Arrendamientos operativos

In the p revious chapter, I described how , in GA, the ind iv id u al is given a prim acy over o ther categories of p ersons, such as 'fam ily', or ’gro u p (shnndan, dantai)', an d w h ere the in d iv id u a l becomes a locus of responsibility and a springboard for originality. In this chapter I begin to look at how a privileging of individual selves and the foregrounding of individuality (kosei) redefines the in d iv id u a l self th ro u g h relatio n sh ip s betw een in d iv id u a l selves, and th ro u g h the relationship betw een individual selves and collective selves w ithin GA.

The chapter begins by challenging recent studies on the Japanese self, particularly on the grounds of their refusal to talk about selves as 'individuals’. This refusal is g rounded in the fallacy that all traces of individuality in Japan are im ported W estern notions, w hich have to be rooted out. It is only by exposing this fallacy an d its flaw ed m ethodological base, th a t I can then begin to introduce native theories of individualism and individuality.

In Section Two, I argue that an identifiably Japanese individualism is developing in Japan, firmly rooted in Japan's past. Individualism and individuality have been traced back at least as far as the K am akura period (1185-1333), and have continued to inform and define Japanese sense of self and society in recent years. I briefly review exam ples of these native concepts of indiv d u ality , d ra w in g p artic u la r atten tio n to the fact that notions of in d iv id u a lity an d com m unity in these examples, m utually constitute each other and define each other and cannot be separated from each other. This m u tu al inseperability of individuality and com m unity is just as ev id en t in the exam ples of the relationships betw een individual selves and collective selves am ong the em ployees at GA.

Section Three begins by review ing w ork done on the Japanese self w hich em phasises the m utual constitution of selves in Japan, both individual and collective. I then m ove on to the analysis of my reseach data in detail. I started by I asked the em ployees w hat being an individual (kojin) m eans, w hat belonging to a 'g ro u p (shnndan)' m eans, and w h a t the relationship is betw een an individual (kojin) and a group (shnndan). By asking them to discuss various w ords and concepts, the

topography of individual selves and collective selves w ithin GA em erged, th ro u g h the suitability and unsu itab ility of v ario u s term s to describe the relationship betw een in d iv id u a l selves and betw een individual selves and collective selves. A m ore precise m eaning of these term s also began to em erge from these discussions.

Section F our looks in detail at the concepts of seken and sekentei, w hich dem onstrate clearly the existence of and the recognition of an individual self in Japanese concepts of personhood. The relationship betw een seken and sekentei also dem onstrates, not only the th at individual selves and collective selves m utually constitute each o th er and have consistently been perceived in term s of each other, b u t also how this happens. In other w ords, it begins to look as th o u g h the relationship betweensdceu and sekentei is the native m odel describing the d ynam ic relationship of betw een shifting selves, in d iv id u al and collective. The suitability or unsuitability of seken and sekentei as term s to d escribe th e re la tio n sh ip s b e tw e e n selves w ith in GA, rev eals m u ch a b o u t these relationships, as w ell as inform ation about tw o concepts that have received little attention, bu t w hich, I will argue, are ju st as im p o rtan t as other term s used by anthropologists to u n d ersta n d Japanese society, forcing us to rethink how anthropologists have m apped social space in Japan. The ignoring of seken an d sekentei also brings into question how is it th at anthropologists com e to privilege som e aspects of the societies they stu d y over others. As an exam ple, a listener to a conversation betw een Japanese is far m ore likely to hear the w ords seken and sekentei than the w ords

tatemae or honne, or omote and um, to explain w hy they are m otivated to act in a certain way.

In the final section I argue th at the relationship betw een selves w hich is em erging w ithin GA indicates that the privileging of 'in dividuality (kosei)', and of the individual self (kojin and jibun) requires us to reevaluate the term s tatemae (public behaviour), honne (true h u m an feeling), omote (front), um (back), uchi (inside), soto (outside), and giri, as concepts to describe and u nderstand the Japanese self in post-Bubble Japan.

4.1) R ehabilitating the Ind iv id u al: 1

R ecent studies of self and p erso n h o o d in Japan begin by launching into an attack on classical W estern concepts of the individual by saying how insidious and 'incorrigible' (Kondo 1990, 26) this essentialist 'self' is (R osenberger 1992: x; K ondo 1990: 26). To elaborate, this concept of self is a (male) self w ho is an auto n o m o u s subject, w ho exercises (his) sovereign choice, w ho decides, evaluates, calculates, is self directing, and in d ep en d e n t, and "who relates to others as no less autonom ous agents" (Lukes 1985: 298). R osenberger (1992), on the first page of the introduction to her edited book, has this to say:

Previous studies had restricted the idea of self in Japan to Western, oppositional and implicitly essentialist categories of 'individual' and 'society'. Although this opposition continues to haunt us - and, given the rhetorical necessities, is almost im possible to escape - our purpose was to ask new questions about the constitution of self in Japan (Rosenberger 1992: xi. my emphasis).

These recent studies of Japanese self and society talk of "shifting interaction" (Rosenberger 1992:14), "a sliding scale of self and other" (Kondo 1990: 26), "a relational self...highly em bedded in social context" (Bachnik 1994: 5). But while these studies talk of a concept of the Japanese self grounded in em pirical analysis, em p h asisin g 'm u ltip le selves' (K ondo 1990) d e p e n d e n t o n situ atio n , they dogm atically refuse to talk about selves as individuals. Rosenberger's introduction is prim arily an a tte m p t to ro o t o u t any trac es of W e ste rn in d iv id u a lism in o p p o sitio n a l an aly ses in the anthropological canon on Japan, especially those of individu al/so ciety and W estern/N on-W estern. She appears to confuse individuality w ith individualism , and also starts from the false prem ise that all d iscussions of in d iv id u a lity com e from W estern concepts, an d co n se q u en tly sh o u ld be d isregarded. She proceeds by installing a huge m onolithic O th er by telling us how "W esterners living in industrial, economically ’m odern' societies idealize them selves as individuals". W ithin a page of avow ing to escape this opposition, she reinstates it:

Westerners often affirm this ideal by view ing non-W estemers as swayed by emotion, relation, and context - only able to think in the specific case and then only by metaphor. It follows that Western societies can take the ’higher’ form of democracy because decision m aking can be entrusted to the hands of rational individuals, whereas non-Western societies require a strong collectivity for cohesion and control of people enm eshed in the im m ed iacy of relationship and su perstition...T his poin t of view rem ains w ith anthropologists, even those studying complex, industrialized non-Western societies ( Rosenberger 1992, 2).

R osenberger then continues to instate very questionable dichotom ies by setting u p a distinction b etw e en 'Ja p a n e se -tra in e d ' a n d 'W e ste rn -tra in e d ' an th ro p o lo g ists. Ju st w h a t h er criteria of distinction are, we are n o t told. She says how "Japanese-trained scholars ...em phasize Japan's concept of the collective self, em b ed d e d in social context an d the Japanese n a tu ra l w orld." (Rosenberger 1992:12). By saying this, she again sets up an opposition betw een Japan and the West. She talks of Jap an ese-train ed scholars em phasising the collective self and context, just as she castigates W esterners for em phasising that "non-W estern societies require a strong collectivity for cohesion a n d control of people en m esh ed in the im m ediacy of relatio n sh ip and superstition" (Rosenberger 1992: 2).

The debates that alerted the academ ic w orld to Orientalism , 'the politics of culture' and 'the politics of representation', w ere conducted nearly tw enty years ago. Since th at time, anthropologists of Japan have reflexively tried to rem ove th eir cultural p re su p p o sitio n s and hold them u p for scrutiny. They have been studying Japan in the context of history and the politics of culture in order to allow au th en tic Japanese voices and selves to reveal them selves. T hese voices tell us of dichotom ies and we sh o u ld listen. D raw in g o u r atten tio n to h id d en assu m p tio n s is fine, but R osenberger has allow ed her rightful criticism of W estern ideas of individualism to stray into her representation of concepts of individualism in Japan.

The m ove to w ard s the stu d y of self and society th ro u g h stu d ies of highly situational m ultiple selves is a good analytical move, b u t although it is R osenberger's professed aim to m ove beyond dichotom ies, because she sets u p an opposition betw een the W e st/Jap a n and ties it to the dichotom y of in d ividual/society, she is unable to m ove beyond them at all. She sets up a dichotom y between W estern-trained anthropologists and Japanese-trained anthropologists, and less obviously rein states th e o p p o sitio n of in d iv id u a l/s o c ie ty by d am n in g the inclusion of concepts of the individual w ithin her theoretical fram ew ork, on the basis that all theories of the individual in Japan are W estern theories im posed by 'W estern-trained' anthropologists. This is sim ply no t the case (4.2).The dichotom y of in d iv id u a l/so c ie ty , in the form of W est/Japan, is to be found in varying degrees in the four islands of Japan, not only, or predom inantly, in the w ork and subconscious of all 'W estern-trained' anthropologists. R osenberger w rites "The tem ptation of such general conclusions continually bedevils W estern-trained scholars of Japan" (Rosenberger 1992: 2).

She fails to recognise the role of 'W estern' ideals of the in d iv id u al in form ing Japanese conceptions of self. C ountless tim es a day m any Japanese use an idealised W esterner to define them selves and Japan through the oppositional dichotom y of Jap a n /T h e W est.1 H endry also makes this point (H endry 1992). H ow Japanese situate them selves in relation to this idealized individual tells us a lot about how they see the history of their relationship w ith 'the West', and how they see and think about them selves. At the m om ent, w ith attitudes tow ards individuality and w ith ideas of w hat individuality 'is' changing, it is vital that we recognise these discourses and not discard them because they are a p a rt of a p ast w hose values w e no longer reg ard as acceptable, tenable or legitimate. Any discussion of selves w ith a degree of autonom y, such as being loci of responsibility and originality, and given the task of individual thought and action, should not dogm atically be cast as the W estern-trained anthropologist "grappling...w ith the ideology of the in d iv id u al w hich is em b ed d ed in th eir theories and com m on sense views." (Rosenberger:1992.4). K ondo presents a sim ilar argum ent, closing off areas of analysis, in her 1990 study Crafting Selves:

Work done on the 'Japanese se lf, in the light of m y particular experiences...can point us toward the profound challenges such scholarship offers to seemingly incorrigible W estern assum ptions about the primacy of 'the individual' and the boundedness and fixity of personal identity ( Kondo 1990: 26).

Such an ap p ro ach assum es th a t any d iscussion of indiv id u ality in a Japanese settin g m u st be prem ised on 'W estern' concepts of self, im posed by the (W estern) analyst. This is clearly not the

*1

In virtually all cases where a Japanese uses 'the West', s /h e will be referring to the United States', and similarly 'Westerners’ invariably refers to Americans.

case. Ideas about selves expressed in term s of both ethics and practices in GA indicates that new ideas about individuality are beginning to em erge in Japan, bu t that these ideas are firmly grounded in Japanese concepts of personhood and society. By refusing to talk about 'individuals (kojin)' and 'individuality (kosei)', and on such fallacious grounds, we are indicted to ignore native concepts of indiv id u ality and im pose an o th e r 'W estern' concept of the self. This is b oth m ethodologically w rong-headed and ethically unacceptable. It is also sim ply untrue that we are helplessly bound by 'incorrigible assum ptions'. Japanese theories of the self discussed in the Japanese language, and then carefully in English, are not bound by the 'rhetorical necessities' Rosenberger talks of.

4.2) Rehabilitating the Individual: 2

Ikegam i (1995) tells us th at an 'honourific in d iv id u a lism ’ existed in Japan, at least since the K am akura period (1185-1333). This began p rior to the Tokugaw a or Edo period (1600-1868) w hen a m edieval h o nour culture w hich placed a high value on aggressive com petitiveness developed. This aggressive com petitiveness relied heavily on a sense of ind iv id u al au to n o m y and concom itant individuality:

In the elitist honour culture of that period there flourished the strong belief that the ultimate responsibility for the different requirements of social honour creating an honourific identity belonged not to society as a w hole but to each member of that society (Ikegami 1995:370).

Ikegami tells us that the Tokugaw a period w as a period of increasingly m ore organised hierarchical social strata, w hich led to a highly institutionalised culture that placed a value on organisation and conformity: "Thus the sam urai culture was considerably refocused” (Ikegam i 1995: 335). This led to the tw in aspirations of ’com petitive individuality’ and ’orderly conform ity’, and although an honour culture based on self-assertive in dividualism continued, it was: "reconstituted as a m uch m ore hierarchically o rdered value" (Ikegam i 1995: 337), w ith both the sam urai and the state authorities sharing the cultural idiom s of honourific com petitiveness w ithin a set of institutions constructed and m aintained by a cohesive and stable political authority.

D uring the T okugaw a period, Ikegam i tells us that there w ere three m ajor changes in the honour culture. T here w as a shift in the expression of honour, w hereby it w as less associated w ith violence and m ore w ith virtuous self-discipline. There was also a shift in the locus of honour, from the personal to the organisational, th ro u g h the shared destiny of a m aster's (daimyd) house. This shift, Ikegam i argues, caused a good deal of conflict and still lies at the heart of a tension between personal goals and organisational goals in m odern Japan. Thirdly, there w as a shift in the source of h on o u r, from perform ance to status.^ N evertheless, perform ance re m a in ed im p o rtan t, as the m ilitaristic tradition legitim ated the position of the sam urai over the other classes, and rem ained: "a p rize d c u ltu ra l re so u rce su itab le for g e n e ra tin g in d iv id u a listic action an d for ex p ressin g individuality" (Ikegami 1995: 349).

Ikegam i coins the term 'honourific indiv id u alism ' to describe the in d iv id u a lism w hich developed in Japan, as separate from the term usually associated w ith 'm odern W estern capitalist societies'. She describes ho n o u rific in d iv id u a lism as a type of 'p o ssessiv e in d iv id u a lism ' (cf M acPherson 1962; Pocock 1985), w hereby a sam urai's individuality was inseparably connected to his political effectiveness as a w a rrio r (Ikegam i 1995: 353). The sam u rai w as constantly required to assert him self and m aintain control. Ikegam i tells us that m edieval sam urai culture alw ays aspired

tow ards independence and self-direction:

This individualism did not imply that a particular samurai w ould alw ays rebel against the limitations imposed by institutional requirements and designated roles. Rather, 'honourific individualism' meant that

o

such a man w ou ld alw ays take these boundaries seriously, even though the ultim ate decision about whether or not to conform w ould be his ow n and no other's (Ikegami 1995:371).

Self-assertive a n d flam boyant, a sp irit of self-reliance developed am ong the sam urai through the need to defend one's p ro p e rty an d re p u ta tio n . H onourific indiv id u alism , how ever, d eveloped w ithin a concom itant netw ork of effective social relationships and political alliances, so that during the K am akura period, honourific individualism becam e a socially accepted goal through honourable vassalage.

As the country passed into the Meiji perio d (1868-1912), Ikegam i w rites that the sam urai were given a new lease of life: "After the Meiji Restoration, the honourific sentim ent w as harnessed to the task of n a tio n -b u ild in g , com bined w ith the fresh incentives of in d iv id u a l econom ic aspirations." (Ikegam i 1995: 362). The honourific sentim ent w as used to create a m oral consensus for nation-building, w hile honourific individualism , latent for m uch of the T okugaw a period, w as given free reign through the o p p o rtu n ities for econom ic developm ent. At the sam e tim e, the sam urai, educated and w ith a strong individualist tradition, em braced European liberal thought:

that em phasised the value of the individual and a spirit of self-help. The first generation of Meiji intellectuals... consisted m ostly of former samurai w ho had grown up w ithin the samurai culture. It was their ow n in d igen ou s spirit of self-aw areness and personal pride that found W estern m odels of individualism and independence attractive idiom s for the expression of their prideful personhood ( Ikegami 1995:364).

Ikegami tells us that there w as a m oral dilem m a presented by the conflict betw een individuality and conform ity in the Meiji period, but th at ra th e r than tins conflict app earin g as a resu lt of 'W estern' individualistic values clashing w ith ‘traditional Japanese values', as is generally accepted both inside and outside Japan, it w as instead a reform ulation of a cultural process of balancing an honourific individualism w ith civic d u ty w hich had been in m otion since the M edieval period, particularly th ro u g h the Tokugaw a period, and into the m o d e m era. Ikegam i argues th at it w ould have been im possible to brin g ab o u t the en o rm o u s changes w hich occurred in the Meiji era w ith o u t the 'persuasive initiative and determ ined persistence' of m en heavily influenced by the sam urai honour culture. "It is im possible to im agine the industrialisation of a late-developing society w ithout the presence of individualistic agents of change" (Ikegam i 1995: 366). This b u rst of individualism at the beginning of the Meiji p eriod m ay not have been solely in the trad itio n of the sam u rai h o n o u r culture. Iro k aw a (1985) an d Y am aguchi M asao (personal com m unication) describe a sim ilar individualism developing am ong the villages surro u n d in g Tokyo in the early Meiji period. Like the sam urai elites in Japanese society which Ikegam i describes, this 'grass-roots' m ovem ent w as inspired by im ported W estern texts, b u t it is interesting to consider th a t these ordin ary m en and w om en m ight have been draw ing on o th er traditions of Japanese individualism lying d orm ant in society, not only the 'honourific individualism ' Ikegami w rites about.