Otros asuntos

Relationality as Context

Discussion of the samurai and the American cowboy, who are part myth and part reality, offers a background from which to work toward an initial understanding of language and thought in Japan. The ambivalent feelings the samurai and the cowboy hold toward self and society can be sorted out by understanding the kind of rela- tionality adopted in the two societies. “Relationality” refers to the reciprocal influence exerted by two different elements that are reflexively characterized by each other. More specifically, it refers to the mutual relationship that language—as well as thought— comes into contact with in sociocultural and situational contexts. For example, linguistic strategies and social context are interre- lated; the use of linguistic expressions (e.g., politeness strategies) is determined in part by the context in which they are used. In turn, the use of linguistic expressions itself determines in part the chang- ing and mutually renewing social context.

By recognizing this influence of relationality in communica- tion involving two or more parties, one is able to focus on its type, its frequency, and its relative importance in a particular speech community. Obviously, every language operates in relation to its context. Characteristics of Japanese language and thought, how- ever, reveal themselves most clearly when they are examined in terms of the mutual influence they share with the social context. The dynamic force of relationality operates on various levels within language, thought, culture, and society, as well as among

diverse elements across these domains. I think that many sociocul- tural and communication-related characteristics of Japan (particu- larly in contrast with those of the United States) can be comprehended in terms of differences in the role of relationality observed in different societies.

Japanese society and culture cannot be directly characterized in terms of the labels often attached to them, such as Japanese “group” as opposed to American “individual.” Rather, as we saw in the mythical images of the samurai and the cowboy, both desire social integration and independence, but with a different orientation and emphasis. Differences between Japan and the United States become apparent in how one understands and comes to terms with the rela- tionship between self and society.

The starting point for the Japanese experience lies in society, while the starting point for Americans lies in the concept of self. By “starting point” I mean the primary and deep-rooted self-concept one is encouraged to identify with early in life. In Japan, social accommodation, responsiveness, and cooperation are the domi- nant, although not the only, training one receives in the socializa- tion process. The relationship one identifies as one’s psychological foundation is based on, anchored to, and defined in relation to soci- ety. The Japanese, however, express individuality more as they mature and achieve comfort within society. The direction of oppos- ing forces between society and self in Japan is from-society-to-self, that is, society-relational.

For Americans, the concept of self is fundamental. Socialization presupposes social relationships with others in society, but more importance is placed on exercising individuality than on learning to accommodate others. This tendency can be labeled from-self-to- society, that is, self-relational.

A note of caution should be sounded here. What I describe are general tendencies that influence the behavior of members of the speech community as a whole. The prototypical American I discuss may prove to be most characteristic of the middle-class American with a European cultural background. Given the diversity of con- temporary Japanese society, and even more of American society, however, one must keep in mind that no description of a group of people can completely escape overgeneralization. Still, Japanese and Americans seem to find themselves holding opposing values from the beginning as they both struggle toward what turn out to

Relationality and Communication 19

be opposing goals. The Japanese are more likely to be trapped in the self-imposed concept of society; Americans are more likely to be shackled by faith in self. Yet we all find some balance between these opposing forces.

The relationship between self and society characterized here can shed light on various aspects of Japanese life. No one is com- pletely separated from society. Human existence is partially defined by it, and society, in turn, is partially defined by its constituents. Self and society feed on each other, define each other, contradict each other—and yet always coexist. These associations create the different kinds of relationships that characterize the Japanese view of life.

The Japanese preference for amae ‘dependence’ is a case in point. Amae is frequently identified as a cornerstone of the Japanese psyche (Takeo Doi 1971, 1976). Amae presupposes at least two indi- viduals and their psychological and emotional interrelationship. The person who wishes to indulge in emotional dependence must find a willing counterpart who shows signs of cooperation as the supporting one in the amae relationship. This psychological inter- play depends on the willingness of both parties, or more accurately, on the relationality supported by the willingness of each.

In this context several sets of often-cited terms come to mind— Japanese “dependence-indulging” versus American “independence- seeking,” Japanese “group-oriented” versus American “individual- oriented,” and so on. When these terms are assigned to whole soci- eties, they tend to polarize them. Exaggerated, dichotomous inter- pretations proliferate—almost as if these terms had a will of their own. Unfortunately, in some cases scholars, in their zeal to find flaws, criticize established scholarship based merely on their impressionistic interpretation of the terms. By using the concept of relationality, I try to avoid the hazard posed by these potentially divisive terms.

Another possible pitfall of such dichotomous labeling as “group consensus” versus “individual will” is that, without qualifi- cation, one may be considered more advanced than the other. For example, Americans think Japan lacks the most important (as it is often believed to be) American value—individual freedom. Although characterizing Japan as lacking an important human trait may comfort some Americans, the reality in both countries is far more complex.

Relationality as a Source for Interactional Cues

In addition to finding different kinds of relationality as social context, we also observe different ways that relationality plays a part in influ- encing personal and interpersonal behavior. Differences are espe- cially evident in communication behavior, since relationality exerts different influential forces when operating as interactional cues.

Every language is equipped to express relationality, which is universal to human interaction, but languages differ in their approach. Some have many language-explicit devices that respond to relationality-based cues. Others lack language-explicit means to respond to relationality cues and instead possess persuasive strate- gies that are conventionalized as part of the communicational style. Japanese and American English fall into the former and the latter categories, respectively. Lest the reader misunderstand, I am not saying that Japanese people are more sensitive or relationally accommodating than Americans, only that the Japanese language is coded with more explicit expressions that convey relationality. Americans use different linguistic and extralinguistic means to express relationality.

Japanese contains devices and strategies that reflect and express the society-relational tendency toward object(s) described and per- son(s) to whom a message is addressed. It is equipped to respond to relationality cues in abundance and with specificity. Politeness-level distinction is a good example. In Japanese, each and every verbal expression is bound by the relationality cues of the particular situa- tion. Cues may be grammatical, stylistic, or interactional. In other words, Japanese modes of communication are closely tied to the way participants locate themselves in the relational context.

Differences in how relationality influences communication behavior are not limited to cross-cultural factors alone. We can speculate that relationality-based stylistic choice is exercised with different intensity depending on the types and the purpose of com- munication. How one understands and uses relationality as a source for interactional cues is in part genre—and gender—specific. Cer- tain aspects of relationality become primary in some genres but not in others. Such speech style differences as those in masculine and feminine utterances illustrate that relationality is interpreted differ- ently within a single culture. Among Americans, women are said to

Relationality and Communication 21

seek the feeling of community more strongly than men, while men seek a sense of contest more strongly than women.

Relationality and the Rhetoric of Language

The rhetoric of the Japanese language is influenced by a particular kind of Japanese understanding of relationality. The topic-com- ment structure and nominal predicates are cases in point. Although Japanese sentence structure defines referential meaning by the grammatical relationship of subject and predicate (who-does-what- to-whom), just as important is the function of offering comment by means of the topic-comment structure (what is being talked about in what ways). Likewise, although verbal predicates occur in Japa- nese (again describing who-does-what-to-whom), nominal predi- cates are also prominent, where the event as a whole is portrayed in a nominalized expression, and the speaker’s personal evaluation and attitude are added as comment. These features of Japanese indicate that relationality plays a part not only in how participants behave in communication but also in how participants form concepts.

Through indirection and diffusion, rhetorical features of the Japanese language including those described above are connected with the society-relational context of Japan at least in two ways. First, by making the who-does-what-to-whom portion of a sen- tence a topic, the speaker distances himself or herself from the event. At the same time the speaker expresses, in comment, his or her attitude toward the event by such relationality cues as formality and politeness levels. Second, expressions chosen for comment cre- ate communication strategies that respond to a variety of interac- tional relationality cues, for example, collaborative strategies for persuasion. Because the Japanese kind of relationality encourages these characteristics, Japanese rhetoric can be called a rhetoric of commentation.

In contrast to the society-relational characteristics of Japanese, in English, the human agent often appears as the grammatical sub- ject and explicitly identifies who-does-what. The rhetoric of com- mentation so prominent in Japanese is notably absent in English.

Modes of American communication are, however, far from being rhetorically insensitive to, or incapable of, the expression of society-relational elements. To a greater degree than the Japanese, Americans use extralinguistic cues for expressing human relations

and personal emotions. They employ a variety of communication strategies including, but not limited to, the use of intonation, facial and other nonverbal messages, the incorporation of jokes, puns, quips, wisecracks, and so on. These cues are not part of the lan- guage structure per se. The American view of the Japanese people as inexpressive of their emotions may stem in part from looking for the wrong cues. Human emotions may be expressed either through linguistic codes, as in Japanese, or through other means, as in English.

Relationality in Contrast to Related Concepts

It is important to stress that my concept of relationality differs from other related concepts. Two terms introduced by Takie Sugi- yama Lebra and the concept of context, as characterized by Edward T. Hall and Mildred Reed Hall, can help to explain the difference.

Lebra (1976, 1–21) introduces two relevant terms, “social rela- tivism” and “interactional relativism.” She points out that Japanese actions are governed by something far removed from unilateral determinism: “The Japanese Ego acts upon or toward Alter with the awareness or anticipation of Alter’s response, and Alter in turn, by responding according to or against Ego’s expectation, influences Ego’s further action” (1976, 7). Lebra calls this orientation “inter- actional relativism” and continues: “In interactional relativism, an actor acts in a certain way not because he is forced to do so by an external prime mover such as an environmental force, not because he is driven by an internal prime mover such as an irresistible pas- sion or desire; his behavior is, rather, a result of interaction and mutual influence between himself and his object” (1976, 7–8).

Lebra combines this concept of interactional relativism with the concept of the “social preoccupation” of the Japanese people and refers to the combined concepts as “social relativism.” By “social preoccupation” Lebra (1976, 2) means the Japanese sensitiv- ity to social objects, particularly other human beings. And when a Japanese individual experiences inner feelings, he or she tends to be preoccupied with his or her relationship to some hito ‘person(s).’

Both interactional relativism and social relativism are closely associated with the concept of relationality. In fact relationality is an extension of Lebra’s line of thought. Granting that the Japanese practice interactional relativism or a broader orientation of social

Relationality and Communication 23

relativism, I explore the characteristics of the relationship itself and the ways in which relationality serves as a cue for influencing com- munication behavior. Since a sensitivity to relationships exists between Lebra’s Ego and Alter, by setting up a framework of rela- tionality I can focus on how relationships reveal themselves in Japa- nese language and thought.

Relationality also offers a framework within which to analyze different societies and cultures. The terms “interactional relativ- ism” and “social relativism” are used to characterize Japanese pat- terns of behavior, which tend to focus on the difference between Japan and other societies. Unfortunately, it is also true that these labels are subject to misinterpretation. They are frequently polar- ized by critics. The term “relationality” is readily applicable to all cultures. By examining different tendencies of relationality in their nature and degree, one can retain commonality while placing dif- ferences in comparative perspective.

Another concept relevant to relationality is the characterization of Japan by Edward T. Hall and Mildred Reed Hall (1987). These authors identify Japan as a case of a “high-context” culture in com- parison to the “low-context” culture of America (especially white American culture). According to Edward T. Hall (1976), a high- context communication or message is the type in which most of the information is already known to the person. Very little is coded, explicit, or transmitted in the message. A low-context communica- tion is just the opposite. Low-context speakers, according to Hall and Hall, include Americans, Germans, Swiss, Scandinavians, and other northern Europeans. Although the distinction between high- and low-context captures how important context is in a culture, it fails to clarify how context and culture interact. The concept of relationality allows a clearer focus on the culture-context relation- ship as it is revealed in communication and thought.

My effort also differs from the Halls’ approach in the following sense. When Japan is characterized as a high-context culture, the label obscures the fact that much information is coded in language, although the encoding differs from that of European languages. The aspects of communication that become important differ in Jap- anese and in English. When Hall and Hall state that Japan is a cul- ture in which little information is coded in the message, they may be referring only to certain kinds of messages. Comment and the interpersonal aspects of information are abundantly coded in the

most ordinary of Japanese expressions. To understand Japanese lan- guage and culture, not only from the outside observer’s viewpoint, but also from as near a native speaker’s point of view as possible, the concept of relationality is key. Relationality has the potential to illu- minate some of the psychological and philosophical forces under- lying Japanese ways of communication.

25

3 Competing Orientations