>>> Item number 19464 from WRITERS LOG9310D --- (226 records) ---- <<< Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 18:00:07 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: SUB: West Meets East: Where Misunderstanding Rules This essay is a draft. I am especially interested in any and all suggestions for making the basic idea understandable to the general public - to newspaper readers and other low types... I have been hacking on this one for a while, and I keep ending up writing in a very academic style. While it may be impossible to explain this simply enough for general readership, I think they are the ones who really need to understand it. Any suggestions appreciated! Oh - let me know if you understand it, or which points need to be explained more clearly, ok? If it bores you to tears or seems like the stupidest notion you ever read, let me know that, too. tink ----------------------------------------------------------------- West Meets East: Where Misunderstanding Rules Copyright 1993 Mike Barker Imagine that you sat down to play cards with some people. Within a few hands, you notice that these people don't seem to know how to play at all. On some hands, you and they have tremendous arguments, and at the end of the game, you can't seem to agree as to who won. Suppose you then find out that while you were playing spades, they were playing hearts. In cards, it is easy to shrug off a misunderstanding. When Americans look at Japanese society, the same kind of misunderstandings can occur, but the results are more tragic. One of the saddest parts of the confusion is that both sides are likely to be arguing about the hands, without ever realizing that the game is different. One of the critical places I see this kind of misunderstanding is in the actions which most Americans consider as "sexist", "racist", or some other form of discrimination. Do many Japanese act differently towards people based on sex, race, age, group memberships and other factors? Even the most casual visitor to Japan usually notices some evidence of this. Are such differences in treatment discrimination? In the sense that most Americans mean, where discriminatory acts are violations of basic assumptions of ordinary society, I do not think so. Let me explain what I mean. Most Americans, almost without thinking, assume that all people are fundamentally equal. In practice, this means that we should act the same towards all people, ignoring differences as far as possible. So to many Americans, treating people differently based on some overt characteristics such as sex, race, age, religion, and others is usually viewed as a violation of social agreements. It is this violation of the social contract that makes such actions discriminatory. I am not saying that America is free of discrimination. It certainly does still occur, but merely pointing it out is enough to make many Americans uneasy. Simply pointing out inequalities can be enough to prompt changes, solutions, compensations, or riot mobs. Japanese society seems to assume that people are different, that they are, in general, unequal. In practice, this means that Japanese people must quickly and accurately identify socially significant differences and modify their actions based on relative ranking. Sex, race, age, corporate affiliation, corporate position, economic status, college attended - the list of differences with which most Japanese split hairs and determine higher and lower ranking is comprehensive and bewildering to most foreigners. This may seem obviously wrong, but stop for a minute and consider the relationship of adults and children in America. Most Americans do not consider it discriminatory for a parent to treat a child differently than they would another adult. In fact, children have both added limitations and freedoms simply because they are children. Parents, also, are expected to both take liberties and provide certain types of support that would be quite troublesome if the children were considered "equal" and "independent". While there may be some disagreement about details, we expect that adults can and will provide direction, instruction, care, and other actions for the children, and that the children, in turn, will follow directions, etc. The relationship is clearly unequal, with children dependent on adults and adults exercising extended control over children. If an adult tries to treat children as independent equals, we are often quite uneasy about the treatment. Similarly, many Japanese relationships, while clearly based on inequality, provide both partners in the relationship with limitations, freedoms, and support in many ways. However, there is a critical difference. Children grow up, and the relationship changes, approaching equality. Most Japanese relationships remain relatively static, with life-long dependency as part of the package. Japanese society tends to be organized around vertical relationships, defined by differences and inequality. American society tends to be organized around horizontal relationships, with all people generally on the same level. To many Americans, Japanese society seems both discriminatory and unnecessarily dependent, with lower "ranks" fawning and bootlicking while higher "ranks" patronize those below them. Many Americans find themselves thinking that most Japanese people are incredibly prejudiced (in situations where they are the higher "rank") and unbelievably meek (in situations where they are the lower "rank"). What is especially surprising to American perceptions is that the same person may take both positions, depending on the other people in the situation. To Americans, it seems obvious that teacher and student, executive and factory worker, and all others meet as equals outside the particular situations where these roles are important. To the Japanese, it is equally obvious that these people should treat each other as unequal no matter what situation they are participating in. But what does all this have to do with sexism, racism, and other discrimination? Suppose we look at the Japanese acts which Americans often consider discrimination in terms of the familiar "means, motive, and opportunity" used in so many mysteries. The opportunities occur daily, and the means are varied and similar to those which in America indicate discrimination. But when we look at motives, the similarities break down. In America, these actions are used to break down the assumption of "equality." In Japan, the exact same actions are affirmations of the social assumption of inequality. I have seen many accusations raised concerning the apparent prejudices of most Japanese. In most cases, these accusations are based on superficial patterns of actions, judged against standards and assumptions used by many Americans, without considering the Japanese assumptions behind the actions. Unfortunately, I think the apparent prejudices of most Japanese in fact are the actions that are in tune with social expectations, while those areas where differences are not permitted to rule are the areas which violate the social contracts. To most Japanese, saying that two people should be treated the same regardless of sex, race, or other differences is socially unacceptable. While most Japanese do, indeed, treat people differently based on factors including sex or race, it is not a violation of social agreements. Indeed, in Japan, such actions affirm the social contracts, confirming relative positions and reinforcing expectations. When a Japanese person acts without regard for differences, that is when they are violating social expectations. To treat a person of lower "rank" as an equal is to cruelly push them into responsibilities and decisions that they depend on the higher "rank" to take care of. To treat a person of higher "rank" as an equal is to rudely strip them of their position. One way to put the difference is that American society (the expected treatment) tends to not be discriminatory, although specific Americans may be. In Japan, the reverse is true - the society tends to be discriminatory, although specific Japanese may not be. Trying to change sexism, racism, or other discriminatory practices in Japan is a very difficult problem. It is not simply a matter of pointing out the gap between action and social ideal, because the social ideal is to base action on differences. Instead, to change Japan one must be content to promote a limited exception to the social norms or to take on the much larger and slower task of rebuilding the bases of Japanese society. The bottom line, of course, is that many Japanese people do alter behavior based on sex, race, age, and many other factors which, according to common American expectations, can and should be ignored. While this violates common American standards, it is perfectly in tune with the underlying assumptions of Japanese society. "But it just isn't right!" While the Japanese system may be repugnant to American perceptions, it is important to understand that it is a functioning social system. It works. If stability, security, and freedom from responsibility and decisions are desirable, it may even be considered "better" than the American system. If, however, the maximum range of expression and possibility for the maximum number is desirable, than a more egalitarian structure may be preferred. One of the problems of Japanese society is the forced ranking that occurs even in areas or situations where such ranking has little or no purpose. It is also worth noting that the system is showing signs of breaking down. First, it is under almost constant stress due to modern life - service queues, vending machines, and other modern methods of handling masses of people do not provide for proper recognition and response to the social rankings. The apologies repeated ad nauseum for crowding and willful attempts to ignore the indignities of being treated as equals are common responses to this stress, but do not remove it, no matter how much they may compensate for it. Second, the influence of Western media and thought is pervasive, and frequently suggests that there is a different way of organizing society. No matter whether you understand or not, points where West meets East are likely to be points of friction because the basic assumptions of the social contracts are so different. Where most Americans expect to be treated without regard to various group memberships, most Japanese expect treatment to be significantly affected by those same memberships. Are many Japanese discriminatory? Not really, because the social framework that is used to determine actions depends on exactly those discriminations. [Note: in this essay, I refer to Americans and Japanese as if they were homogenous and easily characterized. This has been done to simplify the essay, since writing "a significant number of people I have known who are of this nationality or social affiliation" and making references to evidence in literary and daily life would extend an already long essay for far too long. Both Americans and Japanese as groups include far too many people to be adequately characterized by such a simple model, but I think the model does apply to a significant number of people in these societies. In both societies, there are exceptions and other models that are used, but I think there is adequate evidence to suggest that the model I describe fits many people in these two societies.] [Note: when I refer to "rules" or "standards" of society, I am not referring to the objective legal framework. I am referring to the practices and understanding evident in people's lives, whether that has been reflected in the law or not.] -----------------------------------------------------------------