Japenese Encounters With Postmod

Yoshio Sugimoto, ohann P. Arnason, Johann P. Arnason

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781138879287
• eBook ISBN: 9781136163821
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Antropología

This is a systematic study of the sociological debate on postmodernity in the Japanese context. The volume consists of a collection of 12 papers that explore the idea of postmodernity primarily from sociological perspectives, covering a wide range of domains including work, feminism, communication, science and technology, social stratification, fine arts and literature. The contributors come from diverse disciplines ranging from sociology and history to political science and linguistics. They include advocates of postmodern theories and postmodernist analyses of Japanese society, as well as critics who argue that a suitable revised theory of modernity is still an adequate framework for comparing Japan and the West. Others take the view that an intermediate position might be more productive; that a qualified or provisional version of postmodern can throw new light on issues traditionally neglected by social theory. While the postmodernity debate has been carried out chiefly in the context of European and American experiences, this book aims to pave the way for the postmodernity question to be explored in the non-western but highly industrialized setting of Japan, and brings forward a series of open-ended questions about the bias in the debate. Written by academics based in universities in Japan and Australia, the volume itself is postmodern in its internal diversity and multi-cultural orientation.

1 INTRODUCTION

Johann P. Arnason and Yoshio Sugimoto

Approaches to the Debate

This volume comprises eleven essays which all address the postmodernity debate in the context of Japanese society and culture. They collectively represent the first attempt in the English language to explore the idea of postmodernity in the Japanese situation from both sociological and cultural perspectives.¹ The areas under investigation cover a wide range of fields, including work, industrial relations, gender, science, literature, fine arts, communication, social stratification, politics and Japanese studies.

The notion of postmodernity is notoriously vague, and is adaptable to the most diverse lines of argument. Diagnosis of a postmodern condition depends, most importantly, on underlying images of modernity: whether and how we can envisage an overcoming or exhaustion of the modern paradigm is determined by our prior definitions of it, and those who try to analyse the transition to postmodernity often find it difficult to do so without falling back on developmental models drawn from modern history. The most elementary conceptual demarcations are thus fraught with problems, and rival theories in the field tend to neglect the task of clarifying their common background. As a result, the debate falls short of the ‘structured disagreement’² which has prevailed in more developed areas of social theory.

We can, nevertheless, identify some more or less well-established positions and describe them in terms of their ways of defending, questioning or rejecting the idea of postmodernity. The papers included in this collection represent four such positions.

The first is based on the assumption that a postmodern pattern of social or cultural life can be clearly distinguished from the core structures of modernity, and that recent developments can be analysed in the light of this dichotomy. Theories of postmodernity or postmodernisation are thus put to an empirical test, and contemporary trends are brought into a theoretical perspective. As the arguments developed here show, this approach may involve important distinctions between Western and Japanese versions of the break with modernity.

Ross Mouer raises the question of changes to industrial relations and the organisation of work; he accepts that a major shift in this domain, especially with regard to the interrelationship of work and play, might be significant enough to show that modern arrangements are giving way to postmodern ones, but his conclusions with regard to the Japanese experience are sceptical. Both general considerations and the comparative results of fieldwork in Japan and the United States cast doubt on the notion of Japan as a pioneer of ‘postmodernisation’. If the latter term refers to a weakening of work-related constraints and an increase in playfulness, Japanese developments in this direction are, at best, uneven and inconclusive. The dominant trend is, rather, ‘a continuation of the modernist thrust for economic rationality’; the juxtaposition of different types of work practices has more to do with strategies of control and exploitation than with playfulness.

J. V. Neustupný defines the concept of postmodernity in much more comprehensive terms and regards it as more relevant to contemporary Japan. As he sees it, modernity and postmodernity form developmental types, made up of determinants, maxims and strategies (these three categories represent descending levels of generality). Intuitive descriptions of postmodern attitudes – such as acceptance of conflict and variation and attention to processes rather than structures – can be integrated into this framework. It is also, as Neustupný argues, congruent with an emergent paradigm in Japanese studies, and the two lines of argument lead to the conclusion that Japan is in the process of transition to postmodernity. More specific illustrations of this trend have to do with the domains of language and communication: indications of postmodernity can be seen in such changes as the more positive view of dialects, the lifting of restrictions on official language use, and a more flexible attitude to borrowed words. But the process has yet to be adequately reflected on the metalinguistic level, that is, in the theoretical analysis and practical planning of language.

Kenji Kosaka’s paper differs from the two others in that it does not presuppose a definite concept of postmodernity. Rather, he reconstructs the differences of opinion (and the implicit debate) between two prominent Japanese sociologists with regard to their position on this issue. Imada and Tominaga can, in a very general sense, be said to agree on an interpretation of contemporary Japanese society as a mixture of premodern, modern and postmodern elements, but their respective views on the pattern of combination are so different that they lead to fundamentally divergent conclusions (this situation is, as Kosaka shows, reminiscent of earlier controversies within Japanese Marxism). Kosaka’s main thesis is that the concept of postmodernity is still too underdeveloped for the debate to be conducted in a productive fashion, and for the phenomena invoked by postmodernist commentators (such as the new concern with issues of social justice and the quality of life that go beyond traditional class politics) to be put in an adequate perspective. The question of Japan’s transition to postmodernity has yet to be posed in precise and testable terms, but this could, in principle, be achieved through further clarification of the underlying concepts.

A second approach, diametrically opposed to the first one, rejects the very notion of postmodernity as misleading and suggests that the issues in question should be reformulated within the framework of a theory of modernity. It is only because of a specific theoretical and ideological background – the predominance of oversimplified images of modernity – that recent developments are perceived as marking the beginning of a new epoch; for analytical purposes, it is more useful to locate them in the context of a multidimensional and conflictual modernity.

Tessa Morris-Suzuki discusses various Japanese versions of a ‘new paradigm’ for scientific and social development, more or less explicitly identified with notions of postmodernity. In this context, the postmodernist turn is closely linked with a rehabilitation of Japanese tradition and a reaction against the two dominant discourses of the postwar era: those of Marxism and modernisation theory. These two discourses had converged in a highly critical perspective on contemporary Japan. By contrast, Japanese postmodernists are attracted to the idea of affinities between new science and traditional Japanese culture. This obviously ideological twist raises questions about the idea of postmodernity as such: it seems too adaptable to political conjunctures to be of much use as an analytical tool. Moreover, the most questionable assumptions of modernisation theory are left intact or put to new use without further reflection: the notion of a new science relies on modernist conceptions of the autonomy of scientific development, and the reified notion of tradition as a closed and static world is merely given a more positive content. As Morris-Suzuki argues, an intellectual break with modernisation theory would be more fruitful than the imaginary break with modernity: we should learn to think in terms of ‘postmodernisation’, that is, the new problematic which emerges after the failure of classical modernisation theory, rather than ‘postmodernisation’ in the sense of a transition from modernity to postmodernity.

Johann P. Arnason also argues against the concept of postmodernity and attempts to show that it is, at best, a misnomer for unresolved problems in the theory of modernity. His thesis is that the concept of modernity can be reconstructed as a self-interpretive but also self-relativising product of Western history: it refers to the particular self-transcending and self-transformative capacity that Western civilisation came to exemplify. However, further progress towards a balanced theory of modernity depends on comparison with other civilisations, and although the Japanese experience is of particular interest in this respect, it has generally been neglected by major Western analysts of modernity. Arnason lists some particularly salient aspects of the Japanese road to modernity – from the sixteenth-century transformation to the postwar economic miracle – and outlines some theoretical implications. He then argues that the issues singled out by Japanese postmodernists – and Western postmodernists writing on Japan -can be located within the framework of comparative analyses of modernity. This applies to the recent transformations of Japanese society and its position in the international arena, as well as to some enduring aspects of Japanese tradition.

It is possible to argue for a middle road between the first two approaches, and to accept a definition of postmodernity which does not validate the most radical claims of the postmodernists, but allows for a change – or a set of changes – which constitute more than just another episode of the modern era. From this third perspective, postmodernity is not a new historical phase, different from and comparable with modernity; it is a reorientation of modernity, and the prefix ‘post’ has a double-edged meaning in that it refers to the break with a preceding constellation as well as the re-appearance of interrupted and forgotten themes of modern culture.

This minimalist position is most explicitly defended by Paul Harrison. His view is that the term ‘postmodernity’ is best understood in the light of changes in the political system and the political universe of discourse; its broader implications have to do with reflections of and reactions to these key developments. In the West, the end of the period of long-term growth and the broad social consensus which accompanied it led to a comprehensive redefinition of the political agenda. Within the ‘newly-created field of disputation’, new or reactivated themes – difference, civil society, market and globalisation – have come to the fore; the conflict between liberalism and socialism is no longer what it was, and older countercurrents – such as those of the romantic tradition – have re-emerged in various guises. Harrison argues that developments in Japan are similar in some respects but very different in others. Both the legacy of the developmental state and the cultural background of Japanese particularism make for a much less liberal version of postmodernity than the Western one. The general conclusion suggested by this analysis is that patterns of postmodernity reflect the prior variants of modernity. Neither Japan nor the West has moved or is moving from modernity to postmodernity, but both are – in different ways – going through changes of such magnitude that a conceptual focus on discontinuity seems useful.

Two other papers can – with some qualifications – be read as examples of the same line of argument. John Clark views postmodernism in art ‘as an inversion on itself of the self-critical logic of modernism’, that is, as a movement internal to modernity but too radical to be reducible to one experiment among others. His main concern is with the technical, institutional and interpretive conditions for the maturing of this movement. The postmodern situation of art cannot be defined on the basis of purely aesthetic properties; rather, the contextualisation of the aesthetic – in relation to the systems of patronage, diffusion and discursive appreciation – is at the same time a way of clarifying the relationship between modernism and postmodernism.

Toshiko Ellis discusses some of the problems and paradoxes that have arisen out of the transfer of postmodernist ideas from Western to Japanese contexts. If ‘postmodernism as a theory was developed in certain countries of the West to challenge existing perceptions of their own culture’, and particularly in opposition to earlier idealisations of Western power and predominance, it can be seen as a continuation of critical trends in modern culture, but also as a conscious attempt to give them a more radical turn. When postmodernist themes are taken up in a Japanese context, this ambiguity is compounded by a paradox. On the one hand, the Japanese response to this new product of Western culture follows a pattern that has been characteristic of the Japanese modernising process as a whole: postmodernism is transmitted from the centre to the periphery in the same way as the earlier ideas which it proposes to challenge. On the other hand, the postmodernist critique of modernity can reinforce the Japanese tradition of particularist reaction against Western universalism (the idea of ‘overcoming modernity’ was a philosophical echo of Japanese nationalism in its most militant phase). As Ellis shows, the result has so far been an exacerbation, rather than an overcoming, of the contradictions built into Japanese modernity. From this point of view, the notion of postmodernity can certainly not be taken at face value, that is, as referring to a new era that comes after or goes beyond modernity; but it can be used to underline a particularly intriguing aspect of the broader problematic of modernity.

Finally, there is a fourth school of thought which bypasses the explicit debate on postmodernity but takes up some of its substantive issues from a more traditional angle. The most convenient framework for such attempts is a more-or-less revised and amplified version of Marxist theory; ideas from this tradition can also be combined with more recent currents of radical thought.

Tetsuro Kato and Rob Steven deal with the problematic of industrial relations in Japan and criticise Western attempts to present the Japanese enterprise as a model of post-Fordism. As they argue, the very dichotomy of Fordism and post-Fordism is deceptive: both concepts serve to lump together various aspects of industrial organisation that can, in fact, vary independently of each other, and when their unity is taken for granted, this can -as it has done in the case of Japan – serve as an excuse for neglecting the empirical study of each feature. A critical examination of key themes suggests that the transformations of work in Japan have more to do with the essential strategy of capital – ‘dividing and ruling through organised competition’ – than with any evolutionary progress beyond Fordism. According to Kato and Steven, the distinctive characteristics of Japanese management are the result of the defeat of Japanese trade unions during the postwar phase of transition, and if we are looking for parallels between Japan and the West in this area, the current shift towards a ‘more exploitative system of class domination’ in Western countries is more relevant than any utopian constructions.

Vera Mackie relates her argument directly to the debate on postmodernity: the ‘conjunction of feminism and postmodernism in the Japanese context’ is her starting-point for a discussion of substantive issues of identity and equality. Notwithstanding the problematic position of Japan in narratives of modernity and postmodernity, it is, if anything, more true there than in the West that feminist theory and politics have profited from the contact with postmodernist currents. But this conjunctural link should not overshadow the more structural link with the ‘modernist narratives’ of liberalism and socialism. Mackie’s analysis suggests that the most important developments in Japanese feminist politics are best understood as the outcome of interaction with these two other modern currents, rather than as reflections of an overall shift to postmodernity. Feminism is part of a more complex modern configuration, and the critical relationship with both liberal and socialist strategies is a permanent aspect of its identity. This is exemplified by feminist involvement in the discourses of equality and protection. Inasmuch as the emphasis is on the internal logic of feminism and its modern roots, the paper has more in common with the bypassing approach than with the others.

Finally, the concluding paper by Ross Mouer and Yoshio Sugimoto may be read as another variant of the fourth strategy. While their main concern in the past has been with rival paradigms in Japanese studies, more particularly with the ‘conflict-variation’ model and the ‘consensus-homogeneity’ model for understanding Japanese society, their attention is directed at attempts to provide a ‘definitive definition of the Japanese’. Their argument makes use of postmodernist themes without subscribing to the claims often associated with them. The postmodern questioning of established boundaries and identities warns against overintegrated and monoculturalist images of Japan. The multiculturalist alternative proposed by Mouer and Sugimoto would highlight the diversity of groups and traditions as well as the ongoing processes of differentiation. Although postmodernist misgivings about universality are taken seriously, they are translated into a more flexible formulation of the problem rather than a debunking of the very idea of universality. A multicultural Japan is also a ‘Japan with significant universal components’, but the universals are contextual: they reflect the globalising process and its many-sided impact on Japanese society. The transnational culture of technoprofessional elites differs from the less established international subcultures of environmentalist or feminist groups, but both are significant sources of diversity within Japan. It is argued that the ‘conflict-variation’ paradigm is more receptive to this problematic than its rivals. While some 153 Japanese books published during the five-year period from 1986 to 1990 had the term ‘postmodern’ in their titles³, there is little indication that such interest has seriously affected the debate on nihonjinron within Japan. In this context, the Mouer-Sugimoto argument provides a fresh postmodernist perspective in the genre of meta-nihonjinron.

Directions of Inquiry

The papers were all written before the political crisis which began with the downfall of the LDP government in 1993 and which seems likely to end with the restoration of conservative hegemony in a more flexible form. It may therefore be useful to consider the implications of this turning point for the questions and positions discussed above.

The rapid succession of unstable coalition governments is only the most visible part of a more complex transformation. We can distinguish four main aspects of the change that Japanese politics, economics and society are now undergoing.

There is, first, the flagging performance of a developmental model, exceptionally effective in the past but now in obvious need of readjustment. Both the ‘bubble economy’ of the late 1980s and the subsequent recession have highlighted problems in this area; and while predictions of an imminent collapse are no more convincing than the description of Japan as a place ‘where communism works’,⁴ it seems clear that the institutions of Japanese capitalism (especially the relationship between economic forces and the developmental state) are going through a critical phase.

At the same time, epoch-making changes in the global constellation have made it necessary to redefine Japan’s international concerns and strategies. The end of the Cold War and the emergence of the United States as the sole superpower have affected all aspects of Japanese-American relations; the demise of the Soviet Union and the uncertainties of post-communism have created new problems as well as opportunities for Japanese foreign policy. Last but not least, development in the East Asian region – both the growth of Chinese power and the prospect of Korean unification – are confronting the Japanese state with a new geopolitical situation.

The third transformation may be seen as a response to the first two: it is a more...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Theory: Modernity, Postmodernity and the Japanese Experience
• 3. Work: Postmodernism or Ultramodernism: The Japanese Dilemma at Work
• 4. Industrial Relations: Is Japanese Capitalism Post-Fordist?
• 5. Gender: Equal Opportunity and Gender Identity: Feminist Encounters with Modernity and Postmodernity in Japan1
• 6. Science: Fuzzy Logic: Science, Technology and Postmodernity in Japan
• 7. Literature: Questioning Modernism and Postmodernism in Japanese Literature
• 8. Fine Arts: The Conditions for Postmodernity in Japanese Art of the 1980s
• 9. Communication: Modernisation and Postmodernisation of the Japanese System of Communication
• 10. Social Stratification: Changing Status Perceptions in Contemporary Japan: A Debate on Modernity and Postmodernity
• 11. Politics: The Japanese Postmodern Political Condition
• 12. Japanese Studies: Nihonjinron at the End of the Twentieth Century: A Multicultural Perspective
• Bibliography
• Index