Comment by Ken Y-N

September 12, 2007 @ 6:12 am

I find it strange that whilst there is all the fuss here about genuine miscarriages of justice Metropolis/Japan Today decided to focus on an unrepentent violent thug who bought his way out of a jail sentence.

Comment by DeOrio

September 12, 2007 @ 2:55 pm

Yeah, he kept talking about having been at a swank party to relax gambling laws, with “the Prime Minister of the country” (I have my doubts), his three-piece suit, and his Hermes tie. Sounds a lot like he was saying he couldn’t have been a thug because he was wearing expensive clothes.

On top of that, by his account, it sounds like the police treated him quite nicely, compared to the way other people are treated.

Metropolis/Japan Today is a joke. Japan Today is on line and Metropolis is on glossy paper, so you can’t even wipe your ass with them.

Comment by Arudou Debito

September 12, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

Metropolis/Japan Today, remember, went on the warpath against accused (and convicted) drug smuggler Nick Baker.

Comment by Arudou Debito

September 12, 2007 @ 4:00 pm

Oops. Sorry guys, fix the URL on the link, then delete this comment? Thanks

Comment by Bryce

September 17, 2007 @ 9:51 am

Interesting to hear Debito claim he is an activist rather than an academic, as if a) activism and academia are mutually exclusive, b) he is therefore not a “real” academic and c) rigour is something that may not be welcome in his type of activism.

I can now dismiss much of what he says with his own logic.

Comment by DeOrio

September 17, 2007 @ 11:01 pm

Bryce, I don’t know what your opinion of Debito was prior to hearing this interview, but it appears you might be looking for a reason to dismiss what he says rather than dismissing what he says based on what you heard.

a.) I think his argument was that the academics, especially grad students, who were willing to ignore social problems because the evidence proving a trend was unavailable were turning the situation into one of academics vs. activists. He explained what he saw as the difference fairly clearly.
When I asked him if he thought academics were opposed tohis work or working against him, he said they were not.

b.) I don’t see how that follows.

c.) I think the main point of what he said was that rigor should not keep people from acknowledging problems, that there’s a difference between not having enough evidence to prove a blanket trend and there not being a problem, and that some academics are confusing the two.

Even if all academics were of the sort of the “bad” ones (not his words) that he presented herein, why would that mean you’d necessarily be able to dismiss what he says? It sounds here as though you’re beginning from an assumption of his being wrong.

Comment by Bryce

September 18, 2007 @ 7:37 am

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud the fact that Debito fights against isolated incidences of injustice when he sees them, but to then claim that there is something systematic going on is just false.

Take Debito’s “Rogues Gallery” (http://www.debito.org/roguesgallery.html), which shows photographs of pubs and bars in Japan with exclusionary policies based on race, language and, in one case, occupation. This sort of thing is fine, but then to claim that the readers shouldn’t “let anyone convince you that the problem isn’t spreading nationwide in Japan” is just pure conjecture. How does Debito know that the problem is “spreading” throughout Japan? I see 20-30 cases which, moreover, Mr. Arudou has solicited from the readers of his website.

So is this a “social problem” - i.e. is it rampant enough to be taken seriously? Are exclusionary policies “spreading” throughout Japan. If I were to hazard a guess I would imagine not. Are they a “social” problem. No. They certainly didn’t affect me - or anyone else I know - during my time in Japan, but then again I didn’t go to blowjob bars and I lived in Osaka, where apparently the phenomenon of exclusionary policies is limited to optometrists. I certainly wouldn’t want my tax dollar to be spent on an awareness initiative to educate people in the entertainment industry or on some sort of unit that went around putting a stop to this kind of policy, when it is such a minor problem.

Take another example. Debito recently commented on a T.V. series that had a Japanese girl travel to New York. While she was there she was mugged by black dudes. According to Debito, this was a “racist” depiction of foreign life. It was also, apparently a “social” problem, as in the United States depictions of racial stereotypes upon which the broadcasting authorities in the U.S. would have come down hard, were it an American show. So it’s a “Japanese” problem, and clearly so, because Debito compares it to an enlightened “American” solution.

This sort of commentary bugs me, not just because the content of the clip was not particularly racist in my opinion, but also because Debito is flat out wrong when he claims that American shows are prevented from using racial stereotypes by strong regulatory authority. Has he watched the Simpsons recently, or Lost, or 24, or the Sopranos…. Now, I am not saying the use of stereotype to drive plot is necessarily a bad thing - but I think Japanese shows should be judged with the same yardstick as their American counterparts in this regard, particularly when you are criticising racial stereotypes as a failure of a “Japanese” system.

And herein lies the nub: Debito claims that he is not targeting “Japan” or the “Japanese” when he makes his claims. He says he is fighting for justice in isolated cases. But then he characterises those cases as collectively a “social” problem. Yet this must be a veiled way of saying that it is a “Japanese” problem. What other “society” could he be talking about? And in order to figure out if something is a problem for “society”, i.e. it is a problem embedded in the culture and institutions of that society - and is not just a few isolated infractions of justice - you need to find out if incidences are frequent, or indeed increasing. In other words you need rigour.

In short, I wish Debito all the best in his struggle against isolated incidences of injustice, but I think he is talking baloney a lot of the time when he characterises much of what he observes as a “social” problem.

Comment by Bryce

September 18, 2007 @ 7:42 am

Sorry this was mangled:

“It was also, apparently a “social” problem, as in the United States broadcasting authorities would come down hard on depictions of racial stereotypes…”

Comment by Pellegrini

September 18, 2007 @ 5:40 pm

I am often reminded by my Japanese students that racism, racial violence, race-based prejudice, racial tensions, and just about any other negative phrase containing the word race, are big problems in America. I’m beginning to believe it’s a truism that’s taught in school to accentuate the harmony of both life in Japan and being Japanese.

Furthermore, while it’s usually implied, occasionally a student will innocently follow up their comment on racism in America with something to the effect of, “It’s nice that we don’t have problems with racism here.” I find it easiest to just smile and nod politely when listening to such things.

Allow me to approach this one from the context of education and sociology. Japanese society can be described as “collective”—one that accentuates the value of group-think. It is routinely noted that Japanese are prone to excluding those who are different from the group. This has become increasingly obvious to the outside observer over the past year when looking at the spate of high-profile student suicides that were spurred by bullying at school.

Bullying in Japan usually doesn’t take the same form as it does in Australia, Norway, and most other western countries; students are taught by their parents and their teachers to conform to the group. Those who don’t conform are hammered on like the proverbial nail until they don’t stick out anymore. Imagine the helplessness felt by students who are victimized not by one or two bullies, but by the entire class. Evidently, some victims feel so helpless that they kill themselves.

This type of behavior, exclusion of those who are different from the group, is a large stumbling block in the path to successfully reducing bullying in Japanese schools. Sometimes teachers engage in, or encourage, the bullying as well. I know of elementary school teachers in Saitama who ridicule the chubby kids in front of the class. Good work, sensei, you’ve just created a chronic bullying victim!

Racism and bullying are definitely not the same thing, but in Japan it can be argued that they come from the same source. As mentioned before, prejudice and harm aimed at individuals who are different is the accepted way to enforce conformity. In school it takes the form of bullying, and recent research shows that Japanese students tend to blame the victims of bullying rather than the bullies (the opposite is true in most western nations). This means that most Japanese young people agree that bullying is at least sometimes necessary.

Those who won’t conform (or can’t due to the color of their skin) are sometimes removed from the group completely (applicable to both school and society). This is the way that people are usually raised, and almost always educated, to behave, and it is reflected in Japanese parenting styles–the threat of abandonment is a common technique for getting naughty children to behave.

In the end, this type of exclusionary relational tactic is entrenched in society. As guests in Japan, non-Japanese are normally able to live their lives without incident because the overwhelming majority of Japanese don’t have the slightest inkling to discriminate against those who hold different passports. However, problems have and do arise when a non-Japanese is victimized, and the lack of appropriate means of protection and recourse are highlighted once again (ie. that person is not entitled to equal protection under the law). The random cases of discrimination, whether it be by shop owners, the penal system, police officers, or schools, belie a social problem in that people are taught to think that those who are, or act, differently from the group deserve to be put in their place.

There is no doubt that the number of non-Japanese that come to live and work in this country will increase in the future. Without proper legislation banning racism in Japan, it is arguable that the number of isolated instances of exclusionary relational tactics will also increase. Minus said legislation, the act of removing non-Japanese from the group is effectively sanctioned by the government. That is a social problem.

Comment by Ken

September 18, 2007 @ 11:08 pm

Chris, I think you were hitting the nail on the head in that penultimate paragraph. It always sort of amuses me when people criticize Arudou-san’s methods or pick at one small detail of what he said when the truth remains: There is not equal protection under the law for Japanese and non-Japanese in Japan. That’s all there is to it, and when people bring up ridiculous side issues I don’t bother with them. The issue is equal protection under the law. If I’m going to pay equal taxes (ie, I’m NOT a guest), I demand equal protection. The name stamped onto the front of my passport doesn’t even factor into the equation.

Comment by DeOrio

September 19, 2007 @ 1:09 am

But, Ken, don’t you see? Debito makes the same mistake you and I make when we talk about politics - he criticizes the situation in Japan without spending most of his time talking about how the situation in America is actually just as bad or worse, even though he speaks with an American accent!

Clearly, despite his being a Japanese citizen, he is talking down to the Japanese, a group of which he, as any Westerner could tell you, is apparently not a part for some reason.

Comment by DeOrio

September 19, 2007 @ 1:10 am

OK, I apologize, that was unnecessarily sarcastic.

Comment by Ken Worsley

September 19, 2007 @ 6:42 am

It was unnecessarily sarcastic. But, I’ve heard the non-sarcastic version before, so that sort of evens it out.

Comment by Bryce

September 19, 2007 @ 7:42 am

Garett

Sarcasm has it’s place. Far be it from me to castigate. In fact, I intend to use it a lot in this post.

Pellegrini,

The “blame everything on the group oriented society” line - basically a hangover from Ruth Benedict and the Nihonjinron movement that nicked their ideas from her in the 1980s - was worn out years ago. Do we really know if bullying is more of a problem in Japan than elsewhere, or do these things get inflated by the media? The BBC did a documentary on Japan’s hikikomori problem a year or so ago, taking the line from the Japanese media that such behaviour was an downside of groupism. It immediately prompted a wealth of responses from people in the U.K. - a supposedly individualistic society - claiming that this very “Japanese phenomenon” was normal in Britain too. So much for the “groupism” explanation.

And this takes me to the point of comparing cases in Japan with cases elsewhere. Garrett notes that the TPR crew don’t spend much time comparing Japan with other nations on their podcasts. That’s because they don’t relate everything back to some vague notion of Japanese society being inherently “this way” or “that way”. If politician X resists politician Y over policy Z, it is explicable in terms of their relationship towards one another and their established views on the policy in question. If you want to add a little more colour, you can compare it to what politician A says. No “foreign” comparison needed.

(Actually, part of the reason I really like the TPR podcast and others like it is that it doesn’t rely on tautological cultural arguments which explain things in terms of “Japanese society” - unlike many of the mainstream media outlets in Japan.)

If you derive your explanations for individual behaviour from an aspect of society, however, you must be open to criticism noting that the same problem exists where the social variables are different. If your argument relies on some aspect of “JAPANESE - i.e. encompassing the entire area of Japan - society” then comparing Japan with a foreign nation where the aspect of Japanese society you are testing is said not to exist is a valid course of inquiry. It’s all about making sure the independent variables truly are independent, if you’ll excuse the social science jargon.

But yes, you don’t have to step outside of Japan to show that old chestnuts about group-oriented society are false. If harmony and conformism were such inescapable features of modern Japanese society, then I wonder why it is that many of Japan’s teachers had such an anti-authoritarian streak until fairly recently? I wonder where architects like Ando, authors like Banana Yoshimoto and politicians like Koizumi come from.

(I’m glad, by the way, that I was not brought up in a group-oriented “confromist” society - imagine trying to cope with many of the things people say are indicative of conformism in Japan - emulating the cool kids at school, struggling to wear the “right” clothes, being told by their elders to have the “right” manners, having to wear a school uniform, being subject to rote learning in school, having to study hard to get into good universities, having to walk in single file at elementary school, having to sing the national anthem during morning assembly… I’m glad I grew up in the west so I didn’t have to go through any of that. But if I did I suppose it wouldn’t be relevant here, because we’re only meant to talk about Japan.)

As to your penultimate paragraph, my point is exactly that “random” - i.e. non-systemic - cases of discrimination cannot be categorised as a “social” problem. If a shopkeeper refuses to serve me because my skin is a different colour than his, then I think he’s a jerk. I don’t blame it on a fluffy notion of a broken “society” that I use to explain everything.

Comment by Pellegrini

September 19, 2007 @ 2:32 pm

Bryce,

It seems that my pulling bullying into this discussion in order to illustrate my point didn’t work quite as well as I thought it would. I am definitely aware of the fact that sweeping generalizations about a group of people or a society are shaky at best. In the context of bullying, it is helpful to compare the situation here in Japan with what is going on overseas because the relatively minor differences in the styles and types of bullying are telling.

Just a little bit more about bullying, and then I will get back to the bigger picture:

Bullying doesn’t appear to be any worse here than it is in other countries. Even if it were, it would be impossible to make such an assertion at this juncture because the quantity of research into bullying is comparatively small and school districts have displayed an annoying tendency to hide or play down the amount of bullying that takes place in their schools.

The numbers I have seen suggest that a greater percentage of Japanese students admit that they have actively participated in bullying (ijime) than in other countries where similar surveys of students have been made available. Admittedly, students in other countries may be hesitant to classify themselves as bullies because there is nearly universal agreement that bullies are in the wrong. Conversely, students in Japan may self-report honestly because they see themselves as merely taking part in a group activity. Either way, it is safe to say that bullying is a problem in most countries.

The point I was hoping to convey was that bullying takes on a different form when compared side by side with what most people witness and/or experience in other countries. Bullying in the UK and Canada, for example, is usually comprised of a one-to-one confrontation–one stronger kid (physically or psychologically) versus one weaker kid. The bully may, of course, have accomplices. In Japan, it’s usually a group-to-one style of bullying. The difference in power is derived from the number of people in the group (25+ students vs one). “Direct” and “indirect” styles of bullying also feature differently in Japan compared with its western counterparts, but discussing that will only pull us further off topic.

One point I failed to make clearly was that this group-to-one type of abuse is only seen in a negative light when it results in a child taking her own life; ironically, that is also the point when the goals of the group (eg. removal of the individual) have been realized. Otherwise it is seen mostly as either a rite of passage (much like it’s viewed by many people where I come from) or as a “necessary” way to enforce the rules of the group.

As you pointed out, it is wrong to try to say that all Japanese are focused on orienting their lives with the harmony of the group as the central focus. I completely agree. My inclusion of the long-winded paragraphs on bullying was an attempt to provide additional perspective to the work that Mr. Arudou and his colleagues do. I hope that I have shown that incidences where people are deprived of their rights as human beings (because they were different), and consequently were not protected by those in power, manifest themselves on an ongoing basis in other sectors of society (such as at school).

Debito Arudou highlights these incidences of injustice because a) he has leverage due to the fact that he’s a Japanese citizen and doesn’t have to worry about a visa, and b) the incidences are allowed to happen due to the rules of a larger group. They are indicative of a problem that will continue to affect a growing number of people, one that ultimately is decided by the government of this nation. The rules of the group (ie. non-Japanese are not afforded equal protection under the law) need to change, and I’m sure that you agree with me here.

While I may be putting words in his mouth, I think that Mr. Arudou might say that he is interested in the reaction of the people in authority when said incidences take place. Yes, there will always be jerks, but the most important question is: how did the police handle the case of the racist optometrist in Osaka? How will the courts react the next time a non-Japanese is abused by the cops and crucial incriminating evidence is “lost”? If the rights of the individual are not upheld, then something needs to be done. By attempting to keep these injustices in the public conscious, Mr. Arudou and his colleagues are able to demonstrate that Japan is either moving forward with the recommendations made by the United Nations to safeguard the human rights of all people, or it isn’t.

Comment by Bryce

September 21, 2007 @ 1:36 pm

“how did the police handle the case of the racist optometrist in Osaka?”

Actually I don’t believe the police had much to do with this case, and I don’t think they would have even in the liberal little nation with an excellent human rights record where I’m form either (Arrgh! Foreign comparason!). I think the question to ask here is:

“how did the *courts* handle the case of the racist optometrist in Osaka?”

And, yes, it’s a valid question to ask, and yes I applaud Debito’s efforts in fighting cases of human rights abuses when they do occur. I believe I have said this all along.

And the answer here is “initially not very well, but in the end the complainant got the verdict he was after.”

What I don’t appreciate are the remarks tacked to his collection of 20 odd businesses with racial exclusion policies that this sort of thing is “spreading” or “running throughout Japan.” It isn’t.

Trackback by ComingAnarchy.com

September 21, 2007 @ 4:19 pm

End of “beautiful Japan”…

At 14:00 this afternoon Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo announced his intention to resign. This comes as a shock since he was so dogged about staying on after a drubbing in the upper house elections last month, not to mention the countless scandals…