The spirit of WA

[imomus]

Last week I debated some people about the ideas of liberal feminist Betty Friedan, who recently died. Friedan came out of a Marxist intellectual tradition, but by the time she published her most famous book -- "The Feminine Mystique" -- in 1963 she had renounced recognizably communist ideas, like collectivism or mistrust of the market. Instead, her book advocates individualism and the market as the solution to the sense of boredom, alienation and frustration that 1950s women felt, trapped in suburbs and expected to live up to impossible images of happy housewifery.

My critique of Friedan (which shares many points with Germaine Greer's critique of her; it was Greer's "The Female Eunuch" which sat on my mother's bookshelf, not "The Feminine Mystique") accused her of believing that the following values were unproblematical: the market, the masculine gender, freedom of choice, individualism. Congruently, Friedan thought that the following values were problematical, entirely made up or ready to be broken down: staying outside the market, the feminine gender, a sense of obligation to others, collectivism.

I've discovered that it's almost impossible to find an American, no matter how left wing, who believes that collectivism is a virtue. In fact, debating gender issues with Americans is enormously frustrating because many of them will challenge any statements made of any level intermediate between "the individual" and "everyone in the world". Any statement about a group of people (the Japanese, women) is immediately condemned as generalization, "essentialism", or stereotyping. Taken to extremes, this involves the absurdity of Americans trying to debate women's issues without any definition of who or what women are. "Women" don't exist. (Oddly enough, though, Americans are never in any doubt that men exist.)

When Americans look at the woman question and when they look at Japan, their anxieties about groups, their love of individualism and faith in the market make them see the same tendencies: women and the Japanese are leaving group orientations, becoming more individual, entering the market. Hurrah!

Here, for instance, is an American communications academic called Todd Holden looking at images of subjecthood in Japanese TV commercials:

"Identity in commercial communications is not just about "we Japanese" any more. Increasingly, messages of identity are about the personal search, encouraging individuals to find their own way, to live for themselves, to seek, express and receive affection, to become more self-centered and personally goal-directed. Such themes reflect a departure from the past - where identity was often mediated by the group and/or conferred by products. Multiplied, and reproduced in numerous situations in conjunction with a variety of stars and social practices, such messages possess the potential to reorient members of Japanese society in ways that already appear to be emergent in the larger life world. [sic] The author suggests that such "adentifications" carry the prospect of exerting considerable sociological effect on the Japanese nation and its culture in the years to come."

It looks so reasonable, doesn't it, so liberal? People are being set free from groups, led to the market where they're free to be individuals rather than cogs in a wheel, mere objects. But these "liberal" values are actually neo-liberal. What about freedom from the market? Why deconstruct the group but not the selfish, atomised individual? What about the ways the market objectifies people? What about the virtues of collective living?

What if collectivism is such a core value to Japanese culture that attacks on it are attacks on Japan, even when couched in the language of "liberating" individuals from the onerous chores of group life? I came across an account of Japanese collectivism by Chen Zhuo which gives a much more positive view of Japan's group-mindedness than any American account I've read, and which doesn't consign collectivism to the past.

"Japanese Core Cultural Values and Communicative Behaviors" lays out a model of Japanese attitudes and values which rings very true to me. This is a Japanese mind- and feeling-set that I know, respect and love. What's more, we don't even have to be "essentialist" to agree that these values matter: "interpersonal competence," says Zhuo, "should not be understood as a static concept or list of characteristics but rather as a quality which arises in the process of interaction". In other words, the behaviors listed below (and shown in Zhuo's diagram) are summoned and re-inforced by our interactions with Japanese people, whether we're Japanese ourselves or not.

WA:
harmony, unity, sharing; this is collectivism's sun. It's the desire to be one with those of your group. People are not one thing, but WA highlights the aspiration to be one. To feel, see, think and live together rather than apart. Of course people are different individuals, but it's best when they want the same thing. The unity and harmony of the group takes priority over individual responsibility, authority, or initiative.

ENRYO:
the effort to avoid explicit opinions, assessments, or other displays of personal feelings in order to prevent others from thinking badly of one.

SASSHI:
refers to the listener's ability to guess or understand the speaker’s meaning even before he's finished saying it. There's a line in a song on my new album which expresses it: "Someone says what we're all already thinking, and we laugh."

AMAE:
is mutual dependency, the kind of relationship in which one person belongs to a group and depends on another’s love.

AWASE:
the ability to adjust to the changing situation or circumstances so as to solidify and maintain the benefits of the group, not the self.

KENSON:
negation of individual ability in order to maintain the nature of the social collective relationship and to avoid individual heroism which would disturb the group interests.

TATEMAE:
the outward surface of a building, a metaphor for concern for what can be seen by others.

GIRI:
a type of obligation felt toward others who have done something good for the person and a sense that one will be forever in the other’s debt.

JOUGE KANKEI:
respect and honor in Japanese hierarchical society. Almost everyone can find vertical relationships that are viewed as good and natural in everyday life.

KATA:
a form of standardization. For Japanese, when people do things in the same way and one knows what to expect, it is believed much easier to develop WA.

Marxy as usual has an individualist conspiracy theory to explain Japanese collectivism; he thinks that collectivism in Japan has been imposed from the top. In other words, he thinks that collectivism serves the interests of hidden individuals (aristocrats in the past, presumably, or shadowy figures now):

"Throughout time, Japan always had collectivism enforced by a very small ruling class, and it is only recently that there have been equal rights (both political and economic) mixed with the collectivist instincts. Debate still exists whether elitism still guides the system, but Japanese collectivism is not an ahistorical, apolitical problem detached from economics or social structure.

"If you don't care where your collectivism is created (there surely must be some social or cultural structure that induces collectivist urges, no?), than sure, Japan is "collectivist." Otherwise, you have to at least note that 95% of Japan's existence featured collectivism for the bottom working for those at the top... I doubt that every single Japanese person enjoys collectivism more than individualism, but am not in a position to make a universal statement about which is more satisfying. (Although I've overreached in the past, clearly.)

"As a foreigner, can you really go on about how great collectivism is when you've only experienced it as a free product? One reading of Momus' philosophy would clearly be: I enjoy collectivist Japan because it doesn't infringe on my super-individualist lifestyle."

Of course, although I can feel myself being collectivized every day I spend in Japan, and although I think collectivist behaviors (if only ultra-politeness, or consideration, or the avoidance of selfishness) are "summoned and re-inforced by our interactions with Japanese people, whether we're Japanese ourselves or not", I can't entirely dismiss Marxy's point. The closest I've come to experiencing full collectivism was going to boarding school, and I didn't enjoy that much.

What I will say, though, is that Marxy's ad hominem route straight to my bad motives and my supposed exploitation of collectivism, rather than to its virtues, simply shows how much he's a part of his own American culture; not only are ad hominem arguments the result of an over-emphasis on individualism, they share with conspiracy theory a fascination with shady motives benefitting only the subject, or some small minority, and an obsession with bad vertical power relationships -- minorities exploiting the majority. This is one side of every coin, but to look for it in everything isn't just cynical, it's boring. And it makes you wonder whether the people who search for this kind of reading don't actually want it to be the case; aren't actually in love, secretly, with self-interest and domination, and don't actually find them rather reassuring.

Comments

[tsenft.livejournal.com]

I say this as someone who really enjoys your writing and as an feminist American who has read both Friedan and Geer and finds use in both of them:

Can you and this Marxy fellow just do it already?

I think there is an argument about the global condition of women going on in this post, but can barely read it for the cock forest you two are growing between you.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

My take on Friedan, basically, is that she deconstructed the wrong gender. By her cunning use of the word "mystique" she is able to discredit as if it were pure ideology a lot of actual lived female experience; she makes it look as though femininity itself had been constructed by men. And this obviously parallels Marxy's statement that collectivism was constructed by elite minorities. Both Marxy and Friedan assume, on a very deep and possibly subconscious (or culturally-determined) level, that individualism and masculinity are inherently unproblematical, and collectivism and femininity are problematical.

I'd add that feminism's two projects -- the empowerment of women and the deconstruction of patriarchy -- can only happen together. If empowerment of women happens on patriarchy's terms, it basically means the deconstruction of femininity.

[dmlaenker.livejournal.com]

I don't know about anyone else, but my problem with you is that you seem to presume that cultures exist that do not have problems.

When I suggest that certain cultures do have problems, you evade the question by saying that I'm arguing the nonexistence of those cultures, which is a complete non-sequitur... when all I'm saying is that for all that, say, you seem to adore Japan, you conveniently ignore that its assumptions may be problematic as well - leading to problems such as, say, social disorders with millions of shut-in teenagers not leaving their rooms, something that lasts well into the thirties and is thought to be connected to rampage killings where hikkikomori commit arson and cut up entire buses.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I don't suggest that some cultures have no problems, but I do think the dangers of dominant cultures are much greater than the dangers of others, precisely because they're dominant. The American individualism-markets-choice culture is presently dominant, and I believe we need to show that there are other ways of living which are entirely workable, and aren't converging towards the American model.

What's more, I think it's really misleading to talk about hikikomori "going postal". Estimates of the number of hiki in Japan count them at less than 1% of the population. Instances of them "cutting up entire buses" can be counted on the fingers of... shit, where are my fingers?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I want to give one little vignette of the kind of collectivism I'm talking about, a cameo. Last night I ate (with two Japanese people) in a restaurant just round the corner here in Osaka. This restaurant had a staff team of about six people, waiters and chefs. They welcomed us noisily as we arrived, and I quickly noticed that as soon as any orders were placed the waiter shouted it out to the rest of the staff and everyone chorused "Yo!" very loudly. At first I was astonished at how silly this was; I searched the faces of the staff to see if some were being a teensy bit sarcastic with their shouts of "Yo!", or if some looked wearier than others, or if there was some sense of "We know this is just a silly game, wink wink!"

But no, the mask wouldn't slip. The restaurant staff were as "superlegitimate" (http://imomus.livejournal.com/36990.html) as the train driver I observed last year. They genuinely seemed to enjoy being a team in this way and shouting out their readiness to serve, their delight at receiving orders. And the positivity and collectivism was actually not sinister, but sexy. Instead of assuming that this must be a chore and that these people must secretly hate it, I thought that it might make their job a lot more pleasant to do.

And the fact that I so deeply expect employees to be deeply cynical, seething with resentment and passive aggression, disliking each other and the people they're serving, says a lot about the Western values I have inside me, and about how Japan really is a totally different culture to the ones I'm used to. It also shows how the expectation that you'll always find corrosive individualism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, a vicious circle. (One thing, though: I never wish to confront people with this strong team spirit in a war, and find myself on the other side.)

[nato-dakke.livejournal.com]

might that not actually be totally unrelated to collectivism? It's a great aspect of life in Japan to be sure, but they existed all over the world until the 70's or so, from my understanding.

If you've ever seen Adam Curtis' BBC documentary century of the self, I think it's got a lot to say about what has kept japan a bastion of this unbound brightness. And the corrosive impact of freud being forced on the people.

[(Anonymous)]

Second-rate blogger Marxy here.

For a long time, I was willing to accept my own distaste for meaningless organizational duty in Japan as "my problem"; I'm American and obsessed with efficient time usage and don't like milling around just to preserve organizational bonds or having to go out drinking with the boss/professor all the time.

What surprised me though is that the other Japanese students in my graduate program also expressed their dislike of these duties. Some students shirk out of them completely, but very few actively enjoy all the duties required to really create collectivism. Now certainly there are many who reap lots of rewards from their emotional investments, but I think it's a bit more nuanced than either "all Japanese secretly want to be individualists" vs. "all Japanese are completely happy being collectivists." What has kept collectivism afloat for a long time is that the penalties for breaking protocol were too high, but that is no longer true, and it's hard to say that Japan is getting more "collectivist" when people at least have the option to go solo. American individualism may be a terrible virus, but compared to even the 80s corporate culture, Japan has changed radically towards a more American-style organizational style.

Marxy

PS - I can't vouch for my A-list material, but every time I am quoted on Click Opera, it's part of my "foil" duties.

[bricology.livejournal.com]

...and, frankly, posting anonymously does little to further one's legitimacy.

[klytemestra.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: No, I haven't been following this conversation from the beginning. Yes, I just came across it through a friend's friends page. Yes, I still wish to voice an opinion, because this is the most interesting blog post I've come across in days, maybe weeks. Sorry for the intrusion. May I add you to my friends' list so that I can follow it in the future?

As one of the few Americans who doesn't summarily dismiss collectivism as evil, I have a couple of suggestions as to why most do, mostly involving name-calling. People who accept collectivism in other cultures and don't wish to convert those cultures to the church of individualism tend to be brushed off as "cultural relativists" and dismissed as nut-jobs by the people educated enough to know better. By the rest of American society, anything remotely co-operative in nature is immediately labeled "communist." And, well, who can argue with that? (Of course, terrorism is the new communism, so perhaps I'm showing my age.) All of our American open-mindedness, is, well, subjective.

Please don't hurt me for commenting.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

No, that's a very welcome comment, and please come back soon!

[jewelweed.livejournal.com]

Ahem! Another American over here who doesn't dismiss collectivism! While I think there are some good things that have come out of the American "rugged individualist" way of thinking, its a mindset that has lots of problems, and (as you correctly point out), a lot of these problems are exacerbated by its being a dominant culture.

The real problem I think is that for a lot of people over here "individualism" is so pumped up and hyper-idealized, it not only feels like the only right way to be, but "obviously" so. Introducing any other model sounds not only subversive, I think for some people it would feel like a personal attack. "Don't tread on me!"

I don't have any instant solution for this-- for myself I have travelled around enough in my life to understand that there are other models to work on, and that in many ways they work better. I don't think most Americans are served well by this nover-emphasis on individualism, but nothing else is taught over here.

Anyway, my two cents. I haven't followed this conversation very steadily, but I just wanted to say that I really enjoy your LJ.

Cheers,

Suzanne

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Suzanne!

Sometimes I think "Don't Fence Me In" should be made the new American national anthem. But perhaps a new verse could be added, saying how it's okay to fence me into private property, the labor market, individualism, war, and so on...

[(Anonymous)]

Human beings naturally form communities and work together - we're social creatures. I can vouch for the fact that American *hyper*-individualism is a truly harmful way to live life.

Imagine being severed from the natural desire to form a general relationship with your society, only to have that cut out of you as a kid. There's a reason people are so incredibly unhealthy and angry over here - there's not much joy in the natural human experience when we're all stepping on each other.

This isn't coming from some hippy-dippy, either - it's just a regular ole' observation. Even in the work life there's no security, no safety net, no knowledge that you'll ever be helped out of your rut. American industriousness (the Protestant work ethic, whatever you call it) is really just a drive to "not starve to death" because ... everything you do, everything that happens, you deserve it.

Suburbia, the non-NYC cities ... everything is completely severed and cut-off with everybody in their own world. Human beings are trapped in their own worlds and can't truly interact with others on a casual scale. The only way to meet other human beings is if you fork over cash to take some kind-of class or other organized group function.

I say understanding American psychology is key to understanding each individual in the society. Collectivism sounds like it has its merits on the level of the human spirit, but it's something that'd never fly in the US, no matter what Neotraditionalism or other theory seeks to "solve".

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I think your points are very much borne out by the American Environics (http://imomus.livejournal.com/169070.html) surveys I looked at last month, which report that in the US:

"over the past dozen years, the arrows have started to point away from the fulfillment side of the scale, home to such values as gender parity and personal expression, to the survival quadrant, home to illiberal values such as sexism, fatalism, and a focus on “every man for himself.” Despite the increasing political power of the religious right, Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

Books You Might Like

[glassplastic.livejournal.com]

Sexual Personae : Art & Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson by Camille Paglia

Sex, Time, and Power : How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution by Leonard Shlain

These two books go on the idea that there is such thing as Femininity, and they're both pretty brilliant. Especially Camille Paglia's. I'm kicking myself for having a chance to take a class with her and not doing it.

Re: Books You Might Like

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I have Camille Paglia's "Sexual Personae" and like her positions, although I wish she didn't go on about Princess Diana so much!

[queersolitude.livejournal.com]

"I've discovered that it's almost impossible to find an American, no matter how left wing, who believes that collectivism is a virtue"

I am very surprised to hear this.

I have never thought of collectivism as a "virtue", but something "that is so" and fundamental to how I engage with my surroundings, at least in the context of family and work (depending on the work environment).

A collectivist mindset is common amongst Latin@s. There are millions of us living in the US. And a lot of us are left wing. And a lot of us identify as American.

Apologies if my tone sounds too intrusive, I'm just surprised, thats all! :)

I was just reminded of something my bilingual teacher told the class when I was in elementary school after having given us an in-class assignment to work on... "OK now you guys work on this assignment together now. I don't know how Americanized you children have gotten already, but if Americans can get away with playing basketball by themselves, they would! Please work together!"


(I did not know what she was talking about at the time, but the mental picture of somebody playing a team sport all by themself conjured up a funny mental picture to my young self which remained memorable 20 years later).

[imomus.livejournal.com]

American individualism finally always reaches the paradox David Riesman hit on in his book The Lonely Crowd (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300088655/103-4361534-8588656?v=glance&n=283155) and I sang about in my song Robocowboys (http://epiret.tripod.com/HTMLobj-162/Momus_-_Folktronic_-_Robocowboys.mp3).

[asimovfan.livejournal.com]

Well, i don't really have enough background to decide whether i agree with you or not, but i thought i'd say your blog is very interesting, thought-provoking and written very clearly. Looking forward to reading more :)

[ex-chellovec979.livejournal.com]

On a smaller scale, do you think this makes Americans individually less trustworthy-- because ultimately they are only out for themselves?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Oh, sure, I find Americans hard to trust, even while I find them charming. And at least you can work out what they'll do if you work out what their self-interest is, or what they perceive it to be. But of course Japanese are also hard to trust, because for instance they never say "No" and they don't like to contradict you, even if what you're saying strikes them as odd or wrong.

I described the positivity of the waiters in the restaurant last night as "sexy". American positivity can also be sexy. For instance, I've met Jeff Koons, and I find his positivity amazing. He was so nice, and yet he seemed like a salesman, trying to close in for the sale. I wouldn't trust Koons with my money, or my girlfriend for the evening, or to help me if I was in deep trouble. But as long as he's being that "friendly" or that "polite", that's fine. It's better than us moaning, self-deprecating Brits! And there's an admirable Nietzscheanism in the American personality, a focus on possibilities which can be dizzying (as long as it's not murderous or unjust, which it frequently is). I do think I'd rather trust a Japanese person when the crunch came, though.

[wilt-whatman.livejournal.com]

I've discovered that it's almost impossible to find an American, no matter how left wing, who believes that collectivism is a virtue. In fact, debating gender issues with Americans is enormously frustrating because many of them will challenge any statements made of any level intermediate between "the individual" and "everyone in the world". Any statement about a group of people (the Japanese, women) is immediately condemned as generalization, "essentialism", or stereotyping.

id like to point out that this statement generalizes americans.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

"The assumption that a social character exists has always been a more or less invisible premise of ordinary parlance and is becoming today a more or less visible premise of the social sciences. It will consequently be familiar under one name or another to any of my readers who are acquainted with the writings of Erich Fromm, Abram Kardiner, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Geoffrey Gorer, Karen Horney, and many others who have written about social character in general, or the social character of different people and different times.

"Most of these writers assume -- as I do -- that the years of childhood are of great importance in molding character. Most of them agree -- as I do -- that these early years cannot be seen in isolation from the structure of society, which affects the parents who raise the children, as well as the children directly...

"The satisfaction of the largest "needs" of society is prepared, in some half-mysterious way, by its most intimate practices. Erich Fromm succinctly suggests the line along which this connection between society and character training may be sought:

"In order that any society may function well, its members must acquire the kind of character which makes them want to act in the way they have to act as members of the society or of a special class within it. They have to desire what objectively is necessary for them to do. Outer force is replaced by inner compulsion, and by the particular kind of human energy which is channeled into character traits."

David Reisman, "The Lonely Crowd"

[nato-dakke.livejournal.com]

I think all of the posters who claim to be keen on collectivism have a really different picture than the one you have in mind.

Something like an economic collectivism, rather than "japaneseness". "Everyone is equal" rather than "those outside of our group who don't serve to benefit us can die for all we care". "Free love" rather than "virtually stopping sex after childbirth because the child sleeps in the same room with the parents until he or she is 10". "Gay is OK" versus "gay is ok, so long as you still have children". et cetera.

Like momus and marxy, I love the country that "japaneseness" has built, and like both of them I don't think that going individualist is gonna be the best thing ever for the country we know. But I fall on marxy's side, in that I'm not pretending that the individual I've become is compatible with "japaneseness". Nor do I think that I'll ever be welcomed into any real collective-style group of japanese folks despite speaking the language pretty well.

Individualism is great, and can be accomplished without grumpy clerks. Collectivism is great and can produce grumpy clerks.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I fall on marxy's side, in that I'm not pretending that the individual I've become is compatible with "japaneseness". Nor do I think that I'll ever be welcomed into any real collective-style group of japanese folks despite speaking the language pretty well.

That's not falling on Marxy's side, that's falling on mine (http://metropolis.japantoday.com/tokyo/564/lastword.asp)!

[uberdionysus.livejournal.com]

Speak for yourself, Limey.

Collectivism was active and welcome until the "Red Scare." After, it became popular in certain circles with the rise of neo-Marxism, hippies, and the activist groups of the 60s.

Since the 70s, it has been, for the most part, dead, dead, dead.

But that doesn't mean there's not pockets of belief, or that there aren't scores of Americans who despise free-market libertarian capitalism.

However, as someone who actively pursued collectiveism, and found it (through a cult, a fraternity, the military, various groups, various organizations, and finally, through my tight knit group of RL friends) I must say that there are extreme downsides to a fully functioning collective. Fraternity, Honesty, Justice and Loyality all come at the price of "Group Think" and at the loss of dissent and individual voices. As much as individuals, groups need truth tellers and people to point out when they're going bad.

I agree that the world desperately needs a counter-weight to American free-market libertarianism that isn't rooted in religion or totalitarianism, but it's easy to see the horrific problems of Chen Zhou's collectivism after the lightest of readings. Let's not replace one bad system with another, but point out where each system fails, and where the powerful system needs to improve.

America's closest recent collectivist period was post-9/11, and it was, collectively, an unwise direction to go, and an unwise leader to follow. What the U.S. needed most, post-9/11, was dissent and individualistic reactions that went against the grain and thought in terms of pragmatism and/or the larger good of the world. We DIDN'T need collectivism, but that's what we got. Now we're back to the boil of libertarian capitalism, and stuck with the results of horrific collective decisions (such as following our 'father figure').

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I must say that there are extreme downsides to a fully functioning collective. Fraternity, Honesty, Justice and Loyality all come at the price of "Group Think" and at the loss of dissent and individual voices.

Just as yesterday I wanted to note that every culture does atheism in its own way (ie there are different "god-shaped holes" depending on which god you no-longer-believe-in), I want to note that collectivism is different in different cultures. A collectivism adopted after a good 20 years of socialization into American individualist norms is going to be a very different thing from a collectivism prepared for from the year dot, and that's what the Japanese have. I wouldn't dismiss that Japanese collectivism based on experiments in other cultures.

But it's worth saying that America has a very strong collectivism, which is its individual and market-oriented beliefs. Rewind to Erich Fromm's point that the secret of socialization is to make people act the way they need to by making them think they're acting the way they want to. Think I'll go out and buy another tub of Haagen Dazs and rebel against the demands of my culture...

[nato-dakke.livejournal.com]

if marxy calling your philosophy "collectivism for you, individualism for me" is ad hominem, what is implying that he is "in love, secretly, with self-interest and domination...[and maybe] finds them reassuring"?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I don't claim to come from a (significantly) different culture from Marxy, or do different things in my argumentative style. Sure, ad hom is a symptom of a culture which pays too much attention to individualism, but it's a culture I can't claim to have escaped. The difference is that I'm critiquing my own culture, whereas Marxy is critiquing someone else's. And I think in the end it's more legitimate -- not to mention polite -- to make self-criticism one's first reflex.

collectivism...

[seanthesean.livejournal.com]

Nice piece, i like the WA concept quite a bit.

I imagine that part of the problem is that you use the term collectivism. America is a shyster nation before it is anything else, so most people who have been around the block see any sort of politically idealistic pitch as some sort of scam (which they usually are here). When it comes down to it, the ideals are usually about directing money & maintaining control. This is on all sides of the political wheel. People who make attempts at collectivism usually don't take these things into account, & are quite often taken in by manipulative con-artists. This country is unbelievably immature philosophically & otherwise, largely because philosophy & political ideology are card games for students, that distract from the cold-hard facts of economic pragmatism.

Because these philosophical experiments aren't tested by those that would be fit to conduct such experiments, these ideas haven't been thoroughly experienced in their many cycles... they have been read about & discussed, but the actual application hasn't occurred.

What has also gone on is the passing of the "proletariat torch" from white male industrial workers to white women, to blacks, to mexicans, to queers, as each group becomes the vehicle for a destructive, anti-tradionalist, culturally communist (yet pragmatically capitalist) analysis that just isolates the individual from the group & integrates the individual into the middle class.

The keystone of collectivism, the family, is the perfect example of how the American "pursuit of happiness" & "following one's bliss" & "finding oneself" continue to disintegrate the non-economic pillars of our society. & the American left, while perhaps having Socialist leanings doesn't do so out of some great desire to serve mankind, they pursue Socialism out of a fear of hurting people's feelings, laziness & desire for an imagined simplicity.

p.s. "Oddly enough, though, Americans are never in any doubt that men exist." I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, i've never heard Americans discussing women not existing, however, i've hear American women discuss on many occassions that real Men, do not exist.

Re: collectivism...

[(Anonymous)]

For a more contemporary example of highly functional collectivism, look no further than the open-source / Free software movement. A global workers' collective (although I wouldn't recommend calling them that to their faces) has created and maintained what is arguable the best operating system and application suite available for more than a decade, and made it available to the public for free. Is that "limited" or "on a small scale?" It's an acheivement comparable to a pyramid ... probably in person-hours and certainly in usefulness.

---ls

[georgesdelatour.livejournal.com]

I don't think America is as individualist as you do.

The rest of the world admires America for the Apollo landings (a massively collectivist enterprise) and its movies (the most collaborative of all the arts), and fears America for its military (again, a collective enterprise).

When I first went to America I was really surprised at how many petty laws there were, and how obedient the citizens were: jay walking, the ban on drinking alcohol outside, the 21 age limit for buying alcohol, extreme smoking bans, the requirement to show I.D. etc. At the time I felt such laws were unworkable in the UK because the general population was too recalcitrant, too contemptuous of authority. They'd simply ignore the law, and the police would be unable to enforce it. Since then Blair has attempted to bring in American-style social control with ASBOs etc. But I still feel the UK population is more inherently disobedient.

Another sign of this is motoring. I've driven in the US and I've driven in France and Italy. Basically, Americans observe the law and are careful of other road users. Italians regard motoring laws as no more than a rough guide, and drive with near-pathological individualism. I was once in Naples and a local explained the dangers of being a pedestrian. "Basically, when you try to cross the road, the oncoming car will accelerate towards you. But don't worry about him. He knows you're there. At the last second he will always swerve out of the way. The danger is that the driver of the car behind him will not realize you're there. He's the one who usually kills you."

[imomus.livejournal.com]

In Japan people are very obedient on the roads; I'm the only one who crosses at pedestrian crossings against the red man, for instance.

I've stopped doing this because I've realised the limits of individualism: it's so rare here to cross on red that when people notice one person starting to cross, they all automatically assume the light is green and start to cross too. Now, I'm crossing because I've seen a gap in the traffic big enough for me (an "individualist gap", you might say). But others are crossing without looking, and risk getting hit by cars. So my individualism is endangering others. It's not just a choice I make with consequences only for me.

That said, there are some tearaways who scream along the freeway in white cars and powerful motorbikes at one million miles an hour here, much bigger rebels than you'd ever see in the US. And everyone just gets out of their way. I was astonished the first time I was driving and saw this. Mais que fait la police?

[(Anonymous)]

My name is Greg jewett. I am an american living in Viet Nam. Thank you Momus for your beautiful blog.

There is a time for both collective and individual modes of thinking, although we must recognize that they are just illusions. Why must we polarize our experiences? There is no always, only experience. The world exists within and without our individual point of view. Balance is the only way to escape the trap reason.

[(Anonymous)]

Calling out ad hominem is no argument, nor is the suggestion that it is "individualist". If that's a reasoned rebuttal, then you may as well shut down all argument from a personal perspective, including your own. You often talk about "situatedness" and deconstruction - surely you can see that one of the most important aspects of an argument is where it's coming from. It's understandable to take into account that paeans to collectivism are coming from someone who clearly prefers a super-individualist lifestyle for himself. In fact, a lot of the appeal of your blog to its readers is exactly the kind of individualist lifestyle it portrays. It's the romance of the eternal bohemian who floats free from societal constrictions, who doesn't have to work, has no kids to nurture, who skips about various countries and spends his time surfing the net, leafing through magazines, visiting art galleries, being a literal and cultural tourist, etc.

On another note, surely your refusal to deconstruct the femininity is no less problematical than Friedan's refusal to deconstruct masculinity. "Femininity" is no less a construction of the patriarchy than masculinity, and no less complicit in it. Surely both need to be deconstructed.

That said, your blog is a very enjoyable read.

Mitsuko K.

Collective Shamanism

[tassellrealm.livejournal.com]

I can't speak about Japan, I've never been there.

Pardon me while I free associate...

I can only really think of this from an artistic point of view at this very moment.

Perhaps collectivism can be best seen in the 1960's 'John-Paul-George-and-Ringo' idea of an English pop group.

The group takes care of the individuals. The individuals take care of the group.

Perhaps there was something pre-emptive towards Thatcherism in the Seventies "Star/Ziggy" idea of things in English pop music.

The Shaman and his minions.

Perhaps, The Beatles, The Kinks, etc was a bit more like Collective Shamanism.

Maybe Bowie had a few thoughts about this later, which led him to try and do The Tin Machine Thing.

Which was a flop.

Although I do quite like that Tin Machine record.

In Christianity, 'The Christ Spirit,' as Rudolph Steiner would have it, was originally a kind of a frequency-pocket shared by a collective, rather than God-hood personified by a Shaman-dictator.

Some people think that, anyway.

Just thinking aloud really.

Those morning meandering thoughts that I'm prone to (and enjoy).

[(Anonymous)]

Folks, try our free test:

Do you blog more than you comment? = Congratulations, you are all me-me-me! Please claim your World Leader Pretend kit at the kiosk. You’ll be popular - but resented..

Do you comment more than you blog? = Congratulations, you are a collectivist! Please claim your vintage commie fatigues! The world depends on people like you, but no-one really wants to be ya..

Thanks for taking the Oedipal Triangle Politik Assessment.

[tassellrealm.livejournal.com]

When do you think you'll be invading Iran?

[dubow-org.livejournal.com]

Happy Valentine's Day!

[nomorepolitics.livejournal.com]

Does politeness, obligation, inter-dependence, consideration for others, empathy (trying to understand others)... do all these things really translate to collectivism? These things have to do with interest in other people as individuals part of a group.

Collectivism has to do with everyone thinking and acting alike in one interest, like the Borg, where "self-interest"="collective-interest." I am generalizing here, but arguably Americans are more collectivist, because they are not interested in other people as individuals -- as the Japanese are -- but serve their own self interest in the interest of the state -- that's what making money means, since money also translates to the labor capital which is owned by the government.

Self-interest is a disguised collectivism, because it directly binds you to the money / job you rely on for subsistence. You thus lose yourself in the machine, serving its interest, and lose your individual self. You can also see this in the way that professors in America argue that there is no self.

Group-interests like giri, ssashi... actually help to create the individual self. It's obvious that humans are inter-dependent; we can't exist in a vacuum. We create an image of ourselves not from within but by our experience and interaction with others. Our friends, families, and work, make us what we are. There is no individual without society, as opposed to what my Sociology professor said "There is no individual, there is only society." Group-interest is a more natural and comfortable setting, one that is favorable for psychological growth. With more people showing an interest in you as a person, you are more likely to grow up a healthy and creatively thinking individual.

So I think a few things are wrong in the presumption to this entry. I would say that:

Collectivism goes together with self-interest and independence

and Individualism goes together with group interest and interdependence.

Of course, Individualism does not mean imposing your self or your own interest on others, that is self-interest. Individualism is merely being and knowing yourself, and having distinct ideas.

I have long realized that Marxy, is really not the Neo-Marxist he poses as; this is mostly judging from his aversion to things that bring a community together.

[jasongtokyo.livejournal.com]

Yesterday was Valentine's Day and many of Japan's working women distributed 義理チョコ (giri-choko / "duty chocolates") to their male coworkers. I have yet to meet a woman who likes this (corporate created?) tradition. Though exactly one month later, on "White Day," they're reciprocated with sweets of double the value -- not a bad deal.

April 14th is apparently "Black Day," -- for all those people who weren't lucky enough to have anybody to give to or receive from.

Who is Chen Zhuo? Does he have an album out?

[elperrodepaulov.livejournal.com]

I´m surely not the only (individualistic?) one to see a clear negative side to some of those japanese collectivist values you praise:

WA: (...) Of course people are different individuals, but it's best when they want the same thing. The unity and harmony of the group takes priority over individual responsibility, authority, or initiative.
ENRYO:
the effort to avoid explicit opinions, assessments, or other displays of personal feelings in order to prevent others from thinking badly of one.
SASSHI:
refers to the listener's ability to guess or understand the speaker’s meaning even before he's finished saying it.
KATA:
a form of standardization. For Japanese, when people do things in the same way and one knows what to expect, it is believed much easier to develop WA.

[(Anonymous)]

momus, i read you daily. here is an article i think you might enjoy tremendously:

New York Times January 15, 2006 By MAGGIE JONES
Shutting Themselves In
One morning when he was 15, Takeshi shut the door to his bedroom, and for the next four years he did not come out. He didn't go to school. He didn't have a job. He didn't have friends. Month after month, he spent 23 hours a day in a room no bigger than a king-size mattress, where he ate dumplings, rice and other leftovers that his mother had cooked, watched TV game shows and listened to Radiohead and Nirvana. "Anything," he said, "that was dark and sounded desperate."
I met Takeshi outside Tokyo not long ago, shortly after he finally left his parents' house to join a job-training program called New Start. He was wiry, with a delicate face, tousled, dyed auburn hair and the intensity of a hungry college freshman. "Don't laugh, but musicians really helped me, especially Radiohead," he told me through an interpreter, before scribbling some lyrics in English in my notebook. "That's what encouraged me to leave my room."
The night Takeshi and I met, we were at one of New Start's three-times-a-week potluck dinners at a community center where the atmosphere was like a school dorm's - a dartboard nailed to the wall over a large dining table, a worn couch and overstuffed chairs in front of a TV blaring a soccer match. About two dozen guys lounged on chairs or sat on tatami mats, slurping noodles and soup and talking movies and music. Most were in their 20's. And many had stories very much like Takeshi's.
Next to us was Shuichi, who, like Takeshi, asked that I use only his first name to protect his privacy. He was 20, wore low-slung jeans on his lanky body and a 1970's Rod Stewart shag and had dreams of being a guitarist. Three years ago, he dropped out of high school and became a recluse for a miserable year before a counselor persuaded him to join New Start. Behind him a young man sat on the couch wearing small wire-frame glasses and a shy smile. He ducked his head as he spoke, and his voice was so quiet that I had to lean in to hear him. After years of being bullied at school and having no friends, Y.S., who asked to be identified by his initials, retreated to his room at age 14, and proceeded to watch TV, surf the Internet and build model cars - for 13 years. When he finally left his room one April afternoon last year, he had spent half of his life as a shut-in. Like Takeshi and Shuichi, Y.S. suffered from a problem known in Japan as hikikomori, which translates as "withdrawal" and refers to a person sequestered in his room for six months or longer with no social life beyond his home. (The word is a noun that describes both the problem and the person suffering from it and is also an adjective, like "alcoholic.") Some hikikomori do occasionally emerge from their rooms for meals with their parents, late-night runs to convenience stores or, in Takeshi's case, once-a-month trips to buy CD's. And though female hikikomori exist and may be undercounted, experts estimate that about 80 percent of the hikikomori are male, some as young as 13 or 14 and some who live in their rooms for 15 years or more.
South Korea and Taiwan have reported a scattering of hikikomori, and isolated cases may have always existed in Japan. But only in the last decade and only in Japan has hikikomori become a social phenomenon. Like anorexia, which has been largely limited to Western cultures, hikikomori is a culturebound syndrome that thrives in one particular country during a particular moment in its history.
.....