3.4.16

\Vl..l», ’3/‘i
L. "'74. -, .

    

  
 
  

     

     
 

i 9 “.43 .’.'2-
‘- V7 2.12. {2%. $01.33 ‘
”+1 .255?

Y

  

\XA: I ‘u’

3&5.

 
    
 
 
    

0&14“
"5c.-

 

 
  
  
  

'I‘. 39")”:‘7:

' ' “L‘f‘:\.&

 
 

       

- .94
4 1. 53‘1”;{ w}

525%
. gfiwn

"\ 'l

          
  
  
 
           

 
 

  

. “.311" w
"' \‘g:
EER‘M "
“3’ \4’ fig:
0 :3,

 
  
 
  

. a.
wizég’é

.. _.!.
‘5”,7/ i731"; '
“ c0

       
 
 
   

1??

  
 
 
     
  

   

2% E3.
" 53311...
é‘a'wo."

  

1:1. ,
m
«I;

IV _
.:{§”“-{-q 9 \r
«“41"? U,

21139:” :4;

    

   

     
 
  
    

.4 . at} r"
"5’ “ “kaz {fit-45"
.” "2:2: 314 442-4. "15?:
:‘ "’ rym

     

 
   
 

. O! E milit:
, .

”3’43?" 311 ft-
.53:

fif:‘;‘:-’V

   

 
 
  

'J'IJ/I’II {if 4 J1

 
  
   

 
    

"4’”5" :}’-'-o.~
figflm

. .~:<-;J '

  
 

WI .5“? ,

4‘? .’
AIIZ. .-‘ ',/‘ I"? J".
a 1.3,: .y, \’,:.'
‘,; - -- . '41.;

.-
.ZI:|:;'
I ,

 
   
   
  

 
     

       
 
 

’ ..,. ~£ ‘A':
(7'49, fifwms‘fifil‘dgm

     
  
 
  

  

.Lh.4 .
I (3:3? 31?“ a}; 'LT/ftf‘." . 503.. 'f-‘EZ'S'fi
" "I ' 13353,:- 4:.’d. r: Vfigticfigé'. Fr 3':-
’ It”, . '.' 3., r3353, ' 3 .21

      

 

  

,1}?
"."Irfl‘finy J‘ 4 « ,"’I“ .4
, ivtifilf "1' ””5371”; - gem/5:»;
my ,;52:.'...¥~ '..)t“4‘.é‘:"; x!

h- ‘cfl 9". 07”!" _‘ f' v"'f. ’~

.7 J .......' :r:;: 05- "éfiof 4 Int....*'.—.f,r-
.nqug’gr' .5 m." Z~ ,,-;?=’?Z§.(=J:JEE
' ‘5 ang'fifi’fi’fivm‘

   

.4.

 
       
   

  

MFIfitn—uu ' 4

it‘s ..' .
5’ 30' 4.": 6?": .55, -- mac-3' .
.(:4..’ “13’3":425'45 '11.

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON:
REEXAMINATION OF
STUDIES ON
JAPANESE COMMUNICATION PATTERNS

presented by

Hisako Inaba

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master' 8 degree in Communication

(Mmé;

Date #24 /Z 43/ ]

 

 

 

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

MSU ‘

LIBRARIES

v

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

j 3/- / a? 9 I

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON:
. REEXAMINA'I'ION OF
STUDIES ON JAPANESE COMMUNICATION PATTERNS

By

Hisako Inaba

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1988

ABSTRACT

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON:
REEXAMINATION OF
STUDIES ON JAPANESE COMMUNICATION PATTERNS

By

Hisako Inaba

Many theories claim to be universal, hence applicable to the study of
Japanese behavior. Whether these "universal" theories can. in fact. be
applied to Japanese behavior will be the focus of this thesis.

The thesis includes the process of inquiry into the assumptions which
have been used in the Japanese studies. By questioning criteria and
assumptions, an attempt is made to clarify and redefine common terms
used in cross-cultural comparison. The synthesis of conflicting views in the
four major theories of Japanese communication behavior and the
reexamination of assumptions and criteria will be attempted. Kumon and
Hamaguchi's theory of ”contexturalism" based on Japanese emic view is
used to criticize these theories.

The "contexturalism" perspective explains the contradictions better
than previous theories. The shift in perspective from a comparison on
individual substance level to taking relationships of variables into account

is suggested.

Copyright by
Hisako Inaba
1988

ll

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION. - _ - - - .......... 1

 

a. Problem

b. General Understanding on Cross-Cultural Communication
c. Major Conuibutions of Past Research

d. The Research Questions

e. Scope of the Research

f. Aim of the Research

g. General Character of the Research

h. Methodology
II. Communicative Context for the Problem ............................................... 8
1]]. Definitions: Cultm'e and Communication ........................................... 20
1. Definition of Culture ........................................ 20
2. Definition of Communication ..................................................... .. 23
IV. Similarities and Differences ............................................................... 27
1. Ordinary Usage ............................................................................... 27
a. Variables to be Recognized. ................................................... 28
b. The Assumption of Usage ...................................................... 32
c. Assumption in Organization Figure ........................................ 40

iv

2. Cultural Universals ........................................................................ 48

a. Learnable Process .................................................................... 50
b. Functional View ....................................................................... 53
c. Emic and Etic ............................................................................ .. 54

V. Reexamination of Studies on

 

 

 

Japanese Communication Patterns .......................................................... 5 7

1. High/Low Context. ......................................................................... 58

2. Individualism. ................................................................................. 67

3. "Vertical Society" ............................................................................ 79

5. ”Contextualism" ............................................................................... 88

VI. Conclusions - - - ............ - - w-.-” 95
NOTES _ ................. 98
LIST OF Wars- -- - -- -- - -- 100

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Organization Figure .................................................................. 34
Figure 2. Semantic Components of ”god.” .............................................. 44
Figure 3 . Semantic Components of ”kami.” ............................................. 45
Figure 4. Semantic Components of "uptake.” ........................................ .. 46

I. INTRODUCTION

a. Problem

Four experiences motivated me to question some of the literature on
Japanese communication behavior.

First was the experience of working in a resource room of the Asian
Studies Center of Michigan State University. When American students
came to look for a resom'ce on Asian cultures, I had many opportunities to
talk with them. Because the meeting atmosphere was very informal, these
students expressed their understandings on Asia in their terms. Conuary
to my expectations, their understandings sometimes involved negative
judgments.

The second experience was serving as a resource person to a come
on Japanese Management. During the Course, some American students
expressed sympathy for Japanese students in the US. who the American
students assumed would have a diffith time adjusting to the ”traditional"
and "conservative” Japanese culture upon their return to Japan. However,

the aspects of Japanese culture and personality depicted by these

2
Americans do not always bother me when I interact with other Japanese.

The third experience was interviewing I conducted for a project. The
questions I prepared according to a research paradigm were viewed as
very difficult to answer by Japanese respondents.

The thinking started in this experience became clearer when I
attempted to answer the questionnaire of another student in the project.
This was the fom'th experience. Often, when I tried to put myself in the
state which was required for answering a question, I could not think of a
comparable situation in Japan. For example, one question asked how I
would ask a professor to open a window when I feel too hot in the
classroom. But in J apan, students never ask professors or teachers to open
a window. It is impolite.

These experiences led me to start examining various concepts and

methods used in research on Japanese communication patterns.

b. General Understanding on Cross-Cultural Communication

When foreigners arrive in the US. for the first time, "their home
behaviors, attitudes. and values may not fit. There is ambiguity and
unpredictability in the new setting that produces fear, an ger, and stress in

the newcomer” (Saltzman, 1986, p. 248). The situation of cross-culnnal

3
communication has increased in the business, education and tourism areas
between Japan and the US. in the past decades. Not only the visitors, but
also often the natives who are exposed to the foreigners, experience fear,
anger, and stress. The purpose of cross-cultm'al communication is to
facilitate understanding of different communication behaviors between

different cultures, and to avoid unwanted confusion.

c. Major Contributions of Past Research

Gudykunst (1986) organized past theories and developed a
framework for the study of sociocultural variability and communication (p.
847). The major parts consist of 1) sociocultural variability, which in turn
affects 2) social cognitive processes, 3) situational factors, 4) affect, and 5)
habits. In addition to them, 6) intentions, and 7) understanding are
presented as areas that influence the communication process.

In the sociocultural variability area, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's
(1961) value orientations, Parsons's (1951) pattern variables, Hall's (197 6)
high/low context continuum, Witkin and Berry's (1975) structural
tightness, and Hofstede's (1983) dimensions of sociocultural systems are
well-known. Likewise, in the area of the social cognitive processes, the

social categorization theories of Rosch (1978), Tajfel (1978, 1981a), and

Triandis (1985).

However, the assumption of sociocultural variability advocated by
Gudykunst does not seem to me to be applicable to Japan. This is the study
in which I would like to attempt to examine the applicability of theories of

the sociocultural variability.

d. The Research Questions

Many theories claim to be universal and, as such, applicable to the
study of Japanese behavior. Grounds on which this may not be the case are
considered in this paper. Most of such studies are based on the
culturally-bound notions of individual and society which have been
developed in Western culture and adopted by Western and even some
Eastern researchers. However, discrepancies and contradictions have been
a major criticism. In this thesis, questions are posed as to the assumptions
made in various studies. Definitions based on these assumptions, such as
"group," "individual," "self,” " race," or ”ethnicity," are one focus of the
thesis. The other focus is a reexamination of four major concepts or

theories in Japanese studies.

e. Scope of the Research

Discussion of personal experience which motivated me to investigate
this question is followed by an explanation of my theoretical position. The
concept of similarities and differences is investigated in order to know in a
theoretical sense. Then, discussion on cultural universals is extended. In
the second part, four major theories are dealt with: Hall's high/context,
Caudill and Scarr's value orientation theory based on Kluckhohn's theory,
Nakane's theory of "vertical society," and Doi's theory of mag. In order to
criticize the above theories, I use the Kumon and Hamaguchi's theory of

"contextualism," which is based on the Japanese emic view.

f. Aim of the Research

To question the appropriateness of theories developed in the West
and adopted by various researchers is the primary aim of this research.
Secondly, it would be profitable if this study's usage of the emic approach
would lead to a more appropriate method for conducting research on

sub-cultural groups such as those of the US.

g. General Character of the Research.

This is a critical view of cultural comparison. The literature on
Japanese communication behavior is replete with contradiction and
over-generalization which do not reflect the reality of Japanese behaviors.
This study will examine and attempt to resolve the contradictory findings
in the literature. After clarifying assumptions behind various concepts, an

alternative explanation will be suggested.

h. Methodology

According to Bailey (1978), methodology includes "the assumptions
and values that serve as a rationale for research and the standards or
criteria the researcher uses for interpreting data and reaching
conclusions”(p. 26). This study includes the process of inquiry into the
assumptions and values which were used in many Japanese studies as a
"rationale for research and the standards or criteria.” By questioning
criteria and assumptions used in these theories, an attempt will be made to
clarify and redefine conunon terms used in cross-cultural comparison. An
examination of the four major theories for explaining Japanese
communication behavior reveals many contradictions. This thesis will

point out limitations of earlier studies and attempt to provide an

7

alternative explanation which is a synthesis of earlier findings.

II. Communicative Context for the Problem

There are many theories about cross-cultrnal communication which
claim to be universally applicable. The first part of this thesis will focus
on the communicative context for the problem, and the second part will
reexamine studies on Japanese communication.

Situations in which Americans interact with Japanese have been
increasing year after year. At the end of 1984, the number of registered
Americans who stayed in Japan was 29,036 (Ministry of Justice, 1986a).
This number does not include the 76,000 American soldiers who also
stayed in Japan (Norton & Skuja, 1983). In the same year, 437,745
Americans came to Japan and 434,390 Americans left Japan (Ministry of
Justice, 1986a). This number is about 21 percent of the total foreign
visitors and is increasing year after year(p. 835).1 ‘

A second relevant statistic is the number of Americans learning the
Japanese language. In the U.S., most of the Japanese language teachers are
likely to be native Japanese. This creates a situation in which Americans

encounter Japanese, a possible cross-cultural communicau'on situation.

9
Research shows that 17,803 colleges universities and research institutions
on the North American continent teach the Japanese language, while
11,463 middle-and—high-school-level institutions, 11,007 private Japanese
schools, and 564 public schools teach Japanese (Kokusai Kouryuu, 1987).
In 1985, the number of students in America who studied the Japanese
language was 37,441 (Kokusai Kouryuu, 1987).

Japanese students, travelers, and businessmen come to the US. and
have inter-culttn'al encounters with many Americans. About 1,731,000
Japanese travelers came to American territory, including Hawaii and
Guam, in 1985, and about 165,300 Japanese are currently living there
(included are ”prolonged residents" and "permanent residents” as of
October 1, 1985.) (Ministry of Justice, 1986b, p. 91).

The above shows the potential for inter-cultural encounters between
Japanese and Americans, and which are situations in which both 'pe0ple
can learn each other's communication behaviors. There are other means
of gaining such information about each other.

Mass communication, too, plays a role in providing information on
Japan to the American audience, and on the United States to Japanese
audience. Especially since Japanese auto companies started succeeding in

the American market and then started establishing their branches in the

1 0
U.S., the number of articles and essays in newspapers and journals on
Japan have been increasing, and likewise, television news coverage and
Special programs.

Mass communication is getting more important because the
information that people acquire from other means is limited and there is
little chance to prove its validity. Of course, mass communication is not
perfect in providing information on foreign matters; it often gives a
biased viewpoint on the communication behaviors of other cultures. Yet,
if we have multiple sources, especially som'ces which provide visual and
sound presentation, the information we get is closer to reality than we get
from written materials alone. When cultural communication patterns are
presented with situations which include visual and audio information,
viewers seem to understand the context in which the specific
communication process occtn's.

When the information is in written form, or when there is oral
narration accompanying a visual presentation regarding foreign culture,
choice of variables and point of view seems to be already set. That is,
when a person sees a pictme without help from the interpretation of
others, he/she sees whatever he/she wants to see. This person chooses

the variables and decides how to see them. (Here, I do not make

1 1
inferences whether or not this person's choices are based on his/her
language usage. ) But with an interpreter's participation, the variables
seen are determined by the vocabulary used, and interpreted by the way
the words are said. The number of books and articles about Japan has also
increased dramatically; yet, objectivity problems are also pervasive in
these publications.

This problem is one of the reasons for my research. The more I was
exposed to this information on Japanese cultural behavior, the more I
questioned the variables on Japan which have been discussed in the
literattn'e.

I am, of cornse, aware of the information on American culture
introduced to Japan, and found very interesting differences between my
understandings of it and that of the Japanese mass media. However, being
a non-native, my understanding of American culttn'e is very limited. If I
were to try to explain American culture, the reader might think that it is
very biased. Therefore, all I can do is to examine the studies on Japan
about which I have substantial knowledge.

The time I started questioning this information was when I
received many questions regarding Japanese communication behaviors

from my American friends. Many of them did not seem to fully

1 2
understand Japanese communication behavior. Let me give some
examples.

I met an American man who had been to Japan for one year to study
at a college. He stayed with what he said was a very ordinary Japanese
family. I had several chances to talk with him about life in Japan. He
seemed to have read many books on Japan, and even took courses on
things Japanese in a Japanese college. After conring back to the U.S., he
showed me a lot of pictures and video tapes. Then, this striking comment:
"Correct me if I'm wrong. Japanese people don't talk much, but in their
minds, isn't there a lot of thinking going on?" Of course, he was correct.
But the thing that struck me was not the fact that he was correct, but that
his finding on this mattertook such a long time. Before he reached this
point, he had appraised Japanese behavior based on his own cultural
measru'ement which seemed to be right to him. His communication
activities with Japanese people were also based on this idea. Here, two
kinds of misunderstandings are shown: one is his misunderstanding of
J apanese; the other is my misunderstanding of the effectiveness of
information on Japanese culture. In the latter, I assunred that the simple
presentation of differences in cultural behavior automatically gives

Americans a holistic understanding of Japanese people, including their

1 3
points of view.

The more I tried to understand what Americans like him understood
from books and mass media, the more I became aware of the problems,
inconsistencies, and contradictions in the approach taken by many authors
and studies. Furthermore, I felt that the reason for the contradictions in
explanations of Japanese communication behaviors is often rooted in
assumptions made both by English-speaking authors and by Japanese
authors who take an American viewpoint.

It seemed not only that the whole concept and nuances around much
vocabularyareoftentreatedwronglyintheU.S.,butalsothattheyare
explained one-sidedly. Often, the vocabulary is used to indicate negative
evaluation of concepts central to the description of Japanese culture, e.g.,
”group," "vertical society," "dependency.”

Readers of these books and articles ordinarily have little or no
opportunity to test for themselves these common ideas about Japanese
communication behaviors. Even if they are fortunate enough to
encounter Japanese communication behavior which is inconsistent with
these ideas, and therefore to be prompted to evaluate the validity of the
ideas, they may react with rejection or frustration, in which case they

might stop their critical thinking.

1 4

The Japanese side should be criticized, too. En glish-learning
Japanese students tend to think that concepts expressed in English seem
more ”scientific" and therefore "appropriate" in description (Itasaka, 1971,
p. 185). The fact is that Japanese students often become less critical about
concepts on daily communication behaviors when the concepts are
expressed in English. Fin-thermore, guidebooks on Japanese character and
personality published by the Japanese govemrrrent, or offered through
govenment-related agencies, seem to me to have propaganda-er
explanations (Nishijima, 1988).

Therefore, it is understandable how American readers might arrive
at an inaccrnate stereotype of Japanese communication behavior.

There is another sphere one can draw upon to show how
inappropriate cultrn'al assumptions can cause problems. The voices of
American residents in Japan show their frustration in understanding
Japanese behaviors. Severe cases can be seen from reports by counselors
who are working in Japan to give service to foreign residents of Japan.

In Japan, there are three major organizations which provide
counseling services to foreigners staying in Japan. They are non-profit
organizations and use the English language to provide services. One of

them, the Tokyo Community Counseling Service, analyzed problems

1 5
brought by clients (Olson, 1983, p. 32). The most fundamental problem is,
according to them, the expectation of the foreigners to become a segment
of Japanese society. That is, English teachers, students, and those who are
married to Japanese want to become"Japanese" people, not fiajjjn
(foreigners). Most of the foreigners staying in Japan try to fully adjust to
Japanese culttn'e. They want to learn the Japanese language, customs, and
culture, and if possible, to marry a Japanese. Yet, in reality, most of these
clients feel they did not succeed in doing so.

Another organization which provides services to foreigners staying
in Japan is called Tokyo English Life Line. The service is provided in
English through a telephone answering service. The head of the
organization writes that although there is no clearly stated relationship
between the problems called in and culttn'al shock, most of the calls seem
to involve problems stemming from cultural adjustment. According to
their research, Americans staying in Japan called most of all for advice on
problems of marriage and the family. Among their problems, the
marriage of Japanese and Americans (especially in the case of a Japanese
man and an American woman) is the major one, and problems with other
people come second. The feeling of isolation and cultural shock comes

fifth. (Third is the problem with law, and fourth is personal psychological

1 6
matters) (P. 41).

Here, problems of adjustment and frustration with Japanese
communication behaviors seem clear. When the couples consisting of
Japanese men and foreign wives were in America, they had no problems.
Only after they returned to J apan, did problems suddenly emerge (p. 41 ).
The majority of Tokyo English Life Line calls corrre from couples consisting
of a Japanese husband and his foreign wife. Calls from Japanese-wife-
and-foreign-husband couples occur only one-third as often (Olson, 1983).
Thus, the Japanese-husband-forign-wife couples seem to be better
adjuswd to American culture than to Japanese culture. What factors, then,
determine the different adjustment to the two different cultures?

Understanding culture seems to be the key to the answer. When
people understand the expectations in a culture, they can manipulate and
control a situation through communication skills, thus keeping their
problems from becoming serious. However, this works only when both
people equally understand each other's cultural expectations. When only
one understands, and when that one does not do a good job of explaining,
then conflict is near.

One may think that those persons who called for advice are not

representative voices of Americans in Japan. Let me present two related

1 7
reports that appeared in one of J apan’s English-language newspapers. The
president of the Association of Foreign Wives of Japanese reported:
"People still stare at us on the train, and many call us gajj‘m (foreigners)
with a negative connotation" W Dec. 17, 1986, p. 6).
The head of a European community delegation to Japan, Laurens Jan
Brinkhorst, said: "Europeans and Americans are sometimes treated as if
they were Albinos ...... When I sit on the subway it sometimes happens that
Japanese ladies or gentlemen move away and sit somewhere else. It’s
more provincialism than anything else" W Dec. 24,
1986, p. 4). Although his comment is judgmental, it is apparent that those
Westerners are having tremendous difficulties with understanding
Japanese behaviors.

In American society, such behavior, e.g., separation or distancing of
Whites from Blacks in public transportation, would commonly be an
expression of racism. In Japan, however, it is commonly something else, at
least according to the view of Suzuki (197 3), who would explain such
Japanese behavior as displacement to escape from unstable psychological
conditions (p. 200). This means that Japanese do not feel relaxed being
physically close to "foreigners"--not because of the foreigner's particular

physical traits such as Mr. Brinkhorst's white skin, brown hair, and blue

1 8
eyes, but because Mr. Brinkhorst does not seem to them to be a Japanese.
In other words, it is not the presence of Caucasian features: it is the
absence of Japaneseness.

What is "Japaneseness"? Prerequisite to being perceived by
Japanese as "Japanese" are certain physical characteristics, a clothing outfit
within a narrow range, certain behaviors and sentiments, etc. This means
that even a Japanese might be perceived by other Japanese as a
"foreigner", and be reacted to as Mr. Brinkhorst reports being reacted to.
For example, one of my Japanese friends in Japan wears a strange outfit
on the subway, and complains that people stare and move away from her.

When interacting with others, Japanese need a lot of information
about those others in order to present themselves to them and to make
relationships with them. The typical Japanese would not feel that they
had that kind of information about Mr. Brinkhorst or my
strangely-dressed Japanese friend (or about today's younger generation in
general, who their parents and grandparents call a "new breed" or a "new
human race") and so would not want to risk having to relate to them. This
matter will be further examined with the example of Japanese language
usage in the last section.

This thesis will reexamine concepts that many Americans and other

1 9
Westerners accept about Japan. Americans try to understand Japanese
conununication behavior but have difficulty. The reason will be sought in
the approach taken. That is, the logic and assumption which are used in
their understanding by Americans may not be valid for Japan. I hope to

show that, in fact, those concepts bring about misunderstandings.

20

III. Definitions: Culture and Communication

1. Definition of Culture

"Anthropology is a scientific study of humanity" (Howard and
McKim, 1983, p. 11). The main questions anthropologists consider include:
”How have cultures developed and what forces shape them? How are
cultures learned? How do shared symbolic systems u'anscend individual
thought worlds? How different and unique are cultures? Do universal
patterns underlie diversity? How might cultural description be possible?"
(Keesing, 1981, p. 43).

There are numerous definitions of "culture" in the anthropological
literature. In the early nineteen fifties, Kroeber and Kluckhohn cited one
hundred and sixty-fern definitions of culture and divided them into seven
categories based on the rrrain emphasis expressed in each definition
(Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 149).

The most supported definition among anthropologists is the one

which sees cultures as adaptive systems. This definition has corrre from

21

the evolutionary model of natural selectionz. According to Keesing (1981),
scholars embracing cultural adaptation theory agree on three broad
assumptions:

(a) Cultures are systems (of socially transmitted behavior patterns)
that serve to relate human communities to their ecological settings. These
ways-of-life-communities include technologies and modes of economic
organization, settlement patterns, modes of social grouping and political
organization, religious beliefs and practices.

(b) Cultrnal change is primarily a process of adaptation and what
amounts to natural selection.

(c) Technology, subsistence economy, and the elements of social
organization directly tied to production are the most adaptively central
realms of cultme. It is in these realms that adaptive changes usually
begin and from which they usually rarnify (pp. 44-45).

Howard and McKirn (1983) define cultrne as "the customary manner
in which human groups learn to organize their behavior and thought in
relation to their environment" (p. 5). They include three principal aspects
in cultrne: behavioral, perceptual, and material. ”The behavioral
component refers to how people act, especially how they interact with

each other” (p. 5). The usual observation focuses on patterned behavior.

22

The views of people are considered as the perceptual aspect. This is
observed in the "limited range of ideas about how people should act. The
material component of culture includes the physical objects that we
produce" (p. 5).

Anthropology emphasizes on universalism, holism, integration, and
cultm'al relativism (Howard & McKim, 1983, p. 11). Universalism implies
that the discipline deals with all human beings - ”whether Bushman,
Inuit, or Irish, we are all of one species” (p. 11). Holism implies that "all
aspects of the human condition” (p. 11) are to be comprehended. This
includes economy, political organization, religion, etiquette, language,
technology, and child rearing. The integration of "facets of human
existence” (p. 11) are taken into consideration, with an emphasis on
interrelatedness of each with human condition. Cultural relativism is
judging and interpreting the behavior and beliefs of others in terms of
their traditions and experiences (p. 13) which means avoiding
ethnocentrism, defined as ”the interpretation of the behavior of others in
terms of one's own culttn'al values and traditions" (p. 12). Ethnocentrism
hinders understanding among people. ”What is right in one culture is not

necessarily right in, or for, another" (p. 12).

23

The above aspects of the study of anthropology will be the base for
reexanrining past research on communication patterns of the Japanese.
This perspective will also be the foundation for advocating the new

methodology called "contextualism," which is dealt with at the end of

Chapter V.

2. Definition of Communication

Communication has been defined as involving an intentional,
transactional, symbolic process (Miller, 1975, p. 34). But not all definitions
of communication include intention. The "speech" or ”rhetoric" theorists
such as Winans (1915) and Woolbert (1917) took "intentionality" for
granted. On the other hand, Bostrom (1968), like Miller (1966; 1975),
includes it. The problem with intentionality is testability. Miller states
that inter-subjective reliability is an adequate measure.3 However, it does
not provide validity.

In addition to intentionality, Dance (1970) uses such factors as level
of observation and normative judgment. Littlejohn (1983) divides
communication theories according to the family of concepts developed by

Dance.

24

Of the general theories of communication classified by Littlej ohn,
system theory best describes the cross-cultural communication process.
System theory ”capttu'es the holistic, relational nature of the
communication process, emphasizing ways in which elements interrelate
to establish an indivisible whole" (Littlejohn, 1983, p. 6). According to
Littlejohn, a system consists of forn' things: objects, attributes,
relationships and environment. This is compatible with the theory of
culture described in the preceding chapter. Howard and McKim's (1983)
definition of culture and the principles of universalism, holism, and
integration are compatible with the concept of system theory. This theory
possesses certain common qualities: "a) wholeness; b) interdependence; c)
hierarchy; d) self-regulation and control; e) interchange with the
environment; f) balance; g) change and adaptability; and h) equifinality"
(Littlejohn, 1983, pp. 30-32).

Intentionality, as stated before, cannot be proved or disproved
except by the methods suggested by Miller; however, it is assumed to be
associated with one of the qualities of general system theory. Its
self-regulation and control characteristics imply goal-orientation or
purpose. Littlejohn (1983) states: "What happens in a system is

controlled by its aims, and the system regulates its behavior to achieve

25

the aims. The parts of a system must behave in accordance with its rules
or canons and must adapt to the environment on the basis of feedback" (p.
31). Therefore, it is logical to have intentionality in the communication
theory which seems to work best with cultural theory.

Other communication theories found in various literatures require
further comment. All theories have epistemological assumptions called
”world views" as stated by Littlejohn (1983, pp. 20-21). World View I
emphasizes empirical and rational ideas. "It treats reality as distinct from
the human being, something that people discover outside themselves. It
assumes a physical, knowable reality that is self-evident to the trained
observer" (p. 20). World View 11 emphasizes ”constructivism, viewing the
world in process. In this view people take an active role in creating
knowledge. A world of things exists outside the person, but the individual
can conceptualize these things in a variety of useful ways. Knowledge
therefore arises not out of discovery but from interaction between knower
and known" (p. 21).

The concept of "person” and his/her relationship to the world are
seen as the same in both world views stated by Littlejohn. A "person" is
seen as an independent, autonomous substance with a strong "ego" and

desire to change his/her world. But this is not compatible with the

26

Japanese world view which found in various literatures. An attempt to
describe how the Japanese world view differs from World View I and II
will be made later in relation to various other concepts such as 1:1. From
the present discussion, we can conclude that it is necessary to examine the
communication theories which have been suggested by Littlejohn. In
order to deal with the question of cross-cultural comparison, the issue of

the universal characteristics across cultures should be sought first.

27

IV. Similarities and Differences

When researchers compare behaviors of two cultures, they often use
encounter the terms "differences" and "similarities." However, their
comparison usually reflects the variables which are highly evaluated in
their own cultrne. At the moment we select the variables to compare,
there is already a cultural value attached to them. In this chapter, an
analysis of the comparison process will be made. The components which
are included in a comparison and the assumption which is included in a
usage of comparative terms will be clarified in the first part of this
chapter. Even though various variables have different meanings in a
different culture, there are some fundamental shared processes to enable
comparisons of various cultures. On what ground, then, can comparison be

made? This issue will be dealt with in the latter part of this chapter.

1. Ordinary Usage.
It is commonly assumed by anthropologists that the ability to

distinguish a thing or idea from other things or ideas is universal. ”We

2 8
cannot think about the world, including human society, unless we divide it
into classes" (Needham 1979, p. 3). Any language is assumed to reflect
certain cognitive structures. However, discussion of the extent to which
language determines cognitive structures is not the pru'pose of this
chapter. The purpose, rather, is to clarify the ordinary usage of terms
regarding comparison of any concepts. That is, (a) the components
included in a comparison, (b) the assumption included in a usage of
comparative terms, and (c) the organization of the concepts in a
hierarchical way, all have to be dealt with in order to understand what
comparisons of any concepts mean. First, two points have to be made

clear: variables to be recognized and the assumption of the users.

a. Variables to be Recognized.

The dictionary meaning of "similar" is; "adj . 1. Showing some
resemblance; relawd in appearance or nature; alike though not identical"
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1978, p. 650)4.
The meaning of the word "different" is; "adj. 1. Unlike; dissimilar. 2. Not
the same; another. 3. Unusual; distinctive" ( p. 200). It seems that the
meaning of "different" is negating the meaning of "similar" and has the

additional meaning of "unusual; distinctive."

2 9

In the dictionary meanings, cultural assumptions are, of course,
taken for granted. Any two objects or concepts which show some
resemblance are called "similar." But what characteristics determine
similarity? In other words, any two things or ideas which are "related in
appearance or nature,” can be said to be "similar." The question is the
component of "appearance” or "nature." Variables which constitute
”appearance" or "nature" vary across cultures, even among seemingly
”similar" objects such as "human beings.” Therefore, it is appropriate to
suggest that both similarity and difference are culttn'al perceptions of the
viewer. For example, the concept of "race" has recently been attacked by
anthropologists after a long usage, because "few scholars can be found who
will agree on any general racial classification" (Howard & McKim, 1983, p.
259).

Many researchers dealing with Japanese "homogeneity" assume that
"race" or "ethnicity” is a biological term. Fru'thermore, the assumption
behind this term is that the component of ”appearance" or "nature" is
universally true. There is a logic these researchers assunre; because race
is the indicator of biological difference, the variable for classifying race
into category in America is equally valid in Japan. That is, the biological

differences perceived in one culture are automatically assumed as valid in

3 0
another culture. Howard and McKim (1983) conclude, "No basic biological
differences have been found among contemporary races, and race appears
to be equally insignificant as a determinant of behavior in a biological
sense" (p. 25 9). However, as a sociocultural phenomenon rather than
biological categorization, race still holds its significance because
"anthropologists focus upon how ideas about racial differences influence
behavior and seek to explain why people continue to attach so much
significance to such things as skin color and hair textrne” (p. 259).

The socioculttual usage of race is problematic for researchers on
Japan. For example, on a Japanese driver's license, there is no space for
describing eye color. The Michigan temporary operators permit, which
does not require a picture, has a section for eye color and other physical
information such as height and weight. Eye color is an important variable
for classifying people in the U.S., but not in Japan, where, it does not vary,
and so is not a ”variable."

Americans sometimes seem to perceive Koreans, Chinese and
Japanese as members of an East Asian race, in the biological sense.
However, when we look into the Japanese usage of "nihgnjin(Japanese),"
the reference differs depending on context. When the prime minister

states, ”we, Japanese," this implies the political nationality who has

3 1
protection from the Japanese government.5 When Japanese students
staying in the U.S. say ”we, Japanese," it may imply the W
(ethnic group called yamam) which excludes Ainn, Korean, Chinese,
Qk'mam and of course Japanese descendants living all over the world.
In another situation, "Japanese" may refer to people who share a similar
(sub-)cultural background. Assumptions about cultural similarity differ
greatly from context to context.

For example, my golf-playing Japanese friend often criticizes the
golf-course behavior (lack of manners) of other parties, saying, "Japanese
don't do that kind of thing." His reference in this context implies
"Japanese who play golf" rather than all Japanese; hence, his assertion is
an over-generalization. Another Japanese friend criticizes three other
Japanese for forming an informal group in the community, saying
"Japanese always form a group”; yet she herself is not part of a Japanese
social group. The over-generalization in these cases is neutralized by a
context which includes covert assumptions for both the sender and
receiver of communication. Therefore, Japanese receivers would
understand that expressions like these are not meant literally.

Therefore, this relativity of meaning of ”Japanese" is usually ignored

in the discussion of "homogeneity,” and the seemingly "right" biological

3 2
classification is considered as a base for assurrrptions. The variables which
are used by Americans to describe race are not the variables used by
Japanese. Because the color of hair, eye, and skin is not the determinant
of race in Japan. Japanese seem to use various other variables depending
on the situation. 3119191121111 and milmn are two schemes indicated by
Kumon that Japanese use to classify people (Harnaguchi and Kumon 1986,
p.93). They will be explained in the last chapter. The reason for a
dominent Western scheme of race is that Japanese know how Americans
classify people, or their point of view in this regard. They would agree on
the classification used by Americans, because they understand the context
which Americans refer to. In other words, Japanese see the level of
analysis which Americans use in the interaction. Japanese would think,
"from your point of view, it is right, and ifI were you I would agree with

what you have just said."6

b. The Assumption of Usage.

When we state "A is different from B,” or "A is similar to B," there is
always an assumption which is not always clear to both sender and
receiver. That is, we assunre that "A is comparable with B because they

are related in 'appearance' or 'nature.‘ As a result of comparison, one

3 3
may say "A is different from B" or "A is similar to B."

The process of this assumption may be easily understood when we
look at the figure often used in organization hierarchy The advantage of
this figure is that the relationship between concepts is observable, and the
factors which are used to classify various categories may be explicit. (See
Figure 1.)

When we use the phrase ”A is different from B," we assume that "A"
is comparable with "B,” and "A" and "B" are related in ”appearance” or
”natrne." In the figure, "A" and ”B" have separate positions, yet are
connected by the lines to "I." They are comparable, we assume, because
they share certain characteristics.

Attention should be paid to the features chosen for purposes of
categorization. That is, on what ground do we divide categories "A" and
"B"? This reasoning must always be in the classification scheme such as
shown in the figure. That is, in the one-up level of organization, there is a
shared variable, and the characteristics used to divide "A" and ”B" have
culttu'ally meaningful reasons. Classification is thus considered according
to the vertical concept and horizontal concept. These concepts constitute
the scheme.

For example, when we try to compare "human beings" with "stone",

34

(English characters and numbers represent
semantic concepts of Elmer-icons)

9 Q 6
906966900

Figure 1. Organization Figure (Imaginarg)

(Japanese characters represent semantic concepts of Japanese)

3 5
we assume both are substances on earth. For some people, the feature to
divide into two categories may be "existence or nonexistence of mind", for
other people, it may be "movability or non-movability by its own."

In cross-cultural comparison, features chosen for purposes of
categorization are often assumed to be universal. For example, in the U.S.
the heterogeneity of people is often used for comparison with Japanese
homogeneity. The classification scheme which people in the U.S. use to
distinguish the differences among them is used as the features for
categorization. The question is, then, the appropriateness of application .of
this classification to a different cultrn'e such as Japan. In other words, the
validity of the features for categorization is arguable. In Japan, as shown
in the discussion of race, people distinguish among themselves based on
their concept of an appropriate classification scheme, which is different
from the appropriate classification scheme of American.

Features chosen for purposes of categorization to explain one cultme
can be utilized inappropriately in explaining other cultures. In addition to
this, the relation between the concepts which seem valid in one culture
might be overestimated in validity for another culture. For example, in
America, eating behavior is not necessary associated with medication. But

in China, neither can be explained without mentioning both concepts. The

3 6
most interesting contrast between Western and Eastern thought is shown
in the idea manifested in Buddhism. In the Buddhism idea, the state of
being "good" can exist only because of the existence of the opposite
concept "bad." If there is no ”bad,” there is no "good." "Good" is considered
to be created by "bad." To Buddhists, this creation implies that "good" has
"bad” in it. If "good” does not have "bad" in it, it can not create the
opposite concept of "bad." This is because creation is believed to be taken
in substance. In other words, creation does not happen in a vacuum
(Y arnauchi, 1974, p. 81). Here, the cemplementary relationship is
suggested in this idea. These two concepts are believed to be able to exist
in a complerrrentary relationship. There is no absolute entity in the world,
according to the Buddhism.

The Triandis ( 1985) conceptualization of individualism-collectivism
not only assumes the Western notion of an independent and autonomous
person, but its dichotomization is Western. That is, these concepts, seen as
opposites in the Western world, are not always seen that way in Japan.
When the term "society" was first introduced to Japan in the early Meiji
period by Fukuzawa Yukichi (1968), the translation was W
(human interaction) (Inoue, 1986, p. 30). Although there was a word,

sgkm, which had a close meaning to "society" in Japanese, intellectuals of

3 7
that period did not utilize this for a translation of ”society." Inoue
mentions that there is a connotative difference between sgkgn and
"society." (1986, p. 30). m has more relational concept than "society."
The translation given by the dictionary is "the world," "society,” or"life"
(Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary, 1974). Yoneyama (1976)
defines 39km as a general term to refer to aidagm (relationship) of
people, and frame in which this relationship is held. (p. 16).

"A classification is a systematic set of classes, a class being regarded
as a conceptual grouping of things (books, women, mountains) by virtue of
particular resemblances that in sorrre way or another associate them
together.... classification by partition is that which is ordered by dualism"
(Needham, 1979, p. 7). The dichotomous scheme consists of "two major
categories under which everything is classed" (p. 7). According to
Needharn, there are triadic, four-, five-, seven-, and nine-section
classification systems found in the world (pp. 7-15). The interesting
finding with regard to dichotomous systems is that ”in each pair, one
category is defined in some respect as superior to the other" (p. 8).

This tendency is found in Triandis's (1985) "individualism-
collectivism” scheme. Triandis suggests that collectivistic cultures place

emphasis on the goals and needs of the ingroup over those of individuals.

3 8

Here, he assumes that the goals and needs of the ingroup are different
from and incompatible with those of individuals. This would not be the
case in Japan where many researchers believe collectivism is applied (e. g.,
Cathcart & Cathcart, 1976, pp. 58-66). Triandis's assumption is an
illustration of the fact that the features social scientists choose
categorization are culturally bound. Other Triandis suggestions concerning
collectivisrrr, such as "the norms of duty toward the ingroup rather than
individual pleasure; beliefs shared with the in group rather than individual
. beliefs; and readiness to cooperate with ingroup members rather than
maxinrizing individual outcomes" (Gudykunst, 1987 , p. 853), contain
similar assumptions. People in a collectivistic culture such as Japan do not
necessarily assunre that norms of duty are incompatible with individual
pleasure. It is not appropriate to assume that beliefs shared with the
in group are completely independent of individual beliefs. The process of
maximizing individual outcomes does not always conflict with the process
to cooperate with ingroup members. And finally, there is Western
thinking behind the idea of ”individual outcomes”: it is not a universal
concept.

When we compare an organization figure (Figure 1) with another one

which has Japanese characters in it, the message would be clearer. In the

3 9

U.S., "two major categories under which everything is classed" are
induidml and mm, in which individual is "defined in some respect as
superior to the other (group)" (Needham, 1979, pp. 7-8). It should be
noted that, in addition to the variables, features to make organizational
levels clear are different. That is, the reason why Americans have to
divide on the numbers of people which is the base for "individual" and
”collectivism", is culturally bound. The pitfall of considering numbers as a
universal concept is the assumption that each individual is a physically
and emotionally separate entity. Individual separation of physical
existence is regarded as a fact for social research. However, in Japan, the
conscious distinction of self from others is not practiced. Existence is
recognized only with relationship to others (Harnaguchi and Kumon, 1986).
This implies that the features used for categorization in the research done
by Triandis are not appropriate for the Japanese case.

We tend to cluster characteristics on our assumption of the world.
As Tajfel (1981) stated, once categories are formed, people have a
tendency to exaggerate differences on critical dimensions between
categories (i.e., social group membership) and minimize these differences
within categories when category membership is salient. These "critical

dimensions" are selected by the cultru'e of the group and may not be

4 0
universal. The appropriateness of these "critical dimensions" is judged

only in the cultural context with reference to the purpose of the structure.

0. Assumption in Organization Figure

What is assumed in the scheme of organization figtne is that all
semantic systems incorporate the relations of contrast and of hierarchical
inclusion. This means that "the extension and importance of the categories
resemble the vertical differentiation of ranks in an army" (Needham,

197 9, p. 7).

There are vauious terms which have been used to identify the
semantic world of a cultural system, such as "ethnoscience," "folk
taxonomy,” "structural semantics," and ”ethnosemantics.” "Componential
analysis," known as one of the ethnosemantics studies, provides the base
to determine what ”goes together” in unfamiliar languages so that we do
not impose categories used in our own linguistic environment.
Technically, it aims at "constructing verifiable models of how specific
bodies of cultural (of ideational) content are coherently organized, insofar
as such content is represented by words and expressions in a people's

language" (Goodenough, 1968, p. 186). Historically this analysis is taken

4 1
from linguistics, and is used to illustrate the categorization of kinship
relations by anthropologists such as Goodenough (1951), Conklin (1955),
Lounsbury (1956) and Goodenough ( 1956).

The procedures are as follows: "(1) collection of a corpus of terms
through use of eliciting frames (Black and Metzger 1965; Metzger and
Williams 1966); (2) reduction of the corpus to a set of stable, mutually
contrasting terms; (3) investigation of the semantic organization of the
reduced set of terms, using the principles by which native speakers
contrast terms and group them into larger categories; and, (4)
development of a set of native rules of correspondence by which
informants relate their native concepts to the world of practical
experience” (Johnson, 1978, p. 160).

As an example, Metzger and Williams (1966) give an analysis of
"Tzeltal firewood." According to them, a taxonomy of Tzeltal natural
categories is divided into three categories at the first level: "people"
"animal" and "trees-plants." The category of "people" is further broken
down to ”Indians" and "non-Indians." "Animals" are broken down to
”snakes" and ”animals other than snakes." "Tree-plants” are divided into
”flees,” ”shrubs,” "grasses," and "vines." In ”trees" category, there are 240

items. From this organization of the semantic scheme of Tzeltal, we may

4 2
know their way of looking at the world. Certain things are more valued
than other things. For example, the classification of Indians and
non-Indians seems important. The number of items in the "tree" category
seems to show the equal importance of each tree to their practical
experience. If a person from Tzeltal meets with a Japanese whose
classification of "tree" has two categories, needle-leaf trees and broad-leaf
trees, misunderstanding would easily occur.

There is a problem of deciding on the best structure, as stated by
Burling (1964), because there are usually several formal structures that
can be constructed for any set of contrasting terms.

Apart from the studies done by anthropologists, linguists such as

Katz and Fodor (1965), and Nida (1975) attempt to investigate the
semantic world. Nida states that "since the structural relationships of
semantic units (1) reflect a classification of experience, and (2) are subject
to change as beliefs and attitudes toward the symbols and the
corresponding referents change, one should reckon with the semantic
structure as providing significant clues to a people's orientation toward
life" (Nida, 1964, p. 32).

One study done by Nida's method of componential analysis attempts

to reveal the difference between the Japanese and Occidental concepts of

4 3
god. According to Imaizumi (1965), the Occidental meaning of god is
divided into two categories, "deity" versus "non-deity" on the first level.
(See Figure 2) The deity concept will then be divided into "true" versus
"false" concepts. The "false" deity will then be divided into "seen" versus
"unseen." The division will be further extended to encompass six
categories. In the Japanese case, kami, the first translation given in the
dictionary, is divided into two, "specific" versus ”vague." Then the specific
km will be ftu'ther divided into "national” versus "foreign." The national
concept will be divided into "human” and "superman." The human concept
will be divided into two categories of ”living” and ”dead." Thus the six
categories are acquired (pp. 86-87). (See Figure 3). The bank: of
Buddhism is also considered equivalent to kami. (See Figure 4). This
study clearly demonstrates J apanese-American difference in the features
for the categorization used to divide the upper categories such as that of
”God”. In the American case, characteristics such as "true" or "false,"
"seen” or "unseen,” "healthy” or ”unhealthy,” and "superhuman" or
"subhuman" are the major criteria for dividing variables. On the other
hand, in the Japanese case, "specific" or "vague," "national" or "foreign,"
"human” or ”superhuman," "living" or "dead," and "friendly" or "fearful"

are the major criteria for dividing the concept of m. In the case of

44

.8 .3333 .30 B 58.80 326%.. 2: .0
523282.. 25333-95. :< .68: .I .2559... Ea... 3.8.an
.63.. .o flcocoQEoo 0:553. .w 239....

625:3
:25... e:-
222. .25

.332. 2.3:.
9.32.32. 3

. .032. 35>... 9:232...

.fiflflflwumu .2322. on c.3220) .0 9.3.2.5». u 2...”:va 0:. 65.9
. . . 052. :25... ea c.3222: e:- _ a a .

.0 coo-8 0 G's—Efi‘ m 383:. a 00.95 .0 COB-385.13 .N 0:..- 3” P

e25. .3025 .v

\

$532.5. .2. >532: E0025 .3 e33

     

.8... .2 on...

3:21.2— me> use...

ecu

45

E. d .65. ”oesom.
LES... .o m.co:anoo 2.583 .m 239“.

2.2.2:. 6.2.2.3». 2.0.0....

e. 35...): .2 22. a .e .32.
.32. .232. veg-nee. 2.: £232... .e2: 2 €232.33 2.3.1...
.25 2.2.. 00.35.30 :05: :2: x03. ‘80 v...- 2: a.
e..- ee... :22... e. e. .0... :2. 3...... .0 e203... c.2322...
2.2.- 22... e220...) e552. .2: 2022.. .2: nee-8.: 2: :25... .e
a... a... .e a. .e 2.... .e 2.... .e .c 38 a as 2.5 ..

   
     
  

.23.... .2. 22.3.: :32. .2. 2.3.:

<

€253... .2. .25....

   

€920. . > 23:2:

.252. a“. 0:32.:

.82.

46

6. e222 )2.

.26. e. .e 32:.

2.2....- eee 52....
.322. nee-e02. .22.... 2: .e
e .e .30» .3 3.22.2. 02.30 .3

2...... .0..- .2. .25.. 0.82:

.8 d :22 season.
.2839. .o e.gocanoo 0.52:8 .v 239“.

653.3...

.3.-

nee 2.2..

.ee...u....e

73......

.0 tea 5 .e 5....
3.2m .0 .5.» .o

.33.... .2.

.232...»- .2. .3:

3e. .2. 2.0.2....

_
and:

.5233
.e

.eeeno.

2: .o

2:2. 2: .s.

.233:

4 7
Intake. ”religious” or ”lay," "real" or "symbolic," "actual" or "virtual,” and
"before burial" or "after burial" are the criteria. None of the criteria used
in the American's case are used in the Japanese case.

The implication of the Imaizumi work in the context of cross-cultural
study is that when a Japanese communicates with an American about god,
the source of misunderstanding is clear. This discussion may be further
extended to imply general differences between Japanese and Americans.
The definition of a specific concept, its relationship with other concepts,
and the features that make the classification and category are different
between American and Japanese. However, the universal characteristics is

its structure, that is, the organization of the concept in a hierarchical way.

4 8
2. Cultural Universals

As seen in the previous section, the semantic world is very different
from culture to culture. How, then, is it possible to compare cultural
behaviors? What we have to look for is independent variables which are
universally accepted as appropriate. In other words, we are going to look
for the features for the categorization of levels which divide the
organization figure vertically. The category placed at the top of the
hierarchy is the concept called ”culture.” What are the features which
divide various cultures?

Universal features are often assumed in various studies. As a matter
of fact, the definitions of culture advocated by various scholars are based
on the assumption of universal features. Whitely and England (1977)
analyze 164 definitions provided by Kroeber and Kluckhohn. "Common to
these definitions is the inclusion of knowledge, beliefs, art, law, morals,
customs and other capabilities acquired by man as a member of a
society"(p. 440). This implies that all culture has the above characteristics.

Murdock (1945) argues that there are 70 variables which represent
an exhaustive list of "cultural universals" common to all cultures. The list
includes: age grading, athletic sports, bodily adornment, calendric systems,

cleanliness training, community organization, cooking, and sixty-three

4 9
more variables (p. 77).

However, as one may suspect from the previous argument, the
comparison of these categories does not seem appropriate. What is
considered to be independent of other categories in one culture may not
be in another culture. For example, cooking in China can never be an
independent variable totally separated from medicine. Therefore,
comparisons based on "universal" categories such as these are suspect and
may not be meaningful.

Among structural anthropologists, Levi-Strauss assumes that ”the
human mind is the point of origin for universal principles that order the
ways in which we behave in, and think about, the world" (p. 40).
According to him, ”these universal principles are to be found in the
structure of the processes of our thought" (p. 40). However, untestability
and an inability to explain cultural diversities are considered as major
problems of structuralism (Howard & McKim, 1983, p. 40).

In studies of color terminology (Berlin and Kay, 1969), kinship
(Lounsbury, 1964), and folk botany (Berlin, 1971), Keesing (1981) sees
underlying universal semantic structure. "What universals there turn out
to be ....... (are) universals of process, of logic, of structm’e, of organizational

principles, rather than of substance" (p. 56).

5 O
In addition, Geertz (1973) strongly advocates the ”nonexistence of
consensus gentium (a consensus of all mankind)" -- "the notion that there
are some things that all men will be found to agree upon as right, real,
just, or attractive and that these things are, therefore, in fact right, real,
just, or attractive" (p. 38). However, his position does not seem to reject

the universals of process, of logic, of structure, or of organizational

principles.

a. Leamable Process

The implication may be that if the processes which organize the
individual concept and/or variables are universal although diverse
categories are present, they can be learned by people through the
communication processes. Perhaps ”the underlying cognitive processes
and su'uctures are likely to be more similar than the diverse surface
forms in different cultures" (Keesing, 1972, p. 312).

Communication processes thus may play an important role in
learning. Even if units of categories and their modules have different
definitions in a different culture, we can learn to verify fundamental

principles governed in the structure which we acquire in the culture in

5 1
which we grow up.

This learned knowledge is effectively used in cross-cultural
orientation programs. For example, Saltzrnan (1986) describes the role of
"one hundred and fifty-percent persons" as models of inter-cultural
behavior and interpreters of the new culture. 150% persons are
”culturally expanded people, people who understand and find value in
both their first and second cultures. They are effective in interactions
with people from both cultures. They have knowledge of many roles,
attitudes, and skills which they appropriately utilize in various situations"
(Wasilewski, cited by Saltzman, 1986, p. 251). 150% persons having
"reached a stage of adaptative pluralism not only understand that cultures
are different but” (Saltzrnan, 1986, p. 252) ”that such difference must
always be understood totally within the context of the relevant cultural
frame" (Bennett, 1986, pp. 54-55). These people are seen as important
resources in the early stages of the new foreign student's adjustment. The
experienced, successful guide of 150% persons "enables the newcomer to
reduce ambiguity, stress, and anger" (Saltzrnan 1986, p. 255). The
interesting thing is that even sensitive Americans such as foreign studen.
advisors cannot model how foreign students can function effectively in

American culture because, Saltzrnan states, they themselves are

383'

 

5 2
Americans. This is because Saltzman is focusing "more on the needs of the
new foreign student to efficiently and effectively reduce the stress caused
by the ambiguity and uncertainty of the American scene." She believes
"this can be done best with the insight and modeling of 150% persons" (p.
256).

Perceptual, cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientation is thus
best provided by 150% persons who have already learned the process of
both cultures. That is, the foreign students who play the role of
interpreters have already learned the process, logic, structure, and
organizational principles of both cultures. Thus, they can "model and
interpret appropriate, effective bicultural behavior for the new comer
from home" (p. 255). At the same time, the American counterparts are
unable to see these process, logic, structm'e, and organizational principles
of the cultures of foreign students. They lack opportunities to grasp the
holistic view of each culture. In order to learn the holistic process of
cultural systems, an on-going systematic way of presentation of a culture
is a necessity for a learner. That is, the best way to learn is to live in that
cultrn'e and to experience it holistically. Unfortunately, this limitation
reminds me of my working as an interpreter in Japan having no structural

knowledge of America. The result may be the unconscious enforcement of

5 3
the Japanese way of doing various things on American visitors. This is not
to suggest that the Japanese way be changed to accommodate Americans
living in Japan. The suggestion is in the way of presentation of cultures. 1,
as a native of Japan, was not able in Japan to be a model of 150% persons.
However, in the U.S., I can be a model for newcomers from Japan.
Thus the universal characteristics advocated by Keesing provide a

more useful paradigm in cross-cultru'al studies.

b. Functional View

Goldschmidt (1966) argued that behaviors for cross-cultural
comparison must have similar functions (Goldschnridt, 1966). Berry
(1969), along the same line, states, "Functional equivalence of behavior
exists when the behavior in question has developed in response to a
problem shared by two or more societal/cultural groups, even though the
behavior in one society does not appear to be related to its counterpart in
another society. These functional equivalence must preexist as naturally
occrning phenomena. ....... " (p. 122). As Frijda and Jahoda ( 1966) state,
"Obviously, if similar activities have different functions in different

societies, their parameters cannot be used for comparative purposes" (p.

5 4
116). The functions stated above are at macro levels, such as cultural
institutions. At micro levels, the functions of each category are not always
mutually exclusive.

The practical problem for researchers is that comparison involves
various categories of micro level. For example, the concept of "self"
assumed in the Anglo-American cultures is applied to the comparison of
families. The comparison at macro level holds equivalence, but content
such as this lacks the insider's (emic) view7 of a culture. All that
researchers obtain from this kind of comparison is a value judgment on
the family researched. Therefore, careful examination of the insider's

view in relation to the macro-level functional view is our next task.

c. Enric and Etic

Emic is usually considered subjective and etic objective, but this
simplistic understanding only furthers the tendency to avoid an emic view
in behavioral science research. Berry (1969) summarizes the emic and the
etic approaches as follows: "An emic approach studies behavior from
within the system, examines only one culture, structme discovered by the

analyst, and criteria are relative to internal characteristics. Etic studies

5 5
behavior from a position outside the system, examines many cultures,
comparing them, structure created by the analyst, and criteria are
considered absolute or universal" (p. 123).

Triandis (197 2) recommends that researchers use both emic and etic
measures. As one may have noticed in the earlier chapter, because the
nature of universals advocated by Keesing and functional equivalence by
Berry, the etic view is necessary. In addition, because individual
substances are defined by the emic view, and are the composition of
organization, the emic view is necessary to understand the holistic
structure of a culture.

The practical problem observed in various researches is how to
obtain the emic view. Here, the method of obtaining taxonomies on the
semantic world of a culture has its significance. The method that formerly
was rejected in favor of the universal viewpoint still possesses
importance. Without an emic view, cross-cultural comparison becomes
meaningless.

In my view, the emic/etic concepts are not continuous but rather
mutually compatible. This is because the nature of universalism lies on
the etic, which, as seen in the previous section, does not denote

universalism of the substance level. Rather, emic should be used to

5 6
explain the units of the total system. The etic view should be used to
explain the way they are organized, the way they function, are processed,
structured, and so on.

The pitfall is that the categorization of etic concepts used in various
literatures is sometimes culturally bound, therefore these are not actually
"true" etic. For example, a number of people such as "one" or "many" is
used to categorize ”individual” and "others" in much literature. Although
the number such as this, which is used to explain the organization of the
human world, seems to hold an etic concept in American culture, the
appropriateness of application of this concept to Japanese may be in
question. This is because the fundamental concept of "self" is different in
Japan from that of America (see Hsu, 1971). The appropriateness of etic
usage in another culture could be judged from the definition of the
categories used in any culture. In other words, the relationship with other

categories in a given culture gives the base for judgment on etic nature.

57

V. Reexamination of Studies on Japanese Communication Pattern.

When we categorize Japanese communication pattern, there is a
logical necessity of viewing studies on Japanese. As I explained
previously, the concept of culture cannot be an independent variable.

That is, there are qualitative as well as quantitative differences between
cultm'es.

When we explore only the question of how people communicate
differently, this does not promote understanding, and does not fulfill the
purpose of science. A certain level of logical explanation must be required
for the observed behaviors.

However, the explanation on the given behaviors is often based on
the observers' cognitive structures. The various academic fields, for
example, represent somewhat interesting cognitive diversities: economists
look for certain variables to explain social phenomena, so do sociologists,
psychologists, educational specialist, and so on. The required task here is

that we decide upon the appropriateness of the explanation provided.

'5 8
l. High/Low Context

Hall (1977) divides communication into two types: high-context and
low-context. (p. 91). A high-context communication or message is one in
which most of the information is either in the physical context or is
internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit,
transmitted part of the message. A low-context communication is just the
opposite; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code (p.
91).

Hall observed and collected information on Japanese communication
patterns, and illusu'ated how little information handled by Japanese is
coded and explicit (pp. 44-45, 57-69, 127, 160-61). Thus, he classifies
Japanese communication as high-context.

Hall uses the example of Japanese honorifics to show the
high-contextuality. "Without the honorifics," he states, ”what one speaks is
a most dreadful, unintelligible melange of Japanese words." (p. 33). He
also provides an example from legal communication: ”In a word, the
function of the trial (in Japan) is to place the crime in context and present
it in such a way that the criminal must see and understand the
consequesnces of his act." (p. 112). "In Japan, the over-all approach to life,

institutions, government, and the law is one in which one has to know

5 9
considerably more about what is going on at the covert level than in the
West.”(p. l 12).

Opposed to this view, Minami (1987) demonstrates the
high-contextuality of honorific usage in the U.S. and the low-contextuality
of Japanese language. According to Minami, there is a larger number of
. vocabularies of honorifics in Japan than in the U.S. The Japanese usage is
more fixed in its expression, and the grammatical rules prescribe detailed
usage. In contrast, the English usage of honorifics requires a more
detailed context. Minami, as opposed to Hall, sees honorifics as found not
only in the vocabularies and grammar, but also in the rhetoric, elocution,
vocalization, and gestures. Thus, he deals with honorifics as general, not
purely verbal, expressions.

This point gives us an important insight into communication. That is,
the purpose and function of communication cannot be fully described by
looking at verbal behaviors only. We need to take both verbal and
nonverbal behaviors into consideration. But Hall's position involves
dichotomization of the usage of only verbal communication. He then
relates high and low usage to other variables, such as cohesive force of the
sociocultmal system. (Hall, 1977, p. 93). More on this relationship shortly.

Frrst, however, two examples of low-context communication in

6 0
Japan, as opposed to Hall's view of Japanese communication as
high-context. One is the school rules for students. Sakamoto (1987)
researched the students' rule books of about 1,400 public junior and
high-schools in Japan and found an amazing level of detail in the rules .
For example, some books include this rule of how to eat lunch: ”student
should eat a lunch in the order of milk, bread, and M (the dish other
than drink and bread or rice) alternately. Pay special attention to the
speed; do not eat too fast or too slow" (p. 1058).

Another example of law-context communication in Japan is provided
by Kindaichi (1975). He uses various expressions, such as hanasthi
11mm (blossom out into topics), sekenhanashi (having a chat),
nuadenm (long telephone talk). damn (digression). mama
(women's gossip), Will (backbiting), and Will (talebearing) to
show the talkativeness of Japanese. Above all, a greeting and spwch in
Japan should be, and are, long. This is clearly seen in the initial
interaction of a visiting junior with a senior yang (gangster). The junior
starts by asking the senior to withhold his opening greeting. The senior
abases himself before the junior. Then the junior says that he is younger
than the other, so he says that he has to start first. This is only the

introduction to the greeting. Then the junior thanks the senior for his

6 1
reservation, and ask for permission to start. He starts explaining the place
he was born, the place of residence of gyabjm (pseudo parent yakma), the
name of 923111111. and his own name. Then he asks for a long relationship.
The senior then answers by thanking him, and stating his name. He, too
asks for a long relationship. Then he asks the junior to sit back. But the
junior asks the senior to sit back. Then they agree to sit back together.
Then, at last, the conclusion of the greeting is initiated by the junior. He
explains at length how he came to see the senior yaknza: "It's very kind
of you to see me and grant the favor to me. Yesterday I came from the
east on toning (one of the main roads), visited X-gyahun. He and his wife
welcomed me with kindness, offered me a one-night stay. When I left,
they gave me a lot of gifts and pocket money. Then I came here. When
you have a chance to go east, please see this X-gyahjm and say hello for
me to him" (Kindaichi, 1975, p. 104).

To return now to the matter of relationship between language usage
and cohesive force of the sociocultural system: Does it necessarily follow
that because people live in a high-contextual communication environment,
they understand each other and thus cohere well? Do people form a group
just because they share the ”same" information? To Hall, Japanese culture

is integrated as one: from him, apparently, there is no conflict between

6 2
groups. This view ignores the various existing conflicts between groups in
Japan. There are group fornring tendency in japan on one hand, and
conflicts between groups on the other. At what level, then, do people
share what kind of information? This question may suggest further
investigation.

The key point here is this: Because of communication in daily life is

a matter of the verbal and nonverbal modes operating together, the
frequency of the verbal mode alone cannot provide the independent
variable for cultural comparison. The combination of both modes is
required for a message to get through. Although the situation seems
highly ambiguous and full of uncertainty to the eye of the person from the
low-context culture (Hall, 1976, p. 112; Ueda, 1974, p. 185), the people of
Japanese cultrn'e communicate with each other on an everyday basis with
little serious trouble. That is, the less frequent verbal articulation does
not cause ambiguity for Japanese speakers.

The implication of above statement is that the purpose and aims
conveyed in communication process in Japan seem very different from
that of another culture such as American. Hall's high/low -contextual
communication is based on the assumption which states there are certain

things to articulate in language with another assumption which implies

6 3
purpose and aims in communication is universal. He states that people in
another culture do not practice to articulate certain things in which
”universal" purpose and aims are implied. Therefore, when the people of
low-context interact with people from high-context, inter-cultural conflict
will occur.

However, "the certain things to articulate" vary from culture to
culture. In my point of view, Japanese become frustrated when they are
exposed to the low-context communication of Americans, if it can be
generalized, not only because of redundancy of messages, but also the
uneasiness in obtaining wanted cues. For example, to know a person is
trust-worthy or not is very important for Japanese. The cues such as
facial expression, verbal nuances, and behaviors with which Japanese are
familiar can not be easily obtained from initial interactions with American.
Not only the familiar cues, but also the variables which Japanese evaluate
highly, such as the amount of excuses for not doing an expected work, give
diffith time to Japanese when interact with Americans. The redundancy
of messages in English may be seen though grammatical usage of subjects
in most of the sentences. From a Japanese point of view, ”I,” for example,
does not need to be repeated every time a person states his/her opinion.

In the interaction, the person can be easily inferred from the context by

6 4
Japanese.

What we know about one thing differs culturally. With verbal
communication, we try to reduce uncertainty. Gudykunst et al. (1986, p.
859) researched the influence of language on uncertainty reduction. They
claim, "people from high-context cultures, for example, focus on factors
that give an indication of others' backgron and social status, while
members of low-context cultures focus on individual attitudes, values, and
beliefs" (p. 859). If the generalization can be made as I stated before, the
above correlation can be withdrawn. However, not only the problem of
generalization of the independent variables but also the categorization of
factors seems in question.

The problem is that the further factor which gives explanation
beyond superficial behavioral differences is not found here. Questions
that need answering are: What role does this questioning of others'
background have? What is the purpose of this communication? For what
do people from high-context cultures use the personal background
information? If we miss this fundamental point which might give a base
for prediction of behaviors, the whole pictme is destroyed. What
Gudykunst et al. do is compare behavior with behavior, assuming

communication purpose or function are the same across cultures.

6 5
However, what if these purposes and function of communication are not
universally true? Returning to the definitions of culture and
communication, and agreeing with the idea which states communication is
a means to an end, we must donsider it possible that general
communication purposes vary across various cultures.

Here is a personal example of difference in purpose and function of
communication between Japanese and American: My Japanese friend K
was at one time talking about his father to his American girlfriend C who
was going to visit Japan to see K's family. C, as she learned from her class
on Japan, knew that she had to bring a gift for them. Then she started
asking what kind of things K's father liked to do. The answer was "I don't
know." She uied various forms of English sentences and vocabularies
since she was an English teacher, but could not obtain even a piece of
information on his father. Then she asked me, ”Why doesn't he know
anything about his own father? Are they living together? He doesn't even
know the favorite color of his father.” I found out that questions which C
asked were not at all a Japanese concern. If a receiver liked a gift, it
would be nice, but not necessary. The main focus for Japanese is not the
things given, but the kimgghj (willingness, in this case, if translated). The

important thing in the relationship between father and son, for example, is

6 6

not what and how much they know about detailed behavior, but rather
the feeling of trust. Thus he knows that his father will help him and not
betray him, whatever happens.

By the way, this example may show the discrepancy in the behavior
and the purpose between one culture and another. In short, the validity
of behavior in one culture is not universal either. That is, knowing certain
information about another person does not insure that the knowing person

will automatically be trusted by the other in Japan.

6 7
2. Individualism

Various studies deal with the concept of ”groupism," and
individualism as a base of comparison between Japanese and American
communication patterns.

Caudill and Scarr (1979) used the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck theory
of value orientations to research the Japanese value orientations. The key
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck idea is that there is an ordered variation in
value orientations: ”Value orientations are complex but definitely
patterned (rank-ordered) principles, resulting from the transactional
interplay of three analytically distinguishable elements of the evaluative
process -- the cognitive, the affective, and the directive elements -- which
give order and direction to the everflowing stream of human acts and
thoughts as these relate to the solution of 'common human problems"
(Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961, p. 4).

Caudill and Scarr examined three problem areas selected from
Kluckhohn's theory: 1) man's relation to nature and supemature, 2) his
place in the flow of time, and 3) the relationship man has to his fellow
human beings. Each problem area is assumed to have three solutions.
Thus, starting with the last, the problem area "the relationship man has to

his fellow human beings" has lineal, collateral and individualistic solutions.

 

6 8
Likewise, "his place in the flow of time" has past, present and future
orientated solutions. And "man's relation to nature and supemature" has
the solution of a) subjugation to nature, b) harmony, and c) the
mastery-over-nature position.

Caudill and Scarr developed a questionnaire whose items give a
hypothetical life situation followed by three alternative solutions which
the respondent is asked to rank in order of preference. It was
administered to a total of 342 Japanese high school boys and girls and 277
parents of the above. Parental occupations were classified as either,

traditional or modern. The questionnaire items were like these;

[R2] Help in case of misfortune 7.

A man had a crop failure, or, let us say, had lost most of his cattle.
He and his family had to have help from someone if they were
going to get through the winter. There are different ways of
getting help, as in the following.

[Coll] Would it be best if he depended on his brothers and sisters
or other relatives all to help him out as much as each one could?
[1nd] Would it be best for him to try to raise the money on his
own, without depending upon anybody?

[Lin] Would it be best for him to go to a boss or to his head house
(bank), and ask for help until things got better?

[T6] New Factory 9.

People in a community heard that there might be a new factory
built very close to where they lived. When the people talked
about this they said different things.

[Pres] Some people say they never know about these things. It
may turn out to be a good thing or it may not. They want to wait
and see how it works out.

6 9
[Fut] Some people are all for the factory and do all they can
themselves to get it brought in. They feel that new things like
this are always good and will bring improvements to the whole
region.
[Past] Some people do not want to have the factory moved into
the area. They say that it will change things and people too much.
They don't want to upset the old ways. (pp. 46-47).

Contrary to the expectations of many researchers, individualism was
the dominant value orientation in four of the seven relational items, i. e.,
items dealing with ”the relationship man has to his fellow human beings"
(labelled "bridge building,” "help in case of misfortune," "personal property
inheritance" and "land inheritance").

The authors explain the primary of the individualistic orientation in
terms of changes brought about by Occupation reform such as land reform
and legal reform.

However, these results on the relational items suggest that there
exists what Lebra (1976) means by "metacommunication." She states,
"many respondents to Caudill and Scarr's test, well aware of postwar
ideological change, may have chosen an individualistic orientation to meet
the expectations of test givers or possible audiences" (p. 158).

As in any cross-cultural comparison, the most important issue is

validity. As stated earlier, the same categories may not represent the

7 0

same concept in a different cultural setting. Furthermore, there is the
problem of polarization of categories. In short, there are serious definition
problems. For example, as we saw, Caudill and Scarr (1979) use
”individualism” as one of the solutions to the relational problems defining
it as follows: "individualism is rooted in the uniqueness (whether physical,
psychological, or cultural) which each person has when compared with
another. Practically speaking, an emphasis on individualism means that
each person essentially makes his own decisions and acts on these in a
manner relatively independent of other persons" (p. 41 ).

The first definitional problem is the word "another", the second,
"uniqueness”, the third, "decision making", and the forth, "independent."

In my point of view, Caudill and Scarr could not see the Japanese
meaning of "another" person. As I noted before, comparison always
includes assumptions on the sharing level. When we compare two persons
they must have shared characteristics for comparability. The additional
quality needed is that this comparison is based on the subjects' point of
view. In other words, the classification scheme provided from the outside
world may not work at all. The subjects decide who is the "other" person
when they are asked a question based on this concept. Thus, the "other"

person may not be the one whom researchers expect them to think of.

7 1
From the outside world, they all look alike and thus are assumed to have
similarities at the universal level. However, the fact is, the phrase
"another person” is not clear or specific enough in terms of the natives'
view.

"Uniqueness," as seen in the "organizational figure" of semantic
concepts, (Fig. 1, p. 27), includes the similar message as "differences"
explained in the previous section. The question is "On what level do we
compare?" The examination of uniqueness requires the condition and
variables required for commonness at the designated level. What
constitutes commonness varies from the situations in which people take
part.

This would be the most misleading concept of the four we are
considering here. In most literatures, the Japanese are found to think
similarly, and not to have individuality. However, when we look at the
multiple groups to which Japanese belong (Y oneyama, 1976, p. 37), the
pictme of the shared variables such as experience and knowledge becomes
clear. That is, for example, in group A, a person shares the experience of
X with others, and in group B, he/she shares other things in common with
other people. A may be a group consisting of some graduates from the

same high school, and B may be a hobby group which started a couple of

7 2
years ago. Then the uniqueness can be recognized only on the base of
commonality of the specific group.

The third concept is "decision making." This action may or may not
be consciously recognized by a Japanese as an independent category. The
question regarding this issue is "how,” "who" and "on what matter."
However, this process is not considered by Japanese as the key issue to
"individualism" in Japan. A westem-trained researcher often tries to ask
"who” to decide on a certain matter. For example, the practice of arranged
marriage is considered by Westerners as "traditional," and is generally
disliked. The reason seems to lie in the locus of decision making.
However, I, as a interviewer of social science, often encountered
uncertainty about this issue with Japanese. The issues such as marriage,
selection of school, or going abroad, "mm (in some way)" is the
expression often used by a Japanese when he/she is asked who decided.
This answer seems to suggest that there is no conscious effort or norm to
make sure who whithin the group decides on a certain matter. Thus, if we
impose our criteria to judge their individualism included on this variable,
the total picture becomes biased.

I sometimes hear an American say, ”A Japanese adult cannot even

decide by himself a simple matter." Of course there is a decision-making

7 3
process in Japanese culture. The main difference is in "how." Many
researchers write about key concepts around the decision-making process.
Among them, the "consensus" approach and the concept of "harmony"
seems delineated.

Gibney (1979) writes about the decision-making process in the
companies in Japan, "The committee in Japan is neither a debating forum
nor rubber stamp. It exists to exchange different views and to achieve in
the process a meeting of minds, that kind of comforting harmony - the m
(”harmony") principle - which means almost everything to Japanese
community living" (p. 194). However, this formal process of committee is
not always practiced in the family and other informal gatherings. In the
informal gatherings the following concepts seem important: "Consensus,"
"egalitarianism," and "privacy."

"Consensus" is actually seen from the result and feeling obtained,
but the measure to get consensus does not include the straightforward
exchange of opinions. ”Sandal: (consultation)" usually takes the form of
presentation of fact rather than of opinion. Logically speaking, what fact a
person uses to explain the situation implies the position and decision
he/she will make. The truth of the fact is inferred from the dust one

developed over time with another person. This is full of nuances included

7 4
in language and nonverbal codes; the seemingly mere presentation of fact
or idea actually contains the judgment of the person who presents the fact
or idea.

The way of the daily practice of decision-making at informal
gatherings and on an individual level includes the egalitarian nature of
information sharing in Japan. Hall indicates this egalitarian nature is
associated with high-context culture (Hall, 1976. p. 39). However, the
variables associated with the concept of ”equality" in Japan are not the
same as America. In Japan, equality of information distribution is the
prerequisite for becoming group members, while in the United States,
personal attributes play an important role in determining group members.
That is, various attributes of individuals are equally taken into account in
the U.S. culture. However, the meaning of attribute is determined by
American culture, and not the same as Japan. This will be shown in the
comic example later in this section.

In the informal gatherings, there is the egalitarian nature of
information sharing in Japan. The definition of attributes in the U.S. is
different from that of Japan. These concepts are related to the differences
found in the answeres to the questions: "To what extent an individuality

is taken into account in a group?" and "What consists of an individuality?"

7 5

If the Japanese concept of individuality is different from that of American,
the concept of "privacy" must be different in Japan. Indeed, the
distinction between what is private knowledge and what should be
"public" knowledge is greatly based on the situation and the nature of the
group. For example, many Japanese students staying in the U.S. observe
that American students make comments on the professor's statement by
drawing on their own personal experience. The Japanese students feel this
is private knowledge, and should not be shared with other people in a
classroom.

The fourth concept drawn from the definition used by Caudill and
Searr is "independent.” This concept, although a highly relativistic
expression, has to deal with the assumption on which variable the
condition is referred to ”independent." In other words, the question is,
"What activities are independently pursued in the decision making
process?" As seen in the previous discussion, the variables dealt with in
the concept of "individualism" show the fundamental difference in
"independence." To what extent a person is consciously aware of the
independent process of decision-making is an irrelevant question in Japan.
This is because the process of decision- making cannot be regarded as

autonomous. Furthermore, the decision- making process at certain levels

7 6
with which many researchers are concerned involves more than one

person, if we look from the Western way of counting the individual.

The view often taken from the comparison of "individualism" and
"groupism" is the treatment of individual humanity. What is associated in
the usual understanding of "groupism" in English connotation, is that "the
individual contributes to the group goal at the expense of his personal
interest" (Lebra, 1976, p. 34). Araki states that there is a denial and
rejection of individuality in Japan (Araki, 1973, p. 81). Many researchers
cite the old proverb, ”If a nail sticks out, it will get struck back." However,
characteristics which "stick out" are not all the same, and not all are
"struck back." The individuality and personality traits called "magi" which
are "struck back" are determined by the situation and the groups in Japan.
This should not be regarded as a total denial of individual competency.
Rather, the variables which are "struck back" are determined according to
the purpose of the system.

I offer here an example from the comic book titled Me,
which has sold more than 20,000,000 copies in Japan (Haruki, 1987). The
main figure is a fifth-grade girl living with her mother and father who run

a small restaurant. She has several schoolmates: Hirarne, who wins the

7 7
first prize in drawing contest and is a laggard; Takashi, who always follows
after his classmate Masaru and is ridiculed about his dependency; and
Masaru, who is the chairperson of his class and who speaks ill of Chic, the
main figure.

The characteristic which is "struck back" is not Hirame's excellence in
drawing, nor Takashi's excessive dependency, nor Masaru's excellence in
organizational ability, but Masaru's attack on Chie. If a great deal of
empathy is involved in the comic reading, the number of copies sold seems

to support the sentiment seen in the story.

Individualism, as seen in the above discussion, contains various
assumptions, and does not provide the base for cultural comparison of
Japan and America. Theories based on this individualism includes
the conflicting object between individual and group. This issue in Japan is
widely treated in the organizational settings.

Studies on "Japanese management system" show the basic principle
which assumes the fulfillment of the workers' interest as a result of a
complex process, is equated with the company's main concern. Clark
(1979) states that "Employees frequently talk of 'our company' (119111.119

kaisha), and ascribe to it a character quite independent of management or

7 8
any other group within it.....Relations between employees of all types and
their company are, a compound of relations with the company as
corporation, and with the company as community" (p. 181).

The relationship between workers and companies can be seen in the
situation of labor unions. In Japan, most unions are classified as
enterprise unions, and sometimes criticized as company-dominated unions
from the Western world. This might show the compatibility of interest of

both management and employees.

7 9
3. "Vertical Society"

Nakane's (1974) theory of "vertical society" attempts to explain the
group forming mechanism in Japan. According to her, group formation is
based on two criteria: attribute and frame. Attribute "is used specifically
and in a broader sense than it normally carries." "Frame indicates a
criterion which sets a boundary and gives a common basis to a set of
individuals who are located or involved in it" (p. 155). She states that
"Japanese stress situational position in a particular frame, rather than
universal attribute” (p. 155). The practice of introducing their members in
terms of affiliation to a company or association is thus widely seen in
Japan. As Clark explains( 1979, p. 180), Nakane also uses the usage of ughi
(my house) and am (yoln' house) for explaining group consciousness.
Furthermore, kaisha "does not mean that individuals are bound by
contractual relationships into a corporate enterprise while still thinking of
themselves as separate entities; rather, kaisha is 'my' or 'our' company,
the community to which one belongs primarily, and which is all-important
in one's life" (p. 157). The level of this emotional involvement is seen to
be exceedingly high in Japan. Although many observers report that the
younger generation called minim (literal translation is 'new race,‘ but

the meaning is not biological.) does not manifest this emotional

8 0
involvement, overall, the sentiment of commitment to groups is still strong
in Japan. The above discussion may well explain the fundamental
differences in assumption on individual interest and that of an
organization or a group. That is, when individual interest does not have
conflict with that of organization's, a person tends to have exceedingly
high emotional involvement. If organizational interest interferes personal
interest, the exceedingly high emotional involvement seems impossible.

However, there is a contradiction in reality if Nakane's theory is
applied. According to her, the Japanese primary group is a single field.
Because this field requires the total involvement of individual, it is
impossible for a person to belong to two or more fields. Not only the way
of belonging, but also the relationship between individuals is set by
vertical structure. Thus she names the Japanes society as "vertical society"
(N akane, 1967).

Yoneyama (1976), as opposed to N akane, argues that the ordinary
Japanese can belong to several fields at the same time. He explains the
many fields he himself belongs to in his roles as a child, a father, a
teacher, a writer, a member of a think tank, and a researcher (p. 64). He
continues that persons who are under the warm care of a seniority system

and life-Ion g employment are the small minority who belong to big

8 1
companies, public services or who are self-employed (p. 66). Small-and-
medium-sized business enterprises comprised 99.4 percent of all business
enterprise in 1978 (apart from primary sector indusu'y: agriculture,
forestry, and fishery). Workers in small-and-medium-sized enterprises
comprised 81,1 percent of all workers in 1978 (apart from the primary
sector) (Government of Japan, 1980).

Another reason to question Nakane's theory is presented by
Fukutake (1976): the kmknmi groups in the southwestern region of Japan
give equal status to the members. Other groups called an, kahunakama,
Wild, mmhjgumi, and [mu do not allow a small number of people
to have authority (p. 67). Nakane's theory, therefore, may not be applied
to all segments of Japanese society.

One more comment on Nakane's theory from my point of view: even
if a person belongs only to a single field, a Japanese does not introduce
him/herself to a stranger who is not expected to know the name of the
school or company. Fmthermore, when ”M” is used to refer to one field,
that is equally important to the speaker as other fields are. That is, the
usage of ”uchi" is not limited to indicate to one field, and may refer to
various fields depending on situation. In addition, it also depends on

another person's expected knowledge, and context.

82

4. Am

The concept to am is discussed by Doi (1974) as a key notion in
understanding Japanese communication behavior. According to him, 3mg;
has no equivalent in English; it is the basic desire "to depend and presume
upon another's benevolence” (p. 145). Hamaguchi (1985) summarized

Doi's theory as follows:

1) In this primary usage, amaerefers to the attitude of an
infant who has passed the stage when it cannot
differentiate itself from its mother but is still attached to
the mother and is dependent upon her.

2) In Japan the desire for mac exists among adults too, and
human relations based on mm: are common outside family
boundaries.

3) In Japanese society, an ambivalent sense of m that can
be easily transformed into a negative sense (grudges,
sulking, jaundiced view, etc.,) is accepted as a principle of
human interaction.

4) The Japanese do not have a sense of identity (the firm
belief that ”self exists”) unless they are irnbedded in their
group where they have abundant opportunity to 3mm
(verb form of amae), or depend upon other members of the

group. (p. 294).

Hamaguchi introduces two opposing views to Doi's theory, and their
interpretations seem more appropriate.
The first one is Kimura (1972) who feels Doi's definition of mug is a

distortion of the idiomatic usage of the Japanese language. Kimura states

8 3
”3mm implies a state in which identification of self with others is already
established, enabling people to rely on the affection between them and to
behave familiarly" (Hamaguchi, 1985, p. 294). ”The word mam
which is widely used in the Kansai district, signifies people who are adept
at the art of depending on others and at the same time are equipped with
a rich sensibility for choosing those on whom they can safely depend
(Hamaguchi, 1985, p. 295. Italics are not in the original). The behavior of
mag, is thus seen as "well adjusted adults, possessing the skills necessary
for existing in the Japanese world” (Kimura, 1985, p. 295).

Another criticism of Doi's theory is done by Aoki introduced by
Hamaguchi. "Aoki contends that in the case of adults, amae refers to a
predisposition to expect favors from other people. Anne in this sense
cannot function unless those who 3mm have the discretion to judge the
degree of favors they can expect from others in any particular situation"
(Aoki, 1976, p. 172; and cited by Hamaguchi, 1985, p. 295). She continues,

"When seen in comparison with modern societies in Western
Europe formed on the premise that ego is supreme,
traditional Japanese society, which attached importance not
to individuals but to interpersonal relations and group
morality, does indeed appear to be a society in which
dependence is salient. But this dependence is
interdependence and is different from mm: which is
unilateral dependence. In fact, in order for interdependence

among people to be socially balanced, each person must
have a substantial degree of autonomy and moderate

8 4
desire." (Harnaguchi, 1985, p. 295).

Aoki's view clearly states that there is an autonomy of the individual
in Japanese culture as a base to function name.

Let me give a personal experience of cross-cultural communication
conflict regarding the mag concept.

K is an American woman who has a substantial knowledge of Japanese
culture. We met by inu'oduction from other people, and became relatively
close. We talked on the phone, and saw each other several times a school
term. But the feeling I developed about her became negative over time.
Then I reviewed the relationship, and found that the favors I had been
doing for her had become a bin-den. At one point when she asked me to
tape many TV programs on my VCR, I was ready to say "No.” to the
relationship. I did the favor for her at this time and have avoided doing any
more favors since then. Of course the relationship is over.

From an American point of view, the matter of saying "no” does not
damage the whole relationship. But from the Japanese point of view, "no" to
the favor is almost the final word to the relationship. Of course it depends
on the kind of favor, but in this case the taping was not a life-and-death
matter.

I talked over this incident with other Americans, explaining that I

8 5

interpreted K's favors as excessive me and my feeling of friendship with K
was not close enough to do such favors. Their view was that K was just using
me, and took advantage of me. One said that she was not my friend .

Whether or not K was operating in the American or the Japanese
system may be the difficult question. Usually, Japanese staying in the U.S.
do not classify their interactions with others into the American way and the
Japanese way. The covert agreement seems to be made according to the
individual personality and the nature of the interaction. As Adler (1976)
states, "The identity of multicultural man is based, not on a 'belongness'
which implies either owning or being owned by a cultrn'e, but on a style of
self-consciousness that is capable of negotiating ever new formations of
reality. He is neither totally a part of nor totally apart from his cultrne" (p.
364). Thus, one of the sources of the conflict I had with K may have been a
difference in the degrees of ”multiculturality.” However, no matter how
much we are "multicultrual," the model of negotiation is based on the
cultural method with which both of us are familiar: American, Japanese or a
mixture of both. Therefore, to know the variables which are important in
the negotiation which involves me seems important.

The some of unexpected conflict such as above depends on the

degree of intimacy estimated by both parties. As above authors state, in

 

8 6
order to m (verb form of mag), Japanese have to estimate the degree
of favors and relationship at each occasion. From J apanese' point of view, K ,
first of all, did not agree with me regarding our degree of relationship, and
second, our evaluation of the degree of favor was not in agreement.
Therefore, the negotiation was not done effectively.

The situation in which Japanese measure the degree and kind of mg
is depend on the feeling of closeness obtained in the relationship. That is,
the feeling of intimacy to some extent determines kind and degree of mag.
However, the concept of intimacy in Japan seems different from that of
America. According to Hsu, "intimate" relations imply "relationships in
which all parties can afford to let their guards down, can communicate their
worst troubles to each other without the fear of rejection, and can count on

comfort, sympathy, and help from each other without the onus of charity"

(p. 26).

If J apanese' understanding of relationship with others is similar to
that of Americans, cross-cultural communication conflict is relatively easy to
solve. Just saying "no" to a "friend" for a "small favor" in America includes
various cultlnally bound definitions. Thus, the tendency of

inter-dependency behavior in Japan includes complex evaluation of other

8 7
variables as well.

The above illustration suggests that in the cross-cultural interaction of
Japanese and Americans, various variables in the specific context should be
taken into account. Relational factors such as the degree of relationship in
Japanese terms are considered necessary variable in order to understand
Japanese communication behaviors. This position will be the main

discussion of the next section.

8 8
5 . "Contextualism"

Hamaguchi (1985) uses the term "methodological individualism" to
indicate the paradigms used in analysis of past and existing Japanese
studies on behavior (p. 291). This paradigm includes Western notions of
"the individual," "the group," or "personality" as a theoretical framework.
The "group" notion of the Western world, is also perceived differently in
Japan. The questions are, again, regarding the assumption and definition
of ”group" in various contexts. In other words, to what extent
individuality is taken into consideration in group work is one question.
Furthermore, critical discussion focuses on what individuality in Japan
consists of and how this is different from American individuality. This is
not a discussion of the rejection of importance of group notion in the
Western world. The main concern is: In what kind of situation, is what
kind of individuality taken into account for the purpose of the system.

In the college environment, many Japanese students experience
difficulty in cooperating with American students when group work is
assigned. A Japanese knows, when he/she works as a member of a group,
that group work has to be done at the expense of personal interest
(American notion). He/she has to come to the place for a meeting at a
specific time and proceeds the participate in whatever work is assigned.

However, the tendency to have difficulties in obtaining consensus and

8 9
cooperation among members of a group which consists of American and
Japanese students is often indicated by the Japanese students. In a
situation like this, a Japanese often encounters excuses and explanations
which American students make for not doing the expected work. These
excuses and explanations are not expected by Japanese, because for them,
group commitment and actual pursuit are evaluated more importantly.
Group is considered as the place for commitment by Japanese.

The Japanese "collectivistic inclination" is often indicated by various
researchers (e.g., Nakane, 1974 ). The principle of this behavior is
interpreted as "to contribute to the group goal at the expense of his
personal interest (Lebra 1976 p. 34). However, this interpretation does
not seem to effectively explain the Japanese behaviors.

An alternate way of interpreting behaviors of "collectivistic
inclination" would be to understand that an individual tends to make
commitment in organized activity because he/she knows that
interdependency and complementary relationships are the means to an
end. This alternate view allows us to see that there is individuality and
self-reliance in decision making rather than a sacrificing of personal goals
to the group goal as in the Western interpretation.

Kida (1983) interprets the "collectivistic inclination" in decision

making of a village assembly or in any organization as follows. "Of course

 

 

9 O
the majority rule is liberal, but it is not accepted as the best way to
survive everyone in peace. The Japanese brow the worst way to organize
people is to divide up the group into segments” (p. 3). Here,
interdependence is considered as a condition to bring about welfare to
everyone.

Japanese common thinking is that if two persons help each other, the
product or the result would be better than the sum of two persons' effort.
One plus one becomes three, they believe. This extra ”one" is explained by
Hamaguchi (1985) as culturally-formed relations of self and others. He
advocates that the unit of analysis for Japanese and other East Asian
behavioral research be the contextual rather than the individual.
Hanraguchi's term for the contextual is M which - as Lebra
(1974) comments - failes, when translated ("mutual dependence,” "mutual
reliance," "regard for Interpersonal relations as an end in itself'), to
convey its unique meaning (p. 463). But let us see what the contextual
perspective is, regardless of Hamaguchi's name for it, and the problem of
name translation.

In a communication situation, the kanjjn (Japanese, in this sense.)
changes his/her bun (share, status, role, or slot) according to the
relationship with others and the atmosphere which includes nuances of

relationship at the specific time and place. Therefore, the variables which

9 1

are included in deciding the communication behavior of Japanese are more
complex than what Westerners have thought them to be. Furthermore,
each factor has to be regarded as functioning only in relation with the
other factors. The selected multivariables work simultaneously with the
vivid creatru'e-like atmospheres called "1d," (to be defined). What is called
the change in the unit of analysis does not include clear-cut division
between individuals, and separate entity of self. Thus identification of the
group goal with an individual one nannally exists.

K] in Chinese philosophy is considered as the power of life (Onishi,
1957, p. 1) It exists not only in living creatures but also in all substances
in the natural world. It is considered as a principle of life, such as spirit.
In Japanese psychology and interpersonal relationships, [:1 loosely means
"mind," ”spirit," or ”heart.” "The use of the word k1 occurs in over 40 such
expressions which may be classified roughly into the following categories;
(1) consciousness, awareness, or sanity, (2) interest, intention, or volition,
(3) mood, feelings, or emotions, (4) temperament, heart, or mind,"
(W agatsuma, 1983, p. 200). However, these usages do not include
compound words such as hand (air, atmosphere), taiki (atmosphere),
fnnjki (atmosphere), Sflki (ether, essence, spirit), kgmki (flavor, savor,
smell fume) and so on. As Doi (1956) explains, ki is the "mind in action"

(p. 95). The word mm and 1mm includes the relation which is called

9 2

W by Kumon (Hamaguchi and Kumon, 1986, p. 91). This relation is
considered to have its own Id. In other words, 151 of ajdagm is considered
to play an independent role between individuals. The power of this [:1 is,
thus, beyond the individual's conu'ol and manipulation.

The concept of "self” of a Japanese, thus changes according to the
‘ context. For example, the change to call "myself" or "1" taking place such
”WWM.WHWWW and soon. is
dependent on context. The label of other parties, also, accordingly
changes. Suzuki (1976) demonstrates how these words for self and others
change accordingly: "For example, in many families today fathers identify
themselves in conversation with their children as W (father-polite)
or papa. But if that same man who calls himself papa to his children is, let
us say, a schoolteacher, then he will probably call himself mm (teacher)
when he is talking to his pupils in school. And should he find a lost child
crying by the roadside, he will most likely call himself gjisan (uncle;
general term for male adults when addressed by children), and say
something like, 'stop crying, now. jSsan will see that you get home all
right,” (p. 255). By looking into the terms for self and the address terms
(terms for others) of Japanese and making comparisons between other
European languages, Turkish, Arabic, and the languages of the Eurasian

subcontinent, Suzuki found an interesting psychological tendency of

9 3
Japanese. In his study of a forty-year-old male elementary school
teacher, Suzuki found seven terms for self and nine terms for others
including a personal name. More broadly, he found that the usage of
Japanese terms for self and others has a function of mutual recognition
and clarification of role of both parties at the specific time and space. This
is because the English term for self, ”I," does not require ”others" to
indicate "self." The "self" in English precedes "others" as "ego." That is, the
”I" is recognized first and the "others” next. In the Japanese case, Suzuki
argues that the order reverses. Only after ”others" are recognized in the
specific situation is the term for ”self" determined (Suzuki 1973 p. 196).
He labels this process "other-dependent type self-definition." "The self is
defined in relation to the addressee, only after having assimilated oneself
into the addressee's position (Suzuki, 1976, p. 265). Thus, Japanese are
able to start having communication with confidence only after they see
others in face-to-face situation at specific time and space and understand
relationship to others in a larger context.

The aidagara consists of three bun (share, status, role or slot) and
they include mm (the bun to accomplish the goal it. .he various life
situations based on one's concept of occupation or duty), nn'hnn
(qualification for the shgknhun), and kihun (atmosphere and feeling of

whole situation based on k1). These three factors are required to provide

9 4
a full foundation for Japanese communication behavior. The first
sholmhnn is a constantly changing role or status according to the other
parties; the second mihnn is a non-manipulatable condition of self which is
heavily related to the concept of classification of people (or race) in Japan;
and the last kimn is a constantly changing atmosphere and feeling of the
.whole situation based on 151. Kim is the bun of k1, thus the individual is

considered to share the h of 315132313-

The above explanation of difference in the units of analysis is really
based on the view of Japanese. Use of such a perspective would give a
more appropriate picture and explanation of Japanese communication

behavior.

95

VI. Conclusions

The amount of interaction between Japanese and Americans has
been increasing year after year. These potential cross-cultural encounters
present a situation in which both people need to learn each other's
communication behaviors. However, the information available to both
parties in understanding each other's cultural behavior has not brought
about effective understanding. Rather, this information has only
encouraged distorted images of each other.

This thesis focused on information on Japanese behavior. In order to
compare two different cultural behaviors, the issues of assumptions and
criteria involved in ”similarities" and "differences" were raised. The
discussion implied that the moment we compare two variables, we have
already assumed agreement in similarities in a different level of thought.
In other words, the comparability is covertly assumed before the
comparison of the intended level is done. The result of lack of recognition
of this assumption in various literatures is seen as providing a negatively-

stereotyped American view of Japanese, as well as resulting in many

96

contradictions and discrepancies. The reexamination of Japanese studies
demonstrated some of these contradictions and discrepancies.
Hamaguchi's "contextualism" suggests that we take three things into
account in order to analyze Japanese communication behaviors: shgknlmn,
mibnn, and mm. The analysis of W based on these concepts
seems to explain Japanese communication patterns more appropriately.
This is a difference in the units of analysis. All the communication
conflicts which were presented in this thesis could be well explained by
the difference in looking at the W of Japanese and the relationship
of Americans. The reason why I could not answer the questionnaires
prepared by other researchers became clear. I needed the appropriate
information to decide on the answer for whatever the question asked.
And the appropriate information must have emic content.

Hamaguchi suggests that we extend the usage of W to
measure other cultures. However, I do not agree with the idea of applying
this paradigm to the Western cultural behaviors. As Lebra (1984) states,
this would be another case of improper imposition of emic interpretation:
"If Western ethnocentrism is to be ruled out, so should Japanese
ethnocenuism." (p. 463) Emic is thus a culturally bound standard. The

comparison of two or more cultures based on the emic of one culture

97

(including ”methodological individualism”) is, in other words an
ethnocentric view. What seems available is to apply the emic standard to
the individual substance level of a given culture, and the etic standard to

the process, logic, structm'e, and organizational principles.

NOTES

98

NOTES

. The total number of foreigners who came to Japan is 2,036,488 and the
ones who left is 2,005,182, according to the Ministry of Justice (1986a).
. Natural selection is defined as ”the mechanism by which changes occur
in a population as a result of some individuals having more surviving
offspring than others." Plog, F., & Bates, D. G., (1980). Cultural
Anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, P. 20.

. prersons B and C agree that person A is acting in accordance with
intention Y, then A has intention Y. in Miller (1966).

. Because the second meaning is limiwd to the geometry usage which is
nore relevant here, it is omitted.

. The argument over racism stated by the former prime minister
Nakasone was widely held, in 1986. (Time, Oct. 6, 1986, pp. 66-67;
Business Week, Oct. 13, 1986, p. 66). E. C. P. Stewart (Asahi Evening
News, Nov. 5, 1986) commented on Nakasone's remarks on "'intelligent'
Japan compared with American minority groups." Stewart uses several

concepts such as ughijinside) versus universal, and race (inclusive)

9 9
versus race (exclusive) to explain. "For the Japanese, race refers
primarily to the inclusive primordial sentiment of identity, the 'Yarnato
People.” For Westerners, race is "exclusive," because "identity is rooted
in the individual." And this concept is historically believed to be used
"to attain political integration, particularly beginning with the Meiji
period, and ending with the Pacific War” (Stewart, 1986 in Asahi
Evening News, Nov. 5, 1986). Thus, Nakasone's remarks based on the
inclusive concept of race seems to have been criticized from the
exclusive concept of Western race.

6. This empathic skill is discussed widely in various literatures (Lebra,
1976, pp. 38-49; Gudykunst et al., 1986, p. 572). Lebra defines the
m (empathy) as ”the ability and willingness to feel what others
are feeling, to vicariously experience the pleasure or pain that they are
undergoing, and to help them satisfy their wishes" (p. 38). "The ideal in
mm is for Ego to enter into Alter's kgkgm (bean), and to absorb all
information about Alter’s feelings without being told verbally" (p. 38).

7. Emic and etic views were first introduced by Pike (1966) from the
discussion of phonetics (vocal utterances that are miversal) and

phonemics (culturally specific vocal utterances).

LIST OF REFERENCES

100

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adler, P. (1976). Beyond Cultural Identity: Reflections on Cultural and
Multicultural Man. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Reader (Eds.), W

W (2nd ed.).Be1mont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing,
Co., Inc.

Aoki, Y. (1976). Amae no Kozo Hihan: Joseiteki Jikkan kara no Nihon
Bunka-Ko. (A critique of The Anatomy of Dependence: a treatise on
Japan's culture based upon a woman's feeling of reality), onidaj, 172,
cited by Hamaguchi (1985).

Araki. H. (1973). WTokyo: Koudansha-
Asahi Evening News, Dec. 17, 1986.

Asahi Evening News, Dec. 24, 1986.

Beiley, K. D. (1978). WWI]. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc.

Bennett, MJ. (1986). Toward Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of
Intercultural Sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Eds.), W
mutation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Berlin. B. and Kay. P. (1969). W
Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Berlin B (1971) W

\‘Ht! tl'l A°\L' 02‘. ‘11.!

W Berkeley. University of California.

Berry, J. W. (1969). On Cross-Cultural Comparability. Intemafignangnmal
W 4. 2. 119-128.

101

Black, M., & Metzger, D. (1965). Methodoligical Approaches. In L. Nader

(Eds.), W Wisconsin: American Anthropological
Association, 141-165.

Bostrom, R. N. (1968). Game Theory in Communication Researchmalgf
Communication 18. 369-388.

Bowen, E. (1986). Nakasone's World-Class Blunder. Tune, 6, Oct., pp. 66-67.

Burling, R. (1964). Cognition and Componential Analysis: God's truth or
hocuSPocus? Waist 66. 20-28.

Cathcart, D., & Cathcart, R. (197 6) Japanese Social Experience and Concept
of Groups. In L. A. Samovar & R. E.Porter (Eds..) (1976). W

W (2nd Ed.) California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc., 58-66.

Government of Japan, Ministry of Labour (1980). W
Haknshg, Tokyo: Government of Japan, 59.

Caudill, W., & Scarr, H. A. (1979). Japanese Value Orientations and Culture

Change. In T. S. Lebra & W. P. Lebra (Eds.), Wm
Maxim. Hawaii: University Press of Hawaii, 37-89.

Clark, R. (1979). W. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Conklin, H. C. (1955). Hanunoo Color Categories. WW
Anthrmm 11. 339-344.

Cross-Cultural Marriages Double but Prejudices Persist. W
News, 17 December 1986, 6.

Dance, F. E. X. (1970). The 'Concept’ of Communication. 199mm
Comunicatiszn. 20 201-10

Davis, P. (Eds). (1978). Wish
Language.

Doi, T. L. (1956). Japanese Language as an Expression of Japanese

1 o 2
Psychology. W. 20.

Doi, T. L. (1974). Amae: A Key Concept for Understanding Japanese
Personality Structure. In T. S. Lebra and W. Lebra (Eds.), Japanese
W. Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii.

Frijda, N ., & J ahoda, G. (1966). On the Scope and methods of Cross-Cultural

Research. lntematinnaleunalntEthlm 1.
109-127.

Fukutake, N. cited by Toshinao Yoneyama ( 197 6), 67.
Fukuzawa, Y. (1868). Men. cited by Inoue (1986).

Geertz, C. (1973). W. New York: Basic Books,
Inc., Publishers.

Gibney. F. (1979). W. New York: New
American Library.

Goldschmidt. W. (1966). W- Berkely: University of
California Press.

Goodenough, W. H. (1968). Componential Analysis. International
B l l' E l S . l S . .

Goodenough. W. H. (1951). W New
Haven: Yale University.

Goodenough, W. H. (1956). Componential Analysis and the Study of
Meaning. Language, 32, 195-216.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Cross-Cultural Comparisons. In C. R. Berger & S.
H Chaffee(Eds ).Handbnnkn££nmmunicatinn§menee California: SAGE.

Gudykunst, W., Nishida, T., Koike, H., & Shiino, N. (1986). The Influence of
Language on Uncertainty Reduction: An exploratory Study of
Japanese-Japanese and J apanese-North American Interactions. In M.

McLaughlin (Eds.), Communicatinnleaflmk. 9 Califomia: SAGE.

Hall, E. T. (1976). mm. New York: Anchor Books.

103

Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a

Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies. MW
11, 2, 294.

Hamaguchi, E., & Kumon, S. (1986). W31. Tokyo:
Yuuhikaku.

Hamid, E. (197 9). Wig. Tokyo: Futabasha.

Howard, M. C., & McKim, P. C. (1983). W
W. Boston: Little, Brown and Company Inc.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of National Cultures in Fifty Countries and
Three regions. In J. Deregowski, S. Dzuirawiec, & R. Annis (Eds. ),

WWW Lissc chts & Zcitlingcr-
Hsu, F. L. (1971). Psychosocial Homeostasis and Jen: Conceptual Tools for

Advancing Psychological Anthrwolcgy. AmricanAnthrnnologist. 73. l.
26.

Imaizumi, H. (1965). An Inna-Linguistic Investigation of the Japanese
Concept of God. W 49, 85-98.

Inoue, T. (1986) Shuudan- -Shugi to Kojin-Shugi. In E. Hamaguchi & S.
Kumon (EdS). Nihontekifihnndanfihusi Tokyo: Yuhikalm 27- 45

Itasaka, G. (1971). W. Tokyo: Koudansha.

Japan foundation (1987). Sougou Deita "Kokusaikasuru Nihongo no
Zahycujiku" mm 41. 36

Japan Should Learn to Say No. W 24 December 1986, 4

Johnson. A. W. (1978). WWW California:
Stanford University Press.

Katz J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1965). The Structure of a Semantic Theory. In J. A.
Fodor & J. J. Katz (Eds.), W. New York: Crowell.

Keesing, R. M. (1972). Paradigms Lost: the New Ethnography and the New

1 04
Linguisfics. Snuthwestemlmrmalnmnthmnnlm 28.4.

Keesing, R. M. (1981). Theories of Culture. In R. W. Casson (Eds.), Languagea
W New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Kida, M. (1983), cited by E. Hamaguchi, & S. Kumon (Eds. ). (1983).
thomekijhundanshngi. Tokyo Yuhikaku

Kimura, B. Hito to Hito to no Aida. cited by E. Hamaguchi (1985).

Kindaichi, H. (1975). W- Tokyo: Koudansha.

Kluckhohn, F. R, &Strodtbeck,F. L. (1961). W
Wang, Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company.

Kokusai Kouryuu (1987). W Tokyo: Kokusai Kouryuu Kikin.

Kroeber. A. L.. & Kluckhohn. C. (1952). W
W Massachusetts: The Harvard University.

Kumon, S. (1987). Nihon Shakai no Soshikika Genri. In S. Kumon & E.
Hamaguchi (Eds.). We. Tokyo: Yuhikakw

Lebra, T. S. (1976). WWW. Hawaii: University of
Hawaii Press.

Lebra, T. S. (1984). Review of "Kanjin-shugi no Shakai: Nihon by
Hamsuchi Esyun. W 10. 2. 463.

Littlejohn. S. W. (1983). MW California:
Wadsworth, Inc.

Lounsbury, F. G. ( 1956). A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage.
W 32, 15 8-194.

Lounsbury, F. G. (1964). A Formal Account of the Crow- and Omaha- Type

Kinship Terminologies. In W. Goodenough (Eds. ), W
W. New York: McGrqw-Hill.

Metzger, D, & Williams, G. E. (1966). Some Procedures and Results in the
Study of Native Categories. Tzeltal "Firewood" WW

1 0 5
68, 389-407.

Miller, G. R. ( 1966) On Defining Communication: Another Stab .lqumalfi
Communiean'onsw. 88-98.

Miller, G. R. (1975). W Chicago: Science Research Associates,
Inc.

Minami, F. (1987). Keigg. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

Ministry of Justice (1986a). Shutsunyuukoku-Kanri-Toukei-Nenpou. in
Touroku-Gaikokujin-Suu. Asahiflenm 835.

Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (1986b) 11-13
Japanese Outbound Travelers and Japanese Living Abroad by Region. In

Keizai Koho Center. Wm Tokyo
Keizai Coho Center, 91.

Murdock, G. P. (1945). The Common Denominator of Cultures. In R. Linton
(EdS).The.Sszienee.ofMan.in.theflorld_C1isesr New York: Columbia

University Press.

Nakane, C. (1967). W Tokyo: Koudansha.

Nakane, C. (1974). Criteria of Group Formation. In T. S. Lebra & W. P.
Lebra (Eds.). MW Hawaii: The University

Press of Hawaii.

Needham, R. (1979). WWW Santa Monica, California:
Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.

Nida, E. A. (1964) Linguistic and Semantic Structure. In A. H. Marckwardt
(Eds.,) 10'! am 211'! It'lUOQIel ri
Ann Arbor: The English Language Institute, University of Michigan.

Nida. E. A. (1975). WW - thlwflandst
Mouton and Co. N. V., Publishers, The Hague.

Nishijima, T. (1988) Nihon Bunka-ron wo Kangaeru. In mm
Jan. 4, 1988.

1 0 6
Norton, J. & Skuja, I (1983). Zainichi Gaikokujin-Shakai to Kaunseringu.

W35. 18

Olson, M. (1983). Zainichi-Gaikokujin no Seishin-teki Shomondai. Kokusai
K911130111. 35. 32.

Onishi, H. (1957). Ki. Wren. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 7, 1.
Parsons, T. (1951). W New York: Free Press.

Rosch, E. (1978). Human Categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), W
W. I , London: Academic Press.

Sakamoto, H. (1987). Komakasugiru Kousoku. m 1058.

Saltzman, C. E. (1986). One Hundred and Fifty-Percent Person: Models for
Orientating International Students. In M. R. Paige (Eds) W
W Maryland: University Press of America Inc., 247 -267.

Stewart, E. C. P. (1986). Nakasone's Remarks. W Nov. 5
1986.

Suzuld, T. (1973). W Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

Suzuki, T. (1976). Language and Behavior in Japan. My, XXIII,
3.

Tajfel, H. (197 8) Social Categorization, Social Identity, and Social

Comparison In H Tajfel (Ea).l21t£mnnanonBs-.meen.s.m1almrzs
London: Academic Press.

Tajfel. H. (1981a). W125. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. (1981b).. Social Stereotypes and Social Groups. In J. Turner & H.
Giles (Eds.), W. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). W. New York: John
Wiley.

J Triandis, H. C. (1985). Collectivism vs. Individualism. In C. Bagley & G.

1 0 7
Verma (Eds.).EetsonahnL._C.ogmtmn..and1alues London: Macmillan.

Ueda, K. (1974). Sixteen Ways to Avoid Saying "No" in Japan. J .C. Condon &

M. Saito (Eds). Interculmralinconntersflithlanan. Tokyo: The Simul
Press, 185-192.

Wagatsnma. H. (1983). Ki KodanshaEnsxclopediutlanan. Tokyo:
Koudansha. 200-01.

Wasilewski, cited by C. E. Saltzman (1986), One Hundred and Fifty-Percent
Person: Models for Orientating International Students. In M. R. Paige

(Eds ) Cremation. Lanham. MD University Press of
America, Inc.

Whitely, W. & England, G. W. (1977). Managerial Values as a Reflection of
Culture and the Process of Industrialization. AgademuflManagemem
LanmaL, 20, 3, 439-453.

Winans, J. A. (1915). The Need for Research. W
W 19 17'23°

Witkin, H. A., & Berry, J. W., (1975). Psychological Differentiation in

Cross-Caltural Perspective. Worse 6.
4-87.

Woolbert, C. H. (1917). Suggestions as to methods 1n Research. mm
mm 3 12-26

Yamauchi, E. (1974). W Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. cited by

Kumon, S. & Hamaguchi, E. (1986).Hihm;tgki_$_hng1an;§hngi, Tokyo:
Yuhikaku, 81.

Yoneyama, T. (1976). W Tokyo: Koudansha.

‘4

   

”'ill'lllfiuml11W711111111111“

06