Common use of Theories of the Japanese (Nihonjinron Clause in Contracts

Theories of the Japanese (Nihonjinron. As with all Japanese emic concepts, the exact meaning of the term Nihonjinron in English is open to discussion. It has been translated as: ‘theories of Japanese culture’ (Lie, 2001, p. 246); ‘discussions of the Japanese’ (Yoshino, 1992, p. 2); and ‘Japanese character studies’ (Graburn and Ertl, 2008, p. 3). Its literal translation: ‘theories on/of the Japanese’, is commonly used as Nihonjin literally means Japanese and xxx literally means theory (Sugimoto, 2003, p. 4; Kowner, 2002, p. 169; Xxxxxxx, 2008 p. 327). However, many analysts doubt the validity of this theorisation (Sugimoto, 2010, p. 4) because it is ‘written in Japanese by Japanese for Japanese’ (Ivy, 1995, p. 2) and whether or not the Japanese behave in the way that this theorisation suggests has received little empirical investigation by Nihonjinron advocates (Sugimoto, 2010). Befu (2001, pp. 78-79), therefore, regards Nihonjinron as a prescriptive model for behaviour which reflects how the Japanese should behave rather than how they actually behave. I am using the term narrative to describe Nihonjinron following in the footsteps of Xxxxxx (2005) in her discussion of a Japanese company. This is because I believe that Nihonjinron is a narrative which the Japanese draw upon to represent themselves both domestically and internationally (Xxxxxx, 2005) especially during periods of rapid economic and social change (Xxxxx and Sugimoto, 1995). Such a narrative is represented through traditional mediums including school textbooks (Kubota, 2014) (see chapter 5) and relatively less-traditional contemporary mediums including anime (cartoons) and manga (comics) (see chapter 7). However, I want to stress that this narrative would seem to confuse ‘cultural ideals with social reality’ (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 110). I also use the term ideology because it is mentioned by a number of scholars when discussing Nihonjinron such as Befu (2001); Kowner (2002); and Xxxx (1986). Befu (2001) believes that ‘the role of Nihonjinron is manifested as the civil religion of Japan’ which he believes could be even more prominent than Shintoism (ibid. p. 112). Xxxx (19869) refers to it as an ‘ideological tapestry’ with disparate threads. Kowner (2002 p. 170) states that Nihonjinron has ‘emerged as hegemonic ideology an “industry” whose main producers are intellectuals and whose consumers are the masses’. This is because it is produced by the thinking elites (Yoshino, 1992; Xxxxx and Sugimoto, 1995; Oguma, 2002) to support conservative politics (Befu, 2009) which have dominated post World War II Japan (Sugimoto, 2009). In other words, Nihonjinron would appear to be an ideological narrative with disparate threads which has been constructed and re- constructed by the upper echelons of Japanese society for political gain Nihonjinron is extremely complex and it covers every aspect of Japaneseness to emphasise its uniqueness by focusing on its cultural differences from Western countries, mainly America (Xxxx, 1986; Yoshino, 1992; Befu, 2001; Befu, 2009). Japan is viewed as a monolithic cultural bloc which forms ‘a culturally and homogenous social entity whose essence is virtually unchanged from prehistorical times down to the present day’ (Xxxx, 198610). In an attempt to determine who the Japanese really are (Stanlaw, 2004), the Nihonjinron view of Japaneseness is represented in both serious academic study and in popular culture and many books have been published on the subject (Manabe and Befu, 1992). Such is the interest in the subject of who the Japanese are that it is considered ‘a national pastime in Japan’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 274). It has been a subject for discussion in Japan on talk shows on television, and in books, newspapers and magazines (ibid.). In 1999 Sugimoto estimated that there were over 1,000 publications in this genre. Such is the influence of Nihonjinron that it ‘has become a societal force shaping the way Japanese regard themselves’ (Kowner, 2002, p. 169) and how they are regarded by others (Sugimoto, 2014). Nihonjinron is so vast that a thorough investigation is beyond the scope of this thesis. I will use the term Nihonjinron to refer to its biological and cultural aspects because it is these aspects that affect my Anglo-Japanese formation. Nihonjinron stresses a notion of homogeneity in a ‘genetic and cultural sense’ in order to demarcate the racially ‘pure’ Japanese from the ‘impure’ Japanese (Befu, 2009, p. 35). The overriding biological xxxxx is that of uni-raciality (tan’itsu minzoku), which includes the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood and a unique Japanese culture and language (Yoshino, 1992).

Theories of the Japanese (Nihonjinron. As with all Japanese emic concepts, the exact meaning of the term Nihonjinron in English is open to discussion. It has been translated as: ‘theories of Japanese culture’ (Lie, 2001, p. 246); ‘discussions of the Japanese’ (Yoshino, 1992, p. 2); and ‘Japanese character studies’ (Graburn Xxxxxxx and ErtlXxxx, 2008, p. 3). Its literal translation: ‘theories on/of the Japanese’, is commonly used as Nihonjin literally means Japanese and xxx literally means theory (Sugimoto, 2003, p. 4; KownerXxxxxx, 2002, p. 169; Xxxxxxx, 2008 p. 327). However, many analysts doubt the validity of this theorisation (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2010, p. 4) because it is ‘written in Japanese by Japanese for Japanese’ (Ivy, 1995, p. 2) and whether or not the Japanese behave in the way that this theorisation suggests has received little empirical investigation by Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx advocates (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2010). Befu Xxxx (2001, pp. 78-79), therefore, regards Nihonjinron as a prescriptive model for behaviour which reflects how the Japanese should behave rather than how they actually behave. I am using the term narrative to describe Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx following in the footsteps of Xxxxxx (2005) in her discussion of a Japanese company. This is because I believe that Nihonjinron is a narrative which the Japanese draw upon to represent themselves both domestically and internationally (Xxxxxx, 2005) especially during periods of rapid economic and social change (Xxxxx and SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 1995). Such a narrative is represented through traditional mediums including school textbooks (Kubota, 2014) (see chapter 5) and relatively less-traditional contemporary mediums including anime (cartoons) and manga (comics) (see chapter 7). However, I want to stress that this narrative would seem to confuse ‘cultural ideals with social reality’ (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 110). I also use the term ideology because it is mentioned by a number of scholars when discussing Nihonjinron such as Befu (2001); Kowner Xxxxxx (2002); and Xxxx (1986). Befu Xxxx (2001) believes that ‘the role of Nihonjinron is manifested as the civil religion of Japan’ which he believes could be even more prominent than Shintoism (ibid. p. 112). Xxxx (19869) refers to it as an ‘ideological tapestry’ with disparate threads. Kowner (2002 p. 170) states that Nihonjinron has ‘emerged as hegemonic ideology an “industry” whose main producers are intellectuals and whose consumers are the masses’. This is because it is produced by the thinking elites (YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992; Xxxxx and SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 1995; Oguma, 2002) to support conservative politics (Befu, 2009) which have dominated post World War II Japan (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2009). In other words, Nihonjinron would appear to be an ideological narrative with disparate threads which has been constructed and re- constructed by the upper echelons of Japanese society for political gain Nihonjinron is extremely complex and it covers every aspect of Japaneseness to emphasise its uniqueness by focusing on its cultural differences from Western countries, mainly America (Xxxx, 1986; Yoshino, 1992; Befu, 2001; Befu, 2009). Japan is viewed as a monolithic cultural bloc which forms ‘a culturally and homogenous social entity whose essence is virtually unchanged from prehistorical times down to the present day’ (Xxxx, 198610). In an attempt to determine who the Japanese really are (Stanlaw, 2004), the Nihonjinron view of Japaneseness is represented in both serious academic study and in popular culture and many books have been published on the subject (Manabe and Befu, 1992). Such is the interest in the subject of who the Japanese are that it is considered ‘a national pastime in Japan’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 274). It has been a subject for discussion in Japan on talk shows on television, and in books, newspapers and magazines (ibid.). In 1999 Sugimoto Xxxxxxxx estimated that there were over 1,000 publications in this genre. Such is the influence of Nihonjinron that it ‘has become a societal force shaping the way Japanese regard themselves’ (Kowner, 2002, p. 169) and how they are regarded by others (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2014). Nihonjinron is so vast that a thorough investigation is beyond the scope of this thesis. I will use the term Nihonjinron to refer to its biological and cultural aspects because it is these aspects that affect my Anglo-Japanese formation. Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx stresses a notion of homogeneity in a ‘genetic and cultural sense’ in order to demarcate the racially ‘pure’ Japanese from the ‘impure’ Japanese (Befu, 2009, p. 35). The overriding biological xxxxx is that of uni-raciality (tan’itsu minzoku), which includes the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood and a unique Japanese culture and language (Yoshino, 1992).

Theories of the Japanese (Nihonjinron. As with all Japanese emic concepts, the exact meaning of the term Nihonjinron in English is open to discussion. It has been translated as: ‘theories of Japanese culture’ (Lie, 2001, p. 246); ‘discussions of the Japanese’ (YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992, p. 2); and ‘Japanese character studies’ (Graburn Xxxxxxx and ErtlXxxx, 2008, p. 3). Its literal translation: ‘theories on/of the Japanese’, is commonly used as Nihonjin literally means Japanese and xxx literally means theory (Sugimoto, 2003, p. 4; KownerXxxxxx, 2002, p. 169; Xxxxxxx, 2008 p. 327). However, many analysts doubt the validity of this theorisation (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2010, p. 4) because it is ‘written in Japanese by Japanese for Japanese’ (Ivy, 1995, p. 2) and whether or not the Japanese behave in the way that this theorisation suggests has received little empirical investigation by Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx advocates (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2010). Befu (2001, pp. 78-79), therefore, regards Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx as a prescriptive model for behaviour which reflects how the Japanese should behave rather than how they actually behave. I am using the term narrative to describe Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx following in the footsteps of Xxxxxx (2005) in her discussion of a Japanese company. This is because I believe that Nihonjinron is a narrative which the Japanese draw upon to represent themselves both domestically and internationally (Xxxxxx, 2005) especially during periods of rapid economic and social change (Xxxxx and SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 1995). Such a narrative is represented through traditional mediums including school textbooks (Kubota, 2014) (see chapter 5) and relatively less-traditional contemporary mediums including anime (cartoons) and manga (comics) (see chapter 7). However, I want to stress that this narrative would seem to confuse ‘cultural ideals with social reality’ (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 110). I also use the term ideology because it is mentioned by a number of scholars when discussing Nihonjinron such as Befu (2001); Kowner Xxxxxx (2002); and Xxxx (1986). Befu Xxxx (2001) believes that ‘the role of Nihonjinron is manifested as the civil religion of Japan’ which he believes could be even more prominent than Shintoism (ibid. p. 112). Xxxx (19869) refers to it as an ‘ideological tapestry’ with disparate threads. Kowner (2002 p. 170) states that Nihonjinron has ‘emerged as hegemonic ideology an “industry” whose main producers are intellectuals and whose consumers are the masses’. This is because it is produced by the thinking elites (YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992; Xxxxx and SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 1995; Oguma, 2002) to support conservative politics (Befu, 2009) which have dominated post World War II Japan (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2009). In other words, Nihonjinron would appear to be an ideological narrative with disparate threads which has been constructed and re- constructed by the upper echelons of Japanese society for political gain Nihonjinron is extremely complex and it covers every aspect of Japaneseness to emphasise its uniqueness by focusing on its cultural differences from Western countries, mainly America (Xxxx, 1986; YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992; Befu, 2001; Befu, 2009). Japan is viewed as a monolithic cultural bloc which forms ‘a culturally and homogenous social entity whose essence is virtually unchanged from prehistorical times down to the present day’ (Xxxx, 198610). In an attempt to determine who the Japanese really are (Stanlaw, 2004), the Nihonjinron view of Japaneseness is represented in both serious academic study and in popular culture and many books have been published on the subject (Manabe and Befu, 1992). Such is the interest in the subject of who the Japanese are that it is considered ‘a national pastime in Japan’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 274). It has been a subject for discussion in Japan on talk shows on television, and in books, newspapers and magazines (ibid.). In 1999 Sugimoto Xxxxxxxx estimated that there were over 1,000 publications in this genre. Such is the influence of Nihonjinron that it ‘has become a societal force shaping the way Japanese regard themselves’ (Kowner, 2002, p. 169) and how they are regarded by others (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2014). Nihonjinron is so vast that a thorough investigation is beyond the scope of this thesis. I will use the term Nihonjinron to refer to its biological and cultural aspects because it is these aspects that affect my Anglo-Japanese formation. Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx stresses a notion of homogeneity in a ‘genetic and cultural sense’ in order to demarcate the racially ‘pure’ Japanese from the ‘impure’ Japanese (Befu, 2009, p. 35). The overriding biological xxxxx is that of uni-raciality (tan’itsu minzoku), which includes the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood and a unique Japanese culture and language (Yoshino, 1992).

Theories of the Japanese (Nihonjinron. As with all Japanese emic concepts, the exact meaning of the term Nihonjinron in English is open to discussion. It has been translated as: ‘theories of Japanese culture’ (Lie, 2001, p. 246); ‘discussions of the Japanese’ (YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992, p. 2); and ‘Japanese character studies’ (Graburn Xxxxxxx and ErtlXxxx, 2008, p. 3). Its literal translation: ‘theories on/of the Japanese’, is commonly used as Nihonjin literally means Japanese and xxx literally means theory (Sugimoto, 2003, p. 4; KownerXxxxxx, 2002, p. 169; Xxxxxxx, 2008 p. 327). However, many analysts doubt the validity of this theorisation (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2010, p. 4) because it is ‘written in Japanese by Japanese for Japanese’ (Ivy, 1995, p. 2) and whether or not the Japanese behave in the way that this theorisation suggests has received little empirical investigation by Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx advocates (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2010). Befu Xxxx (2001, pp. 78-79), therefore, regards Nihonjinron as a prescriptive model for behaviour which reflects how the Japanese should behave rather than how they actually behave. I am using the term narrative to describe Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx following in the footsteps of Xxxxxx (2005) in her discussion of a Japanese company. This is because I believe that Nihonjinron is a narrative which the Japanese draw upon to represent themselves both domestically and internationally (Xxxxxx, 2005) especially during periods of rapid economic and social change (Xxxxx and SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 1995). Such a narrative is represented through traditional mediums including school textbooks (Kubota, 2014) (see chapter 5) and relatively less-traditional contemporary mediums including anime (cartoons) and manga (comics) (see chapter 7). However, I want to stress that this narrative would seem to confuse ‘cultural ideals with social reality’ (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 110). I also use the term ideology because it is mentioned by a number of scholars when discussing Nihonjinron such as Befu (2001); Kowner Xxxxxx (2002); and Xxxx (1986). Befu Xxxx (2001) believes that ‘the role of Nihonjinron is manifested as the civil religion of Japan’ which he believes could be even more prominent than Shintoism (ibid. p. 112). Xxxx (19869) refers to it as an ‘ideological tapestry’ with disparate threads. Kowner (2002 p. 170) states that Nihonjinron has ‘emerged as hegemonic ideology an “industry” whose main producers are intellectuals and whose consumers are the masses’. This is because it is produced by the thinking elites (YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992; Xxxxx and SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 1995; Oguma, 2002) to support conservative politics (Befu, 2009) which have dominated post World War II Japan (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2009). In other words, Nihonjinron would appear to be an ideological narrative with disparate threads which has been constructed and re- constructed by the upper echelons of Japanese society for political gain Nihonjinron is extremely complex and it covers every aspect of Japaneseness to emphasise its uniqueness by focusing on its cultural differences from Western countries, mainly America (Xxxx, 1986; YoshinoXxxxxxx, 1992; Befu, 2001; Befu, 2009). Japan is viewed as a monolithic cultural bloc which forms ‘a culturally and homogenous social entity whose essence is virtually unchanged from prehistorical times down to the present day’ (Xxxx, 198610). In an attempt to determine who the Japanese really are (Stanlaw, 2004), the Nihonjinron view of Japaneseness is represented in both serious academic study and in popular culture and many books have been published on the subject (Manabe and Befu, 1992). Such is the interest in the subject of who the Japanese are that it is considered ‘a national pastime in Japan’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 274). It has been a subject for discussion in Japan on talk shows on television, and in books, newspapers and magazines (ibid.). In 1999 Sugimoto Xxxxxxxx estimated that there were over 1,000 publications in this genre. Such is the influence of Nihonjinron that it ‘has become a societal force shaping the way Japanese regard themselves’ (Kowner, 2002, p. 169) and how they are regarded by others (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2014). Nihonjinron is so vast that a thorough investigation is beyond the scope of this thesis. I will use the term Nihonjinron to refer to its biological and cultural aspects because it is these aspects that affect my Anglo-Japanese formation. Nihonjinron Xxxxxxxxxxx stresses a notion of homogeneity in a ‘genetic and cultural sense’ in order to demarcate the racially ‘pure’ Japanese from the ‘impure’ Japanese (Befu, 2009, p. 35). The overriding biological xxxxx is that of uni-raciality (tan’itsu minzoku), which includes the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood and a unique Japanese culture and language (Yoshino, 1992).