2. 0. Group Model: 日本人論
• at the inter-group level:
integration and harmony between Japanese
groups, making Japan a ‘consensus society’
(high stability and cohesion, national
consensus and national goals)
• at the interpersonal, intra-group level:
group orientation (eg tateshakai – Nakane)
• at the individual, psychological level:
Japanese people do not have an
independent self (e.g. amae – Doi) 2
3. 0. Group Model: 日本人論
• all Japanese share these characteristics
• there is no variation among the Japanese in
the degree to which they possess that
characteristic
• this feature is uniquely Japanese, and
barely exists in other societies
• this trait has existed in Japan for a long long
time, independently of historical
circumstances (ie ahistorical assumption)
3
4. 1.“Hegemony of Homogeneity”
• class stratification (vertical variation)
– class society, disparity society (kakusa shakai)
• ethnic diversity (horizontal variation)
– minorities
• from outside (zainichi Koreans, Chinese, nissei)
• from within (Okinawans, Ainu, burakumin)
– regional differences
• eastern Japan vs. western Japan
• city vs. country 4
5. 1.“Hegemony of Homogeneity”
• ethnic diversity (horizontal variation)
– subcultural groups
• “a set of value expectations and lifestyles shared by
a section of a given population” (p. 14)
• e.g.Tokyo male elite vs. rural female farmers
– unequal access to power
• some subcultures have great access to power,
particularly ideological capital, so can determine
societal norms and expectations
• some subcultures are marginalized
5
6. 1.The Multicultural Model (p. 14)
Japan “comprises a variety of subcultures …
Japan is multicultural and far from being a
homogeneous, monocultural entity … [it is] a
mosaic of rival groups, competing strata, and
various subcultures.” (p. 16) 6
7. 2. Changing Analyses
• Japan has been seen in different ways: (p. 18)
– WWII-1950s: unique and monolithic
– 1960s: non-communist model of development
– late 1960s: unique – amae, tateshakai
– early 1970s: learn from Japan!
– 1980s & 1990s: more critical perspectives
– post-bubble era: rejection of the ‘Japan model’
but strong cultural nationalism (Nihonjin-ron)
– from early 2000s:‘Cool Japan’ – tension
between the unique and the trans-cultural 7
8. 3. Development Debates
• the convergence debate:
– all industrial societies converge in their
development
• anti-convergence debate:
– the cultural background and historical tradition
of each society determines the processes of
development, so convergence cannot occur
• reverse convergence hypothesis:
– Europe is not the model; Japan is.
• multiple convergence hypothesis:
– many models of development 8
9. 3. Cultural Debates
“Can the analysis of societies be free from
ethnocentric assumptions?”
- foundations of sociology –
- the West and its development
- cultural imperialism
- emic (insider) vs. etic (outsider) views
- Kuwayama –
- core countries (USA)
vs. peripheral countries (Japan) 9
10. 4. Complexity
• What is the appropriate level of analysis?
– the nation level or the subcultural group level?
• Is it possible to simplify Japanese society
down to particular features?
– Japanese society is made up of integrated
processes that cannot be easily disambiguated.
10
11. 4. Double Codes
• “Dominant subcultural groups rely heavily on an
ideology which discourages transparent and
forthright interactions between individuals. …
Double codes are legitimized in many spheres of
Japanese life, thereby creating a world beneath
the surface.” (pp. 33-34)
• three pairs:
– tatemae and honne
– omote and ura
– soto and uchi
11
12. 4. Double Codes
• “Studies of Japanese society are incomplete if
researchers examine only its tatemae, omote, and
soto aspects. Only when they scrutinize the honne,
ura, and uchi sides of Japanese society can they
grasp its full picture.To be Japan-literate,
researchers should not confuse outward
appearances with inside realities when examining
a society in which double codes play significant
roles.” (p. 36)
12
