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.

Japan and Space

Today's blog will take the form of a book review. The book in question is In Defense of Japan: From the Market to the Military in Space Policy, written by Saadia Pekkanen, Paul Kallender-Umezu, two self-professed enthusiasts of the minutiae space industry. Luckily, they chose to make their book relevant to people interested in more general aspects of Japanese politics, and the alliance with the United States. The insight paid off, as the book provides an excellent look into the surprising indigenous development of space capability in Japan.

The central point of the book can be summarized with a line from the preface: "Japan has the technical wherewithal to be marked as a military space power and now has placed national security as the centerpiece of its space development strategy." You might be asking yourself when this happened, or how. Well, the authors are well aware of this predicament. In fact, the greatest developments in Japanese space capabilities have taken place out of sight of the media, which only reports a few rocket tests and ballistic missile defense. Instead, they testify that "important answers lie in the market" (2). Oddly, failed investments in space technology over the long run only forced companies to increase those investments to try to cut their losses by coming up with a successful technology. In the end, this sphere proved the most profitable for companies, and the prospect of dual-use civilian/military technologies made the investment worthwhile. These militarily relevant expenditures have translated into military-capable space infrastructure.

Still, there is no cohesive national structure for space exploration/arms development in Japan. Several conferences have discussed the issue, and left the door open for development, but constitutional constraints against rearming have left murky any attempt to centralize the process. Weird that something so complex can emerge with so little bureaucracy, yet civilian and commercial parties control the space "program."

The authors offer a reason for the lack of attention paid to this novel development. They talk about how debates about Japan don't focus on whether they have space capability, but rather just war over which international relations theory should be used to understand Japan, and how that relates to their pacifist nature relates to their ability to militarize. Odd that actual developments should fall through the cracks.

The whole thing is summed up pretty well by reviewer Andrew Nathan in Foreign Affairs:

Today, in addition to ballistic missile defense capabilities developed in cooperation with the United States, Japan is working on reusable launch vehicles (that is, space planes); satellites that detect missiles and help with navigation, communication, and targeting; warhead reentry technologies that can advance the use of missiles in warfare; unmanned aerial vehicles; and technologies for "space situational awareness," which reveal a concern about possible future conflict in space. It is too soon to count Japan out in the arms race in Asia.

Perhaps more surprising than scary at this point, but interesting and worth investigating nonetheless.

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.

Pearl Harbor Anniversary

Today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the precursor to the current relationship between the US and Japan.

The alternatives to the current scenario are interesting. If Japan and the US had maintained an uneasy peace, could they have compromised over the Pacific sphere rather than fight over it?Would China ever have emerged as a power had the US not so thoroughly decimated Japanese influence?

Regardless, one thing is clear. Pearl Harbor preceded great bloodshed by both the Japanese and American peoples. Whatever complaints one has about the way geopolitics work today, we are certainly in a better place.

Japan and Muslim Women

In English class, we're reading Reading Lolita in Tehran. It's written by Iranian expatriate and American Literature professor Azar Nafisi about her experiences teaching American literature in Iran during and after the Islamic Revolution. For detailed chapter summaries, check here. If you're not in a reading (except for my blog) mood, just know that the themes in the book have a lot to do with Nafisi and her female students forging unique identities in spite of government control over how they dress, look, act, and live.

You might be wondering, how does this possibly connect to Japan? After all, Japan isn't exactly known for religious diversity. However, .2% of the Japanese population calls itself Muslim. If you think this percentage is insignificant, just remember .2% of people in the world are Jewish. Muslims have been in Japan for only about 100 years, and are thought to have originally come when some Tartar Muslims were escaping the Russians. The population is highly convert-driven, but Muslim businessmen are also coming now. For information, check here.

Businessmen is where the business of today's post begins. Like many men, these Muslim businessmen seek to marry once they come to Japan. Obviously there aren't very many eligible Japanese Muslim bachelorettes, so often they take native Japanese wives. These wives often convert to Islam as a condition of marriage because of religious doctrine.

As the director of the Islamic Center of Japan puts it, "Women are attracted to Islam because they want freedom. Islam gives them independence because they do not have to be a slave of any man. Islam is against moral aggression against women. The chastity and honor of women are protected. No illicit relations are allowed. All these things attract women."

The article, originally published in the Japan Times, goes on to discuss the difficulties Muslim women face living in Japan. The Islamic lifestyle is radically different than that of most Japanese: different clothing like headscarves, different rituals like prayer, and different social customs like no drinking. Within the article, it is speculated that the difference and rigidness of Islam might attract some women.

It is interesting to see the contrast between Reading Lolita, where the less fundamental Muslim is the minority, and Japan, where the observant Muslim is in the minority. It seems like it might be easier for the Japanese women to find meaning in their religion then it is for Nafisi to do so, simply because it becomes an active choice versus a forced one. Being a minority is hard, but the article (although it predates 9/11) doesn't really mention persecution. In that context, Islam can be regarded as a rewarding lifestyle. That's a counter-narrative to the way we regard Islam in popular culture.

Japan as Cornerstone

In English class we recently spent some time discussing metaphors and their use in our culture and daily speech. Some of these qualify as conventional metaphors, so embedded in the way we understand life we don't even notice they're there. For instance, we commonly refer to death as departure (she's left us), or love as a fire (his passion burns for her), but how often do we choose these metaphors or notice we're using them? These contrast with original metaphors, used by poets and other communicators to make points in a creative manner.

The metaphor I want to explore in the context of Japan is somewhere between conventional and original: it was created and is no way cultural, but it has been used in discourse about the alliance for over 30 years. The metaphor, shockingly enough after the title for this post, is Japan as a the cornerstone of US security efforts in Asia.

I thought about creating a cool graphic juxtaposing a map of East Asia with the image of a cornerstone, but I lack the technical skill.

As far as I can tell, after somewhat intensive and comprehensive research of news sources via Lexisnexis, the first American politician to refer to Japan as "the cornerstone of stability in the vast reaches of Asia and the Pacific" was Gerald Ford in April of 1975 while at a conference with other Asian nations like Australia, New Zealand, and Indonesia.

Apparently Jimmy Carter picked up on the metaphor, because the following year he made it part of his platform while running for President. The US News and World Report from July 26, 1976 quotes the platform as calling Japan the "cornerstone of our Asian interests and policy."

Carter and his administration continued this policy throughout his presidency-

6/8/77- "[Appointed Japanese Ambassador Mike] Mansifed, 74, said that he was carrying Carter's message that the closest possible ties with Japan are 'the cornerstone of American foreign policy.'" Washington Post

3/20/78- "(Significantly, China recently told Japan's Socialist Party that China tacitly supports the U.S.-Japan security treaty, the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the Far East.)" Forbes Magazine

3/8/79- "Both President Carter and Prime Minister Ohira took the opportunity of their meeting to stress anew the importance of the relationship of the two countries. President Carter said, "we consider the relationship with japan to be the cornerstone of the implementation of american policy throughout Asia." Ohira said, "in all aspects of Japan's foreign policy, our partnership with the United States is pivotal." U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke also had this to say: the political and strategic relations of the two countries have become 'closer than any time in memory'." Xinhua News Service

Something eerie

9/23/10- "Obama met Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan in New York, hours after holding talks with China's Premier Wen Jiabao, amid heightened tensions between Tokyo and Beijing over a dispute in the East China sea. 'We have reaffirmed the importance of the US-Japan alliance not only to regional stability, not only to the security of both our countries,' Obama said, after the talks with Kan. 'We believe it's one of the cornerstones of peace and security throughout the world.'" AFP

30 years later the alliance is still cached in similar terms by US leaders. The alliance is still a cornerstone. Now, what exactly is a cornerstone?

Princeton's Wordnet offers several definitions. The first is "basis: the fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained," which is instructive in understanding the use of the term in the context of the alliance, but already rests on a metaphor for what a real cornerstone is: a stone in the exterior of a large and important building.

What happens when we understand the Japanese alliance as foundational to the building of US power in Asia? We view it as static, reliable, but also unchanging and perhaps not requiring change. As is illustrated in a quote from the Gerald Curtis' chapter in the new book Getting the Triangle Straight; Managing China-Japan-U.S. Relations,

"Americans are fond of referring to the alliance with Japan as the “cornerstone” of US policy in East Asia. It is an apt metaphor because a cornerstone just sits there; it is inanimate and reliable, something you can confidently build upon. But the Japanese cornerstone is shifting."

It seems that when we tell Japan and the world that Japan is our "cornerstone," we've always been able to reassure Japan of our commitment. Yet this reassurance is in many ways a threat. If the cornerstone comes out, the whole building comes down. The weight of the imperial edifice (speaking of metaphors) seems to rest in some ways on Japan's shoulders. So while the metaphor of Japan as cornerstone certainly captures an amount of mutual dependence and allegiance, it also dares Japan to try to stop relying on the US for its security. The part of the metaphor which prevents Japan from deeply challenging the alliance structure also makes it inflexible, and perhaps unable to respond to new challenges facing the alliance.

Can a cornerstone really shift?

New Article in the Economist

Great new article in The Economist about Japanese diplomatic challenges, the Asian aging crisis, and regional soft power.

Japan and Obama

Those of you unconcerned with international diplomacy, or, apparently, the budget might not have noticed that President Obama recently traveled all around Asia. He went to India, his childhood home in Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan. As Jay Leno joked on his show, Obama still hasn't found his birth certificate.

Obama did stop in Japan.

What Obama Did

Rather than deal with actual people due to the complexity of the issues he faces, Obama instead chose to meet with Giant Buddhas and robots.

It would appear he can't even figure the robot out, let alone Japan-US relations.

After he was done meeting with inanimate (no matter how lifelike) objects, the president also stopped over at the APEC economic summit on the sides of which he met with Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, reassuring him of the US commitment to Japan and Northeast Asian security, especially relative to China, and inviting Kan to visit America in the spring all in the course of an hour.

Does it Matter?

If expectations were high running into the trip, it might've been overly optimistic given the current state of our economy and international standing. However, there is no doubt that failure to pass free trade agreements in South Korea, or make significant headway on Chinese currency issues, regional island disputes, or resolve accompanying tensions certainly prevent the trip from being labeled a success. However, expecting Obama to wave away all these complex issues with a magic wand is probably setting the (magical) bar too high.

There might've been a point where an American President could go overseas and have people tell if not give him whatever they wanted. However, as alluded to in the Stephen Walt post referenced above and here, that time has passed. Other nations are aware that America's time as a total superpower has passed, and, especially on regional issues involving players like China, other countries will become crucial and perhaps necessary to forging progress.

That means that even though conservative editorials in Japan will continue to herald the US-Japanese relationship, and although the relationship will probably remain strong, progress will be much slower than if the US could simply impose its will on the region.

Senkaku/Diaoyu

The prompt for this post was to write about a word, so why choose two words?

Well, Diaoyu and Senkaku mean the same things, in different languages. Senkaku is Japanese and Diaoyu is Chinese for (wait for it...) a group of islands!

Geography

Here's a map for those of you not intimately familiar with East Asian geography.

As you can see, the islands are in-between China, Japan, and Taiwan, due west of Okinawa, and for those of you who still haven't got your bearings, due north of the southwest end of the Ryukyu Islands. Helpful right?

The ownership of these islands has been disputed (primarily between China and Japan, but also Taiwan, ironically itself a disputed island) for a long time (going on 40 years), and this territorial dispute has been a source of tension in the alliance.

A Dispute

Recently, tensions have flared up, because of the arrest of a Chinese fishing boat captain by Japanese coast guard ships after the fisherman collided with the Japanese ships. If you're less familiar with the dispute, here is an excellent summary.

The discussion of the implications surrounding the incident has been pretty interesting. Initially, many writers, (primarily right-wingers) thought the incident would increase US power in the region, as Japan and other countries realized they needed each other and the US to check back an aggressive China. To some extent, this has been the case, as countries have grown more wary of China. Yet at the same time, China has rejected the US offer to act as mediator, denying the US credibility as a peacemaker, showing China isn't willing to cede that much ground, even if other countries turn to the US to balance China.

I've taken it upon myself to find various solutions and resolutions to the problem. For those of you who didn't click the links, neither Japan nor China have given up their claim to the territory, and offer the same solution: the islands are theirs. The populations of the countries feel the same way, which has only furthered the problem in the form of numerous protests and spilled over to affect diplomacy by creating tensions.

About the Words

Now back to our word(s). Senkaku, Diaoyu? Does it make a difference? It is probably telling that the members of the media (see links above) all refer to the islands by both names when reporting the dispute, unless they are being blatantly partisan. Each name represents a side on the issue, a stance on which country the territory rightfully belongs to. If Obama were to come out and say "The Diaoyu islands belong to China," it would be a lot more powerful than, "The Senkaku islands belong to China." The second, in fact, would be pretty confusing. This demonstrates the surprising power words and names have in shaping current events. They carry a lot of meaning, and the entire dispute could even be seen as a fight over the right to have the islands be called by a certain name.

So next time you refer to this particular island chain, make sure you call it by two names, unless you want your conversation to become an international incident.

Campaign Money

In Japan, political kingpin Ichiro Ozawa is mired in controversy because his party might've been funded by undisclosed sources with vested interests.

Meanwhile back in the US, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court has allowed for this, this, this, this, this, and this. In case you don't want to click on the links, anonymous foreign, domestic, corporate, private, and crooked money sources have been funding attack ads nationally.

It might be time for some of this.

Maybe a constitutional amendment is too far. But so is Citizens United.

Which country is practicing American democracy better?