Hazel Markus
Dec. 9th, 2004 01:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomusYesterday's discussion of the differences in tone between Japanese and American participants on the Japan Today Pop Vox page led to an interesting reference from Sparkligbeatnic to the work of Hazel Markus, Professor of Cultural Psychology at Stanford University. I watched a video of Markus outlining her interests and summarizing research findings into cultural differences between the American and Japanese senses of selfhood, and found it very much in line with the kind of points I've been making on Click Opera.
I was taking notes as I watched the video, so I thought I'd just turn these notes into today's entry, because I think some very important points are being made here, points that I'd like to be considered in the passionate cultural debates that happen so often in these pages as well as over at Marxy's blog, Neomarxisme. The notes are really for people who don't have the time or the bandwidth to watch the video, but I'd also like a permanent record to refer back to when these issues come up again in the future, as I'm sure they will. (So if you're reading this from the future, hello future!)
Notes taken from a video interview with Hazel Markus
people need other people to become human
to become a person you have to engage in various social meaning systems
that's a social, cultural project
social sciences have been dominated for the last 25 or 30 years by the computer as metaphor for the human:
the idea that most minds are pretty much the same, people are pretty much the same wherever you go
now we're recognizing that people have very different perceptions and orientations.
there's been a shift of emphasis: culture is not what you are but what you do
selfhood: who am i?
american answer: i am an independent autonomous entity made of a set of attributes, preferences, opinions, thoughts, abilities.
the goal of being a person is to try to express these attributes in behaviour, maintain independence, stay unique and different from other people.
the real focus is on myself, my thoughts, my feelings.
japanese: different. I am fundamentally interdependent, from the beginning connected with other people
what I should be doing is paying attention to my relationships with others
trying to keep them in good order, engage other people's sympathy, stay in harmonious interdependence.
i pay attention to your thoughts and feelings about me.
i pay attention to others, their expectations, the standards they're setting.
americans always tell you they're on average better than their peers.
japanese will tell you they're just the same as others, or that their peers are better
stanford students, asked to rate themselves, say 4/1 positive things about themselves. (they might add that they're not as patient as they should be).
japanese are uncomfortable with the question, with paying attention to self.
they say things like: i try to have my own thoughts, but stress harmony with others.
the important thing is to be peaceful, be like other people, maintain harmony.
over 50% of japanese self-descriptions refer to other people.
of course, americans are relational people, but our image, our narrative of ourselves doesn't bring other people into the explanations.
explanations: our frontier history, influence of greek philosophy, the cartesian tradition that says that thinking makes us human,
expressing my thoughts is the essence of what i am.
the us has a huge sprawling legal system that's about protecting individual rights, there are more and more personal rights to be protected all the time.
us advertising: each of us absorbs 300-500 images a day
american magazine ads are about freedom, being unique, choosing, being independent, being different from others.
how is that different from political ideology, hooked up with economic ideology, capitalism, individual, free choice?
it is an ideology. humanity lives according to ideas.
people may think they're unique, but if we all go to the mall buy the same shirt, how will we all be individual?
being unique is our norm, everybody tries to follow that norm.
japanese advertising: freedom, rebellion, being unique and special don't show up in ads much except a few ads directed at younger people.
instead we see in ads scenes of doing your job, doing your duty, doing the proper thing.
instead of one person alone somewhere and out of context, in japan you see people in a work setting, at the office, with other people, co-workers, friends.
it's obvious what they're doing. they're connected, oriented towards each other rather than looking out towards nothing or space.
the emphasis is on being part of the group. it's the way to be a person, a way of being.
jeans commercial: if I as an individual achieve more I deserve to have more.
in america we believe every boy can become president, every girl can become president, if you apply yourself, work hard, push on... americans love that message.
it's a strength, this american idea, but as a social scientist you recognize that it's not the case.
even to maintain the idea of myself as a person, that 'little engine that can', requires a whole host of invisible supportive characters.
in our american way, we keep that interdependence in the background.
we don't recognize the connections that allow us to become the person that we are.
american students tend to do much better when they receive praise. japanese students do better when they get criticism.
for american 9 year olds, the best way to get good performance is to let them choose what game to play, give them choice.
for 9 year old chinese and japanese american students, they get the best performance from a task their mother or a friend chooses for them.
another cultural difference is in the connection between talking and thinking.
we tend to think people who are good thinkers are good talkers
you have an idea and you express it.
in the asian cultural context there's no connection between talking and thinking.
just because you're a good at thinking doesn't mean you're good at talking.
this difference may lie behind the common perception in american universities that asian students are too quiet, too passive.
people coming out of different contexts don't hold the same ideas about the connections between talking and thinking.
I was taking notes as I watched the video, so I thought I'd just turn these notes into today's entry, because I think some very important points are being made here, points that I'd like to be considered in the passionate cultural debates that happen so often in these pages as well as over at Marxy's blog, Neomarxisme. The notes are really for people who don't have the time or the bandwidth to watch the video, but I'd also like a permanent record to refer back to when these issues come up again in the future, as I'm sure they will. (So if you're reading this from the future, hello future!)
Notes taken from a video interview with Hazel Markus
people need other people to become human
to become a person you have to engage in various social meaning systems
that's a social, cultural project
social sciences have been dominated for the last 25 or 30 years by the computer as metaphor for the human:
the idea that most minds are pretty much the same, people are pretty much the same wherever you go
now we're recognizing that people have very different perceptions and orientations.
there's been a shift of emphasis: culture is not what you are but what you do
selfhood: who am i?
american answer: i am an independent autonomous entity made of a set of attributes, preferences, opinions, thoughts, abilities.
the goal of being a person is to try to express these attributes in behaviour, maintain independence, stay unique and different from other people.
the real focus is on myself, my thoughts, my feelings.
japanese: different. I am fundamentally interdependent, from the beginning connected with other people
what I should be doing is paying attention to my relationships with others
trying to keep them in good order, engage other people's sympathy, stay in harmonious interdependence.
i pay attention to your thoughts and feelings about me.
i pay attention to others, their expectations, the standards they're setting.
americans always tell you they're on average better than their peers.
japanese will tell you they're just the same as others, or that their peers are better
stanford students, asked to rate themselves, say 4/1 positive things about themselves. (they might add that they're not as patient as they should be).
japanese are uncomfortable with the question, with paying attention to self.
they say things like: i try to have my own thoughts, but stress harmony with others.
the important thing is to be peaceful, be like other people, maintain harmony.
over 50% of japanese self-descriptions refer to other people.
of course, americans are relational people, but our image, our narrative of ourselves doesn't bring other people into the explanations.
explanations: our frontier history, influence of greek philosophy, the cartesian tradition that says that thinking makes us human,
expressing my thoughts is the essence of what i am.
the us has a huge sprawling legal system that's about protecting individual rights, there are more and more personal rights to be protected all the time.
us advertising: each of us absorbs 300-500 images a day
american magazine ads are about freedom, being unique, choosing, being independent, being different from others.
how is that different from political ideology, hooked up with economic ideology, capitalism, individual, free choice?
it is an ideology. humanity lives according to ideas.
people may think they're unique, but if we all go to the mall buy the same shirt, how will we all be individual?
being unique is our norm, everybody tries to follow that norm.
japanese advertising: freedom, rebellion, being unique and special don't show up in ads much except a few ads directed at younger people.
instead we see in ads scenes of doing your job, doing your duty, doing the proper thing.
instead of one person alone somewhere and out of context, in japan you see people in a work setting, at the office, with other people, co-workers, friends.
it's obvious what they're doing. they're connected, oriented towards each other rather than looking out towards nothing or space.
the emphasis is on being part of the group. it's the way to be a person, a way of being.
jeans commercial: if I as an individual achieve more I deserve to have more.
in america we believe every boy can become president, every girl can become president, if you apply yourself, work hard, push on... americans love that message.
it's a strength, this american idea, but as a social scientist you recognize that it's not the case.
even to maintain the idea of myself as a person, that 'little engine that can', requires a whole host of invisible supportive characters.
in our american way, we keep that interdependence in the background.
we don't recognize the connections that allow us to become the person that we are.
american students tend to do much better when they receive praise. japanese students do better when they get criticism.
for american 9 year olds, the best way to get good performance is to let them choose what game to play, give them choice.
for 9 year old chinese and japanese american students, they get the best performance from a task their mother or a friend chooses for them.
another cultural difference is in the connection between talking and thinking.
we tend to think people who are good thinkers are good talkers
you have an idea and you express it.
in the asian cultural context there's no connection between talking and thinking.
just because you're a good at thinking doesn't mean you're good at talking.
this difference may lie behind the common perception in american universities that asian students are too quiet, too passive.
people coming out of different contexts don't hold the same ideas about the connections between talking and thinking.
Qualms
Date: 2004-12-09 02:40 pm (UTC)But besides that, I think the fact that she interviewed Japanese college kids is definitely suspect. Only about 30% of Japanese high schoolers go on to universities (opposed to joining the workforce directly or junior/speciality colleges), and those that do matriculate to higher education are those who excel at idealized Japanese behavior. The only way to pass the entrance exams is to have become a willing player in the one-track educational system early in the program. So, all of this "the Japanese feel this way" is more like "upper middle-class tracking Japanese university students feel this way.
for american 9 year olds, the best way to get good performance is to let them choose what game to play, give them choice.
for 9 year old chinese and japanese american students, they get the best performance from a task their mother or a friend chooses for them.
This is very interesting as it shows very early installment of cultural principles.
My ongoing argument with "culture" is that the Japanese education system is absolutely the strongest socializing force in Japan, and the curriculum is completely nationalized - the State has all voice in how students "become Japanese." And with unified entrance exams as the telelogical goal, even private high schools must essentially stick to the lesson plan. In this condition, the socializing of Japanese students can become a political tool, and I am of the opinion that it has. At least, the system was created to filter the best students towards joining the government. At worst, the government wants a population with the characteristics written above.
I just am very skeptical that the ideal Japanese behavior exists and reproduces itself genetically without structural involvement. The kikoku shijo spend one year abroad, and they're deemed "un-Japanese". That's all it takes to lose most of the tenets of Japanese behavior. Does the ease of losing the behavior suggest that the beliefs are naturally-occuring and rational?
Marxy
Re: Qualms
Date: 2004-12-09 02:53 pm (UTC)Re: Qualms
Date: 2004-12-09 03:12 pm (UTC)Seeing that you've never even tried to debase my argument through facts, I'm having a hard time being convinced it's just a "fallacy" when many people have reached the same conclusion. You sprinkle Postmodern deductive superstatements like pixie dust and expect all this social science to just wither away.
But again, I'm the one who is so ethnocentric that I actually learned the language of the area I study! Such a flagrant violation! Such a perverse adherence to discredited Modernism!
Re: Qualms
Date: 2004-12-09 03:23 pm (UTC)Well, this is one of the problems. I don't think facts are the real issue here. I think attitudes and interpretations are. However, if you consider 'facts about attitudes' to be facts, I've presented a quite a lot, ranging from the Pop Vox stuff I raised yesterday to the inter-cultural psychological studies Hazel Markus summarizes in her interview today. Your typical response to these facts is to call them a throwback to some discredited way of thinking, typically making reference to the 1940s (Benedict) or the 1970s (the nihonjinron writers). You also dismiss these interpretations by saying they're 'postmodern', and present your own position as 'Modernist' and 'Absolutist'. I prefer to label it 'ethnocentrism posing as conspiracy theory'.
Re: Qualms
Date: 2004-12-09 10:59 pm (UTC)Re: Qualms
Date: 2004-12-10 09:15 am (UTC)