On Growth Two

[p. 88]

14. Chie Nakane

Professor Chie Nakane - sometimes called the Japanese Margaret Mead - was born November 30, 1926, in Tokyo, and spent her youth in Peking. She studied the history of Tibet and China at the Department of Oriental History of the University of Tokyo and later went to the London School of Economics to study social anthropology. She took additional courses in Tibetology at the Instituto Italiano peril Medio ed Estremo Oriente in Rome. In 1952 she joined the Institute of Oriental Culture of the University of Tokyo, where she holds a chair in social anthropology. Professor Nakane did field work in India on the social organization of the hill tribes in Assam and the Himalayas, and among the Nayars in Kerala. She studied the Hindu family and village community systems in Gujarat and Bengal, and worked on other projects in Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore. She has lectured at the Universities of London and Chicago. This interview took place at the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, California, where Professor Nakane was doing research during 1973 and 1974. Among her publications in English are Kinship and Economic Organisation in Rural Japan and Japanese Society.

You have called Japan ‘a homogeneous society.’ How would you define or illustrate a homogeneous society in comparison, for instance, to American or Indian society?

It is based on the simple fact that the same ethnic people have occupied the Japanese Islands from prehistoric times, maintaining a cultural and social unity, without having been disturbed by the migration of other peoples. There were some immigrants from the continent between the third and

[p. 89]

seventh centuries who had significant effects on the formation of the state at that time. However, their number was so small as to be quickly assimilated into the native population. Since then, the Japanese population has constantly cultivated a common culture, the trend of which was particularly enhanced under the centralized feudal system of the Tokugawa regime and later by the modern centralized bureaucracy. Japan is a rarity among nations today in that its population consists of such a homogeneous people.

That makes Japanese society a hard nut to crack. Yet, pop art and pop music, and jeans, seem rather popular these days in Japan. How much is surface and to what extent, do you think, will Japan retain its homogeneous character?

Acceptance of other cultures is a distinctive habit of the Japanese people. However, they have accepted them as fragments or parts, not as an operational system, so that they hardly affected the core of our cultural and social tradition. Most of them are found in overt aspects, such as materials and techniques. It is indeed surprising how the Japanese have been able to maintain their native way of thinking and their social system in spite of having come under heavy influence from Chinese and, later, Western cultures. Perhaps because we live deep in our own culture it does not matter how much superficial change may occur owing to external influences.

Would you say that group commitment wins out in Japan over individualism?

I think we have to explore this question carefully. I always harbor some suspicions about the expression ‘individualism versus group consciousness.’ Of course, we do not share the history of Europe. Perhaps, if our people were placed in social circumstances comparable to those of Europeans or Americans, it could very well be that individualism would undergo a more intense development. Undoubtedly, especially following the medieval age, the emphasis in Europe lay on the development of individualism. In Japan history did not take such a turn.

Throughout its history Japanese values have been directed toward maintaining harmonious relationships with others, particularly in primary relationships. Appreciation of and adjustment to others are highly regarded, while aggressiveness and expression of self are regarded as awkward bad manners. According to my analysis, the emphasis has been directed in the West toward element (individual) and in Japan toward relation (between individuals). These are different approaches, but are comparable alternatives. In practice, each has its own merits and demerits; and an

[p. 90]

extreme in either direction would bring on a bad result. In comparison with the West, the behavior pattern of the Japanese naturally manifests a strong group orientation.

Yet, I did hear from some of your students that some Japanese employers nowadays look upon young arrivals from the schools and universities as almost un-Japanese.

That, I think, is a matter of degree. As far as my own observation goes, as I teach at the University of Tokyo, the basic attitude of students has not changed, particularly regarding group activities, which are observed more than ever. What makes them different from the older generations is found in their manner of personal interactions. They are much franker in expressing their opinions, they do not employ overritualistic behavior patterns, their manners are greatly simplified in comparison with the older generations. They are less dependent on a senior person than were their predecessors. This must be attributed to the fact that in general their life has become easier owing to economic affluence and easy job opportunities. Also, in earlier days, students did not have so many choices.

They had no pocket money: they could not afford tape recorders or cars.

They didn't have so many alternatives, that makes the difference. To me, the behavior of our younger generation is the quite natural outcome of the contemporary Japanese economic situation of affluence.

Your students also now have the possibility to travel the world by the hundreds and thousands. They read English now, and are exposed to a great influx of ideas from Western society. Would this not sooner or later affect an entire new generation of Japanese?

I still doubt how deep it will all go. Such activities may widen their scope and may contribute to a gradual change. But it should be noted that they may also become critical of the Western system and culture. Admiration of snobbism vis-à-vis the West has considerably decreased among young Japanese in comparison with the older generation. The important point is that so long as they are employed by Japanese organizations, whether they like it or not they will certainly be molded into the Japanese pattern. It would be a different story if young Japanese were to stay in the United States or anywhere outside Japan, employed by foreign firms. But these young people would have difficulty in returning to Japan and reintegrating into society.

I read an article by Robert Trumbull in the New York Times of October 4,

[p. 91]

1973, about a group of sansei third-generation Japanese who had lived abroad - finding Japan extremely frustrating to live in. One sansei girl from California put it this way: ‘My frustration trying to make friends really hit me hard. There is just no feedback.’ The Japanese won't accept them back?

It will be difficult to integrate them again. They will be cut off from society. The Japanese sociological operation is such that they recognize individuals as one of ‘us’ because they are in the same organization, not because they are Japanese.

But, then, they will become displaced persons?

More correctly, they are regarded as having become members of another organization. It happens in the same way in Japan even for those who left their natal village community: they must join a new organization in place of the old one. Once one leaves the natal community, it is difficult for him to maintain the membership. Therefore, if young Japanese take these facts into account - they know it instinctively - they will not stay outside the country for too long.

In your book A Japanese Society, you compare the family situation in Japan with that in India. Now, I am more familiar with conditions in Indonesia. There you could very well find a situation in which an elder brother works in an office to support a younger brother in his studies at a university. Would this kind of blood-relation solidarity be possible in Japan?

No. The Japanese are quite different in that respect. Even in a traditional rural society one could not depend on or look to kinship ties. You probably know that in general Americans have much stronger family ties than we have in Japan. In our society, kinship has never been so functional. Brothers, uncles, cousins, and so on do not have the same function as in Indonesia, for example; they have to develop other alternatives.

Through friends, then?

That's the way. Friendships among colleagues and senior and junior persons in the workplace are very important.

Within the framework of the company one works for. I understand big Japanese firms seek to work almost within the framework of the one big family idea.

That's right. That is in part why the place of work becomes so important to the Japanese.

[p. 92]

In September, 1973, Prime Minister Tanaka organized a review of attitudes of youth in Japan versus youth in the world. Twenty thousand children throughout the world were supplied with a questionnaire. To everyone's surprise, the result was that Japanese youth were by far the most cynical, dissatisfied, and realistic. For instance, when the questionnaire asked, Is man's essential nature good or evil? only twenty percent on an average in other nations replied that it was evil. But in Japan thirty-three percent of the youngsters were of that opinion. Are Japanese youths realistic or pessimistic about the nature of man?

I don't know. The problem is that we Japanese are not accustomed to thinking in that way. If you ask such a question in an unprepared way, suddenly you will get -

- the wrong answer.

Indeed. We are not familiar with being put such a question point-blank. We do not immediately express ourselves on such deep questions.

How are we to understand the Japanese? I once read that even if a foreigner were to learn all the words in the Japanese dictionary, he would still have to learn to think as a Japanese.

That applies to any language. Maybe to Japanese more than any other language, since our culture has been over the ages such an isolated one.

But why did you say a moment ago that Japanese do not think so deeply?

I think this is just our habit. Japanese are sensitive but not philosophical. As a matter of fact, most of the well-known countries in history have produced their famous philosophers, but Japan never produced a single outstanding philosopher. The Japanese character does not function that way. On the other hand, the Japanese are most keen to develop esthetic sides of their soul. The most outstanding contributions by Japanese are found in the field of art, particularly in paintings. To the Japanese, beauty is more important than logic or thinking in a philosophic way about man's life. The stress always seems to lie more on how to make life beautiful.

I once read a headline above an interview you gave to Newsweek that read: ‘Japanese Have No Principles.’ From your writing I drew a different inference: that the Japanese do not rely much on dogma, on principle, but more on a situation.

That is right.

[p. 93]

The headline was misleading then.

We have principles we can work with. But we do not have a concrete ideology to profess to other peoples or to establish a specific goal in the long run. Rather, we seek the best way to adjust to the situation encountered. In the face of ever-changing world situations, such an open system is one of the devices for a country like Japan.

Would you sympathize with foreigners coming to Japan to communicate with some significance to Japanese people? I always found it difficult until I published a book in Japan and was asked to address the students at Hitotsubashi University. In other words, I was for the first time properly introduced into Japanese society. Then, not only was it easy to communicate with the students during the lecture, but a deputation later visited the Imperial Hotel for a discussion deep into the night.

Japanese are unaccustomed to dealing not only with people from different cultures but also even with their own people from a different organization. In order to get to them, you have to find someone who accepts you personally or who was very much impressed by you. Then you could be introduced to his friends. A formal or businesslike approach will not result in any further relationship. The Japanese individual does not approach others unless there is an established personal relationship.

However, this may apply to many societies, if not so much to a mobile society like the United States. Perhaps it exists to a greater degree in Japan. Moreover, Japanese do not have the habit of enjoying a talk with a stranger in a casual encounter, even if the latter has been properly introduced. Perhaps this makes foreigners in Japan feel terribly lonely and frustrated.

What would be your advice to us foreigners coming to Japan? You know both worlds. How can we communicate more effectively with the Japanese?

That is a very difficult question. I think foreigners should begin by studying the social structure, the system of our society. Foreigners too often judge us on the basis of their own set of values. This applies equally to the Japanese who come to the United States. We have to know each other's systems first before we make any judgment or statement. But, of course, what is more difficult than understanding a way of thinking, of functioning? Foreigners become particularly frustrated in our society, since we do not vocally explain what we really think. At the same time, a Japanese automatically expects that foreigners should understand him. And when this fails he concludes that foreigners will never be able to understand the Japanese and

[p. 94]

Japanese culture. Thus, Japanese tend to neglect the effort to help other people understand. Moreover, verbal communication has not been much developed among them as compared to other peoples. This is one of the crucial drawbacks for the Japanese in international communication: among themselves they use so much nonverbal communication!

Looks, eye movements, voice tones. And then there is the language barrier on top of it all.

Besides, we have much more complicated rituals in personal interactions than do, for example, Americans. From our point of view foreigners are normally out of tune, so we do not take them seriously. Moreover, it is rather difficult for us to explain all these minor but essential rituals. English people also have elaborate rituals, but they are well known, and at the same time the English are much more skillful in expressing themselves to others than Japanese are. In this respect, the Japanese must be one of the most difficult peoples with which to communicate effectively.

The political scientist Professor Shinkichi Eto told me that Prime Minister Tanaka communicated rather well with Kissinger when he went abroad, but in his meeting with Brezhnev, they were hitting the table in anger. I know peace and communication in external relations are most vital for the future of the Japanese islands - I am speaking of survival - so someone should write a book on how to deal effectively with the Japanese and vice versa.

That indeed is the difficulty. But I think we are slowly improving. A general increasing awareness of a different outside world is taking hold in Japan.

I recall that former Prime Minister Eisaku Sato once replied to the question of Japanese textiles imports into the United States, ‘I will do my best.’ The translation came through to Nixon as ‘I will do it.’ Then, when nothing happened, Nixon got mad and Japanese-American relations underwent a turn for the worse. So we still are faced, on top of everything else, with the limits of language.

Right. It is indeed awful.