I IIIII JIIIHFIIIIIIIIIIHI, .

l 'Imb LIBIE ”BY
Michigan §tate
University

p

O

C) 4)
w

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

JAPANESE UNDERGRADUATES AT AN AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY: ACCULTURATION IDENTITY, CULTURAL
IDENTITY, AND VALUES

presented by
JOHN RICHARD BRENDER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Educational Administration

Mag-«9C CQQ...’

F" Major Professor’s Signature
05 / 0 ZIJ 52 5‘05
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

..-.---._

' VJ. J‘wx. _ . arm v

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

 

JAPANESE UNDERGRADUATES AT AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY:
ACCULTURATION IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY, AND VALUES

By

John Richard Brender

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration
2006

Professor Reitumetse O. Mabokela

ed
Pa:
cor
Whi
uncc
masc
masc
Study
acculri
faculty

SIUdem

ABSTRACT

JAPANESE UNDERGRADUATES AT AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY:
ACCULTURATION IDENTITY, CULTURAL IDENTITY, AND VALUES

By
John Richard Brender

Using a multidisciplinary approach that incorporated studies from anthropology,
social psychology, cross-cultural communication, and linguistics, I examined the
experiences of Japanese undergraduates of varying acculturation identities at a
university in the Midwestern United States. I provided biographical sketches for twelve
students: three identified as integrated, three as assimilated, three as separated, and three
as marginalized. I then examined the students’ perceptions of Japanese and American
cultural identities in light of Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values: power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. Subtopics such as family,
education, language, and the workplace emerged under each of the work related values.
Participants supported Hofstede’s (1984) assertions that Japanese identity was
consistent with high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and low individualism
while American cultural identity was associated with low power distance, low
uncertainty avoidance, and high individualism. Since both countries ranked high in
masculinity, I pointed to several subtopics in which Japanese were perceived as more
masculine, and others in which Americans were perceived as more masculine. The
study concluded with key findings that suggest future research on links between
acculturation identity and assorted variables. I concluded with recommendations for
faculty and administrators to retain and better serve Japanese and other East Asian

students.

Cepyright by
JOHN RICHARD BRENDER
2006

To Claire

The memory of my parents
Richard and Jacqueline Brender

and

F ujio Takahashi
Principal, mentor, friend

iv

enc

has

(WI

for

rep?

 

COD

thor

entl

rem

and

intr

gifi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to a number of people who have encouraged and inspired me in this
endeavor. First and foremost I would like to acknowledge my wife, Claire, whose support
has been unwavering in this and every pursuit I’ve undertaken. Her insight on Japan
(where we first met) was invaluable during our many evening walks together.

I would also like to thank my dissertation chair, Professor Reitumetse Mabokela,
for her enthusiastic support and encouragement throughout this process. Her prompt
replies to my many pestering e-mails should also be mentioned!

Professor Kristen Renn was instrumental in helping me hammer out some of the
conceptualizations related to student development. Her constant encouragement and
thorough critiques of the chapters I submitted were immensely helpful and appreciated.

Thank you to Professor John Davis of the anthropology department for his
enthusiastic encouragement throughout. Professor Davis’ expertise in Japan kept me
reassured that many of my ideas were worth pursuing.

Thanks to Professors Christopher Dunbar and Laurie Medina for their insights
and inspiration regarding qualitative research and ethnographic inquiry.

Thanks to Professor Mary Bresnahan of the communication department for
introducing me to some of the most relevant books and articles used in this study.

I am enormously grateful to Bonnie Dee, who proofread my final manuscript.
Bonnie edits legislation for the State of Michigan and provided many helpful suggestions
regarding style and mechanics, while finding errors too numerous to mention! Bonnie’s

gift for editing is truly awe-inspiring!

 

 

rxai

Jap

Jap

of;

read

Prof

nnxd

benel

PTOfla

PrOgrg

mail at

College

A special thanks to Jen Hodges for providing among the most thorough and
poignant feedback I received during and after the proposal process. Writing in
anticipation of Jen’s scrutiny served as a monumental challenge and motivation!

Thanks to Peter Briggs and Ravi Ammigan of the Office of International Students
and Scholars for providing articles and statistics related to international students.

Thank you to Kiyomi Kanbara of Tsukuba University and to Martin Stack of the
Japan Center for Michigan Universities for helping with some of the more challenging
Japanese language transcriptions. I would also like to thank Professor Rie Masuda of
Wayne State University and Yasushi Koike of Tokyo University for clarifying a number
of points on Japanese language and culture.

Thanks to Jody J essup-Anger, Debbie Chang, Sandy Holy, and Stefanie Baier for
reading some of my chapters and providing valuable reactions and feedback.

Thanks to Michael Miller and Sandy Holy of the Visiting International
Professionals Program for providing an opportunity to teach several courses relevant to
my dissertation proposal and one that was specifically derived from it. I reaped countless
benefits from my many class discussions with Korean, Chinese, and Japanese
professionals. I owe each of them a debt of gratitude as well.

Many thanks to Sung Soo Chung of the Visiting International Professionals
Program who helped me with some of the trickier graphics employed in this study.

Thanks to my aunt, Ruth Stokes, for backing up my many files from frequent e-
mail attachments. Knowing that there were always backups gave me peace of mind!

I would like to thank my uncle, Alan Brender, currently a dean at Lakeland

College in Tokyo and contributing Asia correspondent to the Chronicle of Higher

vi

C.

3I

pr!

\NC

SCI

hi g

teal

COU

 

 

 

Education, for his help and advice on issues related to current trends in Japanese
education. Alan was also instrumental in helping me understand Japanese culture and
easing my culture shock during the years I stayed in Japan.

I would be remiss in not mentioning my parents, Richard and Jacqueline Brender.
Although neither lived to see me pursue my doctoral studies, their constant support and
approval have reverberated throughout the years.

Finally I would like to thank Fujio Takahashi, to whose memory I dedicate this
work. Mr. Takahashi was the principal of the most prestigious high school in Saitarna
prefecture before taking a post-retirement position at the Japanese school where I first
worked. Taking me under his wing, he never ceased to amaze me with his kindness, his
sense of irony, and his humble dedication to teaching and learning. In spite of being so
highly revered, he readily sought my input and advice on English and pedagogy, while
teaching me, through example, lessons about life that resonate more loudly now than they

could have two decades ago.

vii

~.___*_
a

 

CH!

CH}
THE
AC C

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ ix
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... l

The Study ........................................................................... 2

Acculturation Identity Research Questions .................................... 3

Cultural Identity Research Questions ........................................... 3

Explanation of Terms ............................................................. 3

The Framework .................................................................. 5

Purpose of the Study .............................................................. 6

Rationale ............................................................................ 9

The Pilot Study .................................................................... 10

Ensuing Chapters .................................................................. 11

A Word on Word Choice ......................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2

RELATED STUDIES ..................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEWS FOR

ACCULTURATION IDENTITY AND CULTURAL IDENTITY ................. 19

The Two Frameworks ............................................................ l9

Acculturation and Acculturation Identity ...................................... 21

Unidirectional Model .................................................... 22

Bi-directional Model ..................................................... 24

Tri-directional Model .................................................... 26

Limitations of the Directional Scales .................................. 27

A Non-Directional Scale ................................................ 29

Refined Paradigm for the Present Investigation ...................... 3O

Acculturation Identity: Research Questions .......................... 31

Cultural Identity ................................................................... 32

Cultural Identity: Research Questions ................................. 32

Hofstede’s Framework .................................................. 33

Power Distance ........................................................... 34

Family ............................................................. 35

Education ......................................................... 38

Religion ........................................................... 40

Language ......................................................... 42

Summary: Power Distance ..................................... 44

viii

 

f
‘

 

BIC

Uncertainty Avoidance ............................................................... 44

Family ......................................................................... 46
Friendship ..................................................................... 48
Religion ........................................................................ 48
Education ..................................................................... 52
Employment .................................................................. 55
Language ...................................................................... 56
Summary: Uncertainty Avoidance ......................................... 58
Individualism .......................................................................... 59
Agricultural History ......................................................... 60
Family ......................................................................... 61
Education ..................................................................... 63
Friendship ..................................................................... 65
Religion ........................................................................ 66
Business Management ....................................................... 67
Face ............................................................................ 68
Language and Communication Styles ..................................... 69
Summary: Individualism .................................................... 72
Masculinity ............................................................................. 73
Friendship ..................................................................... 74
Cultivation of the Arts ....................................................... 75
Language ...................................................................... 77
Attitudes about Gender in the Workplace ................................. 79
Summary: Masculinity ...................................................... 80
CHAPTER 4
METHODS ..................................................................................... 81
Type of Design ........................................................................ 81
Sample Selection ...................................................................... 84
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................... 85
Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................ 87
Role of the Researcher ............................................................... 88
Institutional Research Board Approval ............................................. 89
Transferability ......................................................................... 89
Limitations ............................................................................. 90
Theoretical Lenses .................................................................... 91
CHAPTER 5
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES .............................................................. 93
Integrated Student 1: Kenta .......................................................... 94
Integrated Student 2: Naomi ......................................................... 99
Integrated Student 3: Noriko ......................................................... 102
Assimilated Student 1: Asarni ....................................................... 107
Assimilated Student 2: Mika ......................................................... 109
Assimilated Student 3: Kana ......................................................... 112

ix

 

CHA
POW

C HA
[INC

CHA?
rxm‘

CHA]
MASI

Separated Student 1: Kazuaki ....................................................... 117

Separated Student 2: Daisuke ....................................................... 120
Separated Student 3: Miho ........................................................... 123
Marginalized Student 1: Naoki ...................................................... 128
Marginalized Student 2: Isamu ...................................................... 131
Marginalized Student 3: Saori ....................................................... 136
Discussion .............................................................................. 142

CHAPTER 6

POWER DISTANCE .......................................................................... 146
Family .................................................................................. 147
Higher Education ..................................................................... 150
Contemporaries ........................................................................ 153
The Workplace ........................................................................ 159
Behavior ................................................................................ 161
Summary ............................................................................... 165

CHAPTER 7

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE ............................................................ 169
Family .................................................................................. 169
Friendship .............................................................................. 172
Religion ................................................................................. 1 77
Education .............................................................................. 179

Assessing the Two Systems ................................................ 180
Choice ......................................................................... 182
Teaching Methods ........................................................... 184
Employment ........................................................................... 190
Language ............................................................................... 192
Rule Orientation ....................................................................... 194
Summary ............................................................................... 196

CHAPTER 8 .

INDIVIDUALISM ............................................................................. 200
Appearance ............................................................................. 201
Family .................................................................................. 205
Education .............................................................................. 211
Face ..................................................................................... 219
Language and Communication Style ............................................... 228
Summary ............................................................................... 231

CHAPTER 9

MASCULINITY ............................................................................... 235
Language ............................................................................... 235

Women in the Workplace ............................................................ 241

Male-Female Relationships ........................................................... 244
K-12 Education ........................................................................ 255
Postsecondary Education ............................................................. 259
Summary ................................................................................ 264
CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 267
Key Findings ........................................................................... ‘ 268
Acculturation Identity ........................................................ 268
Cultural Identity ............................................................... 272
Recommendations for Faculty and Administrators ............................... 273
Implications for Retention and Recruitment ....................................... 278
Moments of Contradiction ............................................................ 279
Future Qualitative Investigations .................................................... 279
APPENDICES .................................................................................. 284
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 290

xi

 

Tabl

Tabl

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Process Variables Associated with Models of Second Culture Acquisition. 30

Table 2: Acculturation Identity Finding ...................................................... 268

xii

 

Fi
Fig
Fig

Fig

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Berry’s acculturation quadrant .................................................... 4
Figure 2: Identity based on values ........................................................... 6
Figure 3: Identity based on values ........................................................... 21
Figure 4: Unidirectional model ............................................................... 23
Figure 5: Varying developmental aspects pertaining to acculturation .................. 23
Figure 6: Berry’s acculturation quadrant .................................................... 25
Figure 7: Flannery’s tri-directional model ................................................... 27
Figure 8: The stress-adaptation-growth dynamic: A process model ..................... 28
Figure 9: The diminishing amplitude theory ................................................ 28
Figure 10: Altemation vs. fusion models .................................................... 30
Figure 11: Bi-dimensional measure with alternation/fusion additives .................. 31
Figure 12: Venn diagrams depicting alternation and fusion .............................. 83
Figure 14: Noriko’s Venn diagram .......................................................... 105
Figure 15: Kana’s self-identity drawing .................................................... l 15
Figure 16: Naoki’s self identity drawing ..................................................... 130
Figure 17: Isarnu’s identity drawing ......................................................... 132
Figure 18: Saori’s acculturation journey ..................................................... 141
Figure 19: Saori’s alternating identities in Japan and the United States ................. 142
Figure 20: Berry’s acculturation quadrant ................................................... 287
Figure 21: Venn diagram examples .......................................................... 287

xiii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

September 1984 marked my introduction to Japan. As a young high-school
teacher fresh out of college, I struggled for almost three years to learn the Japanese
language and the many intricacies of the Japanese culture. At first, it seemed that almost
everything I did was wrong: I struggled with chopsticks, momentarily forgot to take my
shoes off when entering someone’s house, bowed too much or too little, and used phrases
that were, if not inadvertently impolite, at least poorly or strangely articulated.
Fortunately as a gaijin (foreigner), I was granted a degree of imrnunity—-at least for a
while.

Japan was so different; even the simplest exchanges were sometimes difficult
because of my limited language ability and what seemed like an intricately prescribed
way of doing everything. I was frequently enamored with my host country but just as
often infuriated. Despite a normally happy and unassuming disposition, my emotions and
perceptions were heightened to new levels. Serendipity was liberally interspersed with
confusion, embarrassment, and a host of other emotions that were intensified in every
direction. Through it all, it was the quotidian revelations and an acquired spirit of
Japanese perseverance that kept me going despite the difficulties of being a lone
foreigner tucked away in a city that seemed much farther away from Tokyo than it really
was.

I eventually learned to get along fairly well in Japan. I enjoyed the daily learning
experiences and though my Japanese was never outstanding, I was at least unashamed

enough to converse at length, teach classes, make phone calls, and write childish-

sounding letters to Japanese friends. To this day I carry with me a number of values,
behaviors, and insights that could only have been developed in Japan.

In college I was a Spanish-major, and my extended trips to Spain over the years
have left me with a number of Spanish values as well. In many respects I can relate to
having separate Spanish, Japanese, and American identities, each of which may come to
the forefront depending on a given environment, language, or situation. In each instance,
however, I wonder if the cultural identity at the forefront can detach itself completely
from the two in the background. It is with this unresolved quest to define my own identity
that I look with fascination to find how others make sense of theirs.

The Study

Having experienced cultural immersion as a young adult, I have always
empathized with international students in the US, their challenges and issues of identity.
Nevertheless, as of this writing, postsecondary student development in the United States
has focused largely on domestic students. The lack of attention given to internationals
may be surprising given their academic, financial, and potential geopolitical
contributions. East Asian students, hailing from the only major region of the world that
has never succumbed to Western colonialism, may likely be the least understood of all
foreign-bom students in the US.

As a way to introduce the cultural background and experiences of East Asian
college students to academics and university administrators in the West, this qualitative
study focuses on the acculturation identity, cultural identity, and values of Japanese
undergraduates at a large Midwestern university in the United States. More specifically, it

explores: (l) acculturation identities based on perceptions of Japanese and American

cultural identities; and (2) perceptions of Japanese and American cultural identities based
on contrasting values and behaviors. This study is divided into chapters on acculturation
identity and cultural identity. To the extent possible, these and other concepts are defined
and clarified below. The research questions in this study are as follows:
Acculturation Identity Research Questions
1. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as integrated?
2. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as assimilated?
3. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as separated?
4. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as marginalized?
Cultural Identity Research Questions
1. What values and behaviors do Japanese undergraduates associate with American
cultural identity?
2. What values and behaviors do Japanese undergraduates associate with Japanese
cultural identity?
Explanation of Terms
A number of terms must be clarified in order to ground the framework proposed
in this study. To begin, acculturation denotes an individual’s process of change in a
foreign environment, but acculturation identity refers to how an individual identifies--at a
given point in time--on a bi—dimensional measure proposed by Berry, Trimble, and
Olmedo (1986). The bi-dimensional measure explores how each individual identifies
with perceived Japanese and/or American identities. As will be discussed in greater
detail, Japanese students who identified strongly with Japanese and American identities

were considered integrated; those who identified more strongly or more positively with

an American identity were considered assimilated; those who identified more strongly or
positively with a Japanese identity were considered separated; and those who identified
negatively with both groups or identified with another group were considered
marginalized. Figure 1 depicts the acculturation quadrant as set forth by Berry et a1.
(1986)

Figure l: Berry’s acculturation quadrant

Advantages of identifying with native culture

 

 

Strong Weak
g §°
3 (ii Bicultural Assimilated
é Integrated
:5
§
5%"
é’
Q4
0
E] Separated Marginalized
5 as
.3 a.)
«a E?»

 

 

 

 

(Adapted from Berry et al., 1986)

Cultural identity refers to a perceived Japanese and/or American identity based
primarily on Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values: power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. In accordance with Hofstede’s (1984)
findings, a perceived Japanese cultural identity coincides with two or more of the

following: (1) high power distance; (2) high uncertainty avoidance; and (3) low

individualism. Conversely, a perceived American identity coincides with two or more of
the following: (1) low power distance; (2) low uncertainty avoidance; and (3) high
individualism. Masculinity is a somewhat more complex value and is given proper
attention later in this study.

Values refer to Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values, defined more specifically
as follows: (1) power distance, the degree that differences in wealth and other
endowments are accepted; (2) uncertainty avoidance, the degree to which individuals are
uncomfortable with the unknown; (3) individualism, the degree of interconnectedness
that characterizes members of a culture; and (4) masculinity, the degree to which
achievement and assertiveness are valued. Subtopics such as family, religion, education,
and language are used to support or refute each of Hofstede’s (1984) original findings.

Behavior refers to how individuals act or react in response to external or internal
stimuli. Although influenced by biological and emotional factors, behavior can frequently
be seen as a reflection of values. A deep bow, for example, might express one’s value for
high power distance, deference, or humility, while a handshake, smile, and sustained eye
contact may suggest a desire for friendliness and low power distance. An observer may
not always interpret behavior accurately, but individuals are likely to convey values--in
spite of their frequent complexity--through verbal or non-verbal behavior. Behavior and
values may thus be virtually inseparable, and are sometimes brought to light in this study.

The Framework

Given the present explanation of terms, the connection between behavior, values,

cultural identity, and acculturation identity may be viewed as follows: behavior (verbal

and non-verbal) is ofien a reflection of values; values (power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, individualism, and masculinity) both reflect and reinforce cultural identity
(Japanese and/or American and/or other); and cultural identity (Japanese and/or
American and/or other) suggests acculturation identity (integration, assimilation,
separation, or marginalization). For those who claim both Japanese and American
cultural identities, the question of whether these identities are alternated according to
situation and/or fused into a cultural hybrid must be taken into consideration. Figure 2
depicts the interaction of these terms. The elliptical figure represents total personal
identity, which is made up of (but not limited to) acculturation identity and cultural
identity.

Figure 2: Identity based on values

 

Altemation
and/or Fusion

/_
V . . . .

Integration, Assrmrlatron,

- Separation, or Marginalization

 

 

 
 

Acculturation Identity

 
 
 

 

Japanese and/or American

Cultural Identity — and/or other

  

 

Power Distance

11 = Uncertainty Avoidance
Individualism

Values/Behaviors Masculinity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose of the Study
The present study fulfills five purposes. The first is to present the experiences and
subsequent acculturation identities of Japanese undergraduates to university
administrators, professors, students, and interested business professionals in the West.

Understanding why Japanese undergraduates integrate, assimilate, separate, or feel

 

mar;
idem
abilit
lead t

studer

audien
Amen}
as a fra
and An
percept
insight
values ;
Americ
another
Alneric
POIemi;

beha\‘i(

Japane
uniVeI-E
{Or the

marginalized may shed light on potential variables that can help university professionals
identify and encourage social integration for those who want or need it the most. The
ability to improve social and educational experiences for future Japanese students could
lead to greater retention and recruitment of not only Japanese, but other international
students as well.

The second purpose of this study is to acquaint the aforementioned Western
audience with perceived identity differences between mainstream Japanese and US.
Americans. In the second part of Chapter 3, I use Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values
as a framework and look to the literature to provide contrasts between perceived Japanese
and American values; in chapters six through nine I relate Japanese undergraduate
perceptions of each of these work-related values. It is hoped that the reader will gain
insight as to the difficulties Japanese may face in choosing between sometimes opposing
values and behaviors to successfully navigate their various environments. Japanese and
American values and their accompanying behaviors may often run contrary to one
another for a multitude of reasons; applying certain Japanese values or behaviors to an
American environment may thus be perceived as strange, ineffective, inappropriate, or
potentially offensive. Conversely, applying commonly perceived American values or
behaviors to Japanese environments could yield similarly undesirable reactions.

The third purpose of this study builds upon the value and behavioral choices that
Japanese undergraduates make in order to navigate their way through an American
university and its various environments. Whether American cultural values are adopted
for the sole purpose of navigating American environments (alternation) or whether host

values are combined with native values (fusion) is a topic that will be explored in some

detail. Ultimately, findings may suggest that some or perhaps many Japanese
undergraduates take on a unique set of values influenced by both their host and native
cultures; such a sub-cultural hybrid may be of great interest not only to Westerners who
have a vested interest in Japanese and other international students, but to Japanese and
other East Asians who seek to incorporate internationalized Japanese into their work
environments.

The fourth purpose of this study is to introduce a framework that will provide a
parsimonious and applicable link between Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values and the
Berry et a1. (1986) bi-dimensional acculturation measure. Although Berry et a1. (1986)
suggested that specified (emic) measures might be necessary for studying acculturation
between any two given cultures, I propose that Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values
might be applicable for examining acculturation between a number of host and native
cultures. This proposal does not imply that Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values are
likely to serve as a universal (etic) reference for all or even most studies of acculturation;
it merely suggests that for certain combinations of host and native cultures, especially
those with one or more contrasting values, Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values may be
a relevant consideration.

The fifth and final purpose of this study is to provide a snapshot of Japanese
behavior, values, and acculturation identities at an American university at the present
time. A future comparative study could thus benefit by revealing changes--possibly
attributable to globalization--that could be useful for analyzing and predicting cultural
trends. As Nishizawa (2004) made clear: “Distinctions between [East and West] have

become less and less clear, due to the homogenizing effects of multicultural

demographics and globalization” (p. 2). That Japanese values and behaviors have
changed during the last two decades has been widely noted and attributed to
globalization, increased affluence, a significant decrease in the Japanese birthrate, and
what the Japanese have subsequently termed the only—child problem (Nishizawa, 2004,
White, 2002). Although it may be difficult to compare the present with a past
documented largely through faded and selective memories, a written account of the
present may inform future studies in a way that an undocumented past cannot currently
inform the present.
Rationale

While contributing to American higher education through research and classroom
discussions, international students, through tuition and living expenses, added nearly $13
billion to the US. economy in 2003-2004. Despite a declining birthrate and recent
difficulties obtaining U.S. visas, Japan has remained fourth in the world (behind India,
China, and South Korea) among countries whose citizens are enrolled at US.
postsecondary institutions. In terms of students enrolled in English intensive programs,
Japan ranked first in 2003-2004 (Koh Chin, 2004).

In spite of these statistics, U.S. institutions of higher education experienced an
1 1.2% decrease in the number of Japanese students on their campuses between 2002-
2003 and 2003-2004 (Koh Chin, 2004). This decreased enrollment undoubtedly had
much to do with increased visa restrictions and security measures in the wake of 9-11 and
the subsequent British and Australian attempts to recruit a larger number of international
students for their respective universities. An understanding of Japan and Japanese

students has thus become critically important if recruiters and other postsecondary

administrators in the US. are to successfully recruit and retain Japanese students in the
future. To heighten this concern, the birthrate in Japan has declined at such an alarming
rate in recent years that many universities in Japan have been forced to merge (Brender,
2003) while some have filed for bankruptcy (Brender, 2005). The Japanese Ministry of
Education and Science (Mombukagakusho) predicts that the number of places in Japanese
universities will match the number of high school graduates in Japan in 2007 (Brender,
2005).

The present study focuses on Japanese undergraduate students. Although Japanese
graduate students may provide as much to US. postsecondary education as Japanese
undergraduates, the present study focuses on undergraduates given: (1) the applicability
to two and four-year colleges as well as universities; and (2) recent findings that suggest
the critical importance of personality development for East Asian students during their
undergraduate years (Shih & Brown, 2000; Sugimura, 2001). Regarding Japanese
undergraduates, Sugimura (2001) concluded: “The period between the first semester as
juniors and as seniors is especially important to the changes from the lower to the higher
levels in relatedness” (p. 6). In a study on Taiwanese international students in the US,
Shih and Brown (2000) concluded that older students were more likely to identify
themselves as Asian. These studies were consistent with Al-Sharideh and Goe’s ( 1998)
assertion that older international students were generally more stable and maintained a
more fixed identity than younger international students.

The Pilot Study
I conducted a pilot study (Brender, 2004) with seven Japanese undergraduates

who attended the same university as those who were interviewed for the current

10

investigation. Using self-identification on Berry et al.’s (1986) acculturation quadrant and
Barry’s (2001) East Asian Acculturation Measure for cross-validation, I found that in
spite of the small sample, different Japanese undergraduates varied significantly in their
identification with different acculturation groups. In addition, there was a strong
correlation between self-selected acculturation identity and the acculturation identity
determined by the East Asian Acculturation Measure. Utilizing grounded theory, I also
found contrasting cultural values between Japan and the US. that coincided with
Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values. In essence, the pilot study led to the framework
proposed in this chapter, and detailed in Chapter 3.
Ensuing Chapters

In the second chapter, studies related to the current investigation are presented. In
Chapter 3, I expound on the two theoretical frameworks used in the study, provide
justification for each, and then, based on the literature, expound upon perceived
differences between Japanese and American cultural identity. In Chapter 4, I explain the
methods used in this study.

Acculturation identity is addressed in the fifth chapter. Selecting from 19
interviews, I present biographical sketches of 12 participants: 3 identified as integrated, 3
as assimilated, 3 as separated, and 3 as marginalized. Commonalities and differences are
noted between students within and across acculturation groups. Observations and
inferences may lead to future quantitative studies that investigate correlations between
selected variables and acculturation identity.

In chapters six through nine, I look toward Japanese undergraduate perceptions of

Japanese and American cultural values. Using Hofstede’s (1984) findings as a backdrop,

ll

I discuss whether perceptions unearthed in this study support or refute that Japanese
value greater power distance, greater uncertainty avoidance, and less individualism than
Americans. Various perceptions of masculinity are explored, suggesting that in some
respects Japanese are more masculine or competitive than US. Americans, and in other
respects U.S. Americans are more masculine. In the tenth and final chapter, I present key
findings, suggest firture research, and provide recommendations for faculty and university
administrators.
A Word on Word Choice

American is a word commonly associated with people, places, things, and
concepts from the United States, but it can just as easily be used to describe anyone or
anything associated with North, South, or Central America. Unfortunately there is not a
commonly accepted noun or adjective in English that depicts someone or something as
being from the United States. For this reason, the word American is used throughout this
study to refer to people, things, and concepts associated with the United States. Japanese
participants may use the word America when referring to the United States since the word

Amerika in Japanese refers to the United States as a nation.

12

CHAPTER 2
RELATED STUDIES

Although some research exists regarding Japanese and other East Asian students
at Western colleges and universities, much of it has been done with limited purpose or
sc0pe. A few studies have reported attitudes, sought to determine acculturation identities,
focused on specific values, or offered suggestions for lessening culture shock. Others
have focused on specific areas such as utilization of mental health facilities. Below are
examples of studies that have featured Japanese and other East Asians at Western
institutions of higher education. To date, no single study has provided an ethnographic
study of Japanese undergraduates at an American university with an eye on acculturation
identity, cultural identity, and values.

Wapner, F uj imoto, Irnamichi, Inoue, and Toews (1997) presented three separate
studies of Japanese students at American universities. The first, a pilot study, was
conducted with 15 Japanese students at a northeastern university. It examined positive
and negative Opinions about the US. while determining acculturation identities based. on
discrepancies between expectations and actual experiences. Participants were
characterized as: dedifferentiation or melting pot notion (similar to integration/ fusion),
differentiation and isolation, differentiation and conflict (both similar to separation), and
differentiation and hierarchic integration (similar to integration/altemation). Wapner et al.
(1997) concluded that there was a shift toward differentiation and hierarchic integration
over time. Additionally, Wapner et al. (1997) were able to code a number of common

opinions about the US. to be used in their subsequent quantitative study.

13

The second Wapner et al. (1997) investigation built on findings from the pilot
study, examining physical, interpersonal, and socio-cultural aspects of the person and the
environment. Qualitative and quantitative data revealed a number of common responses
among participants: that American culture served as a catalyst for the participants to
better understand Japanese culture; that the US. was a freer society than Japan; that
Americans were ignorant of Japanese culture; that the US. was more spacious; that
Americans talked more about difficult issues; that American professors were friendlier;
and that American food was tasteless and caused them to gain weight. Of note were that
Japanese women reported feeling less healthy, but happier and more comfortable than
Japanese men.

The third Wapner et al. (1997) study investigated the development of
interpersonal relationships of Japanese students at an American university. Their findings
suggested that Japanese students tended to include more American and international
students within their personal networks as time went on. Although the sample consisted
of only 16 students, of note was that some students felt their associations with Americans
were more superficial than their relationships with other Japanese and international
students. Seventy-five percent of Japanese students said that they did not avoid being
with other Japanese students, although some said that for at least some period of time,
this was the case.

In a related study on personal networks, Fujiwara (2004) concluded that
roadblocks to cross-cultural friendship between Japanese and Americans were shown to
be differences in expectations of friendship. Differences included the intensity of close

feelings toward friends, breadth and depth of self-disclosure, and endorsement of

14

 

 

fiient
Shah
paru
fioun

peor

base
bet)
\xho
nega
uncm

tende

unenn
intern;
Counte
Ana”,

inwnmu

mOre diff

friendship rules. In a study that combined personal networks with cultural adjustment, Al-
Sharideh and Goe (1998) found that self-esteem was positively correlated with
participation in co-cultural ethnic communities. Of interest was that this relationship was
found to be curvilinear; that is, for international students, association with more than 32
people identified as co-cultural resulted in a negative correlation with self-esteem.

Maeda and Ritchie (2004) found that for Japanese, friendship was frequently
based on comfort and an ability to share problems; for Americans friendship was found to
be based more strongly on stimulation. Among the American participants studied, peers
who discussed their personal problems with any degree of regularity were often viewed
negatively or as whiners. Their findings were consistent with Hofstede’s (1984) work on
uncertainty avoidance, which suggested that Japanese valued certainty while Americans
tended to prefer situations marked by uncertainty.

Abe, Talbot, and Geelhoed (1998) studied the effects of a peer program on
international student adjustment at a Midwestern university. They concluded that
international participants achieved significantly higher social adjustment scores than their
counterparts who did not participate in the program. In addition, they suggested that
Asian students generally had a more difficult time adjusting to campus life than other
international students.

Dee and Henkin (1999) concurred that adjustment to college life in the US. was
more difficult for Asian students than for other internationals, and set about examining
adjustment challenges of Korean students. Alluding to difficulties with verbal and non-
verbal communication, loss of social status, and adjustment to less formal interpersonal

relationships, Dee and Henkin (1999) found that gender, age, academic major, and

15

previous exposure to foreign cultures were important variables among their Korean
subjects. Their advice to American counselors was to focus on collectivistic norms,
respect for authority, and reluctance to reveal personal problems. Notably, these three
propositions correspond with Hofstede’s (1984) values of collectivism, power distance,
and masculinity respectively.

Gilbert (2000) suggested that the Japanese conceptualization of what it means to
be a student within a Japanese institution was met with cognitive dissonance when placed
within an American institution with different student expectations. In essence, Japanese
students viewed university life in Japan as academically passive and lacking in rigor
while university life in the US. was seen as more intellectually demanding and a time to
explore subjects and theories. Gilbert (2000) concluded that the Japanese students in her
study were not typical of Japanese university students in Japan; that most had made
substantial sacrifices to come to the U.S.; and that a small degree of culture shock would
not deter them from their goals. Gilbert (2000) conducted her research on community
college students, many of whom were beyond the 18-24 traditional age and who had
already completed two or four-year degrees in Japan.

Nishizawa (2004) explored the self-concept of 18 Japanese teenagers in Japan.
Although respondents were not necessarily bicultural, she concluded that globalization
had contributed to inner conflicts between a collective and independent self. Such
anxieties were seen as contributing to ijime (bullying) and other social conflicts, although
it was also concluded that Japanese teenagers often retained a high degree of adaptive

flexibility. Nishizawa (2004) suggested that her participants’ abilities to reframe their

16

outlooks from ambivalence to resilience could provide a healthy self concept and inner
strength for dealing with social anxiety.

A few studies sought to find variables that contributed to academic and social
success for Japanese and other international students. Doring, Bingharn, and Bramwell-
Vial (1997) concluded that international and domestic students who recognized the
framework of their new environment and made a conscious effort to adapt their behaviors
to it had a greater chance of academic success. Ahn (1999) used the alternation model
posited by LaFromboise et a1. (1993) to understand second culture acquisition for Korean
students in the US, but found no significant correlations between ethnic identity and
college stress or ethnic socialization and college stress.

A few studies involving Japanese and other East Asian students looked to answer
very specific research questions. Horn (1996), for example, investigated underutilization
rates of mental health services among Asian-Americans and concluded that mental health
services appeared less stigrnatic to more acculturated individuals and to women.
Ultimately, individuals from vertical collectivist societies (such as Japan) were
determined to be the least likely to utilize mental health services.

Through investigations such as those mentioned above, interested parties may
come to understand concepts about Japanese acculturation over time, Japanese attitudes
about the US, Japanese and East Asian adjustment issues, specific Japanese values, and
Japanese self-concept. The present study may serve, in part, to support or question some
of the above findings, but its primary purpose is to offer a single work in which the

experiences of contemporary Japanese undergraduates at an American university can be

17

presented within a comprehensible framework involving acculturation identity, cultural

identity, and values.

18

CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEWS FOR
ACCULTURATION IDENTITY AND CULTURAL IDENTITY

This chapter begins with an explanation of the two frameworks used in the
present investigation: (1) Berry et al.’s (1986) bi-directional measure used to determine
acculturation identity; and (2) Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values used to determine
cultural identity. A parsimonious and applicable framework linking the two is then
introduced.

The first literature review explores various models of acculturation and
acculturation identity with justification for choosing the Berry et al. (1986) bi-directional
model. The second literature review begins with an explanation of Hofstede’s (1984)
work-related values and reason for its application to the study. A section follows that
supports Hofstede’s (1984) findings, namely that Japanese and American values are at
different ends of the spectrum. Subtopics such as family, education, language, and the
workplace are used to support common perceptions of Japanese and American values
regarding power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity.

The Two Frameworks

I use two interrelated frameworks to present the experiences of Japanese
undergraduates at an American university: one explores acculturation identity and the
other cultural identity. The first framework assesses various models used to explain
acculturation identity and provides reasons for selecting a bi-directional model with the
added concepts of alternation and fusion. The second framework explores cultural

identity based on contrasting sets of values. Hofstede’s (1984) highly acclaimed study on

19

work-related values was ultimately chosen as a means to contrast commonly-held
perceptions of Japanese and American cultural identity. Subtopics such as family,
religion, education, and the workplace are explored to support or refute each of
Hofstede’s (1984) conclusions.

In order to provide a conceptual overview of these two frameworks, the
connection between behavior, values, cultural identity, and acculturation identity should
be established: behavior (verbal and non-verbal) is often a reflection of values; values
(power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity) both reflect and
suggest cultural identity (Japanese and/or American and/or other), which can be used to
suggest acculturation identity (integration of the two, assimilation to the host culture,
separation from the host culture, or marginalization from the two cultures). For those who
claim both Japanese and American cultural identities, the question of whether these
identities are alternated according to situation and/or fused into a cultural hybrid must be
taken into consideration. Figure 3 depicts the interaction of these terms. The elliptical
figure represents total personal identity, which is made up of (but not limited to)
acculturation identity and cultural identity.

The section on acculturation and acculturation identity is presented before the
section on cultural identity. The rationale is to first introduce current thinking on
acculturation and acculturation identity and to provide the reader with the broadest and
most general purpose of this study: an understanding of how people from one culture
define their identity while immersed in another culture. After presenting the framework
and current scholarship of acculturation and acculturation identity, I will then address

how the two cultural identities targeted in this study-Japanese and American--have been

20

defined and differ. The section on cultural identity may then be viewed as a series of
arguments and examples of how values associated with Japan and the US. differ, and
how these perceived differences have been depicted in the literature. The information and
framework established in the acculturation section may help the reader to better
understand how Japanese undergraduates make sense of their personal identities in light
of the many different values they may encounter at an American university.

Figure 3: Identity based on values

 

Altemation
and/or Fusion

[.___

Integratron, Assrmrlatron,
- Separation, or Marginalization

 

 
 

 

 
 
 

Acculturation Identity

 

Japanese and/or American

Cultural Identity — and/or other

  

 

Power Distance

3 = Uncertainty Avoidance
Individualism
Values/Behaviors Masculinity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acculturation and Acculturation Identity
The first framework spotlights individual-level acculturation defined as “the
change in individuals whose primary learning has been in one culture and who take over
traits from another culture” (Marden & Meyer cited in Kim, 2001 , p. 15). Where
distinctions need to be made, acculturation in this study denotes an individual’s process
of change in a foreign environment, but acculturation identity refers to how an individual

identifies on a specific measure of acculturation at a given point in time.

21

Although many researchers (Berry, 1997; Cabassa, 2003; Kim, 2001; Lee et al.,
2003) have recognized the complexity of acculturation as involving specific domains
(e. g., attitudes, language, behavior) and influences (voluntary-ness, mobility, and
permanence), Flannery, Reise, and Yu (2001) noted that the two most common
theoretical models used to conceptualize acculturation were the unidirectional model
(UDM) and the bi-directional model (BDM). The following subsections explain the
theory behind both the UDM and BDM while also citing empirical studies to provide a
rationale as to why the BDM was ultimately chosen for this study. In addition, a
speculative tri-directional model (TDM) is presented and discussed to clarify the
distinction between acculturation and the creation of a newly fused ethnic identity called
ethnogenesis (Flannery et al., 2001). Finally, an acculturation identity theory proposed by
LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton (1993) is presented as a way to involve the concepts of
alternation and fusion, two important elements ignored by the traditional models.

Unidirectional Model

The unidirectional model (UDM) served as the standard view of acculturation
from the 19205 through much of the 19805 and beyond (Flannery et al., 2001). Put in its
simplest terms, the UDM suggested that individuals and groups were acculturated along a
continuum, moving from a traditional to an assimilated mode (see Figure 4). The theory
suggested that as individuals acquired a new cultural system they would gradually lose
their original cultural habits (Kim, 2001). Those who had not fully adapted to their new
culture nor shed all remnants of their native culture were said to be bicultural, or
somewhere in the midst of the continuum (see Figure 4). Although some viewed

acculturation as a goal or progression toward modernity (Berry et al., 1986), it has by no

22

means been viewed as inevitable (Lee, Sobal, & Frongillo, 2003). In fact Kim (2001)
described total assimilation as “[eluding] the reality of many long-term settlers” (p. 52).

Figure 4: Unidirectional model

 

Traditional Bicultural Assimilated
(Adapted from Flannery et al., 2001)

To accommodate the complexities involved in acculturation, models have been
developed to include a number of topics or factors involved (Taylor, 1991). Many of
these topics have been used and combined to measure acculturation levels. The Suinn-
Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (Suinn, Ahuna, & Khoo, 1992), for
example, was the most widely used unidirectional measure among Asian Americans
(Barry, 2001). It assessed language, identity, friendship choice, behaviors, generation
status, and attitudes (Barry, 2001). Figure 5 serves as a representation of how various
topics leading to assimilation may vary by individual.

Figure 5: Varying developmental aspects pertaining to acculturation

 

civic

 

economic

 

social

 

linguistic
(Adapted from Flannery et al., 2001)
Despite its easy and parsimonious conceptualization, the UDM has been

frequently criticized for its inability to recognize that an individual may identify

23

positively with both native and host cultures. Conversely, some individuals (especially
refugees and displaced minorities) may identify negatively with both cultures (Berry et
al., 1986). Although Flannery et al. (2001) recommended the unidirectional model as an
economical proxy measure of acculturation, they suggested that the bi-directional model
was superior for full theoretical investigations. Ryder, Alden, and Paulhus (2003)
conceded that although the unidirectional measure showed a coherent pattern of external
correlates, the bi-directional measure revealed independent dimensions corresponding to
both native and host culture identification. The following section offers a
conceptualization of the BDM along with current attempts to improve its measurement
and validity.
Bi-directional Model

The bi-directional model (BDM) describes acculturation in terms of an
individual’s identification with a culture of origin and with that of a host culture.
Proponents of the BDM insist that becoming acculturated in one society does not require
a loss of cultural competence or loss of positive identification with one’s native roots.
According to Berry et al. (1986), immigrants and long-term sojoumers identified with
their native and host cultures in one of four ways: (1) integration or biculturalism,
implying strong or positive identities with both groups; (2) assimilation, implying a
stronger or more positive identification with the dominant group; (3) separation, implying
a stronger or more positive identification with the minority group or (4) marginality,
implying weak or marginal identification with both groups (see Figure 6).

Although participants may self-identify simply by answering (a) whether or not it

is of value to maintain native cultural identity and characteristics and (b) whether or not it

24

is of value to maintain relationships with other groups, a multitude of scales have been
devised based on Berry’s model. Berry himself (1986) advocated for emic approaches to
be tailor-made for each group and environment studied, suggesting, “We are a long way
from achieving any etic (universal) constructs” (p. 309). Such determinations, he posited,
should be based on questions about purpose, length, permanence, population, policy, and
cultural qualities of both the host and native culture (Berry et al., 1986).

Figure 6: Berry’s acculturation quadrant

Advantages of identifying with native culture

 

 

Strong Weak

5’ a
'3 E . . .

3 m Bicultural Assrmrlated
:36 Integrated
.5

§

%

2

(+4

0

E) Separated Marginalized
S .5 '

.5 a.)

4: B

 

 

 

 

(Adapted from Berry et al., 1986)

Several scales may be deemed appropriate for the present study involving
Japanese undergraduates at American universities. Flannery et al. (2001) concluded that
the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (Suinn et al., 1992) and the Asian

American Acculturation Inventory (Flannery, 1996) were quite comparable in topics and

25

phraseology. The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale has even been
updated to make it a bi-directional scale rather than a unidirectional scale (Ryder et al.,
2000; R. Suinn, personal communication, 2005). A final possibility is the East Asian
Acculturation Measure (EAAM) proposed by Barry (2001) as an improvement on
Chataway and Berry’s (1989) scale for Chinese and Korean students living in Canada.
The East Asian Acculturation Measure was ultimately chosen for the present study due to
its direct applicability to East Asians, its relative simplicity, and highly proven degree of
validity (Barry, 2001). The EAAM will be used to cross-validate self-identified
acculturation type and researcher-determined acculturation type based largely on
Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values.
T ri-directional Model

F lannery et al. (2001) proposed a tri-dimensional model (TDM) that posited the
creation of a distinct third culture based on native and host cultures (see Figure 7). This
concept, known as ethnogenesis, describes emerging cultures that may not easily fit into
either of the two cultures from which they had been derived. F lannery et al. (2001)
suggested: “Asian-American acculturation cannot be reduced to home and host
orientations, regardless of whether those orientations are orthogonal” (p. 1042).

Although the tri-directional model provides a useful conceptualization, little work
has been done to provide accompanying scales. This disregard is understandable, given
that acculturation scales generally rely on a two-way Likert scale and thus may pose
difficulties in measuring a third culture that is neither well defined, nor diametrically
opposed to the two other cultures in question. In addition, it would be foolish to suspect

that any immigrant or long-term sojoumer would not be at least somewhat affected by his

26

or her host culture (Kim, 2001), given to feeling somewhat disconnected from both
cultures or caught somewhere in between the two. For this reason, it might be futile to
ask Japanese undergraduates living in the US. to self-identify on the tri-directional scale.
Based on pilot interviews with eight Japanese undergraduates (Brender, 2004), there is
evidence that virtually everyone would identify as being part of the ethnogenesis group,
though perhaps to varying degrees.

Figure 7: The Tri-directional model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ethnogenesis
High Home (e. g. Japanese-
e.g. Japan American)
¢ >
Low Host High Host
e.g. U.S.

 

 

 

 

Low Home

 

 

 

(Adapted from Flannery et al., 2001)
Limitations of the Directional Scales
All three of the directional scales discussed are limited to conveying snapshots, or
the reflection of a single moment in time for each participant. Although some discussion
of cultural adjustment will be revealed through responses to interview questions, it is
beyond the scope of the present study to clearly or scientifically plot these trends.
Acculturation researchers and even casual observers have long been aware of the changes

in emotions and attitudes that accompany one’s adjustment to a foreign culture (Berry et

27

al., 1986; Kim, 2001). The old adage two steps forward and one step back typify many of
these theories. Figure 8 represents the process of adaptation to a culture over time. Figure
9 suggests that adaptation to a new culture can be viewed as the diminishing amplitude of
a sound wave; that is, the strong emotional reactions to various stimuli tend to dissipate
as the sojoumer becomes accustomed to a new culture over time.

Figure 8: The stress-adaptation—growth dynamic: A process model

Adaptation

(l

 

Growth over time

 

 

Stress

(From Kim, 2001, p. 57)

Figure 9: The diminishing amplitude theory

Positive reaction to host culture stimuli

A /\ A

Negative reaction to host culture stimuli

 

28

A Non-Directional Scale

LaFromboise, Coleman, and Gerton (1993) examined the psychological impact of
biculturalism and proposed a non-linear model of acculturation identity based on high,
moderate, or low competency in six different areas. Their theoretical model (depicted in
Table 1) may be somewhat involved for the introductory purposes of this study, but two
important concepts were defined that coincided with themes fi'om the pilot study:
alternation and fusion. Altemation, for LaFromboise et al. (1993), assumed that “an
individual can alter his or her behavior to fit a particular social context” (p. 9). Of the five
models proposed by the authors, alternation was viewed as the most socially desirable
and most representative of having high self-esteem and high mental-health status
(LaFromboise et al., 1993). LaFromboise et al. (1993) defined fusion as representing “the
assumptions behind the melting pot theory” (p. 12) where members combined the
strengths and weaknesses of two cultures to form a cultural hybrid. Fusion may be
consistent with the ethnogenesis theory proposed by Flannery et al. (2001) in which
unique cultures would emerge based on the values and characteristics of two equally
influential cultures. Interestingly, LaFromboise et al. (1993) suggested that
communication competency and role repertoire would rate low for those who were
undergoing fusion, but that “Once fused . . . the individual’s psychological reality would
be indistinguishable from a member of the majority group” (p. 13).

A visual representation of the alternation versus fusion models can easily be
depicted with Venn diagrams used in the pilot study and used once again for the current
investigation. Participants in the pilot study tended to believe that total fusion was not

possible for Japanese in the US. since the rules of the Japanese language mandated

29

hierarchical distinctions that were seldom necessary in English (Brender, 2004). The

fusion model in Figure 10 thus does not depict a total overlap of cultural identities.

Table 1: Process Variables Associated with Models of Second Culture Acquisition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Positive
Knowledge of Attitude
Cultural Toward
Beliefs and Both Bicultural Communication Role
Model Values Groups Efficacy Competency Repertoire Groundedness
Assimilation Low Low Low Low Low Low
Acculturation Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Low
Altemation High High High High High High
Multicultural Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Fusion Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Moderate

 

(Adapted from LaFromboise et al., 1993).

Figure 10: Altemation vs. fusion models

Japanese

Identity

American
Identity

Altemation Model

Japanese

Identity

Fusion Model

American
Identity

 

Refined Paradigm for the Present Investigation

Based on the existing models of acculturation identity, the present study opts to

focus on the bi-dimensional acculturation measure posited by Berry et al. (1986) with the

additive models of alternation and fusion proposed by LaFromboise et a1. (1993). From

information gleaned in the literature, the pilot study, and the current investigation, I

concluded that Japanese influenced by both Japanese and American cultural values must

choose between alternating or fusing these distinct values and associated behaviors.

30

 

While alternation and fusion are most relevant to those who identify positively with both
cultures (i.e., those identifying as integrated), there is also evidence to suggest that those
who identify with other acculturation groups (assimilated, separated, or marginalized) are
also faced with many choices regarding how to comport themselves in various situations
(Brender, 2004). With this concept in mind, Figure 11 is offered to depict acculturation
identity possibilities for Japanese students at an American university.

Figure 11: Bi-dimensional measure with alternation/fusion additives

Advantages of identifying with native culture

 

 

Strong Weak
g g Integrated Assimilated
U h
H (n
O
.c:
.5 (0)
§
E Altemation? Fusion?
8
E
“5‘
3 Separated Marginalized
E?
g it
< B

 

 

 

 

(Adapted from Berry et al., 1986 and LaFromboise et al., 1993).
Acculturation Identity: Research Questions
The research conducted in the pilot study suggested that Japanese undergraduates
at the targeted American university are not predisposed to any one-acculturation type

(Brender, 2004). With this diversity in mind, the focus of the acculturation section of this

31

study is to explore the experiences of Japanese undergraduates largely identified with
each of the four-acculturation possibilities set forth by Berry et al. (1986). More
succinctly, the research questions regarding acculturation will be stated as:

1. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as integrated?

2. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as assimilated?

3. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as separated?

4. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as marginalized?

Cultural Identity
Cultural Identity: Research Questions

If acculturation is based on the premise that an individual sees differences in his
or her native and host cultures, it follows that whichever two cultures are looked at must
somehow be defined in ways that distinguish themselves from one another. In the present
study, the two research questions to be asked regarding identity are:

1. What values and behaviors do Japanese undergraduates associate with American
cultural identity?

2. What values and behaviors do Japanese undergraduates associate with Japanese
cultural identity?

To explain the perceived differences between Japan and the US, I employ four
conceptual cultural values set forth by Hofstede (1984): (1) power distance; (2)
uncertainty avoidance; (3) individualism; and (4) masculinity. Each of Hofstede’s (1984)
values is examined with subcategories such as family, religion, and education to provide

arguments for specific cultural contrasts between Japan and the United States.

32

Hofstede ’s Framework

Hofstede’s (1984) framework is among the most referenced in the social sciences
(Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001) and has been called “a watershed conceptual foundation for
many subsequent cross-national research endeavors” (Fernandez et al., 1997, pp. 43-44).
It has been widely employed in business literature, doctoral dissertations, and social
science articles and has steadily increased in popularity since its original publication in
1980 (Sivakumar & Nakata, 2001). Its application to postsecondary students has been
extensive (Hirokawa, Dohi, Vannieuwenhuyse, Bruno, and others, 2001; Kelleher, 2000;
Matsumoto, 1990; Kim, Park, & Suzuki, 1990; Ohbuchi, Sato, & Tedeschi, 1999;
Simeon, Nicholson, & Wong, 2001). Sivakurnar & Nakata (2001) posited that Hofstede’s
conceptualization was “not highly problematic” (p. 558) and that he had “carefully
provided both the conceptual basis and empirical evidence for the four factors
constituting culture” (p. 558). Since the present study does not attempt to replicate any of
Hofstede’s (1984) quantitative methods, its reliance on his conceptualizations and general
findings may be relatively well grounded.

Hofstede (1984) proposed four work-related values as likely to vary by culture:
(1) power distance, the degree that differences in wealth and other endowments were
accepted; (2) uncertainty avoidance, the degree to which individuals were uncomfortable
with the unknown; (3) individualism, the degree of interconnectedness that characterized
members of a culture; and (4) masculinity, the degree to which achievement and
assertiveness were valued. In order to test his theory, he surveyed approximately 116,000
employees of a large multinational company in 40 different countries between 1967 and

1973 and hem 13 additional countries in 1983 (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).

33

Nations were ranked by mean scores in each category based on questions that Hofstede
(1984) argued were valid for each of their respective constructs. Many of his findings,
while not without criticism, have been correlated across time (Fernandez et al., 1997;
Goodykinst & Ting-Toomey, 1988), and to some degree, even profession (Merritt, 2000).
The Chinese Culture Connection (1987) found correlations between three of Hofstede’s
constructs and three constructs based on traditional Chinese values.1 Such findings
suggest that there may be equally clear cultural divisions between nations using
alternative constructs (The Chinese Cultural Connection, 1987). The following
subsections provide more detailed explanations of Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values
and how each might help to differentiate Japanese cultural values from American cultural
values.
Power Distance

Hofstede and Bond (1984) defined power distance as “the extent to which the less
. powerful members of institutions and organizations accept that power is distributed
unequally” (p. 419). The assertion was that significant variations could be found between
countries that accepted or preferred hierarchies, and those, that preferred to minimize
differences based on authority or power. In Hofstede’s (1984) original study, Japan
ranked slightly above the mean for power distance, while the US. ranked somewhat
below the mean. Perhaps more interestingly, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all the
northern European countries surveyed ranked below the US. in power distance, while all
other Asian countries ranked above Japan. An East-West division, with few exceptions,

appeared to be highly evident. A subsequent study conducted approximately 20 years

 

' Integration was positively correlated with power distance; human heartedness was positively correlated
with masculinity; moral discipline was negatively correlated with individualism. Confucian work
dynamism was not correlated with any of Hofstede’s four constructs.

34

later, however, showed that Japan and the US. both ranked below the mean for power
distance, and that Japan ranked even lower than the US. (Fernandez et al., 1997). The
fact that the research was conducted between 1989 and 1990, when Japan was at its
economic zenith (Smith, 1997), may have accounted for the change in rankings. Hofstede
(1984) noted in his original study that correlations could be observed between high GNP
and low power distance.

Comparing Japan to the US. in terms of power distance can be a bit tricky,
especially given Hofstede’s (1984) conceptualizations. Hofstede (1984) measured power
distance according to the amount of fear employees perceived in others who disagreed
with superiors. He also used variations in preferred decision—making styles, assuming that
less authoritarian styles promoted greater interdependence between superiors and
subordinates (Hofstede, 1984). Given that many Japanese organizations are unique in
their preference for consensus and nurturing relationships while also preserving a well-
defined hierarchy (Hendry, 2003; Nakane, 1970), Hofstede’s criteria may have been
somewhat biased in its effort to capture the essence of power distance worldwide.
Underlying principles of power distance and hierarchy in Japanese culture and in the
Japanese language itself may dictate a degree of vertical separation that could not be
properly accounted for in Hofstede’s (1984) investigations or in the investigations of
others who used his criteria. To clarify differences in power distance between Japan and
the United States, I will turn to discussions of family, education, religion, and language.
Family

The Japanese family has traditionally been described in terms of the ie (Hendry,

2003, Kuwayama, 1996; Nakane, 1970). The ie describes the continuing line of a

35

Japanese household that includes the deceased as well as its unborn descendents (Hendry,
2003). An occupation was traditionally associated with the ie, and members were
expected to contribute to it as they were able (Hendry, 2003; Kuwayama, 1996). While a
male head was designated, “relations between members were hierarchically organized
along lines of distinction based on age, sex, and expectation of permanency in the house”
(Hendry, 2003, pp. 27-8).

The concept of the ie saw a legal demise during the Meiji period (1868-1912)
when the centralized government, in an attempt to follow their Western counterparts,
required what had been seen as collective property to be registered in the name of
individuals (Hendry, 2003; Smith, 1997). The ie saw a further breakdown after World
War II when occupying American forces, trying to end feudal and sexist tendencies,
wrote in the Constitution of 1947: “With regard to choice of domicile, divorce and other
matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint
of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes” (Article 24).

Despite changes that have come along with modernity, globalization, and legal
attempts to modify the family structure in Japan, the ie still exists in various degrees,
more strongly in the countryside, but also within the traditions of Japanese nuclear
families (Hendry, 2003; White, 2002). The mid-year remembrance of ancestors, for
example, where families return to their place of ancestral origin and perform traditional
rites to honor those who have gone before them, is widely observed in Japan (Hendry,
2003). In this way, a continuing hierarchy is maintained, with greater reverence placed on
the dead than on the living. According to Hendry (2003), “The Buddhist altar symbolizes

the continuity and existence of the ie, and visiting members of the house will sometimes

36

walk right past their living relatives to greet ancestors before they acknowledge the
human beings present” (p. 31).

Hierarchy is instituted among family members in a way that socially and
linguistically differentiates older siblings from younger siblings. Older children, for
example, are asked to give in to younger siblings since the younger ones may not yet be
“old enough to understand” (Hendry, 2003, p. 51). Such reasoning, according to Hendry
(2003), reassures “the long-term advantages of being older” (p. 51) and hence, the
benefits of being in a higher position. Lexically, there is no Japanese equivalent for
brother or sister; rather, older brother, younger brother, older sister, and younger sister
are distinct terms (Mizutani & Mizutani, 1984). As Makino (2002) pointed out: “One
becomes aware that, in general, one cannot completely share the same social space with
another, even one’s siblings” (p. 37).

Family life in the US. may be much harder to depict than in a relatively
homogeneous country such as Japan. To be sure, little formal legislation has been enacted
to define family structure other than to outlaw polygamy, and in some states, same-sex
marriages. As of this writing, the definition of marriage as the union between one man
and one woman has been challenged in many states and redefined to include same-sex
marriages in Massachusetts (Sartori, Morey-Barrett, & Schulte, 2004). There are few
clear laws or standards regarding inheritance in the United States; decisions regarding
which family members, if any, are to care for the aged are left completely to families and
individuals.

The US. draws from no single tradition regarding hierarchical relationships in

families, and no lexical distinctions are made for brothers or sisters based on age.

37

Japanese, on the other hand, are depicted in the literature as more likely to follow
traditional cultural hierarchies based on the age and sex of family members (Hendry,
2003). In short, that family hierarchy and common parenting practices are discussed and
disseminated throughout the Japanese media (Hendry, 2003) suggests that Japanese may
be reared to accept hierarchical divisions much more readily than their American
counterparts.
Education

By nursery school, Japanese children are subjected to what is commonly called
shudan seikatsu (group life) in which self-indulgence gives way to thoughtful
consideration of others and the needs of the group as a whole (Peak, 1993). During this
important transitional period, Japanese children learn to distinguish between uchi--
behavior that is appropriate inside the home, and soto--behavior that is appropriate
outside the home. According to Makino (2002) the metaphors of uchi and soto “have
cognitive implications and underlie key concepts of the culture” (p. 29). Japanese
communication, for example, is predicated on whether a listener or third person is
determined to be in-group or out-group (Mizutani & Mizutani, 1984). The concept of
having to perpetually distinguish between in-group and out-group may thus constitute an
additional form of distance, if not power distance, overlooked or at least unmeasured in
the Hofstede (1984) research.

From early childhood, children are taught to inquire about the ages of other
children before admitting them into their group (Hendry, 2003). This information is
important so that each child may be addressed with the proper respect, title, and language

accorded to his or her age group (Hendry, 2003). Within any given club, school,

38

university, or business organization, the term sempai may be used as a term of respect for
someone who is a senior by one year or more; the term kohai may be used for one who is
a relative junior (Nakane, 1970). The sempai-kohai relationship, sometimes loosely
translated as mentor-protege, assumes a degree of respect and deference on the part of the
junior member toward the senior, but also a degree of caring and responsibility on the
part of the senior member toward the junior (Nakane, 1970). Befu (2001) defines this
concept, known as amae, as “social and psychic dependency on others” (p. 5). Thus,
while a kohai may be obliged to submit to the demands of a sempai, the sempai is
expected to watch out for the welfare and well being of the kohai. As Nakane (1970)
stated: “For the Japanese the established ranking order (based on duration of service
within the same group and on age, rather than on individual ability) is overwhelmingly
important in fixing the social order and measuring individual social values” (p. 26).
Hofstede (1984) noted that countries higher in power distance were more likely to
have educational systems where there was “more rote learning, and the asking of
questions by . . . students [was] seldom encouraged” (p. 99). McVeigh (1995) affirmed
that Japanese students had trouble expressing themselves in class which he suggested
made sense “in a society where being ‘shy’ is a strong cultural desirable” (p. 3). In
addition, McVeigh (1995) characterized the cognitive style that emerged from the
Japanese education system as being “useful for test-taking, which in Japan, is part of an
elaborate mechanism that selects, sorts, and shunts students into a disciplined, highly
stratified, and tightly managed workforce” (p. 1). Although McVeigh’s assessment may

sound extreme, substantiation can be found by looking no further than the multiple-

39

choice exams that until very recently were the sole determiner for entrance into almost all
Japanese universities.

Education in the United States, of course, requires few formally or culturally
embedded demands based on age. Although some schools, most notably military
academies, have traditions that afford special advantages to upperclassmen and
disadvantages to underclassmen, this practice is atypical. Because admission to American
universities has long been based on multiple criteria rather than a single entrance exam,
schools in the US. are often free to teach their own curricula and to encourage active
discussion in class (Bray, 1999). The active class participation encouraged in many
American schools may help to lessen the degree of power distance between students and
teachers, and ultimately between leaders and subordinates in work and family situations.
Religion

Although Buddhism and the indigenous practice of Shint6 are commonly referred
to as the major religions of Japan, Befu (2001) and others (Bellah, 1980; Hendry, 2003)
have suggested that the major religion of Japan is an undeclared civil religion complete
with prescriptions and taboos inherent in the Japanese language and culture. Reischauer
(1981) insisted that: “Shinté and Buddhism are for most people more a matter of custom
and convention than of meaningful beliefs” (p. 222). At the time of Reischauer’s (1981)
writing, “new religions” (p. 223) based on an amalgam of folk religions were on the rise.
Since the Aum group released poisonous gases into a Tokyo subway in 1995, however,
Hendry (2003) noted that many Japanese had become quite suspicious of new religious

SCCIS.

40

Confucianism, which may be considered as much a philosophy as a religion, may
arguably have the strongest influence on what many have termed the Japanese religion.
Hendry (2003) noted that the Confucian values adopted in Japan included loyalty to one’s
superiors, obedience of children to their parents, the subordination of a wife to her
husband, and the respect of younger siblings toward older siblings. Of the Confucian
virtues, Morishima (1982) suggested that in Japan, loyalty ranked at the very top while
love ranked highest in China.2

Hofstede (1984) posited that the influence of Confucianism “helped explain the
respect for a vertical hierarchy in Japan” (p. 105) but cited studies by both Kawasaki and
Yoshimori that suggested a preexisting hierarchy in Japan had made the importation of
Confucianism a convenient fit. Oldstone-Moore (2002) corroborated this idea, stating:
“For [the Japanese] Confucianism provided support to a centralized state and social
hierarchy” (p. 103). After detailing the revivals of Confucianism in 17th and 19‘h century
Japan and its subsequent challenges during the last 100 years, Oldstone-Moore (2002)
concluded: “Confucian ideas have again become a part of the background to being
Japanese, visible in the workplace, at school, and in gender roles and family structure” (p.
103).

In contrast to the hierarchical distancing central to Confucianism, Hofstede (1984)
suggested a correlation between Protestant countries and lower power distance scores.
Such findings have commonly looked to Weber’s (1904/1958) view that Protestant
religions supported and even insisted on an egalitarian worldview. Inglehart and Baker

(2000) theorized that the decentralization of most Protestant churches opened the way for

 

2 Japanese rankings were ( 1) loyalty; (2) ritual; (3) courage; (4) sincerity; and (5) wisdom Chinese
rankings were (1) love; (2) ritual; (3) justice; (4) wisdom; and (5) sincerity.

41

a greater tolerance of controversy. The US, whose Protestant population hovers around
59% (Datesman et al., 1997), is thus arguably not as low in power distance as countries
such as Finland or the Netherlands where the percentage of Protestant populations are
higher. Nevertheless, Hofstede’s (1984) research revealed that power distance scores in
the US. were lower than most countries where Catholicism, Islam, and Confucianism
were strongly recognized as national or dominant religions.

Language

While much has been written about Japanese hierarchy, one need look no further
than the Japanese language to find the notion of hierarchy permeating almost every utter-
able sentence. Choosing a pronoun or one of many verb endings inevitably conveys a
hierarchical relationship between a speaker and listener. Unless two or more individuals
are of the same sex, age, and group affiliation, they are unlikely to speak Japanese in a
way that is hierarchically neutral (Barnlund, 1989).

In regard to Japanese pronouns, Kondo (1990) stated: “Choice of one pronoun
over another is situationally negotiated and varies according to gender, class, region, and
so on” (p. 27). In Japan, the Self is determined by its relationship to others in a given
situation. Whereas the English language has only one first-person singular pronoun (1),
Japanese has multiple words for 1 depending on the situation and the hierarchical
relationship the speaker has with the listener. Gender, as Kondo (1990) pointed out, may
also determine the choice of pronouns. Each different I in Japanese can denote a
distinctly different self. Below are some of the most common examples:

Watakushi (formal I for men or women)
Watashi (standard, somewhat formal I for men and women)

Atashi (female I )
Boku (genteel male I )

42

Ore (masculine, gruff, male I )

8er (2001) stated: “Because the Japanese language requires predicate endings
that show the relative status between the speaker and the listener, Japanese are said to be
highly sensitive to relative social status in face to face interaction” (p. 37). Azuma (1997)
demonstrated that Japanese clearly differentiated forms and degrees of politeness in
reference to the perceived hierarchy of each individual while Americans made only slight
categorical distinctions. In asking young Japanese teachers to make a simple request of a
senior teacher and of a student, clear delineations were made in predicate endings based
on which of the two was being addressed. While Azuma’s subjects used a variety of
different verb endings, there was absolutely no crossover between using polite forms with
the senior teacher and informal verb endings with students (Azuma, 1997).

In contrast to the hierarchically structured Japanese language, English is arguably
quite egalitarian. The English language has only one first-person singular pronoun (I) and
since it has done away with the distinction between the formal second person you and the
archaic, informal thou, it might be considered even more egalitarian than other European
languages such as French (tu vs. vous), Spanish (tt'r vs. Usted), or German (Du vs. Sie).

In addition, English has no verb endings that denote a distinction between the
formal and informal. A phrase that is uttered to a superior could easily go unchanged
when uttered to an inferior, or even a child. Please and thank you are mainstays for many
speakers of the English language, regardless of who is being addressed. In Azuma’s
(1997) study, Americans used greater degrees of politeness as the imposition of a request

increased; the status of the person addressed was comparatively inconsequential.

43

Summary: Power Distance

In this section, I have argued that power distance is learned and established in the
Japanese family, in the Japanese educational system, in the Confucian value system, and
in the hierarchical distinctions inherent in the Japanese language. So ingrained is the
concept of power distance and hierarchy that mutually acceptable communication is
virtually impossible in a Japanese context without each party accurately assessing a
hierarchical order from the very first introduction. Americans, on the other hand, are
unlikely to make or be concerned with such judgments. Even when a hierarchy is
relatively clear, Americans can do little to change their speech patterns since the English
language does not provide such cues as humble or honorific verb forms or multiple
pronouns that convey distance or familiarity. In addition, a Protestant heritage, anti-
aristocratic history, constitutional ban on titles of nobility, and a culture that at least in
theory begs for equal treatment of all, may account for why many Americans value
minimal levels of power distance.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance refers to “the extent to which members of a culture feel
threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (Hofstede, 1984, p. 113). The three
indicators used to determine uncertainty in Hofstede’s (1984) research were: (1) rule
orientation; (2) employment stability; and (3) stress. Japan and other East Asian countries
have traditionally been associated with higher uncertainty avoidance levels than most
Western countries (Fernandez et al., 1997; Hofstede, 1984; Maeda & Ritchie, 2003;
Shuper et al., 2004). In Hofstede’s (1984) study, Japan ranked 4th of 39 countries with a

score of 92; the US. ranked 31St with a score of 46. The mean was 64 (Hofstede, 1984).

44

Many subsequent studies have corroborated Hofstede’s (1984) findings regarding
uncertainty avoidance (see Maeda & Ritchie, 2003; Merritt, 2000; Shuper et al., 2004)
although Fernandez et al. (1997) found a reversal in ranking between the US and Japan.
Japan’s lower uncertainty avoidance average in the Fernandez et al. (1997) study was
attributed to its powerful economic status between 1989 and 1990, the time the research
was conducted, and the relatively less fervent economy in the US. dtuing this same
period. It has been suggested that economic trends may influence uncertainty-avoidance
scores (Fernandez et al., 1997; Hofstede, 1984).

Closely related to uncertainty avoidance is uncertainty orientation. Shuper,
Sorrentino, Otsubo, Hodson, and Walker (2004) distinguished between uncertainty-
oriented cultures and certainty-oriented cultures. Members of uncertainty-oriented
cultures “seek out information and engage in activity that will directly resolve the
uncertainty” (Shuper et al., 2004, p. 460). Such individuals may thrive on exploring new
ideas, concepts, and activities while becoming more passive or bored with routine or
well-defined protocols (Shuper et al., 2004). Certainty-oriented individuals, on the other
hand, prefer activities that maintain clarity and avoid unfamiliar areas (Shuper et al.,
2004). When confronted with uncertainty, certainty-oriented individuals “will rely on
others and/or on heuristic devices more [often] than more direct methods of resolving
uncertainty” (Shuper et al., 2004, p. 461).

Japanese identity is commonly associated with high uncertainty avoidance levels
while the general perception of American identity is more strongly linked to low
uncertainty avoidance levels (Hofstede, 1984; Merritt, 2000; Shuper et al., 2004). In the

terminology of Shuper et al. (2004), Japan can be seen as a certainty-oriented culture

45

where the US. can generally be seen as an uncertainty-oriented culture. Given this
perceived generalization, it must be noted that uncertainty avoidance has been shown to
be much more valid in comparing defined communities rather than entire countries or
individuals (Shuper et al., 2004). Sorentino, Roney, et al. (1992) suggested, for example,
that lay populations in the United States and Canada displayed greater tendencies toward
high uncertainty-avoidance levels while university populations were given to
significantly lower uncertainty-avoidance levels. This makes sense, especially given that
most academic professionals base their raison d’étre on exploring the unknown.

To substantiate the perceived Japanese tendency toward uncertainty avoidance, I
will discuss topics that speak to Hofstede’s (1984) defining characteristics of uncertainty
avoidance: (1) adherence to rules; (2) continuous employment with a single organization;
and (3) anxiety. Where necessary, I will also provide commentary on the perceived
American tendency toward lower uncertainty avoidance. The topics to be explored are (1)
family; (2) friendship; (3) religion; (4) education; (5) employment; and (6) language.
Family

The Japanese tendency toward uncertainty avoidance can easily be linked to one
of the most prevailing concepts regarding Japanese culture: that of uchi (inside) and soto
(outside) status. From an early age, Japanese children learn to associate the inside with
what is clean and comfortable and the outside with what is dirty and less comfortable
(Hendry, 2003). The universal and inflexible practice of removing footwear upon
entering a Japanese house is just one example of how the dirt associated with the outside
is not to enter the inner sanctum (Hendry, 2003). Given the early associations Japanese

are taught to make between the positive familiar and the often negative unfamiliar, one

46

can begin to understand the likelihood of many Japanese to prefer the certain to the
uncertain.

The uchi-soto distinction is inherent in the Japanese language; thus children learn
appropriate words and phrases that refer to their own family or inside group and those
that refer to outside groups. The Japanese word for one’s own mother, for example, is
haha while the word for someone else’s mother is okaasan. The separation between
inside and outside is further intensified by the common family practice of associating the
outside with danger and fear, perhaps as an effort to keep children close at hand (Hendry,
2003).

While child-rearing practices in the US. may be much too diverse to summarize
with any reasonable coherence, the concept of distinguishing between in-group and out-
group will likely ring quite foreign to most Americans. To illustrate this concept, leaving
young children in the care of babysitters, neighbors, or even day care workers is a largely
accepted practice in the US. (Shellenbarger, 2005). To what extent these individuals can
be distinguished as either in-group or out-group is not likely to be considered in an
individualistic society such as the US. (Hofstede, 1984). In Japan, however, where the
bond between mother and child may be virtually unbroken for the first year or more of
life, children are rarely entrusted to anyone outside of a relatively well-defined in-group
(Peak, 1993). From the Japanese perspective, American parental behavior may be seen as
risky or perhaps somewhat neglectful. From the American point of view, Japanese

parents may seem overprotective and perhaps somewhat smothering.

47

Friendship

Friendships in collectivist societies such as Japan tend to center around a
relatively small number of very close, lifelong fiiends while fiiendships in individualist
societies such as the US. tend to allow for a greater number of fiiends with perhaps
varying degrees of closeness (Hofstede, 1984). Meada and Ritchie (2003) concluded that
while Americans emphasized categories related to personal stimulation as important
elements of fiiendship, the Japanese, in contrast, preferred comfort and case. This
distinction, they concluded, was consistent with the cultural differences noted in
Hofstede’s (1984) uncertainty-avoidance measures that placed Japan high in uncertainty
avoidance and the US. as considerably lower (Maeda & Ritchie, 2003). The reasoning
here, of course, is that those who avoid uncertainty will likely prefer the predictability of
a comfortable relationship while those who happily face uncertainty will be more likely
to thrive on the stimulation of creative, intellectual, or physically challenging
interactions.
Religion

Religion, according to Hofstede (1984), is “one of three fundamental ways for
human society to cope with uncertainty” (p. 137). Hofstede (1984) noted that largely
Protestant countries, such as in northern Europe and the US, ranked much lower than
Catholic countries in uncertainty avoidance, perhaps because “Protestantism, and
especially Calvinism, encourages worldly ways to cope with uncertainty (technology and
law) as willed by God rather than ritual ways” (p. 137). Thus, since Protestant countries
have a tradition of deferring nebulous matters of law and ethics to the state and fi'equently

to individuals, it may follow that its citizens have become more comfortable with facing,

48

debating, and negotiating uncertainties. Japan, in Hofstede’s (1984) estimation, seemed
misplaced among the Catholic countries, which all tended to rank high in uncertainty
avoidance. His only plausible explanations about Japan were that it may have had
stronger religious ties than would meet the eye, and that ancestor worship may have
accounted for coping with uncertainty of the unknown (Hofstede, 1984).

Although ancestor worship may be widely observed in Japan during obon--
midyear pilgrimages to ancestral birthplaces--ancestor worship is not a central or
quotidian practice in the lives of most Japanese citizens (Hendry, 2003). Religion, as
previously mentioned, may be considered something of a civic practice in Japan (Befu,
2002) with any number of anthropologically identifiable rituals that help lessen
uncertainty. Although one may experience doubts and anxiety about the existence of
God, the afterlife, or other major theological questions, comfort can often be found in
performing familiar practices, especially where behaviors are systematically prescribed
and can leave no doubt as to the completion of their performance or practice.

Shinté, the indigenous religion of Japan, has mainly been concerned with “notions
of pollution and purity” (Hendry, 2003, p. 129). Eighty-five percent of Japanese citizens
claim at least some degree of affiliation with Shintc’), though it must also be noted that
approximately 75% of Japanese also claim Buddhist affiliations (Hendry, 2003). Shintc‘) is
laden with deities to appease anxieties related to marriage, study, business, and other
concerns (Hendry, 2003). It is filled with symbolism and almost choreographed ritual
behaviors. PeOple enter Shinto shrines at various times and for various reasons, but the
ritual behavior is the same: they enter a temple or compound, wash their hands and

mouth, approach the front of the shrine, make a monetary offering, ring a bell to call the

49

attention of the deity, clap their hands, and bow their heads in prayer (Hendry, 2003).
Although Hofstede (1984) did not make specific comparisons between Shinto and
Catholicism, such Catholic practices as making the sign of the cross before an altar or
lighting a candle for the well-being of an individual may be similar, at least from an
anthropological point of view. Such comparisons may help to explain Japan’s positioning
among Catholic countries in uncertainty avoidance rankings.

In contrast to the prescribed ritual practices in Shinto and Catholicism, many
Protestant denominations in the United States adhere much less, though in varying
degrees, to formalized ritual guidelines (Bahner & Winner, 2002). Some Protestants have
come to reject established prayers in favor of spontaneous heartfelt devotions (Balmer &
Winner, 2002). Whether the absence of a minister at Quaker meetings or parishioner-
govemed Congregational churches, one often finds what Balmer and Winner (2002)
referred to as a “priesthood of believers” (p. 50) where democratic decision-making is
applied to beliefs, missions, tenets, structuring of worship services, and/or ethical matters.
In contrast, Catholicism and Shint6 have both traditionally been presided over by
individuals deemed infallible (the Pope) or divine (the Japanese Emperor until 1945).
Hofstede (1984) cited Pareto to argue that uncertainty is sometimes avoided through
confidence placed in authorities: “Logical behavior consists of activities which are
logically linked to an end, not only in respect to the person performing them but also to
those other people who have more extensive knowledge” (p. 112).

Buddhism encourages ritual practices in ways that are similar to Shintc'). The
prescribed manners that accompany prayer can be seen as yet another way in which

uncertainty or awkwardness can be avoided. According to Hendry (2003):

50

A Buddhist temple is not much different from that of one who visits a Shintc')
shrine. In front of the altar, hands are held together silently, rather than clapped,
and there may well be images of the Buddhist figure being invoked. Purification
is usually with the smoke of incense rather than with water, and the receptacle is
not necessarily at the entrance to the temple, as is the water at a Shintc') shrine. But

a variety of amulets and talismans are usually on sale here too, and it is again

possible to have one’s prayers written on an appropriate receptacle and hung in

the buildings. It is also common to purchases a printed version of one’s fortune to

tie onto a convenient tree. (p. 132)

The Zen sect of Buddhism, more popularly associated with Japan than China,
emphasizes prescribed and comforting rituals that leave little or nothing to chance.
Japanese flower arranging (ikebana) and the well-known tea ceremony are but two
endeavors devoted to following a highly prescribed set of rules. In the tea ceremony, the
guests and hostess all play determined roles that follow limited speech and a rrrinimum of
individual or impromptu movements. Viewing the tea ceremony through Hofstede’s
(1984) lens of uncertainty avoidance, one finds a quintessentially prescribed ritual that
lends comfort and peace through a complete avoidance of the uncertain.

In addition to the comfort of prescribed rituals, Buddhism can be seen as
lessening the anxiety of death and all that it entails through “the memorial rites which
[believers] understand will bring their souls safely to a secure state as ancestors”
(Hendry, 2003, p. 131). Such memorials are generally held for 33 and up to 60 years after
the death of an individual (Hendry, 2003). The Catholic Church similarly dedicates
masses and encourages long-term prayers for the deceased, often relying on orders of
monks (Catholic Encyclopedia, 2005). In contrast, most Protestants in the United States
exclude prayers for the dead from public services (Catholic Encyclopedia, 2005). The

contrast between Japan, a nation that reveres its ancestors, and the United States, a

largely Protestant country that tends to avoid public or prolonged observance of the

51

departed, may provide support for the contrast between these two countries: the Japanese
can once again be seen as striving for certainty (maintaining the deceased) while many
Americans allow for uncertainty (leaving the soul of the deceased in the hands of the
Creator).

Shinto and Buddhism may both be seen as lessening uncertainty through
prescriptive rituals aimed at purification (Hendry, 2003). Shinto provides for the
invocation of specific deities to aid the living while Buddhism offers religious practices
that focus on the responsibilities of the living to the dead. Where these two religions
focus on the lessening of supernatural uncertainty, a third religion, Confucianism,
provides another set of elaborate rules for living in the here and now. As Hendry (2003)
claimed: “According to Confucian precepts, an individual needs training in the virtues of
benevolent action, loyalty and filial piety in order to participate properly in five basic
relationships” (p. 138). These five relationships are ruler and subject, father and son,
husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother, and friend and fiiend (Oldstone-
Moore, 2002). The writings set forth by Confucius dictated a well-defined hierarchical
society that was officially incorporated in Japanese government during given periods, and
which arguably is inextricable from what is largely perceived as modern Japanese culture
(Oldstone-Moore, 2002).

Education

Although Rohlen (1983) noted substantial differences between Japanese high
schools based on their individual admission standards and corresponding rank in
academic hierarchy, education at the primary level manages to follow prescriptive norms,

leaving very little to chance or uncertainty (Hendry, 2003; McVeigh, 1995). In spite of

52

the sub-cultural differences between high, mid, and low-ranking Japanese high schools
noted by Rohlen (1983), the supreme importance placed on university entrance exams
coupled with the powerful central authority of the Japanese Ministry of Education stand
in sharp contrast to the United States which has neither university entrance exams (at
least not as sole deterrniners for admission) nor a national ministry of education. In terms
of educational philosophies, deliveries, and administrative structuring, Japan tends to
avoid uncertainty while the US. often seeks to embrace it.

Education in Japan is centralized in such a way that on any given day, there is
likely to be little variation in classrooms whether they are in Hiroshima, Okinawa, or
Yokohama (Hendry, 2003). The Ministry must approve all textbooks, and sometimes
requires authors to rewrite passages or sections “to reflect the image the Ministry deems
appropriate” (Hendry, 2003, p. 84). There is very little tracking in Japanese schools, and
the curriculum often helps define a standard language, culture, and identity (Hendry,
2003).

Bray (1999) listed the US, along with Australia, Canada, India, and Nigeria, as
having highly decentralized educational models. Given the diversity in the United States,
putting control in the hands of individual teachers or school boards may arguably be more
necessary than in a homogeneous nation such as Japan. As Stark and Lattuca (1997)
pointed out: “The diversity within the broad concept of curriculum exists in part because,
as the academic plan is developed, the planners are subjected to influences from society
and its various agents” (p. 21). If one can assume a more homogeneous society in Japan,
based on a common race, language, history, and cultural norms, it follows that Japanese

educators are less subject to the influences of their local constituents.

53

While Japan and the US. differ sharply in terms of the certainty or centralization
of curriculum, there is also a similar contrast between the traditions of their extra-
curricular activities. In American schools, students are generally encouraged to
participate in multiple clubs or athletic teams. Secondary schools, for example, offer
seasonal activities such as football and soccer in the fall, basketball and swimming in the
winter, and baseball and cross-country in the spring. In Japan, however, students are
encouraged to join a single club year-round, and to the extent possible, throughout most
or all of their school years (Johnson & Johnson, 1996). In this respect, there is a contrast
between one country where students are encouraged to try their skills at multiple and
sometimes new endeavors and another where students are encouraged to develop a single
interest in which their familiarity with the activity and fellow club members leaves
increasingly less room for uncertainty.

Japanese education is geared largely toward preparing students for entrance
examinations that are the sole determiner of admission to any given university (Smith,
1997). The entrance exams, in most cases, consist largely or fully of right or wrong,
multiple-choice questions (Smith, 1997). Hendry (2003) noted the prevalence of students
who took practice entrance exams as often as twice a month in order to decide the best
universities for which they might qualify. Ultimately, Hendry (2003) likened the modern
Japanese education system to that of the traditional ie, insisting, “An eldest son may be
assured of a future occupation as long as he is willing to follow in the footsteps of his
forbears” (p. 82).

The Japanese leave little to chance in terms of education. According to Smith

(1997), the average Japanese family spends a quarter of its income on supplementary

54

cram schools and other educational endeavors for their children in primary and secondary
school. In order to transmit large bodies of factual knowledge that can be easily and
objectively measured on all-important entrance exams, it is not surprising that many, if
not most classes in Japan are taught using what Pratt (1997) termed a transmittal or
lecture format. In contrast, many American teachers have the option to teach using other
perspectives described by Pratt (1997) such as the developmental, nurturing, or social
reform models.

McVeigh (1995) discussed the hesitancy of Japanese students to speak up in class
suggesting that this commonality was attributable to the Japanese educational system’s
insistence on producing obedient students who work hard and are able to reproduce large
quantities of information. In contrast to the preponderance of Japanese students who
hesitate to answer questions in class, Datesman et. a1 (1997) observed: “American
students are encouraged to express their own opinions in class and think for themselves, a
reflection of the American values of individual freedom and self-reliance” (p. 177). Such
an established norm, at least where it exists, may also help to clarify the greater
likelihood of Americans to face and often welcome uncertainty.

Employment

Uchi no kaisha--our company--and a sense that company is family are themes

trumpeted loudly in postwar studies of Japanese industry. The company as family

idiom is presumably pervasive in Japan, shaping workers’ lives and creating
disciplined, loyal employees who strive to achieve group goals. Management
practices such as lifetime employment, payment of wages by seniority, and

quality circles--so goes the explanation--reinforce the family feeling, for a

Japanese company is a community of people who share a common destiny.

(Kondo, 1994, p. 173)

Although Kondo (1994) ultimately discussed the contradictions and complexities

of the Japanese company as family, the conunonality of this metaphor speaks volumes for

55

the way that many Japanese companies, schools, and other organizations are set up.
Hendry (2003) noted that many large Japanese companies provided living
accommodations, sports facilities, hobby clubs, and vacation sites for their employees.
Employees are encouraged to drink together, play sports together, and go on outings
together (Hendry, 2003).

At least in large companies that demand long hours and a six-day work week,
many Japanese employees are provided for and subsequently shielded from the
uncertainties of such endeavors as buying a home, finding friends outside the office, or
making choices as to what they should do with their leisure time (Hendry, 2003).
Company seniors even suggest and arrange for meetings with potential marriage partners,
a Japanese custom known as omiyai. Hendry (2003) suggested:

Ideally, employees develop within such a framework throughout their working

lives, and see their own interests as coinciding with those of the company. For

those who prefer certainty and stability and not having to face the many
uncertainties that come with a less structured lifestyle, this can be a comforting

ideal (p.167).

In contrast, American companies tend to be far less paternal. Employees and
especially women employees are often discouraged from mentioning their personal or
domestic problems at work if they wish to get ahead (Axtell et al., 1997). For many
American employees, revelation of personal problems can be viewed as a sign of
weakness, or an inability to commit to one’s career (S. Nakaharna, personal
communication, April 15, 2005). Although some provisions such as health care are
standard, American employees are seldom provided housing and are not generally

encouraged or expected to spend time outside of work socializing with superiors and

fellow workers. The American company often sees itself as providing legalized contracts

56

that specify what is expected of the employee in return for an agreed-upon compensation
(Klein, 1992). Often times, these contracts are replete with specified end dates that may
or may not allow for renewal (Klein, 1992). Lifetime employment is not often desirable
for employers who seek young, fresh, and less expensive talent; nor is it desirable for
employees who crave new experiences, new venues, and the chance for pay increases that
exceed what their current company is willing to offer (Klein, 1992).

Language

The Japanese language and its proper use are taught in schools with a degree of
attention that would likely astound most American speakers of English. McVeigh (2002)
called attention to a book on language etiquette endorsed by the Ministry of Education
called Wakai hitotachi no manc't (Manners for Young People). Subsections of the book
included detailed etiquette for “posture and how to walk, how to sit, how to stand, how to
bow, how to aisatsu (greet), how to carry and present things, and how to speak”
(McVeigh, 2002, p. 128).

The Japanese language is rich in distinction: it employs exalting language
(sonkeigo), humbling language (kenjogo), and polite language (teineigo) that make clear
in-group and out-group distinctions (McVeigh, 2002). To the foreigner, the frequent use
of set phrases known as aisatsu may seem cliche, unimaginative, or impersonal. As
McVeigh (2002) suggested: “Practices associated with this socio-linguistic behavior,
driven by sociopolitical and economic rationalization and bureaucratization, are seen in
staged formalities which erect thick walls of rituality” (p. 130). This practice of
maintaining social distance stands in contrast with politeness in the US, which “is often

associated with barrier-breaking features” (Obana & Tomoda, 1994, p. 46).

57

Summary: Uncertainty Avoidance

Japan and the United States may be depicted as being quite different in terms of
uncertainty avoidance. Although uncertainty avoidance varies as greatly by class and
individual as by culture, it can be argued that Japan is perceived as higher in certainty
avoidance than the United States. For the first year or more of life, the Japanese mother
and child relationship continues virtually uninterrupted with co-bathing and co-sleeping
as a cultural norm. Children are taught to revere and appreciate what is associated with
the inside (uchi) and to regard with fear, discomfort, or deference people and things
associated with the outside (soto). Friendship in Japan has been shown to revolve more
around comfort than stimulation, an obvious preference for avoiding uncertainty.
Japanese religions are often associated with ritual practices, ultimate authority figures,
and the responsibility of praying for the dead, a practice that may add comfort and
security about the unknown.

Education in Japan avoids uncertainty with its centrally controlled curricular
decisions and emphasis on passing multiple-choice university entrance exams. For those
who work hard and follow the rules, there are fewer surprises and greater guarantees than
in the highly decentralized educational system in the US. Businesses in Japan have
traditionally encouraged paternal relationships between bosses and employees, with
bosses offering support for personal problems, living arrangements, and sometimes even
marriage partners. In the US, work and personal lives are widely considered separate
with recent legislation introduced to enforce individual privacy rights. Finally, the many
ritualistic catch phrases known as aisatsu in Japanese provide a degree of expected

comfort during instances of potentially awkward communication. In individualistic

58

cultures such as the US, the opposite is generally true: unconventional, ice-breaking
behavior is what puts people at greater ease (Burgoon, 1988).
Individualism

Perhaps the most salient and validated of Hofstede’s (1984) constructs has been
that of individualism and its contrast with collectivist or group-oriented behaviors
(Fernandez et al., 1997; Merritt, 2000; Schwartz, 1992; Smith et al., 1996). For the
purpose of this study, I will equate individualism with Markus and Kitayama’s (1991)
definition of independent self-construal, which emphasized: “attending to the self, the
appreciation of one’s differences from others, and the importance of asserting the self”
(p. 224). Collectivism in this study will equate to interdependent self-construal as defined
by Markus and Kitayama (1991), namely: “Attending to and fitting in with others and the
importance of harmonious interdependence with them” (p. 224). In no instance will there
be an assumption that all individuals in a given society are either collectivist or
individualist; neither will we assume that individuals can be classified as entirely
collectivist or individualist (Hendry, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The aim in this
study, as previously mentioned, is to explain and confirm overall perceptions of identity
rather than to argue for an absolute or highly defensible truth.

Given the history of the United States and its emphasis (real or perceived) on
personal freedom and individual rights, its rank as 1St among 39 countries on Hofstede’s
(1984) scale of individualism may not appear surprising. Japan, well known throughout
the world as a collectivist society, ranked 22'”, just below the mean and median on this
same scale. Highest in individuality were northern European and Anglophone countries;

lowest were Asian and South American countries. Although Hofstede (1984) predicted a

59

decline in individualism for the US. and an increase in individualism for Japan,
Fernandez et al. (1997) found approximately 20 years later that the US. had maintained
its place as the most individualistic nation among nine countries studied while Japan
remained essentially collectivist. There are signs that Japan is becoming increasingly
individualist (Takano & Osaka, 1999), although contemporary research continues to
support that Japan is still a fundamentally collectivist society (Befu, 2001; Hendry, 2003;
White, 2002). As Befu (2001) insisted: “To those discussing what they see as the
peculiarly Japanese social structure, no feature is more salient than the idea of group
orientation, or group-ism” (p. 20).

To measure individualism, Hofstede (1984) relied on responses to questions
positively related to personal time, freedom, and challenge, and negatively related to use
of skills, physical conditions, and training opportunities. The positive loadings stressed
each participant’s independence from the organization; the negative loadings stressed
what the company could do for the individual (Hofstede, 1984). In order to validate the
perceived differences between the generally individualistic society associated with the
US. and the largely collectivistic society associated with Japan, I will cite arguments
regarding (1) agricultural history; (2) family; (3) education; (4) friendship; (5) religion;
(6) business management; (7) face; and (8) language and communication styles.
Agricultural History

The Japanese predisposition toward collectivism may have a great deal to do with
its agricultural history. Tarnaki (as cited in Befu, 2001) traced Japanese collectivism to
the demands required for successful rice farming. The assurance of a proper harvest

created a tightly knit, perhaps even tyrannical community that prevented members from

60

expressing individuality and asserting their rights (Tamaki as cited in Befu, 2001). This
concept took many forms, from helping others save face to squelching individual
accomplishments and desires (Tamaki as cited in Befu, 2001). To pay too much positive
or negative attention to an individual could easily have produced feelings of superiority
or inferiority, potentially alienating the individual and detracting him or her from the
survival-oriented goals of the group.

The US. also had its roots in agriculture, although cultivating such crops as
wheat, corn, and potatoes seldom depended on the strict group endeavors needed for
successful rice farming. Befu (2001) referred to this agricultural practice as pastoralism,
where “what is important is the individual ownership of the herd and the grazing land” (p.
19). Until the 20th century most American farms were largely family owned and operated,
fortifying the ability for individuals to remain highly independent and self-sufficient. It
was, in fact, the independent American farmer to whom Thomas Jefferson looked and
whom he exalted as the early nation’s ideal citizen (Datesman et al., 1997).

Family

The Japanese ie or household, in contrast with most American families,
traditionally put the needs and continuation of the group above the needs of the individual
(Hendry, 2003). As Hendry (2003) stated: “Members were . . . expected to maintain the
status of their particular ie within the wider community, and an individual who threatened
to bring shame on the house could be cutoff from membership” (p. 27). This
collectivistic philosophy may be difficult to conceptualize for those of us who were
brought up in the US. where the majority of families, educators, and the media

emphasized--in theory if not always in practice--the importance of individualism,

61

diversity, and inalienable human rights (Spindler & Spindler, 1990). Kondo (1990)
summed up her difficulties as a Japanese American trying to fit into Japanese society:
In the face of dissonance and distress, I found that the desire for comprehensible

order in the form of “fitting in,” even if it meant suppression of and violence
against a self I had known in another context, was preferable to meaninglessness

(p. 12).

Hendry (2003) echoed this idea in terms of the ie, insisting that: “The continuing
entity was more important than any individual member, and individual members were
expected to find their raison d’étre in the maintenance and continuity of the ie” (p. 27).
Such an attitude toward the individual may sound inhumane or uncaring to many
individually oriented Westerners, but in practice, nothing could be further from the truth.
For those not growing up as part of a Japanese family, the sudden attempt to fit into
Japanese society may seem harsh or psychologically taxing. For a Japanese reared to fit
into the collectivistic nature of Japanese society, however, conformity is not without its
share of benefits. Far from exhibiting an irreverent sink-or-swim mentality, Japanese,
through their child rearing practices, may appear surprisingly permissive and coddling to
many Westerners. There is logic in this approach, however, as I will explain.

Although the ie was maintained with relatively strict principles, Japanese children
have been depicted in the literature as being allowed a strong degree of self-indulgence in
the home (Hendry, 2003; Nakane, 1970; Peak, 1993). Part of this self-indulgence may
have to do with the tendency for Japanese parents to establish a secure and comfortable
environment that a child will ultimately come to support and depend upon. The Japanese
concept of amae applies here and is frequently discussed in the literature regarding
Japanese families and other Japanese groups and organizations (Befu, 2001; Doi, 1986;

Hendry, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Amae is defined as “the sense of being

62

accepted and cared for by others in a passive relationship of reciprocal dependence”
(Markus & Kitayama as cited in Ellsworth, 1994, p. 38). In essence, Japanese families
and other groups offer affection, acceptance, and reassurance in exchange for one’s
loyalty and support. This concept is frequently applied to Japanese businesses and other
organizations and is often attributed to being a major component in Japanese collectivism
(Befir, 2001; Doi, 1986, Hendry, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Rather than applying rewards or pmrishment for individual behaviors, childrearing
practices in Japan tend to emphasize harmony, proper behavior, and being thoughtful of
others (Hendry, 2003). Japanese parents believe that children should be taught the
importance of a congenial environment by example so that, ideally, a child should be
happy and bright (Hendry, 2003). This cultural expectation becomes so ingrained that
Japanese children who exhibit such negative emotions as crying or sulking will generally
be referred to as okashii or strange (Hendry, 2003). Learning to maintain and not disrupt
the peace of a shared environment is perhaps the first lesson that Japanese children learn
in their collectivist education. By actually seeing the environment as something that one
must share and maintain with others, one learns to hesitate before disrupting it with
personal whims or unpleasant emotions. This lesson, assuming it has been learned, will
follow a child to nursery school or kindergarten but the transition from the self-
indulgence of home to the group-oriented life of school will require at least a modicum--
and sometimes a great deal--of personal adjustment.

Education
By nursery school Japanese children are subjected to what is commonly called

group life (shfidan seikatsu) in which self-indulgence gives way to thoughtful

63

consideration of others and the needs of the group (Hendry, 1989; Peak, 1993). During
this important transitional period, Japanese children learn to further distinguish between
uchi--behavior that is appropriate inside the home, and soto--behavior that is appropriate
outside the home. In simplest terms, self-indulgence becomes associated with the home
and yielding to the desires of the group becomes associated with school and the outside.
According to Makino (2002) the metaphors of uchi and soto “have cognitive implications
and underlie key concepts of the culture” (p. 29). Preschool is only the beginning.

Although the transition to preschool and to group life is not without its initial
difficulties, Japanese teachers are well prepared for the task. Allowing only the first week
to provide personalized attention, teachers strategically come to avoid paying special
attention to children who cry or request individual help (Hendry, 1989). Meanwhile,
children learn to see themselves as part of the group through their uniforms, identical
activities, and frequent cooperative efforts (Hendry, 1989). Teachers address the class as
a whole using the personalized collective mina-san, and “encourage the children to put
pressure on each other to cooperate in the activities arranged for them, so that stragglers
are urged to pull themselves together for the sake of the whole class” (Hendry, 1989, p.
169)

By junior high school, the concept of group life becomes so prevalent among
Japanese students that few, if any, will share knowledge of their grades or scholastic
achievements for fear of making others feel inferior. Likewise, students are often slow to
answer questions in class so as not to appear showy or more intelligent than the rest of
the group (McVeigh, 1995). In contrast to group-oriented Japanese students, Datesman

et. al (1997) observed: “American students are encouraged to express their own opinions

64

in class and think for themselves, a reflection of the American values of individual
freedom and self-reliance” (p. 177). Furthermore, American students exhibit few qualms
about discussing their grades or personal achievements with classmates or peers.

Finally, a duty system is enacted in Japan where children take turns at various
responsibilities that include leading, representing, and disciplining others (Hendry, 1989).
One example that continues through high school is the allocation of responsibilities for
cleaning and often maintaining the school (Ellington, 2001). Homerooms delegate times
and responsibilities for cleaning hallways, bathrooms, chalkboards, and classrooms.
Entire days are sometimes set aside for more thorough cleaning while athletic clubs are
often responsible for maintaining their respective fields and play areas (Bussler, 1998).
By contrast, American schools almost uniformly hire custodians or custodial staffs
(Bussler, 1998).

Friendship

Maeda and Ritchie (2003) studied the values of friendship among college students
in Japan and the United States. Their conclusions were that true to previous findings in
collectivist cultures, Japanese college students valued interdependent relationships where
personal problems could be easily discussed with fiiends who would listen
sympathetically (Maeda & Ritchie, 2003). Maeda & Ritchie (2003) explained that
members of collectivist cultures viewed the problems of an individual as potentially
affecting the entire group and thus saw reason to help others overcome their difficulties.
American college students, on the other hand, sometimes helped each other through hard
times but tended to view “too much dependence on others. . .as personal weakness”

(Maeda & Ritchie, 2003, p. 591). The purpose of fiiendship in cultures low in uncertainty

65

avoidance such as the United States has long been associated with providing stimulation
or excitement rather than comfort (Hofstede, 1984). With the exception of some Latin
based cultures, most individualist cultures tended to rank low in uncertainty avoidance as
well (Hofstede, 1984).
Religion

Odaka (as cited in Befu, 2001) suggested that pantheistic religious practices
helped account for Japanese group-isrn. Calling this religious-based collectivism a
destiny-sharing corporate community (ummei kyodotai), Odaka considered its concept as
key in the organization of Japanese companies as well. The Japanese term for God,
translated kami, “is also applied to natural objects regarded as sacred, such as trees,
mountains, seas, birds, and animals, as well as to some human beings, usually but not
always after they have died” (Hendry, 2003, p. 128). The view that humans, animals, and
natural objects are all part of something greater speaks to a collective ideology that
contrasts heavily with the American Protestant view in which individuals are expected to
establish and maintain a personal relationship with God (Balmer & Winner, 2002).

Comparatively speaking, American Protestantism can be seen as much more
individualistic than even Catholicism. While Catholic practice encourages prayer to a
multitude of saints who serve as intercessors (Gillis, 1999), Protestant theology stresses
the importance of the individual by insisting on a one-on-one relationship with the
Creator (Balmer & Winner, 2002). Christian evangelism, whether Protestant or Catholic,
emphasizes the importance of salvation for each individual soul. So great is the concern
for individuals that many Christian evangelists may see their life’s mission as bringing

their teachings and beliefs to one person at a time.

66

Business Management

Hofstede (1984)suggested that: “More collectivist societies call for greater
emotional dependence of members on their organizations” (p. 152). According to Befu
(2001), Japanese business management has prided itself on what are referred to as “the
three sacred treasures” (p. 24): lifelong employment, seniority, and enterprise unionism.
Each of these concepts is inherently paternalistic and collectivist in nature, providing
employees with just treatment and concern for their welfare while simultaneously
inspiring concern for the well-being of the company. As Befu (2001) suggested:
“Underlying these [three] pillars are elements of Japanese group orientation such as
communitarianism, treatment of members as whole persons, mutual trust, emphasis on
harmony, and the like” (p.24).

Hofstede (1984) suggested that disharmony between a company and its
employees may result in a shift toward individualism. The tendency for American
companies to focus on short-term profits, hire employees on a contractual or consultative
basis, and the frequency with which American employees move from job to job without
stigma, suggests a highly individualistic society, especially when compared to Japan. The
American tendency to herald the successful entrepreneur above the organization man is
another indication of individualism in American work culture (Datesman et al., 1997).

Hofstede (1984) noted that many organizational theories originating in the United
States emphasized extreme individualistic tendencies that often made them less relevant
to managers in other countries. Japanese organizational theories such as Total Quality
Management (TQM) and Theory Z (proposed by a Japanese American based on Japanese

principles) emphasize the overall culture of an organization while many American

67

theories stress a reward system based on productivity (Welch, 2005). The idea of up or
out, meaning that an employee will either be promoted or fired after a given term, is an
American concept that may be viewed as unusually harsh if not counterproductive in a
collectivist society such as Japan. This is not to say, however, that these ideologies have
not made their way to Japan (Klein, 1992).

In recent years, the Japanese recession and the inflow of foreign capital into
Japanese companies have begun to change some traditional practices. According to White
(2002), only about one quarter of the workforce has jobs that are considered lifetime
employment. Meanwhile, the percentage of workers who would like to change jobs
increased from 4.5% in 1968 to 14% in the 19905 (White, 2002). Japan may not exhibit
the same degree of individualism that is commonly associated with the US, but there
appears to be a trend in that direction.

Face

Ting-Toomey (1988) asserted that in individualist cultures such as the United
States, it is of great importance to maintain consistency between a private and public self-
image. In collectivist cultures such as Japan, however, the self can vary--sometimes
considerably-~based on the relationship or situation (Ting-Toomey, 1988). A Japanese,
for example, is likely to act quite differently with a boss than with a subordinate, or with
family at home than with a client at a restaurant. Americans too may make slight speech
or behavioral modifications depending on a given situation or relationship, but the rules
will be far less defined or recognizable than for a Japanese. In collectivist cultures, the
self is “bounded by mutual role obligations and duties and it is structured by a patterned

process of give-and-take reciprocal face work negotiation” (p. 216).

68

Individualistic cultures such as the United States tend to be much more concemed
with self-face maintenance while collectivistic cultures such as Japan tend to be
interested in self-face maintenance and other-face maintenance (Ting-Toomey, 1988,
Oetzel & Ting- T oomey, 2002). That Japanese students refrain from showing off their
knowledge in class or sharing academic successes with their peers are two examples of
other-face maintenance mentioned previously. As Ting-Toomey (1988) concluded:
“Individualistic cultures value autonomy, choices, and negative-face need, while
collectivistic cultures value interdependence, reciprocal obligations, and positive-face
need” (p. 224).

Group identity is generally quite important to the Japanese. Whether the
association is with family, friends, school, or work, the face of one can be a good or bad
reflection on the face of everyone. Personal shame threatens to become collective shame.
To remove shame from the group, political and business leaders have been known to
extricate themselves through resignation and on extreme occasions even suicide.
Sometimes the resignation is symbolic; that is, even if the leader has not committed any
personal wrongdoing, the fact that wrongdoing took place under his or her guise is a
shameful reflection on the leader. Casting public blame on others is considered
dishonorable.

Extricating oneself from a group in Japan carries with it a loss of personal
identity. According to Doi (1986) it is very difficult for an individual to disassociate from
the family or group and to act on his or her own initiative. Acting independently is

considered a betrayal among Japanese; thus, individuals may be ashamed to do anything

69

on their own (Doi, 1986). Such a statement reflects powerfully on just how collectivist a
culture Japan may be.
Language and Communication Styles

A number of studies indicated that individuals hailing from collectivist or
interdependent cultures such as Japan tend to use much more indirect styles of
communication than people from individualist cultures such as the United States
(Gudykunst, et al., 1996; Kim, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ting-Toomey, 1988).
Lakoff and Johnson (as cited in Ting-Toomey, 1988) suggested that indirect
communication often involved using roundabout words, metaphor, euphemism, and
hinting strategies. In a high context culture such as Japan, facial expressions and
incomplete sentences help lessen the need for direct verbal unpleasantrress (Ting-
Toomey, 1988). In fact, in collectivist cultures, indirect communication is generally seen
as a sign of strength, maturity, and social competence (Miyahara, 1999).

Indirect communication may be further intensified in Japan because of its
homogeneity and predisposition toward being a high context culture (Ting-Toomey,
1988). High context cultures tend to be homogeneous and collectivist; individuals in low
context societies generally understand cultural cues to the extent that verbal
communication often becomes secondary or unnecessary (Ting-Toomey, 1988). In low
context, heterogeneous cultures such as the United States, verbal communication is more
necessary and there is a preference for explicit, rather than implicit, communication
(Ting-Toomey, 1988). Low context cultures cannot afford the luxury of shared subtleties

(Ting-Toomey, 1988).

70

Anger and bad news may be difficult to express for many Japanese (Hara & Kim,
2004). As Nakayarna insisted: “In the case of Japan, when individuals have some kind of
message they feel hesitant to utter, they often use indirect or ambiguous expressions from
which others will be able to inter his or her true intention, because of over-thoughtful
consideration for others” (as cited in Hara & Kim, 2004, p. 5). According to Markus and
Kitayama (1991), many Japanese refrain from exhibiting anger because of the potential
for disrupting harmony or threatening an interdependent self. In this sense, anger directed
against another may be viewed as anger against the self.

Anger in Japan is not without outlets. Interdependent societies such as Japan and
Korea tend to allow for a significant release of stress through exercise and occasional
(though sometimes frequent) outings centered on alcohol consumption. In addition, it
may be said that anger in vertical societies such as Japan is released more freely from top
down; that is, superiors may exhibit anger or demands in a way that is less common or
acceptable in societies or organizations with a more horizontal power structure. Sukle
(1994) added credence to this tension-release theory in a study he conducted on Japanese
directives or verbal mandates. According to his research on a white-collar Japanese
family of four, those members who were considered of higher status expressed
approximately twice as many directives as they received (Sukle, 1994). While this
individual case study cannot speak for the whole of Japan, it may serve to illustrate that
superiors release certain tensions (here in the form of directives) to inferiors much more
readily than inferiors might toward superiors (Sukle, 1994). Anyone who has noted the
sempai (senior) kohai (junior) relationships in Japan, and especially in Japanese athletic

clubs, will note this behavior is quite common.

71

Summary: Individualism

In this section I have tried to support the commonly held assumption that Japan is
a collectivistic society while the US. is highly individualistic. The agrarian histories of
both countries suggest that rice cultivation in Japan required strict group cooperation
while the corn and wheat harvests associated with the United States allowed for
individual families to do their own farming. The Japanese ie structure has long held the
continuation of the household to be more important than any individual member while
the American family has tended to focus on individual happiness. The educational system
in Japan systematically emphasizes the importance of group life (shfidan sekatsu), while
American educators tend to encourage students to find their individual strengths and
passions through interest tests and developmental assignments that allow for personal
exploration.

Maeda and Ritchie’s (2003) study emphasized that fiiendship in Japan was
largely based on comfort and concern for others while fiiendship among American
college students was often based on the stimulation one could find in the company of
others. In terms of religion, the pantheistic associations with the Japanese term kami
(God) helped to explain a collectivistic worldview, while the emphasis on the individual
soul that is common throughout Christianity tended to reinforce individualism in the
United States. Business management in Japan has long stressed paternalism, lifelong
employment, seniority, and enterprise unionism, all of which can be linked to a
collectivistic philosophy, contractual employment, separation of work and home life: and
the lack of stigma associated with changing jobs are all indicative of individualism in the

United States. Finally, face concern for others and indirect communication were shown to

72

be hallmarks in Japan where group harmony takes on great significance. In the time-is-

money business environment associated with the US, other-face concern often takes a

back seat to productivity and efficiency. Phrases abound in the US. such as deal with it,

get over it, suck it up, and If you can 't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
Masculinity

Perhaps the most problematic of Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values was
masculinity. For the sake of simplicity, masculinity in Hofstede’s (1984) investigation
can be related to competition and ego while femininity may be summed up as nurturance.
Many people familiar with both Japanese and American culture rrright agree that each
country exhibits some characteristics that are masculine and others that are comparatively
feminine, and that depending on the category, either country can be seen as more
masculine or more feminine than the other. In some areas, however, there is a somewhat
comparative degree of machismo. The Japanese samurai and the American cowboy, for
example, have served as a symbol of masculinity in each respective country. Likewise,
both Japan and the US. can be seen as quite competitive in terms of the values they place
on business and economic success.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Hofstede’s (1984) measurement of masculinity placed
both Japan and the US. as above the mean in terms of masculinity; Japan ranked lSt and
the US. 1311‘ in a field of 39 countries. In this sense, masculinity served as the only one of
Hofstede’s (1984) four values where the US. and Japan were on the same side of the
mean. Closer examination of these two countries, however, may reveal certain very
different characteristics associated with nurturance, which Hofstede (1984) defined as a

feminine characteristic. This section, unlike the previous sections on power distance,

73

uncertainty avoidance, and individualism, does not reveal a definitive contrast between
Japan and the US, but makes the reader aware of certain areas in which the US. is likely
to show more masculine tendencies, and others where Japan may display greater
masculine tendencies. The subcategories in this section will include: (1) fiiendship; (2)
cultivation of the arts; (3) language; and (4) attitudes about gender in the workplace.
Friendship
In terms of fiiendships, Maeda and Ritchie (2003) concluded that Japanese
college students were much more nurturing with fiiends than were Americans.
Americans, they observed, were willing to listen to a fiiend’s problems but often
regarded this kind of exchange as whining and an undesirable sign of personal weakness
(Maeda & Ritchie, 2003). The American tendency toward supreme independence has
been readily noted in the many loner heroes depicted in American films and television
programs (Datesman, et al., 1997). Such solitary, unmarried heroes include but are not
limited to: Rambo, Commando, Superman, the Lone Ranger, Charlie’s Angels, Shaft,
Kojak, Wonder Woman, Spider Man, and most of the roles portrayed by John Wayne,
Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Sylvester Stallone. Wierzbicka (1994)
cited Bellah et. a1 (1985) who suggested that Alexis de Toqueville’s observations
regarding American fiiendship rang true to the present:
In the mobile and egalitarian society of the United States, people could meet more
easily and their intercourse was more open, but the ties between them were more
likely to be casual and transient . . . In the new, mobile middle-class world, one
autonomous individual had to deal with other autonomous individuals in
situations where one’s self-esteem and prospects depended on one’s ability to
impress and negotiate. Friendliness became almost compulsory as a means of

assuaging the difficulties of these interactions, while friendship in the classical
sense became more and more difficult (pp. 117-118).

74

Maeda and Ritchie (2003) also noted that where fiiendship in Japan and other
collectivist societies was often based on feelings of comfort and intimacy, American
friendships were largely based on the stimulation that could be garnered between
individuals. Of course, friendship takes place in many forms in both Japan and the US,
and the trends noted by Maeda and Ritchie (2003) and others are not meant to speak for
entire nations by any means. Bellah et a1. (1985) extrapolated on the idea that American
fiiendships often lacked a comrrritrnent to the altruism or the common good:

In a culture dominated by expressive and utilitarian individualism, it is easy for us

to understand the components of pleasure and usefulness, but we have difficulty

seeing the point of considering fiiendship in terms of common moral
commitments. For Aristotle and his successors, it was precisely the moral
component of friendship that made it the indispensable basis of a good society.

For it is one of the main duties of fiiends to help one another to be better persons:

one must hold up a standard for one’s friends and be able to count on a true friend

to do likewise (p. 115).

Friendships in both Japan and the US. are likely to be based on some
combination of nurturance and stimulation (if not competition), but it is interesting to
note that the popularly held view of American friendship and its predisposition toward
competition rather than nurturance has indeed been supported by the literature. Tannen
(1990) discussed the tendency for American men to one-up each other in myriad ways,
while the principal reason behind most female friendships centered on bonding and
closeness. Interestingly Japan, by far the most masculine country on Hofstede’s (1984)
scale, is decidedly more feminine in terms of fiiendship. The same may also be true
regarding cultivation of the arts.

Cultivation of the Arts

Benedict’s (1946) classic anthropological study of Japan, “The Chrysanthemum

and the Sword,” depicted Japan as a nation of dichotomous contradictions:

75

The Japanese are, to the highest degree, both aggressive and unaggressive, both
militaristic and aesthetic, both insolent and polite, rigid and adaptable, submissive
and resentful of being pushed around, loyal and treacherous, brave and timid,
conservative and hospitable to new ways. (p. 2).

The title chosen by Benedict speaks volumes in terms of contrast, choosing as
Japanese symbols the highly nurtured Chrysanthemum (feminine), and the violently
aggressive and ultimately destructive sword associated with the samurai warriors
(masculine). Perhaps most interesting to the American--whose understanding of
machismo likely excludes floral cultivation-~is that artistic endeavors (a.k.a. nurturance)
have long been associated with the ideal Japanese warrior.

Hendry (2003) noted that the Japanese military was historically the greatest
patron of such Japanese arts as kabuki and n6 theatre, puppet shows, and “various forms
of popular music, dancing, and singing” (p. 189). Even today it is common for Japanese
men to dedicate themselves to any of the above arts or to calligraphy, gardening, or
bonsai cultivation (Hendry, 2003). Flower arrangement (ikebana) and the Japanese tea
ceremony tend to remain largely female endeavors, but can certainly be appreciated by
men.

Within the US, masculine hobbies are frequently associated with sports,
automobiles, and construction. If these endeavors do not allow for active competition,
knowledge of these subjects allow for outright displays of superiority. Readily citing
batting averages, engine capacities, and the advantages of various brickwork joints are
masculine endeavors indeed. Meanwhile, hobbies associated with nurturing and
appreciation such as theatre, art, and music have little use in the world of the middle or

working class American man, save the occasional opportunity to display one’s superior

knowledge of these subjects. Lee (2005) noted that in a recent interview with 30-40

76

straight men across the US. between the ages of 20 and 60, each instantly found the idea
of two straight men attending an art exhibit together as “peculiar” (p. 2). The outright
appreciation or cultivation of what might be considered beautiful or carry an undercurrent
of homoeroticism may become suspect in the world of the American heterosexual male
(Lee, 2005).

Language

Unlike the English language, Japanese differentiates between masculine and
feminine roles in terms of its pronouns, word endings, and anticipated degree of
politeness. Several first-person pronouns exist in Japanese, most of which denote
familiarity or hierarchy for men. The only truly gender-neutral first person pronouns are
watashi, watakushi, and sometirnesjibun, all of which are somewhat formal. Aside from
these pronouns, the only commonly used pronoun that is distinctly feminine is atashi.
Meanwhile men have several pronouns to choose from, most of which are considered
particularly masculine and which are used primarily between men in informal situations.
When second-person pronouns are used (as opposed to the common practice of using a
person’s name), men usually use kimi or omae while women are generally expected to
use the more formal anata (Mizutani & Mizutani, 1984).

Muzutani and Mizutani (1984) suggested that women generally use the somewhat
cushioning term wa after verbs and certain adjectives when they precede the emphatic yo
or the tag ne; thus where a man might say ii-yo (it’s good!) or ii-ne (it’s good, isn’t it?),
women would generally say ii-wayo and ii-wane respectively. Some variation has been
known to exist across regions and among gay and lesbian populations; people from the

Kansai area have chided men from the Kanto area for sounding effeminate while Kanto

77

residents have accused Kansai women of sounding manly (R. Masuda, personal
communication, March 18, 2005). In addition, traditionally feminine speech forms have
often served as indicators for gay men to recognize one another (McClelland, 2000).

Japanese rules of hierarchy determine which of two parties should defer to the
other, and thus honor the superior with a more polite form of language. Japanese etiquette
clearly states: (1) younger defers to older; (2) female defers to male; (3) student defers to
teacher; and (4) seller defers to buyer (Condon, 1984). Since women generally defer to
men, it is relatively common for women to use polite language with men while men tend
to use plain, sometimes terse language with women. Mizutani and Mizutani (1984)
indicated several gender-based examples where women were likely to use more polite
verb endings while men used plain verb endings.

American English is not only egalitarian between the sexes but it has made for a
plethora of sensitive--some might say nurturing-changes over the past few decades. The
prevalence of political correctness has emphasized to the greatest extent possible,
equality and sensitivity along gender, racial, religious, age, and ability lines. The word
woman has replaced the popular use of the word girl for all female adults; the phrase
differently-awed has replaced the formerly pejorative term handicapped; and so on. The
nationwide movement to change the language has been evident in schools, the workplace,
the media, and just about everywhere imaginable. In terms of nurturance and promoting
equality, especially between the sexes, American English might be considered much

more feminine than Japanese.

78

Attitudes about Gender in the Workplace

In spite of Japan’s Equal Employment Opportunity Law (EEOL) of 1986, women
in the Japanese workforce remained largely in supportive positions to men (Axtell et al.,
1997; Befu, 2001; Hendry, 2003; White, 2002). According to Lam (1993) women were
generally interviewed only after the pool of male applicants were exhausted, and if hired,
were often put on a separate track from the men. Befu (2001) noted: “Women are absent
from much of the hierarchy of the corporate structure that is taken as the prime
manifestation of the Japanese group-ism. Most women are at the bottom rung in
corporate structure or they are at home” (p. 44).

Japanese women have made some advancement in the past two decades, but
change has been quite slow, especially in comparison with their counterparts in the
United States. Hendry (2003) limited her examples of workplace advancements for
women in Japan to the nation’s first female governor in 2000 and first commercial airline
pilot in 1997. Although women in the US. have by no means reached a point of total
equality with men in regard to positions of highest prominence, American women have
made considerable forays in recent years. While only 3% of airline pilots and flight
engineers were women in 2003, 28% of all lawyers, 30% of all physicians and surgeons,
and 66% of all psychologists in the United States were women (U .S. Department of
Labor, n.d.). In addition, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (n.d.) reported that
between 1996 and 2002, “the number of women governors jumped from one to five, the
number of women in the US. Senate grew from nine to 13, and the number of women in

the US. House increased from 49 to 60.”

79

Summary: Masculinity

In this section I have attempted to show that Japan and the US. may both display
comparatively masculine and feminine cultural values. While Japan tends to be more
nurturing in terms of friendship and men’s involvement in the arts, the US. has generally
been perceived as more inclusive and egalitarian in terms of its politically correct and
gender-neutral language and its progress in providing increased access and more equal
treatment for women in the workplace. Unlike the first three work-related values set forth
by Hofstede (1984) where Japan and the United States were shown to differ dramatically,

masculinity must be viewed with respect to various subcategories.

80

CHAPTER 4
METHODS

This qualitative investigation explores the acculturation identity, cultural identity,
and values of Japanese undergraduates at a large Midwestern university. In this chapter I
discuss the research methods employed in the study, including type of design, sample
selection, data collection procedures, data collection analysis, role of the researcher,
institutional research approval, transferability, limitations, and theoretical lenses.

Type of Design

I asked participants in this study to complete a survey instrument for measuring
acculturation identity (Barry, 2001), respond to demographic questions, submit to an oral
interview, self-select an acculturation identity, and draw a picture to represent their
cultural or mixed-cultural identity. Interviews were conducted primarily in English with
opportunities to use Japanese. Details and rationale are as follows:

As a way to help determine acculturation identity, I asked participants to complete
the East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM) proposed by Barry (2001) as an
improvement on Chataway and Berry’s (1989) scale for Chinese and Korean students
living in Canada. The EAAM was chosen for its direct applicability to East Asians, its
relative simplicity, and highly proven degree of validity (Barry, 2001). In the pilot study
(Brender, 2004), I also found a high degree of consistency between EAAM results and
participant self-selection. The EAAM consisted of 29 questions employing a seven-point
Likert scale. It was ultimately used to cross—validate participant self-selection of
acculturation identity along with researcher-determined acculturation identity based on

inductive reasoning.

81

Demographic questions targeted gender, age, hometown, major, year in school,
amount of time at US. postsecondary institutions, and amount of time at US. primary
and secondary schools. Participants were also asked to estimate the percentage of their
free time that was spent with Japanese, with other East Asians, and with non-East Asians.
The demographic questions served to assist in writing biographical sketches and to aid in
suggesting possible correlations with acculturation identity for future studies.

Open-ended interview questions were used to “minimize the imposition of
predetermined responses” (Patton, 2002, p. 353). Interview questions were designed to
solicit open-ended responses that would relate largely to acculturation identity and
cultural identity. Acculturation identity questions targeted perceptions of self, free-time
activities, and social behavior as a way to understand each individual’s preferences for
Japanese, American, or other cultures. Cultural identity questions focused on subtopics
from Hofstede’s (1984) values: family, education, friendship, business, male-female
relationships, etc. Opinions garnered on these subjects were used to support or refute
Hofstede’s (1984) conclusions about opposing values in Japan and the US. They were
also indicative of individual preference for Japanese and/or American cultural values and
helped to determine individual acculturation identity.

After the interview, Berry’s (1986) Four Varieties of Acculturation were
presented in the form of a grid divided into quadrants. Respondents were asked to place
themselves on the grid based on their identification with American culture and their
identification with Japanese culture. As a way to discuss the issue of maintaining fused or
alternating Japanese and American identities, respondents were also asked to draw a

picture that would represent their cultural or mixed cultural identity. As an example, I

82

presented two Venn diagrams representing alternating and fused identities. Participants
were encouraged to be as creative as possible. The Venn diagrams presented as examples
are depicted in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Venn diagrams depicting alternation and fusion

Japanese American Japanese
Identity Identity Identity

 

Altemation Fusion

The interviews were conducted principally in English, although I offered
opportunities for respondents to use Japanese. One advantage for using English was that
in the pilot study (Brender, 2004), participants frequently expressed that speaking English
lessened the power distance between themselves and others. As one respondent noted in
the pilot study, “English . . . makes me feel like I can talk to anybody equally, even a
professor, or friends, or younger kids” (Brender, 2004, p. 32). Japanese, however, was
employed on occasion to note potential behavioral shifts that were germane to the study.
Some participants used words or phrases in Japanese to express themselves more clearly;
none spoke Japanese exclusively for more than a few minutes at a time.

Another rationale for using English was that Japanese are likely to respond more
directly in English because of the common Japanese perception that the English language
and American culture lend themselves to more direct communication (Reischauer, 1981).
In addition, those who speak a non-native language are more likely to be direct as a way

to be understood; the art of being indirect or ambiguous is much more difficult in a

83

foreign language, especially since one cannot rely on non-verbal cues to be understood
cross-culturally (Burgoon, 1988). In addition, since the United States is commonly
identified as a low-context culture in which verbal directness takes precedence over non-
verbal cues (Burgoon, 1988), Japanese respondents may find themselves compelled to be
more explicit when speaking English.

A pilot interview (not to be confused with the pilot study) was conducted to
determine whether questions should be rephrased or omitted. Special consideration was
given to making questions easily understandable to the target audience while not
exceeding a two-hour time limit.

Sample Selection

The campus targeted for this study, a research I university with an undergraduate
population of over 35,000, claimed an international student population of approximately
six percent (Office of International Students & Scholars, 2004). In the fall semester of
2004, 68 Japanese undergraduates were in attendance; 58% were women and 42% were
men (Office for International Students & Scholars, 2004). After significant attempts to
recruit participants for the present study, 12 volunteers were secured. Eight were women
and four were men. In the prior year, seven Japanese undergraduates had volunteered for
a pilot study; of that number, five were women and two were men.

As a means of recruitment for the current study, I sent personalized e-mails to
undergraduate students with common Japanese surnames (or surname prefixes) who were
accessible on the university web site. Excluded were students with non-Japanese first
names and non-Japanese mailing addresses. I also recruited participants through Japanese

contacts who had participated in the pilot study or the present investigation. A faculty

84

member recommended one interviewee. The majority of respondents were attained via
personalized e-mail requests.

With an objective of providing three biographical sketches representing each of
the four-acculturation identities (integrated, assimilated, separated, and marginalized) and
a balance of gender that reflected the Japanese student population (58% female, 42%
male), I drew eight respondents from the present investigation and four from the pilot
study (Brender, 2004). With participants representing a mixture of gender and
acculturation identity, Patton’s (1980) criteria for purposeful sampling appeared to be
met: “Decision makers and evaluators think through what cases they could learn the most
from, and those are the cases that are selected for study” (p. 101).

For chapters six through nine, which look to perceptions of Japanese and
American cultural identities, the 12 students recruited for the present investigation were
used almost exclusively. Data from the pilot study, when referenced, were cited
accordingly.

Data Collection Procedures

After formal introductions, I identified myself as a doctoral candidate who had
spent some time in Japan and who understood the difficulty of adjusting to a foreign
country. I explained that negative experiences were as natural as positive experiences,
and that I would by no means be offended by anything negative said about the US. My
interests, I made clear, were in obtaining honest and sincere answers that could be of
benefit to future Japanese students who came to the US.

Before each interview, I read the consent form aloud, asked if the respondent had

any questions or concerns, and then asked him or her to sign it. Each respondent was

85

asked to provide a second signature that granted permission for the interview to be
recorded. When the consent form was signed and dated, I gave the respondent a copy of
the agreement and then asked him or her to fill out the East Asian Acculturation Measure
(Barry, 2001). A short section containing demographic questions followed.

Twenty-nine questions were asked from the established protocol, although not
necessarily verbatim. Follow-up questions were frequently asked where appropriate.
Upon completion of the protocol, I presented and explained the bicultural grid proposed
by Berry et al. (1986). Each respondent was asked to choose an area on the grid that best
represented his or her cultural identity. No border or dividing line could be chosen.
Finally, each respondent was asked to depict his or her cultural identity in the form of a
drawing. Although two Venn diagrams representing fused and alternating identities were
presented, each respondent was encouraged to be as creative as possible in depicting his
or her cultural identity.

The interviews took place in a large cafeteria, coffee shop, or university
conference room depending on convenience or the respondent’s preference. Gilbert
(2000) noted that public and social places put her Japanese participants at ease and
allowed them to take on a conversational tone. My experiences with interviewing
Japanese students led me to a similar conclusion (Brender, 2004). Coffee and tea houses
abound in Japan and are quite commonly associated with being venues for extraordinarily
long conversations. Travel books on Japan frequently point out that the high prices
charged at cafes entitle patrons to remain seated as long as they wish. Since an invitation

to visit a personal residence suggests a degree of heightened formality in Japan,

86

understanding venues that are comfortable for Japanese may be important for conducting
effective interviews.

Most interview sessions lasted between 90 minutes and two hours. No time limit
was enforced for those who wished to continue talking for longer periods.

Data Analysis Procedures
Within a few days of each interview, I wrote up field notes and tabulated each
respondent’s score on the East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM). On a spreadsheet,
next to the pseudonym of each participant, I entered demographic information, self-
determined acculturation identity, and the corresponding acculturation identity scores as
determined by the EAAM. From the 19 total participants, I chose 3 who best represented
each of the four-acculturation identity types. Of these 12, 8 had self-selected an
acculturation identity that matched the acculturation identity determined by the EAAM.
In each case, I determined acculturation identity based on inductive reasoning that was
later, at least in part, substantiated in the biographical sketches I wrote.

I transcribed each interview. In determining acculturation identity type, I looked
to each transcription and jotted notes alongside statements and field notes that might
substantiate or refute a given acculturation identity. I then wrote biographical sketches in
a creative fashion, intertwining quotes with observations and descriptions. I kept each
biographical sketch to approximately four pages to provide balance and to maintain as
much reader interest as possible. An introduction and conclusion were added to the
biographical sketches with transitional paragraphs.

For data analysis in chapters six through nine, I pasted each interview into a

qualitative software program and coded them according to Hofstede’s (1984) work-

87

related values and other emerging themes. In my pilot study (Brender, 2004), I found
reason to use such polarized categories as hierarchy versus egalitarianism, collectivism
versus individualism, structure versus freedom, ambiguity versus clarity, and quietness
versus aggressiveness. I later discovered that each of these categories translated well into
Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values. I thus coded my new data into categories
reflecting power distance (hierarchy versus egalitarianism), uncertainty avoidance
(structure versus freedom), individualism (collectivism versus individualism), and
masculinity (quietness versus aggressiveness). I later generated reports for each of the
respective four categories, plugged them into the software program again and further
divided each into subcategories such as family, religion, education, business, etc. I began
by using the subcategories for each value used in Chapter 3, but frequently resorted to
grounded theory. Finally, I converted each of these reports into word documents fiom
which I further arranged the quotes and began analysis and writing. On occasion, certain
passages were recalled and incorporated that had not been appropriately coded
beforehand.
Role of the Researcher

I lived and worked in Japan for almost three years between 1984 and 1989. While
working as a high school teacher and consultant at the Yokohama City Board of
Education, I studied Japanese, read voraciously about Japanese culture, and interacted
more fiequently with Japanese than with non-Japanese. As a result of this background, I
was able to present a relatively informed understanding of Japan. It was important,
however, to make known that I was by no means an expert on Japanese culture (the

somewhat rusty Japanese I sometimes interj ected was likely testament enough!) and that

88

much of what I had learned was likely outdated. As Glesne (1999) warned: “You do not
come as an expert or authority. If you are so perceived, then your respondents will not
feel encouraged to be as forthcoming as they can be” (p. 41).

Because suppression of honesty and emotional expression are common features
associated with maintaining group harmony in Japan, I encouraged each participant to
speak as honestly and frankly as possible. Appealing to altruistic tendencies, I suggested
that frank and honest answers could be of help to future Japanese students in the US. As
a foreigner who once lived in Japan, I relayed my understanding of the ups and downs of
the acculturation process and that not all feelings about one’s host culture were likely to
be positive. In the interviews I conducted, there were relatively few instances where I felt
any of the students had been less than straightforward with me.

Institutional Research Board Approval

I applied for and received general permission from the institutional research board
to conduct the present study begimring in August 2005. I also received human subject
approval for the pilot study in 2004.

Transferability

The findings in the current study may be transferable to Japanese students at other
institutional types, in other regions, in other countries, and across time. Many of the
general findings may also apply to other international students, especially those hailing
from Pacific Rim countries. In addition to serving university professionals seeking an
understanding of Japanese and other East Asian students, this study may be highly
relevant for Western organizations that hire or seek to hire Japanese educated at Western

colleges and universities. The study may also be informative for Japanese companies that

89

hire or seek to hire Japanese nationals who have studied in the US. or other Western
countries.
Limitations

Patton (1990) noted, “There are no perfect research designs. There are always
trade-offs” (p. 162). As with any qualitative study conducted at a single institution, the
findings in this study are not necessarily generalizable to other students or other
institutions. That the targeted institution was a large, research I university located in the
Midwest may make it less transferable to postsecondary institutions of different sizes,
with different entrance requirements, with different missions (e.g., religious), or in
different regions of the country.

Classifying students according to acculturation identity types is a slippery slope.
Although nearly half of the participants’ self identification matched the acculturation
identity determined on the East Asian Acculturation Measure (Barry, 2001), more than
half did not. Four students self-identifying as integrated, scored highest in the assimilated
category on the EAAM. My own assessment, which relied on trends that supported
Japanese or US. American work-related values, was undoubtedly colored by Hofstede’s
framework as well as my own personal biases. Acculturation identity is clearly subject to
change over time, and sometimes according to one’s mood at a given time. For this
reason, answers to questions on the East Asian Acculturation Measure were likely subject
to mood and subjective comparison while answers to interview questions may have been
subject to mood or to individual reaction to me as an interviewer. That most interviews
and observations were limited to single meetings may also have prejudiced findings and

interpretations.

9O

Since I am a white, American male in his early forties with a modicum of
understanding about Japanese culture and the Japanese language, respondents may have
reacted differently toward me than to a woman, a younger or older person, a Japanese
national, someone from a country other than Japan or the U.S., or someone who knew
more or less than I appeared to know about Japan. The interviews may also have been
different if they had been conducted entirely in Japanese.

One final consideration is that all of the students interviewed for this study
completed their primary or secondary education in Japan prior to 2002 when the Japanese
Educational Reform Act went into effect. Because many have voiced concerns over the
newer, more relaxed cuniculurn (Ellington, 2005), it is possible that in the very near
future, Japanese students who come to US. colleges and universities may express very
different outlooks and opinions from those who took part in the current investigation.

Theoretical Lenses

In supporting many of the claims in this study, I took a highly eclectic approach,
borrowing from psychology, anthropology, social psychology, sociology, cross-cultural
communication, religious studies, business management, and linguistics. The main
framework of this study combines a bicultural measure proposed by Barry, a professor
emeritus of psychology in Canada, with the work-related values proposed by Hofstede, a
professor emeritus of Organizational Anthropology in the Netherlands. Hofstede drew
from a number of disciplines himself, touting an MS. in mechanical engineering and a
Ph.D. in social psychology before becoming a fellow at the Institute for Research on
Intercultural Cooperation, and Extra-Mural Fellow at the CentER for Economic

Research.

91

I chose to write my findings chapters in ethnographic form, a genre associated
with anthropology, in order to examine the culture of a given group of individuals who
shared a similar origin and sinrilar relocation from that origin. As Cresswell (2003)
suggested, ethnographic inquiry should be employed to “learn about broad culture-
sharing behavior of individuals or groups” (p. 183). In addition, I wanted to share my
understanding and interpretations of Japanese culture to the uninitiated, which fit with
Glesne’s (1999) view of ethnographic research: “Analysis of this data focuses on
description and interpretation of what people say and do” (p. 9). In short, based on my
research questions, targeted participants, and personal preference for storytelling,
ethnography seemed an obvious choice.

My previous education, interests, and experiences undoubtedly influenced my
decision to use a variety of sources in this study. An undergraduate concentration in
theology brought a number of comparisons to mind regarding religion; a master’s degree
in Romance linguistics and study of the Japanese language made linguistic comparisons
evident; professors of graduate courses that I took in anthropology and cross-cultural
communication introduced or led me to sources that explained and supported a great
many assertions posited by participants and researchers such as Hofstede. In sum, I felt
no qualms about using sources from multiple disciplines, as I considered each relevant

and applicable to the present study.

92

CHAPTER 5
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Categorizing human beings is an often distasteful endeavor that can leave the
researcher painfully aware of unexamined or unreported complexities in his or her
participants; nevertheless, it is a fate I have endured in putting together this chapter. In
spite of an appreciation for the depth and complexities of the subjects involved, I have
compiled 12 biographical sketches of Japanese undergraduates to represent each of the
four-acculturation types depicted in this study: 3 identified as integrated, 3 as assimilated,
3 as separated, and 3 as marginalized. The decision to categorize according to
acculturation identity relied on each respondent’s self-selection coupled with the results
of the East Asian Acculturation Measure. I also based my decisions on inductive
reasoning, sifting through each interview to support or refute suggested acculturation
identities.

Drawing from 19 participants in the present and pilot study, I chose 12 based on
gender, acculturation type, and potential interest to the reader. Two who identified as
separated were excluded because they had studied in the US. for less than eight months.
The other excluded participants-—all women self-identified as integrated--revealed
experiences that were largely captured in other biographical sketches featured in this
chapter.

Depicting an individual in three to five pages may not do a great deal of justice;
nevertheless it is my hope that certain personalities and perhaps even commonalities will

come to light for the reader. It is with this spirit in mind that I offer portraits-undeniably

93

flawed by my own biases and interpretations--as an introduction to the unlimited variety
of Japanese undergraduates presently enrolled on American campuses.

The names of the 12 students featured below have all been changed. Other small
and relatively insignificant modifications have been employed to keep identities
confidential.

Integrated Student 1: Kenta

At a crowded coffee shop outside of campus, Kenta sat forward on an overstuffed
chair, sporting a white polo shirt and khaki shorts. Adding a splash of idiosyncratic style
were three cloth wrist bands--one that resembled a woman’s elasticized hair band. Aside
from this uncommon accessory, Kenta was unusual only in that he was rather difficult to
characterize. With manners that seemed neither wholly Japanese nor American, he
displayed elements of both in ways that were not always immediately perceptible.
Despite a strong command of English that came with being in the US. for six years,
Kenta surprised me by requesting to speak in Japanese on occasion. In retrospect, his
periodic, sometimes fragmentary use of Japanese may have been something of a brief
invitation into his culturally fused world.

Kenta was the first to volunteer as a participant for my dissertation research.
Answering an e-mail that solicited Japanese undergraduates, he reacted strongly to the
idea of helping future Japanese students through his participation. If there was something
he could do to make life easier or less painfirl for those who would follow in his tracks,
Kenta was on board. Recalling his first two years at a small college in the eastern United
States, Kenta found refuge principally among other Japanese students:

Kenta: . . . for two years I went to college in [an eastern state] . . . but I had a hard
time talking-like, being accepted to . . . American groups. I was there for two

94

years . . . There [were] some people who [were] nice, but of course that’s how my
friends are to me here.

John: So at [this Midwestern college] has it been easier?

Kenta: I would say so, definitely. I think [this Midwestern state] itself, is more

Open minded, I think. People are nicer; people are more cheerful, I think. Kekké,

taihen de--I had a really hard time! There were people who just made fun of me

for being, like, Asian. It happened, like, so many times back there. So from that

experience I was having trouble . . . for developing new friendships actually. . .

John: So you didn’t have a good experience there?

Kenta: Well, I had bad experience more than good experience, that’s for sure. So I

was having [a] hard time there, and I made really good friends with, like,

Japanese pe0ple because, you know, they shared those struggles.

John: So were you more separated then?

Kenta: I would say so, yeah.

In spite of feeling separated during his freshman and sophomore years, Kenta now
identified as being quite integrated in his new environment. While cultivating a variety of
fiiendships at his new school, he seemed to honor both Japanese and American culture
equally--and sometimes inseparably. He expressed his appreciation for both Japanese and
American movies and his taste in music spanned genre and nationality. For Kenta, it
seemed that he and the world around him were a nebulous blend of Japanese and
American culture. His best friend--in support of this notion--was an American whom
Kenta described as having strong cultural interests in Japan:

John: Tell me about your best friend.

Kenta: He’s American and he learned J apanese--and he learns Japanese--and he

has a Japanese girlfriend, and I guess he wants to get married with her . . . And I

want to work here in the States but he wants to go to Japan to work . . . He is

really serious about how things are working [in Japan] and I’m curious about how

things work here . . . We give, like, information to each other, and he corrects my
English, I correct his Japanese, and I don’t have to worry about what to talk about.

95

Coincidental if not fitting thematically into Kenta’s world of cultural fusion was
his girlfriend who had grown up in Japan with a Japanese mother and American father.
After graduating from the American college that Kenta had attended previously, she
relocated to the Midwest with aspirations of settling in the U.S.;

John: How do you spend your free time?

Kenta: I spend fiee time . . . I have my girlfriend. I spend time with her. . .

John: Is she Japanese? American?

Kenta: Oh, she’s hambun--“half” . . .

John: Was she born here or there?

Kenta: Mentally, she’s like 90% Japanese, I think. She was born in Japan, spent a

little childhood in Chicago, and went back to Japan. Her dad is from the States, so

she has some background . . . being exposed to American culture . . .

John: Do you speak to her in Japanese or in English?

Kenta: Japanese.

John: Always?

Kenta: Mostly. 90% . . . 95%.

John: Whose English is better?

Kenta: Mine. You know, she knows more vocab, but she still has some accent,

like more . . . She has kind of a weird accent! She’s not exactly--she doesn’t have

exactly, like, [a] Japanese accent. I don’t know where she gets that accent from.

John: Where did you meet her?

Kenta: I met her at [the first college I attended]. And I transferred in when she

graduated from that college. And I was studying here for. . . you know-J still had

two more years. And she didn’t want to . . . because of her appearance in a way--
she didn’t want to be in Japan because her appearance is more toward, like,

American, dakara hito ga ijiru (so people tease her)--like, people stare at her, you

know what I mean?

John: So she doesn’t feel at home in Japan?

96

Kenta: I think she does, but she’s kind of tired of it in a way. Every time she
speaks, like, she looks like [an] American--but she speaks perfectly, you know.
She’s Japanese! You know, when she meets someone they almost all the time say,
“You speak good Japanese!” So she’s kind of tired of it. So I guess that she didn’t
want to work in Japan and she wanted to come to the States, and I happened to be
[here], and she kind of moved . . .

Surrounded by a best friend and girlfiiend who brought a shared familiarity with
things both Japanese and American, Kenta admitted that he was interested--very
interested-in the topic of dual cultural identities. Coming with few defined notions, he
proved to be thoughtful, insightful, and highly receptive to new ideas. In his struggle to
define himself, he insisted—-contrary to the conclusions of LaFromboise et al. (1993)--that
the highest form of biculturalism was to fuse rather than alternate cultural values and
behaviors:

John: What do you think about Japanese who change their behavior . . . by
situation? Is it understandable? Is it unusual?

Kenta: I think it’s [dangerous] for me to change my behavior. I don’t want to
have, like, two identities. But those who do that, I think that’s the best way for
them to deal with those two identities they have to have. There were times that I
was doing exactly things like that too, but once I spent more time [thinking about]
my theory or like my identity, . . . I reached the point where I don’t have to work
so hard . . . to act like somebody else . . .

John: So in your progression you’ve gone from [an alternated] identity to [a
fused] identity?

Kenta: I think so . . .
John: Do you see [fusion] as being at a higher level?

Kenta: I think so because they are learning how to express themselves. Because if
your communication method is limited, then you always have to find a way to get
by it, you know, like, make a way through it. So sometimes it’s required to act
different than how you usually do. So once you learn how to communicate with
others better, I think it’s easier to express, like, [your] natural . . . self. Like,
it’s . . . easier to boil it down to, like, how you think, how I feel about something.

97

As it turned out, Kenta was not the only participant to see fusion as the highest
form of biculturalism. The drawing he created to depict his firsed identity, however, was
unique. Insisting that the foundation of his identity was Japanese, he drew a horizontal
line and wrote “Japanese” below the line. He then drew two large building blocks on top
of the foundation line. These two building blocks he labeled “American.” Insisting that
his newly found American identity had caused him to rethink his Japanese identity, he
then drew a single block atop the two initial blocks and labeled it “Japanese.” Finally, at
the very top, he drew two smaller blocks that he labeled “A” for “American” and “J” for
Japanese. These two blocks, he reasoned were the culmination of his understanding of
both Japanese and American culture and cultural identities. The entire picture, however,
served to represent his total fused identity. Kenta’s drawing appeared as follows:

Figure 13: Kenta’s self-identity drawing

 

 

A J

 

 

 

 

 

Japanese

 

 

 

American American

 

 

 

 

 

Japanese

Kenta’s theory, I felt, was rather interesting and warranted serious consideration.
In his values, in his behavior, and in his preference for friendship and culture, Kenta
seemed a very layered and often fused combination of Japanese and American cultural

identities. The way be depicted his identity, however, was a revelation that only he could

98

have provided. Whether or not his representation will be recognizable to other integrated
or bicultural students will be left to future investigations. Regarding Kenta’s personal
struggle for identity, one thing appeared certain: after years of trying to comprorrrise his
behavior in order to be accepted and understood in his host culture, Kenta was finally
able to display who he was on the inside, feeling confident that his fused identity was
acceptable to both himself and to the wide variety of people he would meet.

Integrated Student 2: Naomi

Naomi arrived 20 minutes late for our meeting at a coffee house just outside of
campus. She recognized me by the terse self-description I had e-mailed her, and I knew
to greet her fiom hers-~170cm tall and wearing a ponytail. Dressed in fitted khakis and a
dark sleeveless top, Naomi was sleek, confident, and remarkably natural in both her
manner and appearance. She wore little if any makeup, and her hair was neither tinted nor
permed.

In spite of the norm in Japan and even the U.S., Naomi did not apologize for
being late; she simply introduced herself with a handshake and a smile that seemed
immediately affable. She was good-natured throughout the interview, offering
philosophical insights and a willingness to speak candidly on a number of topics. She
readily challenged ideas and thoughtfully considered opinions and theories that differed
from her own.

Naomi had moved with her family to a Midwestern town when she was 13, so the
topic of being bicultural was far from new to her. She was completely fluent in both

Japanese and English, but as a senior majoring in linguistics, she was keenly aware of her

99

shortcomings in each. When asked whether she spoke English as well as Japanese, she
assessed:

I think my Japanese is still a little bit better, but . . . both languages are not perfect

at all. Like, in terms of like, my languages, like, I don’t speak in English

perfectly-J don’t speak in Japanese perfectly either.

Although Naomi scored one point higher in the assimilated category than the
integrated (33 vs. 32) on the East Asian Acculturation Measure, she self-identified as
integrated, suggesting she maintained both a Japanese and American identity. That she
could be both assimilated and integrated did not seem entirely contradictory in Naonri’s
case, given the nine years she had spent in the US. Arguing briefly for her assimilation, I

might cite the disdain she revealed for more traditional, separated Japanese:

John: Are you most comfortable hanging out with a group of Americans, a group
of Japanese, or a bicultural group of Japanese who have lived in the US?

Naomi: Hmrn. Definitely not with 100% Japanese group-—it’s not very
comfortable for me because they’re too Japanese, and they . . . I don’t know, it’s
just . . . I feel like they’re closed minded, especially when they’re here. Like, why
are they hanging out with themselves? . . . And they will never learn how to speak
in English! And they will, like, be scared of American people the whole time!
Like, that’s what they actually say: they’re like, “Oh, I’m scared of American
people-they use too much drugs!” I’m like, “It’s a different country, like, try to
learn, and try to irnmi . . . «you don’t have to do drugs, but . . . ” [laughs]. You
can be scared and not talk to American people the whole time! So I can’t be
comfortable with them.

Interestingly, Naomi acknowledged feeling more comfortable with Americans,

although she admitted to feeling less comfortable with some Americans than with others:
Naomi: Urn, all 100% American people, I’m comfortable with them . . . I’m fine
with them [laughs], but the people who have experience with, like, Japanese
culture-J find them comfortable, but I feel like, I feel like I’m just being their
conversational partner or something [laughs]

John: Okay, so the Americans who want to learn Japanese [seem opportunistic]?

Naomi: But that’s okay though.

100

John: Do you find that these people are equally interested in anime, manga, and
things of that sort? Do you think they’re a little bit different?

Naomi: Yeah, right! [laughs] But not all of them though . . .

The concept of Americans keenly interested in Japanese culture came up in a
number of interviews--mostly in unflattering terms. Although cautionary prefaces were
the norm, many respondents talked of American men interested in Japanese culture--and
especially in Japanese women--as otaku or undesirable misfits. Of the various groups of
Japanese and Americans we discussed, Naomi finally acknowledged feeling most at
home with Japanese like herself who had spent considerable time in the US. or abroad:

Especially people who speak in English and Japanese really well--our language is

very mixed. Like, one sentence can have both Japanese and English—mot just

words, but, like, phrases . . .

Naomi’s allegiance in terms of fiiendship, music, and movies went both ways; she
seemed to appreciate Japanese and Japanese culture every bit as much as Americans and
American culture. On potentially divisive issues such as religion, feminism, and the
atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she claimed to understand feelings--
at least in part--on both sides.

Perhaps most revealing of Naorrri’s integrated identity was her desire to actively
maintain both her Japanese and Western identities. Asked about how she imagined her
future and the marriage partner she envisioned, Naomi seemed determined to keep one
foot in Japan and the other outside of Japan:

I want [my husband] to be able to speak in Japanese. I want him to be willing to

live in Japan, even though I’m fine with living in other countries; but I want my

home to be Japan. That’s the thing-J can live in other countries, I can live
around--there are people who are like that. But I want my, like, home to be Japan.

Like, I want my house, under my name, or, like, my husband’s name or

something, and I don’t want to give up my Japanese citizenship. And I don’t want
to become another country’s citizen either and I don’t want to live in the same

101

country for more than, like, ten years or something. But the thing is, I would like

to live in Japan, but not live in Japan. I would love to have a home in Japan, like,

whenever I want to come home--it’s Japan. But, I don’t mind living in other
countries. But I just don’t want to settle there. I don’t want to settle in other

countries. That’s what I want . . .

Because Naomi could neither fuse two countries into one nor physically be in two
places at the same time, her yeaming for integration--for comfort and adventure-could
only be quenched by imagining herself transported often and easily between Japan and
other countries. In terms of managing her personal identity, Naomi waxed philosophical
on the idea of fusing her two cultural identities into one. Asked to depict her Japanese
and American identities on paper, Naomi revealed:

I never will be American and never completely Japanese, so I can’t do this

(alternate) because I never really become totally Japanese when I’m talking to

someone. So I think I’m always Japanese [laughs]--it’s very hard I don’t

know! I think it’s always mixed, but I think . . . hmm . . . maybe this one. . .

[laughs, pointing at a fused Venn diagram]. Like, I feel like it’s more integrated,

and, like, I’m consciously doing this too.

John: Consciously doing what?

Naomi: Like, integrating. Like, both identities together--to become one person.

John: Is it that you want to stay consistent with your values?

Naomi: Yes.

John: Then you don’t want to have values that contradict each other?

Naomi: Exactly. Right.

Integrated Student 3: Noriko

Noriko wandered into the parlor of the mostly international residence hall where

she lived. Chatting with some of her friends who had agreed to participate in my study,

she learned of my research on Japanese students and wanted to become involved. Perhaps

because so much of her life and identity had been enmeshed between Japan and the U.S.,

102

she was particularly enthusiastic about telling her story. At her behest, one of her friends
introduced her:

“Hi, I’m Norrrrikyo” she said with the palatalized vowels of an upper-middle
class American woman and a Midwestern “r” that would make a Michigan native blush.
“Norrrrikyo?” I mused, using the same equally American pronunciation. We both smiled
and then repeated her name simultaneously using the properly shortened Japanese vowels
and single-flapped Japanese “r”. It seemed a fitting introduction for two people caught
between the same two worlds, and sometimes not knowing which one to turn to.

A hospitality/business major in her sophomore year, Noriko had lived in the US.
from grades one to four. Her father worked for a major Japanese company and had taken
his family to Hawaii and then to Georgia. Recalling her return to Japan at age 10, Noriko
was aware of being different but never felt ostracized because of it. Although a bit
repentant for some of her early behavior, she felt little need to completely squelch the
characteristics associated with her new American identity:

When I returned to Japan from Georgia, I was more aggressive. I wanted to be

involved in more and I wanted to express myself more than other Japanese.

People tried to treat me normally when I returned from Georgia. The teacher said

to the students to be nice to me before I returned. The teachers treated me in a

different way--especially English teachers. I felt bad after correcting my English

teacher. I recognized in Japanese culture it isn’t supposed to be that way . . .

In Noriko’s comments, we see a small sample of the Japanese pro-active effort to
eliminate the bullying problem. Knowing firll well that the student returning from the
US. would behave differently from other Japanese children her age, Noriko’s teacher had
discussed her impending arrival with the class, instructing them to be especially kind and

accepting of her. The fact that Noriko felt bad about correcting her English teacher points

to her subsequent understanding of Japanese respect for power distance and collectivism.

103

Correcting a teacher, Noriko realized, threatened authority and consequently the ability of
the group to act as a cohesive unit.

In spite of Noriko’s deep understanding and willingness to embrace both Japanese
and American culture, she nonetheless revealed an almost self-actualized understanding
of her limitations and minor inadequacies in both worlds:

At first [Americans] would treat me like other international students but when

they hear me speak, they are more flank and more comfortable. They treat me as

an American compared to the international students, but not totally as an

American. They still continue to speak politely to meua little flank, but not

totally. In Japan I felt I was a little different. In America, I feel like a Japanese.

The Japanese here are more tolerant of different Japanese.

Thus, while Noriko felt a degree of acceptance in both worlds, she appeared to be
aware of not being completely accepted in either. When I explained Berry’s acculturation
theory to her, she spent a good while trying to decide if she were more integrated,
meaning she identified with both groups, or whether she felt marginalized, meaning that
she felt a part of neither. After mulling it over, she chose the integrated quadrant.
Interestingly, on the East Asian Acculturation Measure (Barry, 2001), Noriko scored
quite high on integration but scored by far the lowest of 19 students in the
marginalization category.

By definition, Noriko was likely much more integrated than marginal, although I
could easily understand her feelings of not quite fitting wholeheartedly into either group.
Wholeheartedly, however, is a strong word. Berry’s acculturation quadrants do not call
for absoluteness, I explained to Noriko. The quadrants merely divided up a grid that
asked her to rank herself along two continuums. Did she feel more Japanese than not?

Did she feel more American than not? She had a strong respect and understanding of both

cultures and there was no sign that she had any reason to reject one in favor of the other.

104

She could drink of no bad experiences in either Japan or the US. that would have
alienated her flom either. Had she been born 20 years earlier, the strong Western
influence demonstrated in her Japanese personality might have been grounds for being
less accepted or possibly even ostracized in many Japanese circles. That Noriko could
recall no such experiences may be testament to a changing, more open, and more tolerant
Japan than the one I had known 20 years earlier.

When asked to draw a Venn diagram of her bicultural identity, Noriko drew two,
largely overlapping circles (see Figure 14). She described the overlapping center as her
core personality, which she said constituted 50% of who she was. The other 25% on both
sides represented her uniquely American and Japanese behaviors. This overlap was
somewhat inevitable, she insisted, given the vast differences in the languages and
cultures. A retumee fliend of hers, she related, would have had a much less overlapping
Venn diagram, evincing the fiiend’s obvious preference to keep her American and
Japanese identities separate.

Figure 14: Noriko’s Venn diagram

Japanese

Identity

 

Noriko’s conscious or unconscious decision to meld her two worlds together

would normally be indicative of a more Western approach to life--one with less

105

compromise and more philosophical absolutes. Noriko, however, was not nearly so
absolute or uncompromising-she had no problem with accepting multiple and perhaps
contradicting behaviors or religious practices. The common Japanese practice of having a
Shinté baptism, Christian wedding, and Buddhist funeral, for example, posed no real
contradiction for her. She understood and accepted the decision that other Japanese
people might have for keeping their Eastern and Western worlds separate, but for her this
was not a choice that felt right. In short, she appeared to be comfortable with who she
was and not very comfortable with separating identities.

Noriko’s observations of having both an American and a Japanese identity were
unusually discerning and sophisticated. While her near-native English was superior to
that of most participants in this study, she was immediately aware of the differences
between her level of comfort in writing Japanese and her level of comfort in writing
English. She expressed the fact that she was not able to articulate sophisticated nuances
in English the way she might in Japanese. When I asked if she felt inhibited to express
certain ideas or emotions in Japanese, she answered “No” with little hesitation. Since
many Japanese tend to be rather guarded with their emotions and opinions in a Japanese
context, this lack of inhibition seemed rather unusual to me. Noriko concurred with this
idea, but said she had no qualms about being as open in Japanese as she had learned to be
in English.

The three students identified as integrated in this chapter all reflected a strong,
active desire to maintain their Japanese and American cultural identities. Choices of
music, language, fiiendship, and significant others-—real or irnaginary--all seemed to

involve a desire to incorporate both cultures either alternatively or together if possible.

106

The next group of participants, those who identified as assimilated, also embraced
both cultures to some extent, but tended to favor American values such as lower power
distance, lower uncertainty avoidance, and higher individualism. Interestingly, the three
students who identified as assimilated in this study were all highly energetic women with
a strong sense of adventure and temporal urgency.

Assimilated Student 1: Asami

I introduced myself to Asami at a university-sponsored social gathering one
Friday evening. She was chatting with a graduate student flom Turkey and the two of
them were quite gracious about welcorrring me into their conversation. When I told
Asami about the research I was doing, she seemed quite interested and agreed to be
interviewed the following week.

Asami proved to be a very outgoing young lady. She was immediately easy to talk
to and never once gave the impression of being the least bit guarded. As a third-year
psychology major, she demonstrated both self-awareness and insight about Japanese and
American behaviors in general. We began the interview talking about her family:

Asami: I don’t think they’re very typical. Even though I used the word

“cohesive,” they still say children can do whatever they want. So it’s not typical

for a Japanese family. As long as we don’t violate other people’s ways, that’s

what they always say.

John: Would you say they’re liberal or progressive in terms of their thinking or
are they a traditional Japanese farrrily?

Asami: I think they’re kind of a mix. Basic philosophy is traditional one. They
adopt, like, fleedom and independence, which is not very typical.

John: Their basic Japanese philosophy is . . .

Asami: Like harmony and respect for the elderly. But they believe in
independence also.

107

Asarni’s parents, I was beginning to sense, had achieved their goal, for their
daughter truly seemed an independent young women. In retrospect, the fact that I met her
independently of other Japanese was significant in that Asami had made something of a
conscious effort to spend her time almost exclusively with Westerners:

Asami: It’s actually, surprisingly for me, it was very easy to socialize with
American or non-Asian people, but I had a certain amount of difficulty socializing
with other Asian people because . . . I think they study, like, their own problems.
You know, like, they just start hanging around with, like, only Japanese or only
Chinese or only Koreans, but they like gossiping all the time. They are
homesick--even reinforcing the behaviors.

John: So it’s hard to socialize with other Asians?

Asami: . . . they think like--that’s actually typical, but they think that their culture
is the best so they start talking [about] the negative side of America--that is not
right (laughs). Because [they say] America is not a good place or something. It’s,
like, I don’t feel comfortable hanging around with them. Maybe I have that kind
of impression about America too, but I just probably didn’t want to accept it.
That’s why maybe I feel kind of uncomfortable, I don’t know . . .

While somewhat turned off to the local Asian community, Asarrri had forged a
deep fliendship with an Aflican ex-roommate in another city. Two epiphanies she
revealed had involved her ex-roommate as a catalyst. The first was a liberation story that
seemed to parallel the irreverence theme flom the Tom Cruise movie Risky Business:

Asami: There was one point where my roommate said, my best fliend said to me:
“Who cares?”

John: Who cares?

Asami: Just only two words: “Who cares?” Just changed my whole attitude
actually. I always wonied about what other people thought about me--like, what
they think about me. I don’t want to, like, rrrisbehave or I don’t want to be
perceived like a negative person so I always try to be nice over there [in Japan].
Like here, like, who cares? Like, everybody’s so different so it was more like
open minded, so. . . I think it can be another reason I fly to take risks because
people, like . . . I don’t know how to explain it. I don’t have to worry too much
about other people.

108

Virtually hidden in an individualistic society where people were often too self-
involved to notice or care much about others, Asami learned to enjoy the advantages of
anonymity and indifference rather than to dwell on the lack of attention accorded her.
Asami’s other epiphany came in the aftermath of her very first heated argument. Much to
her surprise, she felt that a deeper bond had been forged with her ex-roommate because
of, rather than in spite of, their adversarial exchange. In comparing the feelings she now
had for her Western fliends as opposed to her Japanese fiiends, Asami remarked:

[My Japanese best fliend] is still a best fliend, but compared with the Aflican

fliend maybe [not as deep] . . . and you know that [Japanese] relationship of

friendship is very superficial. We don’t get into arguments, we just say: “Oh
yeah, that’s right, if you say so.” I mean the discussion is over. It’s like [to]
establish a very deep fliendship, we do have some kind of arguments.

Of all the respondents I interviewed, Asami was admittedly the most removed
flom the Japanese community on campus. Her best fliend had been her Aflican ex-
roommate. While Asami claimed to spend about 20% of her flee time with other Asians,
she reported spending no time at all with other Japanese. She identified herself as being
more assimilated to American culture than integrated, an assessment I could not argue
with. She fleely admitted to becoming a more optimistic and independent person than she
had been in Japan. Independence, she explained, was something revered by Americans
but seen as a selfish and negative trait by most Japanese.

Assirrrilated Student 2: Mika

I met Mika during check-in for international students. She was transferring in as a

junior communication major flom the local community college. When I checked her into

the university computer system, I casually asked her a few of the questions in Japanese

just for fun. She seemed amused--though not impressed--maybe because there is an

109

element of surprise when a red-headed American needlessly asks a question in Japanese.
I met her a few more times while working at the International Students’ Office. She
remembered me and greeted me in Japanese, trying hard to contain her laughter. The
second time she came in, I told her about my research and asked if she would like to be a
part of it. She seemed interested and agreed.

A few days later, I waited for Mika at a table-for—two at the university food court.
I had eaten at the same table the day before with a friend of mine who had played middle
linebacker in college. The surface did not seem small then, but when Mika took her seat
at perhaps barely a hundred pounds, the table seemed instantly smaller.

I knew Mika would be an interesting interview. She displayed an enormous
amount of energy with bright eyes, a big smile, and ready laugh. Unlike most of the other
Japanese I had interviewed, Mika actually sat slightly forward, while I unexpectedly
found myself sitting slightly in the opposite direction. I took almost no written notes
while she talked, as I somehow felt it would be rude to look away. Mika seemed
comfortable in the spotlight, and spoke with the poise and self-assurance of a national TV
anchorwoman.

Mika spent well over two hours talking with me flom start to finish. The
questionnaire that most of the other respondents finished rather quickly took her quite a
while longer to complete. She was equally given to precision during the oral questions,
but not in a pedantic sort of way; she simply wanted to give as much thought as possible
to each question.

Mika’s father, I discovered, was a district court judge who wanted to be with his

family but who had been transferred to another prefecture. As is common in Japan, his

110

wife and chilc‘
school. Mika’
abuse. Her yo
described eve:
upbringing, IV.
independence
1 think
genera
parents
really
passior
have 01
to dCClt
support
The res
sGloum to the (
IISCIfaS a majOl
international sn
While her Opinj.

community Wen

almost exclusive

wife and children remained in their established home at least while the children attended
school. Mika’s mother worked for a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing child
abuse. Her younger brother was in college and her sister was busy with high school. She
described everyone in her family as “very busy” and “on the go.” Regarding her
upbringing, Mika, like Asami, related that her family had encouraged a great deal of
independence:

I think [my family] is really different, compared to other families [in] my
generation. Like . . . I always felt different than, like, my fliends’ family. Their
parents expect [certain things flom] the kids . . . My parents are really always
really liberal--they let us do whatever we want to do. They respect our desire,
passion--so I never felt like my parents told me what to do. So yeah, I always
have options and choices. But [there is] more responsibility in the kids. We have
to decide, and we have to do everything by ourselves, and parents are there to

support.

The responsibility Mika learned at home was being duly implemented in her
sojourn to the United States. Throughout the interview, the subject of time presented
itself as a major theme in her life. She was deeply aware of her temporal limits as an
international student in the US. and wanted to make the most of every day she was here.
While her opinions about Japanese, Americans, Westerners, and the local Asian
community were philosophical, objective, and balanced, her decision to spend time
almost exclusively with Westerners was resolute:

. . . I don’t want to be completely in the Asian community or Japanese
community. I don’t want to be into it--not because I hate Japan, or that I hate
Asians and I like Americans. It’s because I don’t want to lose out on the
opportunities; because I’m here I want to contact everybody equally. Japanese, I
have been connecting with them for 22 years--I spent 20 years in Japan, so it’s
okay to contact them within, like, the other bigger groups, like other Americans,
other Africans, [other] Latinos; and if they’re included in the diverse society or
diverse situation I don’t mind it, but if they’re together as just Asians, just
Japanese, I try not to be in that group. Like, I’m interested and I want to
sometimes feel at home and comfortable--lazy--to be surrounded by Japanese. We

lll

know
like t<

Wher
longer. Mika
believe, plac
reinforcing n
more Americ
American, ar
struck me as
and lack of te
rather polishe
not quite as 1i;
more in that d

younger years

191% ca

35 Connie with
all CXII’OVened p

sentence, Kana v
Having SI
selli0r year oflligj
oflapan. As Wet
number ofAmeric

mUlIIpIe laterals S‘

know our culture, we know about the topics to talk about and we know what it’s
like to be here, but I don’t want to lose the purpose that I am here, so . . .

When the formal interview was completed, we continued to chat for quite a while
longer. Mika was clearly an outgoing yet clearly introspective person. She had, rightly I
believe, placed herself in the assimilated section of Berry’s acculturation quadrant,
reinforcing my already strong impression that she had, at least in some ways, become
more Americanized than she was Japanese. Everything about her demeanor seemed to me
American, and there was little about her movements or style of communication that
struck me as particularly Japanese. Her fleely flowing gestures, eye contact, ready smile,
and lack of tentativeness were not only reminiscent of an American woman, but of a
rather polished one at that. While her English was not completely flee of mistakes and
not quite as linear as one might expect flom a native speaker, she was clearly headed
more in that direction than any of her Japanese counterparts who had not spent their
younger years abroad.

Assimilated student 3: Kana

Kana came to my office prompting an immediate handshake, introducing herself
as Connie with a near-perfect Midwestern accent. Scarcely five-foot tall with bright eyes,
an extroverted personality, and rapid-fire speech that invariably rose at the end of each
sentence, Kana was dynamism incarnate.

Having spent five years at an international school in Malaysia before finishing her
senior year of high school in the U.S., Kana had lived the better part of nine years outside
of Japan. As we talked, she displayed occasional Japanese gestures mixed with a greater
number of American ones. A slight Japanese accent was discemable only in words with

multiple laterals such as soliloquy or philology. Any speech difficulty she displayed lay

112

more in the e
Kana’s sense
completing t

Annc
Japan, Kana
right decisior
been partly o
conversation
been in her c:

Kana:
-that v
six int.
like, “1
going I
And be
pressur
Americ
Sure? A
decided
use my .
YOU kno

JOhn; SC

K3113: Y:

more in the excitement and rapidity of her discourse than in any linguistic shortcoming.
Kana’s sense of perpetual urgency sometimes led her to begin sentences without
completing them, to retract, reforrnulate, and repeat--all at lightning speed!

Announcing that she had just accepted a marketing position with a company in
Japan, Kana waxed or--in her case-~bufled philosophical, wondering if she had made the
right decision. She appeared marginally willing to return to Japan, though it may have
been partly out of feasibility and partly out of a desire to please her parents. Our
conversation on the subject began with her intimation of how interested the company had
been in her candidacy:

Kana: Yep . . . this one company offered me a job, like, after only two interviews-

-that was amazing! The other people who work for the company, had, like, five or

six interviews but I only had to go to two. And it was so, like, easy for me. I’m

like, “Is this really okay?” And um [I was surprised] because I didn’t think of

going back to J apan-- because I wanted to stay here and raise my kids, you know?

And be [able to] make them all Americans, but I couldn’t, you know? I got lots of

pressure flom my parents--they are like, “They probably won’t issue you a visa in

American companies.” And you know--“Your place isn’t guaranteed, are you

sure? Are you sure?” I’m like . . . I felt so much pressure flom my parents, so I

decided to look at a Japanese company. So I’m just regretting that I’m not able to

use my English anymore in a Japanese company--I get picked and . . . but then

you know, it’s a secure place so I’ll just do it . . .

John: So you’ll have to go back to Japan for the job?

Kana: Yeah, I do. So I just decided this morning.

John: Wow! Congratulations!

Kana: Yeah . . . But I’m like, just not sure.

John: Is there a possibility they might send you somewhere else?

Kana: Yeah, yeah, just . . . because I chose the company originally because the

company has some stores in Malaysia--Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong,

and China. So every year they send some people to Malaysia for like two years or
so. That’s why I applied for the job . . .

113

In spite
Kana seemed z
the possibility
desires while 5
philosophical
dissatisfaction
she would pre;
Kana: l
materiz
clothes
here, lil
so they
maybe i
Americ.
okayl].
goes slo
.IOI'ln: Sc
Kana: [I2
ambition
People dc
Being Ies.
complain of living
1101
ed grealef eth'C
lake 0 ..
II “hat She $3
des' .
no to assrrnilate
a} . - .

W:
0rd Wannabe Cam

In spite of feeling flattered by the company’s uniquely accommodating gestures,
Kana seemed ambivalent about returning to Japan. Her decision, however, left her with
the possibility of escape--an escape that would strategically allow her to follow her own
desires while simultaneously fulfilling her parents’ wishes. Though generally
philosophical about advantages and disadvantages in Japan and the U.S., Kana revealed
dissatisfaction with certain aspects of Japanese society and pragrnatically explained why
she would prefer to settle in the US:

Kana: Like, I went back to Japan this summer, and, like, everyone is, like, so

materialistic in J apan--you have to have, like, branded bags and wear expensive

clothes and, like, it’s not me--like, I didn’t really feel like [doing that] . . . like,
here, like, no one cares like what you are wearing, you know? [Or] what you do,
so they’re able to [have] more fleedom, [but even though] the educational level is
maybe a little lower, it doesn’t really matter. Like, if you just grow up in the

American society, see, if you don’t study and no one else studies as well [you’re

okay!]. So you know, getting decent dollars and get a job and be happy, so--time

goes slower in here-~and I like it! [laughs]

John: So people [in the US] can grow up blissfully ignorant?

Kana: [laughs] Not ignorant! I’m sorry, but yeah . . . seems like, well if they’re so

ambitious they can just make it, you know? Like, regardless of what the other

people do . . .

Being less confonnist, less materialistic, less competitive, and less temporally-
restricted were values that Kana associated with the US. Although many Americans may
complain of living a rat race that incorporates all the above elements, Kana obviously
noted greater extremism in Japan. That she hoped to one day have children who would
take on what she saw as comparatively relaxed American values may have revealed a
desire to assimilate and a willingness to leave Japan behind--at least physically if not

always in mind and soul. In her seemingly perpetual quest to define her own identity, the

word wannabe came up:

114

I’m so c
try to f1!
I’m, lik‘
Japanes
When a.
Japanese, Mala
top ofeach othf
labeled “J apane
that the Americi
Within the Japa:
“Malay.” Explai
and lowest of th<
as a Japanese per

appeared as fol lo

Figure15:Kana’s

fr] .
end as IICIIIICI' Jar

I’m so confused about myself, you know. Like, most of my flee time, like, I just

try to figure out where I stand--like, if I’m more Japanese side or American side.

I’m, like, I think I’m an American wannabe, but I also don’t want to lose my

Japanese side.

When asked to draw a picture that represented who she was in light of her
Japanese, Malaysian, and American experiences, Kana drew two overlapping circles on
top of each other. The top circle she labeled “American” and the bottom circle she
labeled “Japanese.” Although the circles were approximately the same size, she explained
that the American circle took precedence and was therefore placed in a higher position.
Within the Japanese circle, Kana drew a smaller circle near the bottom, which she labeled
“Malay.” Explaining why the Malay circle was inside the Japanese circle and the smallest
and lowest of the three, Kana said, “When I was in Malaysia I lived with other Japanese
as a Japanese person, and Malay people treated me as a Japanese.” Kana’s drawing

appeared as follows:

Figure 15: Kana’s self-identity drawing

.

Japanese

Similar to a number of other participants in this study, Kana identified her best

fliend as neither Japanese nor American, but as someone flom yet another country who

115

understood hard
not inevitably--a
from the Balkan
friend, Kana sait

Kana: Sh
She’s als
girls, the:
ignorant-
is about.

you know
think difl

JOhfl: DO
experienc

Kana: I tl
have , . _ I

John; The

I(ana: Th.
grant“ E
the intern;
experienc,
me--1 lost
U.S_], the:

and”...

comparing

it’s like mt
er her 80 c
think of. .

understood hardship and the struggles of acculturation and identity that so frequently-~if
not inevitably-~accompany repatriation. Kana’s best friend, Ana, was a young woman
flom the Balkans--a refiigeeuwhom she had met in high school. Asked to describe her
fiiend, Kana said enthusiastically:

Kana: She is amazing! She’s, like, real skinny and tall and such a beautiful girl!
She’s also smart and um . . . um I used to hang out with her, me and the other two
girls, they’re, um, Dana and Jessica . . . But the other two girls are kind of
ignorant--they’re just fun to hang out with, but they don’t understand what the life
is about. Ana and I, we talk a lot about, like, you know, the political situation, and
you know . . . how people are, like, so ignorant, or, like, [how] the Americans
think different flom us . . .

 

John: Do you feel closer with international students who’ve had similar
experiences to you?

Kana: I think so, yeah. Because Americans, they’re just so granted for what they
have . . . like Dana and Jessica . . .

John: They’re so what?

Kana: They just like, how do you say? They don’t realize how much they’re
granted. Because Ana has, you know, she has such an experience coming through
the internal war in her country, and I had to move a lot too, right? And I also
experienced the big earthquake when I was 12--that was, like, such a turnover in
me--I lost many of my good fliends and my neighbors, but, like, other girls [in the
US], they’re just, you know, they’re happy and their parents are so supportive
and you know, they’re rich and kind of, you know: “We just do whatever we want
and . . . ”

Comparing her own family with Ana’s, Kana continued:

It’s like me and Ana’s family, they’re kind of conservative, so her parents don’t
let her go out, like, after 6 o’ clock, and so, you know, my parents too. And I also
think of . . . her mom [who] goes to [community college] and takes ESL class.
Anyway, her family has been here for, like, nine years or so in the U.S., but they,
after Bosnia, they went to Czech Republic and Germany and Arizona and
Alabama, but her mom’s English is not that good-~and it’s about the same level as
my mom’s, so they get along and you know . . .

Without pause, Kana discussed feeling protective of her expatriated family:

116

I want t]
come 0\
bit my f
biggest i
such a n
lately at
like, wh
Relating
But whe
what the
Ana’s m
Ana’s m
Among t
assimilated expr.
Spoke fi'CCIy reg;
ellpress value prc
the lower Power I
associated with t}
In connas
partiCiPants who i
grail“ appreciatit
uric. ' .
Warm), aVOlda
opim'
“‘3‘“! and 1e

transcriptions We“

count--man those

Kalllaki w

girlfn‘mi Kama, ‘

I want the comfort-J don’t care, I kind of just don’t like my American fliends to
come over and see my mom’s English is not that good--it just kind of hurts a little
bit my feelings, not necessarily. . . like, I’m so proud of my mom, but, like, my
biggest concern in the US. society is, like, I just want to help my mom out--she’s
such a nice person-~she needs a lot of my help when she does things . . . well, not
lately anymore. So I just want to help her out a little when she . . . it used to be,

like, when there was a phone call I would do it for her or so . . .

Relating her own family’s struggles with those of Ana’s, Kana concluded:

But when Ana comes over, she’s nice to talk to my mom because she understands

what the non-English speaking moms would be like--and I would do the same to

Ana’s mom. So we, our family, well, not my brothers, but my mom and I and

Ana’s mom and Ana, like, we’re so close to each other. . .

Among the Japanese participants in this study, those like Kana who identified as
assimilated expressed a degree of negativity toward various aspects of Japan, but also
spoke fleely regarding things they did not like about the US. Nevertheless, if asked to
express value preferences, it was obvious that Asami, Mika, and Kana all tended toward
the lower power distance, lower uncertainty avoidance, and higher individualism
associated with the United States.

In contrast to these three, highly energetic, introspective women were three
participants who identified as separated. As will be seen, these students reflected a much
greater appreciation of the values associated with Japan: higher power distance, higher
uncertainty avoidance, and lower individualism. They also tended to be the least
opinionated and least introspective of all participants in the study. Their interview
transcriptions were significantly shorter--often more than 50% shorter in total word
count--than those of students who had identified with any other acculturation group.

Separated Student 1: Kazuaki

Kazuaki was a somewhat reluctant volunteer who came to me at the behest of his

girlfliend, Kana, who had interviewed with me a few weeks earlier. Kana had warned me

117

that her b0 )"frl‘
immediately fr
business world
a surpriSingly a
hospitality man
maintaining hat
confront my ch;
recoil and suggc
on wrestling wit
At 26, I
interviewed. Tru
respondents, old
anxious and mor
Counterpans_ Reg
undergraduate 1'8]
like, how to make
That Kan
lcould have refut
from anWhere, ht
With Amen'Cans. 5
his lack IhCreof, h

mes [0 do it.”

 

 

that her boyfiiend was not enthusiastic about being interviewed, but Kazuaki presented as
immediately friendly, agreeable, and upbeat in a way that seemed more akin to the
business world than to academia. With a pleasant smile, accommodating disposition, and
a surprisingly articulate command of English, Kazuaki seemed well suited for the
hospitality management field for which he was studying. He seemed innately capable of
maintaining harmony and making others feel at ease. At times I wished he would
conflont my challenges to some of the thoughts he posed, but time and again, he would
recoil and suggest that maybe I was right. That he placed a greater value on harmony than
on wrestling with ideas seemed utterly apparent.

At 26, Kazuaki was the oldest of all the Japanese undergraduates I had
interviewed. True to what I had read in the literature and heard flom at least one of my
respondents, older Japanese students--especially graduate students--tended to be less
anxious and more secure in their native identities than their younger, undergraduate
counterparts. Regarding Japanese graduate students in the U.S., one Japanese
undergraduate remarked, “Like, they are so good at socializing with people. They know,
like, how to make fliends.”

That Kazuaki was capable of socializing and making friends was not an argument
I could have refuted. Although he seemed to possess the ability to mingle with anyone
flom anywhere, he preferred spending time with Japanese and other Asians rather than
with Americans. His girlfliend, Kana, whose identity struggle contrasted strongly with
his lack thereof, had noted her boyfliend was “almost all Asian completely” and that “He

tries to do it.”

118

K32”
convenience”
Americans “I
friends he SUE
or unconsciOU

I press-

John: 1‘
Americ

Kazuak
classes,

There \A
entironments, 1:
things both Japa
educational systi

John: Ho

Kazuaki :

answer is

 

Kazuaki’s reasons for spending little flee time with Westerners were more due to
convenience, comfort, and a satisfied sense-of-self than out of fear or disdain toward
Americans and other Westerners. In answering why he had not made any American
fiiends he suggested, “I think I feel more comfortable being with Asians, so I consciously
or unconsciously choose to hang out with Asians and not to hang out with Americans.”

I pressed further:

John: And within your program, do you spend much time talking with
Americans?

Kazuaki: In class I talk to American--both Americans and Asians. But outside
classes, I spend most of the time with Asians so . . .

There was no doubt in my mind that Kazuaki could blend easily in any number of
environments, perhaps because he maintained a very diplomatic if not positive spin on
things both Japanese and American. Our conversation on American and Japanese
educational systems was one such example:

John: How would you describe education in Japan?

Kazuaki: In Japan, education is more like to memorize everything. Like, the

answer is only one, so yeah. I feel like keep practicing, keep memorizing, like that

John: How about education in the US?

Kazuaki: Well, like, the key thing is like, it seems like there is more than one
answer, so . . . like writing a paper. . .uh . . .

John: Which do you like better?

Kazuaki: Which do I like? Uh . . . I was comfortable with Japanese education, but
I think in college it’s better for--to me--to think about more answers, so yeah, in
college, I think I like American education better. But in high school and junior
high school I think Japanese education was good. I’m satisfied with that.

John: Do you think [Japanese high school] is better than American high school?

119

Kazuaki:
junior h]

Johfli YO

Kazuaki:

When 35}
could think 0f nC
displaying lam”)
freely-at least in
inlarge part to hi:

Kazuaki ’s
more Japanese tha
blue plaid shirt ant
thimately he impi
Japanese circles an
international venue
forKazualti. Like l<
Who or what he was

Were not. For a whj]

issue.

Daisuke knc
minutes after closin
the d00r. Daisuke h

Verbally”, l moti

Kazuaki: Um . . . I’m not familiar with the American education in high school and
junior high, but Japanese education was good.

John: You’re very diplomatic, aren’t you?

Kazuaki: [laughs]

When asked if he had changed in any way since coming to the U.S., Kazuaki
could think of nothing significant, but planned to adopt the American customs of
displaying family pictures at the office and verbalizing his romantic sentiment more
fleely--at least in English. He also confessed to becoming something of a gentleman due
in large part to his girlfliend Kana’s insistence and expectations.

Kazuaki’s movements were somewhat contained in a way that seemed slightly
more Japanese than American. With medium-length hair divided loosely in the middle, a
blue plaid shirt and blue jeans, his appearance was more inoffensive than stylish.
Ultimately be impressed me as someone who had always been easily accepted in
Japanese circles and who carried his affability effortlessly to American and other
international venues. The struggle for identity or acceptance did not seem to be an issue
for Kazuaki. Like Kana had offered, he was wholly Asian and felt no desire to change
who or what he was. Kazuaki was fine with being J apanese--and fine with others who
were not. For a while he inadvertently made me question if identity was even a legitimate
issue.

Separated Student 2: Daisuke

Daisuke knocked on the door of the International Students’ Office just a few
minutes after closing time. I had been expecting him and signaled for a co-worker to open
the door. Daisuke hesitated before saying anything, and ultimately said nothing-at least

verbally--as I motioned for him to come in. He bowed in a slightly quick, but respectful

120

way, further for
slight coughing
exactly where l
Daisuke
but most of the I
the top of his da
time—.all reSpon
IO Whomever stc
0f the other pan,
than he Was.
As we m
Would be more 0
that Daisuke had
more about pinpt
Interview Questic
lhOllghtfiJ] Consic
“Tell me :
of an icebreak er r
“My farm]

Tho“sh th
SellSCd that “1.1316!

II .
easunng. In the 1

friends had been I

 

way, further forward than he would have expected me to bow, emitting little more than a
slight coughing sound that conveyed recognition and perhaps even surprise at finding me
exactly where I said I would be.

Daisuke dressed in loose, nondescript clothing. He may have been wearing jeans,
but most of the colors he wore seemed like dark brown or gray. His shaggy hair touched
the top of his dark rimmed glasses, and as he looked downward-which was most of the
time--all responsibility for maintaining conversation seemed to be magically transported
to whomever stood in front of him. Or perhaps it was a hierarchical thing. More than any
of the other participants, Daisuke may simply have responded to the fact that I was older
than he was.

As we made our way down the corridor, Daisuke shuffling, I suspected that there
would be more of my own voice than usual on the tape I would later transcribe. It was not
that Daisuke had little to say, but one sensed that conversation for him would be much
more about pinpoint accuracy than about ingratiating himself or amusing others.
Interview questions, like perhaps everything else in Daisuke’s life, would merit serious,
thoughtful consideration.

“Tell me about your family,” I began the interview. It was meant to be something
of an icebreaker more than a mental probe.

“My family?” Silence. Silence again. “Hmmm . . .”

Though the interview was akin to squeezing juice from a frozen grapefruit, one
sensed that whatever could be extracted from Daisuke might be something worth
treasuring. In the five years he had spent on this American campus, virtually all of his

friends had been Japanese. I wondered why Daisuke had chosen to attend an American

121

uniVCfSitYa (
better:

John:

unive

Daisu.
studen

John: E

Daisuk
things.

John: B.
example

Daisuke:

John: Ho

Daisuke:
have cont

 

university, or if he felt his sojourn had been worthwhile. In spite of appearing painfully

shy and withdrawn, Daisuke felt that his American experience had changed him for the

better:

John: Why did you choose to come study in America rather than go to a Japanese
university?

Daisuke: Ummm . . . I . . . I didn’t want to spend my life like regular Japanese
student . . .

John: So what was the reason you came here? Just to be different?

Daisuke: I want to change myself and I want to have more experience about many
things.

John: By coming here is there a way that you thought you would change? For
example, what did you think would happen by coming here?

Daisuke: A way of thinking or . . .
John: How did you want to change in terms of your behavior?

Daisuke: Uhhh . . . I didn’t have confidence when I was in my country, but now I
have confidence by myself, in myself.

John: How about your thinking? Do you think differently?

Daisuke: Yeah, I think so.

John: Can you explain how you’ve changed in terms of the way you think?
Daisuke: Now I think more critically . . .

John: What do you mean by think more critically?

Daisuke: More perspectives . . . a way to think about something . . . umm. ..

Daisuke had difficulty articulating the details of his personal transformation in a

way that indicated a lack of introspection. For Daisuke, this was a conversation without

precedent--at least in English. Now in his senior year as a business major, Daisuke had

been elected president of the Japan Club, an organization made up almost entirely of

122

Japanese. \V
improving hi
years, he off:
surprisingly l

Perha
separated stu<
American wh
had come to a
appeared very
With fellow J a]

John: E
Americ

Daisuke
10h“: Y(

Daisuke;
Speaking

10hr); “}

Daisuke; '
181k with ,‘
detailed w

 

Japanese. While he had come to the US. with aspirations of meeting Americans and
improving his English, the task had obviously proven to be quite formidable. After five
years, he offered some terse observations, insights, and a bit of introspection, but
surprisingly less than many of the students who had been here for less time.

Perhaps the most interesting revelation that Daisuke related as a generally
separated student was that although he had difficulty behaving in a way he considered
American while in the company of Americans, many of the traits he considered American
had come to affect the way he related with other Japanese. In essence, while Daisuke
appeared very Japanese in an American context, he had become somewhat Americanized
with fellow Japanese:

John: Do you feel you have an American identity when you speak with
Americans?

Daisuke: Not so much.
John: You don’t feel more akarui (lively) when you speak with Americans?

Daisuke: I’m more akarui when I speak with Japanese. I’m quiet when I’m
speaking with Americans.

John: Why do you think so?

Daisuke: Ummm . . . I usually find way to express myself in Japanese . . . when I
talk with Japanese I can express myself in many ways and many words--more
detailed words. I think I should speak like Americans when I speak with
Americans but . . . I learned American way, but I cannot use it in front of
Americans . . . but I can use that kind of non-verbal expression in front of
Japanese.

John: So when you speak with Japanese, you feel you can be more American in
some ways?

Daisuke: Yes, yes.

John: And around Americans you feel more traditionally Japanese?

123

l‘viil
university".
polite with
businesslike
I found this
communicat
communicatt
CXperienced :

Miho:
John:
Miho:
JOhn: I

Miho: I
me.

John; Ar

Miho: N.
English. '

JOhn; In )
communit

Miho: I’

That Miht

c .
0mmun1cat10n z

Daisuke: [nods].
Separated Student 3: Miho

Miho was persuaded to volunteer for the present study by fellow members of the
university’s Japan Club. Arriving right on time for her interview, she was immediately
polite with a ready smile and pleasant disposition. Although not ostensibly shy or
businesslike, Miho seemed neither prone to small talk nor to deep, philosophical inquiry.
I found this lack of verbal expression and curiosity somewhat perplexing given her
communication major and exceptional English pronunciation. Her reticence to
communicate may have been at least partially revealed when asked if she had
experienced any barriers in getting to know Americans:

Miho: Yeah. Sometimes I don’t know what to talk about.

John: What do Americans talk about?

Miho: They talk about nothing.

John: Do you want to give me an example of nothing?

Miho: Like, what happened today, or what you did today. I mean, it’s nothing to
me.

John: And what do Japanese talk about?

Miho: Nothing [laughs]. Because of language I can’t talk about nothing in
English. It’s kind of hard.

John: In your communication classes you don’t . . . talk . . . about American
communication?

Miho: I’m doing interpersonal communication--about relationships. So it’s not
really about intercultural or something like that.

That Miho seemed unable to transfer her knowledge of interpersonal

communication to intercultural communication seemed to follow suit with the

124

predisp4
Similar
to have .
different
struggles
distanced
particular
Joi

Mi

J oh

M ih

hous

Japai

John:
While

Allho:
Gettin‘;
observations p.
U'S' Seemed ra;

llfc In the Us

'5

The mOS]
{00d Whe:
I did mis

SOCiaIIy ,

30% with other

predisposition she lacked for making comparisons between Japan and the United States.
Similar to the other two students who identified as separated in this study, she appeared
to have given almost no prior thought to issues of identity, adjustment, or even cultural
differences. In some ways she seemed to simply go with the flow, unburdened by the
struggles of those who actively tried to integrate or assimilate or even those who
distanced themselves from Japanese and mainstream Americans. At one point, I asked a
particularly open-ended question:

John: What were your first impressions after you arrived [in the US]?

Miho: I found that American people are not that different from us.

John: Yeah?

Miho: Yeah. But sometimes I get surprised when I see like [a] man running the

house . . . but other than that, there’s no big difference between America and

Japan.

John: Hmm. And are your impressions different now that you’ve been here a
while?

Miho: No. They’ve stayed the same.

Getting Miho to expound on acculturation challenges, identity issues, or cultural
observations proved to be challenging. In fact, many of the comments she made about the
US. seemed rather superficial. Asked to describe any difficult experiences in adjusting to
life in the U.S., Miho related:

The most difficult thing for me is the food. I wasn’t really used to fatty American

food when I just came here . . . I didn’t really miss my family or my country-~but

I did miss my Japanese food. That’s all.

Socially Miho estimated that she spent about 60% of her free time with Japanese,

30% with other East Asians, and only about 10% with Americans or non-East Asians.

125

Her comfort Z
Americans wi
Um . .

open t
intern.-

As I ft

that Miho’s p
through some
interest to pur

Americans hat

Yeah, 1
don’t fl

try to k
With m4
talking

But in S
to 1101 alWays f6

Miho: ll.
me to be

JOhn; H0
Miho: In.
John; Hov

‘Mlho. [Ia
peopje to
them. So I

muse th
Miho Was

  
   

Japan. Noting [ha

Her comfort zone was ostensibly quite limited to those who were most like her. Even the
Americans with whom she spent time conformed more to her ideals than she to theirs:

Um . . . I talk to Americans who are more open to international culture, like more

open to learning other cultures. I know there’s many Americans who do not like

international students so . . .

As I followed up with questions about why she felt this way, it seemed obvious
that Miho’s perceptions of Americans and American students had likely been formulated
through some unpleasant or perhaps negative experiences. She was now left with limited
interest to pursue fiiendships outside the local Asian community. In relating how
Americans had treated her, Miho replied with candor:

Yeah, they do treat me differently from the way they treat Americans. Because I

don’t really speak English so they get slower when they talk and I feel like they

try to keep some level of distance from me. They don’t really want to be friends
with me. They’re, like, they talk to me only when they have some purpose of
talking to me. Like, about class and about general stuff.

But in spite of fitting in with the Japanese community on campus, Miho adrrritted

to not always feeling comfortable among her countrymen either:

Miho: When I talk to Japanese, I--how do you say--I behave the way they want
me to behave. So I cannot really be myself when I talk to Japanese fiiends here.

John: How about in Japan?

Miho: In Japan it’s different.

John: How is it different?

Miho: [laughs] Because the Japanese community here is so small and I don’t want
people to hate me. I don’t want Japanese people to see me as so different from
them. So I try to be same. But in Japan, I don’t really care if people like me or not
because there are lots of them. I can choose my fiiends so . . .

Miho was beginning to differentiate between Japanese on campus and Japanese in

Japan. Noting that there were cultural differences between Japanese and Americans

seemed by contrast, inevitable. Feeling the formal interview had been short and perhaps

126

somewhat vaCl
quadrants and I
looking at the ‘
place. Miho su«
an encounter w
in her head:
I’ve nev
differen‘
when I t
there’s l
It’s kind
automat:
The com
Point out how sl
.AmenCans. “Di(
to the beginning
She said She WOL
i“Kin-'iew,
A month [
She Was a 10",er

impeccable Japan

somewhat vacuous, I decided to take some extra time explaining Berry’s acculturation
quadrants and the Venn diagrams representing alternate and fused identities. It was upon
looking at the Venn diagrams that the scant beginning of an epiphany might have taken
place. Miho suddenly seemed, perhaps for the first time, cognizant that whenever she had
an encounter with an American followed by a Japanese that some kind of switch went off
in her head:

I’ve never thought about this before and when I’m talking to you I realize that I’m

different, but I can’t explain how different am I. But, I do kind of shift my identity

when I talk to say, Americans, Japanese here, [and] Japanese back home. I think
there’s kind of a little switch or something in my mind or my head or whatever.

It’s kind of. . .but I don’t know when or how that switch shifis me. It’s kind of

automatically like it’s a natural thing. So I can’t explain . . .

The composition teacher in me could not help but go back to the first page and
point out how she had claimed there were no real differences between Japanese and
Americans. “Did I say that?” she gasped with utter sincerity. Miho seemed perhaps
slightly embarrassed but still too caught up in her revelation to be concerned. I went back
to the beginning of the survey and a number of things seemed to make better sense to her.
She said she would think about them and consider contacting me for a follow up
interview.

A month or so later, I invited her and some of the other participants to my house.
She was a lovely guest and stood in slight contrast to the other young women with her
impeccable Japanese manners. My wife who had spent four years in Japan commented
that Miho was far more traditionally Japanese in her movements and behavior than the

other women who had joined us that evening. Miho still seemed very much a part of the

Japanese community then. Only time would tell if her journey would change course.

127

While ass
values and sep ar:
distance, high un
as marginalized I
identified as mar
grounded in the .
products of give
difficult time fee
simply avoided 1
Being marginali

With values.

Naoki w
during his SOphc
and tinted hair, 1
martiaLans film
movements Rea
shoulder fom’an
never though t of
friend Ofmine w
Japanese for 100]

If] had It

every bit the Car

While assimilated students in this study expressed a preference for American
values and separated students tended toward Japanese values such as high power
distance, high uncertainty avoidance and low individualism, the participants identifying
as marginalized did not reveal a uniform preference for values. Of the three students who
identified as marginalized, two held strongly American values while one was more
grounded in the Japanese values depicted in this study. Rather than being renegades or
products of given subcultures, marginalized students in this investigation either had a
difficult time feeling accepted by Japanese or American mainstream groups or they
simply avoided being a part of them. All admitted to having few or limited fiiendships.
Being marginalized, as will be seen, had much more to do with social acceptance than
with values.

Marginalized Student 1: Naoki

Naoki was a senior engineering major who had come to the US. with his family
during his sophomore year of high school. With an athletic build, gray warm-up trousers,
and tinted hair, he admitted that many of his fiiends in Japan joked that he looked like a
martial—arts film star. Adding to this effect were his controlled, almost choreographed
movements. Reaching for a can of iced tea, he appeared to ritualistically move his
shoulder forward before extending his already creased arm toward the beverage. I had
never thought of it before, but he reminded me of a third-generation J apanese-American
friend of mine who, like Naoki, was quite athletic, and had also been chided by native
Japanese for looking like a martial-arts film star.

If I had to choose a word to describe Naoki, it would be controlled. He seemed

every bit the careful designer of his own movements, facial expressions, and answers to

128

questions. In spite of this self-awareness, he was surprisingly uncontrived and unguarded.
In fact, Naoki was remarkably candid, opinionated, and perhaps even judgmental--though
often with humorous overtones. Regarding Japanese in the US. who seldom interacted
with Americans, be related:

. . . when I am in the US. I’d like to study English as much as I can . . . and I see

some Japanese people hanging out with only Japanese and doing what Japanese

people do in J apan--but I don’t think it’s right because that’s wasting money or
something [laughs].

When asked what he thought about the Japan Club on campus-—a club whose
membership was almost exclusively Japanese, Naoki replied without hesitating that he
thought it was “stupid.” He could not fathom the idea of seeking Japanese experiences
outside of Japan. Perhaps somewhat ironically, a discussion of how he came to regard
himself as a more open-minded individual went as follows:

John: Can you describe any ways you’ve changed since you’ve come here?

Naoki: Well, when I was in Japan, I was looking at people as so crazy, but now I
can look at people’s inside right now.

John: You mean what they’re thinking?

Naoki: What they are thinking or I always wonder what kind of person this is, or
not just a surface but a personality, yeah--which is pretty good . . .

John: So you see people on a deeper level?
Naoki: Correct.

John: So was there something in terms of a friendship or a class that you took, or
an experience you had that may have opened your mind?

Naoki: There is a big difference between Japan and the U.S.--like, I’ve been
exposed to American things, right? And what I think is I’ve heard a lot of
Americans in general who are nice, but Japanese are nicer on the surface [but]
they don’t look at the inside usually-- they just look at the surface. So, they’re
nice to, like, more like a beautiful people, or better looking people, I guess--but
I’m pretty sure. And then Americans are more like, I view Americans more like

129

looking at themselves, and I’m exposed to . . . I have a lot of friends who are
Americans, so I changed to how I am.

While Naoki insisted that his values on individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and
power distance were more American than Japanese, he considered himself first a
combination of Japanese-American, second as American, and third as Japanese. To
represent his identity, Naoki drew two overlapping ovals, deliberately making the
overlapping portion in the middle largest. This middle area he labeled “JA” for “Japanese
American.” The second largest area was to the right and was marked “A” for American.
Finally, the smallest remaining section, the section to the left, he labeled “J” for
“Japanese.” To emphasize the order of largest to smallest area, Naoki used corresponding

£5199

numbers, with for the largest and “3” for the smallest. His drawing appeared as
follows:

Figure 16: Naoki’s self identity drawing

N

 

That Naoki identified more as marginalized than as assimilated or integrated
might have had much to do with his indifference to being a part of any cultural group and
his apparent lack of concern for what anyone-Japanese or American-~thought of him:

John: So do [your Japanese friends] think anything makes you different besides
your ability to speak English?

Naoki: You mean, like, personality? Yeah . . . I don’t have fiiends in Japan except
my junior high school friends, right? So I guess I’m more, like, isolated than other

130

of my fiiends, you know what I mean? Like, I don’t have much of friends, and
what I do in Japan is pretty much just hanging out with junior high school fiiends,
and . . . -

John: How do you think your personality or values are different from what you
would consider to be more typical of Japanese?

Naoki: I would say I am more aggressive--maybe aggressive. Yeah, a lot of
Japanese try not to express their feelings a lot of time--they don’t become
emotional. But if I don’t like something to do, I say, “No, I don’t like it--I don’t
want to do [it]. Here’s something I will do.” I’m like more clear.

John: So you’re saying you’re more direct?

Naoki: Yeah. That’s correct.

John: And more individualist?

Naoki: Perhaps. Maybe more individualist. I don’t know what does it mean
exactly?

John: Well, if you’re collectivist, you feel it’s very important to be part of the
group, and you might subdue your personality. . .

Naoki: Oh yeah, I’m individualist!

John: So who you are is important as opposed to who you’re attached to?
Naoki: Yeah, I don’t care what people say to me or I don’t care what people tell
me about myself.

Marginalized Student 2: Isamu

Isamu was tall and slim with medium-length hair divided roughly in the middle.

Dressed casually but neatly, he sported a plain, navy blue t-shirt, jeans, and highly

fashionable silver-rimmed glasses. From my office, Isamu accompanied me to the

university food court walking slightly round-shouldered down the corridor and up the

Like most of the other Japanese students I had interviewed, Isamu was

personable, candid, and easy to talk to. A senior majoring in international relations, he

131

expressed his desire to work outside Japan after graduation, saying he would rather avoid
the rigidity of a Japanese company or organization. In the time he had been in the U.S.,
Isamu had admitted to taking on what he perceived to be more and more of an American
identity. In fact, when asked to depict his Japanese and American cultural identities,
Isamu drew the following picture:

Figure 17: Isamu’s identity drawing

  
 

Japanese

Identity American Identity

Without being prompted, Isamu, ever introspective and philosophical, clarified:

I think my American identity or just my American culture is growing and

breaking [out], but not coming into my [Japanese identity]. It’s just like going

inside and breaking some of my ideas [that] I thought would be a correct way . . .

In his explication, Isamu was relating how the introduction of ideas and values
contrary to the ones he had developed in Japan had truly shaken--but not destroyed-~the
core of his cultural identity. He was now still Japanese--and would always be Japanese--
but had come to allow his previously unquestioned values to come under scrutiny, attack,
and ultimately renovation. Although the process could not have been easy, Isamu seemed
to portray his present metamorphosis in a positive light, with his new identity branching
out in ways that implied limitless, ever-expanding growth. As I pressed him to be more

specific about the shifts he had noted in his value system, power distance emerged at the

top of the list. In fact, so radical was his desire to transform that Isamu had actually come

132

to avoid speaking his native language with Japanese who could also speak English. Our
conversation on the subject went as follows:

John: Can you give me any [Japanese] values . . . [that are hard for you to
accept]?

Isamu: . . . I cannot take, like, if you are younger you have to use, like, special
language to the older person . . .

John: Keigo (polite language)?

Isamu: Yeah, keigo. Like, I cannot do it. Like, it’s just everywhere--even here. So,

just if you meet people and you frnd out . . . how old he is, and then if he’s older

or younger that decides, like, our relationship, and it’s so hard to change it. I

mean, unless you get really friendly or familiar.

John: Is it uncomfortable?

Isamu: Yeah, so uncomfortable. Like, I was traveling in the first half of the

summer and I met, like, some Japanese travelers, so of course they tried to speak

Japanese to me. But I just feel comfortable speaking English. Just, yeah, so . . .

That Isamu insisted on speaking English with fellow Japanese was something
perceived as rather disconcerting in the eyes of another Japanese informant. Mentioning
an encounter she had had with Isamu, Kana appeared not so much offended by as wonied
for Isamu and the virtual rejection he displayed of his mother tongue. She also seemed
concerned that Isamu had been putting forth an excessive amount of effort in his studies
since he had appeared to her to be quite stressed.

But nothing in Isamu’s demeanor seemed unbalanced or out of control as far as I
could discern. Self-identifying as assimilated, there was evidence from his interview that
he had thoughtfully and consciously decided to take on many American values. On the
East Asian Acculturation Measure, Isamu scored 44 in the marginalization category and

38 in the assimilation category; his separated and integrated scores were only 18 and 21

respectively. That his marginalization score exceeded his assimilation score may have

133

had more to do with his intense feelings of isolation than with his choice of values. He
was indeed largely assimilated in terms of values, but also socially marginalized. The
subject of fiiendship came up a number of times in our discourse. Admitting several
times that he had relatively few fiiends, Isamu confessed that he consciously avoided
spending time with Japanese and that forming close bonds with Americans and other
internationals had proven to be difficult:

Uh, I’m trying to not to hang out with many Japanese, so I don’t have many

Japanese fiiends. And as I said to you before, most of Japanese friends I know is

senior to me, so I don’t feel I’m talking to my friends--even if I don’t use keigo.

And I don’t have, like, many opportunities and time to get to know new

intemational students and to get closer to them, so I don’t have like . . . yeah, I

have only a few international students friends. I know many people, but not

friends. Just, like, to say “Hello” and “How’s it going?” but yeah. And

Americans, like, some people I had a class with many times or yeah, those people

I can get closer [to] so I still hang out, but yeah, maybe 50/50 Japanese and

Americans in terms of numbers. I don’t have many friends, so yeah . . .

In some ways, Isamu seemed to be without peers. Undeniably intellectual beyond
his undergraduate status, he spoke of feeling drawn toward the Japanese graduate
students on campus. The differences in their ages and status, however, proved to be
somewhat unsatisfying for Isamu, especially in light of his quest for erasing hierarchical
distinctions:

Yeah. Like, I have some [Japanese] fiiends here; like, most of them are older than

me-—like, five years or even, like, ten years and I don’t use keigo to them and they

feel okay about that, but still--it’s my problem but I still think I’m talking to older
people--senior to me. So that kind of distance--there’s distance between me and

those friends, so it’s kind of hard . . .

When pressed to name a best friend, Isamu talked about a fellow international

student, a gregarious and intelligent young man from Eastern Europe challenged with a

physical disability:

134

Isamu: Maybe here . . . okay, he’s from Poland. 1 think he is here since maybe
high school, or I would say junior high school--he came here with his family. And
I remember the first day I came here at [this school], [the] first class, I didn’t
speak English at all and I was so having difficult time . . . but it was [a] small
class and he was sitting in front of me and he just talked to me and he was the
only friend I had the first year [laughs]. So yeah, he talked to me a lot. And he
didn’t care, like, how my English was bad, and he just talked to me and he just
listened to me, so . . . yeah, he’s my best fiiend.

John: So when you do things together, what kinds of things do you do?

Isamu: Usually . . . he cannot walk because of his disease, so he’s using a walker,
so he cannot play sports . . .

John: So he’s disabled?

Isamu: Yeah, he’s disabled, so he likes playing video games, but I always tell him
to study but [laughs] yeah, that’s one way to relax ourselves so yeah, I play
sometimes. And he just likes talking to people, yeah. He’s so fiiendly to
everyone--he’s always making new friends, so he always introduce me to new
friends, and yeah, we just talk . . .

At one point, I asked Isamu if it had been easy for him to make American or
international fiiends:

Easy? Hmm . . . uh. . .easy to get fiiends, but difficult to get closer, that’s what I

would say. But that’s kind of the same to Japanese, so . . . yeah, I would say it’s

so easy to get to know new people--especially, like, Americans--but it’s so hard to

get closer to them, so . . . international students are, I think, much easier to get

close [to] as long as you spend enough time with them, but still, yeah, still

difficult to get close--but Americans are even more difficult to get close with,

yeah. . .

Finally, in discussing how Japanese perceived him in his native country, Isamu
felt he conveyed his otherness through personal behaviors he could not always articulate:

John: How would you say other Japanese see you in Japan?

Isamu: I think maybe they look [at] me weird or strange . . .

John: Why?

Isamu: Well . . . hmm . . . because they think I think different way than they do. I
mean, I have to express what I think to them, but it’s obvious, like, from my . . . I

135

don’t know, I cannot give you specific examples, but maybe, like, the way I talk
to them or the way I buy something . . .

John: The way you [what]?

Isamu: Buy things from them--like those small actions. I kind of, like, show my
thinking . . .

John: Do you think your movements are different?

Isamu: Movements or actions . . . it’s not moving, like, weird, but, like, those
small actions that . . . yeah, I can’t give you like specific examples . . .

John: What about gestures?

Isamu: Gestures? Oh, yeah, I’m pretty sure I overreact things, so . . . yeah, like
body language. Like, Americans like doing those things so . . . like, to support
your feelings or, like, showing your expression. You can show how surprised you
are or how glad you are, so I like those things [too] so, yeah, but if I do it in Japan
...theythink I’m crazy...

John: Your facial expressions--do you use more?

Isamu: Yeah, I think so. I cannot tell by myself because I don’t carry a mirror
[laughs], but yeah . . .

Marginalized Student 3: Saori

Running almost ten minutes late from an earlier interview, I met Saori in a coffee

shop just off campus. Sitting in a corner and reading the latest Harry Potter book, she

announced in neutral tones, “I was about to leave.” I apologized, bought us some

refreshments and started the interview. Saori seemed happy to talk.

A 25 year-old accounting major from western Japan, with a round face and shag

haircut, Saori spoke emphatically and without hesitation. Like many women I had met

from the Kansai area in western Japan, she joked good-naturedly about how Kansai

women tended to act like men while Tokyo men tended to act like women! Combining

Saori’s straightforward Kansai manners with the precision required for her accounting

136

major, she was a woman who seemed to value substance over delivery and, to some
extent, logic over emotion. That did not preclude her, however, from expressing and
sometimes venting her feelings of isolation from both Americans and Japanese:

John: Has it been easy or difficult for you to meet Americans and other
international students?

Saori: Very difficult to meet or get to know them, you Imow? . . . In the United
States, like, everyone wants to be [a]couple, right? So normally, they’re going to
be with, like, the same nations, the same nationalities. Americans talk to
Americans, and, like, Asians talk to Asians.

John: So is it easy to meet Japanese here?

Saori: No, it’s not easy.

John: Do you go to Japan Club ever?

Saori: No, I don’t bother. You know, I’ve been in the United States for, like, five

years, so I know that some Japanese don’t want to talk to Japanese at all. Because

actually I met one J apanese--she [sub-leased] my house so that’s why she became
my fiiend--but she said she don’t want to get any international students and she
don’t want any Japanese friends except me and, like, her and a friend. [It’s
because] she came to the United States, you know, she came here to study

American culture and, like, English, so, like, she don’t see any point to be friends

with other international students or Japanese fiiends.

In terms of making friends, Saori seemed to have constructed negative images
that rendered other Japanese students as either too cliquish or so bent on making Western
friends that just being Japanese excluded her from their circles. When asked how she
spent her free time, Saori answered:

Free time? Well, since I have no fiiend right now studying [laughs], I don’t know

what I’m doing--I’m making origami or, like, reading a book or I’m practicing

English, studying, and checking mirror, but I’m kind of tired of just watching TV

[laughs]. I don’t want to watch TV anymore!

In spite of having spent the past five years in Europe and the United States,

137

Saori fretted--perhaps unnecessarily--over her English ability, ultimately claiming to have
become more withdrawn as a result of her inability to communicate:

John: Can you describe any ways that you’ve changed since you’ve come here?
Are you the same person you were in Japan?

Saori: No, I don’t have any confidence in the United States at all.
John: You don’t have any self-confidence?

Saori: No, I don’t have any self-confidence in here. Because, like, I just felt like
it’s so difficult to express myself in English.

John: So have you become shyer?

Saori: Not shy--it’s just like I can do better than that, but I just can’t, you know? I
don’t know--I just feel like . . .

John: Still?

Saori: Sometimes, because I can’t fight with somebody--like, you know, they told
me something like, you know, “It is not good to say such things and rararara. . .”
but, like, I never understand what the right way to say or, like, what’s the best

way to say [something], so, like, I just say something, but they say like, “In
English this means rararara . . .” and, like, I never know!

John: And so it’s difficult to argue especially?

Saori: Yeah, I mean, like, I feel like disadvantaged in English . . .

John: And then knowing the cultural rules of what is and isn’t acceptable . . .
Saori: I don’t know! I just didn’t know! And also, like, in the group meetings,
even though I said something they just sometimes don’t understand me and, like,
you know, so I just didn’t. But, like, when I was studying in Japan, I was more
eager to work with them because I speak Japanese, they speak Japanese, so it’s
more easier. . .but here, like, I just can’t speak English, so I just feel like I don’t
. . . I didn’t feel comfortable. I just didn’t feel like . . . I was just disappointed
because I couldn’t do this.

When asked where she saw herself on the bi-directional acculturation quadrant,

Saori chose the most negative point from both a Japanese and American identity. Her

highest score on the East Asian Acculturation Measure was also in the marginalized

138

category. Perhaps because she considered Japanese from Tokyo as the quintessential
mainstream, Saori related that her Kansai roots made her feel like an outsider among
some of the Japanese on campus:

I don’t know--I think the problem is, like, dialect? Because I’m from Kansai, you
know? When I talk to them, they’re, like, when they speak--you know, we have a
different speech--and, like, just I didn’t fit their conversation. So I change my
accent when I speak to a friend from Tokyo or something like that, but I just
didn’t feel comfortable at all. Because like, it’s just not, like, possible. But, like, if
I make a fimny joke, like, they don’t laugh because they don’t know the point. But
if I speak my accent in, like, my hometown, they laugh, and like, I have more fun.
So I don’t know . . .

In spite of feeling on the outside socially, Saori revealed a number of rather
conservative Japanese values. While many of the Japanese students I talked with were
either laudatory of or neutral about developmental American teaching methods that
emphasized argument over pre-determined answers, Saori lamented the recent Japanese
trend to relax memorization-based education:

John: How would you describe education in Japan?

Saori: It’s like educational system is changing right now. They have threw out a

lot of things in one year, but now they changed, you know? They say, like, we

should form more American ways. But after, like, two years or three years
research they realize that that’s [producing only] a little bit of knowledge . . . so
we should go back to like before or something.

John: So do you think education is becoming more liberal now in Japan?

Saori: Actually I didn’t live in Japan right now, so I really don’t know what to
say, so I think . . . I don’t really think [the students] are smart [laughs]!

John: Do you think it’s getting worse?

Saori: Getting worse, maybe. Even though, if I compare myself with people at age
of 30 or 40, 50, I think they are much better than we are, so now we are in [a]
different system. It’s getting bad, I think . . . But they try to focus on something
else too, you know, like, now-~like focusing on having more firm or physical stuff,
or exercise, or, like, art and music. Before when I was in high school you have to
go to school from Monday to Saturday, and then we have just one-day break and

139

we have to go back to school. But now we have two days off and then just go to
school for five days a week. But I don’t know if it’s good or not.

In contrast to Isamu, who seemed to identify as socially marginalized with
assimilated values, Saori appeared to identity as socially marginalized with separated or
more traditionally Japanese values. In spite of characterizing her family as somewhat
strict and traditional, Saori admitted that it was her family that had encouraged her to
study abroad as a way to broaden her thinking:

John: Do [your parents] encourage you to be different?

Saori: Yeah, sometimes. They thought, like, I’m very conservative. Yeah, because

I’m very conservative comparing to my mom or, like, to my parents sometimes.

Like, my mom is [a] more open person, but, like, I’m very conservative, so, like,

they want me to see more, like, the world--want me to think more like seeing

more than one point [of view].

John: More open minded?

Saori: Yeah, or maybe they want me to study more or study another person’s
thinking or, like, other culture or something like that, I guess.

Near the end of our discussion, I asked Saori to what extent she had been
influenced by American values or behaviors. Her answer was that American values and
behaviors had manifested themselves and influenced her most strongly at first and
perhaps least strongly at present. Using the Berry et al. acculturation quadrant, Saori
sketched her journey from neutral to assimilated to integrated and then finally to

marginalized. Her drawing is recreated in Figure 18.

140

Figure 18: Saori’s acculturation journey

 

Integrated

Assimilated

 

Separated _ .
Marginalized

 

 

 

 

Finally, as a way to depict her present cultural identity, Saori insisted on making
separate drawings (see Figure 19) based on whether she was in Japan or the United
States. As for her identity in Japan, Saori saw herself as simply Japanese, a statement that
spoke to the strong sense of Japanese values she had related throughout the interview. In
the U.S., however, her identity appeared to be a bit more complicated. She drew a large
core, which she labeled “American Identity” surrounded by a thin layer of Japanese
identity, and finally coated with a surrounding American exterior. In this respect, Saori
related that she largely alternated her cultural identities, but that in the U.S., there was
always a sense of being J apanese--even if not at the core of who she felt she was. Perhaps
it was this thin, underlying layer of Japanese identity--representing the frustrations she
expressed with the language and the nuances of American culture--that made her feel so

unavoidably different and marginalized.

141

Figure 19: Saori’s alternating identities in Japan and the United States

Japanese

Identity

Identity in Japan

 

Japanese Identity

  

American
Identity

 
   

American Identity

Identity in the US.

Discussion

The twelve Japanese undergraduates depicted in this study may help to introduce

distinct acculturation identities found on American college campuses today. While

generalities are impossible in a qualitative study, I have found a few notions that may be

worthy of future investigation. I will try to note my observations and finish with what

higher educational professionals in the West might consider in their encounters with

Japanese undergraduates.

Of the seven total students I spoke with who self-identified as integrated, six had

been in the US. for at least five years. Kenta related that he had felt quite separated

during his first two years at an Eastern college, but that he had since come to identify as

highly integrated in the years since. Another observation was that students identifying as

integrated seemed quite social without displaying personalities that were especially

extroverted or outgoing. For these students, especially Naomi, finding Japanese,

American, and international fiiends seemed to pose little if any difficulty.

142

A final observation had to do with how integrated students held a constant
yearning to be surrounded by both Japanese and American cultural reminders. Recalling
Kenta’s closest American friend enmeshed in the Japanese community, his girlfiiend’s
ties to both Japan and the U.S., Naomi’s desire to spend the rest of her life moving back
and forth between Japan and other countries, and the aspiration that all three participants
had for establishing a fused identity, spoke to how strongly some integrated students try
to find perpetual inclusion of their two very different worlds.

The three students identified as assimilated in this study were all highly energetic,
outgoing women with a keen sense of temporal constraints. Knowing they had only a
limited amount of time in the U.S., each seemed determined to socialize as much as
possible with people other than Japanese or fellow East Asians. A final commonality was
that while Mika and Asami both described their families as unusually progressive, Kana’s
relatively conservative parents had at least exposed their children to several years of
living outside of Japan. The idea of assimilated students hailing from relatively
progressive, non-traditional backgrounds, is one that may merit future investigation.

The separated students in this study proved to be by far the least introspective of
the Japanese undergraduates I interviewed. With each of them I encountered a bit of
frustration in terms of soliciting cultural observations and personal struggles. Some of the
participants identifying as separated were considerably shyer and less outgoing than their
counterparts in any of the other three categories. Some had been outside of Japan for
relatively short periods of time, or in the case of Kazuaki, had arrived after the age of 22,
a point depicted in the literature as generally incorporating a more fully developed sense

of cultural identity.

143

Finally, the students identified as marginalized were bound together only by their
rejection of or frustration with establishing Japanese and American fiiendships. While
Naoki confidently rejected people he didn’t like, Isamu and Saori felt somewhat
frustrated with their inability to find peers who fully accepted them. Notable among the
marginalized students was that their values tended to be either more as American as was
the case for Naoki and Isamu, or decidedly more Japanese as was the case with Saori.

Although most of my respondents understood that Japan and the US. were
culturally different and were able to provide certain specific details, few were able to
articulate a comprehensive framework that suggested well-defined opposing values.
Revealing Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values hit home for many of the interviewees
and appeared to be enough of an epiphany that I--and many of them-~would recommend
presenting it during orientation periods at US. colleges, high schools, and places of work.
For many, I believe, it could serve to lessen the severity of culture shock.

Regarding the Berry et al. (1986) acculturation quadrant, I might suggest that
whether students identified as integrated, assimilated, separated, or marginalized, there
appeared to be no definitive hierarchy or ideal acculturation identity. There were few if
any instances in which I felt judgmental toward any respondent for choices regarding
either values or acculturation. Value preferences invariably came with reasons and
rationale. There is, in essence, no absolute right or wrong. Each value, whether high or
low power distance, high or low uncertainty avoidance, individualism or collectivism,
comes with its own advantages and limitations.

What we are left with is not so much what Japanese and other East Asians can do

to make their experiences more enjoyable at American colleges, but what those of us on

144

American college campuses can do for our international guests. Whether students,
faculty, or staff, it is paramount to provide opportunities and venues for international
students to become involved in groups outside of themselves. I discuss social integration
extensively in Chapter 10, but opportunities for linking international students with
domestic students exist in the classroom, on class projects, in residence halls, during
orientations, and in student activities. Integration and assimilation in terms of cultural
values may not necessarily be the most desirable end result, but social integration is, and
will likely yield greater leaming experiences--and improved global understanding-for
internationals and Americans alike.

Having presented the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identifying by four
different acculturation identities, I now offer chapters six through nine as a way to
compare Japanese cultural identity with American cultural identity. Using Hofstede’s
(1984) work-related values as a framework, I present Japanese undergraduate perceptions
of Japanese cultural identity and American cultural identity as each relates to power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. Each of these chapters is
subdivided by relevant topics such as family, education, fiiendship, the workplace, etc.
My hope is that the reader will come to understand how Japanese undergraduates in the
US. perceive the values of their home country as different fi'om the values they associate
with the United States. Understanding cultural differences may be quite helpful for firture
Japanese students coming to the U.S., and for university personnel in the West interested

in retaining and better servicing Japanese and other East Asian students.

145

CHAPTER 6
POWER DISTANCE

In this chapter, the first of four focusing on Hofstede’s (1984) work-related
values, I look to perceived differences in power distance between Japan and the United
States. My arguments for value distinctions are based primarily on interviews with twelve
Japanese undergraduates at a large university in the Midwest. The objective is to use
power distance and Hofstede’s other three values (uncertainty avoidance, individualism,
and masculinity) as a way to define both Japanese and US. American cultural identities.
By defining cultural identities, I hope to provide the reader with a deeper understanding
of the varying acculturation identities already explored in Chapter 5.

Hofstede and Bond (1984) defined power distance as “the extent to which the less
powerful members of institutions and organizations accept that power is distributed
unequally” (p. 419). As mentioned in Chapter 3, Hofstede’s (1984) original findings
placed Japan slightly above the mean for power distance, while the US. ranked
somewhat below the mean. With Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the northern
European countries ranking below the U.S., and all other Asian countries ranking above
Japan, an East-West divide was duly noted. Based on the literature, Chapter 3 ultimately
provided argumentation that supported differences in power distance between Japan and
the United States, especially as they regarded families, education, religion, work, and
language. In the present chapter, I examine interviews with Japanese undergraduates at an
American university to convey perceptions of power distance in Japan and the United
States. More specifically, I present participant opinions as they relate to families, higher

education, contemporaries, and the workplace. Finally, I examine changes in behavior

146

noted among participants as they engaged in speaking English, formal Japanese, and
informal Japanese.
Family

In Chapter 3, the traditional Japanese family was depicted as incorporating a
strong sense of hierarchy with no two family members occupying the same level or
position (Hendry, 2003). With an historical emphasis on financial interdependency and
continuity of the unit, the traditional Japanese family, or ie, was often viewed--at least by
American standards--as downplaying the importance of individual happiness and
emotional connectedness (Hendry, 2003). Although the family structure in Japan has
obviously changed in recent years, many participants in this investigation were quick to
point out significant differences in power distance between Japanese and American
families.

Little if any prompting was needed to extract commentary on power distance in
regard to Japanese and American families. Kazumi, a senior anthropology major, noted
distinctly different communication styles between the American families she had
observed and the Japanese family in which she grew up: '

Kazumi: I see [American families] being really equal. Even though, like, parents
have authority, they speak to their child really friendly and frankly.

John: Do you think that’s good or bad?

Kazumi: The way I grew up, it’s not like that, you know? And sometimes I think

it’s really good, but I like the way my parents are and [the way] my home mother

[is] right now, so it feels good [either way] . . .

Aika, a senior studying music therapy, was impressed with the range of emotion
she had observed in an American family she had stayed with:

Ah, they are more very attached and close--very close! And that’s [what] I really

liked, and because, for example, husband-wife, they really love each other and
they’re so expressive. Of course they fight too [laughs]! And when they fight they

147

really fight so aggressively and when they understand it . . . they laugh . . . and
they are really close to each other [laughs]. And that’s what I feel is really
impressive . . .

Without pause, Aika commented on the differences in outward affection between
her American host family and her own family back in Japan:

And when [American families] have children, the mother and the father really
show their love to the children--like hugging or kissing and when their children
does something good, the parents praise them. Like, I feel it’s just so much
exaggeration, but for them it’s normal--and it’s very different from my family.
Like, even though I go home and my parents wait at the airport for me to arrive in
my airplane, . . . after we meet, we never . . . [yell]: “Oh, long time no see!”
(stretches arms as if to hug). We never do that-~we just say, “Hi” (laughs) “Long
time no see” and have a distance. But the distance in American family is really
close.

A few participants spoke about the unilateral power and decision-making they
considered to be a hallmark of Japanese families. Kazumi, a senior from Kagoshima--a
relatively conservative city in southern J apan--recounted the unchallenged authority of
her grandmother while growing up:

Like, my mother, . . . she changed family when she got manied, okay? My mother

[had] kind of arranged marriage--do you know omiyaz? So, like, my mother

cannot say anything about stuff she does, or if she wants to do [something] or

[there is] somewhere she wants to go to [because of] my grandma. So like . . .

[now that my grandmother has passed] she’s like really outgoing right now and

she does whatever she wants. ‘

While Kazumi relayed a significant change in her mother’s personality with the
transference of matriarchal power, Nobuyuki, an engineering major from the outskirts of
Yokohama, expressed that in contrast to American families, communication in Japanese
families generally went from top down:

And [in Japan] you see older people as having pretty much power to say

something. Older people don’t like to listen to younger people or seeing their

value. If the parents are older, they don’t listen to the kid at all, but in the U.S.,

parents listen to their kids. If your children show you their opinion, parents will
listen to you. That’s something I was amazed about.

148

Although participants in this study generally agreed that power distance was
greater in Japanese families and that outward affection was more prevelant in American
families, Kenta, a graduating business and marketing major, noted that Japanese parents
were much more likely than American parents to spend time and money on their children:

I think perfect Japanese parents are taking care of their kids as part of their family,

but at the same time, American families are, like, American parents are--well, not

well balanced--they tend to spend more time on themselves . . . More time and
money, I would say.

White (2002) and others would surely support this assertion, pointing to the
tendency for Japanese couples to have fewer children in order to fully support them
through cram schools and other expensive endeavors deemed necessary for entering
competitive high schools and universities. The additional financial support that Japanese
parents provide for their children might be seen as a manifestation of love, but also a way
to foster a relationship in which children are dependent and thus (at least theoretically)
subordinate to their parents.

In sum, Japanese participants in this study viewed American families as much
lower in power distance than Japanese families. In support of this assertion, many
suggested that Japanese parents were more authoritative, less demonstrative, and less
willing to listen to their children’s opinions than were their American counterparts. In
addition, Japanese parents were seen as providing greater financial support for their

children, a manifestation not only of love but of maintaining power over their

dependents.

149

Higher Education

Responses to open-ended questions about higher education in Japan and the US.
were remarkably similar among participants in this study. Although only a few could
comment on Japanese higher education from personal experience, most respondents
emphasized that the degree of power distance they perceived between American
professors and their students was considerably less than what they knew or assumed to be
the case in Japan. Key to their impressions were that American professors frequently
asked to be addressed by first names, that they were friendly, that they made time for
students after class, and that they genuinely seemed to care about their students. Below
are 10 excerpts from 8 participants:

Ayumi: Even my professors, they ask [the] class to call [them] by a name because
they feel weird if they call [them], like, “Professor,” yeah... and I know like in
Japan I’m not going to call them by first name for sure!

Akerrri: [American professors are] nicer, I think. Because, you know, in Japan,
like, all the professors are kind of like . . . they [are] just, like, so higher up and
don’t really listen to, like, students’ opinions. But I guess it depends, because I
can’t really judge because I’ve never been to university in . . . Japan. But, like, as
far as high school teacher goes and middle school teachers, they were like,
“Uggh!” I hated my high school teacher because I went to a private high school so
it’s really strict--like, my high school was, like, so strict . . .

Aika: [American education is] more free and the teacher--the relationship between
teachers and the students are really close and friendly. Maybe in Japan . . . the
teacher should be maybe very, very respectable--like a teacher--but here: “Hey,
teacher!” [laughs] And they’re more friendly--and they’re thinking about each
students more . . .

Aika: Uh, maybe I would say [American professors are] very friendly, and
thinking about students really closely. And the very good thing is that they try to
remember the name of the students and so when I raise my hand, they say, “Yes,
Aika” and then I go, “Ooh!” It’s very nice. And it’s more like they’re putting the
name card in front . . . so “Aaah” . . .

Isamu: Over there in Japan there’s almost no interaction with professors and
students unless you talk to them and get to [know them] . . . it may be a cultural

150

thing but professors are not as much friendly as Americans. [Japanese] professors
obviously have a difficult time to get closer . . .

Isamu: I can talk to [American] professors just like fiiends--some of professors
but not everyone. But yeah, I can express my opinions.

Kana: American professors? They’re so friendly compared to Japanese professors,
I think. Because, like, in Japan, I don’t think you would go talk to them like a
fiiend, but they . . . some of the professors like, well, most of the professors are so
fiiendly--they do have office hours and they welcome you in . . . it’s nice . . . it’s
like a friendly environment to build a relationship with the students and the
professors . . .

Kazuaki: . . . Ithink they’re more causal [in the US] . . .

Kazumi: I’ve never been to a Japanese college so I don’t really know them, but
some [American] professors care for students so much and they are really into
their subject that they are teaching. That makes me enjoy that class a lot. And they
see student really equally. I wouldn’t say all of them--I had a really, like, bad
teacher [laughs]. But still, compared to Japanese, they expect students to have
respect for him or her, but at the same time, they expect them to be frank, to be
fiiendly to him, so they can understand and learn together.

Kenta: [I meet with American professors] during office hours, or I make
appointment, or I just talk to them afterward. They spend time for me to talk to
them. I am really pleased with how they are here-~like I feel sometimes like
personal attachment to professors, or the advice they give me. You know, of
course it depends; and some professors don’t want to get involved with those,
like, some students either, but there are always good professors that I really like.
Speaking of those professors, they’re really nice and they give us, like, really
insights of a study--how they think about it, and if I don’t understand, they make
it clear and they take time, so I am really happy with how they are.

In slight contrast to the students above, Naomi, who had been in the US. since the
seventh grade, felt that Japanese and American professors were similar in terms of how
they related with their students:

I think they’re about the same. Because I’m sure a lot of . . . I’ve talked to
Japanese professors too, but I . . . they’re the same. I don’t see any difference.

151

Although Kenta had suggested that American professors were friendlier than
Japanese professors, he wanted to imagine that both would be equally approachable and
receptive to student questions:

Kenta: I think . . . I’ve never asked a Japanese professor [a question] before so I

don’t know . . . I mean, it really depends on the person I think. I don’t want to see

much difference between Japanese and American.

Hofstede (1984) noted that countries ranking higher in power distance were more
likely to have educational systems that emphasized “more rote learning and the asking of
questions by . . . students [was] seldom encouraged” (p. 99). Several respondents
supported these assertions noting that their American classes often took discussion
formats where multiple answers were possible and where student input was perceived as
highly valued. Below are six comments made from four participants:

Aika: I like the small number of the class and then I’m really impressed that

students raise hands and say their opinions and then [teachers] pretend [to be]

really curious and [interested] in each opinion. Sometimes teacher in my

[Japanese] high school after listen to me, like, “Yeah, but it’s wrong!” [laughs]

And I was, “Oh, okay. . .” [laughs]

Isamu: There’s more places I can express my opinion--in papers, class-- just like

office hours--I talk to professor, and even outside class. But in Japan, like mostly

professors are just like, talking for like an hour or two hours . . .

Isamu: I think [Japanese education is] so based on textbook. Like you have

textbook first and then you have to follow it, so there’s no other way to teach or to

leam-—so there’s only one way. But here I guess, like, there’s more than one way.

Kazumi: And it’s really different, because Japanese style is teacher teach and

student listen. And, my example is like high school, nobody really raised hands,

and I really hate that! [laughs].

Kenta: There’s more discussion in the classes in the States, actually. I think

teachers are more close to the students here. I haven’t really thought of that much

. . . but I think that . . . tabun keigo toka go nai kara (perhaps because there is no
distinct, formal language in English)--they’re easier to talk with.

152

Based on the interviews in this study, there seemed to be little doubt that
compared to Japanese universities, American tertiary educational environments allowed
for greater interaction and less power distance between students and educators. These
more frequent and less formal exchanges may be due in part to historical economic
advantage; that is, American universities are plentiful and have long had the advantage of
providing smaller classes than their Japanese counterparts. Other reasons for differences
in power distance may be steeped in tradition, such as the customary respect that is
socially and linguistically dictated between Japanese of different age groups. With these
ideas in mind, the following section examines the relationships between sempai and
kohai, terms that have been loosely translated as mentor and prote'gé or senior and junior.

Contemporaries

I just feel it 's impossible to become best friends with somebody I have to use

kei go (formal language) with, because it 's just so odd. But I was just talking

about that with my Korean friend because my best friend who just went back to

Korea-~she is like 25 years old and I 'm 21--and you know, in Korea they have

kei go too. So, like, we were just saying that if we were to meet in Japan or Korea

and speak in Japanese or Korean, we would never be able to become such a good

friends. But while we are talking in English, we can forget about our age and we
could just be really close; but if you are talking in Japanese or, like, talking with

Japanese you always have to keep in mind that that person is older than you or

younger than you. And especially for me, if] 'm younger than somebody and I ’m

talking to Japanese, talking in Japanese with them, with Japanese people. . . I

have to kind of put myself down a little bit, you know? Like, I shouldn ’t oppose

their ideas too much. Like, I would sometimes suggest something to them, but I

always have to keep in mind that I ’m younger than them, and stuff like that. . .

(Akemi).

In the above excerpt, Akemi seemed to speak for most if not all of the Japanese
undergraduates interviewed for this study. From discussions on language and peer

relationships concerning power distance, several themes emerged: (1) formal Japanese

language (keigo) customarily required of younger individuals impeded friendship; (2)

153

Japanese social conventions often prevented juniors from expressing opinions or
displaying abilities; (3) some Japanese undergraduates in the US. would prefer that their
juniors (kohai) not use formal language with them; (4) some students preferred using
English--even with fellow J apanese--as a way to eliminate hierarchical separation; and
(5) the rules for using keigo amongst Japanese had become less clear in the US.
According to Confucian principles, fiiendship is the only relationship in which
two individuals are able to treat one another as equals; all other associations (parent-
child, employer-employee, buyer-seller, and husband-wife) are considered vertical. Given
the Japanese tradition of hierarchy that has paralleled Confucianism (Oldstone-Moore,
2002), students separated by as little as one school year are reared to address and treat
one another as sempai (senior) or kohai (junior). In most instances, kohai address sempai
using a formal version of Japanese known as keigo; sempai may use keigo but generally
use plain Japanese to their kohai. Given this convention and its lack thereof in the United
States, several participants articulated the difficulties in making fiiends with fellow
Japanese who were either older or younger than they were. Many contrasted this
realization with the lack of concern they felt for acknowledging age differences in the
United States. Below are quotes detailing the power distance noted in relationships
among Japanese:
Isamu: Yeah, keigo. Like, I cannot do it. Like it’s just everywhere--even here. So,
just if you meet people and you find out, like, how old he is, and then if he’s older
or younger, that decides, like, our relationship-and it’s so hard to change it. I

mean, unless you get really friendly or familiar.

Kenta: I do use [keigo] when it is necessary, but if my sempai says it’s okay, then
I’ll be like more friends with that person . . .

Isamu: To me English is much easier to introduce myself and at the same time to
know someone. But keigo is just . . .

154

I don’t think it’s preventing people from being friends or getting close, but it just,
yeah . . .

I just don’t like the way keigo fixes our relationships. Do you know what I’m
saying?

Isamu: Yeah. Like, I have some friends here, like most of them are older than me
«like five years or even, like, ten years, and I don’t use keigo to them and they
feel okay about that. But still--it’s my problem. But I still think I’m talking to
older people--senior to me. So that kind of distance--there’s distance between me
and those friends, so it’s kind of hard . . .

The above excerpts suggest that although it is not impossible for Japanese to

become friends with people of different ages, it can be difficult and made increasingly so

by the need to use honorific language. Even when honorific language is eliminated, as

Isamu pointed out, some distance may still be perceived.

In addition to differences in language usage, many participants in the current

investigation talked about the importance of showing behavioral submission to their

sempai. This submissive behavior included reserving or withholding their thoughts and

opinions as well as playing down their abilities. The following quotes speak to the

decorum expected of kohai in Japanese sporting clubs. Nobuyuki, who came to the US.

as a high school sophomore, discussed the differences between his Japanese and

American baseball clubs:

Okay, I was in sophomore [in the US] and I was already on a varsity [team]
because all the people, all the players don’t feel bad about it because you know, I
could throw better, I could hit better--maybe they just look at what I can do--for
what I am. Like, in Japan, I was also playing baseball when I was in middle
school, and usually all the people just, if I do good, they don’t feel good, because
they’re older and they should be better, right? But if I’m better, they’re going to
get mad! [laughs] Maybe they’re judging me as a servant or as younger--that’s
about all.

Akemi noted differences in custom between sporting clubs in Japan:

155

Akemi: I don’t think it’s impossible [to become fiiends with sempai], but for me
it’s harder because, like, [when] I was in middle school I played badminton, and
then you know how Japanese like . . . the sports club? Um, like, they really
[distinguish between] like, sempai and kohai-J have to use keigo; I have to
respect them. I have to, like, listen to them; I have to do whatever they tell me to
do, especially for playing sports, you know? So for me it’s harder to become
friends with sempai.

Perhaps as a result of living in a host environment where lower power distance
was valued, many of the Japanese participants expressed that it was important to relax
their expectations from younger Japanese. Some, such as Kazuaki, may have been
surprised by the casual norms among some Japanese at this university, but admitted to
adjusting to the idea favorably:

Kazuaki: Yeah, I don’t want younger people to speak to me in a polite way

because sometime I felt I am different from them. I feel like I slighted . . .

them. Yeah, so I like [that] they talk to me like I talk to them.

John: Was [the informal language you sometimes heard from kohai] surprising at
first?

Kazuaki: Um . . . I already forgot about it . . . I might have been surprised the way
they talk to me.

John: Did you think it was rude in the beginning?

Kazuaki: Yeah, I may have been . . . a little bit.

Like Kazuaki, Kenta was also an advocate of relaxing formal language usage,
although he still referred to the importance of maintaining respect. When pressed further,
he seemed almost in favor of abolishing the semp-kohai custom. Our conversation on the
subject was as follows:

John: How do the younger Japanese students treat you here in the US?

Kenta: Oh, they’re polite--real polite. I’m a senior, so those, like, newcomers, are

real polite to me. And I don’t like how they--if you be polite, it’s a really good
thingubut at the same time, you’re kind of, like, making them distance between

156

me and them, so I try not to make that distance so far. So I tell them that: “You
can be polite” but as long as they have respect to me, I don’t care if they. . .

speak keigo or not. So I try not to be like sempai to them, and I can’t be, like. . .

I can maybe advise them for, you know, for something that they’re not sure about,
but, you know, I’m not the one who. . . comes out with what’s wrong or whatever.
You can’t really be, like, you know, be here, so. . .

John: So you feel that your position as sempai is less here, or that you don’t want
to be a sempai?

Kenta: Yes, I don’t want to be.
John: But in Japan?
Kenta: I don’t want to be either. This marks my personal theory.

John: So you think you’ve changed, maybe? So, like, when you were in junior
high and you were sempai . . .

Kenta: I’m just not used to being sempai. . .

As a way to avoid making social distinction by age, some participants expressed
that they actually preferred speaking English. One quote from a communication major
identifying as assimilated stood out from my pilot study (Brender, 2004):

[Speaking] English . . . makes me feel like I can talk to anybody equally, even a

professor, or fiiends, or younger kids. It’s easier to interact with people language

wise. Because of the language it makes me feel like I can talk to anyone. So I feel
more open, more interactive--more aggressive with American people than

Japanese.

While some participants echoed this sentiment, none were more extreme than
Isamu who had become known in the local Japanese community for his insistence on
speaking English with other Japanese. During his interview, he told me about meeting
some Japanese tourists in Thailand:

Like, I was traveling in the first half of the summer and I met, like, some Japanese

travelers, so of course they tried to speak Japanese to me, but I just feel
comfortable speaking English. Just yeah, so . . .

157

While Isamu’s insistence on using English with other Japanese may be unusual,
the convention of using formal language with elders appeared to be dissipating among
Japanese undergraduates on this American campus. It would be incorrect to say that it
had disappeared by any means, but according to respondents in this study, the degree of
power distance between Japanese sempai and kohai may be notably less than in Japan. A
conversation with Kazuaki, who was 26 and the oldest of the participants in this study,
ensued as follows:

John: How old are most of your Japanese friends?

Kazuaki: I think 22--between 20 and 25 or . . .

John: So you’re the sempai! You’re the top dog!

Kazuaki: [Laughs] But it doesn’t matter here!

John: Does it matter with all the other Japanese here? Do the Japanese here treat
you with all the same conventions as in Japan?

Kazuaki: Oh, some of them talk to me in the polite expression, but some of them
don’t use polite expression.

John: Does that happen in Japan?

Kazuaki: Oh, not often.

Ayumi, who had been in the US. since the seventh grade and admitted to being
less comfortable with speaking keigo, offered the following perspective:

Ayumi: I think I did use keigo to sempai [in the US] but not all the time.
Sometime I went back to my usual, like, how I talk to my fiiends, so . . .

John: So do you think you are less rigid about using keigo than someone who just
came from Japan?

Ayumi: Yeah.

John: You probably use less keigo than other Japanese?

158

Ayumi: Yeah.

John: And you’re probably more likely to use plain Japanese with more people?

Ayumi: Yeah, I think so. When I was in Japan I never had to be in, like, strict

power position, so I never actually experienced too much power because, like, the

swim team . . . was so loose and they didn’t even care, but if it was marching

band, like, my fiiend was [in], it was so strong and I wouldn’t make it. If that’s

what I want to do I would probably do it because it’s the way I can get into higher

on top.

Finally in a vein similar to Nobuyuki’s comment about age and ability on his
Japanese baseball team, Kazumi expressed some frustration with the idea of having to

show deference toward those for whom she felt little genuine respect:

John: On the Japanese side, do you ever feel it’s oppressive to respect your
sempai or your professors?

Kazumi: Yeah. Mostly I think it’s oppressive when that person is older but I see
him or her not experience much and don’t know anything about it. I see those
kind of people a lot. And I don’t like it.

Thus, in exploring power distance between and among Japanese undergraduates
on an American campus, one begins to see a degree of discomfort and questioning about
hierarchical practices common to the Japanese language and culture. In some cases,
students have asked their underlings to refrain from using formal Japanese with them
while others use it less or not at all with older Japanese students. Although it was
common for Japanese students to express feeling freer and more “aggressive” when
speaking English, only 1 of the 12 participants expressed a preference for using English
with Japanese peers.

The Workplace

Many participants were quick to note differences in power distance between

Japanese and American places of work. Although most were familiar with differences

159

primarily from hearsay, Kazuaki, who had worked for both a Japanese and an American
hotel chain, offered the following:

John: How would you characterize Japanese companies compared to American
companies? Have you worked for a Japanese company at all?

Kazuaki: Yeah, I worked there. It’s more . . . you know, sempai-kohai
relationship I guess. Because, like, here you can call your boss [by], like, first
name, but we never call your boss [by] first name--like Mr. So and So. So it’s
more . . . authoritative-Japanese company. But American company, it’s more like
flat. You talk to the same way your boss, or your subordinates.

John: Do you plan to work for a Japanese company or an American company?
Kazuaki: I plan to work for an American company.

John: Is there a reason why?

Kazuaki: I like the environment-dike, casual environment. It’s not authoritative.
When I was working in a Japanese company I was more stressed. But when I was
interning in an American company I feel more comfortable.

John: Why did you feel more stress with the Japanese company?

Kazuaki: Like, in Japanese company the boss or sempai is more strict to you than
here.

John: Strict meaning?

Kazuaki: Like, if you make a mistake or something they try, sometimes they yell
at me, but it’s never happened here, so . . .

Obviously Kazuaki could not speak for all of America, and the fact that he
worked as a low-paying intern in the US. may have explained the comparatively affable
treatment he received. Nevertheless, he made some interesting points echoed by other
participants. Akemi, a senior communication major who had spent two years at an
American high school and hoped to one day work as a counselor at a Japanese university,

commented:

160

Yeah, I mean, I’m not used to all this sempai and, you know, all the seniority

stuff, so it would be hard for me to get used to that when I go back and work in

Japan.

Additional concerns were heard regarding the added power distance between men
and women at Japanese companies. Two female participants, Kana and Akemi, related
similar reservations about retuming to work in Japan:

Kana: All the people, like, my Japanese fiiends who have worked in an American

company tell me I’ve got to work for American company so that, you know--

there’s no real seniority in American company whereas there is in Japanese
company. Like, if you’re young and, you know, you’re a girl then there is no
sexual preference maybe . . . . Then American society, if you’re good, if you can
deal with the work, you know, it’s just going up high. So, all my fiiends tell me,
you know, I better work for American company-J think that’s true.

Akemi: I think there is a lot of discrimination against women in Japanese

company, and they care a lot more about seniority—~like older people and people

who have been working there for a while.

That there are differences between Japanese and American companies and
management styles is a common perception which may hold a degree of truth.
Nevertheless, there are certainly exceptions based on work environment type and the
people who set the tone. Undoubtedly some interesting comparisons and contrasts might
be found between specific professions such as educators, journalists, accountants, or
firefighters. This study, however, is limited to the perceptions of undergraduates who
were only minimally familiar with Japanese and American work environments.

Behavior

As a final topic regarding power distance in Japan and the U.S., I examined and

discussed changes in behavior when respondents switched between speaking English and

Japanese. I also asked about the long-term effects that each language and culture had had

upon the other. Having long observed a metamorphosis in others and myself who toggled

161

between English and Japanese, I became aware of changes in gestures and degrees of
modesty and self-deprecation. In addition, I noted that when speaking Japanese,
observations were heightened for determining hierarchy--underlings were treated more
brusquely, superiors with greater reverence. Topics appropriate for discussion were also
altered in myriad ways. Among the respondents in this study, there appeared to be a wide
range of behavioral changes ranging from those who distinctly alternated their behavior
to those who did very little when switching from one language to the other. In the
following excerpts I have included Romanized Japanese where it was used, providing
translations in parentheses. My first discussion was with Kazumi, a senior
communication major:

John: Demo, Nihongo de hanashitara, jesuchd toka te no ugoki toka hyoujou wa

kawaru to omoimasuka? (But when you speak Japanese, don’t you find that your

gestures, hands, and voice change?)

Kazumi: Chigau to omoimasu. (I think they’re different) [her shoulders seem to

tighten as she responds in Japanese] Chigau to omoimasu! (I think they’re

different!) [laughs]

John: Naze sonna ni kawaru n desuka? (Why did you change so much?)

Kazumi: Umm . . .

John: Watashi ga toshi ue dakara desuka? (Is it because I’m older?)

Kazumi: [laughs] Sore wa nai kedo, tabun, Nihongo o shaberu toki wa, keigo de

tsukau kara, dakara, nanka, keigo no shisei mo souyufu ni keigo o shabete iru

toki no shisei to iu no ni natte tte. Demo, Eigo no bai wa keigo to in no sai ga nai

kara (No, not because of that. Maybe it’s because when I speak Japanese I

sometimes use formal language, therefore, how can I say it? When I use keigo I

also take on the posture or formality that goes along with it. But when I speak

English, there is no formal language and so I have no formal way of acting to go
along with it.)

162

Wondering whether my age was a factor in determining how younger Japanese
spoke to me in Japanese, I was assured by Isamu that being a non-Japanese excluded me
from serious hierarchical consideration:

John: Is there a difference between--I don’t know if you’ve spoken Japanese with
many foreigners--demo watashi to Nihongo de hanashitara, ano, dou yuufu ni
hanasu n desuka? (but if I speak to you in Japanese, how do you speak to me?)

Isamu: Keigo de, mochiron, dakedo yappari, gikochinai tte iu ka, hanashinikui--
(in keigo, of course, but it’s as you would expect, it’s difficult to speak) it’s
difficult! It’s so uncomfortable.

John: So there’s a difference in the way you’re talking to me right now when you
suddenly switched to . . .

Isamu: Yeah, it’s keigo. Yeah, especially if I meet you and I spoke to you in
English the first time and then if you switch to Japanese, so . . .

John: Then suddenly you have to become aware that I’m older than you are?

Isamu: Uh . . . no, when I’m talking to, like, foreign people, I don’t see age as a
factor to make me speak keigo . . . it’s because you spoke to me in keigo, so that’s
why--we are first time, so if you are okay, I don’t use keigo. But yeah, like the
force that makes me to speak keigo is much stronger when I’m talking to a
Japanese older man than when I’m talking to an American man.

Kazuaki, who came to the US. at 23 and spent the bulk of his time with other
Japanese, admitted that although he had changed little during his time in the U.S., he had
undoubtedly become more casual:

John: If we were to talk about respecting authority, in terms of respecting

professors, or respecting sensei, do you feel that you still have the same Japanese

values? Because professors here [may] say, “Call me John.”

Kazuaki: [laughs] Oh yeah!

John: So how do you feel about that? Are Americans too informal? Are Japanese
too formal?

Kazuaki: Oh, yeah, I think I changed alittle bit because I used to be more polite
to my professors, but here, like, professors are [more casual] . . . I think I became
more casual when I communicate with, like, professors or, like, other people.

163

Miho, who also spent most of her time with Japanese and appeared to be
considerably less introspective than other participants, ultimately identified a shift in her
behavior when switching from English to Japanese:

John: Could I just speak to you [the way I do] in English and just use Japanese
words?

Miho: No. That’s weird. In Japanese we have to be polite when we talk to older

people, but in United States it’s kind of same but to me it goes like . . .so there

will be a problem if you speak the same way you do in your country.

John: What about if you speak with someone younger than you . . . in Japan?

Miho: I guess pretty the same. I don’t actually care about how I speak, just . . .

Hence, there appeared to be a big shift between speaking formal Japanese and
informal Japanese, or between formal Japanese and English. The difference between
speaking informal Japanese and English, according to some participants, was less

pronounced. Kazumi related the following:

John: Let’s say we’re old friends, and we’re the same age, and I approach you in
Japanese, like, “Genki?” (Doin’ all right?)

Kazumi: Yeah, I will be very friendly. I will be like American, like this [slackens
posture]. .

John: So you feel that if you’re informal you’ll be the same in Japanese as in
English?

Kazumi: Um hm.

Undoubtedly there are behavioral differences between speaking informal Japanese
and informal English that were not always accounted for in the various two to three hour
interviews. Finding answers to such questions might require more introspection and
observation than was possible in the time allotted, but for one to give a reliable account

of these behavioral shifts, he or she might need to have near-native ability in both

164

languages. Isamu, whose English was excellent in my estimation, expressed his linguistic
shortcomings:

John: Okay, do you feel you behave the same way with Japanese as you do with
Americans?

Isamu: No, no . . . if I could speak better English, I think it would be much easier
for me to express myself in front of American fiiends than in fi'ont of Japanese.
But now because of the language problem it might be easier for me to express
myself in front of Japanese, but there’s uh . . . but most of my fiiends are seniors
so there’s, like, certain culture of power or constraint so that makes me hard to
behave as I want.

John: So with the Japanese there’s sort of a cultural constraint but with Americans
it’s a personal limitation with the language. Is that fair?

Isamu: Yeah, that’s right.

John: So if you spoke more English, you’d feel more comfortable with English.

Isamu: Yeah, that’s true.

In spite of an excellent command of English, Isamu was still fi'ustrated by a
limited vocabulary that did not allow him to express himself in a way that felt sufficient;
in his native language he felt inhibited to express himself due to cultural conventions. An
ability to articulate oneself equally in two languages is much more difficult than many
may realize; that lsarnu could fathom expressing himself more fully in English than in his
native language spoke volumes about how the Japanese language is subject to the
mandates of culture.

Summary

This chapter presented Japanese undergraduate perceptions of power distance
regarding families, higher education, contemporaries, and the workplace in Japan and the
United States. It concluded with observations and discussions about changes in

participant behavior when switching between Japanese and English-speaking

165

environments. These behavioral shifts were discussed as they related to changes in power
distance.

A number of participants perceived American families as more emotionally
demonstrative and less authoritative than Japanese families. As Nobuyuki claimed,

“In the U.S., parents listen to their kids. If your children show you their opinion, parents
will listen to you. That’s something I was amazed about.”

This, of course, did not imply that American families were closer than Japanese
families. As Kenta suggested, Japanese parents likely spent more money and made more
sacrifices for their children than most American parents. Kana and Kenta both noted that
American families encouraged their children to be independent at younger ages than did
most Japanese families. Lower power distance might understandably relate to cultivating
independence.

Regarding postsecondary educational institutions, most respondents emphasized
that the degree of power distance they perceived between professors and their students in
American universities was considerably lower than what they knew or assumed would be
the case in Japan. Key to their impressions were that American professors frequently
asked to be addressed on a first-name basis, were often fiiendly, generally made time for
students after class, and often seemed to genuinely care about their students. Several
participants noted that the discussion format associated with American classrooms lent
itself to much more comfortable exchanges between students and professors. To that idea,
Kenta added that the absence of formal language in English made American professors

“easier to talk with.”

166

Mentor-protege (sempai-kohai) relationships, inherent to and delineated by age in
Japanese culture, were perceived as contributing to stronger and more prevalent displays
of power distance in Japan and among Japanese in the US. Although some informants
observed more relaxed norms among Japanese students in the U.S., most agreed that
speaking Japanese required a heightened awareness of power distance, especially since
many communication choices depended on it. In terms of cultivating friendships, Akemi,
Kazumi, and Isamu expressed advantages in using English because of its hierarchical
neutrality. Isamu, however, was the only one to insist on using English with fellow
Japanese.

Regarding power distance in the workplace, participants were generally in
agreement that Japanese companies incorporated higher degrees of power distance.
Kazuaki, who had worked at both a Japanese and American hotel chain, insisted that
mentor-protege (sempai-kohai) relationships were ubiquitous in Japanese companies and
that negative reinforcement was more commonly utilized. When asked about differences
between Japanese and American companies, some participants believed that American
companies offered more opportunities for rapid promotion, given their comparative lack
of age-based and sometimes gender-based hierarchical distinctions.

Finally, I noted shi Its in behavior between participants who spoke formal
Japanese (keigo), plain Japanese, and English. Some participants admitted to feeling
uncomfortable using formal Japanese, especially if they had had little practice using it in
Japan. Kazumi insisted that she made few shifts between speaking English and plain
Japanese, but that speaking formal Japanese caused her to make behavioral changes

analogous to formal Japanese norms. Interestingly, Isamu conveyed that speaking

167

Japanese with older foreigners did not precipitate the same formal linguistic and
behavioral shifts as speaking with older Japanese men. Few behavioral changes reflecting
power distance were noted between speaking plain Japanese and speaking English,
although much investigation remains to be done in this area.

Having presented Japanese undergraduate perceptions of power distance between
Japan and the United States in terms of families, higher education, contemporaries, and
the workplace, I now offer a chapter that focuses on how this same population
distinguishes between Japan and the United States in regard to uncertainty avoidance. In
Chapter 7, I specifically target how Japanese undergraduates perceive uncertainty

avoidance regarding family, friendship, religion, education, employment, and language.

168

CHAPTER 7
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

Uncertainty avoidance refers to “the extent to which members of a culture feel
threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (Hofstede, 1984, p. 113). The three
indicators used to determine uncertainty avoidance in Hofstede’s (1984) research were:
(1) rule orientation; (2) employment stability; and (3) stress. Japan and other East Asian
countries have traditionally been associated with higher uncertainty-avoidance levels than
most Western countries (Fernandez et al., 1997; Hofstede, 1984; Maeda & Ritchie, 2003;
Shuper et al., 2004), suggesting a greater adherence to rules, less career changing, and
greater levels of stress. In Hofstede’s (1984) investigation, Japan ranked 4th of 39
countries with a score of 92; the US. ranked 31St with a score of 46. The mean was 64
(Hofstede, 1984).

In the review of literature, it was argued that mainstream Japanese were more
prone to avoiding uncertainty than US. Americans in each of the following areas: (1)
family; (2) friendship; (3) religion; (4) education; (5) employment; and (6) language. In
this chapter, the views of Japanese undergraduates at an American university will be
presented as they pertain to these six categories. An additional section on general rule
orientation will follow. Religion was not routinely discussed as I did not want to arouse
discomfort or undesired feelings of controversy; the section on religion will thus be
limited.

Family
In Chapter 3, much of the literature supported Hofstede’s (1984) assertion that

Japanese valued greater uncertainty avoidance in terms of family relationships. One of

169

the hallmarks of Japanese families was shown to revolve around the concept of uchi and
soto (inside and outside). One premise of uchi-soto is that Japanese children are kept at
bay by learning to associate that which is good, comfortable, and clean with the inside
(i.e., the family) and that which is bad, uncomfortable, and dirty with the outside
(Hendry, 2003). It was suggested that American families were not generally aware of any
such formalized concept and therefore differentiated much less between rules and
expectations inside and outside the home. Given the universal prevalence of the uchi-soto
concept in Japan, it can be inferred that learning to associate the outside in negative ways
may contribute to a Japanese tendency toward uncertainty avoidance.

If American families stress greater behavioral consistencies between the home
and the outside, it may relate to a strong value for independence. It was suggested in one
interview that American families encouraged independence earlier than is typical in most
Japanese families. Kana, a senior who had spent a year at an American high school while
living with her family, offered this observation:

John: How about the structure of American families-J mean if you compare it to
what you know of Japanese families, are they similar?

Kana: No, I don’t think so . . . Americans are, like. . .sometimes people go out of
state to a college, right? They don’t come back very often, right? Well, there’s
just, like, two or three times a year. I feel like . . . to Americans, graduating from
high school is a big thing, right? To Japanese, graduating from college is a big
thing, you know? A big start about your life . . . so I feel really different [about]
that point. Because when I was graduating from high school [in the US], I didn’t
throw a big party--it was not that big deal for me, but for all my friends, they had,
like, such a big parties . . . you know? It’s [as] if they’re not coming back
anymore . . . so that was, like, something I felt strange [about] . . .

John: So do you feel that most Americans separate from their families at 18 and
Japanese more at 21 or 22?

Kana: Yeah--at the early age. Yeah, I think American kids are more independent.

170

Independence and self-reliance are certainly well documented hallmarks of
American culture. Datesman et al. (1997) considered freedom and independence as the
first among three overriding values in mainstream American culture. Kana’s observation
that Americans raise their children to be independent earlier than Japanese may be a topic
worthy of future investigation.

Naomi, who had lived in the US. since the seventh grade, reinforced the notion
that Americans embrace uncertainty more than Japanese. From her experience, she had
observed that American families change residence at a much greater rate than Japanese
families. At least according to Naomi, this had everything to do with the greater desire
Americans have for social mobility or perhaps what is commonly referred to as the
American dream:

Naomi: American families? I think they love to progress. Like, they’re always

looking for progression. Like, they want to go higher . . . like, status-wise in

society, like, always--they never stop!

John: Isn’t that true with Japanese?

Naomi: I don’t think so. Some people are just like . . . maybe it is, but I don’t

think Japanese people move that much-~like, in terms of housing-unless you have

to . . . [it] your father’s job is transferred or something. But American people just
move because they want to live in a better house.

Although it is difficult to compare housing migration patterns between Japanese
and US. Americans, Noguchi and Poterba (1994) suggested two feasible explanations for
the American predisposition toward changing residence: (1) the surplus of housing in the
US. compared to housing shortages in Japan; and (2) the variety of credit market

institutions available to Americans that make homeownership easier in the US. than in

Japan. Beyond these economic incentives, it is difficult to say for certain whether

171

Americans change residence more frequently than Japanese for reasons of social
advancement. Naomi’s assessment may not be far off, however.

Contrary to Japanese valuing greater uncertainty avoidance than US. Americans
is that Americans may take more routine steps to avoid litigation. Naomi aptly pointed
out that it is Americans and not Japanese who require legal agreements to send children
on routine field trips:

Naomi: American mothers are very protective about safety and stuff like that.

And like-~it might be just a cultural thing and just a law thingubut every single

thing . . . whenever you’re going on a field trip you have to sign a paper, and just

why??? And they complain whenever they get hurt! I mean, kids fall down!

[Laughs] And why does it matter?

Naomi’s observation appears to suggest that in terms of litigation, U.S. Americans
are more likely to cling to security than Japanese. Closer examination, however, may
reveal that such fear is an inevitable byproduct of a society that has learned the many
dangers of routinely facing uncertainty.

Friendship

In Chapter 3, the most notable difference characterizing Japanese and American
ideals of fiiendship stemmed from Meada and Ritchie’s (2003) study. Their conclusion
was that while Americans emphasized personal stimulation as an important element of
fiiendship, Japanese preferred comfort and case. This, they concluded, was consistent
with the cultural differences noted in Hofstede’s (1984) uncertainty-avoidance measures
that placed Japan high in uncertainty avoidance and the US. as considerably lower
(Maeda & Ritchie, 2003).

In the present study, preference for stimulation over comfort varied largely by

acculturation identity. Japanese undergraduates self-identifying as integrated often found

172

it difficult to choose between stimulation and comfort as a priority for fiiendship. Some
integrated students also appeared less able to differentiate between the nature of their
friendships with Japanese, Americans, and other international students. The following
excerpts are taken from conversations with four students who self-identified3 as
integrated.

Integrated Student #1: Ayumi

John: I don’t know if it’s very easy to compare, but would you say that
fiiendships with Japanese are different from friendships with Americans?

Ayumi: I think they’re basically the sarne--it’s just like between people and
people, not like any nationality and stuff, yeah . . .

John: Are there certain people you would talk to about problems?

Ayumi: Yeah, like if they’re in kind of same situation, it’s kind of easier for me to
talk because I know they would understand. Or if they are, like, talking to me
about the same kind of stuff I know they have same kind of problem, so I feel
easier. . .

John: So when you said you shared the same kind of situation, is there a
difference between an American or a Japanese in terms of friendship?

Ayumi: Um, no I don’t think so.

John: So you can talk to a Japanese about a problem or an American, it doesn’t
matter?

Ayumi: Yeah.
Integrated Student #2: Akemi

John: When you think of someone who is a really good friend, which do you
prefer, a fiiend you feel relaxed with or a fiiend who is intense and likes to talk
about issues all the time?

Akemi: I like them both. I have, like . . . that’s why I have several different best
fiiends--some of them are, like, more laid back, some of them are, like, more
talkative. But I think I would rather have somebody who I can be really

 

3 EAAM scores and researcher determination did not always match self-selected acculturation identities

173

comfortable with, you know, just to be myself--you know, to be by myself. Yeah
[with] two of my best friend I can be like that . . .

John: And those friends, are they Japanese or American?
Akemi: One is Korean; one is American.

John: And you don’t feel you have to talk for long periods?
Akemi: Yeah, no . . . Ican just hang out . . .

John: You’re not uncomfortable?

Akemi: No, I’m not uncomfortable.

Integrated Student #3: Isamu

John: If you choose a friend, would you prefer someone who is very talkative and
likes to discuss issues or someone you can be quiet and comfortable with?

Isamu: If I have close friends? I think I’m talkative so I want someone who I can
talk to and listen to me. At the same time, I don’t just want to keep talking to him
just like whole time, but maybe 50/50 is the best.

John: So sometimes it’s okay to be quiet?

Isamu: Yeah, I’m comfortable. I’m comfortable with that.

Integrated Student #4: Naomi

John: So if you have a choice between two fiiends, one you can feel comfortable
with and another one that is very interesting or stimulating, which fiiend would

you prefer to be with?

Naomi: I’d prefer the fiiend who I would hang around with. Um, actually the fact
that, like, what kind of problem I have . . .

John: For your identity problem?
Naomi: Right. For my identity problem I’d talk to my Japanese friend who has the
same background. She lived in both Japan and America, but for other things I can

just talk to American fiiends or just international friends or, I mean, anyone.

John: So if you were given the choice between a friend who is quiet and easy to
be with or one who is stimulating and intense, which would you choose?

174

Naomi: Oh right, I think I would like to talk to the person who is very interesting
too, because I am a college student and I’m interested in doing [things] and I like
having, like, an interesting discussion and stuff like that--and I really enjoy it, but
I would prefer the person that I feel comfortable with because I can just be with
them and [especially] since I’m not with my family, I would like to have someone
to stay close [with] and just, like, be in the same room [with] even though we’re
just happy to be. And I will need someone who I just feel comfortable with, being
in the same room and not talking even, and not feeling awkward.
While the students self—identifying as integrated were somewhat torn between
whether stimulation or comfort was most important in a fiiendship, Kazuaki, who self-
identified as separated, expressed corresponding Japanese values regarding fiiendship:

John: When you get together with friends do you expect to talk and do something
stimulating, or would you prefer just to relax?

Kazuaki: Just . . . to be relaxed.

John: And what about talking about troubles--problems? Or things . . . is it easy
for you to talk to friends about problems?

Kazuaki: Yeah!

John: Or to listen to people when they have problems?

Kazuaki: Yeah.

John: You don’t see that as negative? [As whiny?]

Kazuaki: No.

On the other side of the equation, Kazuaki’s girlfiiend, Kana, who identified as
decidedly assimilated, preferred stimulation in a friendship:

Kana: Hmmm . . . Um, because I’m not a stimulating person, I’d like the other
person to be so stimulating and very excited, I think . . .

While Kana expressed her preference for a stimulating fiiendship, her self-
assessment of being non-stimulating was beyond the call for self-deprecation. In terms of

energy and intensity, Kana was a dynamo!

175

Not specifically found in the literature was an assessment made by Naomi. Naomi
insisted that many Japanese students at her American college dutifully avoided the
uncertainty of venturing outside of Japanese circles:

Naomi: I feel like [Japanese students are] closed minded, especially when they’re
here. Like, why are they hanging out with themselves? I mean, usually, you know,
people who study here, like, people who are just, like, coming here to study-mot
like I am--like I am studying here but I’m kind of like forced to study here, you
know? Because of the consequence [of my family moving to the US] . . . but
those people, like, they choose to study here--they choose to come. Like, why are
they still hanging out with themselves? And they will never learn how to speak in
English! And they will, like, be scared of American people the whole time! Like,
that’s what they actually say: They’re like, “Oh, I’m scared of American people--
they use too much drugs!” I’m like, “It’s a different country! Like, try to learn,
and try to immi . . . -you don’t have to do drugs, but . . .” [laughs]. You can be
scared and not talk to American people the whole time. So I can’t be comfortable
with them.

Naomi supported her claim that local Japanese avoided uncertainty through her
observations of nightlife and other diversionary experiences in the community
surrounding the university:

Naomi: Most of the Japanese people here don’t go to bars because first they don’t

want to spend money, and secondly they don’t have fun because they don’t dance,

they don’t get that buzzed [laughs]; they don’t hit on girls, or girls don’t hit on

men, so. . .

John: What’s your perception of nampa (getting hit on)?

Naomi: I think it’s great!

John: It’s okay?

Naomi: It’s not okay . . . I mean, it’s okay, I mean, it’s fine. If you’re in college,

fine . . . I mean, I don’t go off with some random guy or anything, but. . .I mean,

you’re having a good time, like, listening to music, dancing, drinking and getting

a little buzz, I think it’s fine! [Laughs] I just don’t like that part of Japanese

people here, because they’re just so, like--conservative?

Depending on one’s point of view, conservative may seem either a complimentary

or uncomplimentary word. In either case, to generalize that Japanese at American

176

colleges fall under either category is unfair. As demonstrated in the biographical sketches
compiled in Chapter 5, there is likely a wide range of diversity among Japanese
undergraduates in terms of their personalities and responses to acculturation: some
integrate, some assimilate, some separate, and some identify as marginalized. Many
reported that their acculturation identity had changed over time. Nevertheless, that some
Japanese actually fear involvement with Americans--for whatever reasons—~may support
the general theory of greater uncertainty avoidance among Japanese. That the widespread
use of drugs in the US. has impeded some Japanese and other internationals from
pursuing fiiendships with Americans may be an issue for student development
practitioners to address—-with both domestic and international students. The approach, of
course, will depend on each school, its mission, its administrators, and research on the
topic, all of which are beyond the scope of this investigation.
Religion

As mentioned in Chapter 3, Hofstede (1984) saw Japan as seemingly misplaced
among Catholic countries, which all tended to rank high in uncertainty avoidance.
Hofstede’s (1984) only plausible explanations about Japan were that it may have had
stronger religious ties than would meet the eye, and that ancestor worship may have
accounted for coping with uncertainty of the unknown (Hofstede, 1984). Upon closer
examination, the present study added that the authoritarian leadership and prescribed
rituals found in the traditional Shinto and Buddhist religions of Japan closely paralleled

Catholicism.

177

The only student who chose to discuss religion without prompting was Naomi,
who had attended a Catholic school in the US. in both junior high and high school.
Naomi shared the following observations about religion in the US:

Naomi: Um, oh, people are very religious--very, very religious. And that was my

first impression, but since I went to a Catholic school, obviously they should be

religious, right? But after a while, especially when I came to [this university],
there are so many religious people--like religious people who didn’t even go to

Catholic school. So, I was, like, “Okay . . . ”

John: What is your feeling about religion now?

Naomi: Well, being religious is fine, but I don’t know. I don’t really practice

anything, so . . . But whenever I take religion classes . . . I didn’t take it as

something that I have to do, because first I wasn’t Catholic [laughs]; second, I

didn’t agree with [it]; thirdly, I don’t know, it was just difficult. I didn’t think it

was important for me to change my values. Just because I have to kind of like . . .

you know . . . be more liberal about accepting other cultures--it didn’t mean that I

had to change my feeling-like the way I feel or behave or anything.

In a sense, Naomi may have been similar to many Japanese who, although
aligning themselves with one or more religions when surveyed, were seldom highly
devoted followers who took their life’s cues from theological authorities (Hendry, 2003;
Befu, 2001: Reischauer, 1981). In this sense, one might conclude that the seemingly non-
religious Japanese seek less uncertainty avoidance than their American counterparts. But
the picture would be incomplete. What has been termed the Japanese religion (Befu,
2001) is steeped in prescribed traditions that often parallel Confucianism. To that end,
one could still argue that religious traditions in Japan affect uncertainty avoidance as a
value. Americans, on the other hand, approximately 57% of whom are Protestant
(Datesman et al. 1997), may still identify with lower levels of uncertainty avoidance

given the lack of hierarchical structure and emphasis on theological debate found in many

of its traditions. Naomi’s comment, while valid in terms of noting the religious

178

convictions and fervency of many Americans, is not sufficient to suggest any conclusions
about uncertainty avoidance one way or another.
Education

In Chapter 3, I argued that the Japanese educational system, from kindergarten
through university, left little to chance or uncertainty. In contrast to the United States,
Japan has maintained a powerful, centralized ministry of education that oversees a high
degree of uniformity among its country’s schools. With a shared, nationwide goal of
passing entrance exams for the most competitive high schools and universities possible
(Hendry, 2003; Smith, 1997; McVeigh, 1995), Japanese students and their parents
generally insist on measurable fairness that requires precise answers over the subjectivity
of argumentation or creative thinking. In order to most efficiently expose themselves to
the knowledge required for success in this environment, Japanese students rely on
teachers who disseminate relevant information in efficient, lecture formats.

Having spent the vast majority of their lives immersed in both Japanese and
American educational systems, the Japanese undergraduates interviewed in this study
often had more to say about education than about any other topic. From the interviews
conducted, the following claims were frequently expressed: (1) Japanese K-12 education
was much more demanding than American K-12 education; (2) American postsecondary
education was more demanding than Japanese postsecondary education; (3) American
education offered greater personal choice than Japanese education; (4) Japanese K-16
education emphasized lectures and precise answers to test questions; (5) American K-16

education emphasized class discussion, reasoning, and grounded argumentation over

179

precise answers. These claims will be addressed under the following three themes: (1)

assessing the two systems; (2) choice; and (3) teaching methods.

Assessing the Two Systems

Although students agreed that Japanese K-12 education was far more demanding

than in the U.S., opinions differed as to which system was better or more effective: some

preferred the American system, some were diplomatic or philosophical, and some

preferred the Japanese system. Naoki and Akemi were the harshest critics of the Japanese

system. Naoki spoke without reservation:

added:

Oh, [education in Japan is] tenible. Because Japanese education is just trying to
make things hard-~not really teach. Like, exam, exam, exam; and exam to get into
high school and exam to get into college. And there’s a school named juku (cram
school), and kids have to go to juku to get into a good school, and if they don’t get
into a good school that affects them in the future because they cannot get into a
good company.

Echoing Naoki’s sentiments about excessive work and pressure, Akemi

Um, I really don’t like how it works in Japan because like, you know, when you
[are] in, like, middle school and high school you have to study so hard to get into
the university, and once they get into the university they don’t do anything . . . . I
think it’s, like, really stupid. Like, I don’t like the way they’re set up in Japan.
Like, I think they should be able to enjoy, like, you know, making friends and
having fun when they are younger, and then become serious in college. But in
Japan it works like the other way around.

Aika corroborated with the idea that Japanese K-12 schooling was difficult, but

stopped short of labeling it better or worse than American education:

Uh, it’s more strict than here [laughs] and, but teacher give us everything what to
do--and it’s homework, homework, homework, homework! Do that, that, that,
that, that! But . . . even in the summer break, they give us a ton of homeworks,
and even though we have 40 days of vacation, we have just ten days for free time
because we spend most of the time for the homework [laughs]. And, maybe as
you know, getting into the university is really hard--the examination is really,
really hard, . . . and even the society are giving us the pressure of getting, like,

180

diploma at least; otherwise we don’t have any job. So the family--even me--puts

us in the cram school after school and just study, study, study! And just cram

them into [our heads] 18 hours a day. . .

In contrast to Naoki and Akemi, Saori was the biggest proponent of the Japanese
education system. Although she was philosophical about American classroom
discussions, she was partial to the efficiency she saw in Japanese education:

I think I like Japanese way because it’s more, like, I don’t say easy . . . more

effective. Not like [where] they talk about something supported by a lot of, like,

argument or theory, right? So just receiving and learning and remembering-so we
can get the, like, right knowledge.

Saori, who had just earned her degree in accounting, appeared to have great
confidence in the Japanese ministry’s curricular decisions. Continuing with her support of
the transmittal teaching perspective that frequently characterized Japanese education,
Saori mentioned that experimentation with more liberal forms of education were deemed,
in the estimation of many, ineffective and inappropriate in Japan:

It’s like educational system is changing right now. They have threw out a lot of

things in one year, but now they changed, you know? They say, like, we should

form more American ways. But after, like, two years or three years research they
realize that that’s [generating only] a little bit of knowledge . . . so we should go
back to like before or something.

The educational reforms that Saori mentioned went into effect in 2002 (Ellington,
2005), after most students in this investigation had left Japan. In that year, approximately
one third of Japan’s national cuniculum was eliminated to allow for an integrated studies
component calling for field trips, hands on experience, studying local issues, and
practicing English with foreigners. Most importantly, the integrated studies component

was to be taught without textbooks or examinations. The controversy of lowering

standards in the curriculum and shifting values from collectivism to individualism has

181

been duly criticized in Japan (Ellington, 2005). The Ministry of Education has announced
plans to reevaluate the Integrated Studies program (Ellington, 2005).

Regardless of which system students preferred, there was strong agreement that
Japanese education, at least in grades K-12, was far more demanding than in the US.
Students in Japan were consistently depicted as working diligently to memorize a
prescribed body of knowledge with the ultimate goal of attaining the best possible and
most secure employment. These images supported the idea of a strong Japanese value for
uncertainty avoidance, especially in light of Hofstede’s (1984) criteria that emphasized
high degrees of stress, rule orientation, and employment stability. In essence, hard work
and fear of failure warranted stress while acceptance of the ministry’s prescribed
curriculum suggested adherence to rule orientation. To endure stress and follow the rules
could thus be seen as the greatest assurance for attaining stable employment and avoiding
an uncertain future.

Choice

Ayumi and Naomi brought up the concept of choice when asked about differences
between Japanese and American education. In terms of uncertainty avoidance, it is easy
to see that the limitations of choice in the highly centralized Japanese educational system
shielded students and their parents from uncertainty. When options are limited, so is the
anxiety of making choices. Ayumi offered the following:

American education is more, like, optional, because, like, in high school, after . . .

they took requirement classes they can choose, and if they don’t want to study

they can take, like, easy classes and get away [with it]. And, like, at the same time
they had more option if they wanted to study more--like, they had AP and they

can take college-level classes at the community college and stuff--so I think they
have more option in one way.

182

Echoing Ayumi’s thoughts, Naomi offered her opinion on the advantages and
disadvantages of choice in K-12 education:

I think American education is--it encourages students to do what they want to do,

from the start. Like, they don’t force you to do math--like, higher math, if you

can’t do it. But they encourage you to do the stuff that you can do, and they . . .

want the students to accelerate in the subject that they really like and they can do.
That’s America.

Having substantiated her argument that American schools offered greater choice,
Naomi continued in a more philosophical vein about what she saw as limitations in the
more regulated Japanese system:

But in Japan, you have to do all subjects. You have to do good in all subjects, so

like, even smart students in Japan, they struggle, because they get perfect scores

for all subjects and they can do anything, [but] they find it difficult to find what
they want to do. Because I think Japanese education holds them back sort of
thing, because you’re not allowed to fall behind, but you’re not allowed to go
further . . . either, so it’s bad, I guess.

Suggesting that Japanese education might be stifling for highly capable or gifted
students, Naomi found little resolve in the American practice of double promotion:

But I don’t really know about skipping grades . . . in the US. because some

students skip, like, three years and then you’re in college--they graduate college

when they’re like 18--which means they’re only like 15 or something, like, when
they get into college, and they might be very smart, but it’s not really--it doesn’t
go along with the college, um, you know? College teaching 15 year olds, like it
might be too much.

For every yin there is a yang. Whether an educational system opts for greater
control or greater freedom, there are undoubtedly advantages and disadvantages. The
purpose of this chapter, of course, is not to extrapolate upon or resolve such issues, but to
illuminate differences between Japanese and American values regarding uncertainty

avoidance. In this respect, the present section has demonstrated that according to

Japanese participants, greater choice exists in the decentralized American educational

183

systems than in the highly centralized Japanese system. Participants noted choice in the
variety and levels of classes available and occasionally in the option of double promotion.

As an appropriate transition between the subtopics of choice and teaching
methods in Japanese and American educational systems, Aika offered the following
observation:

But in Japanese university maybe, the professor gives you everything what to do.

So like, “Okay, if you do that homework, I don’t care if you come into school or

not; if you do that, I give you 4.0.” It’s just everything is assigned to students.

Then maybe it’s less responsibility--it’s less their own responsibility--they don’t

have any question of, like, we have to study otherwise we can’t pass this school.

Aika thus painted a picture of Japanese education as being rather cut and dry. As
will be seen in the following section, respondents generally viewed Japanese education as
more straightforward and objective than American education, while American education
was depicted as more participative and sometimes less efficient.

Teaching Methods

Chapter 3 used the literature to describe vast differences in Japanese and
American teaching goals and methods. Particular attention was paid to the Japanese
preponderance of multiple-choice exams (McVeigh, 1995; Smith, 1997), ultimately used
on university entrance exams (Smith, 1997). It followed logically that the most efficient
method for disseminating factual information applicable to this testing format was the
lecture or transmittal teaching perspective described by Pratt (1997). The U.S., in
contrast, was shown to operate in a highly decentralized manner (Bray, 1999) that
afforded a greater use of curricular freedom and teaching perspectives.

Few if any surprises emerged from participants in this study. Universally gleaned

from the interviews were the following concepts: (1) Japanese education was associated

184

with lecture formats while American education was associated with class discussion; (2)
Japanese education focused on single correct answers and interpretations while American
education allowed for multiple answers and interpretations; and (3) Japanese education
stressed memorization while American education emphasized critical thinking skills. The
following are excerpts from six different participants, highlighting one or more of the
above themes:

1. Isamu

How would I describe [education in Japan]? Like in sentence or words? I think
it’s so based on textbook. Like you have textbook first and then you have to
follow it, so there’s no other way to teach or to learn so there’s only one way. But
here I guess, like, there’s more than one way, so . . .

Isamu continued with a personal example that supported his theory:

And there was one time . . . there was a special instructor from Japan who taught
Americans or Japanese here how to use Japanese sword and I was interested so I
went there. It was, like, last month after I’ve [been] spending, like, three years
here and then knowing, like, what kind of American education, what American
education is. And then I went there and then the way he taught us was just so fun,
like, “Okay, you have to do this, you have to follow this; first you have to do
this.” . . . It’s just, like, so textbook style. Do you know what I’m saying? He’s
Japanese old guy and, like, he was basically saying, “Oh you have to put katana
in this way and . . . then you have to grab like this, and you have to go like this,
and then you have to change like this”--and even, like, degrees . . . how I hold a
Japanese sword. It was kind of, like, nostalgic because that’s the way I was taught
in Japanese schools. But I was so--not uncomfortable-but, “Oh I cannot do this!”
[Laughs]. Like, I cannot do [it]. It was interesting, seriously, yeah, but it becomes
too rigid to me, but yeah, it was completely interesting.

Since Isamu had attended a Japanese university for a year before coming to the
U.S., he was able to attest that not all his exams were multiple-choice, but that even essay
exams required highly specific content:

I took [essay exams], yeah, but I think the answer was just one, so I read one book

and then I just summarize or, like, as long as I read this book I get this opinion
and that’s the answer, so . . .

185

2. Kazuaki

Kazuaki, the only participant who had graduated from a Japanese university
before enrolling as an undergraduate in the U.S., offered a comparison between Japanese
and American higher education that was consistent with Isamu’s:

Kazuaki: In Japan, education is more like to memorize everything. Like the
answer is only one, so yeah. I feel like keep practicing, keep memorizing . . .

John: How about education in the US?

Kazuaki: Well, like, the key thing is like, it seems like there is more than one
answers, so . . . like, writing a paper . . . uh . . .

3. Kazumi
Kazumi discussed her experiences at a junior high school in Japan where she felt
it was not always socially acceptable to ask questions in class:

Kazumi: Actually I always question to my teacher in Japan, and here, going to
teacher is like [a good thing] . . . so like . . . yeah.

John: [laughing] Jama datta no? [Were you considered bothersome / a pain in the
neck?]

Kazumi: I don’t know . . . Some teachers think it’s really good, but, like I raised
[my hand] and then she points at me like five times in a row, and people are
thinking, “Why is she asking so much questions?” And I can feel it, like what
people are thinking, and I don’t really like it because students don’t understand
what she is saying and they get, like, really bad grades, and I do better than them
all the time, so like, “Why don’t you ask if you don’t understand?” But at the
same time, teacher, even though teacher asks students to say something, they
don’t expect them to say something.

4. Kenta
In a somewhat lengthier exchange about Japanese and American education,
Kenta, interjecting some of his ideas in Japanese, discussed some of the pros and cons of

the two educational philosophies:

186

John: Shiken wa muzukashii to omoimasuka? (Do you think the tests are difficult
[in J apan])

Kenta: Muzukashii to omoimasukeredomo, dakedo, rekuchd no imi ga nai; dakara
hontou ni, Amerika no daigaku ni kite, rekuchd o kiite, dakara (I think the exams
[in Japan] are difficult, but the lecture content has no meaning; but honestly, if
you come to an American university and listen to the lecture)--you have to
understand what he says or what she says.

John: Nihon de wa, chottou regurgitation dake da to itte iru n desuyo ne? (In
Japan, you’re saying it’s basically just regurgitation without having to show you
understand?)

Kenta: Hai. (Yes). Dakara (therefore), there is no question or statement that you
really have to think about.

John: [Are you saying] . . . critical analysis is more important here?

Kenta: I think so, but you really have to [use] critical analysis if you really have to
express yourself, and by doing that you process more for yourself and it helps you
develop your personality in a way, I think, but dakedo, Nihon do to wa arubaito
sum to (but in Japan, by doing part-time work), they see the real world; they see
how everything works out; in that way they develop their purpose or their identity
or they are educated in that way too. So of course they are paying for tuition to go
to Japanese universities, but at the same time they are making money and they are
getting education from that too. So in terms of education, I think that American
universities are more detailed, and you have to really get yourself involved to
pass. Dakedo Nihon dewa, (but in Japan) I don’t want to say anything bad because
this is only my perspective.

In an interesting twist, Kenta, ever philosophical, pointed to the part-time work

phenomenon among Japanese college students as an important form of experiential

learning. Whether these part time jobs, often menial in nature, serve as an important

learning device unique to Japanese students is a question for further investigation. To be

sure, many American college students are also quite familiar with part-time work, and to

a much greater extent than in Japan, often begin such employment during their high

school years. During my initial months in Japan, I was surprised by the stigma attached to

working at part time jobs during high school. Witnessing the rigors of Japanese high

187

school and the importance of passing college entrance examinations, however, I
eventually understood why employment was frowned upon and even prohibited in many
schools.
5. Saori

Saori concurred with other participants regarding the Japanese preference for
transmittal teaching methods and the American preference for the developmental:

Traditionally, Japanese teacher wrote their knowledge down on the blackboard
and then students just go home and remember it, but here it’s different. They want
students to question him. You know, they want students to talk about something
more, but in Japan we just learn from teacher, not, like, discuss with them the
things . . . they’re just receiving knowledge from teachers.

Unlike most of the other participants however, Saori expressed what she saw as a
shortcoming of American discussion formats:

In the United States they are talking to each other. I think it is good too. You
know, because they know how to explore stuff, they know how to, like, argue
with the other people. I think that’s a good point. But, I don’t know, I just felt like
sometime it’s, like, wasting time . . . Like, the student asks a question to teacher,
but the question sometime you can find in [the] textbook, you know? But I felt
like, you know, you should study the textbook first and then ask question
[laughs]. I mean, you don’t need to waste the teacher’s time. That’s what I feel
sometimes. But like sometimes it’s useful. Like sometimes some student has more
knowledge and they ask some difficult question to teacher. Yeah, I think it’s
good.

Saori raised the only dispute to the theory that there is greater uncertainty
avoidance in Japan than in the US. Although she recounted only a single incident
between some American fiiends, it is likely one that has been heard throughout the US:

I was surprised-dike, my friends were talking about the SATs. They complained

because they found a question which they didn’t learn in the high school. It was

normal in Japan. You know, we don’t find any question which you learn from

high school on the exam.

John: You don’t find questions that you learn in high school?

188

Saori: No! You have to learn more, you know. High school is just, like, high
school. You have to learn more to, like, pass exam, you know? So, like, you
didn’t find the same question which you, like, learned in high school or
something. But here, they complained because they said, “Well I never see such
questions in high school so it’s not fair” or something. I felt like, “Well, maybe

that’s [how it should be].” That’s what I said. I was just so . . .

Although many Americans might scoff at these comments or write them off as
idiosyncratic, Saori may have a valid point in that some American hi gh-school students
have come to expect an exaggerated degree of certainty when it comes to testing.
Assessing American education, for all its decentralization and diversity, is a task far
beyond the scope of this investigation, but there are likely vast instances of both high and
low uncertainty avoidance. Every American teacher, school, or school board, for
example, must decide on grading policies. Some policies are highly objective and allow
for minimal uncertainty; some are highly subjective, allowing for a great deal of
uncertainty; and some are mixture of the two. Just as American teachers and institutions
may offer a plethora of grading policies, so too are there gradations of uncertainty
avoidance as it relates to education in both Japan and the United States.

6. Naoki

Finally, in a declaration worthy of transition between the topics of education and
employment, Naoki was the only participant to allude to the entrepreneurial spirit
sometimes found on American campuses. To Naoki, a college degree did not appear to be
as essential as in Japan where meritocracy seemed comparatively heightened; that is, he
saw a plethora of opportunities in the US. that did not depend on one’s degree or
university affiliation. Naoki’s assessment was as follows:

The US. is more like a business-dike a business town, like, all over the US. I still

love the country but you can sell a lot of cars by yourself, you can start a business,
and I see a lot of my friends starting a business. And the majority of my friends go

189

to school, but that’s because, I don’t know, maybe a lot of them study business
because they need a degree to be safe.

Employment

In Hofstede’s (1984) original research, uncertainty avoidance was largely
measured not only by rule orientation but also by employment stability and stress.
Countries with greater job stability and higher stress levels were also seen as having
greater levels of uncertainty avoidance. In this section on employment, employment
stability and stress will be examined. Kana and Kenta had very definite opinions
regarding job stability in Japan and the US. Kana, who had just accepted a position with
a Japanese company, had this to say about her decision:

Kana: But it’s also, like, if you’re in an American company they just lay people
off, like, so quick, so immediate . . . .

John: [You mean] fire people?

Kana: Yeah, fire people. But I think the Japanese company is more secure, kind
of. Once you are hired, your position is guaranteed, you know? Almost secure . . .

Kenta was of the same mind. Although he expressed a preference for working in
the U.S., he offered similar concerns:

From what I’ve heard, I think Japanese companies are more feeling attached to

. . . like, persons. Like, it’s not about results all the time. Sometimes it’s . . . like if
. . . person A is performing bad, [and] person B is performing well, but person A
has a good personality but person B is like really ijiwaru (bullies people), it’s
more obvious for American companies to fire the one who is not performing well.
But for Japanese companies, I think there is a personal attachment to person A, so
until the last minute, I don’t think Japanese company will fire [person A] . . . So I
think American companies outweigh the results thing over personality, maybe. I
don’t know, I may be wrong, but that’s how I see it--in Japanese companies you
really have to work hard to get through those hard times.

Kana and Kenta’s comments were indeed consistent with Hofstede’s (1984)

research regarding greater employment stability in Japan. As Befu (2001) mentioned, the

190

first of the three sacred treasures of Japanese business management is lifelong
employment. In regard to stress levels, Kazuaki was able to share his thoughts about
working for both a Japanese and an American company:

John: So after you finish your degree, do you plan to work for a Japanese
company or an American company?

Kazuaki: I plan to work for an American company.

John: Is there a reason why?

Kazuaki: I like the environment--like casual environment. It’s not authoritative.
When I was working in a Japanese company I was more stressed. But when I was
interning in an American company, I feel more comfortable.

John: Why did you feel more stress with the Japanese company?

Kazuaki: Like, in Japanese company the boss or sempai is more strict to you than
here.

John: Strict meaning?

Kazuaki: Like, if you make a mistake or something they try, sometimes they yell
at me, but it’s never happened here, so . . .

Of course, Kazuaki’s experience was limited, but it remains consistent with the
assumption that stress levels in Japan are likely greater than in the US. Naomi shared her
thoughts about stress in Japan and the US. When asked why she thought Japanese men
were so stressed out, she replied:

[It’s because of] work and being successful--about being successful. Like if they

don’t, like if they don’t have a job for, like, two weeks they’re. like . . . I mean

it’s true. But I think a lot of American men can go without a job for, like, a year.

And they will just be, like, “Oh, I’m just taking a break.” Like, in Japan, for

example, after you graduate college, you either work right away or you go to grad

school right away. You don’t take a year off. But in America, a lot of people take

a year off and go study abroad or something.

Although not all Americans have the luxury of being able to take a year off, the

concept of doing so does not necessarily carry the same stigma as in Japan. Adding to the

191

stress of many Japanese men is the long working day that many continue to experience.
Because of the temporal work demands, Naomi reasoned, Japanese men were perhaps
more dependent on women than were their American counterparts:

I think in the U.S., people seem to understand that Japanese men are being, you

know, sort of like a master and treating women assertive or something. Like, I

don’t think it’s true. I mean, they work till 11 PM. You can’t do laundry [laughs],

they can’t cook either--they don’t have time for it. And they wake up at six in the
morning and go to work at seven, so . . . I think it’s working too much.

Thus, in the above comments, participants agreed that there is both more stress
and greater job security in Japan than in the United States. Both of these factors,
according to Hofstede (1984), are hallmarks of a nation that values high uncertainty
avoidance.

Language

The most pronounced aspect of uncertainty avoidance in the Japanese language
might be found in the multitude of ritualistic greetings or aisatsu. As mentioned in
Chapter 3, McVeigh (2002) posited: “Practices associated with this socio-linguistic
behavior, driven by sociopolitical and economic rationalization and bureaucratization, are
seen in staged formalities which erect thick walls of rituality” (p. 130). These formalized,
almost rehearsed exchanges stand in stark contrast with politeness in the English
language, which as Obana and Tomoda (1994) pointed out, “is often associated with
barrier-breaking features” (p. 46). Kenta illustrated these points by explaining the
apprehension he felt in introducing himself to Americans. Our conversation began with
him discussing some things he had learned after transferring to a midwestem university:

Kenta: I learned how to introduce myself.

John: Meishi o douzo towa yuwanai n desuka? (you don’t say “Please accept my
business card?”)

192

Kenta: [laughs] Nihon de, karuku, karui to iu kimochi de, shokai suru koto ga
dekiru to omoimasu (I think that in Japan, self-introductions are easy). Like, I’m
not concemed with introducing myself.

John: You mean in Japan it’s easier to introduce yourself because it’s such a
prescribed ritual?

Kenta: Uh (yeah). I don’t have to worry about it anymore here.
John: Were you uncomfortable with the uncertainty?
Kenta: Yeah, I was.

John: We don’t have such ritual exchanges here. Are you more comfortable with
it now?

Kenta: Yeah, I think so. It took me a while--about four or five years.

Whether Americans say, “Nice to meet you,” “Good to know you,” or “What’s
up?” when introduced is seldom a concern or preoccupation, as it might be for many
Japanese. As Obana and Tomoda (1994) implied, Americans would prefer to break the
ice quickly and put one another at ease rather than pay homage or show deference. After
recently giving a presentation on Japanese business etiquette to a large group of
American business professionals, I heard many comments on how surprised people were
that the Japanese had so many formalized rules and rituals when it came to exchanging
business cards. Most commented that they had never even thought of paying special
acknowledgment upon receiving someone’s business card. Further illustrating his
apprehension with American greetings, Kenta recounted how he became accustomed to

the lack of prescribed linguistic rituals in the US:

In my junior high textbook, you know, it was not “How you doing? How are you
doing?” Like, I learned it that way: “How do you do?” You know what I mean?
Almost nobody says that around here. So, like, everything that was taught, in a
way, was what I learned. Of course, I had the basics, you know--I learned it from
my junior high. Some of them were useless, of course, but at least I had a basics

193

of how 1 structure sentences; but every time I, you know, talked, I learned like,

new things, new ways to say it. You know, new words, new things, new vocab,

new slang, all that. Every day was like all new, I think. It was surprising, but I

think I’m used to it and I’m more, I am really to learn how it goes, how we speak,

I think.

Perhaps due in part to the uncertainty Kenta described in his salutations and
exchanges with Americans, Aika reported feeling more mature when speaking Japanese
and less mature when speaking English:

Oh . . . when I communicate with Japanese I’m more calm--quiet--talk more

quietly, and yes. I feel like I’m more mature than acting or communicating with

American when I feel like I’m being like kid--not kid, but being more younger.

Although Aika’s feelings may have strongly related to her sense of proficiency in
each language, they may also have stemmed from the predictable exchanges in Japanese
known as aisatsu. There can be comfort and self-assurance in doing exactly what is
prescribed in social situations; the idea of simply greeting someone in the U.S., as Kenta
alluded to, can be daunting in a culture where the cliché is negatively viewed as
impersonal, distancing, and unimaginative (McVeigh, 2002).

Finally, Kazumi discussed learning to face uncertainty by sometimes starting
conversations with total strangers; a custom she felt was more common in the US. than
in Japan:

I was shy before [laughs]. But now I can speak to people and . . . because I grew

up in really, really countryside, and it’s kind of unnatural to speak to someone

who you don’t know, and here people speak to someone they don’t know, really
naturally--frequently. But in Japan, it’s really, really different. But still, I wasn’t

this--what’s the opposite of shy?--outgoing before, so I think I’ve changed in that
way.

194

Rule Orientation

A few participants commented on the general differences between rule orientation
in Japan and the US. Claiming that rules readily defined and governed much of Japanese
life, participants routinely recognized--for better or worse--that there were fewer rules to
abide by in the US. Akemi related her impressions of the US. while still in Japan:

John: What impressions did you have of the US. before you came here?

Akemi: Um, I felt like it’s really open . . .

John: Open how?

Akemi: Like, people are friendly, and, like, not, like, so uptight about the rules

and regulations. But I really didn’t know much about the US. before I came here,

so I didn’t know what to expect . . .

After being in the US. for a while, Akemi confirmed her original impressions,
reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of rule orientation:

Akemi: I think American people are more straightforward, you know? They tell

you what they feel. I think that American people doesn’t care about rules and

regulations as much as Japanese do . . .

John: Okay. Is that good or bad?

Akemi: I think it’s good, but sometimes, like, I guess it depends. Sometimes it’s

good but sometimes it’s bad. I think, like, Japanese people have, like, too much

regulations, but at the same time I sometimes feel irritated when, like, people

don’t follow the rules and just, like, always just trying to, like, get around and,

like, yeah . . .

In making distinctions between Japanese and American attitudes toward rule
orientation, Akemi supported the idea that Japanese tended toward greater uncertainty

avoidance through adherence to regulations while Americans were more likely to break

or bend rules in spite of known or unknown consequences. Drawing from an interview in

195

the pilot study (Brender, 2004), Asami perhaps best articulated the repercussions of living
in a society that lacked a strong sense of rule orientation:

John: Are your impressions different now that you’ve been living in America for
three years? How are your impressions different?

Asami: It’s not quite free here, even though I thought, like, so much freedom here.

I was not aware that we need to have this responsibility when we have freedom--

so a great amount of responsibility. Like, nobody gonna protect you with so much

rules like Japan. It’s, like, wear this, wear that, do like this, do like that! Actually I

think that that kind of rule is protecting us, but there’s no rule here. Like, there’s

rule, but it’s not many so we have to decide what we’re gonna do, and at the same
time we have to take responsibility.

Thus, as Datesman et al (1997) made abundantly clear, freedom comes at the
price of personal responsibility. Whether in family, religion, education, employment, or
verbal exchanges, participants largely agreed that in the US. the choice was freedom; in
Japan it appeared to be security.

Summary

This chapter focused on Japanese undergraduate perceptions regarding
uncertainty avoidance in Japanese and American culture. These perceptions spanned: (1)
family; (2) friendship; (3) religion; (4) education; (5) employment; (6) language; and (7)
rule orientation.

Participants insisted that American families embraced uncertainty when it came to
changing jobs and residence, and in raising children to be independent at an earlier age
than in Japan. In contrast, one student pointed out that Americans were more cautious
than Japanese in regard to litigation avoidance. I responded by suggesting that the

American fear of litigation might be an inevitable byproduct of a society that has learned

from routinely facing uncertainty.

I96

Regarding friendship, Maeda and Ritchie (2003) suggested that Japanese
preferred ease and comfort compared to Americans who generally sought stimulation.
The present study suggested there might be a correlation between self-selected
acculturation identity and type of fiiendships preferred. That is, integrated students
seemed to prefer both types of friendship; separated students preferred comfort; and
assimilated students reported a preference for stimulation.

Religion was not consistently investigated. Naomi’s observation that many

Americans were religiously fervent did not suggest that Americans avoided uncertainty

 

through dogmatic beliefs. To the contrary, a majority of Americans affiliate themselves
with Protestant sects that favor democratic leadership, theological debate, and loosely
prescribed rituals.

Education was the most popular topic regarding uncertainty avoidance.
Participants compared the Japanese and American K-16 systems, agreeing that: (1) K-12
education was more demanding in Japan than in the U.S.; (2) American postsecondary
education was more demanding than Japanese postsecondary education; (3) American
education offered greater personal choice than Japanese education; (4) Japanese K-16
education emphasized lectures and precise answers to test questions; (5) American K-16
education emphasized class discussion, reasoning, and grounded argumentation over
precise answers. In general it was found that the tightly controlled, centralized Japanese
education system fostered uncertainty avoidance through its incorporation of Hofstede’s
three defining characteristics: (1) It induced a great deal of stress regarding examinations;
(2) it prescribed very definite rule orientation in regard to its standardized curriculum;

and (3) the reward for success was often greater employment stability. In contrast,

197

 

participants in this study viewed American education as less stressful, limited in
prescribed curriculum, and a lesser factor in determining employment stability.

Participants in this study agreed that Japanese faced greater stress at work than
Americans but were less likely to be laid off by their employers. Hofstede (1984) saw
both of these traits-~stress and employment stability--as indicators of greater uncertainty
avoidance.

The Japanese aisatsu or ritualistic verbal exchange was seen as contributing to
uncertainty avoidance. Participants expressed surprise when their expectations of
systematic greetings and exchanges were not met in the US. It appeared that even self-
introductions could be daunting for Japanese, who were generally conditioned to expect
greater predictability upon meeting people. Conversely, an informal observation of
American business people suggested that Americans might be equally surprised at the
ritual etiquette involved in Japanese greetings and business card exchange.

Finally, when asked about general impressions, some participants commented on
the lack of rule orientation in the US. Coming from a highly developed homogenous
culture with a preponderance of sophisticated rules to one that has gradually made
provisions for people from every country and culture of the world, Japanese students are
likely to be taken aback. Like other immigrants to the U.S., Japanese undergraduates are
faced with layers of uncertainty.

Having dedicated this chapter to Japanese undergraduate perceptions of
uncertainty avoidance in Japan and the United States, I now turn to Hofstede’s third
work-related value: individualism. Chapter 8 is thus dedicated to how Japanese

undergraduates in this study view both individualism and collectivism, and how they

198

view these two opposing values as indicative of American and Japanese cultural identity.
As a way to present these two contrasting national values, I have compiled excerpts from
participants and occasionally supported their claims with research findings that pertain to

appearance, family, education, face, language, and communication styles.

199

CHAPTER 8
INDIVIDUALISM

In this chapter, I investigate Japanese undergraduate perceptions of individualism
and collectivism in the United States and Japan. Individualism in Chapter 3 was equated
with Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) definition of independent self-construal: “Attending
to the self, the appreciation of one’s differences from others, and the importance of
asserting the self” (p. 224). Collectivism was equated with Markus and Kitayama’s
(1991) definition of interdependent self-construal: “Attending to and fitting in with others
and the importance of harmonious interdependence with them” (p. 224).

In Hofstede’s (1984) research on individualism, the United States ranked lSt
among 39 countries; Japan ranked 22'”, just below the mean and median. Highest in
individualism were northern European and Anglophone countries; lowest were Asian and
South American countries. To measure individualism, Hofstede (1984) relied on
responses to questions about personal time, freedom, and challenge. Conversely,
collectivism Was measured by long-term investments made in working conditions and
training opportunities for employees (Hofstede, 1984).

In order to validate the perceived differences between individualism and
collectivism in the US. and Japan, Chapter 3 turned to the literature regarding: (l)
agricultural history; (2) family; (3) education; (4) fiiendship; (5) religion; (6) business
management; (7) face; and (8) language and communication styles. The present chapter
looks to Japanese undergraduates in the US. for their perceptions of individualism and

collectivism in the United States and Japan. Based on these interviews, the following

200

topics will be discussed: (1) appearance; (2) family; (3) education: (4) face; and (5)
language and communication styles.
Appearance

Physical appearance, whether related to grooming or fashion, was a common
topic brought up by participants in this study. Overall, there appeared to be consensus
that Japanese were far more concerned with physical appearance than their American
counterparts. Although the link between appearance and individualism/collectivism may
not seem obvious, the connection makes sense when considering Markus and Kitayama’s
(1991) definition of collectivism or interdependent self-construal: “Attending to and
fitting in with others and the importance of harmonious interdependence with them” (p.
224). Based on this definition, the goal of fitting in and attending to others can be seen as
manifesting itself in maintaining-and expecting from others--a pleasing or acceptable
appearance. Kana and Akemi both separated themselves from other Japanese women,
based primarily on their limited concern with appearance. Kana came to this realization
during a recent trip to Japan:

I went back to Japan this summer, and, like, everyone is, like, so materialistic in

J apan--you have to have, like, branded bags and wear expensive clothes and, like,

it’s not me! Like, I didn’t really feel like [it] . . . Like, here, like, no one cares . . .

what you are wearing, you know? [Or] what you do, so they’re able to [have]

more fieedom.

Kana seemed to equate American apathy about appearance with individualism
and freedom from judgment. When one is an individualist and relatively unattached to a
specific group, there is little pressure to conform or to look a certain way. The idea of

being more collectivist whereby one represents others-~and feels subject to their

approval--understandably heightens the preoccupation with personal appearance.

201

 

Akemi, like Kana, also saw herself as somewhat different from Japanese women
based on her casual appearance. She became suddenly aware of this when she returned to
Japan for a visit:

John: How would you say that other Japanese see you in Japan? Are you a futsu
no Nihonjin (typical Japanese)?

Akemi: Amari! (Hardly!) [laughs] Maybe not. Because all the Japanese girls are

more, like, high maintenance--very submissive, kind of; not necessarily, but

compared with me . . .

John: When you say “high maintenance” what do you mean?

Akenri: You know, they always care about how they look--they have to, like, look

perfect from the head to the toe and everything, and um . . . but, like, I don’t think

I’m, like, too deviant from them, but a little bit different maybe . . .

Akemi continued with a supposition as to why she thought Japanese women
might be more preoccupied with their appearance than many American women:

But, like, I don’t know-«Japanese people are, like, so critical about the

appearance, especially for girls. They’re like, “Oh, what is she wearing???” And,

like, things like that. I know that not all Japanese people are like that, but some

people . . .

In the above passage, Akemi illustrated the group judgment of others that may be
a natural byproduct of collectivist circles. As Markus and Kitayama (1991) expressed,
interdependence includes: “Attending to . . . others” (p. 224). Such a tendency is
obviously not unique to Japanese or perhaps even collectivist cultures, but may be
heightened when one feels that the appearance of others is a potential threat to self or
group identity. Interestingly, Akemi suggested that while being accepted in Japan often
required looking one’s best, being accepted among some Japanese groups in the United

States depended on looking more casual:

John: I’m curious, are [the Japanese on campus more] critical of people who
overdress or under dress?

202

Akemi: I guess it all depends. Because if you are in Japan, then they laugh at the
pe0ple who dress down; but then, like, if you are in here, if you are dressing too

much like Japanese then maybe they’ll just say something, like, “She looks like

she just came back from Japan” or whatever . . .

I asked the above question based on some comments I heard during my pilot
study (Brender, 2004). During one interview, Yumi introduced me to the concept of
FOB--Fresh off the Boat:

John: Do you feel you’re adjusting yourself to American culture when you’re
here? Do you not put makeup on because you’re here in America, for example?

Yumi: Yes, because maybe I’m in [this college town] . . . if you wear [a] skirt, or,
like, high heel boots, they would think of me: “What she is dressing for? Just a
class?” You know what I mean? But, like, “Is she going to the party or to some
nice dinner or something?” . . . They would think of me weird. Same thing, like, if
I go to Japan, if I wear just jeans and tennis shoes and you know, just . . . clothes
[with a college logo], they would think of me as just “What she is wearing [that]
for? And without makeup! What is she?” I think it’s the same thing here, just in
opposite way.

 

Thus, Akemi’s and Yumi’s statements suggested a form of collectivism
manifested not in dressing up or dressing down, but in dressing similarly to those in one’s
social circle or targeted environment. It is possible that American college students may
also be rather conformist in that many tend to dress quite casually. Nevertheless,
according to Akemi and others, the concern for what others wore or did was heightened
more within the local Asian community than elsewhere.

Based on interviews in this study, one possible explanation for the Japanese
concern with personal appearance might be a fear of being talked about in the local Asian
commmrity. In the following passage Akenri discussed the prevalence of gossip among
Japanese students on campus:

Akemi: I think they’re kind of gossipy--Japanese people. I know American people
gossip too, but, like, my American fiiends don’t gossip nearly as much as, like,

203

Japanese fiiends. It’s, like, Japanese community is so small and tight, they’re,
like, always talking about other Japanese people, like, “You know, she did this
and this and that and that” and I really don’t like that . . .

John: Is there much gossip about non-Japanese people?

Akemi: I don’t think so. I think it’s just, like--other Asian international students
too, they’re like, “I heard that she has, like, five boyfriends and blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah” and, like, “You don’t even know her, you know?” I mean, who cares if
she has five boyfriends?” I don’t know, but they are always, like, talking about
somebody else--I don’t know.

The idea of gossip being more prevalent in the Asian communities on campus

first came to my attention during an interview with a student in my pilot study (Brender,

 

2004). When asked as a follow-up question why she felt it was more difficult to be
accepted in the Asian community than in American and Western circles, Aki postulated:

Because they study-~I think they study, like, their own problems. You know, like

they just start hanging around with only, like, only Japanese or only Chinese or

only Korean-but they like gossiping all the time.

Thus, in both Akemi’s and Aki’s statements, it appeared that Japanese and other
Asian students were much more fixated on their own ethnic groups than on any outside
groups. Of course, whether such gossip has an underlying purpose of regulating group
behavior or whether it serves some other function (such as bonding) cannot be clearly
surmised from these statements. Discovering the underlying reasons for gossip within
collectivist groups, however, may be a topic worthy of future investigation.

In contrast to the idea that Japanese women were more particular about
appearance than American women, Naomi observed that seventh graders in her American
junior high school were wearing makeup while it would have been unthinkable in Japan:

Thirteen-year old girls in Japan, they don’t put makeup on, and they do here. So

that was kind of shocking. It was very shocking! Like, why are they putting
makeup on??? Like, we’re still kids! Come on!

204

Comparing seventh graders in Japan with seventh graders in the US. may not
serve as a relevant example here, since regulations in Japanese schools generally forbid
makeup and even a number of hairstyles. In fact, the convention of not wearing makeup
in Japanese schools may support the argument posed in this sectionnthat based on
appearance, Japanese tend to be more collectivist than Americans. As Akemi and Yumi
pointed out, collectivism through conformity of appearance--whether dressing up in
Japan or dressing down in the Midwestern United States--is still a form of collectivism.

Family

American families look at kids as like, individual. But Japanese families don 't look at
kids as mature enough. —Naoki

In this succinct phrase, Naoki captured what many participants viewed as a major
difference between Japanese and American families: American children were reared to be
independent while Japanese children were reared to be dependent or interdependent. In
Chapter 3, the Japanese concept of amae was discussed as it concerned family
relationships. Amae was defined as “the sense of being accepted and cared for by others
in a passive relationship of reciprocal dependence” (Markus & Kitayama as cited in
Ellsworth, 1994, p. 38). In essence, Japanese parents were depicted as offering affection,
acceptance, and reassurance in exchange for their children’s loyalty and support. The
concept of mutual dependence is frequently applied to Japanese businesses and other
organizations and is often attributed to being a major component in Japanese collectivism
(Befir, 2001; Doi, 1986; Hendry, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). With the idea of
mutual dependence in mind, it may be easier to understand the surprise some Japanese
undergraduates felt upon encountering American families that encouraged a strong sense

of independence and individualism. Kenta expressed his observations:

205

John: Was [the American family you lived with] just like your Japanese family?
Were there any values that struck you as unusual?

Kenta: I recognize from my friends’ parents that many [American] parents don’t
give their children so much money because they want them to work for their
living, and . . . I don’t know, it’s more, they’re more strict about money in a way,
but at the same time, my impression for that is because parents want them to
know how to manage money--to take care of themselves and working for some
other company or some restaurant or any kind of experience [that] will be
beneficial to them. So I was thinking that was the difference . . .

John: But beyond money, is there a value that you see? Like independence?

Kenta: I think perfect Japanese parents are taking care of their kids as part of their
family, but at the same time, American families are, like, American parents are--
well, not well balanced. They tend to spend more time on themselves.

John: American parents spend more time on themselves?

Kenta: More time and money, I would say.

Kenta was not the only participant to suggest that Japanese parents spent more
time and money on their children. Akemi concurred:

John: Okay. What impression do you have of American families?

Akemi: I think American families, just the divorce rate is too high and it’s so
complicated, because when I talk to my fiiend, like you know, “My step-step-step
sister and my dad is living here and my mom is somewhere else” and then just
like . . . and I don’t know. I think they’re more independent, because [they] know
how. Japanese family, like parents are expected to take care of their children as
long as they’re in school, but you know, in here, they have to get their own loan
or something. Like, you know, [American college students] work and pay for
their own schooling and stuff. So, yeah, I think, like, Japanese students are kind of
spoiled, but I don’t know. Yeah, they’re more independent I think-dike, American
students, like, American families. They kind of, I think it’s a little bit cold and
strict in a sense, but if parents [in the US] . . . can afford to support the children,
I know they do support the children and, like, there are some, you know, college
students whose parents are paying for their own stuff, I mean, you know, for the
schooling and stuff . . .

Kenta and Akemi’s observations regarding financial expenditures have been

noted in the literature (Reischauer, 1981; White, 2002). Japanese families commonly

206

spend large portions of their household income on their children, and especially their
children’s education. The cost of educating a child to be academically competitive in
Japan has become so burdensome that many Japanese parents have chosen to have only
one child (White, 2002). Afternoon and evening cram schools are a virtual requirement
for students seeking to enter a reputable Japanese university. As a byproduct, working at
a part time job during high school is viewed quite negatively in Japan since the primary
duty for most teenagers is to study diligently in preparation for university entrance exams
(White, 2004). There may be no greater way for Japanese children to fulfill their role than
to enter a prestigious university and thereby bolster their parents’ estimation in the
community.

Although Ayumi did not mention differences in financial support between
Japanese and American families, she concurred with Kenta and Akemi that American
families valued independence to a much greater degree than Japanese families:

John: What impression do you have of American families? When you think of

American families, is there anything that shocks you or anything that stands out?

Are they different from Japanese families?

Ayumi: Um . . . I feel like sometimes it’s more independent in one way but they
are, like, close together.

John: So what do you mean when you say they’re “independent”?

Ayumi: Hmm. Like American parents kind of encourage the kids to be
independent and, like, get work and drive around and get their own life. But at the
same time they have-~well maybe not a strong connection--but when something
happens they have, like, a lot of connections.

John: You mean emotional?

Ayumi: Probably, yeah.

207

While noting the greater independence and individualism fostered in American
families, Ayumi pointed to what she saw as an interdependent or collectivist support
system that was available during times of difficulty. Although she appeared to view
American families as independent and perhaps “a little bit cold and strict” as Akerrri had
suggested, Ayumi ultimately perceived a safety net that made American families seem a
bit more interdependent than would first meet the eye.

Like the other participants, Naomi depicted American families as being more
independent than Japanese families. As an example of what she saw as independence in
American families, Naomi pointed to her observation that all members of a typical
American household tended to share domestic responsibilities, a practice that would leave
no single member of a household completely dependent on any other:

John: Have you ever stayed with an American family?

Naomi: I actually have. I think women are very, very independent. I think that’s
what I feel.

John: Is that good or bad?

Naomi: It’s a good thing, yeah. And . . . domestic work or some housework is

divided among the family members-mot just the wife doing everything, so that’s

something good.

In addition to seeing each member of an American family as willing and able to
perform various household tasks, Naomi felt that American children were further
encouraged to become independent by trying their hand at a large variety of extra-
curricular activities:

Like, when I think of American family, there’s just, like, two middle—aged parents

and, like, kids. It makes me think that American parents let kids do anything they

want to do, kind of-ein a good way. They let them try out anything, like . . .

American kids play any sport--you know, they’ve tried it before. They’ve tried
all--most of the sports before. They’ve tried to play soccer; they’ve tried playing

208

baseball, stuff like that. But in Japan, I think most of the time, they do like a
couple of, like, maybe three sports, or different things at a time, but I think
parents want them to, like, concentrate on one thing so they can kind of--perfect

it, kind of. . .

Whether being exposed to a variety of household tasks, sports, or part time jobs,
American children, in the estimation of respondents in this study, were reared largely to
provide for themselves rather than to fulfill a specialized interdependent role within their
family. Naomi’s observation that American children were encouraged to participate in a
number of sports fit well with the arguments made about uncertainty avoidance in
Chapter 7. In this respect we see that a nation or culture that values independence also
tends to encourage its children and citizens to willingly approach a variety of tasks and
disciplines with minimal apprehension. This connection between high individualism and
low uncertainty avoidance makes sense, as it is important to become skilled at a number
of tasks in order to become highly independent. Conversely, when individuals learn to
depend on others in interdependent or collectivist households, they may lack
encouragement to attempt things they are not immediately skilled at doing.

Building on the theme of Japanese interdependence within the family, it becomes
apparent that the perceived successes and failures of each family member constitute a
family group identity; when an individual flourishes, so does the estimation of each
individual within the group. Conversely, when the failure or shortcomings of an
individual become apparent to the outside community, shame can reverberate within the
family. With this in mind, it becomes understandable that each family member has a

vested interest in the perceived success or failure of other members. Below are excerpts

from conversations with Aika and Naomi that illustrated group shame and group pride,

209

respectively. Sadly, Aika discussed the social difficulties of growing up with a sister who
was developmentally disabled:

Then my mother used to worry about kind of social communication in the

neighborhood--very sensitively. Like, my younger sister is actually a little

disability child and I really didn’t understand she really wanted to hide about the

fact to the society because this is a very bad thing about J apan--especially in a

small community. People kind of wants to dig up the kind of negative part of the

family or negative part of the person and then making a rumor about it. And

unfortunately it happens in my community, so people who, you Imow, have a

problem in the family wants to hide about the fact and then they [can be] kind of

sheltered about it . . . Now my mother and father kind of accepted that and my
little sister has a problem now, and they don’t have to worry--it’s just wasting

time to just hiding it, so . . .

Although attitudes are said to have changed in a way that reflects Aika’s mother’s
transformation (Hiyashi & Kimura, 2004), perhaps the most unfortunate hallmark of
family interdependency in Japan was the shame that some families harbored over their
physically or developmentally disabled children. Mackelprang and Salsgiver (1998)
discussed a traditional moral model in Japan in which disabled people were viewed as
“suffering the consequences of wrongdoing that they or their ancestors committed in their
current or previous lives” (pp. 61-62). While this moral model is largely rejected today
(Mackelprang & Salsgiver, 1998), Aika’s story is evidence that children with disabilities
have, at least until recently, been perceived as stigrnatic.

On the other side of the spectrum from shame is the concept of pride. Whereas
parents may be depicted as feeling shame for their children’s failures or shortcomings in
an interdependent society, so too are they likely to feel a strong sense of pride in their
children’s accomplishments. When the success of one’s children is seen as an extension

of personal or group identity, there may be added motivation for parents to project their

ambitions. One offshoot of this interdependency is the education mother (kyouiku mama)

210

in Japan. Throughout Japan, people are well aware of mothers who are obsessed with
their children’s academic success. Naomi had some interesting things to say on the
subject:

John: Do you think that the kyouiku mama (education mother) is about social

climbing in Japan? Like, “T odai ni hairanakuchanaranai!” (You have to get into

Tokyo University!) Is that . . .

Naomi: Maybe it is, I think it is, but . . . I think it’s social climbing but . . . I think

it’s more about what other people see them as. So if your kids go to T odai (Tokyo

University), then your family looks so much better from outside, from their

neighbors, like, from the perspective of your neighborhood. Or their friends will

respect you more, or something like that. I think that’s what it is. Of course, it’s

about social climbing, but I think what’s encouraging mothers to become kyouiku

mama in Japan is more about those superficial things.

Thus, Naomi affirmed that in Japan the perception of each family member served
as a strong reflection of the family unit as a whole. To have a son or daughter enter a
prestigious university was but one important way for Japanese parents to feel esteemed
within their given social circles. Undoubtedly this sense of vicariousness is familiar to
many Americans, although it is my sense--and the sense of many respondents in this
study--that it is generally not as strongly felt or as consciously sought after as in Japan.

Education

As detailed in Chapter 3, Japanese students were taught the importance of
collectivism or group life (shfidan seikatsu) as early as nursery school (Hendry, I989;
Peak, 1993). Group life was loosely defined as replacing self-indulgence with thoughtful
consideration of others and placing the needs of the group above those of the individual
(Hendry, 1989; Peak, 1993). Thoughtful consideration of others was shown to manifest

itself in a tendency for Japanese school children to repress their opinions in class and to

avoid boasting or sharing their accomplishments with others (McVeigh, 1995).

211

In contrast to the Japanese value for collectivism or group life, American schools
were perceived in the literature as placing much greater emphasis on the individual.
Datesman et al. (1997) supported this assertion by stating: “American students are
encouraged to express their own opinions in class and think for themselves, a reflection
of the American values of individual freedom and self-reliance” (p. 177). As a way to
investigate the common assumption that the Japanese educational system values
collectivism while American education favors individualism, this section looks at the
perceptions of Japanese undergraduate at an American university. Based on multiple
interviews, three major themes emerged: (1) tracking was more common in American
education; (2) pressure to conform was more evident in Japanese schools; and (3) unlike
American schools, Japanese schools commonly enforced a duty system whereby students
cleaned and maintained their classrooms, buildings, and grounds.

Educational tracking refers to dividing students into separate groups according to
ability, achievement, or needs. Though a common practice in the United States, it
remains a hotly debated topic because of its potential for misallocating resources and
reducing positive spillover effects that occur when grouping lower and higher achieving
students together (Zimmer, 2003). Although the Japanese educational system does not
theoretically make allowances for tracking in grades K-8, students must generally pass
entrance examinations to attend high schools of varying prestige. In spite of this ultimate
separation by ability in Japan, the national cuniculum is mandated in all classes and in all
schools with minimal allowance for deviation. In spite of this stratification by school,

Japanese respondents in the present study were surprised that American schools often

212

separated students by ability and level within schools and classrooms. Naomi offered the
following observations:

I think American education is--it encourages students to do what they want to do
from the start. Like, they don’t force you to do math, like, higher math, if you
can’t do it. But they encourage you to do the stuff that you can do, and they . . .
want the students to accelerate in the subject that they really like and they can do.
That’s America. But in Japan, you have to do all subjects. You have to do good in
all subjects, so like, even smart students in Japan, they struggle, because they get
perfect scores for all subjects and they can do anything, [but] they find it difficult
to find what they want to do. Because I think Japanese education holds them back
sort of thing, because you’re not allowed to fall behind, but you’re not allowed to
go further, like, yeah, either, so it’s bad, I guess.

Although Naomi pronounced Japanese education as “bad” in the sense that it
limited individual pursuits and occasionally potential, she also took issue with the
American concept of double promoting exceptional students:

But I don’t really know about skipping grades though in the US. because some
students skip like three years and then you’re in college--they graduate college
when they’re, like, 18--which means they’re only like 15 or something, like, when
they get into college. And they might be very smart, but it’s not really--it doesn’t
go along with the college, um, you know? College teaching 15 year olds, like, it
might be too much.

Naomi was not the only participant to bring up the idea of double promotion in
American schools. Kazumi, a senior anthropology major, saw it as a vehicle to further
promote individualism:

American schools are about individualism. I’ve heard that many kids--not many
kids, but there are kids--in the school [that] can skip one grade and then go to the
next because they’re really smart or something. But Japanese don’t do that. And
Japanese sees students as a class--people in a class, students in a class. But you
know, in the States they see the individual more than a group of people in class A
or class B. And, um, so Japanese education system tries to turn into one class and
raise them in their groups equally, or try to make the not-really smart kids--to
encourage them to be like the one in the class who is really smart. And yeah, I
think that’s it.

213

Thus, without making an explicit value judgment, Kazumi put into perspective the
idea that American schools emphasized the individual while Japanese schools preferred
the advantages of group life and the spillover effect alluded to by Zimmer (2003).

Of course no educational system is without disadvantages. While tracking
practices in the United States may limit positive spillover effects, Japanese group-
oriented education may spawn other potential drawbacks. One byproduct of Japanese
collectivist education, at least according to some participants, may be a strong pressure to
conform. The oft-quoted Japanese proverb, “The nail that sticks up must be hammered
down” manifested itself in the form of a nationwide bullying problem that culminated in
the 19805 (Nishizawa, 2004). While the bullying problem in Japan has subsided
substantially in recent years (Omori, 2001), some interviewees revealed that various
forms of hazing continued not only between students, but also between teachers and
students, and parents and teachers. Akemi, who appeared outraged at the thought of how
one teacher treated her, felt verbally abused after making an alteration in her school
uniform:

But then, like, nobody want[ed] to wear . . . the skirt that long because, like, at

that time . . . it was popular to make it shorter. But I made mine like this [points to

above knee], and it’s not even short! I’m, like, one day I was walking around the
campus and, you know, like, all Japanese girls are so short, and, like, I was one of
the tallest ones in the class, and then when I was walking around, my teacher--he
is, like, between 40 to 50 years old-and he’s a male teacher, and [he] just came
up to me. He was like, “Akemi, you are so . . . huge and gigantic. Like, nobody
wants to see your ugly legs. Why don’t you make your skirt a little bit longer?”

And the tone of voice was just, like, so monotone. And he’s not even joking!

Although Akemi’s teacher may be the exception rather than the rule, his abuse

was directed (or misdirected) at her lack of conformity to school regulations. From my

own days as a teacher at a Japanese high school in the 19805, I recall weekly assemblies

214

at which teachers would painstakingly inspect their homeroom students for uniform and
hairstyle infractions. Sleeves could not be rolled up, ties had to be straightened, and
students were reprimanded for walking on the backs of their canvas footwear. Hair could
never be too long, permed, or dyed. But while teachers tended to conformity in their
pupils’ outward appearance, students sometimes monitored physical or social differences
in their classmates. Though beneficent intentions were apparent, teasing about physical
features and social behavior was also surprisingly commonplace. Bullying was talked
about but not always apparent to us as teachers.

In a conversation with Ayumi, who said she avoided other Japanese on campus, I
probed to find out the reasons behind her systematic exclusion. Although she did not
want to offer details, she appeared to have suffered from some degree of bullying or
ostracism at the hands of her schoolmates in Japan:

John: Do you not want to spend time with Japanese [on campus] or would you
like to?

Ayumi: I mean, like, if I find a person I could get along with I guess I don’t mind,
but I just don’t see anybody. I just didn’t meet anybody I could get along with, so
that’s probably why. But if I had a chance, I guess I don’t mind. I’d be friends--
hanging out with them.

John: Is there anything about the Japanese on campus maybe that you don’t like,
or any reason that you don’t hang out with them?

Ayumi: Well so far the only Japanese I’ve seen on campus and I know is guys and
I know that, like . . . I don’t lmow. Like, after a long time in middle school there
were, like, people I hated. So some people are in that group that kind of make me
remember about middle school and that I don’t like, so I’m probably not going to

. . . what is the question again? I kind of forget . . .

John: I’m just wondering if there’s any reason that maybe you might not want to
be friends with Japanese. I mean some Japanese [may] have . . . ideas or
stereotypes of the Japanese on campus and some of them say, “I don’t want to be
part of that group.”

215

Ayumi: Well just because I don’t want to remember and, like, I don’t want to be
in the trouble in middle school. I’m just, like, trying to get away fi'om those
trouble[s] I had. It was just hard during that time.

John: What kind of trouble? Was it ijime (bullying) or something like that?
Ayumi: Yeah, some sort of.

John: So do you think a lot of Japanese tend to be, I don’t know, what’s a good
word?

Ayumi: Pick on people?

John: Maybe.

Ayumi: I think it just depends on who they are and if they have a strong leader to
lead other people to do that, [then] they might be doing [it]. But without leader I
don’t think they would be.

It is important to keep in mind that Ayumi’s experiences are not necessarily

representative of or applicable to all Japanese schools, nor is bullying unique to Japan by

any means. Nevertheless, her comment about strong leadership and bullying appeared to

be somewhat consistent with Hara’s (2002) supposition about bullying in Japan: “It is

possible that the group orientation of the Japanese may have some influence on the

justifications for bullying” (p. 203). Yoneyarna and Naito (2003), however, cautioned

that it was important to rethink other conjectures associated with bullying in Japan such

as authoritarianism, hierarchy, alienating modes of learning, regimentation, severe

chastisement, or interventionism in group-oriented social environments.

When I asked Saori about bullying in Japan, she claimed that the focus of abuse in

Japanese schools was shifting from students bullying other students to students and

parents bullying teachers:

John: In general, do you see a lot of ijime (bullying)?

216

Saori: Well if you ask me when I was a student, we have a lot. But now maybe,
my mom told me that now students are hard on teacher. You know, like students
ijime (bully) teacher. Because now [there are] so many adults--like parents-~who
are, like, sensitive to the teachers’ attitude to their son or child. [Teachers] cannot
speak or . . . cannot do anything, so, like, the child knows they can do anything
because the parents will protect them. But, like, I heard one story that children
don’t sit on the chairs--even during the class. They just goes to the playground,
and, like, teachers [are] going to and catch around like children to the playground,
right? So while the teacher’s gone, the children are going somewhere. So, like, the
teacher was so tired and she decided to leave the school. So it’s like getting
changed-~that’s what my mom told me. So, like, my mom said the teachers are
getting so weak, but that’s because the parents are getting so strong and they
become very sensitive to ijime or, like, hard things or something like that.

John: So the parents complain to the teachers?

Saori: Yeah, so, like, teachers cannot do anything to their own students. So even if

they do something, the children talk to their parents and parents say something to

the school, you know? So some teachers don’t know how to handle the kids . . .

Pressing Saori for an explanation of this recent phenomenon, she again relied on
her mother’s opinion of recent events:

My mom told me, like, the generation of parents changed. Like, for example, my

mother’s generation, it’s more like, “Teachers are great--teacher is the best or

better.” But I felt like now that [has changed]. My mom told me that the
generation of parents are changing. [The kids] are getting a lot of money fi'om
parents, and then women are in positions and they say like, “We should be treated

equally like man do.” They, like, more insist on women’s rights. In the past a

woman became a mother and people who have such mothers became the parents,

you know?

According to Saori--or Saori’s mother-Japan recently underwent substantial
changes in school culture. Whether these alleged changes were the result of female
empowerment, children’s increased access to money, the 2002 Education Reform Act
that eased curricular requirements, the result of an increasingly global society, or some

combination of the aforementioned is beyond the scope of this investigation. At any rate,

the changes appeared to be recent and potentially reversible, especially if the Ministry of

217

Education reverts to stronger curricular demands after reviewing the Integrated Studies
programs that now constitutes one-third of Japanese K-12 curriculum (Ellington, 2005).

One aspect of collectivism in Japanese education that has changed little in recent
years is the duty system. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Japanese students are responsible
for cleaning and often maintaining much of their school property (Ellington, 2001).
Homeroom teachers delegate times and responsibilities for cleaning hallways, bathrooms,
chalkboards, and classrooms while athletic clubs are often responsible for maintaining
their respective fields and play areas (Bussler, 1998). Kazumi discussed the learning
benefits of the duty system:

Kazumi: One thing that I learned from the class is that Japanese have, like,
cleaning hours, cleaning stations, do you know it?

John: Of course! Souji no jikan! (Cleaning Time--as announced daily via
loudspeaker in Japanese schools).

Kazumi: Souji no jikan! [laughs]. And it’s teaching that not just cleaning up but
taking care of selves, taking responsibility to what you’ve done, or what you’re
doing, or what classroom you’re in, and to be responsible. And the classroom is
not just a place to study, but to make fiiends, to learn how to socialize, or how to
take care of yourself or take care of your surroundings. Because you have your
desk, and your place to put your stuff in, and it’s like a little house--really half of
yours--and you need to take responsibility for that space. And [in the] United
States, they have locker room, but the class is set, and the class is just a place to
study. Then the outside somewhere--it’s--outside, is a place to make fiiends or
something else.

Kazumi summed up some of the basic collectivist philosophies derived from her
Japanese education. In cleaning time, she saw that lessons were learned in taking
personal responsibility for a shared environment. Classroom maintenance fell on the
group as a whole but each member had tasks and functions to perform so that the entire
group could benefit. In likening the classroom to a house where individuals felt part

ownership, Kazumi illustrated the ties between each student and their shared

218

environment. By contrast, she saw none of these things in the US. where classrooms
appeared to serve as a mere temporary physical space for academic exchange.
Face

Chapter 3 showed that in individualist countries such as the United States, people
tended to be highly concerned with self-face maintenance while in collectivist cultures
such as Japan, people were generally interested in both self-face maintenance and other-
face maintenance (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2002). Self-face
maintenance dealt with concern for one’s own image. Other-face maintenance was
manifested in praising others and avoiding behavior that might cause others to feel
uncomfortable or inferior. That Japanese students refrained from flaunting their
knowledge or sharing academic successes with their peers were two examples of other-
face maintenance provided in Chapter 3. The present section looks to conversations with
Japanese undergraduates in the US. regarding perceptions of face in Japan and the
United States. From multiple interviews, the two most prevalent concepts were: (1)
Americans were more outspoken and consistent about their opinions while Japanese were
more likely to be passive and compromising; and (2) Americans were generally more
boastful than Japanese, indicating high self-face maintenance and low other-face
maintenance.

One of the most common observations made by participants was that Americans
often expressed their opinions with little regard for the feelings of others. Kazuaki, who
was uncommonly diplomatic throughout his interview, expressed mild surprise at how
freely Americans made their opinions known:

Kazuaki: I feel like most of Americans have their own opinions whatever the
issue is . . . and . . . yeah, that’s all. I think Japanese . . . many Japanese often

219

don’t have their own opinion. So that’s the difference between Japanese and
American people.

John: Do you think they don’t have their own opinion or that they just don’t
express their opinion?

Kazuaki: Yeah, sometimes they have opinion, but they can choose not to express
their opinions--especially in the case of that opinion is different from others.

In his comments, Kazuaki suggested that Japanese often suppressed their opinions
out of consideration for others. Such a practice is consistent with Ting-Toomey’s (1988)
other-face maintenance concept in which ideas, knowledge, and stories of personal
success were withheld to avoid threatening someone else’s image or peaceful state of
mind. On the contrary, Americans and those from individualistic cultures tended to prize
factual or intellectual exchange over group harmony (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Isamu
seemed to share this perception, especially before coming to the US:

John: Before [your first US] home stay, what image did you have of the US?

Isamu: I think people are so, uh, assertive and active. I think that’s the strongest

image I had before I came here for the first time. So, yeah, I was always thinking

if I had a complaint or if I had something I want to say, I just have to say it, . . .

[but] Japanese don’t usually say it. You just think or you just keep [it] in your

mind . . .

In spite of his initial impressions, Isamu came to a deeper understanding about
American culture after a few regrettable incidents:

John: So you had an idea that Americans were more direct and now you realize

that they’re not quite that direct. Was there a time or an incident that made you

realize that or understand that? Can you think of a time that might have shaped

your thinking?

Isamu: I don’t remember exactly, but there was one time--not one time but a

couple times I was spending with my friends and I think I said something to one

of them. I think it was kind of a negative thing-J don’t remember exactly, but

like, basically other fiiends who were around us said, “Oh, I was surprised you

said that!” So they are thinking we are not expected to say those things in person.
I’m sorry, I cannot remember exactly.

220

 

John: But it sounds like you overstepped your bounds . . .

Isamu: Right, yeah. I realized though . . .

Trying to make cultural adjustments requires a lot of trial and error as Isamu
illustrated. While one culture may allow for greater personal expression than another,
chances are that certain parameters and nuances exist. Opinions may be expressed more
openly and frequently in the United States than in Japan, but there are undoubtedly points
at which most Americans are likely to become surprised, irritated, or offended.

Kana was one of the few participants to mention face directly. Inadvertently, she
illustrated part of Ting-Toomey’s (1988) theory on the subject: that in individualist
cultures such as the United States, it is of great importance to maintain consistency
between a private and public self-image; in collectivist cultures such as Japan, the self
can vary--sometimes considerably--based on the relationship or situation. Having just
accepted a job offer in Japan at the behest of her parents, Kana related the following,
observations about women in the US:

And I think the American women are strong willed--they do what they decide.

But, like, a Japanese person, if they end up pressured, they’re so quick to change

their mind, you know? I did too. Like, you know, if my dad wants me to go to a

Japanese company I will, and you know . . . [Japanese] try to keep their face or

their parents’ face. They don’t really have a very original role-—they don’t know

what they want to do. So they just look to other people, or they do what’s
expected in the society, I think. But here, yeah, American women are so
independent. To me, if you get concerned, I’ll talk to my parents, you know, seek
the way out. But you know, American women are like, “Well this is my matter.”

Like, you know, you don’t talk about it, you know? “I’ve decided!” And you

know, they’re just like individual matters. Like, they don’t want anyone else to

touch it. They’re strong willed and stubborn sort of. . .

Kana, in accordance with Ting-Toomey’s (1988) assertions, perceived American

women as individualist, maintaining a consistency of self, and relatively uninterested in

221

the concerns and opinions of those around them. Conversely, true to Ting-Toomey’s
(1988) research on face, Kana also viewed Japanese as being ready and willing to change
the self as the relationship or situation demanded. For Kana personally, this meant
accepting a position with a Japanese company, even though she might have preferred
working for an American or other international firm.

Saving face in a collectivist culture such as Japan has been shown to involve
withholding thoughts or opinions that could infringe upon the happiness or public image
of others. As mentioned previously, boasting about one’s achievements--or even about
the achievements of closely associated individuals--also stood to make others feel inferior
or uncomfortable in Japanese society. That many Americans were quick to mention their
successes and accomplishments was frequently noted in interviews. Kazumi discussed
the shock of listening to Americans boast, although she understood that some of it was in
jest:

Kazumi: Of course, there was an example--my fiiend said, like, “I’m really

smart!” He says it all the time, like, “I’m really smart--I can do everything!” “I

can write a paper in, like, 30 minutes and I will get an ‘A’ all the time.” And then,

I didn’t like it at first, because, you know, it’s like boasting--it’s saying that he’s

really good and kind of giving me . . .

John: Was it in a funny way? Like trash talking?

Kazumi: Yeah, trash talking, but still . . . yeah joking . . . I do know that it’s okay

to do those kind of things, but I thought people always should be modest about

their intelligence or, like, their hard working. But he always do that and I saw
some other peOple that [say]: “I’m really hot!” or something saying, you know?

John: Some people say they’re “hot”?

Kazumi: Yeah. So maybe, like, I can say that too if I really think that way or I
don’t really want to be modest.

John: So you can say it seriously?

222

 

Kazumi: Uh, not all the time, but if you know, some professors tell me I have
really, really unique ideas and [say]: “I really like it” and [if] I’m Japanese I will
say, “Ie, sono koto arimasen yo!” (Oh, that’s just not true at all!). But [in the US]

I will say, “Thank you.”

Learning to boast about personal abilities or accomplishments can be quite
uncomfortable for many Japanese, especially since bragging is quite negatively perceived
in Japan. From my own experience of returning to the US. from Japan, I can attest to
moments when fellow Americans suggested that I had “low self-esteem” based on my
initial uneasiness with acknowledging personal achievements or accepting compliments.
To succeed in the U.S., however, I soon discovered that the Japanese premium on
modesty was only minimally applicable and sometimes even detrimental. Self-
deprecation in the U.S., I concluded, was sometimes equated with low self-esteem or
incompetence; self-promotion--if not excessive--seemed to equate with self confidence,
competence, and self-worth.

Boasting may be a slippery slope in the U.S.; when it pertains to one’s self, it is
not always positively received. There are often subtle ways to make abilities and
accomplishments known, however, without necessarily being labeled a braggart. What
few Americans may understand about modesty in Japan is that it involves not only what
an individual says about him or herself, but also what an individual says about those who
are closely associated. Thus, in Japan, bragging about a family member, colleague, or
close fiiend is considered unacceptably immodest behavior, especially when conveyed to
someone considered more distant. With this in mind, I challenged Kazumi by requesting

that she boast about her father not only in English but in Japanese:

John: So how do you deal with the whole concept of being modest--especially in
Japanese?

223

 

Kazumi: I wasn’t really used to saying good things about my parents and brother
and some people asked me, like, “What does your father do?” Or what do you
think about your family or something? And I used to say that, like, my father is
really, really conservative, I don’t like him,'or, like, he’s not outgoing--he’s really
shy, or something really, really negative. But then after talking to some American
people saying, “My father’s great! He’s like my buddy” or something, I started to
realize that I can say good things about them, even though I wasn’t used to [it].
So I kind of started talking about I respect my father a lot and he’s a great person
and, um, he’s good at computer or something really positive . . .

John: Can you say that to me in Japanese now?

Kazumi: Um, yes. Actually, right now? Watashi no otousan wa . . . (my father
. . .) [laughs]. It’s kind of embarrassing, but . . . Watashi no otousan wa, nanka,

shigoto ga sugoku suki dakara, kare wa shigoto ga dai suki dakara, watashi wa

sono koto o sugoi sonkei suru shi, kare no ikikata o sugoi sonkei shimasu (My
father. um, really likes his work--he really likes his work and so I really respect

him for that, and his lifestyle too-- I really respect him for that as well.)

John: Okay. Is it comfortable for you to say that in Japanese?

Kazumi: I kind of got used to it because I think it is a good idea for me to say that
about him.

John: Now you can say that to me as an American, but if I were Japanese would it
be different?

Kazumi: Well, I talk to my fiiends here about my father, and I say [the] same
thing, so . . .

John: To your Japanese fiiends?

Kazumi: Yeah.

John: And do they find that unusual?

Kazumi: Probably [laughs]. Because they say, “I don’t like my father at all”
[laughs]. And I say, “Well, you can find some good, some other good things.” But
they’re like, “No--I don’t like him.”

John: Because when you were just telling me about your father in Japanese, your
face tumed a little red--you seemed a little uncomfortable saying that.

Kazumi: [Laughs] Um, I’m not comfortable, but I like to say it.

John: But is it like kimochi warui (giving you a bad feeling) to say that?

224

 

Kazumi: Just a little.
John: So it gives you kind of a bad feeling?

Kazumi: Not that bad a feeling. It’s not bad feeling, but still I feel a little bit weird
saying it [laughs].

In another conversation about boasting, Isamu insisted that the concept of
Japanese modesty allowed for some subtle opportunities to self promote:

John: [Americans] can say, “My father was a good basketball player” or “My
father was a good accountant” but in Japanese I find that difficult to say . . . or
you might say “I’m pretty good at something” in English but if I said, “Watashi
wa takkyujouzu desuyo” (I’m really good at table tennis), I mean, it just sounds
bad in Japanese . . .

Isamu: Yeah, I know Americans like doing things [like that], especially when you
meet someone new, some new people, because that’s the way you can show
yourself--you can [promote] yourself and you. . .but Japanese, they don’t say like
those things when you meet people first time, but they are so good at like
intertwining, like, those phrases into, like, natural--usual conversations. Like
when you’re talking . . . like, if you’re talking about, like . . . okay let’s say there’s
huge international tennis events and we are talking about tennis and you can say,
“Okay, I played tennis in high school and we went to, like, higher places—
tournaments.”

John: Like, “My team won the prefectural championship?”

Isamu: Yeah, they are not, yeah it’s showing off but it’s . . .

John: More subtle?

Isamu: More subtle, but it’s easy to get boastful with those phrases. You can tell
he’s talking about himself and he’s trying to raise his image . . .

John: So there are subtle ways you can boast or brag in Japanese?

Isamu: Yeah.

While Isamu pointed out that subtle forms of boasting were evident in Japan, he
still maintained that Americans were generally less modest than Japanese. Kana,

however, who had moved away from Japan at the age of 13 to live in Malaysia and then

225

the U.S., appeared much less aware of differences in modesty between Japanese and US.
Americans. Identifying as highly assimilated to American culture, her apparently limited
understanding of Japanese modesty and humility seemed to come almost solely fi'om her
father who had given her some advice before she interviewed with a Japanese company:

John: If somebody asks you a question in Japanese and you know the answer, do
you immediately tell them the answer?

Kana: [immediately] Yeah.

John: Do you ever worry that they might feel stupid that they don’t know the
answer?

Kana: What do you mean?

John: Well, some Japanese, if you ask them a question and they realize that by
answering the question quickly you might feel stupid, they [might] pause and say
the question is difficult--they hem and haw, etc.

Kana: I never do that. I answer as soon as possible as I can, you know? I just
realized recently, you know, if you make a pause a little bit and you after a little
pause you answer, that’s the way that can make [yourself] look like smart, you
know? You have, like, big authority kind of things.

John: In Japanese?

Kana: In Japanese. But I don’t do it. I’m like I answer whatever from the top of
my head and my dad tells me not to do it at my interview so I did . . .

John: Told you to hesitate?

Kana: Yeah, so Japanese will think I have more deep thoughts after, you know,
answering after a little pause.

John: You don’t suppose that opposed to deep thoughts, it has to do with being
considerate of the other person so as not to make them feel foolish for not
knowing the answer?

Kana: [Laughs] I don’t consider that.

In contrast to Kana who had lived almost half of her life outside of Japan,

Kazumi, who was majoring in anthropology, was much more resolute about the

226

differences between Japanese and Ammcan modesty. I tried to get her to brag about
herself in both English and Japanese:

John: Can you brag in Japanese?

Kazumi: Brag?

John: Can you say, for example, “Watashi wa Eigojouzu desu yo!” (I’m really
good at English!)

Kazumi: I would probably say, “I can speak English.” I said it like sometimes
some Japanese say, “You’re really good at speaking English compared to other
Japanese people.” And I say, “Thank you.” Like, I don’t say, “No, no, I’m not
really good at it” or something.

John: So you don’t say, “Sono koto wa nai desu” (No that isn’t true)?

Kazumi: I don’t say it.

John: In Japanese, you don’t say, “Eigo umai desu yo!” (My English is really
great!)

Kazumi: [Laughs loudly] In Japanese maybe not! I would say, “Ie ie” (No, not at
all!) lt’sjust . . .

John: Kimochi warui deshou? (It’s kind of nauseating isn’t it?)

Kazumi: Yeah!

John: It’s hard to say!

Kazumi: Yeah, it’s really hard to say, yeah, you’re right [still laughing]!

John: I’m just curious if that crosses over.

Kazumi: Yeah, yeah . . .

In Kazurni’s uncomfortable reaction to boasting in her native language, it
becomes increasingly evident that for most Japanese it is a virtual taboo to say anything
that could cause shame or feelings of inferiority in others. In addition, bragging has likely

become a simple faux pas in Japan that causes people to react unfavorably simply by

227

hearing it. Withholding opinions and personal accomplishments were two examples of
other-face concern demonstrated in this section. In the following segment, participants in
this study confirmed that Japanese communication tended to be less direct and less verbal
than in the United States. Both of these tendencies related to other-face concern in that
they served to keep others from feeling shame, inferiority, or discomfort.
Language and Communication Style
In Chapter 3, I argued that individuals hailing from collectivist or interdependent

cultures such as Japan tended to use much more indirect styles of communication than

 

people from more individualist cultures such as the United States (Gudykunst, et al.,
1996; Kim, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ting-Toomey, 1988). Lakoff and Johnson
(as cited in Ting-Toomey, 1988) suggested that indirect communication could involve
using roundabout words, metaphor, euphemism, and hinting strategies. The present
section highlights four participants who related their fi'ustration communicating with both
Americans and Japanese, though for different reasons.

Kana was struck by the tendency for many Americans to outright verbalize their
abilities and accomplishments:

Well . . . I knew that Americans would be so stubborn and individual--like

independent, but some of the people I’ve met has, like, such a strong egos and you

know, if you’re Japanese or Asian, you know, you look into eyes and you don’t

say anything, but you understand, and you know, and just have a modesty--but

they don’t. Like some of the Americans don’t. So like, you actually have to say it

in a word in order to have them understand what you want . . .

Japan is considered a high context culture, meaning that non-verbal
communication cues are largely understood among members of its culture (Ting-

T oomey, 1988). The U.S., on the other hand, is considered a low context culture where

verbal communication takes necessary precedence over the potential dangers and

228

ambiguities of non-standard and varying cultural cues (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Given these
differences, it is not surprising that Kana expressed her frustration with having to
verbalize unpleasant feelings or disapproval with Americans. For her, to communicate
through facial expressions or tone of voice that were obvious to Japanese seemed
frustratingly ineffective with Americans:

Kana: I’m living with my roommate, but like, after you use your kitchen--like,
cleaning up after yourself is, you know, something expected--not necessarily in
the Asian culture. But like, you know, she doesn’t do it at first, so like if you’re
Asian, like, you look into the dirty kitchen and like, you know, they’ll understand,
and like, “Oh, oh! I’ll clean it up!” But with my roommate I will be, like, “Hey
Amber, you have to clean this up after yourself!” right? And then she does it. But
like, you know, it’s an individual thing, not necessarily whole American, but, you
know . . .

 

John: So you have to verbalize?

Kana: Yeah, verbalize, yeah right. You have to say it, yeah. You have to say what

you’re thinking, and almost they don’t try to understand what--[or] try to see

your mind, so . . .

Ting-Toomey (1988) suggested that in high context cultures such as Japan, facial
expressions and incomplete sentences help lessen the need for direct verbal
unpleasantness. For Kana and other Japanese to express verbal unpleasantrress may thus
be even more awkward than for many Americans. Adding to the fi'ustration of having to
verbally express negative emotions, Aika expressed the disappointment she felt in not
being heard or seriously considered in group discussions:

John: Since you’ve been here, have your impressions changed?

Aika: Some yes and some no [laughs].

John: What’s changed?

Aika: Uh, maybe I’ve seen many bad parts [laughs]. Like, [being] really

individualistic is really good thing I thought, but sometimes it’s too much and I
feel like it’s a lack of communication or some supporting each other, or how can I

229

 

say it? Um . . . [Americans are not] agreeing [with] each other sometimes because
[they are] existing too much of themselves; they sometimes forget about other
side of opinions or idea. But to me sometimes it hurt me. Like, “Listen to me!”
[laughs] sometime, like . . .

John: So people are too concerned with their own opinions, their own ideas?

Aika: That’s what I feel . . . . Sometimes I feel it [laughs]. But I have adjusted
[laughs].

The idea of going from a culture where individuals place a high premium on
others to one where people may place a greater emphasis on their own personal ideas and
goals may be understandably upsetting. On the other side of the spectrum, Kazumi
expressed the fi'ustration of dealing with fellow Japanese who refrained from verbalizing:

John: Is it frustrating [to argue] with Japanese sometimes?

Kazumi: Yeah! Because I know that they have different opinions because I’m

Japanese and I can feel it. And I warn them to say something, but they are, like,

too afraid to say it. So I might be really, really offended, or I might be really,

really get angry.

John: Does it bother you if they [Japanese] just smile?

Kazumi: Yeah! It does! I will say, “Say if you want to say something!” And still,
they don’t say [laughs].

The above conversation I found interesting in that‘it seemed to almost refute
Gudykunst’s (1988) theory of uncertainty and anxiety in corrrrnunication, which
presupposed: “At least one participant in an intergroup encounter is a stranger vis-a-vis
the in-group being approached” (p.126). In Kazumi’s case, however, her frustration was
expressed in terms of communicating with people from her own culture. As she
expressed: “I’m Japanese and I can feel it.” Nevertheless, after living in the U.S., a low
context country where greater verbalization is expected (Gudykunst, 1988), Kazumi came

to demand additional verbal clarification even from fellow Japanese. Only if one sees

230

Kazumi in light of becoming a stranger to J apanese--or Japanese as having become
strangers to Kazumi--is the theory of uncertainty and anxiety applicable. Perhaps
developing uncertainty and anxiety with one’s fellow natives is a telltale sign of
acculturation change.
Summary
In this chapter, I looked at Japanese undergraduate perceptions of individualism
and collectivism pertaining to the US. and Japan. Based on multiple interviews, the

following subcategories emerged: (1) appearance; (2) family; (3) education: (4) face; and

 

(5) language and communication styles.

In terms of appearance, there was consensus that most J apanese--especially
Japanese women--were much more concerned about appearance than their American
counterparts. This was deemed collectivist behavior in light of Markus and Kitayama’s
(1991) definition, which suggested the importance of fitting in with and attending to
others. It was thus argued that Japanese commonly placed a greater premium on
appearance as a way to be accepted by others, but also as a way to avoid being
scrutinized or judged by their interdependent group members. Since Japanese tended to
dress more fashionably in Japan and more casually in the United States, importance
seemed to be placed largely on conformity to the standards at hand. Americans, in
contrast, appeared to be free from the judgments of highly interdependent groups, and
thus displayed less concern about personal appearance.

Participants in this study depicted American families as encouraging
independence in their children while Japanese families generally cultivated a system of

interdependence. American parents were depicted as encouraging their children to try a

231

large number of sports and activities, learn a wide variety of household tasks, seek part-
time jobs while in high school, and manage their own money from an early age. Japanese
parents and children were described as taking on specialized but limited roles. Within this
system, Japanese parents were portrayed as encouraging their children to master a limited
number of activities and to concentrate on schoolwork as a way of making themselves
and others proud. In the meanwhile, parents saw their role as tending to their children’s
various needs.

Japanese education was largely described as emphasizing group life (shudan
seikatsu) where the needs of the group overshadowed individual desires. In consideration
of their classmates’ feelings, Japanese students were described as repressing their
opinions in class and keeping personal achievements to themselves. American
educational goals, on the other hand, emphasized expressing opinions and developing
personal interests and abilities. A number of students mentioned tracking and double
promotion as examples of individualistic education in the US. As a way to reinforce
collectivism in Japanese schools, interviewees pointed to teacher and student pressure to
conform and a duty system that required students to clean and maintain their schools.

Face was discussed, especially as it pertained to Japanese sensitivity toward
others and their feelings. Participants generally found Americans to be less sensitive
about how their opinions affected others. In short, Americans were generally seen as
assertive, boastful, and consistent about their opinions regardless of the people around
them. Japanese were depicted as compromising personal views, withholding opinions,
and downplaying personal accomplishments in an effort to maintain group harmony.

Boasting about personal or in-group accomplishments was generally understood to make

232

 

others feel inferior or uncomfortable. Bragging about personal or family
accomplishments was demonstrated to be difficult or unnatural for Japanese when
speaking English, but especially uncomfortable when speaking their native language.

In terms of language and communication styles, Japan was depicted as a high
context, homogeneous culture where non-verbal communication was readily conveyed
and understood. The U.S., however, was seen as a heterogeneous, low context culture
where verbal communication was necessary to cut across many cultural and sub-cultural
boundaries. Japanese undergraduates sometimes felt frustrated with Americans for
requiring explicit verbal communication, although some also admitted to feeling
fi'ustrated with fellow Japanese who refiised to express themselves verbally. One
participant admitted to having been too explicit with Americans before learning where to
draw the line. In general, Americans tended to value clear and direct communication with
relatively minimal concern over group harmony; Japanese were depicted as valuing
group harmony over direct, verbal communication, relying on non-verbal communication
that was readily understood, at least among fellow Japanese.

In Chapter 8 I have explored Japanese undergraduate perceptions of individualism
in Japan and the United States. The two countries were shown to differ perceptibly in
terms of appearance, family, education, face, language, and communication styles. In the
following chapter, I explore how Japanese undergraduates perceive differences in
masculinity between Japan and the United States. Unlike in the previous chapters on
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism where participants generally
perceived contrasts as relatively consistent across subtopics, the chapter on masculinity

shows that in some areas the US. is perceived as more masculine, and in other areas

233

 

Japan is perceived as more masculine. Participants generally viewed Japan as more
masculine in terms of the hierarchy in the Japanese language, gender inequality in the
workplace, sex-role differences at home, and the competition fostered in K-12 education;
participants saw Americans as more competitive in terms of their reluctance to apologize,
and the competition fostered in their postsecondary educational system. In Hofstede’s

(1984) investigation, both Japan and the United States were deemed masculine countries.

 

234

CHAPTER 9
MASCULINITY

Masculinity in Chapter 3 was summed up as relating to competition and ego while
femininity was largely equated with nurturance. Unlike Hofstede’s (1984) other three
work-related values (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism) in which
Japan and the United States were placed on opposite ends of the spectrum, both countries
ranked high in terms of masculinity. On Hofstede’s (1984) scale, Japan ranked 1St of 39
countries while the US. was 13‘”. Closer examination revealed that each nation displayed
varying levels of perceived masculinity and femininity, depending on the aspect of
culture examined. Based on the literature, I argued in Chapter 3 that Japanese were more
nurturing in respect to friendship and cultivation of the arts; U.S. Americans were
deemed more nurturing in terms of linguistic equality, language inclusiveness, and
attitudes about gender in the workplace. The present chapter, drawing from interviews
with Japanese undergraduates at an American university, focuses on masculinity as it
relates to: (1) language; (2) women in the workplace; (3) male-female relationships; (4)
K-12 education; and (5) postsecondary education.

Language

In Chapter 3, I demonstrated that in contrast to English, the Japanese language
categorically required divisions based on hierarchy and often gender. English, on the
other hand, was determined to be hierarchically and gender neutral, as demonstrated in its
pronouns, verb forms, and lack of honorific affixes. Perhaps the most poignant
explanation of how each language impacted behavior came fi'om Mika during an

interview in my pilot study (Brender, 2004):

235

 

John: Okay. Do you behave the same way around Americans as you do with
Japanese?

Mika: Americans and Japanese? Yeah, I act different, I behave different . . . not a
lot of big, big differences, but yeah, I feel like I’m acting different in front of
Americans and in front of Japanese. Especially the language wise because English
and Japanese are really different and the Japanese language itself separates the
class or status level--like who I’m actually talking to. Even though I don’t want to

act differently, the language separates so I have to act differently [laughs]. When I

speak to older people, I feel like I’m more polite because the language makes me

be polite--politer than when I’m speaking to younger people. But English, on the
other hand, makes me feel like I can talk to anybody equally, even a professor, or
friends, or younger kids. It’s easier to interact with people language wise. Because
of the language it makes me feel like I can talk to anyone. So I feel more open,
more interactive, more aggressive with American people than Japanese. I feel
more conscious about the way I am, like which level I am, and I act different
along with the language.

Other Japanese students reported similar changes in behavior when switching
between Japanese and English, as have numerous Americans I have known. When
shifting from English to Japanese, one must make immediate decisions about hierarchy
that are scarcely if at all considered in English. One does not want to make the mistake of
insulting an older or more powerful person in Japanese by using inappropriate verb forms
or pronouns that are too familiar. Conversely, it is not always considered appropriate for
Japanese to use polite language with subordinates. From my time in Japan, I recall a
young Japanese teacher being admonished for his use of polite language with students.
The assistant principal warned that students might lose respect for teachers who did not
treat students as decidedly inferior.

Apart from the obvious linguistic differences that impact behavior, Isamu was
quick to share his observations that Americans-«and especially American men--frequently

communicated in ways that were more masculine than was common in similar Japanese

settings. His immediate observation pointed to behavior with cashiers at restaurants:

236

John: What about American men and Japanese men?
Isamu: [laughs] Very different.

John: How?

Isamu: How? Americans are more muscular.

John: Muscular or masculine?

Isamu: Masculine. Maybe both of them--but not everyone. But both of them,
masculine yeah . . .

John: How so? What do you think of as masculine?

Isamu: Like, just the way they talk, you can tell from that. Like, [it] sounds they
try to speak or pronounce, like, low--and clothes so masculine . . . I don’t know, it
may be perceptual things so I don’t know if everyone thinks the way I do, but
yeah . . . and they speak that way--masculine--and at the same time I think they
are trying to be speaking that way, so . . . But Japanese don’t care, yeah . . . I
know, like, some Japanese [men] speak like a woman [laughs], but I don’t feel it’s
that unnatural. Yeah, there may be some Americans trying to speak, to show his
masculinity. . .

John: How do you think an American man shows his masculinity?

Isamu: Show? Besides speech? Very confidence. And they’re always-~I don’t
know if it’s just guys-~but I think it’s the same for girls, but they always think or
they always expect others see him, so typical American guys, they’re always
trying to look confident so, yeah . . . like, behave cool. I don’t know. Coal is very
vague word so I want to avoid using those words, but, like, yeah, like, when
you’re buying certain things like at [a fast food restaurant] or like at family
restaurants and there’s a line and the American guy goes to the cashier and he
makes something mistake but he’s trying to be cool because he knows like those
people in the line are seeing him so he just say [in low voice], “Oh, okay, that’s
fine” or those things. You know what I’m saying? Yeah, that’s one way to show
your confidence or to be cool or, so yeah . . . But Japanese maybe just like to be,
“Ah! Ah!” Just like to be . . . maybe, yeah, it’s same because they are always
expecting others are seeing him, but it’s completely opposite way--maybe
Americans are trying to be more confident but Japanese is just humble and maybe
shy and maybe just bow a lot . . .

Isamu’s observations resonated strongly as I listened. Coming back from Japan I

remember being chided for acting too polite when making inquiries over the phone or

237

paying for items in stores. In Japan, apologies seem to roll off the tongue whether
warranted or not. In many respects, Japanese apologies may serve as preventive
maintenance to assure the listener that one is humble and seeks group harmony rather
than immediate respect or admiration. Upon returning to the U.S., my speech was
inundated with phrases such as “Excuse me” and “I’m sorry,” until finally I understood it
was perceived as a lack of self-confidence. Having made a conscious effort to become
more assertive and less apologetic after returning to the U.S., I wondered if Isamu
recalled undergoing similar adjustments:

John: What about apologies?

Isamu: Apologies? Yeah, I know Americans don’t want to say “I’m sorry” a lot,

so yeah, we just keep saying, yeah, Japanese keep saying, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry,

I’m sorry” so. . .but Americans just say “sorry”, like every time--not every time,

but when I’m talking to Americans, if I say like, “Oh, I’m sorry’ ’--it’s so easy for

us to say “I’m sorry” but they don’t expect that a lot--that many “I’m sonies,” so
if I say, “I’m sorry” usually those Americans, like, think, “Oh, it’s not so bad--it’s
okay, it’s okay!” so . . . So when I compare when Japanese think “I’m sorry” and

when Americans think “I’m sorry” I think Americans’ “I’m sorry” is more . . .

John: More heartfelt?

Isamu: Right! [laughs]

In line with Isamu’s observations, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2002) concluded that
Americans and people from individualistic cultures were more likely to use dominating
conflict strategies than Japanese or people fi'om collectivist societies. Ting-Toomey and
Kurogi (1998) supported this idea by noting that Americans focused largely on outcome
strategies while Japanese used strategies (such as apologizing) to avoid conflict. Hence,
in Japan, apologies are commonplace even from blameless parties (Haley, 1986). In

respect to offering apologies, U.S. Americans are arguably much more masculine and

competitive than most Japanese.

238

In spite of the masculinity perceived in the American tendency to avoid apologies,

U.S. Americans were generally depicted as more verbally expressive of love and

affection than most Japanese. Kazuaki, who identified as separated and relatively

unaffected by American values, said he had become more openly expressive, albeit more

in English than in his native Japanese:

John: Anything else about American families that you’ve noticed? Is there
anything that has shocked you? '

Kazuaki : Oh, American says like, “I love you” to your families, but we don’t say
that usually. It’s because of the difference in language but, yeah; it’s a little bit
different . . .

John: Do you think you could say “I love you” more easily in English?

Kazuaki: Yeah.

John: If you had, like, a child-mot a romantic love—but . . .

Kazuaki: Yeah . . .

John: What about with a girlfiiend, is it easier to say, “I love you” than “Aishite
iru?”

Kazuaki: Yeah-~it’s much easier saying it in English, because . . . yeah . . .

Kazuaki could not give a reason for why he could express affection or romantic

sentiments more easily in English than in Japanese. Perhaps the idea of expressing verbal

affection in Japanese is such a deeply ingrained faux pas that to suddenly utter one’s

affection for someone would resonate uncomfortably for all concerned. Itasaka (as cited

in Befir, 2001) insisted that Western couples constantly repeated their love for one

another because for them the idea of love could only be communicated verbally. The high

context culture in Japan allows for these sentiments to be conveyed in non-verbal ways

(Ting-Toomey, 1988).

239

Other participants in this study expressed equal shock at how frequently
Americans voiced their affection for one another. Kazumi expressed surprise at how
easily her American peers said, “I love you” to family members:

John: What impressions do you have of American families?

Kazumi: Well, it’s probably language somewhat, but when I heard that people

like my roommate and my ex-roommate calling on the phone that definitely they

say, “I love you” at the last--it’s really weird [laughs with embarrassment].

John: Why?

Kazumi: Because we don’t say it--I will never say it!

 

John: What do you think about people who say “I love you?”

Kazumi: It’s fine for me. Well, at first, I thought it’s sort of, like, inappropriate

because I didn’t know the culture before. But then I found that, you know, “I love

you” is just an expression, or like, the way they say it. They don’t really mean--
well, they mean it, but when they talk on the phone, it’s, like, a just-have-to-say
thing. If you don’t say it, they’ll feel weird, right?

John: It totally depends on the family, I think.

Kazumi: Yeah, but the people I talk to, like, if you don’t say it, they feel like,

“What happened to you?” [laughs] And they feel so anxious about why you did

that--why the persons didn’t say, “I love you” a lot, so. ..

Although Kazumi acknowledged that verbal affection among American family
members was sometimes reduced to a closing salutation, she did not feel it was simply a
formality. Had she seen “I love you” as just another American greeting, she might not
have been so adamant about refusing to say it herself. Interestingly, her refusal to
articulate affection--even in English-~stood in contrast with Kazuaki’s adapted
willingness to say, “I love you” in English, though not in Japanese.

Summing up masculinity and its relation to language and verbal expression,

participants in this study saw Americans as less nurturing when it came to apologies but

240

more nurturing in terms of verbalizing affection. Although it was argued in the review of
literature that American English accommodated more inclusiveness and political
correctness than Japanese, none of the participants addressed this issue in a way that
would provide a notable contrast between the two languages.
Women in the Workplace

Chapter 3 demonstrated that in spite of Japan’s Equal Employment Opportunity
Law (EEOL) of 1986, Japanese companies were significantly less accommodating
toward women in the workforce than were their American counterparts. Women in the
Japanese workforce were said to remain largely in supportive positions to men (Axtell et
al., 1997; Befu, 2001; Hendry, 2003; White, 2002). According to Lam (1993) women
were generally interviewed only after the pool of male applicants were exhausted, and if
hired, were often put on a separate track from the men. Befu (2001) noted: “Most women
are at the bottom rung in corporate structure or they are at home” (p. 44).

Although Ayumi could not say for certain, it was her impression that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Law of 1986 was largely unenforced when it came to maternity
leave:

John: How about the way that men and women treat each other in Japan and the
US?

Ayumi: Well, kind of like traditional idea in Japan is, like, kind of like man is
superior than woman, and that idea kind of exists both in US and Japan, but
sometimes I feel it’s stronger in Japan. Like, work condition and stuff, it’s kind
of, like, harder for woman . . .

John: At home or at work?

Ayumi: At work.

John: Why is it harder for women?

241

Ayumi: They have program taking place for, like, pregnancy and, like, having
birth and stuff, but with men they’re [not] understandable for those problems and
stuff so they’re not, like, helping them.

John: So the law doesn’t get after them the way it does here with maternity leave?

Ayumi: Yeah. I’m not in those situations and I don’t know, like, actual people
who are in those situations so I can’t say too much about it, but I think that that’s
the one thing.

Although Ayumi was somewhat tentative about the situation for women in Japan,
Akemi was much more resolute in her portrayal of how women were treated in the
Japanese workforce. With anger and frustration in her voice, she insisted that women in
Japan were still expected to leave their jobs upon getting married and that unmarried
women over 30 were often viewed with disdain:

John: When you graduate, would you prefer to work for an American company or
a Japanese company?

Akemi: Yeah, I mean, I’m not used to all this sempai and you know, all the
seniority stuff so it would be hard for me to get used to that when I go back and
work in Japan. But at the same time I have to keep in mind that I’m the minority
in here, so if I were to work in a company in here it’s not going to be as easy as I
think. So there’s always plus and minus, you know? Whether I go back to J apan--
there are some good things about Japanese companies, there are some bad things.
But being female, really I’m worried if I go back to Japan and work in, like,
Japanese company, but, like, we are just not as value[d] as, you know, male
workers, and we are just expected to get married and, like--I don’t know if you’ve
heard about the whole culture about, like, make inu?

John: Make inu?

Akemi: Like, inu is dog, and make is, like, defeated. And we have a lot of sayings
using make inu, like make inu no tooboe‘ (literally: “howl of the defeated dog”). I
don’t know if you’ve heard about that, it’s like, you know, like a loser. Make inn
is, like, loser. And, like, recently we have this term for, like, make inu spreading
all over the Japan, and that’s, like, a woman who is, like, over, like, 30 years old
and not get married. And they call them just, like, make inu.

 

’ Make inu no toobue can refer to excuses given when one has failed at a business endeavor. It can also
refer to a woman’s ranting about virtually anything, especially if she is unmarried and over 30 (R. Masuda,
personal communication, February 7, 2006).

242

John: And that’s specifically for women?

Akenri: Yeah, I think so.

Informal investigation suggested that phrases such as make inn and make inu no
tooboe were used in self-deprecating ways, but that they were also used somewhat
derisively by comedians and behind people’s backs (R. Masuda, personal
communication, February 13, 2006). Given that most words referring to older, unwed
women have long been considered politically incorrect in the United States and Great
Britain (Orarn, 1992), the reported widespread use of make inu may attest to a lack of
sensitivity or willingness for many Japanese to accept women outside of traditional roles.
In Hofstede’s (1984) investigation, the percentage of women in technical and
professional jobs was negatively correlated with masculinity. His assumption suggested
that highly masculine countries discouraged women from being independent
breadwinners.

Akenri, who expected she would face difficulties in the US. for herrace and
nationality as well as her gender, maintained that working in Japan might be even more
difficult for her as a woman:

I mean being a woman they just expect us to kind of . . . like, I know society is

changing in Japan as well, but at the same time, you know, like . . . because, like,

I take sociology classes in here too, and even in the United States women are still

discriminated and, like, what [is] going to happen if I go back to Japan? I know

it’s, like, ten times worse over there so, like, I don’t know about work and, like, I

think it’s going to be really hard, so, like, I don’t really want to work in company,

I want to work at [a] school . . .

Kana, who had just accepted a position with a Japanese company, expressed

similar concerns:

John: How do you characterize Japanese and American companies?

243

Kana: All the people like, my Japanese friends who have worked in an American
company tell me I’ve got to work for American company so that, you know--
there’s no real seniority in American company whereas there is in Japanese
company. Like if you’re young and you know, you’re a girl then there is no
sexual preference maybe, but if you’re a girl and you know, 22 and young, you
know, they don’t really weigh you. Then American society, if you’re good, if you
can deal with the work, you know, it’s just going up--high. So, all my fiiends tell
me, you know, I better work for American company-J think that’s true. But it’s
also like if you’re in an American company they just lay people off, like so quick,

so immediate . . .

In the midst of discussing the pros and cons of working for a Japanese or
American company, Kana considered the alleged lack of sexual discrimination at
American companies, and suggested that sexual discrimination still played a part in
hiring and promotion at Japanese companies. A number of statistical reports confirm that
women currently face more discrimination in Japan than in the United States. According
to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (n.d.), in 2002, 32 percent of all women
workers in the US. workforce were in professional and managerial occupations. By
contrast, in that same year, women in Japan made up only two percent of managers at the
director level and only four percent of section managers (Web Japan, n.d.). In terms of
accepting women in the workplace, U.S. companies--though far from perfect--are clearly
more nurturing and, by definition, more feminine than their Japanese counterparts.

Male-Female Relationships

Hofstede (1984) suggested that masculinity was positively and significantly
correlated with societies where sex role differentiation was greater. From the interviews
conducted in this study, there was consensus that much greater role divisions existed
between male-female couples in Japan than in the United States. Respondents seemed to

agree that Japanese women were more likely and more pressured to assume traditional

nurturing roles than were American women. There was also agreement that Japanese men

244

were commonly more authoritative than American men. American women were viewed
as independent, strong-willed, and somewhat demanding of men, while American men
were depicted as chivalrous and relatively accommodating toward women.

In individual interviews, participants answered open-ended questions about
family, and were ultimately asked to contrast Japanese and American families. Many
interviewees chose to discuss differences they had observed in male-female relationships
in Japan and the United States. When asked about her family in Japan, Aika commented
on how her mother perceived women’s roles:

My mother is like, “Women don’t have to work and the woman’s job is

supporting family and raising children and you know, protect the family, and the

father is, like, man have to work and earn money and things, help family”

[laughs]. So what I thought was funny was like my mom went, “After you

graduate from the university you don’t have to work and you just get married and

support your family” And I was like, “Yeah” [laughs].

Obviously Aika had different ideas from her mother. Nevertheless, she
maintained that Japanese women were still somewhat dependent on others, especially in
comparison with American women:

John: Are there differences between American and Japanese women?

Aika: Oooh. ..different Maybe some Japanese women are more reserved. And

.hmm. .more calm. .w.eaker .and still kind of need of support from
somebody. .,well but depends [laughs]. But my kind of impression about

American woman is really independent and then strong and more direct [laughs].

Kazumi, a senior anthropology major, shared a similar view about Japanese and
American women, adding that Japanese women were much more likely than American
women to praise or compliment their boyfiiends or husbands:

Kazumi: I think that American women and Japanese are different. I think

American woman are really independent and strong-extremely [laughs]! And
they express theirselves and they are strong basically. They say anything they

245

want to say. But Japanese try to be modest and try to raise guys or something,
like, not raise but not lift, but . . .

John: Praise?

Kazumi: Praise. Praise boys a lot . . .

John: And American women don’t try to do that a lot?

Kazumi: If they think that guy is a really nice person or like respectful--

respectable, they will do it. But still, they cannot fake it. Like, if they are really

good person . . .

In her comparison of Japanese and American women, Kazumi seemed to imply
that while Japanese women gave frequent and sometimes false praise to their husbands or
boyfiiends, it was their intention to “lift” or “raise” them to greater levels of confidence
and achievement. This was not, in her estimation, the case with American women whom
she saw as complimenting men only when the occasion seemed warranted. If Kazumi’s
assessment holds validity, it would appear that there might be almost a reversal in sex
roles between Japanese and American couples--at least as perceived by Japanese
participants in this study. That is, while Japanese women regularly tended to men and
their emotional needs, American men, according to participants, were generally seen as
more attentive to and complimentary of women. Aika commented on what she saw as
American chivalry toward women in general:

Uh . . . men in U.S., first of all, are more polite to woman. Oh, for the small thing,

it’s just ladies first. And when [they] open the door for you--[it’s] more kind of

caring mind and attitude to woman. And maybe Japan too, but I think a little less

[laughs]. You know, like, men care for women who are very close to you, like a

girlfiiend, wife, or friend, but the other people, “I don’t care!” [laughs] Like,

“Open it? Oops?” [laughs] But here, generally all men are really, really nice to

woman-~any woman. And I think it doesn’t matter where you’re from--like race is
not really problem . . .

246

While Kazumi saw American men as more attentive to women outside their
circles than were Japanese men, Aika insisted that American men were also more
attentive and accommodating to women who were closer to them:

Aika: The husband care--in America—-husband cares the wife really much. It’s,

like, always, like, “Are you okay?’ or “If you’re tired I can cook for you”

[laughs]. But my father [laughs], he’s like, “Do it! Do it! I’m hungry! Do it!”

[laughs]

Of course one can see a bit of self-deprecation in Aika’s comments. To extol
one’s own country or family members to outsiders is generally considered a faux pas
among Japanese (Kurman & Sriram, 2002). To discuss or joke about the idiosyncrasies or
shortcomings of family or in-group members is an expected norm--as is taking a more
flattering tone toward outsiders (Kurman & Sriram, 2002). In spite of these conventions,
it is curious that while Japanese participants depicted American men in a relatively
positive light, their portrayals of American women were arguably somewhat negative.
Such opinions were consistent among Japanese female and male participants in this
study.

Two of the men in the study, Isamu and Kazuaki, made similar observations in
terms of the way American men treated women. Interestingly, both Isamu and Kazuaki
suspected that this chivalrous behavior stemmed from American women’s expectations:

John: Are there differences between Japanese and American women?

Isamu: Women? [laughs] I don’t know many American women so [laughs] I think

yeah, in terms of women I think stereotype image--I think that applies, like, to

Japanese women . . . more humble--I don’t say humble because some Japanese

women are very active, especially when you get close, they become so active and

assertive, but it’s generally more humble than American women . . . And yeah,
there are so many women here and they are all different so I cannot say [they’re]

difficult but . . . I guess--and maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong--there has to
be some way that girls expect guys to do something, like, when they are doing

247

something on a date or like group project they expect guys to be, like, doing
certain things . . .

John: Such as?

Isamu: Such as, like, I don’t know--maybe like opening the door--like those

things we don’t have. And I don’t think Japanese girls expect that much. And if

they came here, if you have experience coming here, they might expect, but

Japanese women in Japan generally don’t expect that much . . .

Like Isamu, Kazuaki also believed that American women had very different
expectations from Japanese women when it came to men:

John: Are there differences between Japanese and American women?

Kazuaki: [long pause] I think American women is more used to being treated like
a lady, but Japanese girl is not . . .

John: If they’re not treated like ladies, what are they treated like?

Kazuaki: Oh, they like to be treated like lady, but sometimes they don’t care as
much as American girls do, I guess. And they. . . [long pause]

I gave Kazuaki a moment to regroup. I knew he had been dating Kana, another
participant in this study, for quite a while. Kana, who identified as being more American
than Japanese, had left Japan in the seventh grade for Malaysia and later the US. Kazuaki
claimed that Kana’s expectations were much more in line with those of an American
woman, and that he had, in turn, learned to follow her expectations:

Kazuaki: I guess American men is more gentlemanly . . . like when you go to a

date, American men open the door for her—but . . . Japanese men don’t do that.

And Kana hates that!

John: That you open the door?

Kazuaki: Like I wasn’t a gentleman when I started dating with her, so she trained

me to be like a gentleman, like, carry her bags or open her, like, car door for her
and things like that . . .

248

I suddenly remembered a conversation with the assistant principal of the Japanese
high school where I worked in the 19805. Fearing he might be seen as what he termed
“henpecked,” he once admitted that he would never open the car door for his wife in front
of the neighbors. Other Japanese fiiends and colleagues confided similarly. With this in
mind, I asked a much younger Kazuaki if he had plans to continue acting with the same
degree of chivalry when he and Kana returned to Japan:

John: How will your Japanese friends react? If you go back to Japan with Kana
and they see you opening the car door for her, how will they react?

Kazuaki: “Oh, you’re a gentleman!” Like that I guess.
John: Will they laugh?

Kazuaki: Yeah, some of them may make fun of me but, hmm . . . they might be
surprised how I act . . .

John: But you will continue to do that in Japan?

Kazuaki: Yes.

John: Even if people laugh at you?

Kazuaki: [Laughs] Yes.

Perhaps as a combined result of their experiences in the U.S., Kazuaki and Kana
might adopt certain American norms or values. Of course, both will face imminent
reverse culture shock when they return to Japan; values may then have to be rethought or
renegotiated in accordance with unforeseen variables. Undoubtedly the balance of power
between men and women is a challenging negotiation for couples who have been exposed

to very different values regarding sex-role orientation.

249

Kazumi, a senior anthropology major who echoed other participants in this study,
insisted that in Japan, men held more power in male-female relationships but that in the
U.S., it was women who held the greater share of power:

John: And are there differences between the way American men and women treat
each other and the way Japanese men and women treat each other?

Kazunri: I think it all depends; because, like, the way couples work is different.
But still, in America, mostly from what I see, girls have more power to men

[laughs].
John: More than men?

Kazumi: More than men. Yes. And Japanese, probably boys have more power--
they decide what that couple wants to do. And girls expect that too. And it’s
really, really difficult to say, like, if girls ask her boyfriends to do something and
if he says, “Whatever’” or “I don’t care” or something, it’s really bad for
Japanese. Because most girls want a man to be really like, “Okay, let’s do this and
do this and do this,” so she can follow him . . .

While Kazumi’s opinions seemed to be in line with those of other participants in
this study, I wondered if her own upbringing might have provided a special lens for her
interpretation. Having grown up in a conservative family in Kyushu, she told me about
the differences in how she and her brother were raised:

Kazumi: I really remember when I was young . . . like, I have a brother--and I’m

girl and he’s boy--and my parents really didn’t say anything about what my

grandmother says, so like, we’re pretty, like, a little bit sexist, um, so, like, I

always had a kind of like upset, and so . . .

John: You were upset because your grandparents were sexist?

Kazumi: Well, I wouldn’t really say sexist, but they had really different regimens
to me and to my brother.

John: Okay, explain . . .

Kazumi: My grandma asked me to do all the chores she wanted others to do. But
she [sometimes] asked my brother, but it’s always after she asked me first. And
then if I said “No,” she’d ask again and say something: “You’ve got to learn to do
it!” or something. And then I don’t really do any . . . I totally go, like, somewhere

250

else. So my grandmother asked my brother to do it, but it totally continued until,
like, junior high school. And I complained about it to my father a lot, but my
grandmother was, like, the strongest person in my family, so he couldn’t say
anything about it.
Kazumi continued with her story, explaining that from the beginning her
grandmother held her grandson in higher esteem than she did her granddaughter:
Kazumi: I think one of the reasons that my grandma treated me and my brother
differently was because my brother is supposed to take over my house--my
family, to the next generation. So like, she treated him like a treasure or
something. So I heard one story about my grandma when my brother was born.
My mother was pregnant, and she gave birth to my brother. The first thing my
grandma said was, “I’m relieved it’s boy!” I’m like, “Yeah.” Because my mother
got really, really depressed by that because she thought the reason why
grandmother is really happy is because that’s boy--not [because] she gave birth to
a child. So I kind of grew up, like, noticing it that my brother is much, much
[more] important than me in my family. So, and I think it used to be really
traditional or really common in past Japan.

John: So do you feel--this is obviously a typical family in older J apan--but do you
think it was a typical family growing up where you were in southern Japan?

Kazumi: No, I don’t think so at all.

Kazumi’s case was likely very unusual in contemporary Japan. Nevertheless, her
story points to a powerful tradition that may not have perished entirely. The distinction in
sex-role orientation she described in her household was consistent with the notion that
Japanese men were still expected to be served and to wield power in relationships while
women were expected to play supportive, nurturing roles. To Americans and even
Japanese raised with strong feminist ideals, this disparity in sex-role orientation may
seem chauvinistic or grossly unfair. Naomi, who had spent nearly half her life in the U.S.,
however, had a different take on male-female relationships in Japan:

John: How about the way American men treat women and the way Japanese men
treat women? Is there a difference?

251

Naomi: . . . Yes, but it’s a cultural thing. I mean, like, in the U.S., it’s ladies first
and all men treat you like princess, you know? But in Japan, in terms of, like,
holding doors, yeah, I think Japanese men are more, like, powerful . . . powerful
to live in society. But I think at the same time they know--I’m talking about in

J apan--they know that women are very important in their lives in terms of helping
them-mot just like sexually, not just for reproduction. They know that they need
women to help them and they can’t live without women because, I mean, they’re
not using women for domestic work, but they know that women are great help.
But I think in the US. people seem to understand that Japanese men are being,
you know, sort of like a master and treating women assertive or something. Like,
I don’t think it’s true. I mean, they work till 11 PM. You can’t do laundry
[laughs], they can’t cook either--they don’t have time for it! And they wake up at
six in the morning and go to work at seven, so . . . I think it’s working too much.

In contrast to the clear divisions in sex-role orientation she had observed in
Japanese families, Naomi pointed out that husbands and wives in American families
shared domestic responsibilities more or less equally. This alleged equality between the
sexes did not convince her, however, that American families were preferable to or less
exploitative of women:

Naomi: Yeah [laughs]. In American families, I think both parents have to, like,

maintain power. Because, like, there are so many kinds of work--like, many

mothers work in American families too. And many fathers cook too. So I think
they are equal--like totally equal, you know? But in Japan, they have, like,
completely different roles, but they know how to work it out. It’s not like 30% of

Japanese men are beating women or anything [laughs]--it’s not that, so . . . You

know how to work this out . . .

John: It’s an old system . . .

Naomi: Right, it’s an old system, but I think it works. I mean men and women
are different!

Our discussion on the roles of men and women continued. I pressed to find out
Naomi’s opinion of recent societal changes between men and women in Japan, and the
idea of women being accepted as equals in male-female relationships:

John: You know a large percentage of Japanese women are choosing not to get
married?

252

 

 

 

Naomi: Right.

John: What’s your feeling?

Naomi: I understand what they mean, because more women are more educated,

and they earn money, and if they get married they probably would have to quit

job. And also . . . a lot of times it’s hard for intelligent women to get married

compared to people with lower education, because in Japan, men have to be more

educated than the women-they’re like, men have to be more intelligent and, like,

smarter than wife, right? Wouldn’t that be weird if, like, women are, like, Dr. and

Mr. or something? Like, if your wife is a doctor and you were, I don’t know, just

high school graduate or something, would that work out? You know? Like, it

doesn’t, right? I mean, it’s an exaggeration, but . . .

I pressed Naomi further on her ideas of inequity between men and women, and
asked whether she felt there was a difference between male-female relationships in Japan

and the US:

John: Do you think it’s harder for a Japanese man to accept an educated woman
than for an American man to accept a more educated woman?

Naomi: I think it’s more difficult to expect the Japanese man to have more
educated woman, I think. Because I think they want to feel powerful, but I think
American men are more liberal about it. They’re like, “Oh yeah, my wife is very,
like, smart, or like, she has status, or like, she’s a doctor or something.” Then he is
part of her, right? But in Japan, like, if that happens, it’s kind of, like, degrading
effect, so yeah, in terms of that, I like Americans.

I was initially struck that contrary to the argument that Japanese were more
collectivist than US. Americans, Naomi pointed out that in terms of male-female
relationships, at least some American men found their identities enmeshed with their
wives’ professional careers. According to Naomi, this tendency for American men to
pride themselves in their wives’ accomplishments was not at all the case with Japanese
men. To the contrary, Japanese women (as I argued in Chapter 8) were more likely to

seek validation in their husband’s or children’s accomplishments. In all, it appeared that

this observation was not so much a question of collectivism as of sex-role orientation;

253

that is, while Japanese couples may experience greater disparity in their sex-role
orientation, American couples appeared to share not only in breadwinning and domestic
chores, but in the pride of one another’s professional accomplishments.
I continued the discussion with Naomi on couples and education levels by

paraphrasing something I’d heard from several Japanese coworkers back in the 19805:

John: My Japanese teacher fiiends back in the 805 used to say, “For a wife, high

school is too little, four years of college is too much, but two years of junior

college is just right” . . .

Naomi: Right, I know what you mean.

John: But for me as an American, I found that a little offensive.

Naomi: Because you’re degrading women?

John: I think 50.

Naomi: Yeah, I personally prefer someone with higher education than I am. I

don’t think I could marry a man with the same education as I do. Because it’s

more interesting to hear someone who is smarter.

John: Do you think it’s less interesting for the man?

Naomi: Yeah! That’s what I don’t understand [Astonished]! I don’t understand, I
don’t know . . .

John: Do you think the man has a need to feel superior, or paternal, or something
like that?

Naomi: I think so.

Naomi’s commentary is important in that it serves as a reminder that certain
values--though potentially objectionable to some--take very different forms across
cultures and among individuals. As has been seen in the recent trend of many Japanese
women choosing to stay single and in Naomi’s unresolved thinking on male-female

relationships, values are subject to change. In spite of the potential for transformation in

254

 

 

Japan, participants in this study unifome insisted that male-female relationships in the
US. were currently more prone to an equal balance in education, power, and domestic
responsibilities than in Japan. Given Hofstede’s (1984) supposition that countries with
greater sex role distinction were higher in masculinity, Japan may clearly be more
masculine in terms of relationships between men and women.
K-12 Education

Participants in this study were unanimous in that they saw Japanese K-12
education as far more competitive--and by extension more masculine-than American K-
12 education. By contrast, participants--especially those who had attended high school in
the U.S.--5aw American K-12 education as relatively nurturing. Although the present
group of students had all completed their Japanese education prior to the Education
Reform Act of 2002 that relaxed cuniculum standards, some provided accounts of a
Japanese educational system that had undergone controversial changes in recent years.

As mentioned in previous chapters, Japanese students were not only subject to the
demands of a centrally mandated cuniculum, but many students also attended cram
school (juku) after their regular school day had ended (Stevenson & Baker, 1992).
Competition to attend prestigious universities was so fierce that Japanese commonly
abided by a conventional wisdom that warned: Sleep four hours, pass; sleep five hours,
fail (Stevenson & Baker, 1992). Kana recounted her experiences in Japanese elementary
and middle school before moving to Malaysia with her family:

Um . . . what I came to was, like, Japanese education system was pretty good--

well, when I was in elementary and middle school everyone was expected to

study hard, and I even went to a private tuition school after school-jukuuyeah, I

went there for, like, so many years. But here, I don’t know, because I don’t feel
like a lot of Americans don’t study that much--I feel like they don’t study that

255

much compared to Japanese. Because they’re not that serious about getting a jobs
and you know, making it in their life or so . . .

The idea that K-12 education was more competitive in Japan than in the US. was
discussed extensively in Chapter 8 where opinions similar to Kana’s were commonplace.
Kenta and Naoki who, like Kana, had attended a year or more of high school in the U.S.,
provided accounts of how their American teachers were more nurturing than their
Japanese teachers had been:

John: How would you describe education in the US. and in Japan?

Kenta: High school was different. [American] teachers were different; like, they

give more credit to those people who are working hard-~I think so. If you show

them the effort you will get rewarded. I used to go see my professor, like, every
day, and, like, purely from my scores I could, like, fail, but because I did so much
to . . . because I spent so much time trying to understand that kind of things,

he gave me some kind of, like, high credit, and I didn’t deserve that. Generally,

like, that kind of stuff.

John: So you think that Americans award more for effort?

Kenta: I would say so.

Kenta was not the only student to mention that American teachers were generally
more lenient than Japanese teachers. Naoki’s experience in an American high school
appeared similar to Kenta’s. Having described Japanese education as “terrible,” Naoki
seemed to appreciate that his American teachers were more interested in teaching than in
assessment:

And [American] high school is always much easier. I think [American] teachers

are more trying to teach more than make it hard. They consider and they grade on

a curve, which Japanese usually don’t. Because I don’t see most of the teachers

look at what the students got for, you know, their lines. Like, if you get 80% you
get an “A” and that’s the Japanese way, pretty much.

256

Kana also said the K-12 American educational system was much easier than in
Japan. Revealing that she would like to raise a family in the US. one day, Kana began by
assessing American schools, which she felt were inferior to Japanese schools:

I think American educational system is kind of falling apart, I mean, not in [the
suburb where I attended high school]--the ability level was, like, good, you know?
Kind of better part of the educational system compared to the rest of the state-«the
rest of the American other states. But then it was still, like, kind of easy, you
know? We didn’t get that much homeworks every day, and so compared with
Japanese educational system, like, students are not expected to do well--like as
much as in the Japanese high school because many of the kids are not serious
about going to college--although they go--because I lorow in Japanese college you
have to have an entrance examination. It’s like one shot, yeah, you have to enter
in one try, so, but . . . But here in American society, I don’t feel like SAT and
ACT and, like, other school works are fine, and plus your school work is not that
difficult--they don’t really study hard, you know?

Transitioning from her seemingly negative assessment of American schools, Kana
proceeded to explain why she would prefer to raise children in the U.S.;

Kana: It’s . . . the reason I wanted to stay here because, not for myself, but if I get
married and, you know, if I want to raise my kid, the American system would be
better, you know?

John: Better to grow up in? Why do you say that? .'. . [If] you think Japanese
education is a little more rigorous and a little better education, why do you want
your children to grow up here?

Kanazz Like here, like, no one cares, like, what you are wearing, you lmow, what
you do--so they’re able to [have] more freedom, just that you know, the
educational level is maybe a little lower, it doesn’t really matter, like, if you just
grow up in the American society. See, if you don’t study and no one else studies
as well, so you know getting decent dollars and get a job and be happy, so time
goes slower in here, and I like it! [laughs]

John: So people can grow up blissfully ignorant? [laughs]
Kana: [Laughs] Not ignorant! I’m sorry, but yeah . . . seems like, well, if they’re

so ambitious they can just make it, you know? Like regardless of what the other
people do . . .

257

Kana seemed to feel that the rigors of Japanese education for her and for many
Japanese children might have been excessive. In addition, she seemed to view Japan as a
meritocracy where students had one chance to set their life’s course by passing an
entrance exam to a competitive university. In spite of the contrast she provided, a few
respondents--including Kana herself--pointed to the idea that the Japanese K-12 system
was presently in decline. Kana’s discussion on the differences between education in
Japan and the US. continued as follows:

Kana: So, I feel, like, in Japanese society, like, Japanese educational system is a

bit better, but then I don’t know if the Japanese educational system is [that good]

. . . because they did more, like, ethical, like, what is it? Doutoku (ethics) classes?

It’s like teach the guest how-~the ethics . . . so that, yeah . . . the society in class,

so they don’t cram . . .

John: Like proper aisatsu (greetings)?

Kana: Yeah, they don’t cram the kids anymore nowadays . . .

John: Cram?

Kana: Yeah, like, they don’t let the kids study a lot . . .

John: Like they used to?

Kana: Yeah, it’s getting slower, so . . . I think now the American study would be
better, so . . . you know . . .

In spite of seeing Japanese education as historically superior in its rigor, Kana
expressed reservations about what she understood to be a recent decline in standards. In
spite of her tentative reservations, it seemed clear that the majority of respondents in this
study still viewed Japanese education as decidedly more competitive (i.e., masculine) and

American K-12 education as comparatively more nurturing (i.e., feminine).

258

Postsecondary Education

Contrary to opinions about primary and secondary education where participants
viewed the Japanese system as more competitive (i.e., masculine) and the American
system as comparatively nurturing (i.e., feminine), the general consensus regarding
postsecondary education was that US. institutions were more competitive and more
nurturing than their Japanese counterparts. Consistent with what I had heard and seen in
the 19805, Japanese college students were depicted as working hard in high school but
treating their undergraduate experience as a time for enjoying themselves and working at
part-time jobs. Kazumi summed it up as follows:

John: Do you think [Japanese college students in Japan] work hard?

Kazumi: Some people, maybe, but the majority of people no. Because, probably

you know it, but high school kids try to get into the university and study so hard

and then once they get in, they stop studying and just do whatever they want. And

I think it’s kind of true.

Kenta, who had not attended a Japanese university but communicated with friends
who did, had similar things to say. In the following excerpt, be related the semester cycle
that he perceived as common among college students in Japan:

You really have to work hard to graduate here [in the US]. I haven’t been to a

Japanese university-J have friends—-but mostly they work so much, they work

every day--like, arubaito (part time work). Arubaito shite, okane tamette, ginkou

m’ itte (they work, they save money, they go to the bank), and a lot of people a

couple of days before exams, they buy notes from their fiiends who has been

attending class every day and they just study for their finals. So, zuttou benkyou
shite, tesuto ukeru (they cram a lot and take their exams). So the lecture doesn’t
really mean anything. T esuto owattara, arubaito shite, yasumi nattara, yoku nete,

mata kaette kite, arubaito shite, tesuto ga attara, mata noto o katte; soyu koto o

yoku kiku kara (When they finish their tests, they work at part-time jobs, take a

vacation, sleep a lot, return home, work part-time jobs, and when the tests come
up, they buy notes again; I hear that kind of thing a lot . . .).

259

Kazuaki, who had attended a competitive foreign language university in Japan,
provided a similar portrayal:

John: How would you describe college in Japan compared to college in the US?

Kazuaki: Like, American university is where you study your major, I guess.

Japanese university is where you are looking for what you would like to do in the

future.

John: What do you mean?

Kazuaki: Like, usually Japanese don’t study about your majors. I mean you study

but just some people don’t go to class--just take the exams. And you’re trying,

like, many things, like, outside of campus. So it’s a time to what . . . you want to

do after you graduate.

John Working arubaito [part time jobs]?

Kazuaki: Yeah, working arubaito or join some association or something--

anything that you might be interested in. But here, students already know what

they want to do--like you, students choose their major--but more, like, in Japan,

most of the people don’t know what do you want to do after you graduate

university; they just pick the university-mot major.

What Kazuaki meant by picking the university instead of the major was that in
Japan, the quality of the university is often more important than the major one selects
(Ishida, Spilerrnan, & Kuo-Hsien, 1997). Japanese companies, while less prone to hiring
graduates in the humanities, are often more concerned about employee attitude and a
general ability to learn than about incoming skill sets (Ishida, et al., 1997). Although
Japanese companies are now looking more toward specific abilities than in the past (A.
Brender, personal communication, 2005), they have customarily trained workers upon
entry, and often times at varying tasks throughout their careers (Ishida et al., 1997).

Understanding that companies are willing to provide employees with needed

skills upon entry, many Japanese college students may feel minimal incentive to master

the curriculum set forth by college professors. Kana had not attended college in Japan but

260

was surprised at what she saw when sitting in on an English class at a Japanese
university:

I think Japanese students, like, I don’t know, spend a lot more time playing with
their fiiends and going to karaoke (singing establishments) and you know, that
stuff. But, like, here, most of the people study a lot more than Japanese college
students, so I think that’s good, because, like, you know, in American college,
[it’s] easy to enter but hard to graduate, right? Opposite of the Japanese college,
so . . . the Japanese feel once they get in, it’s easy to graduate, so . . . um . . . yeah
. . . I’ve been to Japanese college a couple of times so . . . I went to an English
conversation class with my friend. But I was so surprised at the English level of
the Japanese students in college. It was so easy--like, there was American teacher
and he was saying something, you know, he was making announcements in class
and then not many of the people could understand what the guy was saying, so I
was trying to help them out and, like, you know, I didn’t want to speak [English]
like that in the Japanese class; I was just trying to go slower, but the kids were,
like, so amazed, like, “Oh my Gosh! Your English is so good! How did you get
it?” and stuff. And like, it’s like nothing, if you would just study a little bit harder
in English, I don’t know . . . like, I was so shocked at the Japanese kids’ English
level--they’re so, like, low! And the teacher speaks like, “Okay . . . how . . . are

. . . you?” And, like, they don’t understand it. I think it was kind of like a shame!

While Kenta, Kazuaki, and Kana depicted college in Japan as less demanding
than in the U.S., Kazumi posited that some schools in J apan--especially those with an
abundance of foreign faculty--were every bit as rigorous as in the United States.
Ironically, the university she alluded to was the very one that Kazuaki had attended:

John: How would you describe college in Japan?

Kazumi: It’s real difficult [to say] because I’ve never been there.

John: But you have fiiends?

Kazumi: I do, and it sounds like they don’t . . . well, one of my best friends go to

one university, and she, her school goes by English all the way through. So, like,

it’s kind of the same situation.

John: She goes to a Japanese university with English all the way through? Where?

Kazumi: X Gai Dai (X Foreign Language University). Not all the classrooms, but

some of. And she is in, like, some kind of, like, exchange student expert classes or
something, so she needs to speak in English all the time.

261

John: 15 that a kokuritsu daigaku (a public university?)

Kazumi: No, it’s a shiritsu (private). And she told me it’s really difficult to do,

like, to do good in the classes. So I thought it’s kind of same as me doing here,

but . . .

Having assessed the majority of college students in Japan as less serious than in
the U.S., several participants turned their attention to some of the things they appreciated
about American universities. Since most of the students had freely chosen to attend
college in the U.S., it may not be surprising that their opinions were somewhat biased.
Kazuaki, having graduated from a university in Japan, offered perhaps the most informed
opinion:

John: What impression do you have of American professors?

Kazuaki: I think American professors are more committed to their classes. They,

yeah . . . they are more well prepared than Japanese professors do for their

classes, I guess. And for example, in Japan some professors don’t make syllabus--

just do whatever they want in the classes, or . . . yeah, I think that’s different.

John: Did you have some classes in Japan that were interesting that you attended a
lot?

Kazuaki: Oh, I like the international relation classes. Because the professor

studied at a university in England and New Zealand, so they’re more like

American professors. Like he’s more committed to his classes, so he’s very

enthusiastic about what they’re teaching about. So yeah, that’s the class I enjoyed

a lot.

Kazuaki appeared to distinguish professors who had studied in the West from
those who were credentialed in Japan, suggesting that occidental-educated professors
were more dedicated to and enthusiastic about teaching.

Although Naoki cautiously prefaced his opinion of American professors by

declaring he had never been to a Japanese college, he was pleased that his American

262

professors--like the teachers at his American high school--took his effort into
consideration:
John: What impressions do you have about American college professors?

Naoki: They’re pretty knowledgeable. I’ve never been to a Japanese college, so I
don’t know any Japanese professors. Yeah, but [American professors] consider
my effort, and yeah, they’re really good.

Saori, who had attended a junior college in Japan, was the only participant to
question the validity of class discussions, which she said were more common in the US.
than in Japan. A recently graduated accounting major, she seemed to prefer lecture
formats for their efficient dissemination of knowledge:

John: What impressions do you have of American professors compared to the
Japanese professors you knew in Japan?

Saori: Traditionally, Japanese teacher wrote their knowledge down on the
blackboard and then students just go home and remember it, but here it’s
different. They want students to question him. You know, they want students to
talk about something more, but in Japan we just learn from teacher, not like
discuss with them the things . . . they’re just receiving knowledge from teachers.
No doubt, you know?

John: Which do you like better?

Saori: I think I like Japanese way because it’s more, like, I don’t say easy--more
effective. Not like which they talk about something supported by a lot of, like
argument or theory, right? So just receiving and learning and remembering, so we
can get, the like right knowledge. In the United States they are talking to each
other. I think it is good too. You know, because they know how to explore stuff,
they know how to, like, argue with the other people. I think that’s a good point.
But, I don’t know, I just felt like sometime it’s, like, wasting time--like,
sometimes. Like, the student asks a question to teacher, but the question sometime
you can find in textbook, you know? But I felt like, you know, you should study
the textbook first and then ask question [laughs]! I mean, you don’t need to waste
the teacher’s time. That’s what I feel sometimes. But, like, sometimes it’s useful.
Like, sometimes some student has more knowledge and they ask some difficult
question to teacher, yeah, I think it’s good.

263

Thus, in her assessment of Japanese and American teaching perspectives, Saori
noted advantages and disadvantages in both. Although she preferred the lecture format
that she associated with Japan, she also saw validity in the developmental teaching styles
she had come to experience in the US. While debates on pedagogy may be interminable
and beyond the scope of this study, opinions about Japanese and American postsecondary
education in this study were clear as they related to masculinity; that is, participants
generally viewed American universities as both more competitive (i.e., masculine) and
more nurturing (i.e., feminine) than Japanese universities.

Summary

The present chapter focused on masculinity in Japan and the United States. Based
on interviews with Japanese undergraduates, American culture was deemed more
masculine in some respects while Japanese culture was seen as more masculine in others.
In some categories it was possible for one country to be perceived as both more
masculine and more feminine, or more masculine in one respect and more feminine in
another.

While I discussed hierarchical aspects of the Japanese language and compared
them with the more egalitarian limitations of American English in Chapter 3, participants
in this study provided additional observations in regard to masculinity and
communication styles. Isamu noted that Americans purposefully displayed more self-
confidence in public and were much less likely to offer apologies than Japanese. In
contrast to this competitive or masculine tendency in American English, several

participants expressed their surprise at how verbally affectionate many Americans were

264

with family and friends. In terms of language and communication, there were distinctly
masculine and feminine traits in both Japanese and American English.

According to the literature and a number of participants in this study, women in
the Japanese workplace had decidedly fewer Opportunities for advancement than men.
Ayumi, Akemi, and Kana all viewed American companies as much more willing to
ignore gender and to promote individuals based on merit. Given Hofstede’s (1984)
suggestion that masculine cultures distinguished sex-role orientation more fervently than
feminine cultures, Japan was viewed as more masculine in this respect.

Japan also appeared to be much more masculine in terms of male-female
relationships. Although White (2004) pointed to many recent changes among Japanese
families, respondents seemed to agree that Japanese women were more likely and more
pressured to assume traditional nurturing roles than American women. Participants also
said that Japanese men were generally authoritative, unwilling to do housework, and
unlikely to take pride in their wives’ professional accomplishments. American women
were viewed as independent, strong-willed, and somewhat demanding in their
expectations of men, while American men were generally. depicted as chivalrous and
accommodating toward women.

Participants in this study were unanimous in that they saw Japanese K-12
education as far more competitive--and by extension more masculine--than American K-
12 education. By contrast, participants saw American K-12 education as quite nurturing.
Although the present group of students had all completed their education in Japan prior to

the Education Reform Act of 2002 that relaxed cuniculum demands, some provided

265

accounts of a Japanese education system that had undergone controversial changes in
recent years.

The general consensus regarding postsecondary education was that more
competition and more nurturance were found in American postsecondary institutions than
in Japanese colleges or universities. Japanese college students were depicted as working
hard in high school but treating their undergraduate experience as a time for enjoying
themselves and working at part-time jobs. Many respondents depicted Japanese
professors as less demanding, less accessible, and less dedicated to teaching than their

American counterparts.

266

CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSIONS
In the present investigation, there were two sets of research questions. In the first
set of questions, I looked to the experiences of Japanese undergraduates at an American
university. Since the pilot study (Brender, 2004) suggested Japanese undergraduates
assumed a variety of acculturation identities, I proposed the following questions for
investigation:
1. What are the experiences of J ap'anese undergraduates identified as integrated?
2. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as assimilated?
3. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as separated?
4. What are the experiences of Japanese undergraduates identified as marginalized?
With the second set of questions, I sought to define how Japanese undergraduates
at an American university perceived differences in Japanese and American cultural
identities. Using Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values as a backdrop, I proposed the
following research questions:
1. What values and behaviors do Japanese undergraduates associate with American
culture?
2. What values and behaviors do Japanese undergraduates associate with Japanese
culture?
In this concluding chapter I highlight key findings from the present study, offer
recommendations for faculty and administrators, propose implications for retention and
recruitment of other East Asian students, discuss moments of contradiction in my

findings, and suggest future research for qualitative investigations.

267

Key Findings

Acculturation Identity

In the present study I examined acculturation identity based on participant self-

selection, scores from the East Asian Acculturation Measure (EEAM), and inductive

reasoning. Although suggestions for future research are based on interviews with 12

participants from a single American university, some common observations were noted

for each of the four-acculturation types. Given the qualitative nature of this study,

findings are intended to suggest further research rather than to proclaim reliable

generalizations. Table 2 displays observations associated with participants identifying

with each acculturation identity:

Table 2: Acculturation Identity Findings

Integrated

Lived in host
country > 5 years

Somewhat outgoing

Ease making
Japanese or
American friends

Reported fused
identities

Moderate families

Assimilated

Aware of temporal
limitations

Outgoing

Preference for
non-Japanese
friends

Preferred American
identity but did not

reject Japanese ID

Progressive families

Separated

Shorter time

in host country
or arrived after
age 22

31W;
least introspective

Preference for-
Japanese friends

Maintained
Japanese identity

Traditional families

Marginalized

2.5 - 7 years in host
host country

Somewhat outgoing

Reported difficulty
making friends, but
preferred non-
Japanese friends

Reported either
American or Japanese
identity

Moderate families

Based on the above observations, some meaningful hypotheses may emerge for

future quantitative research. A clearer understanding of variables that predict

acculturation type may aid university administrators to target and encourage certain

individuals for inclusion in non-Japanese social networks, which may improve retention,

268

student satisfaction with the college, and ultimately influence whether the student will
advocate the school to others in his or her home country. Quantitative research may also
help admissions counselors at competitive universities decide whether certain variables
will predict success (however the university defines it) at their institution. The goal here
is not to encourage a given acculturation identity since there is no evidence to suggest
that one acculturation identity is preferable to any another; the goal is to promote
understanding of different acculturation identities and to provide additional venues that
encourage social integration, especially for those who could benefit most.

First, it may be of interest to note correlations between acculturation type and
length of stay in the US. In the current study, participants identifying as integrated had
generally lived in the US. for five years or longer, the highest on average of Berry et al.’s
(1986) four-acculturation identities. Since many of these students were seniors, this
included at least one year of attendance at an American high school. While some
integrated students had come to the US. with their families, others reported that their
parents suggested a year or more of high school in the US. prior to attending an
American college or university. It may be that experience in an individual’s host country
prior to university allows for one to become integrated rather than assimilated, separated,
or marginalized. It may also be that length of stay contributes to identifying as integrated.

Assimilated students tended to share a temporal urgency. The three students who
identified as such all understood that their time in the US. was limited and wanted to
make the most of each day. Two of them very consciously avoided spending time with

other Japanese; the third had a Japanese boyfriend but otherwise spent her free time with

269

non-Japanese. Testing for temporal urgency or adherence to strict or full schedules may
correlate positively with identifying as assimilated.

Some of the separated students had lived in the US. for shorter periods of time;
one arrived at the age of 23. Because a few separated students had been in the US. for
three or four years, the correlation between length of time and identifying as separated
may have only minimal significance. Since the present study dealt exclusively with
undergraduates, most were less than 22 years of age. The most notable exception,
Kazuaki, arrived at the age of 23 and had been in the US for three years. Some literature
exists to suggest that Asian students arriving after the age of 22 are less likely to change
their core values (Shih & Brown, 2000; Sugimura, 2001). Future studies on Japanese
graduate students in the US. may help confirm or refiite this hypothesis.

In terms of personality, I observed that students identifying as assimilated were
notably outgoing; students identifying as separated tended to be rather shy. Participants
who identified as integrated or marginalized were less notably shy or outgoing. It may be
possible to test for correlations between acculturation and personality type by using the
East Asian Acculturation Measure along with an appropriate measure to determine
whether one is shy, outgoing, or somewhere in between. Testing for introversion and
extroversion may also yield significant correlations with acculturation type.

Assimilated students, while gravitating toward American values and exhibiting
behaviors that were decidedly American, generally held positive impressions about Japan
and Japanese culture. Although it seems possible that an individual identifying as
assimilated might reject many aspects of his or her native country, this negativity was not

particularly evident in any of the three participants who identified as assimilated. In spite

270

of what was found here, it could be interesting to find if assimilation in some individuals
is tied to negative connotations with their home country.

Marginalized students appeared to identify as such not out of rejection for
Japanese or American values but because of difficulty making fiiends or out of a desire
not to make friends with certain groups of people. In terms of values, two tended strongly
toward assimilation while the third appeared somewhat separated in terms of her
preference for Japanese values. If any suggestion can be made about marginalized
students, it is that marginalization has much more to do with one’s ability or desire to
make friends than with a preference for Japanese or American cultural values. Since only
three students identified as marginalized, more work needs to be done on this particular
acculturation identity.

Two of the three assimilated students described their families as decidedly
progressive, insisting that their parents encouraged a great deal of independence and
personal decision-making as they grew up. In contrast, some of the separated students
suggested that their families were more traditional. While there were no immediately
discemable patterns among integrated or marginalized students, measures to determine
family descriptions and acculturation type may yield significant correlations.

A final observation was that, contrary to LaFromboise et al. (1993) who insisted
that the highest form of bicultural competence was the ability to alternate behaviors
between cultural environments, the majority of integrated students saw fusing their
cultural identities as the highest manifestation of bicultural competence. Kenta summed it
up by saying:

I think it’s [dangerous] . . . to change my behavior. I don’t want to have, like, two
identities. But those who do that, I think that’s the best way for them to deal with

271

those two identities . . . There were times that I was doing exactly things like that
too, but once I spent more time [thinking about] my theory or, like, my identity,

. . . I reached the point where I don’t have to work so hard... to act like somebody
else . . .

In sum, much remains to be done in finding predictors for Japanese acculturation
type in the US. As suggested earlier, the goal should not be to change anyone’s
acculturation identity; students appeared to be leading relatively happy, productive, and
satisfying lives regardless of acculturation choice. Acculturation identity as it related to
values was relatively unimportant, but a number of participants--especially those
identifying as marginalized or separated-expressed an interest in spending more time
with non-Japanese or non-Asian students. Providing venues for such socialization to
occur may be vitally important if US. postsecondary institutions are to be successful in

retaining and recruiting Japanese and other international students.
Cultural Identity

Hofstede’s (1984) assertions regarding differences in power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, and individualism between Japan and the United States were strongly
supported by Japanese undergraduates in this study. Hofstede, of course, looked at values
across 39 countries rather than focusing on two as was done in the present study. While
offering informed insight on both Japan and the United States, Hofstede’s work was not
intended to focus intensively or exclusively on these two countries. The present study
was unique in offering a number of subcategories such as family, education, language,
and the work place for each value. In almost every subcategory, participants reinforced
Hofstede’s (1984) conclusions that Japanese valued high power distance, high
uncertainty avoidance, and low collectivism while US. Americans tended toward low

power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, and high individualism.

272

 

Masculinity was perhaps the most interesting of values explored in the current
study since there were several aspects in which each country was perceived as higher or
lower in masculinity than the other. Most notably, U.S. Americans were perceived as
more masculine (i.e., competitive) in terms of prefening confrontational approaches to
apologies and fostering greater competition in postsecondary education. Japanese were
considered more masculine in regard to the linguistic hierarchy in the Japanese language,
reticence to express verbal affection, competition fostered in K-12 education, and the
differences noted in sex-role orientation. In the review of literature, Japanese were

deemed more feminine in terms of their goals for fiiendship and cultivation of the arts.

Recommendations for Faculty and Administrators

With a goal of retaining, recruiting, and better serving Japanese and other
international students at Western universities, several recommendations for faculty and
administrators have emerged from the present study. Some of these recommendations
relate to understanding concepts about Japanese students at American universities in
general, while others are geared specifically toward faculty, staff, administrators,
domestic students, or Japanese and other international students.

First and foremost is the idea that Japanese students in the US. are likely to take
on a wide variety of acculturation identities and should perhaps be treated accordingly.
To assume that a Japanese individual will respond positively or negatively to a given
value, behavior, cultural accommodation, or teaching style should not be determined
solely on nationality.

How then should various Japanese students be treated? The answer is not hard

and fast given that the rules of intercultural communication are complex and subject to

273

many variables. In his review of the literature, Gudykunst (2003) noted factors such as
self and self-concept, motivation to interact with strangers, reactions to strangers, social
categorization of strangers, situational processes, and connections with strangers as
determinants that could facilitate or impede communication between people of different
cultures. Although Gudykunst (2003) mentioned self and self-concept, he did not
specifically mention acculturation identity as a factor for determining interaction. Based
on the current research, assessing an individual’s acculturation identity may contribute to
how successfully Western administrators communicate with Japanese and other
intemational students. Although future research is imperative, the idea of assessing an
international student’s needs or preferences may be linked to acculturation identity.
Perhaps more important than an ability to make assessments of Japanese or other
international students, is an individual’s willingness to communicate kindly, patiently,
and respectfully. When asked about experiences with non-faculty employees, many
respondents complained that university staff had treated them more abruptly or with less
respect than was noted with domestic students. This appeared to be more pronounced
during telephone encounters than face-to-face interactions, but both were frequently
cited. The following conversation with Akemi dealt with a non-university employee, but
echoed many of the sentiments expressed toward university employees:
Akemi: Like, sometimes I would make a phone call to the company to ask about
their service or something, and when I call them they don’t really explain much.
And then my [American] roommate, like, she was really nice, she was very
helpful, and she was like, “Ok, let me call them.” And then when she called, they
were, like, just give me like [a] bunch of descriptions even without her even
asking about the service. And I’m like, “Okay, what’s going on here?” You
know? I don’t know, but . . . Because it makes me sad, you know? So, like, I try
to just let those things go, and, like, try to think that it’s not a discrimination.

Like, just maybe because, like, I didn’t ask them well enough or, like, but I don’t
know . . .

274

John: Is it mostly on the phone do you notice?

Akemi: Yeah, like, on the phone and . . . but it’s tolerate someone being mean to

you just because you’re Asian or just because they’re having a bad day or . . ., you

know? I try to give people benefit of doubt so, like, when you are like
interrupting these people it’s harder to tell but, like, on the phone it’s a little bit
more easier because, you know, I’m just asking one or two things and, like,
they’re just like, “Oh this is that, this is that . . .” It’s not like they’re being rude or
they don’t help me but the way they help . . . when my roommate called, it’s just
completely different, you know? And she even noticed that. She was like, “Oh my

gosh! They are giving me like bunch of inforrnations, you know?” Yeah, so . . .

Akemi’s fiustration with service employees may be a reaction to prejudice, but it
is also probable that many Americans are unlikely to empathize with the difficulties of
speaking a foreign language or navigating a foreign culture. As Lambert (1987) insisted:
“There is nothing more damaging to the American capacity to cope in a global society
than the abysmally low level of foreign language competency of most Americans” (p.

10). It may well be in the interest of many Western universities to train their employees
on how better to interact with international students. Simulated workshops may be
effective in addition to mandating policies that emphasize more accommodating service
for international students. At the risk of sounding trite, the face of every university
employee is potentially the face of that university!

Given that a number of participants in this study reported current or initial
difficulty making friends with Americans, administrators should provide as many venues
as possible to pair domestic and international students. According to an unpublished
study by Brender, Lembright, Leone, and Thomas (2004), international students at one
Midwestern university fi'equently complained that attempts to unite international students

often excluded domestic students; thus the international community met people from

various countries while domestic Americans tended to join in relatively small numbers.

275

Many things could be done to integrate domestic and international students.
Domestic students could be recruited to be involved in international student orientations,
international and foreign-language clubs, and international fairs and exhibits. Mentoring
or buddy systems could be put into effect where American students meet with designated
international students from time to time. Curriculum could require or encourage domestic
Americans to seek input or perspectives fi'om international students and vice versa.
Housing administrators could actively encourage integration between domestic and
international students rather than passively allowing students to choose housing locations
with people who are most similar.

Of course simply putting domestic and international students together does not
guarantee that their encounters will be positive or fiuitful. Learning to find mutual topics
of interest is of prime importance if any continued interaction is to occur. An unfortunate
but common occurrence I have noted is that many American college students seem
unaware when they are discussing culturally exclusive topics such as American music,
sports, comedy, or television programs. These arcane conversational topics are especially
evident in group discussions as opposed to one-on-one conversations. Regardless of an
international student’s English proficiency, following arcane, culturally specific
references can be frustrating if not impossible. Feeling excluded from such conversations,
some international students withdraw from social interactions with Americans. In the
pilot study (Brender, 2004), one participant expressed the following:

Some Americans don’t ignore me but when Americans are talking with

Americans they are, like, it looks like more fun. They have mutual topics--about

music or TV programs. I don’t know much about music or TV programs because

I am just here for eight months. I think because of that it’s a little hard to make the
conversation.

276

Of course blame should not be placed solely on those from a given host country.
It would be helpful if international students learned to take more initiative in asking
questions or steering conversations into areas where they can more readily participate.
The idea of finding inclusive topics is simple, but one that should be made known to
domestic and international students alike. Workshops in cultural sensitivity might be
helpful, while faculty and housing directors could find ways to point out inclusive and
exclusive topics in intercultural communication. Exclusive topics need not be ruled out,
but students should anticipate that explanations might be necessary.

Intemationalizing domestic students may be paramount for universities and
colleges that hope to retain and recruit international students in an increasingly
competitive world market. Among the dimensions of internationalization proposed by
Mestenhauser (2003), is the concept of educating students to view ordinary situations
from an emic standpoint; that is, viewing another culture through that culture’s internal
logic. According to Paige and Mestenhauser (1999), internationalization is not simply
about exchanging persons and ideas across the globe, but should be defined as “a
complex, multidimensional leaming process that includes the integrative, intercultural,
interdisciplinary, comparative, transfer of knowledge-technology, contextual, and global
dimensions of knowledge construction” (p. 504).

Although most respondents in this study could express a variety of specific details
about differences between Japanese and American culture, few were able to articulate a
comprehensive framework that suggested well-defined opposing values. Revealing
Hofstede’s (1984) work-related values hit home for many of the interviewees and

appeared to be enough of an epiphany that I--and many of them--would recommend

277

presenting it during orientation periods at US. colleges, high schools, and places of work.
For Japanese nationals coming to the United States, having an idea of what to expect in
their host culture might lessen the severity of culture shock and perhaps propel them
toward a more pleasant experience in the US.

Japanese and other international students who are satisfied with their experiences
at American institutions are much more likely to be advocates for their schools than those
who are dissatisfied. If US. and other Western institutions of higher education are truly
concerned about recruiting and retaining Japanese students on their campuses, strategies
to foster positive experiences should be thoughtfully considered and implemented,
whether for faculty, administrators, domestic, or international students.

Implications for Retention and Recruitment

During the summer and fall of 2005, I developed and taught a course based on the
first three chapters of the current dissertation. My audience consisted largely of Korean,
Chinese, and Japanese professionals between the ages of 30 and 55. Since the majority of
participants were Korean and Chinese, a great deal of discussion was generated on the
differences between their respective cultural values and those presented as Japanese.
Although a number of minor differences were noted between Japan and its Pacific Rim
neighbors, many of the basic values set forth in this study were deemed highly applicable
to Koreans and Chinese as well. In spite of historical and political conflicts, participants
conceded that especially in contrast to the U.S., East Asians were much more alike than

they were different.

278

Moments of Contradiction

The idea of determining acculturation identity is a slippery slope. Some
participants in this study reported experiencing changes in acculturation identity over
time and some found self-selecting their current acculturation identity quite difficult. In
addition, although more than half of participant scores on the East Asian Acculturation
Measure (EAAM) matched student self-selected acculturation identity, nearly half did not
(see Appendix D). To further complicate matters, the four scores on the East Asian
Acculturation Measure (integrated, assimilated, separated, and marginalized) were often
close in number even for some students whose self-selection matched their top EAAM
score.

Although the idea of fusing two cultural identities into one appealed to most of
the integrated students, one participant identified as marginalized and two identified as
separated reported experiencing alternating identities. The idea that only people
identifying as integrated should struggle with making sense of two or more cultural
identities is far from accurate. As seems obvious from interviews, the EAAM, and
reported struggles with self—identification, students are not likely to serve as perfect
examples of any acculturation identity, but varying mixtures of all. The final quote from
the 1985 movie The Brealdast Club speaks to this phenomenon:

You see us as you want to see us, in the simplest terms, in the most convenient

definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain, and an athlete,

and a basket case, a princess, and a criminal.
Future Qualitative Investigations

While future research similar to the present study should focus on Koreans,

Chinese, and a multitude of other international students, I submit from my

279

aforementioned teaching experiences that the contrast in work-related or cultural values
between Japan and the United States may hold largely true for Koreans and Chinese as
well. I believe that it will be especially interesting to conduct research on the
acculturation identities and values of Koreans and Chinese undergraduates and to contrast
them with the findings that have emerged in the present investigation. Discovering
whether Koreans, Chinese, or Japanese are most likely to integrate, assimilate, separate,
or become marginalized may prove to be of interest to university professionals who seek
to socially integrate the most separated or marginalized international students on their
campuses.

It may also be important to investigate similarities and differences between
Japanese undergraduates at US. tertiary institutions in various regions and at US. tertiary
institutions with various missions. Comparing the experiences of Japanese
undergraduates at comparable institutions in New England, the South, the Midwest, for
and the West Coast, for example, may unveil important differences. Likewise, conducting
similar studies with Japanese undergraduates at varying institutions may yield
substantially different results. Japanese students who choose to study at community
colleges, for example, may reveal experiences that are different from Japanese students
who attend highly selective universities, regional universities, four-year colleges,
religious-based colleges, and technical or vocational schools. Contrasting Japanese
students at US. urban institutions with Japanese students at US. suburban and rural
institutions may also yield important similarities or differences.

Studies across time may prove to be of importance. Since the participants in the

present study had all completed their education in Japan prior to the Japanese Education

280

Reform Act of 2002, it may be interesting to see if students educated under the new, more
relaxed standards report different experiences from those who studied under the
previously mandated cuniculum. Globalization and other societal changes in Japan such
as the declining birthrate may also prove to be important catalysts.

While it may prove important to investigate differences in Japanese
undergraduates at different institution types, in different regions, and across time, it may
be of equal or greater importance to investigate Japanese alumni of American institutions
who have returned to Japan and those Japanese alumni who have remained in the US. for
employment or other purposes. Information in these two areas could prove invaluable not
only for Western institutions looking to assess their services relating to Japanese students,
but for Japanese and American companies eager to hire and effectively manage this
group of individuals.

Of course, Japan and the United States are not the only two countries of interest
for the kinds of studies proposed here. Investigations of any significant cultural
population studying at postsecondary institutions in a given host country will be of
importance to both that population of students as well as to the institutions who seek to
recruit and retain that given population. Institutions in Australia, Canada, Germany or the
UK, for example, may find reason to study the Chinese, Turks, or Pakistanis who attend
their institutions of higher education. The combinations and permutations that can emerge

from this study may well be infinite!

281

 

APPENDICES

282

Appendix A

Consent Form

Japanese Undergraduates at an American University:
Acculturation, Cultural Identity, and Values

This study is designed for Japanese students between 18 and 24 years of age who are
attending American universities. The purpose of this study is to note the experiences,
values, and cultural identities of Japanese undergraduates in the United States. It is hoped
that this study will inform university administrators, scholars, and other interested
professionals about Japanese students so that appropriate changes in instruction and
student services might be considered. As a willing participant, you will be asked to
supply demographic information, answer a brief written survey, and answer a series of
interview questions.

The study should take between 60 and 90 minutes, although you may continue as long as
you wish. To avoid misquoting or misinterpretation, your interview will be audio taped.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all.
You may refuse to answer any question. You may also discontinue the interview at any
time at no consequence.

As a participant in this research study, you will not be identifiable in any report of
research findings. Upon request and within these restrictions, results may be made
available to you. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator, John Brender,
by mail at 4847 Sugar Bush Lane, Holt, MI 48842; by e-mail at brenderj @msu.edu; or by
phone at (517) 694-4139.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are

dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you

wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email address:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study

 

 

Signature Date

I agree to be audio taped.

 

 

Signature Date

283

Appendix B
Interview Protocol for Japanese Students

Demographic Questions
Gender: M F Age: Hometown/Country:

 

Major:
Year in school: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Grad

Amount of time at US. college: Years Months

Amount of time at US. secondary school (9-12): Years Months
Amount of time at US. primary school: (K-6) Years Months

I spend % of my free time with people from my country

I spend % of my free time with other East Asians

I spend % of my free time with non-Asians

 

Open Ended Questions

Acculturation Questions
1. Tell me about your family (and how you were brought up).
2. Is your family typical in Japan? If not, what is a typical family in Japan?

3. Do you consider yourself similar to most other Japanese? Why or why not?

4:.

. What impressions do you have of American families?

kl!

. What impressions did you have of the US before you came here?

6. What were your first impressions after you arrived in the US?

\I

. Are your impressions different now that you’ve been living here? If so, how & why?
8. Can you describe any ways in which you’ve changed since you’ve been here?

9. If you’ve changed, can you describe anything that has caused you to change?

10. What kind of music do you listen to?

11. What kind of books do you like to read?

12. What kind of movies do you like to see?

13. How would you describe education in Japan? In the US?

284

14. How would you describe college in Japan compared to college in the US?

15. What impressions do you have of American professors? University administrators?
16. Tell me about your best friend.

17. Can you tell me about your fiiendships with Japanese? With Americans? With people
who are neither Japanese nor American?

18. Has it been easy or difficult for you to meet Americans and other international
students?

19. How would you say other Japanese see you in Japan?

20. How do other Japanese see you in this country or at this university?

21. How would you say Americans see you?

22. How do you spend your free time? (What kinds of things to you do?)

23. Who do you spend it with? (Japanese, Americans, other international students?)

24. Do you feel that you behave the same way with Japanese as you do with Americans?
If not, can you give examples (in class, doing group projects, socially)?

25. If you behave differently with Americans than you do with Japanese, can you give
examples of situations? Can you explain why you act differently?

26. What do you think about changing your behavior with different groups?
27. How would you characterize Japanese companies compared to American companies?
28. Are there differences between Japanese and American women? Men?

29. Are there differences in the way men and women treat each other in Japan and the
US?

285

Where would you place yourself on the following diagram? Place your dot within one of
the quadrants; do not place your dot on any of the bold lines.

Figure 20: Berry’s acculturation quadrant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Identification
with Japanese
Culture
Strong Weak
Strong
Identification
with
American
Culture
Weak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How would you draw a Venn diagram to most accurately reflect the integration of your
Japanese and American identities?

(Examples)

Figure 21: Venn diagram examples

Japanese American Japanese American

Identity Identity Identity Identity

   

Is there anything else you would like to add?
Would you like to change any of your answers?

286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abe, J ., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. J. (1998). Effects of a peer program on
international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 39(6),
539-547.

Ahn, H. S. (1999). Juggling two worlds: Ethnic identity of Korean American college
students. Dissertation Abstracts International, A 60 (04), 1007. (UMI No.
9926088)

Al-Sharideh, K. A., & Goe, W. R. (1998). Ethnic communities within the university:
An examination of factors influencing the personal adjustment of international
students. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 699-725.

Axtell, R. E., Briggs, T., Corcoran, M., & Lamb, M. B. (1997). Do 's and taboos around
the world for women in business. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Azuma, S. (1997). Discernment or volition: Linguistic politeness strategy in Japanese.
In P. Nosco (Ed.), Japanese identity: Cultural analyses (pp. 83-93). Denver: The
Center for Japan Studies at Teikyo Loretto Heights University.

Balmer, R., & Winner, L. F. (2002). Protestantism in America. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Bamlund, D. C. (1989). Public and private self in Japan and the United
States: Communicative styles of two cultures. Tokyo: Intercultural Press.

Barry, D. T. (2001). Development of a new scale for measuring acculturation: The East
Asian acculturation measure. Journal of Immigrant Health, Oct 2001, 3(4),
193-197.

Befu, H. (2001). Hegemony of homogeneity: An anthropological analysis of Nihonjinron.
Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits
of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper
& Row, Publishers.

Benedict, R. (1946). The Chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture.
New York: New American Library.

Berry, J. W., Trimble, J. E., & Olmedo, E. L. (1986). Assessment of acculturation. In

W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds), Field methods in cross-cultural research
(pp. 291-232). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

288

 

Bray, M. (1999). Control of education: Issues and tensions in centralization and
decentralization. In R. F. Amove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education:
The dialectic of the global and the local (pp. 207-232). Lanharn, MD: Roman &
Littlefield Publishers.

Brender, A. (2003, February 21). As enrollments dwindle in Japan, universities begin to
merge. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A34.

Brender, A. (2005, July 22). Japanese universities face bankruptcy as enrollments drop.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A29.

Brender, J. R. (2004). Japanese undergraduates at American universities: Acculturation,
identity, and experiences. Unpublished manuscript.

Brender, J. R., Lembright, J. A., Leone, L. A., & Thomas, I. S. (2004).
Internationalization of Student Culture at Michigan State University: Final Report.
Unpublished manuscript.

Burgoon, J. K. (1988). Cross-cultural applications of expectancy violations theory. In W.
B. Gudykunst & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Culture and interpersonal
communication (pp. 194-214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bussler, D. (1998). No more principals! No more custodians! Phi Delta Kappan 80(4)
317-18. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA535375)

Cabassa, L. J. (2003). Measuring acculturation: Where we are and where we need to go.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(2), 127-146.

Catholic Encyclopedia. (2005). Prayers for the dead. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm

Charrnaz, C. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K.
Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509-535).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Chataway, C. J ., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Acculturation experiences, appraisal, coping and
adaptation: A comparison of Hong Kong Chinese, French, and English students
in Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 295-309.

Chinese Culture Connection, (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free
dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143-164.

Condon, J. C. (1984). With respect to the Japanese. Yarrnouth, ME: Intercultural Press,
Inc.

289

Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Datesman, M. K., Crandall, J ., & Keamy, E. (1997). The American ways: An introduction
to American culture. White Plains, NY: Prentice Hall Regents.

Dee, J. R., & Henkin, A. B. (1999). Challenges to adjustment to college life in the
United States: Experiences of Korean students. International Education, 29(1),
54-70.

Doi, T. (1986). The anatomy of self. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Doring, A., Bingharn, B., & Brarnwell-Vial, A. (1997). Transition to university: A self
regulatory approach. Brisbane, Australia: Australian Association for Research in
Education.

Ellington, L. (2001). Japanese education in grades K-12.(Report No. EDO-SO-2001-9).
Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458185).

Ellington, L. (2005). Japanese education. Japan Digest. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from
Indiana University, East Asian Studies Center, National Clearinghouse for US.
Japan Studies. Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/digest5.htrnl

Ellsworth, P. C. (1994). Sense, culture, and sensibility. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus
(Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 23-50).
Washington, D C: American Psychological Association.

Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede’s
country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1),
43-54.

F lannery, W. P. (1996). Asian-American acculturation: An application of the culture
diagnosticity method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Riverside.

F lannery, W. P., Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparison of acculturation
models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 1035-1045.

Fujiwara, M. (2004). Friendship communication in Japan and the United States:
Cultural and individual level analyses. Dissertation Abstracts International, A

65 (09), 3216. (UMI No. 3148337)

Gilbert, 8. (2000). Japanese students in American higher education: A cross-cultural
analysis of academic culture (International Comparative Education MA

290

Monograph No. PR568). Stanford University, School of Education,
International Comparative Education.

Gillis, C. (1999). Roman Catholicism in America. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Second edition.
New York: Longrnan.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst
(Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 123-156). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2003). Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman,
S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivi5m, self-construals,
and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human
Communication Research, 22, 510-543.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and intercultural
communications. Newbery Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Haley, J. O. (1986). Comment: The implications of apology. Law & Society Review,
20(4), 499-508.

Hara, H. (2002). Justifications for bullying among Japanese schoolchildren. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 197-204.

Hara, K., & Kim, M. S. (2004). The effect of self-construals on conversational
indirectness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 1-18.

Hendry, J. (1989). Becoming Japanese: The world of the pre-school child. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.

Hendry, J. (2003). Understanding Japanese society. Third edition. London: Routledge
Curzon.

Hirokawa, K., Dohi, I., Vannieuwenhuyse, B., & others (2001). Comparison of French

and Japanese individuals with reference to Hofstede's concepts of individualism
and masculinity. Psychological Reports, 89(2), 243-251.

291

Hiyashi, R., & Kimura, M. (2004). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities among
Japanese social work students. The Review of Disabilities Studies, 1(1), 60-69.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture ’5 consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent
validation using Rokeach's value survey, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
15, 417-433.

Horn, K. L. (1996). Investigating the influence of individualism, collectivism, and
acculturation on counselor preference and attitudes toward seeking counseling
among Asian-Americans. Dissertation Abstracts International, B 58 (08), 4451.
(UMI No. 9806723)

Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence
of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.

Institute for women's policy research (n.d.). The status of women in the States. Retrieved
on March 30, 2006, from Web site:
http://www.iwpr.org/state52002/pdfs/USRIB.pdf#search='how%20many%20wom
en%20are%20govemors%201n%20the%20United%20$tates%3F’

Ishida, H., Spilerman, S., & Kuo-Hsien, S. (1997). Educational credentials and promotion

chances in Japanese and American organizations. American Sociological Review,
62, 866-882.

Johnson, M. L., & Johnson, J. R. (1996). Daily life in Japanese high schools (Report No.
EDO-SO-96-7). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social
Science Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED406301)

Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of
conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128-151.

Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and
cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Klein, E. (1992). The U.S./Japanese HR culture clash. Personnel Journal, 71(11), 30-38.

Koh Chin, H. K. (2004). Open doors 2004: Report on international educational
exchange. New York: Institute of International Education.

Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a
Japanese workplace. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

292

Kondo, D. K. (1994). Company as family. In J. M. Bachnik, & C. J. Quinn Jr. (Eds.),
Situated meaning: Inside and outside in Japanese self society, and language (pp.
169-191). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kurrnan, J ., & Sriram, N. (2002). Interrelationships among vertical and horizontal
collectivism, modesty, and self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33(1), 71-86.

Kuwayama, T. (1996). The familial (ie) model of Japanese society. In J. Kreiner & H. D.
Olschleger (Eds.), Japanese culture and society (pp. 143-188). Munich,
Germany: Deutschen Institut fur Japanstudien der Philipp-Franz-von-Siebold

Stiftung.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395-412.

Lam, A. (1993). Equal employment opportunities for Japanese women: Changing
company practice. In J. Hunter (Ed.), Japanese Women Working. London:
Routledge.

Lambert, R. D. (1987). The improvement of foreign language competency in the United
States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 490, 9
19.

Lee, J. (2005, April 10). The man date. New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2005,fi'om
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/O4/10/fashion/10date.html?incamp =article_
popular_4

Lee, S. K., Sobal, J ., & Frongillo, E. A. (2003). Comparison of models of acculturation:
The case of Korean Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(3),
282-296.

Maeda E., & Ritchie, L. D. (2003). The concept of shinyuu in Japan: A replication of and
comparison to Cole and Bradac’s study on US. friendship. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 20(5), 579-598.

Mackelprang, R. W., & Salsgiver, R. O. (1998). Disability: A diversity model approach
in human service practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks, Cole.

Makino, S. (2002). Uchi and soto as cultural and linguistic metaphors. In R.T. Donahue
(Ed.), Exploring Japaneseness: 0n Japanese enactments of culture and
consciousness (pp. 29-64). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Marden, C., & Meyer, G. (1968). Minorities in America (3rd ed.). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.

293

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation
& Emotion, 14(3), 195-214.

McLelland, M. J. (2000). Male homosexuality in modern Japan: Cultural myths and
social realities. Surrey, UK: Curzon Press.

McVeigh, B. J. (1995, November). The formalized learning style of Japanese students.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japan Association of Language
Teachers, Nagoya, Japan.

McVeigh, B. J. (2002). Aisatsu: Ritualized politeness as sociopolitical and economic
management in Japan. In R. T. Donahue (Ed.), Exploring Japaneseness: 0n
Japanese enactments of culture and consciousness (pp. 121-136). Westport, CT:
Ablex Publishing.

Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate? Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 283-301.

Mestenhauser, J. A. (2003). Building bridges. International Educator (Summer), 6-11.
Miyahara, A. (1999). Examining cultural boundaries in the communication studies: The
case of Japanese interpersonal communication competence. Keio Communication

Review, 21, 23-35.

Mizutani, 0., & Mizutani, N. (1984). An introduction to modern Japanese. Tokyo: The
Japan Times.

Morishima, M. (1982). Why has Japan succeeded?: Western technology and the
Japanese ethos. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Nishizawa, N. (2004). The ’self of Japanese teenagers: Growing up in the flux of a
changing culture and society. Dissertation Abstracts International, B 65 (05),

2642 (UMI No. 3133471)

Noguchi, Y., & Poterba, J. M. (1994). Housing markets in the United States and Japan.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Obana, Y., & Tomoda, T. (1994). The sociological significance of “politeness” in English

and Japanese languages--Report fi'om a pilot study. Japanese Studies Bulletin,
14(2), 37-49.

294

 

Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2002, November). Face concerns in interpersonal
conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New
Orleans, LA.

Office for International Students and Scholars (2004, Fall). Statistical report. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Ohbuchi, K., Sato, S., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Nationality, individualism-collectivism,
and power distance in conflict management. T ohoku Psychologica F olio, 58, 36-
49.

Oldstone-Moore, J. (2002). Confucianism: Origins, beliefs, practices, holy texts, sacred
places. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Omori, M. (2001). Retumees to Japan: The impact of having lived in the United States.
In H. Shimizu & R.A. Levine (Eds.), Japanese frames of mind: Cultural
perspectives on human development (pp. 228-256). Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.

Oram, A. (1992). Repressed and thwarted, or bearer of the new world? The spinster in
inter-war feminist discourses. Women’s History Review, 1(3), 413-433.

Paige, R. M., & Mestenhauser, J. A. ((1999). Intemationalizing educational
administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 500-517.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbery Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Peak, L. (1993). Learning to go to school in Japan: The transition fi'om home to
preschool life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Pratt, D. D. (2002). Analyzing perspectives: Identifying commitments and belief
structures. In D. D. Pratt and Associates (Ed.), Five perspectives on teaching in
adult and higher education (pp. 217-256). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing
Company.

Reischauer, E. O. (1981). The Japanese. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.

295

Rohlen, T. (1983). Japan '5 high schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or
bidimensional?: A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self

identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (1),
49-65.

Sartori, G., Morey-Barrett, C., & Schulte, E. (2004, May 26). Gay marriage legalised in
Massachusetts, Green Left Weekly. Retrieved May 2, 2005, fiom
http://www. greenleft.org.au/back/2004/ 583/5 83p] 7c.htm.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shellenbarger, S. (2005, March 31). How much childcare is too much? Coming research
offers some answers. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), p. D1.

Shih, S. F., & Brown, C. (2000). Taiwanese international students: Acculturation level
and vocational identity. Journal of Career Development, 27(1), 35-47.

Shuper, P. A., Sorrentino, R. M., Otsubo, Y., Hodson, G., & Walker, A. M. (2004). A
theory of uncertainty orientation: Implications for the study of individual

differences within and across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
35 (4), 460-480.

Simeon, R., Nicholson, J .D., Wong, Y.Y. (2001). Comparisons of Asian and US
workplace gender roles. Cross-Cultural Management, 8(2), 47-59.

Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede’s fiamework:
Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 32(3), 555-574.

Smith, P. (1997). Japan: A reinterpretation. New York: Pantheon Books.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of
organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-264.

Sorrentino, R. M., Roney, C. J. R., & Hanna, S. (1992). Uncertainty orientation. In C. P.

Smith, J. W. Atkinson, & D. C. McClelland (Eds.), The Handbook of thematic
analysis (pp. 419-427). New York: Cambridge University Press.

296

 

Spindler, G. D., & Spindler, L. S. (1990). The American cultural dialogue and its
transmission. London: The Falmer Press.

Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in
action. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal
schooling: Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology,
97(6), 1639-1657.

Suinn, R., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity
Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and factorial validation. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52, 1-6.

Sukle, R. J. (1994). Uchi/Soto: Choices in directive speech acts in Japanese. In J. M.
Bachnik and C. J. Quinn Jr. (Eds.), Situated meaning: Inside and outside in
Japanese self society, and language (pp. 114-142). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Takano, Y., & Osaka, E. (1999). An unsupported common view: Comparing Japan and
the US. on individualism/collectivism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2,
311-341.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don ’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New
York: Ballantine Books.

Taylor, D. M. (1991). The social psychology of racial and cultural diversity: Issues of
assimilation and multiculturalism. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism,
multiculturalism, and second language learning (pp. 1-19). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y.
Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.
213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict:
An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 22, 187-225.

US. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (n.d), Perspectives on Working
Women: A Databook, Bulletin 2080, 1980; Employment and Earnings, 51 (1)
04-148. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from Web site:
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/policy/factsheets/fs_2004_Professional_Women.htm

297

Wapner, S., Fujimoto, J ., Irnamichi, T., Inoue, Y., & Toews, K. J. (1997). Sojoum in a
new culture: Japanese students in American universities. In S. Wapner, J.
Demick, T. Yamamoto, & T. Takahashi (Eds.), Handbook of Japan-United States
environment-behavior research: Toward a transactional approach (pp. 283-
312). New York: Plenum Press.

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans). New
York: Scribner (Originally published in 1904).

Welch, J. (2005). Winning. New York: Harper Business.

White, M. I. (2002). Perfectly Japanese: Making families in an era of upheaval.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Yoneyama, S., & Naito, A. (2003). Problems with the paradigm: the school as a factor in
understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 24(3), 315-330.

Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Emotion, language, and cultural scripts. In S. Kitayama & H. R.
Markus (Eds.) Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp.

133-196). Washington, D C: American Psychological Association.

Web Japan (n.d.). Women in managerial positions (1984-2004). Retrieved on March 31,
2006, fi'om Web site: http://web-japan.org/stat/stats/l 8WME42.html

Zimmer, R. (2003). A new twist on the educational tracking debate. Economics of
Education Review 22(3), 307-315.

298

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

llllfllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllll