A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological innovation in Japan studies; Hamaguchi Esyun

Pg 293 – “When Japanese join a group, they regard the “field” (frame) to which they wish to belong as a more important criterion than any particular “qualification” (attribute) they possess. A group is formed on the basis of the frame rather than a common attribute. In contrast to cases where one can simultaneously belong to different groups depending on one’s various qualifications, in Japan withdrawal from a “field” implies the loss of one’s group membership.”

~ So to the Japanese the culture is more important than the individual, whereas in the United States we view the individual more important than the culture, although, in essence, we join cultures for the exact same reason. To eliminate a threat. In the United States we just view the way to eliminate the threat slightly differently. We want to eliminate the threat while keeping the other identities we have, whereas the Japanese seem to wish to eliminate any threat completely.

Pg 293 – “Hence in Japan it is inevitable for people to belong to a single group totally and unilaterally, resulting in the formation of what may be called a “single society.””

~ Completely eliminating the threat of losing an identity rather than partially eliminating many threats.

Pg 293 – “When groups are composed of those who have similar qualifications, horizontal networks tend to develop. But in a “single society” like Japan where a group is composed of members with different qualifications, theoretically, vertical networks of relationships must develop. For this reason, Nakane defined Japan as a “vertical society.”9”

~ Back to the idea of horizontal versus vertical identity (in other notes somewhere).

Pg 301 – “Before entering interpersonal relations, an individual-according to the Euro-American model-is assumed to be unique at the core of his personality. In order for an individual to exist as such, he must be able to maintain a sure sense of his own existence as well as a self-reliant attitude (the ability to act aggressively based only on his own ability and to accept responsibility for the outcome of his actions). This central core of the individual has been called his ego.”

~ So the Japanese do not have this version of ego. And maybe our version of ego is wrong? Perhaps, instead, our ego is really more like our core self, the set of identities that make us feel “home” whereas the other identities are more of the possible selves and make us feel more threatened and homeless.

Pg 304 – Model

Identity as tree rings, or water droplets