![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomusThe other day, chatting with Alin Huma, I asked "Who was it who said the Japanese have no pyschoanalysis, and no need for psychoanalysts, because they have no unconscious? Because all the neuroses are on the surface here?"
"It was Lacan, wasn't it?" said Alin.
Actually, there have been Japanese psychoanalysts. Hayao Kawai (1928-2007), for instance. If Freud delved into the Bible and Greek mythology for motifs like Moses and Oedipus, Kawai delved into Buddhism, Japanese folk tales, and even the novels of Haruki Murakami for his motifs and examples. Kawai thought of himself as a Jungian. Much of his work examines the difference between the Eastern and Western mindsets.
In books like Psyche in Japan and Buddhism and the Art of Psychotherapy, Kawai laid out three key points which he saw as distinguishing the Eastern mind:
1. A tendency to introversion
2. The location of consciousness outside the self
3. The strength of "the great mother inside"
According to Kawai, there's a lack of distinction in the Eastern world between consciousness and unconsciousness (an idea which mirrors Lacan's thought about everything we think of as "deeply buried" being out in the open and up on the surface in Japan). Eastern philosophy seeks the self, historically, in its own unconsciousness. Jung said that when Westerners say the word "mind" it refers to consciousness, but when Easterners say the same word it refers to the unconscious.
Here's a simple diagram Kawai made to show the differences between the Eastern and Western minds, as he saw it. The Eastern self lives in the unconsciousness, which means there's a lack of knowledge of the self. The self in Westerners is put in the centre of consciousness, which means that the self is seen as strong, central and independent -- and yet frail, because this Robinson Crusoe is surrounded by the unknown, able to be overwhelmed and undermined at any moment by powerful "instincts" and "impulses" from somewhere else.
As a result of this basic organisation of the self, Westerners tend to find the meaning of their life in a fight with fate and with their own nature, whereas Easterners tend to find the meaning of life in "tasting their fate"; accepting it, and living in harmony with their own nature. The typical Western dramatic hero struggles against the inevitable, whereas the typical Eastern hero "tastes" and accepts it.
This leads to differences in attitudes to "the great mother" (which relates to my thoughts about the robotic female authority figure in overwhelmed by milk). In the West, thinks Kawai, people have to kill their mother in order to win their independence. In the East, people try to achieve independence without killing the mother.
In Japan, says Kawai, people tend to model any kind of social group on family relationships, in both good and bad ways. When your school and company is a family group, things can sometimes get intolerable, stifling. On the other hand, society as a great universal mother can bind people together and make them less lonely.
Kawai didn't entirely see Japan as an Eastern culture, though; for him it was an important bridge, a place where Western and Eastern conceptions of the self and society could mingle.
"It was Lacan, wasn't it?" said Alin.
Actually, there have been Japanese psychoanalysts. Hayao Kawai (1928-2007), for instance. If Freud delved into the Bible and Greek mythology for motifs like Moses and Oedipus, Kawai delved into Buddhism, Japanese folk tales, and even the novels of Haruki Murakami for his motifs and examples. Kawai thought of himself as a Jungian. Much of his work examines the difference between the Eastern and Western mindsets.
In books like Psyche in Japan and Buddhism and the Art of Psychotherapy, Kawai laid out three key points which he saw as distinguishing the Eastern mind:
1. A tendency to introversion
2. The location of consciousness outside the self
3. The strength of "the great mother inside"
According to Kawai, there's a lack of distinction in the Eastern world between consciousness and unconsciousness (an idea which mirrors Lacan's thought about everything we think of as "deeply buried" being out in the open and up on the surface in Japan). Eastern philosophy seeks the self, historically, in its own unconsciousness. Jung said that when Westerners say the word "mind" it refers to consciousness, but when Easterners say the same word it refers to the unconscious.
Here's a simple diagram Kawai made to show the differences between the Eastern and Western minds, as he saw it. The Eastern self lives in the unconsciousness, which means there's a lack of knowledge of the self. The self in Westerners is put in the centre of consciousness, which means that the self is seen as strong, central and independent -- and yet frail, because this Robinson Crusoe is surrounded by the unknown, able to be overwhelmed and undermined at any moment by powerful "instincts" and "impulses" from somewhere else.
As a result of this basic organisation of the self, Westerners tend to find the meaning of their life in a fight with fate and with their own nature, whereas Easterners tend to find the meaning of life in "tasting their fate"; accepting it, and living in harmony with their own nature. The typical Western dramatic hero struggles against the inevitable, whereas the typical Eastern hero "tastes" and accepts it.
This leads to differences in attitudes to "the great mother" (which relates to my thoughts about the robotic female authority figure in overwhelmed by milk). In the West, thinks Kawai, people have to kill their mother in order to win their independence. In the East, people try to achieve independence without killing the mother.
In Japan, says Kawai, people tend to model any kind of social group on family relationships, in both good and bad ways. When your school and company is a family group, things can sometimes get intolerable, stifling. On the other hand, society as a great universal mother can bind people together and make them less lonely.
Kawai didn't entirely see Japan as an Eastern culture, though; for him it was an important bridge, a place where Western and Eastern conceptions of the self and society could mingle.
Re: kawai is not so cute
Date: 2009-12-24 05:24 pm (UTC)Some questions
Date: 2009-12-24 08:10 pm (UTC)Isn't it strange how, once provoked by Momus, you immediately resort to using the same broad brush archetypes? Or are you acknowledging that there is something in Momus' approach? Of course you could always claim you were being ironic when you say "typically western" but then doesn't that either make your response, by your own definition, "typically western," or, if we accept your original claim that such generalities are "painfully reductionist and essentialist," render it meaningless?
Or are you claiming that it's OK to say "typically western" but not "typically eastern"? Or just not OK for Momus to say either?
Re: Some questions
Date: 2009-12-25 02:52 am (UTC)One escape is to switch terms and disciplines, and thereby switch contexts and frames. "Essentialism" is a "crime" (an inevitable and universal one for all who use language) within a certain anglo-saxon and PC mindset determined by empiricist philosophy. Switch the term to "archetypes" and you're in a poetic-psychoanalytic, Germanic-Oriental context. Rather than a "universal crime" encouraging tedious accusations and counter-accusations of "hypocrisy" (and how quickly that anglo-empirical puritan tradition takes on the character of a witch hunt!), the topic becomes an interpretative-speculative quest to discover what unites mankind. Differences encountered become "good differences", things we can learn from, not contradictions or hypocrisies to be logically-linguistically "resolved".
Re: Some questions
Date: 2009-12-25 09:23 am (UTC)In this case, the accusation of essentialism, used not as a genuine debating tool, but as part of an "any stick to beat you with" approach, is absolutely consistent. I don't see any real understanding of the concepts used in any of the comments this particular correspondent has made over the past few days, just the use of cod academic jargon by rote. Any answer you bother to give immediately results in a series of rather embittered little soundbites that usually completely undermine the supposedly high-flown ideals of the first comment. The anon is apparently completely unaware of this. There is no real attempt to engage or discuss once the first "oh look at me" comment is made.
Re: Some questions
Date: 2009-12-25 10:07 pm (UTC)Re: Some questions
Date: 2009-12-26 12:00 am (UTC)Re: Some questions
Date: 2009-12-26 01:16 am (UTC)Re: Some questions
Date: 2009-12-26 02:30 am (UTC)More charitably, you could just be attempting to agree with me. If so, then I applaud you for having finally seen the light.
I'll try to think the best of you. It is, after all, the season of good will.
Re: Some questions
Date: 2009-12-25 07:00 am (UTC)Re: kawai is not so cute
Date: 2009-12-25 09:48 am (UTC)