Common use of Thick description and the everyday Clause in Contracts

Thick description and the everyday. Xxxxxx (1973) stresses the problematic nature of thick description for the ethnographer. He believes that it presents the ethnographer with a complex set of problems when trying to faithfully represent a cultural formation as he states: What the ethnographer is in fact faced with […] is a multiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many of them are superimposed upon or knotted into one another, which are at once strange, irregular, and inexplicit, and which he [sic.] [the ethnographer] must contrive somehow first to grasp and then to render (Xxxxxx, 1973, p. 10). Xxxxxx also highlights the intricacies associated with constructing a reading of what happens in a particular cultural context. As many of the cultural practices both inside and outside Hoshūkō are dependent upon Japanese language proficiency it is impossible to neatly divide language and cultural practices into two separable entities. Geertz highlights that what people say is equally important as what people do when he says: If anthropological interpretation is constructing a reading of what happens, then to divorce it from what happens—from what, in this time or that place, specific people say, what they do, what is done to them, from the whole vast business of the world—is to divorce it from its applications and render it vacant (Geertz, 1973, p. 18). In addition, Geertz (1973, p. 16) believes that in the ‘thick description’: Behaviour must be attended to, and with some exactness, because it is through the flow of behaviour —or more, precisely, social action—that cultural forms find articulation. They find it as well, of course, in various sorts of artifacts [sic.] […] but these draw their meaning from the role they play […] in an ongoing pattern of life […] (Geertz, 1973, p. 16). Language, cultural and bodily practices formed part of this behaviour both inside and outside Hoshūkō (see chapters 5, 6 and 7). In this thesis it was the hidden significance underpinning the artefacts and practices which I was painstakingly trying to tease out to provide the reader with a finely tuned analysis of how Japanese ethnicities of an official kind pervade the everyday lives of the A-Js. Although I have deliberately chosen to offer a thick description to give a feel of how the Anglo- Japanese formation is partly constituted by its participation with certain renderings of Japaneseness, I feel that the use of ‘thick description’ alone is not enough to represent the everyday in the lives of the A-Js. So I also felt the need to saturate the reader with an abundance of images of the objects and practices in which the A-Js engage/are engaged as they go about their everyday lives. In order to capture specific Japanese cultural artefacts and practices, I felt that ‘no form of discourse is ever going to be ‘proper (appropriate)’ to the everyday life of the A-Js (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). This was because ‘certain forms of discourse […] are not adequate to their objects and at times fail to accommodate them at all’ which is especially true in a cross- cultural context (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). I argue that words alone may not suffice to capture the Japanese artefacts and practices with which the A-Js engage in their everyday lives so different forms of representations are needed (ibid). I, therefore, where possible drew upon photographs taken by the participants and my family and friends, images from the internet and YouTube clips. I believe that the idea of the image is crucial for a cross-cultural understanding of the everyday in the lives of the A-Js as what is familiar for the A-Js may be strange for the reader. The everyday lives of the A-Js are extremely complex as they are characterised by ‘ambiguities, instabilities and equivocation’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 17). This meant that I was trying to grapple with ‘the unmanageability of the everyday’ in a self-reflexive manner in order to ‘fashion out forms more adequate to the task of attending to the everyday than those that might see it as all too easily knowable’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 18). The everyday of the A-Js may offer ‘itself up as a problem, a contradiction, a paradox: both ordinary and extraordinary, self-evident and opaque, known and unknown, obvious and enigmatic’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 16). It was therefore necessary to make the familiar strange (Highmore, 2002b) or the strange familiar depending on the cultural background of the reader. As Highmore (2011, p. 6) stresses, ‘[o]ne person’s ordinary is another person’s extraordinary’. What is more, ‘claiming everyday life as self-evident and readily accessible becomes an operation for asserting the dominance of specific cultures and for particular understandings of such cultures’ (Highmore, 2002b, p. 1). I like Highmore (2002a, p. 178) believe that the future of cultural studies in terms of the everyday is to ‘re-imagine’ cultural studies through the problematic spirit of a cross-cultural attention to the everyday which I am doing through my representation of the everyday lives of the Anglo-Japanese.

Thick description and the everyday. Xxxxxx Geertz (1973) stresses the problematic nature of thick description for the ethnographer. He believes that it presents the ethnographer with a complex set of problems when trying to faithfully represent a cultural formation as he states: What the ethnographer is in fact faced with […] is a multiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many of them are superimposed upon or knotted into one another, which are at once strange, irregular, and inexplicit, and which he [sic.] [the ethnographer] must contrive somehow first to grasp and then to render (XxxxxxGeertz, 1973, p. 10). Xxxxxx Geertz also highlights the intricacies associated with constructing a reading of what happens in a particular cultural context. As many of the cultural practices both inside and outside Hoshūkō are dependent upon Japanese language proficiency it is impossible to neatly divide language and cultural practices into two separable entities. Geertz highlights that what people say is equally important as what people do when he says: If anthropological interpretation is constructing a reading of what happens, then to divorce it from what happens—from what, in this time or that place, specific people say, what they do, what is done to them, from the whole vast business of the world—is to divorce it from its applications and render it vacant (Geertz, 1973, p. 18). In addition, Geertz (1973, p. 16) believes that in the ‘thick description’: Behaviour must be attended to, and with some exactness, because it is through the flow of behaviour —or more, precisely, social action—that cultural forms find articulation. They find it as well, of course, in various sorts of artifacts [sic.] […] but these draw their meaning from the role they play […] in an ongoing pattern of life […] (Geertz, 1973, p. 16). Language, cultural and bodily practices formed part of this behaviour both inside and outside Hoshūkō (see chapters 5, 6 and 7). In this thesis it was the hidden significance underpinning the artefacts and practices which I was painstakingly trying to tease out to provide the reader with a finely tuned analysis of how Japanese ethnicities of an official kind pervade the everyday lives of the A-Js. Although I have deliberately chosen to offer a thick description to give a feel of how the Anglo- Japanese formation is partly constituted by its participation with certain renderings of Japaneseness, I feel that the use of ‘thick description’ alone is not enough to represent the everyday in the lives of the A-Js. So I also felt the need to saturate the reader with an abundance of images of the objects and practices in which the A-Js engage/are engaged as they go about their everyday lives. In order to capture specific Japanese cultural artefacts and practices, I felt that ‘no form of discourse is ever going to be ‘proper (appropriate)’ to the everyday life of the A-Js (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). This was because ‘certain forms of discourse […] are not adequate to their objects and at times fail to accommodate them at all’ which is especially true in a cross- cultural context (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). I argue that words alone may not suffice to capture the Japanese artefacts and practices with which the A-Js engage in their everyday lives so different forms of representations are needed (ibid). I, therefore, where possible drew upon photographs taken by the participants and my family and friends, images from the internet and YouTube clips. I believe that the idea of the image is crucial for a cross-cultural understanding of the everyday in the lives of the A-Js as what is familiar for the A-Js may be strange for the reader. The everyday lives of the A-Js are extremely complex as they are characterised by ‘ambiguities, instabilities and equivocation’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 17). This meant that I was trying to grapple with ‘the unmanageability of the everyday’ in a self-reflexive manner in order to ‘fashion out forms more adequate to the task of attending to the everyday than those that might see it as all too easily knowable’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 18). The everyday of the A-Js may offer ‘itself up as a problem, a contradiction, a paradox: both ordinary and extraordinary, self-evident and opaque, known and unknown, obvious and enigmatic’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 16). It was therefore necessary to make the familiar strange (Highmore, 2002b) or the strange familiar depending on the cultural background of the reader. As Highmore (2011, p. 6) stresses, ‘[o]ne person’s ordinary is another person’s extraordinary’. What is more, ‘claiming everyday life as self-evident and readily accessible becomes an operation for asserting the dominance of specific cultures and for particular understandings of such cultures’ (Highmore, 2002b, p. 1). I like Highmore (2002a, p. 178) believe that the future of cultural studies in terms of the everyday is to ‘re-imagine’ cultural studies through the problematic spirit of a cross-cultural attention to the everyday which I am doing through my representation of the everyday lives of the Anglo-Japanese.

Thick description and the everyday. Xxxxxx Geertz (1973) stresses the problematic nature of thick description for the ethnographer. He believes that it presents the ethnographer with a complex set of problems when trying to faithfully represent a cultural formation as he states: What the ethnographer is in fact faced with […] is a multiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many of them are superimposed upon or knotted into one another, which are at once strange, irregular, and inexplicit, and which he [sic.] [the ethnographer] must contrive somehow first to grasp and then to render (XxxxxxGeertz, 1973, p. 10). Xxxxxx Geertz also highlights the intricacies associated with constructing a reading of what happens in a particular cultural context. As many of the cultural practices both inside and outside Hoshūkō are dependent upon Japanese language proficiency it is impossible to neatly divide language and cultural practices into two separable entities. Geertz highlights that what people say is equally important as what people do when he says: If anthropological interpretation is constructing a reading of what happens, then to divorce it from what happens—from what, in this time or that place, specific people say, what they do, what is done to them, from the whole vast business of the world—is to divorce it from its applications and render it vacant (Geertz, 1973, p. 18). In addition, Geertz (1973, p. 16) believes that in the ‘thick description’: Behaviour must be attended to, and with some exactness, because it is through the flow of behaviour —or more, precisely, social action—that cultural forms find articulation. They find it as well, of course, in various sorts of artifacts [sic.] […] but these draw their meaning from the role they play […] in an ongoing pattern of life […] (Geertz, 1973, p. 16). Language, cultural and bodily practices formed part of this behaviour both inside and outside Hoshūkō (see chapters 5, 6 and 7). In this thesis it was the hidden significance underpinning the artefacts and practices which I was painstakingly trying to tease out to provide the reader with a finely tuned analysis of how Japanese ethnicities of an official kind pervade the everyday lives of the A-Js. Although I have deliberately chosen to offer a thick description to give a feel of how the Anglo- Japanese formation is partly constituted by its participation with certain renderings of Japaneseness, I feel that the use of ‘thick description’ alone is not enough to represent the everyday in the lives of the A-Js. So I also felt the need to saturate the reader with an abundance of images of the objects and practices in which the A-Js engage/are engaged as they go about their everyday lives. In order to capture specific Japanese cultural artefacts and practices, I felt that ‘no form of discourse is ever going to be ‘proper (appropriate)’ to the everyday life of the A-Js (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). This was because ‘certain forms of discourse […] are not adequate to their objects and at times fail to accommodate them at all’ which is especially true in a cross- cultural context (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). I argue that words alone may not suffice to capture the Japanese artefacts and practices with which the A-Js engage in their everyday lives so different forms of representations are needed (ibid). I, therefore, where possible drew upon photographs taken by the participants and my family and friends, images from the internet and YouTube clips. I believe that the idea of the image is crucial for a cross-cultural understanding of the everyday in the lives of the A-Js as what is familiar for the A-Js may be strange for the reader. The everyday lives of the A-Js are extremely complex as they are characterised by ‘ambiguities, instabilities and equivocation’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 17). This meant that I was trying to grapple with ‘the unmanageability of the everyday’ in a self-reflexive manner in order to ‘fashion out forms more adequate to the task of attending to the everyday than those that might see it as all too easily knowable’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 18). The everyday of the A-Js may offer ‘itself up as a problem, a contradiction, a paradox: both ordinary and extraordinary, self-evident and opaque, known and unknown, obvious and enigmatic’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 16). It was therefore necessary to make the familiar strange xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx (HighmoreXxxxxxxx, 2002b0000x) or the strange familiar depending on the cultural background of the reader. As Highmore Xxxxxxxx (20110000, p. 6) stresses, ‘[o]ne person’s ordinary is another person’s extraordinary’. What is more, ‘claiming everyday life as self-evident and readily accessible becomes an operation for asserting the dominance of specific cultures and for particular understandings of such cultures’ (Highmore, 2002b, p. 1). I like Highmore (2002a, p. 178) believe that the future of cultural studies in terms of the everyday is to ‘re-imagine’ cultural studies through the problematic spirit of a cross-cultural attention to the everyday which I am doing through my representation of the everyday lives of the Anglo-Japanese.

Thick description and the everyday. Xxxxxx (1973) stresses the problematic nature of thick description for the ethnographer. He believes that it presents the ethnographer with a complex set of problems when trying to faithfully represent a cultural formation as he states: What the ethnographer is in fact faced with […] is a multiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many of them are superimposed upon or knotted into one another, which are at once strange, irregular, and inexplicit, and which he [sic.] [the ethnographer] must contrive somehow first to grasp and then to render (Xxxxxx, 1973, p. 10). Xxxxxx also highlights the intricacies associated with constructing a reading of what happens in a particular cultural context. As many of the cultural practices both inside and outside Hoshūkō are dependent upon Japanese language proficiency it is impossible to neatly divide language and cultural practices into two separable entities. Geertz Xxxxxx highlights that what people say is equally important as what people do when he says: If anthropological interpretation is constructing a reading of what happens, then to divorce it from what happens—from what, in this time or that place, specific people say, what they do, what is done to them, from the whole vast business of the world—is to divorce it from its applications and render it vacant (GeertzXxxxxx, 1973, p. 18). In addition, Geertz Xxxxxx (1973, p. 16) believes that in the ‘thick description’: Behaviour must be attended to, and with some exactness, because it is through the flow of behaviour —or more, precisely, social action—that cultural forms find articulation. They find it as well, of course, in various sorts of artifacts [sic.] […] but these draw their meaning from the role they play […] in an ongoing pattern of life […] (GeertzXxxxxx, 1973, p. 16). Language, cultural and bodily practices formed part of this behaviour both inside and outside Hoshūkō (see chapters 5, 6 and 7). In this thesis it was the hidden significance underpinning the artefacts and practices which I was painstakingly trying to tease out to provide the reader with a finely tuned analysis of how Japanese ethnicities of an official kind pervade the everyday lives of the A-Js. Although I have deliberately chosen to offer a thick description to give a feel of how the Anglo- Japanese formation is partly constituted by its participation with certain renderings of Japaneseness, I feel that the use of ‘thick description’ alone is not enough to represent the everyday in the lives of the A-Js. So I also felt the need to saturate the reader with an abundance of images of the objects and practices in which the A-Js engage/are engaged as they go about their everyday lives. In order to capture specific Japanese cultural artefacts and practices, I felt that ‘no form of discourse is ever going to be ‘proper (appropriate)’ to the everyday life of the A-Js (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). This was because ‘certain forms of discourse […] are not adequate to their objects and at times fail to accommodate them at all’ which is especially true in a cross- cultural context (Highmore, 2002a, p. 21). I argue that words alone may not suffice to capture the Japanese artefacts and practices with which the A-Js engage in their everyday lives so different forms of representations are needed (ibid). I, therefore, where possible drew upon photographs taken by the participants and my family and friends, images from the internet and YouTube clips. I believe that the idea of the image is crucial for a cross-cultural understanding of the everyday in the lives of the A-Js as what is familiar for the A-Js may be strange for the reader. The everyday lives of the A-Js are extremely complex as they are characterised by ‘ambiguities, instabilities and equivocation’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 17). This meant that I was trying to grapple with ‘the unmanageability of the everyday’ in a self-reflexive manner in order to ‘fashion out forms more adequate to the task of attending to the everyday than those that might see it as all too easily knowable’ (Highmore, 2002a, p. 18). The everyday of the A-Js may offer ‘itself up as a problem, a contradiction, a paradox: both ordinary and extraordinary, self-evident and opaque, known and unknown, obvious and enigmatic’ (HighmoreXxxxxxxx, 2002a, p. 16). It was therefore necessary to make the familiar strange xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx (HighmoreXxxxxxxx, 2002b0000x) or the strange familiar depending on the cultural background of the reader. As Highmore Xxxxxxxx (20110000, p. 6) stresses, ‘[o]ne person’s ordinary is another person’s extraordinary’. What is more, ‘claiming everyday life as self-evident and readily accessible becomes an operation for asserting the dominance of specific cultures and for particular understandings of such cultures’ (Highmore, 2002b, p. 1). I like Highmore Xxxxxxxx (2002a, p. 178) believe that the future of cultural studies in terms of the everyday is to ‘re-imagine’ cultural studies through the problematic spirit of a cross-cultural attention to the everyday which I am doing through my representation of the everyday lives of the Anglo-Japanese.