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.