Abu-Lughod (1991) points out that the foundations of Anthropology are rooted in the demarcation between West and Non-West to construct its subject. My aim has not to reproduce such a binary but to address how such a binary is created and maintained under the auspices of grassroots exchange. When considering the relationship between the United States and Japan, cultural exchange requires the perpetual maintenance of two mutually exclusive categories to make ‘mutual understanding’ intelligible. Moreover, the United States has significantly shaped contemporary Japan. The fact that ‘Japanese’ eat with forks, wear pants, learn English in high school, and build apartment complexes in concrete (danchi) isn’t culture at all; rather, the focus
of grassroots exchange is on those aspects of Japanese culture deemed traditional or unique. That is to say, non-Western or non-American. This is not unique to the summit, but is part of larger branding strategies in Japan and elsewhere in the world in order to entice visitors and sell products abroad (Comaroff & Comaroff, 2009; Fan, 2010; Laemmerhirt, 2014; Zykas, 2009).
One of the key institutions in Japan that has been integral in promoting Japan’s national culture while also defining it is the International Research Center for Japanese Studies or Nichibunken (Zykas, 2009). Before attending the 2015 summit, I asked the secretary general of
the CIE and a staff member of the International Policy Division of the Ōita Prefectural
Government if they were involved with them in any way. While they both stated that they did not know of the Nichibunken, Zykas (2009) suggests that it has nonetheless influenced the branding and promotion of Japanese culture, particularly through nihonjinron (essentialist discourses on Japanese culture), which has been used by the Japanese government since the 1970s to help construct a national identity as well as promote Japan overseas. More importantly, nihonjinron has been instrumental in constructing the myth that Japan is a homogenous country with a singular culture (Manabe & Befu, 1992; Mouer & Sugimoto, 1990). This perceived cultural homogeneity lends credence to Japan’s unique national character and cultural heritage.
In brief, nihonjinron is consumed widely in Japan and has remained a popular genre since it emerged in the 1970s (Burgess, 2010). While lacking a unified discourse in terms of its methodologies, arguments, and subject matter, it shares the common goal of positing
fundamental cultural traits as the foundation for a unique Japanese identity (Befu, 2001; Burgess, 2010). This is not unique to Japan, but what is distinctive are the historical encounters with the West that Japanese cultural identity is predicated upon and the salience that such notions have for many Japanese (Burgess, 2010). This salience stems from a sense of cultural loss as the rural has been historically construed and popularly imagined as the locus of Japanese traditions and, thus, cultural identity (Creighton, 1997, 1998; Figal, 1999; Harootunion, 1998; Kelly, 1990; Robertson, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1997). However, the decline of rural areas in Japan after WWII due to increased industrialization and a decline in agricultural activity contributed to a sense of losing Japan’s cultural core (Robertson, 1988, 1995; Creighton 1997, 1998; Ivy, 1995).
Nihonjinron panders to such sentiments by perpetuating a strong belief that Japan is essentially unknowable to outsiders while also circulating a plethora of other general stereotypes such as
group-orientation and self-sacrifice as traditional and universal Japanese traits (Befu, 2001; Manabe & Befu, 1992; Morris-Suzuki, 1997). While generally associated with literary works, nihonjinron also appears in the form of popular television programs such as Cool Japan wherein regional products and practices are exhibited for their exotic and unique quality (Zykas, 2009). Moreover, these kinds of shows place foreigners in a discussion panel were they are often asked about their experiences in Japan and what they discovered during the television program.
Notions of Japanese-ness are made through the eyes of foreigners who elaborate on what is unique or strange about Japan. Thus, the media in Japan has played a significant role in disseminating essentialist attitudes about Japanese-ness vis-à-vis a foreign gaze (Iwabuchi, 1994). The closing ceremony’s use of foreigners to discuss what they learned in Japan or found interesting is a similar approach. Most importantly, however, nihonjinron disseminates through business and political leaders who use private institutions and the media to promote these essentialist notions to foreign and domestic audiences alike, including for the purpose of international exchange (Watanabe, 2000; Yoshino, 1992).
Similar to the Nichibunken and the Japan Foundation, the CIE uses symbols of national identity for the purposes of cultural diplomacy despite a direct connection to these institutions or nihonjinron rhetoric. However, like these, the CIE has considerable government and business support in terms of financing and leadership who seek to create a favorable country image. Thereof, the CIE and summit organizers follow similar patterns of conveying cultural identity as in nihonjinron by focusing on unique and localizable cultural traits for the purposes of cultural branding. That is, the local sessions are designed to allow participants to experience various areas within a prefecture and each are promoted as offering something unique while contributing to Japan’s cultural whole. However, despite regional variations within Japan, the word Japan in
Japan-American cultural exchange is treated as a static primordial identity that subsumes local, ethnic, and linguistic differences within the Japanese nation. While I don’t contest that
individuals in Japan can have strong notions of what it means to be Japanese, what is exchanged in cultural exchange can be exclusionary and essentialist. Foreign wives of rural male farmers,
zainichi (Japanese of Korean ancestry) and burakumin (a social minority group based on the feudal cast system) are not considered members of the generic term Japanese culture and, thus, are left out of the narrative and experience of Japan-America cultural exchange. Japanese culture is not homogenous or temporally static; there are many voices which are excluded from the larger socio-cultural mosaic that comprises Japan today (Lie, 2009). Thereof, when the summit uses the phrase Japan-America Grassroots Summit, it is taken for granted that the U.S is heterogeneous whereas Japan is meant to imply a homogenous ethno-nationality with a unified culture (Nagayoshi, 2011). This is important to address in this research because the summit places a strong emphasis on building relations between Japanese and Americans. However, just who comprises the Japanese and what constitutes as Japanese is left unquestioned.