, backwards, or inferior to support their mission. As long as the public was aware the Japanese market held great economic potential, an economic mission was justified. If, for the growing empire, the means justify the ends, then so do the myths.