Japan hand

[imomus]

"Japan hand" is a term I dislike. There's something colonial or corporate about it, something (let's drop the false distinction between those historical phases) colonial-corporate. It's used in phrases like "longtime Japan hands" or "experienced Japan hands", and it basically means "foreigners living in Japan", with the sense that they've been posted there and left to accumulate some kind of marginal seniority based on arcane knowledge of "the natives" and "the tricky situation on the ground".

"Japan hands" also contains an ambiguous positionality; these "hands" are "lending a hand", like deckhands on the deck of a ship. But who's their captain? What language do their instructions come in? Are they under the command of the Japanese, or of corporate and governmental headquarters in far-off lands? Is Japan a ship? Is it moving, going somewhere? If so, who determines its direction, Japanese or foreigners? How many foreign hands are allowed on the ship's wheel, and how much of an effect can they have?



"Japan hands" tend to eke out their time in Japan as liminal observers, spies of a kind. Some "report back" to the West with foreign-language books explaining the Japanese to non-Japanese with apparent expertise. They sometimes seem to have a common purpose in the form of a vague -- yet slightly hopeless -- wish that Japan were different, which is to say less different, more like the West. They combine this wish for difference-that-is-less-different with a wish (equally hopeless) that they themselves could cease, in the eyes of the Japanese, to be different. They want both to change Japan, and to become Japanese without changing themselves. Generally they remain loyal to a home audience, framing Japan for head office and the foreign public for whom they pass as "Japan experts" rather than the Japanese audience for whom they are -- and will always be -- foreigners, people who don't quite understand.

The french verb assister catches the shadowland ambiguity of the Japan hand's position; it means both attending something as an audience member and helping change it as a participant. It's in the nebulous semantic territory between these two senses of assister that the "Japan Hand" dwells and -- inevitably -- ages, preparing either to die in Japan, or to leave one day.



I've noticed a small exodus of creative foreigners from Japan recently -- people I thought were there longterm, people who seemed to be heading for "Japan hand" status. The recession, while it makes Japan cheaper, may be making Tokyo a less exciting or practicable place to pursue a creative career in. Photographer Zoren Gold, who seemed like a fixture in his airy house atop a hill in Nakameguro, recently exchanged Japan for California, taking his muse-model Minori with him. Actually, they met in LA, so I suppose they had roots there. The artist Pol Malo, after eleven years in Japan, is now (according to his Art-It blog) "moving from kyoto to berlin. see you once i get there". Musician Digiki (Antonin Gaultier) is also considering a move from Tokyo to Berlin. Another Art-It blogger, Hanayo, has already been here for a decade. I wonder if the Japanese call her a "Germany hand"?

A small example of "Japan hand" frustration: Marxy recently twittered on the Neojaponisme feed: "The "Kitano Affair" reveals how lame the Japanese media is. A guy's career is ended and no one can reveal exactly why?" Background, via Japan-Zone: "Popular talento Kitano Makoto (50) gave a press conference at the Westin Hotel in Osaka to apologize for the verbal gaffes that may yet end his career. Long known as a straight talker, he has a history of upsetting people with the things he says on his radio show. He bowed repeatedly to reporters and said that he had allowed his image as a "dokusetsu" (poison tongue) talento to become his "curse." Neither Kitano nor his Shochiku Geino management have clarified exactly what he said that caused the latest uproar, but they denied Internet rumors that his target had been either a certain religious organization or show business management agency (the strongly politically affiliated Soka Gakkai organization is sometimes referred to as a cult, while the Burning agency is said to be a front for the yakuza). Kitano was in tears as he talked about his family and how he had asked them to be patient with him until he got his career back on track. He has been dropped from all his regular radio and TV shows, the last one having been broadcast on Monday. His forced sabbatical is open-ended but he insisted yesterday that he doesn't want to quit show business and will aim to get back on the air someday."

Now, I'm not sure what Marxy's definition of "the Japanese media" is, but in far-away Berlin the Japanese community somehow knows all about this story. They tell me that Kitano said something about the boss of Burning Agency being gay, and that as a result Kitano has had to apologise tearfully. He'll never work in Tokyo -- at least not in anything related to the entertainment industry -- again, I'm told. Japanese in Berlin know this from a combination of sources, all freely available on the web. Their view is not that Kitano (and other "poison tongues") should be allowed to speak up, point fingers, accuse, open Pandora's Box, "advance towards a more transparent media landscape", etc, but that his enforced retirement sends a good sign, spelling out loud and clear the message that people shouldn't slander each other in public. As on most issues raised, the Japan hands and the Japanese have completely different takes on this story.

There are zones of cultural convergence between the West and Japan which succeed better. Art-It's move from a paper to a web magazine has been excellently implemented -- the registration process is rather mendokusai, but the results (a big range of interesting content) well worthwhile. The image I've borrowed here is from Roger McDonald's Art-It blog. Tagged "pataphysic past fashions", it shows an "intentionally faked photograph" produced in 1974 by radical Japanese fashion label The Afro Ninja Destiny.

McDonald takes up the tale: "The label probably produced one collection in its existence, presented in a thin photocopied booklet titled ‘The Closet of Richard Aoki’ (Richard Aoki, 1938-2009, was one of the first members of The Black Panther Party, eventually promoted to the position of Field Marshall). The label is thought to have operated from a large lean-to shelter constructed by fashion students in Northern Nagano prefecture. This photograph shows a woman (perhaps a model) in a winter costume which was included in ‘The Closet of Richard Aoki’. Created in layers almost solely from silk and home-spun wool, the woman holds a classic andon lamp. On the wall behind her are two posters: The official 1973 release version poster for the film ‘Enter the Dragon’, starring Bruce Lee, and a single page from the Black Panther newspaper with an image by Emory Douglas. Note the unusually heavy looking left arm of the woman’s kimono which probably contained kindling and wood for fire-making."

No hands are visible in the image.

Comments

[kumakouji.livejournal.com]

Nobody's made official accusations of slander. We're all assuming that Kitano has been blacklist for a) saying that Burning's procurement of publishing rights from the band Southern All Stars was a form of bribe and b) subtly implying that Burning is Yakuza. As I've already stated, you can't prove point 'A' because it's a subjective interpretation of a situation, and point 'B' is very sketchy --

"In 2007, a detective in the Tokyo Metro Police Kitazawa Police Station leaked onto the internet over a gigabyte of data collected on organized crime groups, especially the Goto-gumi. Burning Productions, a major talent agency, was listed as a Goto-gumi front company. In December of 2007, the National Police Agency sent out a formal request to the Federation of Civilian Broadcasters asking them to sever ties with organized crime groups. Burning Productions was not named."

A leaked document on the internet by a supposed detective isnt rock solid evidence of Yakuza activity. It's all very shady, yes. It's extremely suspicious I'll grant you that. But is it something Kitano should have been propagating? No, not a rumor of that magnitude and especially not when your bosses arent prepared to stand by you. He overstepped the mark and bit off more than he could chew.

"I find it extremely hard to believe that you are more sympathetic to monopolistic bullies than find sympathy with the taboo-breakers. You are aware that big powers — like Wendy Carlos, etc. — often use slander and libel accusations as a way to bankrupt and intimidate smaller parties who share information they don't want publicized, right?"

When Momus wrote about Wendy Carlos he damaged Wendy's ego. That's it. What's more, I don't believe it was meant as an attack on her.

When Kitano implied bribery and yakuza activity he fully meant to attack Burning. Rumors like that put jobs on the line and people's professional reputations on the line. People have families to feed and mortgages to pay. You can't compare the two. Free speech comes with responsibility.

Here in the UK, there was a media-wide censorship of the where-abouts of Prince Harry when he was serving in Iraq. This self-censorship was to help keep Prince Harry safe, so he couldnt be targeted by militia groups. Then someone working for a major news group leaked the info online. Do I think the guy who leaked it deserves jail time? No. Would I personally call for the sacking of the person who leaked it? Yes. Do I think far-right groups deserve total free speech? Yes. Do I think far-right groups deserve public ridicule and shunning for their views? Yes.

[(Anonymous)]

A leaked document on the internet by a supposed detective isnt rock solid evidence of Yakuza activity.

What if the sky is blue but you weren't allowed to mention it? And then you accidentally said "Man, that sky is sure periwinkle-esque" and people got mad at you. You are coming at this like you know just as much as Kitano or any industry person does, when in fact, they have all of this info as background knowledge and know far better than we do as outsiders.

I know you are knew to all of this so you don't want to just fall into a hole blindly of thinking that Burning is linked to organized crime without seeing "hard evidence," but the industry operates as if this is the case. Did you read the piece on Néojaponisme that was translated out of Cyzo with the veteran entertainment reporter making accusations of this kind? This is not just some "crazy theory" but pretty much the dominant narrative of the industry. The thing though is that the mass media is not allowed to confirm it or hint at it, mostly because this would force broadcasters to stop using mafia-related talent, which is the precedent. When someone shot up the window of Burning's office, the story did not make the news and no one followed up to find out who shot the office and why. Because this is one of the most taboo topics in Japanese mass media, there is not a solid stack of evidence, but there are lots of little scraps, and no one in the industry that you talk to will say that the OPPOSITE is the case either. Imagine if you personally had to figure out whether John Gotti was a mob boss or not without either the government or media doing any kind of investigation.

(By the way, Burning is listed as a "connected company" not a front company in that leaked file.)

When Kitano implied bribery and yakuza activity he fully meant to attack Burning.

The point was that Kitano was kind of joking, as many people like Kitano Takeshi have done before him, that Burning operates with yakuza-esque behavior.

I implied bribery more than he did. Take the time to go and actually listen to the Japanese tape and read the Japanese texts before coming to any kind of conclusion or using this as a basis to make any sort of bold stand against whatever it is you and Momus are in agreement on. (Wikipedia Japan has a great timeline.) Until then, I don't know why we are debating it.

Marxy

[kumakouji.livejournal.com]

"What if the sky is blue but you weren't allowed to mention it?"

The bottom line is that he got fired because (your words) "There's not a solid stack of evidence" to back up his insinuations and these comments are too serious to make without solid evidence. And if there was solid evidence it should have been taken to the police, not broadcast as a joke on radio. Everyone suspecting something unofficially and someone broadcasting these suspicions on radio are two totally different things. should he have got fired for it? That's up to his bosses to decide and they decided so. Frankly I dont have much sympathy for the guy and I dont think him getting fired is the terrible injustice/conspiracy theory you're making it out to be.