Cultural Values

We may now view these normative patterns from a comparative cultural

perspective. A detailed description of the American norms will not be

required, since it may be presumed that the reader has sufficient

familiarity with them. We shall select those American rules of

interpersonal behavior that are "opposites" to the Japanese patterns just

described. In a later section we shall discuss cases of similarity.

There is among Americans a tendency toward an initial egalitarian

response oil the part of "ego": two persons are presumed to be equal unless

proven otherwise. (The Japanese norms contain an opposite premise: when

status is vague, inequality is expected.) In practice this egalitarian

principle in American interpersonal behavior leads to what the Japanese

might perceive as fluidity and unpredictability of behavior-in interaction,

and highly variable or at least less apparent concern for status. Things

like wealth, public versus private situations, and a host of other features

may all in the American case, influence the behavior of ego and alter in

ways which are not subject to predicate codification, Allowance is made

continually for subtle changes in roles of those interacting, with a strain

toward equalization if hierarchical differences appear. Thus, while in

social situations the Japanese may find it difficult to communicate unless

status differences are clear, the American, in view of his egalitarian

preference, may point to and actually experience status difference as a

source of interpersonal tension and difficulty in communication. Thus the

Japanese may see the free flow of communication as enhanced by clear status

understandings; the American may view it instead as requiring maximal

intimacy and freedom of expression.

Finally, reserve or discipline is in some cases much less apparent in

American social behavior. Initially, outward display of feeling is

encouraged, and' reserve may develop after status differences are

recognized. Once again the Japanese may proceed on an approximately

opposite principle: behavioral freedom and expressivity become a

potentiality after statuses are clearly differentiated—especially when

equality is achieved— but not before. Moreover, even when statuses are

clear to the Japanese participants in social relations, interaction often

continues to be hesitant and guarded. (Important institutionalized

exceptions to the general rule of avoidance are found in the frank behavior

tolerated in sake parties, behavior of the male guest and his geisha

partner, and a few others.)

In American interpersonal behavior the patterns of tact,

obsequiousness, and other forms of retiring behavior are seen continually,

but they are often much more situational and idiosyncratic. Americans lack

a concept with the generalized cultural meaning of enryo; reserve may be a

useful form of behavior for some people, but not others, or in some

situations; it may be associated with status differences, or it may not.

And when this reserve is associated with status positions (and in the

presence of hierarchical patterns generally), Americans are likely to

express attitudes of guilt or regret, or are likely to conceal the

existence of such patterns by verbally reaffirming egalitarian principles.

Moreover, some American normative attitudes frown on "manipulative"

tendencies; frankness, openness, and humility are valued highly, if not

always observed. Quotations from interviews with student subjects

(sojourners and returnees) may serve to indicate the Japanese perspective

on their own and the American patterns of interpersonal behavior.

Q.: What did you like about America that you didn't about Japan?

A.: Well, it's hard to give concrete examples, but mainly I was

satisfied with what you might call the smartness of life— the modernness of

things. And also the simplicity and frankness of life. You don't have to

worry about gimu-giri-on [obligations] over there ... In the United States

you have to visit relatives too, but such visits are more personal, more

real— more meaningful. Here in Japan they are for the sake of girt and

righteousness and all that stuff.

Q.: Could you define the term "Americanized" as it is used by

Japanese students?

A.: Well, to be Americanized means to be indifferent to social

position-indifferent to social formality — such as in formal greetings. It

concerns points about how one acts socially.

This is about human relations — it didn't surprise me but it did

impress me very much to find that relations with others are always on an

equal plane in the U.S. In Japan I automatically used polite language with

seniors so that this just seemed natural— and if I used polite words in

Japan I didn't necessarily feel that this was feudalistic— though some do.

At first in the U.S. when young

people, like high school students, talked to me as an equal, I felt

conflicted, or in the dormitory it surprised me to see a boy of 20 talk to

a man of 45 as an equal.

In Japan, my father and some of my superiors often told me that my

attitude toward superiors and seniors was too rude. Here, though, my

attitude doesn't seem rude— at least it doesn't appear as rude as I was

afraid it would. It is easier to get along with people in America, because

for one thing, Americans are not so class conscious and not so sensitive

about things like status. In Japan, my conduct to superiors seemed rude,

but the same behavior isn’t rude here. For instance here it is all right

simply to say "hello" to teachers, while in Japan I would be expected to

say “ohayo gozaimasu" [polite form of "good morning"] with a deep bow. In

Japan I did things like this only when I really respected somebody.

A main problem with me is the problem of enryo, or what you call

modesty. Even in life in America you have to be modest, but in a different

way from the so-called Japanese enryo. But the trouble is that I don't know

when and where we have to show enryo in American life. You never can be

sure.

The good thing about associating with Americans is that you can be

friendly in a light manner. Not so in Japan. Japanese are nosey in other

peoples' business—they rumor, gossip. It gives you a crowded feeling, after

you get back. Of course in Japan friendships are usually deep— it is good

to have a real friend to lean on— you know where you stand with your

friends; it is the opposite of light associations.

I have few American friends— those I have are usually Americans who

have been to Japan. I think the reason is that my character is somewhat

backward.

I don't try to speak first, but let the other fellow open up. Those

who have been to Japan know about this and speak first, and that makes it

easier to start an association.

From the information on contrasting cultural norm and cue systems

supplied thus far, it is possible to predict in a general way that

I when a Japanese interacts with an American, certain blockages to

communication and to the correct assessment of status behavior may occur.

Japanese are likely to confront Americans with unstated assumptions

concerning status differences, while the American may be inclined to accept

the Japanese at face value—that is, as a person, not a status. In the

resulting confusion it may be anticipated that the Japanese will retreat

into what he calls enryo, since this form of behavior involving attenuated

communication is appropriate toward persons of unclear or superior status.

THE NATIONAL STATUS IMAGE

For reasons usually found in the cultural background of the peoples

concerned, and in the historical relations of nations, there is a tendency

on the part of some to view other nations and peoples much as one would

view persons in a hierarchically oriented social group. Modernization,

which brings an increased need for knowledge of other peoples, has brought

as well a strong sense of competition—a desire to know where one stands, or

where one's nation stands relative to other nations in technological and

other areas of development. This desire to know one's position and the

tendency to view other nations hierarchically are probably found to some

degree in all modern societies, but may be exaggerated among those nations

that are in the middle ranks in the competitive race for modernization—and

particularly in those societies which have incorporated into their own

culture a strong hierarchical conception of status.

Thus, in societies with hierarchical patterns, there will occur

certain established techniques which are defined as appropriate for

governing behavior toward the nationals of countries judged either to be

higher or lower than that of the actor. On the other hand, for societies

with egalitarian ideals of social relations, while there may be a tendency

in the national popular ideology to view other nations hierarchically in

terms of power and progress, there will be no ready behavioral pattern to

follow toward individual members of these other societies. Ideally,

regardless of national origin, individuals will be considered as "human

beings," theoretically equal. Such theoretical equality is often violated

in practice, of course, but the violations are based not on systematic

hierarchical conceptions, but on transitory and situationally determined

attitudes.

The Japanese tendency to locate other nations on a hierarchical scale

is well known, and is observable even at the level of formal diplomatic

interchange. With respect to the Japanese attitude toward the United

States, the tendency toward a superordinate status percept is very strong

—although qualified and even reversed in certain contexts (American arts

and literature have been viewed as of questionable merit, for example) and

in certain historical periods. The historical basis for this generally high-

status percept may be found in America's historic role in the opening of

Japan; in the use of America as a model for much of Japan's modernization;

and in the participation and guidance of the United States in reform and

reconstruction during the Occupation. America, though not always a country

for which the Japanese feel great affection, has come to be a symbol of

many of Japan's aspirations, as well as a "tutor" whom the "pupil" must

eventually excel (or even conquer). Therefore, whatever the specific

affectual response, we have found that the Japanese student subjects often

perceived America as deserving of respect or at least respect-avoidance

(enryo), and were further inclined to project this image onto the American

individual. Evidence of these views available in our research data is

sampled at the end of this section, in the form of quotations from

interviews.

Within tolerable limits of generally, America may be specified as a

society in which egalitarian interpersonal relationships are the ideal

pattern and, in tendency at least, the predominant pattern of behavior. But

in the United States, especially as the country emerges from political

isolation, there also has appeared a tendency to rate other nations in a

rough hierarchical order. Thus, some European nations in the spheres of

art, literature, and the manufacture of sports cars would be acclaimed by

many Americans as superior, and Americans are increasingly concerned about

their technological position vis-a-vis Russia. However, this tendency to

rate other nations hierarchically does not automatically translate itself

into code of behavior for Americans to follow toward the people of other

countries, as is the case for many Japanese. It may leave the social

situation a little confused for the Americans, but in the background of

thinking for many individual Americans is the notion that in social

relations people should be treated initially as equals.

A CULTURAL MODEL OF INTERACTION

When a person from a national society with hierarchical tendencies

encounters a person from a society with egalitarian tendencies, and

moreover when the country of the latter is generally "high" in the

estimation of the former, the idealized paradigm as shown in Figure 1 would

be approximated. In this diagram, X, the person from a country with

egalitarian views, behaves toward Y, the person from a hierarchically

oriented country, as if he occupied the same "level"; that is, in

equalitarian terms.

Figure 1.

But Y perceives X in a high-status position X1, "above" X's image of

his own status in the relationship. Since from Y's point of view X does not

behave as he "ought" to—he behaves as an equal rather than as a superior—Y

may be expected to feel confusion and disorientation. The confusion can be

resolved readily only by Y's assuming an equal status with X, or by X's

assuming the position X1 assigned to him by Y; i.e., either by closing or

by validating the "arc of status-cue confusion" shown by the arrow.

The reader will note that in effect we have already substituted

"average American" for X, and "average Japanese" for Y. We have found that

the diagram has been meaningful as an ideal model for the analysis of

interaction patterns between Japanese and Americans. In many cases the

conditions denoted by the diagram were actually found: Americans do behave

toward Japanese as equals, while the Japanese perceive the Americans as,

and in some cases expect them to behave like, superiors. In this ideal

situation since the Japanese is generally not able to respond as an equal,

and since withdrawal and distant respect are proper behavior both for

interaction with superiors and for interaction in situations where status

is ambiguous, he simply retires into enryo and communication is impaired.

This model does much to explain what many educators and foreign student

counsellors have come to feel as "typical" behavior of the shy, embarrassed

Japanese student on the American campus.

A revealing interchange on the matter of status imagery by some twelve

Japanese sojourner students was recorded during a two-hour group discussion

planned by the project but not attended by Americans. A translation of part

of this interchange follows.

M: As I see it, Japanese think of Americans as nobility. So, it is

hard to accept invitations because of the status difference.

K: I don't agree fully. Americans are not nobility to us, but they do

have a higher social status, so that it is hard to accept invitations. But

there is a "category" of persons who are known and placed as "foreign

students," and we can take advantage of this general foreign student status

and go to American homes and places.

N: During foreign student orientation we came and went as we desired

as "foreign students." But here, as an individual person, I have felt it

necessary to return invitations which are extended to me, and this I find

very difficult since I have no income and must return the invitation in a

manner suited to the status of the person.

M: Only if the invitation is from Americans who we can accept as

status equals to us should it be returned. . . . American table manners are

difficult to learn, and it is a problem similar to that encountered by

anyone who attempts to enter a higher social class in Japan. . . . Japanese

just can't stand on an equal footing with Americans. ... I wouldn't want an

American janitor to see my house in Japan. It is so miserable.

N: Why? That seems extreme.

M: Because I have social aspirations. I am a "climber." A Japanese

house in Tokyo is too dirty to invite an American to—for example, could I

invite him to use my poor bathroom? (General laughter)

At a later point in the discussion, the following emerged:

Mrs. N: I have watched American movies in Japan and in the United

States I have seen American men—and they all look like Robert Taylor. No

Japanese men look like Robert Taylor.

M: Again I say it is not a matter of beauty, but one of status.

Mrs. N: No, it is not status—not calculation of economic worth or

anything —but of beauty. Americans are more beautiful—they look nicer than

Japanese.

U: It is the same in other things. Americans look nice, for example,

during an oral examination in college. They look more attractive. Japanese

look down, crushed, ugly.

At a still later point, one of the discussants embarked on a long

monologue on the ramifications of the status problem. Part of this

monologue runs as follows:

A high-status Japanese man going out with American girls knows

something of what he must do—for example, he must be polite—but he does not

know the language so he can be no competition to American men, who will be

superior. In an emergency, for example, the Japanese male regresses to

Japanese behavior. Great Japanese professors are embarrassed for the first

few months in the United States because they can't even beat American

college juniors in sociable behavior or expression of ideas. They don't

know the language, they feel inferior. These people, forgetting that they

were unable "to defeat America, become highly antagonistic to the United

States. . . .They reason that Japan must be superior, not inferior to the

United States, because they are unable to master it. While in America, of

course, they may write home about their wonderful times and experiences —

to hide their real feelings. Actually while they are in the U.S. they feel

as though they were nothing.

Some quotations from two different interviews with another subject:

Before I came to the States, I expected that whatever I would do in

the U.S. would be observed by Americans and would become their source of

knowledge of Japan and the Japanese. So I thought I had to be careful. In

the dormitory, there is a Nisei boy from whom I ask advice about my manners

and clothing! I asked him to tell me any time when my body smells or my

clothing is dirty. I, as a Japanese, want to look nice to Americans.

In general, I think I do less talking than the others in my courses.

I'm always afraid that if I raise questions along the lines of Japanese

thinking about the subject—or simply from my own way of looking at

something—it might raise some question on the part of .the others. When

talking to a professor I can talk quite freely, but not in class. I am self-

conscious.

These specimen quotations help to show that quite frequently the

perspective of many Japanese students toward America has some of the

qualities of the triangular model of interaction. Regardless of how our

Japanese subjects may have behaved, or learned to behave, they harbored, as

a picture in the back of their minds, an image of the Americans as people a

notch or two "above" Japan and the Japanese. Thus even while a Japanese may

"look down" on what he calls "American materialism," he may "in the back of

his mind" continue to "look up" to the United States and its people as a

whole, as a "generalized other." Our cultural model of interaction is thus

felt to be a very fundamental and highly generalized component of imagery,

as well as a very generalized way of describing the behavior of Japanese

and Americans in certain typical interactive situations.

Quite obviously the model, taken by itself, would be a very poor

instrument of prediction of the actual behavior of a particular Japanese

with Americans. It is apparent that there would have to be a considerable

knowledge of situational variability, amount of social learning, and many

other factors before all the major variants of Japanese social behavior in

America with respect to status could be understood. While there is no need

to seek complete predictability of individual behavior, some attempt may be

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7