Rational Japanese
A Guide to Understanding
Ordinary Japanese Behavior

Shohei Koike

MARNAVI

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Michael Powell for proofreading themanuscript.

About the Author
Shohei Koike, Ph.D., is a co-owner of MARNAVI (Multimedium Learning System), a
publishing and courseware–development firm. He earned his doctorate in Political Sciencefrom the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. He also has a Master’s Degree in Library
Science from the University of Oregon. Dr. Koike was formerly Professor in the Department
of Foreign Studies at Setsunan University, Japan, developing CALL (Computer-Assisted
Language Learning) materials for Japanese students studying English and for foreign students
studying Japanese. As associate professor, he also taught Japanese language and culture at the
Department of Modern Languages, American Graduate School of International Management,
Glendale, Arizona; and at the Department of Foreign Languages and Bilingual Studies,
Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan.

Rational Japanese
A Guide to Understanding
Ordinary Japanese Behavior

Copyright Ⓒ 2009 by Shohei Koike
All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author.

MARNAVI
マーナビ教材開発
Multimedium Learning System
490-9 Chumu-cho, Kamigyo-ku
Kyoto 602-8158 Japan
www.marnavi-jp.com
e-mail: skk@marnavi-jp.com

iii

CONTENTS
Introductionv

PART ONE: An Analysis of Rational Japanese Behavior
1

System, Culture, and Predictable Order
An Interdependent World of Individuals
Four Types of Attitude toward Interdependence
Distinction, and Bias toward Predictability
Socio-Economic Values

2

Predictable Behavior Among Individuals
and In Organizations
Status Differences: Age, Role, and Gender
Settings or Surroundings
Familiarity
Dependence and Indebtedness
Systemic Ambiguity and the Power of “Spinach”
Conformity and Uniformity

3

4

2
3
4
8
10

15
15
17
19
20
21
23

Predictable Order in Public

25

In Public or Seken
Conformity in Small Seken
Orderliness in Large Seken

25
26
28

Dealing with Uncertainty
Unknown Preferences
Foreign Strangers
Unfamiliar Surroundings and Situations

30
30
31
32

iv

PART TWO: Cases of Rational Japanese Behavior
5

6

7.

Learning Japanese

35

Case 1.
Case 2.
Case 3.

35
38
41Classroom Manners
Arigatou or Thank you?
Contact and Connection

Living in Japan

44

Case 4.
Case 5.
Case 6.
Case 7.
Case 8.
Case 9.
Case 10.

44
47
51
55
58
62
66

Close Encounters of the Gaijin Kind
Your Japanese is Good
Curiosity and Hospitality
Bad Experiences
A Host Family
Living in a Small Seken
Young People

Business Settings

70

Case 11.
Case 12.
Case 13.
Case 14.

70
74
78
81

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Am I Doing All Right?
Those Japanese Bosses
What Consensus?
Negotiating with Japanese84v

Introduction
The Japanese are, to the highest degree, both aggressive andunassertive, both militaristic and aesthetic, both insolent andpolite, rigid and adaptable, submissive and resentful of being
pushed around, loyal and treacherous, brave and timid,
conservative and hospitable to new ways.
Ruth Benedict

There is an extensive literature that describes Japanese society and culture as
unique, inherently different from those of the rest of the world. Ruth Benedict was
one of the pioneers who tried to explain the psychological and behavioral
differences between Japanese and Westerners by using dichotomousclassifications. By labeling Japan as a “shame culture,” and the West as a “guilt
culture,” Benedict focused her documentation on the uniqueness of Japan, butfailed to make a comparative analysis of the shame and guilt psychologies
together, which are both found in Japan and other cultures. Even though her book
The Chrysanthemum and the Sword invited many criticisms, it seems to haveinspired many other observers of Japanese culture to focus their studies on theuniqueness of Japan. For example, Japan was characterized as a “tate shakai(vertical society),” and its hierarchical relationships were described and contrasted
against horizontal relationships in the Western culture. Other “unique”
characteristics of Japanese culture were described by using such concepts as wa(harmony), groupism (vs. individualism in the West), and amae (emotional needfor dependence).
By emphasizing uniqueness, many studies of contemporary Japan
contributed to creating and reproducing stereotypes of the Japanese national
character. For example, Japanese workers were characterized as group-oriented,
harmonious, loyal, and cooperative, in contrast to American workers who were
portrayed as individualistic, independent, self-assertive, and confrontational. And
then those characteristics of Japanese attitudes and behaviors were attributed to theworkers’ “unique” traditional values and beliefs. We often hear tautologicalarguments such as: Japanese are harmonious because of their emphasis on the
traditional value of wa (harmony).
Japanese culture is unique only in the sense that every culture is unique.
Japanese values, behaviors, and institutions may seem more or less “unique” whencompared to other specific cultures. In many respects, the Japanese are different
from other peoples, but there is nothing “inscrutable” or “enigmatic” about
Japanese behaviors that intrinsically rejects theoretical or scientific explanation.
Japanese society is comparable. It can be compared to other societies so thatvi

differences and similarities can be observed or discovered. Japanese behaviors are
just as explicable and predictable as other peoples’ behaviors.
In addition to the comparability of Japanese culture, “rationality” is anotherassumption that is made in this book—an assumption that is explicitly or implicitly
made by many social scientists in their analysis of human behaviors. Rationality
here pertains to the process of choosing a course of action, and not to personalvalues and preferences. People’s values and preferences are considered neither
rational nor irrational. Rationality by no means indicates universality of values andmoral standards. Individuals are rational when they are consistent in their attempt
to maximize their satisfaction or minimize displeasure, given their preferences.
According to this definition, even a serial murderer may be regarded as rational(and somewhat predictable) if he is consistent in his attempt to victimize
individuals who have similar profiles.
Rational choices are made on the basis of an individual’s best judgment,
considering whatever information is available. People make poor judgments andoften have to make choices on the basis of inaccurate or inadequate information.
Individuals often make choices they later regret. People may fail to achieve theirobjectives when they receive benefits only in the relatively distant future, while
incurring immediate costs. (Consider, for example, the future benefit and theimmediate discomfort that a smoker will experience when he or she tries to quit
smoking.) People do not always know what they want, and they may act on theiremotions. Despite those qualifications, most people are assumed to be rational
most of the time; they consistently try to make themselves as well-off as possible,
given their preferences and the information available. For example, most drivers
stop at a red traffic light because that is usually considered a better course of action
compared to the alternative, and because the expected benefit of observing thetraffic signal exceeds the expected cost, under normal conditions. (To a criminal
who is chased by the police, however, running against a red light may well be therational choice.)
Most Japanese act as rationally as, say, most Americans do. Both Japaneseand Americans consistently try to make themselves as well-off as possible, eventhough their individual preferences and cultural values may differ. Depending on
the given situation, Japanese and Americans both act individually or collectively,
competitively or cooperatively, formally or informally, spontaneously or
cautiously, openly or evasively, and so on. In other words, both act rationally—choosing the best possible course of action, given their preferences and theinformation available to them. However, individuals with different sets ofpreferences may make different rational choices, even when they face the same orsimilar situations. Preferences vary from one individual to another; they may also
differ between culturally different populations. For example, it is believed that the
average Japanese places a greater value on interdependence in interpersonal
relationships than the average American does, even though both live in a world ofinterdependence.
This book is designed primarily as a guide for Americans to understandordinary Japanese behavior. It is especially for those people who want toviicommunicate and work better with Japanese. In Part One, I explain how and why
Japanese communicate and behave differently from Americans. This is done bycomparing the ways in which Japanese and Americans: (1) depend on each other tosatisfy their wants and needs, and (2) make distinctions among different people andact on them. I focus my analysis on predictable patterns of Japanese behavior andJapanese communication styles commonly observed among individuals ininterpersonal relationships and in public.
Part Two of this book presents fictional cases or stories to illustrate the points
that are made in Part One. These cases represent realistic cross-cultural situations
that Americans will often encounter when communicating and interacting withJapanese. Part One and Part Two are complementary. Theoretical explanation
alone would be too abstract to be helpful in understanding and participating inJapanese culture; and anecdotal examples alone will not lead to better
understanding of predictable patterns of Japanese behavior. The realistic cases inPart Two will help not only to understand Japanese behavior, but also to better
communicate, deal, and work with Japanese. Each case consists of a description of
the main characters and situation, followed by a set of questions to consider, andanalysis by the author. These cases are fictions, but are based on real situations theauthor has experienced and on stories told by colleagues and students, as well as byJapanese and American business people.

PART ONE
An Analysis ofRational Japanese Behavior

21
System, Culture, andPredictable Order

We wish to do whatever we want, without any constraints being imposed on us.
But we know that society will fall into anarchy if everyone acts with absolute
freedom. People try to limit their own freedom and others’, in one way or another,so they can bring some predictable order to society.
In democratic societies, people maintain predictable order by agreeing tolimit their freedom, on condition that everybody else does the same. Formal law, tothe extent that it is observed, brings predictable order; it insures that individuals are
not treated arbitrarily by other individuals or organizations. The traffic law, forexample, enables a driver to predict, to a certain extent, a course of action that will
be taken by another law-abiding driver. Modern streets would no doubt turn into
anarchy without traffic laws. Organizational rules and institutional arrangements
also bring some predictable order. They not only protect members from arbitrary
treatment by other members, but also provide each member with constraints andincentives to consider in order to make rational choices. The employment contract
and job description, for example, make employees act and expect to be treated incertain predictable manners.
Predictable order is brought not only by the system—the formal law,organizational rule, and institutional arrangement—but also by culture; that is, by
the informal, unwritten code of conduct, as well as by values and beliefs commonly
shared by individuals. Every society has its informal, cultural code of conduct andcommunication, which is socially given for individuals regardless of theirpreferences. Such a code may suggest ways in which people treat each other,inquire about and express preferences, demonstrate abilities, compete, compromise,and negotiate new relationships for advantageous results. To the extent that it isobserved, such a code decreases uncertainty over human interaction, and makes
each person’s behavior more predictable. However, commitment to such a cultural
code also means that individuals will lose some autonomy or opportunity to use
their skills and resources to achieve the upper hand in interpersonal relationships.
Most people do not want their actions or manners dictated to them, even though
they also don’t want to be in a situation where the behavior of others is too
unpredictable to make any rational planning. The cultural code developed insociety, reflecting its people’s values and beliefs, strikes a balance between adecline in autonomy and a gain in predictability. The ways in which such a balanceis struck seem to differ from one society to another.

3

Individuals are born into a society which already has its system and culture.
Even though individuals may acquire different sets of values and beliefs, they haveto face formal laws and institutional arrangements, as well as cultural codes ofconduct, as given at any point of time in their life. Like people’s individual values
and beliefs, these systems and cultural codes do change over time. At any given
point, individuals who make a rational choice consider not only their values andtheir beliefs but also the constraints and incentives provided by the system and thecultural code of their society.
System and culture are not independent of each other. The legal and politicalsystems in a democratic society, for example, reflect values and beliefs shared byits people, and those systems are also instrumental in shaping people’s values andbeliefs. However, when we try to understand the predictable nature of the behavior
of individuals in a society, it is helpful to analyze separately the relation ofpredictable behavior with system, as distinguished from culture.
When comparing societies, systemic differences are often easier to identify
and understand than are differences in informal, unseen cultural codes and values.
When Westerners have difficulty in understanding Japanese behavior, it is often
because of their lack of understanding of Japanese cultural code and values, rather
than their unfamiliarity with systemic differences. For example, even if aWesterner has read many books on the Japanese system of employment andpersonnel management, he or she would be puzzled and frustrated once interacting
face to face with Japanese at the workplace. In order to understand, and to evenpredict Japanese behavior, one has to know what key values they share and what
cultural code they are expected to observe.

An Interdependent World of Individuals
Most people live in a world of interdependence. Interdependence is thereality of life in human societies, although independence or autonomy may also beemphasized as a cultural value or belief. The word “interdependence” here means
the state of being mutually dependent, where (1) an individual’s choice affects, oris affected by, another person’s choice; or (2) individuals rely on each other tosatisfy their wants and needs. In the global economy, for example, high interest
rates in one country may affect economic choice in another country or countries.
This definition indicates some loss of control or autonomy in individual choiceprocesses. The other definition underscores the reality that no one in society lives
sufficiently independent of others to satisfy his or her needs and wants. Individuals
depend on others whom they know personally, as well as on those whom they havelittle or no contact with. Individuals rely, for example, on their family members,
friends, and colleagues in interpersonal relationships; and in the market, they
depend on invisible producers or consumers.
People in modern market economies benefit a great deal from depending oneach other. Individuals are not created equal. They differ in wants and needs, aswell as in skills, abilities, and resources. Through the division of labor and the4market, individuals receive an enormous variety of benefits that self-sufficiency
cannot possibly provide. The benefits of such dependence in the market economy
seem to outweigh the costs to most people, who would not want to live like
Robinson Crusoe. In interpersonal relationships as well, individuals depend onothers who are different in many respects. For example, small children depend
primarily on their parents; but as they grow up they learn to rely on different
people, including teachers, friends, spouses, and colleagues so that they can obtainsomething of value that would not otherwise be obtainable.
The choice of dependence presents an individual both with an opportunity toincrease well-being and with an opportunity to lose something of value. One
chooses to depend on others for something that cannot be obtained by oneself, orthat is more efficiently obtained by reliance on others. An individual may obtainmoney, food, information, connection, respect, affection, or anything else that he or
she values. By depending on others, however, an individual has to give up
something of value that would not otherwise be foregone. It may be a certain
degree of autonomy or control, a sense of dignity, pride, self esteem, or anything ofvalue that one can keep if one chooses not to depend on others. Rational people try
to balance these interests with regard to interdependence and to association withgroups.
Much has been said about the Japanese group orientation, their predominantvalue of group over individual when contrasted to the Western value of individual
over group. This dichotomous presentation is erroneous. Group affiliation or
activity is not a Japanese monopoly. And no society can exist if individual interests
always prevail over the group or the community to which the individual belongs.
Rational people balance interests: they try to maximize satisfaction (or minimize
displeasure) from group affiliation or interdependence, considering both thebenefits and the costs.

Four Types of Attitude toward Interdependence
Although most people live in a world of interdependence, there is no doubtthat some people value autonomy or independence more. Some try to maintain asmuch autonomy and control as possible in an otherwise interdependent society,while many seem willing to accept choices and actions affected by others.
Furthermore, the nature of interdependence is important even for those who
already acknowledge and value it. Interdependent relationships can be egalitarian(symmetrical) or hierarchical (asymmetrical).
When individuals choose to depend on others to satisfy their needs or wants,
they may seek someone who is either different or alike in age, sex, rank, wealth,etc., depending on what they want or need. For example, when Japanese adultwomen want to have a pleasant conversation in a relaxed, casual, non-competitive
atmosphere, they may exclude men from their social gathering. Then, they will not
be bothered by the rules and customs they may have to observe if “different”

5people are present. In other words, such female friends may seek “equal” or“symmetrical” interdependence.
To satisfy their needs and wants, people also depend on those who are
significantly different in age, rank, experience, skill, talent, and so on. For
example, when a young, inexperienced Japanese employee needs instruction andadvice at his workplace, he will rely on his senior colleagues or his immediate
superior. In return, the young worker is expected to show deference and loyalty,
which his senior or superior needs in order to effectively carry out his own duties.
This interdependence is asymmetrical in the sense that the relationship between thetwo parties is hierarchical, one being more dependent or dominant than the other.
Individuals can be more or less interdependent, and interdependence can besymmetrical (equal) or asymmetrical (differential or hierarchical). People differ intheir willingness to depend (or give up autonomy) and in their willingness toacknowledge hierarchical difference or asymmetrical relationship. Each individual
seems to have a unique combination of values assigned both to interdependence
and to status or hierarchical difference. Focusing on these differences in the natureand scope of interdependence, I identify four representative types of attitude
toward interdependence, types which will be useful for understanding differencesin predictable behavior between Japanese and Americans (see Figure 1). Thesetypes are denoted as follows: Type A (Autonomous), Type B (Bossy), Type C(Cooperative), and Type D (Differential).
Figure 1. Four Types of Attitude toward Interdependence

Individuals with Type A (Autonomous) attitude value both autonomy andequality in interpersonal relationships. They wish to maintain as much
independence as possible, and are willing to respect others’ autonomy as long as
their own respect is reciprocated. Type A persons try not to bother others, andexpect others to leave them alone. Type A persons may not hesitate to offer help toothers, as long as it is absolutely their own choice or freedom to do so. With
voluntary action of their own choice, Type A persons feel they will not lose theirown autonomy or independence.

6

Type B (Bossy) persons also value freedom and autonomy; they try to avoid
being dependent on others in order to maintain freedom and autonomy. Unlike
Type A persons, however, Type B individuals acknowledge or respect hierarchicaldifferences or asymmetrical relationships and try to maximize their
independence—by being dominant and having others be dependent on them. They
try to obtain or negotiate higher status in interpersonal relationships. Type B
persons always want to be in control, and dislike having their values, freedom, anddominance questioned or challenged by others. To them, independence anddominance are synonymous. Type B persons expect to be treated properly,
according to the status they believe they have earned.
Type C (Cooperative) persons value interdependence in symmetrical
relationships. Acknowledging limitations to individuals’ abilities, they are more
willing to rely on other equals for mutual security, for assistance, and for a sense of
closeness. Type C persons, for example, may not hesitate to ask for directions
when lost, while Type B persons may hesitate. Type C persons believe in having anequal opportunity to compete when they have to, and feel uncomfortable inasymmetrical or hierarchical relationships. Unlike Type A, Type C persons value asense of community, belonging, and involvement; and unlike Type B, they preferharmony through discussion and compromise to dominance and control fromcompetition and direct confrontation. When wanting others to do or not dosomething, Type C persons tend to be more indirect than Type B persons—usingsuggestions rather than orders.
Type D (Differential) persons value interdependence and acknowledge thesignificance of status or hierarchical order in interpersonal relationships. They
value interdependence both in symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships. They
are willing to rely on individuals, groups, and organizations for mutual security,protection, assistance, companionship, emotional support, sense of belonging, andso on. It is important for Type D persons to make distinctions among individuals instatus or hierarchy, and to treat them properly according to such differences. To theextent that people act according to their relative status, such differentiation helps to
avoid open confrontation and negotiation of status, and therefore to bringpredictable order to their interdependent world. Even those who are higher in statusor hierarchy are willing to depend on others for what they need, such as
knowledge, information, companionship, and loyalty. Type D persons expect to betreated properly—more than Type B persons do—according to their status relative
to others.
Type D persons may be divided into two sub-types: those who are more
likely to accept a subordinate status in exchange for relying on others for what theywant; and those who are more willing to be depended upon in exchange forenjoying a dominant status. For expediency, let the dominant type in asymmetricalinterdependence be denoted by the symbol Type Dx, and the subordinate, by TypeDy.
The four types of people described above will be found in many societies, buteach society seems to have varying proportions of the different individual attitudes
toward interdependence. The U.S., for example, seems to have more Type A, Type

7

B, and Type C persons, combined, than it has Type D persons alone. Japan seems
to be populated more by Type D individuals than by any other type. Although TypeD persons seem to be a majority in Japanese society, it is important to note that
there is much more individuality than it may appear among Japan’s population ofnearly 127 million people. There are significantly different types of individuals inJapan as well as in other parts of the world.
Different types of people often misunderstand and frustrate each otherwithout fully recognizing their differences. They may do so even when they knowthat they are different. The following illustrations show how different types ofindividuals might look at each other. I focus on Types B, C, Dx, and Dy. To makeit easier to associate the differences, let’s call a Type B person, Bob; a Type C
person, Cathy; a Type Dx person, Daisuke; and a Type Dy person, Yoko.
1. Type B Bob vs. Type Dx Daisuke. To Daisuke, Bob is independent anddominating, but less status-conscious than Daisuke. To him, Bob is often too
confrontational, trying to negotiate status relationships to his advantage. Status is
not something negotiable to Daisuke, who often finds Bob not showing enoughdeference to those who are obviously higher in status. It seems to Daisuke that Bob
tends to do things by himself without consulting people who may be affected by his
choice or action. Bob also seems more conscious or defensive of the boundaries of
his rights, duties, and responsibilities. To Bob, on the other hand, Daisuke often
seems indecisive and evasive, concerned too much about consensus, compromise,and harmony. Bob also believes that Daisuke is often too indirect, that he should
speak out more, and that he apologizes too often.
2. Type B Bob vs. Type Dy Yoko. Bob finds Yoko more dependent,
accommodating, and accustomed to hierarchical relationships than Cathy.
Although Bob feels comfortable being dominant and independent, he is sometimes
concerned that Yoko relies on him too much. Yoko finds Bob less status-conscious
than Daisuke, and inclined to treat her on a more equal basis—even thoughsuperficially. Yoko knows that she is willing to rely on Bob, but she wants him todepend more on her, instead of trying to control everything.
3. Type C Cathy vs. Type Dx Daisuke. It seems to Cathy that Daisuke ismore inclined than Bob is to accept the idea that a person is affected by the choicesof others and has to rely on others. However, she is very uncomfortable with thekind of division of labor that Daisuke takes for granted, which is based more on
one’s role, place, and status in society than on symmetrical interdependence. To
Daisuke, Cathy’s emphasis on the egalitarian principle is perplexing, to say theleast.
4. Type C Cathy vs. Type Dy Yoko. Cathy is more independent andequality-conscious than Yoko is. Yoko is somewhat envious of Cathy’s insistenceon symmetrical interdependence, but she also believes that she may emulate Cathy
only at a price not easily justified by the benefit. Yoko might have to give up someof the comfort of relying on her partner for her well-being. Cathy feels more
comfortable interacting with Yoko than with Daisuke, but sometimes she finds
Yoko, even by her standards, too indirect in expressing preferences, and too

8concerned about what others think of her. Yoko is more circumspect andindecisive.
The four types of individuals (A, B, C, and D) are representative, orstereotypical. Obviously, not every person fits neatly into a representative type. An
individual, for example, may be as interdependent as a Type C person, and morestatus-conscious, but significantly less so than Type D persons. One may findoneself closer to one type than to the others, or see how uniquely different he or
she is from each of the representative types. One may use a single type as areference point to consider how similar or different he or she will be in terms of
attitudes towards interdependence. In other words, one may compare oneself forwillingness to depend on each other and for the acknowledgment of status or
hierarchical differences. I believe that such comparison will help to decrease
misunderstanding and frustration when communicating and dealing with people,
whether in the same society or in different cultures.

Distinction, and Bias toward Predictability
People make distinctions between each other and act on such distinctions.
We notice differences or make distinctions between ourselves in terms of race,
ethnicity, sex, age, role, rank, wealth, and so on. We also acknowledge that
individuals differ in talents and abilities, as well as in wants and needs. Such
distinctions constitute a basis for human behaviors and interactions, including trade(a mutually beneficial exchange), cooperation, competition, discrimination,
exploitation, and control. Difference in sex, for example, is a basis for prostitution(a business transaction, or exploitation), marriage (cooperation andinterdependence), or sexual harassment (discrimination and control). Every society
has a cultural code for differentiating among people, but each differs in what
distinctions it emphasizes. U.S. society seems to place a greater emphasis on
differences in individuals’ abilities and skills, striking a balance between gain inautonomy and loss in predictability. Japanese society, on the other hand, seems toemphasize status differences; it is biased towards gain in predictability over loss inautonomy.
As individuals grow up, they learn to communicate and interact with others
differently, depending on whom they deal with and what settings they are in. For
example, children learn at school how to treat their peers and teachers differently.
However, beliefs and customs on how to treat different individuals vary from one
society to another. Americans are supposed to believe in equalizing, or at least not
openly emphasizing, differences in such attributes as race, ethnicity, and gender ininterpersonal and business relationships. Although, in reality, some are treatedmore “equally” than others, such belief and effort are important in the U.S. tomaintain unity with racial, ethnic, and religious diversity. In contrast to thisegalitarian belief, most Americans emphasize or respect differences in individuals’
abilities, talents, and personalities. Type B (Bossy) Americans, for example, will

9

not hesitate to openly acknowledge and demonstrate individuals’ differences intalents and abilities, in order to negotiate status or relationship to their advantage.
In comparison, Japanese are expected to ignore, or not to openly emphasize,
differences in talents and abilities among in-group members, who are regarded as
equals. Such “equals” are, for example, students in the same class at the sameschool, or male colleagues of the same rank at the same workplace. This equal or
uniform treatment of “equals” is emphasized in order to preserve superficial
harmony, by avoiding open confrontation, competition, or even comparison. Thisegalitarian belief is to minimize chances for equal in-group members to feelembarrassed, defeated, jealous, or contemptuous. Such in-group members, inreality, do compete with each other in one way or another, but they should not do
so directly and ostentatiously. At the workplace, colleagues who show off theirtalents and abilities are considered not only unsophisticated but also unfit for teamwork. This principle is not applied, however, to out-group members, or when
dealing with people who are different in many other ways.
Although differences in abilities and talents should not be emphasized among“equal” Japanese persons, it is believed that different individuals should be treatedproperly on the basis of many other differences, such as social status, age, role, andgender. Japanese are expected to communicate and interact with each other
differently—in a greater degree and scope than Americans—depending on whomthey deal with and what settings they are in. To most Japanese, “different” peoplemeans (1) foreigners, and (2) Japanese nationals—other than ethnic minorities suchas Koreans, Chinese, and Ainu—who are ethnically and culturally homogeneous
but different in status, age, sex, role, etc. Among Japanese nationals, emphasis on
such differences is not a matter of who is better than others, but a matter of
acknowledging one’s proper role or place in society.
Ethnically and culturally, Japanese society is relatively homogeneous, since
the population of ethnic minorities is small and these minorities have been
assimilated into, or submitted to, the mainstream culture. Paradoxically, thisrelative homogeneity seems to have made it possible to emphasize status and other
differences in interpersonal relationships while maintaining social unity. Without
such ethnic and cultural homogeneity, it would be difficult to agree on andmaintain elaborate social rules for people to communicate and interact with eachother. This constitutes a contrast with the U.S., where ethnic and cultural diversity
requires simpler and more universal rules that do not openly emphasize differences
other than in abilities, talents, and personalities. Differences in race, ethnicity, andgender are dealt with more subtly and discreetly in the U.S. than in Japan.
The Japanese cultural code of differentiating people on the basis of status,
age, role, and gender decreases uncertainty during interactions between people. A
person is expected to treat or be treated by another in some predictable manner thatis based on status and other differences. Type D Japanese are biased in favor ofsuch predictable order, although they know that the price is a loss of someautonomy and a diminishing of individuality. They often feel more comfortablewith such differentiation than with the open negotiation or competition for higher
status. Such predictable order is conducive to the development of interdependent

10

relationships. For example, a Japanese boss and his subordinate will find it easier
to depend on each other than their American counterparts, because the former will
feel more secure in their relationship. The Japanese superior-subordinate
relationship is based not only on formal positions or titles but also on seniority,
symbolic status hierarchy, and expected roles as benevolent boss and loyal
subordinate. They are less likely to negotiate status and to show off their skills andabilities than are their American counterparts, who work in a more openly
competitive environment.

Socio-Economic Values
Many observers of Japanese culture, from Ruth Benedict to Chie Nakane andKarel van Wolferen, have argued that the Japanese do not have fundamental
values, ideals, or principles, but that they are guided by situational considerations,like gaiatsu or foreign pressure. Such an argument for uniqueness of Japan can be
refuted by merely citing the rigid Japanese adherence to such principles as the
Article 9 of its Constitution, as well as to its government policy to ban onexportation of military hardware. During the Persian Gulf War against Iraq, forexample, Japan could not, and did not, participate militarily, despite strong
criticism and pressure from the United States. The Japanese government had nochoice but to act in accordance with Article 9 of its Constitution, which prohibits“the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.” Thequestion, here, is why so many people think the Japanese are guided only bysituational considerations; and why the Japanese themselves fail to articulate theirown values and principles to the world outside. In this section, I try to answer thesequestions by comparing how certain basic socio-economic values are demonstrated
in Japan and in the U.S.
“Socio-economic values” here refers to how individuals view the role of thegovernment in the market economy, how much they emphasize social values when
striking a balance between individual liberty and communal values, and how theylook at their relationships with foreign nations. In order to understand thedifferences in such values between Japanese and Americans, it will be helpful toreview the four attitudes towards interdependence introduced in the previous
section.
Type A (Autonomous) persons, who value both autonomy and equality, tend
to have a “libertarian” political philosophy. They want to maintain as much
independence as possible, and are willing to respect others’ autonomy as long as
their own is equally respected. Type A persons believe strongly in the individual
freedom to make choices by and for themselves—whether economic or social.
Concerned more with “government failure” than with “market failure,” they
believe that the best government is the one that governs the least. Althougheconomically conservative, believing in laissez-faire economics, Type A persons
tend to be socially liberal. They may oppose, for example, government interferencein what they regard as matters of individual choice, such as abortion, school prayer,

11and sexual preference. Type A persons may be in favor of maintaining an adequate
self-defense force, and against interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations,but they are likely to oppose expansionism by a foreign nation if they believe thatnation may threaten their own independence.
Type B (Bossy) persons, who value independence and acknowledge
hierarchical differences, try to establish and maintain autonomy by being dominant
and having others be dependent on them. As business entrepreneurs, Type B
persons believe in superiority from individual effort and competition, and oppose
government regulation if it interferes with their profit maximization. They may opt
for government intervention or “capture” regulation if it helps them to compete or
dominate in the market. Fiscally conservative and mistrustful of government
activism, Type B person prefer a “smaller” government in terms of budget. They
are biased in favor of economic efficiency and competition over equality. Sociallyconservative and not very tolerant of the ideas of others, Type B persons tend toproselytize their own views over individual choice in matters such as abortion, gay
rights, or school prayer. In foreign affairs, they advocate strong defense and antiCommunism (or did, before they “won” the Cold War); they want to maintain asmuch autonomy in international relations as possible, by being superior
economically, politically, and militarily.
As political entrepreneurs, Type B individuals believe in exercising an elitist,or paternalistic, strong leadership. If economic individualism is not strong among
business entrepreneurs, Type B political entrepreneurs may assert themselves by
exercising the economic controls of the state, in much the same way British
Conservatives and French Gaulists supported the nationalization of selective
industries after World War II.
Type C (Cooperative) persons, who acknowledge limitations to individuals’
abilities, value interdependence and equality in human relationships. Whileemphasizing a sense of community, belonging, and involvement, they value theliberty and the equal right to participate in civic discussion and decision-making.
Concerned more with inequality, poverty, and various forms of “market failure”
than with “government failure,” Type C persons tend to believe in “positive”
liberalism, for an active role of government in the economy sympathetic toward
affirmative action, social welfare, government jobs, minimum wage, government
health care, and environmental protection programs. They may oppose an increasein military spending that is made at the expense of domestic spending. Type C
persons tend to be socially “liberal” in the sense of being open to and tolerant of
the ideas of others, refraining from imposing their community values overindividual liberty. In that respect, they may be pro-choice on abortion, and opposed
to legalizing prayer in public schools. Unlike Type A persons, however, Type C
persons are more interested in searching for ways to agree on common values,
without which agreement the moral fabric of society unravels. In foreign affairs,
Type C persons tend to believe in international cooperation and negotiation rather
than in direct confrontation and military intervention. They may also be concernedwith human rights and poverty in other nations, as well as with pollution of the
global environment.

12Type D (Differential) persons, who acknowledge the significance of status or
hierarchical order, value interdependence both in symmetrical and asymmetrical
relationships. They believe they need to depend on each other, with individuals
performing various expected roles and functions. To Type D persons, it is naturalfor government to play a significant role in the economy. (This does not necessarilymean a “big” government in terms of budget; perhaps just a greater degree ofgovernment control and regulation.) It is important to note, however, that the extent
to which government regulation, direction, or planning is appreciated depends on
the relative strength of business entrepreneurs competing in domestic andinternational markets. Generally speaking, the more competitive businesses are, theless appreciative they are of government regulation. Workers and consumers also
expect government to provide security and protection. Although Type D persons
strike a balance, as other types of persons do, between individual liberty andcollective values, they are biased towards predictable order, more willing to accept
traditions, customs, and the prevailing social norms. In that respect, they aresocially “conservative.” If, for example, abortion has been a socially acceptable
practice, a Type D person is not likely to vocally challenge it, even if abortion isagainst his or her personal belief. In international affairs, Type D persons believethat the status of each nation depends primarily on economic and military power.
They believe that although nations are not equal, they should cooperate inaccordance with their international status, with the degree of interdependence
among them. Type D persons are not interested in proselytizing their own values in
the international community.
As political entrepreneurs, Type D are more willing than other types todepend on each other (and on others, such as businesses and bureaucrats) in orderto hold power and to maximize their re-election potential. Because of suchinterdependence, Type D politicians are often not in a position to exercise strong
leadership when it is needed to cope with urgent economic, social, andinternational problems.
It is important to keep in mind that these four types are representative, orstereotypical. Each has a unique combination of his or her own views about how
much government is enough, and about how to strike a balance between individual
liberty and common values. It is also important to note that the labeling of socioeconomic values as either “liberal” or “conservative” is often confusing or
misleading, as demonstrated in the above discussion of only four representative
types.
A nation of pluralism, the United States has distinctly different types ofindividuals voicing different values and political philosophies. The existence ofsuch different people and values makes each individual all the more conscious of
his or her own values; it forces Americans to articulate their values andphilosophies in order to compete, or to cooperate with others, within and outside of
their society. In an attempt to establish dominance and autonomy, for example,
Type B persons may openly declare their principles, in order to show who they are
and what they expect of others.

13Japan, on the other hand, lacks such pluralism: the predominant socioeconomic values are those of Type D. Japanese find little need to articulate andexplain the values that are taken for granted in their society; for example, abortion,
gun control, and school prayer are not much in the way of social issues in Japan.
Abortion is legal; possession of firearms is strictly regulated; and prayer in publicschools is the last thing that teachers, students, and their parents are concerned
with, if they ever are. These matters are not discussed with the “liberal” and“conservative” language that they are in the United States.
Another reason many Japanese fail to articulate their basic values andprinciples has much to do with what I call a “silent” principle of differential
interdependence. The meaning of “silent” is twofold: first, it is observed without
being fully recognized as a “principle”; and second, the principle itself expects
Japanese to refrain from voicing their values and philosophies. A cultural norm thatreflects the values of Type D Japanese, this principle affects the thinking andbehavior of a Japanese individual, whatever type he or she is.
Under the principle of differential interdependence, refraining from theproselytizing one’s own values is regarded as mature conduct. Such reservation isbelieved to help maintain interdependent relationships, where each individual is
expected to behave in accordance with status and role that are determined by thenature and the degree of interdependence. According to this principle, humanrelations should be appreciated more in shades of gray, rather than as black andwhite struggles between good and evil. Ambiguity is viewed as something natural,and it is therefore built into the Japanese language.
The Japanese reaction to the Gulf War is one example of this silent principle
in action. Many Americans thought that Japan, an economic power second only to
the U.S., had a moral duty to maintain world order by participating in the war.
Adhering to its Constitution, the Japanese government responded to U.S. pressure
by promising to share in the financial burden. This was not a popular policy, either
among Americans or Japanese, but for different reasons. Believing in Article 9 of
the Constitution, a majority of Japanese did not, and still do not, see Japan’s role in
the world community as a military one. However, Japan did not claim that its
policy was right and that the U.S. policy was wrong; nor did it argue as morally
wrong the use of force as a means of setting international disputes. Althoughembarrassed and bewildered by U.S. criticism, the Japanese government didsilently respond to U.S. pressure, considering the significance of its relationshipwith the U.S. But it did not proselytize the Japanese stance.
There is another aspect to the Japanese view of the Gulf War. According to
the principle of differential interdependence, the differentiating and prioritizing ofinterdependent relationships is regarded as only natural, individuals helping andcooperating with each other, depending on the nature and the degree ofinterdependence. For example, it is viewed as rational and right for an individual to
put the needs of family members, relatives, and friends before those of strangers or
acquaintances. The Japanese did not see any urgency in sending forces to a foreign
land so distant from their own country. Although the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait may
have been deplorable, it did not pose a serious threat to the world order as Japan14

saw it. Oil was available from countries other than Kuwait and Iraq. Kuwait shouldhave made security arrangements with a powerful ally in order to deter Iraq fromcrossing its border. Although such an arrangement often costs a great deal in termsof money, land, national pride, decline of autonomy, etc., this is often the necessary
price a small nation must pay to survive in an interdependent world. The Japanese,
however, did not openly advocate such a view, as this would have violated the“silent principle” I have described here.

15

2
Predictable Behavior Among
Individuals and In Organizations

Every society has its cultural code of communication and conduct for interpersonal
relationships. Such a code, to the extent that it is observed by people, makes eachindividual’s behavior more predictable. Many Japanese are biased towardpredictability in interpersonal and business relationships. They feel more awkward
or uneasy than most Americans do when they have to deal with others whom they
don’t know, until they find out who and what others are, and what the differences
are between them so that they can apply a proper code of conduct andcommunication. (The Japanese ritual of exchange meishi or business cards should
be looked at in this context.) The Japanese, whether Type D (Differential) or not,are expected to observe the cultural code of conduct and communication that is
supposed to decrease uncertainty and facilitate interdependence by making proper
distinctions among individuals. Once the Japanese know the differences in rank,age, status, role, etc., among them, they are expected to act properly, according torules of conduct based on these distinctions. The ways in which they behave andcommunicate are also affected by such factors as the setting they are in, theirfamiliarity with each other, and their degree of dependence upon, and indebtedness
to, others.

Status Differences: Age, Role, and GenderAccording to their cultural code, the Japanese are expected to behave, andexpect to be treated, in the manner proper to their age, role, and gender. They are,for example, expected to show deference to older people. Deference is also shownto such professionals as doctors and lawyers, whose knowledge and skills are often
vital to one’s well-being. In the marketplace, buyers or customers generally
outrank sellers, and sellers are thus expected to show respect and humility tobuyers. At the workplace, a majority of Japanese women are still expected to play asubordinate role in support of their male staff and managers. Such status
differences often reflect the asymmetry of interdependence—of which side is more
dependent than the other.
The difference in age often represents other differences, as in financial
resources, acquired skills, and experiences that come with age. Those differences
will be the basis for the asymmetry of interdependence. When children are young,for example, they are more dependent on their parents, because the young lacksufficient financial resources, skills, and experience to live by themselves. Even

16though Japanese are expected to treat older people respectfully, other factors
behind the age difference are often more important in determining the ways to treat
older people. There is an old saying that goes, “Oitewa koni shitagae (Aged parents
should obey their children).” This implies that the elderly cannot be depended uponas much as when they were younger, and as a result the asymmetry ofinterdependence between parents and children is reversed. In fact, Japanese seniorcitizens generally do not receive as much respect once they have retired and are nolonger playing substantial roles in social or public settings.
It is important to note that status variables such as age, role, and, genderinteract with each other in determining the proper way to deal with different
individuals. For example, even though younger people are expected to show
deference to older people, age difference can be insignificant when theorganizational status of a younger person outranks that of an elder. Genderdifference can also be insignificant when differences in age, role, or rank are more
relevant in determining the relative status. Even though there are considerably
fewer Japanese women who hold significant positions in the private and public
sectors, gender difference can be insignificant when women play an important role,or when they are higher in organizational rank than men.
Status differences and the asymmetry of interdependence are also found ineconomic roles that people play in society. (Status in modern Japan mostly
concerns individual differences, not social stratification or class; status is notdetermined by inheritance.) Japanese society has been biased in favor of producers
or businesses, many of which have been “subsidized” by consumers/workers who
have traded off higher prices for economic stability and job security. However,there is no doubt that the individual buyer or customer outranks the seller. The
customer is the king (or “god” as it is in Japanese). Many Japanese business people
and their families living in the U.S. are surprised at the lack of respect and humility
shown to them as customers; and in business negotiations with Americans,
Japanese buyers are often offended by attempts on the American side to ignore orequalize the status difference between the buyer and the seller.
However, it is important to note that the higher status of buyers is qualified
by the calculus of interdependence or the balance of bargaining power in themarket. For example, attendants of neighborhood gas stations or grocery stores inJapan are generally much politer and more deferential than are cruising cab drivers,
some of whom are very rude. Local gas stations or grocery stores are more
dependent on regular customers, who can choose other sellers if they are notsatisfied with the service they get. Those sellers would have to pay a high price ifthey were rude to their customers. Cruising cab drivers, on the other hand, do nothave regular customers they depend on, and tipping is not customary in Japan.
Their business performance is affected little, if at all, by their attitude towards eachcustomer, to whom the cost of distinguishing polite cab drivers from rude ones far
exceeds the benefit.
Japanese are status-conscious. If not properly treated according to status
differences, many Japanese, especially Type B (Bossy) and Type D (Differential),
are very likely to feel offended or frustrated. Foreigners are generally not expected17

to know the subtle rules and etiquette customarily observed when interacting withpeople who are different in status. However, as their oral proficiency in Japanese
improves, foreigners are expected to take part in Japanese culture accordingly.

Settings or Surroundings
Rational individuals, whether Japanese or American, express preferences andopinions either directly or indirectly, specifically or generally, clearly or vaguely,
depending not only on whom they interact with, but also on what setting they arein. Setting or surroundings may be formal or informal, public or private, inclusive
or exclusive, friendly or hostile, competitive or cooperative, and so on. Politicians,
for example, communicate differently with their constituents and interest groups inan attempt to maximize their re-election potential. When politicians publicly
address a large number of people with diverse views, their speech tends to begeneral and vague so that it won’t alienate some voters in favor of others. On theother hand, politicians may be more informal, specific, and direct when they have aprivate meeting with a small group of supporters or generous contributors of
campaign funds. Career diplomats also speak and act differently to maximize theirchance of succeeding in negotiations, depending on whether they are in the public
eye or in secret, closed-door meetings.
Rational Japanese behave differently depending on what settings they are in.
As the setting changes, foreign visitors are often surprised to see that the same
Japanese person acts differently towards them—formally or casually, friendly or
indifferently, practically or emotionally, and so on. Such a Japanese is, of course,
not schizophrenic. Setting, occasion, and surroundings are important variables forJapanese to consider—more so than for many Americans—when communicating
and interacting with others.
So that they may decrease uncertainty and facilitate interdependence, theJapanese have more distinct rules than Americans have about how to behave in
different settings. In negotiating with Japanese business people, for example,
Americans are often surprised to find that these same ritualistic and formal
Japanese negotiators begin to communicate and act informally, even casually, andmore openly and spontaneously, when they socialize over drinks in the evening.
This seems especially true if a small group of staff members or junior-ranking
managers socialize with their counterparts of equivalent ranking. In such an
informal setting, the Japanese side may convey hon’ne (private truth, or what isexpressed in private) that might not be revealed at a formal meeting. There is,however, a tacit agreement among Japanese that whatever is revealed in an
informal setting is not an official stance until it is expressed in a more formal
meeting.
In a formal setting, where each person plays a different role in an official
capacity, Japanese feel that an open, bottom-line discussion may result inembarrassing someone in front of others, especially if that person’s preferences andopinions are not known in advance. In a world of interdependence, nobody is18certain of whom he or she will have to depend on in the future. It is, therefore, arational strategy for Type D Japanese to be indirect and vague in a formal meeting,so that they won’t embarrass any potential clients or partners whom they don’tknow well.
Following brief small talk, Japanese negotiators can get down to a detailed
business discussion when they negotiate with other Japanese companies withwhom they have already established a business relationship. But when they deal
with unfamiliar foreign companies, Japanese tend to be very cautious and formal—
taking time to sound out those companies’ intentions and reliability. Japanesenegotiators want to know if the other side is a good candidate for establishing along-term interdependent business relationship. Even when Japanese decide not to
do business with a foreign company for the time being, they may not tell thisdirectly to the negotiators at a formal meeting. The Japanese side may employ
tatemae (public truth) and say “Kangaete okimasu (We’ll give it a thought).” It is
important, therefore, for foreign companies to develop an informal channel ofcommunication with the Japanese side in order to better understand their hon’ne.
Tatemae (public truth, or what is expected to be appropriate in a public
situation) is only as real as hon’ne (private truth). To the Japanese, the use oftatemae and hon’ne does not represent a division between telling and not telling thetruth. This is not a double standard. In their own language, Japanese rarely confuse
what is outwardly expressed in public with what they really feel—even though it isoften difficult to tell exactly what their real intention is. In the above example ofbusiness talks, “Kangaete okimasu (We’ll give it a thought)” would be understoodby Japanese as a tatemae to avoid embarrassment on both sides, and as an
appropriate thing to say. No interdependent society would function well without
the tatemae component of diplomacy.
Many Westerners living in Japan complain about lack of privacy—not onlyin physical space, but also in interpersonal relationships. It is true that privacy is in
short supply in Japan’s crowded society, where differential interdependence is a
predominant value. Neighbors are always curious and watchful about what eachother is doing. There is little privacy in the workplace, where even senior managers
do not have their own separate rooms. Age and status are asked of those who meetfor the first time, so that a proper level of politeness in speech can be determined.
However, Japanese make every effort to protect whatever little privacy they have,and they carefully distinguish between what is proper to discuss in private, andwhat in public. One’s views or opinions on serious topics such as religion, politics,
and philosophy are considered very personal, and such topics are mostappropriately talked or inquired about in private among close friends or relatives.
Personal concerns and problems are not casually discussed with colleagues andacquaintances in social gatherings. Serious discussion of an academic nature will
also be avoided at social gatherings: it may develop into an argument, or even aquarrel, that will spoil these colleagues’ very purpose—having fun and feeling a
sense of belonging and closeness.
The Japanese house (or uchi, which also means “inside”), however small, is afortress to guard privacy for the family. An out-door intercom is the first defense,

19

making any visitors identify themselves before opening the front door. The next
defense is genkan—a tiny space inside the entrance door. Here, welcomed guests
take off shoes and step up onto a raised floor that leads to the rooms and the
kitchen. Delivery men, bill collectors, and other visitors, who are in a hurry,
unexpected, or not welcomed, are met at the genkan and are not expected to takeoff their shoes. The last defense is ousetsuma or kyakuma—a guest room forformally welcoming or entertaining visitors—that is separated by a wall and a door
from ima (the living room) or chanoma (the family room). The whole house (uchi,
or the inside) stands to separate the family from the outside (or soto).

Familiarity
Japanese are expected to use a formal and polite level of speech to showrespect and humility when they talk to people who are older and/or higher in rankor status. Formalities and rituals are especially important until individuals come toknow each other well. Familiarity, however, will make each other’s intentions andbehaviors more predictable, and may increase opportunities for interdependence.
Even at the Japanese workplace, subordinates and superiors will communicate andinteract less formally as they get to know each other better. Rigorous adherence toformalities at this stage would hamper the development of interdependent
relationships.
In the calculus of interdependence, it is rational to treat people differently,
depending on familiarity. Japanese are more likely than Americans to distinguishbetween members of their “in-group” (or uchi, which also means “house” or“inside”) and others, or outsiders. The in-group is a reference group against which
others are regarded as an “out-group” (or soto, which also means “outside”). The
reference group may be a family, a class of students, a team of players, co-workers
of a section or department, employees of a company, or the Japanese as a nationcompared to foreigners. When the family is a reference group, all others areoutsiders; when the company is a reference group, all others, whether clients orcompetitors, are outsiders. The out-group people basically fall into threeclassifications that depend on the nature and level of interdependence (or lack ofit): (1) actual or potential friends and allies with whom the in-group members are
more or less interdependent, or want to be; (2) competitors or adversaries; and (3)strangers.
Japanese well acknowledge that no one in society can live without relying onothers in one way or another, and that no one is sure of whom he or she will
depend on in the future. Like Americans, many Japanese also feel good by helping
others, without expecting any reciprocity in the future. The acknowledgment thathuman relations are complementary in nature makes many Japanese try to be atleast polite, even when they interact with out-group competitors or strangers. But
there are definite differences about the way Japanese treat out-group people in eachof the three classifications above. To out-group friends and allies, such as clients,
guests, and invited visitors, in-group members show respect and humility by20

honoring outsiders and by humbling themselves and other in-group members. Outgroup competitors will encounter fierce competition even when they are treatedpolitely on the surface, and will be excluded from important affiliations andalliances. Strangers are generally treated with equal politeness, distance, orindifference, as long as they play the expected role of a stranger.

Dependence and Indebtedness
In interdependent relationships, rational individuals, whether Type A(Autonomous), B (Bossy), C (Cooperative), or D (Differential), constantly—almost
unconsciously—strike a balance between commitment and autonomy. That is, theyevaluate and re-evaluate how much they should rely on, or be relied upon, byothers.
To Type D Japanese, it is important to consider whom they deal with, and inwhat settings. Equally important is the consideration of who is more dependent,
and which side will be indebted for a received favor. When Type D Japanese feelindebted to others for a favor, it is likely they expect, and are expected, to returnthe favor, or be depended upon for one, sooner or later. Such expectation makes theJapanese selective and exclusive in developing and maintaining interdependent
relationships, which involve not only benefits but high costs. Some asymmetry ofinterdependence may be unavoidable if there are substantial differences between
individuals, in rank, age, financial resources, abilities, skills, etc. Such asymmetry
may be the basis for influencing people in interpersonal relationships. When TypeD Japanese want to maintain parity or status quo in interpersonal or business
relationships, they try to avoid situations where they feel obliged to receive favors.
If they accept favors, they try to return them as soon as possible, so that someparity or equilibrium of indebtedness is restored. Some Japanese utilize thispsychology of reciprocity and indebtedness in an attempt to influence others; they
try to do others a favor pre-emptively, to make them feel indebted.
The strong emotional need or drive for dependence—“amae”—should not beequated with Type D value of interdependence. It is true that children, and evensome adults in intimate relationships, may show “amae,” a strong expectation orneed to depend on others for understanding, affection, and favorable treatment (Doi1971). Such children and adults may feel frustrated, disappointed, angry, or evenbetrayed if their needs or desires are not met by others on whom they depend.
However, Type D Japanese acknowledge that, since individuals are limited in theirabilities and resources, each should make up what is lacking in the other. To them,reciprocity is essential to life in a world of interdependence. Japanese adults who
frequently fail to reciprocate favors, or to be depended upon, are regarded as
selfish, and thus do not function adequately in interpersonal and business
relationships.
The concept of “amae” is often used to explain away anything viewed as“uniquely” Japanese in interpersonal, or even in organizational, relationships. It istrue that Type D Japanese are generally more interdependent than Type A, B, and21

C Americans, and it seems that Type D Japanese have a stronger need to depend onothers. Most Japanese use the word “amae” when an individual deviates—
excessively, in most cases—from the socially accepted norm of fair dependence onothers. When a Japanese is told he or she is displaying “amae,” that person is being
criticized for his or her excessive expectation or desire to depend on others. There
are some occasions, however, where an individual, if he is too reluctant to admit
his limitations or to seek assistance and cooperation from others, is encouraged toopen up and show a little more “amae.” Such a person may seem a little too
independent to an observer who represents the social standard of interdependence.

Systemic Ambiguity and the Power of “Spinach”
Organizations have a system of formal rules and procedures that delineate therights and responsibilities of their employees. To the extent that such a system
unambiguously defines each member’s rights, functions, and duties, employees are,at least theoretically, protected against arbitrary treatment by management. They
know not only what they will be expected to do, but also what they will not be
asked to do. Whereas, an elaborate delineation of individual rights and duties mightprovide employees with an incentive to be less flexible and less cooperative amongcolleagues.
When it comes to the delineation of individual rights and responsibilities, theJapanese white-collar workplace is known for organizational ambiguity. For
example, a new recruit does not receive his or her own job description, as in the
U.S. Workers’ functional roles and middle managers’ authority and responsibility
lack the specificity found in the U.S. organization. Job title and rank are notnecessarily accompanied by the corresponding formal delegation of authority
typically found in the U.S. organizational hierarchy.
Office work routines are not as standardized as those at the factory. Broad
directions are often given by managers to office workers, who have to interpretthem to choose a specific set of actions. The decision-making process is much
more diffuse in the Japanese workplace, and the staff members and juniormanagers have greater opportunities to influence or participate in the process than
do their American counterparts. Credit and responsibility are often sharedcollectively by colleagues and managers.
Such systemic ambiguity serves as a basis to maintain loose cross-functionalboundaries and to encourage flexible, cooperative, and interdependent relationships
among the staff and managers. However, this organizational ambiguity is also asource of uncertainty, misunderstanding, and confusion, especially whensubordinates carry out tasks assigned by their superiors. In order to minimize suchnegative effects, there must be trust and careful communication between superiors
and their subordinates. Japanese companies emphasize the significance of hou-rensou, which means reporting, informing, and consulting. The word hou-ren-sou wasformed from the initial Chinese characters of the three words, hou-koku (reporting),
ren-raku (informing), and sou-dan (consulting), and this business term has the22same sound as a Japanese word that means “spinach.” A company president, whocoined this word, said that hou-ren-sou makes the company strong (as spinach
makes Popeye strong).
In the Japanese workplace, it is subordinates who are expected to engage inthis hou-ren-sou communication. Subordinates should report the progress of anassignment before their bosses inquire. They should provide any new information
they obtain, irrespective of its relevance to the current assignment. They should
also consult their senior colleagues and superiors whenever they feel they needhelp in carrying out their assignments. Japanese managers are extremely concernedwith how their subordinates are doing their assignments, especially when theiroutcomes will seriously affect other colleagues and superiors within, or across,sections and departments. They worry very much when their subordinates fail toengage in hou-ren-sou communication. Subordinates must understand thatassignments should be done in communication and consultation with theirsuperiors. Capable Japanese managers will ask their subordinates various
questions, designed to help them resolve, before they start or finish, any possible
mistakes or misunderstandings with regard to the requirements of an assignment.
Large Japanese companies, characterized by ambiguous delineation of authority
and responsibility, do not function well without constant, effective hou-ren-sou
communication.
For hou-ren-sou communication to be effective requires that some conditions
be met. Most importantly, its significance must be understood by employees. It
should be based on trust and good interpersonal relationships between subordinatesand superiors. Even when managers do not explain why an assignment is importantin a larger context, and how it should be done in detail, subordinates should be
assisted by senior colleagues; or they can learn by watching how others carry out
similar assignments. However, the fact that Japanese managers have to repeatedlyemphasize the significance of hou-ren-sou communication indicates that it is easier
said than done, even in Japanese companies.
Japanese managers of affiliates in the U.S. often complain that American
workers do only what they are told to do, or what is specified in their job
description. They also complain that, once given some authority, American
subordinates tend to isolate, doing jobs incorrectly and without face-to-facecommunication and consultation with superiors. American employees, on the other
hand, complain that Japanese managers don’t explain the exact steps, authority, andresponsibility to carry out an assignment, failing to let their workers know what is
expected of them. Many Japanese managers don’t understand why such
explanations, such direct feedback and encouragement, are important to American
workers. They fail to recognize that American employees often lack the Japanesesense of security, the collective sharing of credit and responsibility, and theinterdependent relationship among staff and managers that compensate fororganizational ambiguity. Even when they do understand the situation, mostJapanese managers have difficulty communicating in English with their American
subordinates. It also happens that Japanese managers sometimes do not havesufficient specialized knowledge and information to give detailed explanations and23

instructions, because they have been trained as generalists and are not familiar with
the American market. Such lack of specialized skills and knowledge would not be aserious problem in interdependent organizations in Japan, where superiors andsubordinates can rely on each other for specialized skills, knowledge, andinformation.
Japanese-owned companies in the U.S. generally have more problems inmanaging office workers than in managing factory workers. A major reason for thisis that systemic ambiguity is far greater at the office than in the factory, where
work is far more standardized. If such companies are not run in the American way,with authorities and responsibilities clearly delineated, then hou-ren-sou type ofcommunication is needed more among the staff and managers in the office. The
problem is that many Japanese-owned companies lack the conditions to effectively
carry out the hou-ren-sou type communication. American staff and managers
naturally feel uneasy when their authorities and responsibilities are not clear; they
understandably become defensive in carrying out assignments. American
employees normally do not understand what the hou-ren-sou communication is,and how important it is in Japanese organizations; they don’t even like someone
watching over their shoulders while an assigned task is completed. Japanesemanagers cannot expect American senior colleagues and junior managers tocompensate for the lack of organizational clarity by functioning as mentors forjunior workers. Japanese management cannot expect hou-ren-sou typecommunication from American employees—an expectation that is difficult to carryout even in Japanese companies in Japan.

Conformity and Uniformity
An organization, American or Japanese, requires that individual members’
wants and needs be compromised for the “common good” of all its members, or forthe organization as a whole. Individual members conform to formal rules andprocedures, as well as to informal codes, customs, and traditions that have been
observed in their organization. Many organizations, for example, have a fixed time
set aside for lunch break, so that work coordination and cooperation among
employees, as well as customer services, will not be disrupted by individual
arrangements.
When employees’ function and authority are not clearly defined, and credit
and responsibility are shared collectively, each individual will likely have a greater
incentive to “free ride,” or to be hesitant in taking initiative. An analogy will help
to understand this. Make a comparison between a large group of individuals
participating in a tug-of-war match, and a team of professional baseball players,
whose functions are highly differentiated and whose performance can be
individually measured, evaluated, and rewarded. It won’t be difficult to tell whichgroup would have a free-rider problem. In order to minimize or control such aproblem, the group or organization may need a set of rules and regulations that
apply equally to its members. The tug-of-war team, for example, could have a rule

24

stipulating that every member be equally rewarded or penalized, depending on
victory or defeat.
Organizational or group pressure on each individual to conform to informal
rule and tradition seems to be stronger in Japanese organizations, whereinterdependence is emphasized and a higher degree of system ambiguity exists.
Furthermore, Type D employees in the Japanese organization would make efforts
to avoid inconveniencing co-workers by “selfishly” deviating from existing
standards and expectations. The Japanese organizational culture disapproves of, or
strongly discourages, individual exception to or exemption from uniformity; just
one such incident, it is feared, might have a domino effect and disrupt
organizational order. Such a concern is minimized if individual rights and duties
are formally and clearly defined.
To illustrate the above point, let us look at a typical Japanese attitude towardtaking a leave of absence with pay. Many Japanese employees, especiallymanagers, do not use up the days to which they are formally entitled for leave withpay. Most of them do not request leave with pay for a “long” vacation of, say, tenconsecutive days—even though, officially, it is up to them to allocate their own
annual leave days. It is an unwritten code that employees take leave of absence insuch a way as not to inconvenience their colleagues and the organization. Althoughmany young Japanese want to take a longer vacation, they don’t want to be the first
employee to make such a request, only to be branded as “selfish.”
Even if a majority of members in an organization is dissatisfied with theexisting state or condition, it is far more difficult to change the status quo than tomake an original choice from possible alternatives. As Buchanan (1975) points out,
the “uniqueness of the status quo lies in the simple fact of its existence” (p. 78).
Under the status quo, an organization’s interest is known to its members. However,an individual who wants change will have to first find, and then communicate with,others who are dissatisfied with the status quo. Costs of obtaining information,negotiating, and making arrangements will be discouragingly high. In addition, it isoften a rational strategy not to reveal one’s true preference, so that one can be a“free rider” while others try to change the status quo for everyone’s benefit. In theJapanese organizational environment, it is costly and risky to reveal one’s
dissatisfaction with the status quo and to try to find sympathizers. Such a revelation
may give others a chance to brand as “selfish” any person who opposes the known“common good” and disrupts the predictable order of interdependent relationships.
It seems more difficult to change the status quo in a Japanese organization than in
an American one, even when a majority of members want change.

25

3
Predictable Order in PublicSocial order is regarded as a public good or a good that is collectively consumed orjointly shared once it is provided. The economic theory of public goods tells us thatcollective-consumption goods and services, such as law and order, are notadequately provided by voluntary action among a large number of individuals.
Among large numbers, an individual has an incentive to be a “free rider” whomaximizes his or her well-being, refraining from contributing to the provision of apublic good and the sharing of its cost. In large-group settings, the individual tends
to think that his or her own behavior will have little effect on the behavior of others
and on the potential provision of a collective good. Then, social disorder as apublic “bad” will result, if there are not mechanisms, such as law and police, thatmake individuals consider the effects of their own behavior on others. Maintaining
predictable order in public, however, requires not only social systems or
institutional arrangements, but also shared values and beliefs, as well as informal
unwritten codes of conduct, to which individuals willingly conform. Such systems
and codes interact to make people feel accountable for their own behavior, tomaintain predictable order in public.

In Public or Seken
When a person behaves in public, his or her behavior is visible, open to thescrutiny of others, or “the people.” Such “others” or “people” are usually referred
to as “seken” in Japanese (“e” pronounced as in “sect”). The word seken usuallymeans: (1) the world, people generally, or the community as a whole; and (2) the
range of one’s association and acquaintance, or people outside one’s family—
including friends, colleagues, associates, neighbors, and acquaintances—that one
considers as a basis of comparison. Seken often implies reference to the lifestyle ofordinary people as well as moral and behavioral standards that are commonly
accepted in society. Type D Japanese are very concerned with how they are
different, or deviated, from their own seken in terms of its common lifestyle andworldly standards. I will refer to the first definition above as “large seken,” and thesecond as “small seken.”
Here are some examples of the usages of seken that are often found in daily
conversation:
Seken o sawagasu: lit., to disturb seken; this is used when one’s behavior or an
event is so deviated from seken’s standards that it creates a sensation.

26






Seken shirazu: lit., a person who does not know seken; this refers to an
inexperienced or naive person who has yet to learn how things are in the worldor in the ways of seken.
Seken nami: lit., being as ordinary as seken; this refers to the state or conditionof being ordinary, average, or common, as seken nami no seikatsu (ordinary,
average lifestyle or standard of living).
Seken banare shita: lit., away or deviated from seken; this is used to refer to aperson whose attitudes, manners, or talents are deviated from or are far above
the commonly accepted standards of seken.
Seken tei: lit., one’s appearance before seken; this is used when one isconcerned about reputation, or about appearance before a group of people.

Conformity in Small Seken
Rational people living in an interdependent world compare themselves with
their own small seken to see if or how they are significantly different, or deviated,in terms of the lifestyle and standards commonly accepted in their seken. Type D
Japanese feel emotionally secure, or at least not isolated, when they confirm thatthey are not very different from their seken. Some may feel inferior, or at leastembarrassed, when they believe that their possessions, abilities, accomplishments,
etc., are substantially below the standards of their seken. Such people may also
believe that their seken looks down on them. Type D Japanese are more conscious
than most Americans are about what their seken thinks of them, of their families,
and of their choices—such as the things they wear, the cars they drive, the people
they associate with, as well as their education, occupation, marriage, and so on.
College-educated parents, for example, will normally oppose the marriage of theirdaughters to high-school graduates. Parents will say, among other things, that they
will be embarrassed in the eyes of their seken.
Japanese, living in their interdependent seken, are expected to do as otherpeople do—following rules for greeting, showing deference, socializing, giving
and receiving gifts, participating in community events and activities, putting out
garbage at the neighborhood collection spot, and so on. Afraid that substantial
deviation from such rules and standards may result in rejection by, or
psychological isolation from, their seken, Type D Japanese try to conform to suchinformal rules, as well as to the behavioral and moral standards of their seken. For
most Type D Japanese, the mere thought of such isolation or rejection will
normally be sufficient deterrent to being very different from their seken.
In the rural areas of old Japan, people who broke the rules of their village
were often ostracized, and so lived a miserable life in isolation. Villagers werehighly interdependent with each other for their survival, helping each otherespecially in irrigation and rice cultivation. (And the rice paid as rent was theprimary source of revenue for the feudal government.) Such village ostracism wascalled “mura hachibu,” or “eight-tenths ostracism”: there were two exceptional
occasions where villagers would still help such rule breakers—fire and death in

27

those households. Such ostracism is no longer practiced, but its “spirit” is still alive
even in the urban “villages” or seken of contemporary Japan. Modern
nonconformists may have to endure rejection, discrimination, psychologicalpressure, cold treatment, or indifference by the seken. At school, modern “murahachibu” manifests itself as the collective bullying of a nonconforming child by hisor her peers.
The Japanese urban community has “voluntary” neighborhood associations
run by residents. These associations are known as chounaikai or jichikai, to mostJapanese an integral part of their small seken. Even in large cities, most households
are members of such associations, and they cooperate and help each other in avariety of activities—including the management of garbage collection spots,
dissemination of public-service information, fire and crime prevention, local
festivals, and funeral services customarily held at households of deceased persons.
Many chounaikai are small enough for each household to know almost every otherhousehold in its neighborhood—except for short-term residents living inapartments.
In 1940, before the Pearl Harbor attack, neighborhood associations or groups
known as tonarigumi were made mandatory and used as semi-official arms of thegovernment. In post-war Japan, chounaikai is, in theory, a voluntary association;
but in practice, it is difficult for anyone to be an informed resident and a goodneighbor in the community if he or she is not a member of the association.
Administrative branches of local governments in Japan depend on chounaikai’s
cooperation for providing some of their services—including garbage collection,dissemination of public information, fire and crime prevention, and delivery ofmunicipal news letters and forms of the national census. For example, garbage iscollected not at each household, but at a collection spot designated and managed byeach neighborhood association. An unknowing nonmember can easily irritate his or
her neighbors by putting out garbage without observing a rule and without
contributing anything (such as time and membership dues). Chounaikai also
cooperates with the local administration to disseminate public information. The
association regularly receives a notice for circulation, called “kairanban,” from oneof the various offices of the local administration, and then asks each household topass it door-to-door.
The neighborhood association has been sustained not only by tradition andgovernment policy, but also by the residents’ awareness of its usefulness. The
existence of chounaikai reflects the Japanese acknowledgment that one must
depend on others to satisfy even basic needs, and that the individual is affected byothers’ choices external to his or her control. In densely populated neighborhoods,
for example, an amenity like a quite evening at home cannot be enjoyed without
cooperation among neighbors. They depend on each other to refrain from playing astereo loud or from letting their children practice piano in the evening. Chounaikai
also exists as seken in the minds of residents, and it helps them to become
accountable for the behavior of their own that may affect others in the community.

28

Orderliness in Large Seken
People in large seken are not familiar with each other. When Japanese areamong fellow strangers, they are ordinarily far less interdependent with each otherthan they are with their relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors, or acquaintances.
In the previous chapters, I explained that Japanese are more likely to treat others
differently than Americans are, depending on who and what those others are.
Differences in age, gender, and rank are especially important to Type D Japanese.
However, such differences are often irrelevant or less relevant in guiding behavior
in large seken. Japanese strangers in public are often regarded as “equals,” withequal opportunity, rights and obligations. When competing for scarce goods orservices in the public domain, such as seats in a crowded bus or train, moststrangers, young or old, are basically equal, following the rule of “First come, firstserved.”A crowd of strangers in large seken is also seen by the individual as part ofhis or her own environment, which he should be respectfully indifferent to and stay
remote from. The passenger in the commuting train, for example, pretends that
other passengers are part of his own environment, and not persons whom he may
casually exchange a few words with, or even smile to. In such an environment, theindividual is expected to refrain from public display of sentiment, or attracting theattention of others—not to mention making a scene. The individual should not
disturb an environment made up of anonymous people. Chikan, or train gropers,
take advantage of this psychology to touch young women in the jam-packed trains.
Many female victims try to move away, or they just bear such molestation silently
because they don’t want to make a scene.
Foreign visitors from the West often point out that Japanese are notconsiderate of others in public, and that there is no social etiquette comparable tothat found in the West, such as holding the door for someone immediately behind,or saying “excuse me” when touching someone accidentally in a busy street.
Against such criticisms, one may say that social etiquette and propriety in public
are not universal. Some conduct perceived as “improper” by Westerners isnormally accepted by Japanese, and visa versa. Some people in densely-populated
urban areas are, by the standards of each culture, less civil and/or less friendly
towards strangers. Japan is no exception. However, it seems that the difference
between one’s behavior in small seken and in large is greater among Japanese than
it is among Americans. Since individual Japanese are perceived by Westerners to
be polite and courteous in face-to-face encounters, the different behavior toward
fellow strangers—often characterized as “indifferent” or “inconsiderate”—seems
striking to some Westerners. Still, it can be said that Japanese, in public or in large
seken, are comparatively civil and behave in a predictable and orderly manner.
Civility—however superficial—is still prevalent in contemporary Japan.
There are many socio-economic and cultural factors to consider to explain theprevalence of civility in Japan, but one such factor is the Japanese acknowledgmentof interdependence as a normal or unavoidable state of the world. The Japanese29

youth, for example, is expected to grow from dependence to interdependence,
while the American youth often struggles from dependence to independence in aworld that has become increasingly interdependent. This difference seems to have asignificant implication. When individuals feel social pressure to become
independent, and believe they should exercise control over their own fate andenvironment, they may feel insecure and become frustrated in their attempt tobridge the gap between their belief and the reality of increasing interdependence.
People who value autonomy, Type B persons in particular, may become more
assertive, competitive, and/or aggressive when they try to regain control over theirenvironment—especially if that environment includes the people around them, withwhom they interact in private or in public. Type D Japanese, on the other hand, feellittle need to reconcile their belief with this reality: to them, interdependence is thevalue and the reality of their life.
People have psychological needs to be different from others, wishing to havetheir individuality recognized by others. At the same time, individuals need to be
accepted as members of their in-group or peers. American kids, for example, ask
their parents to buy those clothes and footwear advertised on TV in the back-tothe-school sales campaigns. Trying to avoid looking like a “geek,” these kids often
end up looking alike in their fashionable shirts, pants, and sneakers. Individuals try
to achieve a psychological balance between the needs to be distinct and to be
similar. Japanese often try to achieve this balance by distinguishing the settings inwhich to be different and by behaving in a group where they feel secure enough toshow off their difference to the public.
Polite, reserved, and distant—this is the stereotypical image of the Japanese
held by many Westerners. Some visiting Westerners are surprised to discover
Japanese ostentatiously performing in public—on silly TV game shows, atcompany parties, at karaoke bars, (previously, on the floors of disco clubs) or on
picnic blankets under the cherry trees in April. Men and women sing and dance.
Some enjoy a narcissistic display of their personalities, and others are “coerced” toperform. Such showy display is accepted and even expected at a proper time,
place, and occasion; it is a ritual to help release tension and strain, sharing
merriment and silliness, thus enhancing a sense of connectedness. These are
moments of relief (or nightmares to some people) before returning to more formal
and serious aspects of life, where Japanese should suppress their desire to stand out
or to be conspicuous among colleagues, acquaintances, and strangers.

30

4Dealing with Uncertainty

People seem to deal or cope with uncertainty in different manners. Some people,
like Type B individuals, want to exercise as much control as possible overuncertain situations and unknown people or things. They try to reduce or cope withuncertainty by obtaining information through open inquiry, forecasting the future,
forming strategies and contingency plans, negotiating, competing, and bargaining.
When dealing with uncertainty, many Japanese distinguish interdependent
relationships among themselves from those of the world that is external to them.
Japanese tend to look at the uncertain external world—whether human or natural—as something dynamic and uncontrollable, and they think it is most often better toreact or adapt to reality than to try to control it. In their interdependent
relationships, however, many Japanese try to deal with uncertainty by relying, asmuch as possible, on their shared rituals, customs, and tradition—instead ofresorting to open inquiry, discussion, negotiation, or competition.

Unknown Preferences
In formal or unfamiliar settings, Japanese often hesitate to do something theywant to do and would prefer to do, even when someone else has made thesuggestion or invited them to do it (this reservation or hesitation is known as
enryo). An American host, for example, may see his Japanese guests hesitate andfail to say anything when he asks, “Would you care for something to drink?” In thefirst place, the guests are not used to such a question, asking directly about theirpreferences. It is considered improper to openly express one’s preferences amongpeople who are not familiar with each other. Moreover, expressing preferences will
have consequences. The guests may feel that answering “yes” would put them in asituation where they have to make a choice about what to drink. What if the hostdoes not have what they ask for? If they were the host, they would be embarrassed.
The guests would feel more comfortable if the host were to serve tea or something
without asking them.
In a group setting, such hesitation or self-constraint also occurs when several
acquaintances or colleagues decide on, say, which restaurant to visit for lunch.
Japanese individuals hesitate to directly express their own preferences when thepreferences of others in the same group are not known. They know that if someone
in their group expresses his or her preference directly, others will feel obliged toaccommodate that preference. Type D Japanese do not want others to think thatthey are selfish or inconsiderate of others’ wants or needs. A rational strategy in31such a case would be to sound out others’ preferences, not by asking, “Where
would you like to go?,” but by making a suggestion like, “The tempura I ate at suchand such a restaurant was tasty.”
Japanese are often expected to do something quite the opposite of reservationor hesitation; that is, to take the initiative to do something even when they are notopenly told or requested to (this initiation by presumption is known as sasshi).
Such reservation and initiation are often two sides of the same coin. For example, aJapanese host serves tea or coffee (cold drinks in summer) without asking his or
her guest, “Nanika onomini narimasenka (Would you care for something todrink?).” This is because the host knows the guest would say, “Douzo okamainaku(lit., Please don’t bother)” if the guest were asked such a question. In offices where
institutional ambiguity exists, Japanese workers are often expected to carry outtasks, or even to find or create them, without a specific request from their superiors
or senior colleagues.
Foreign guests who have been invited to visit Japan often feel overwhelmedby the many receptions and the detailed schedule prepared by a well-meaning
Japanese host who has not asked for their preferences. When Japanese want toshow good will toward someone with whom they hope to develop a friendship or
an interdependent relationship, they often engage in preemptive giving. Japanese
hosts, for example, lavishly entertain and give expensive gifts to guests whom theymeet for the first time. They may do a favor for their guests even when it is not
requested. Japanese hosts assume that it is not polite to directly ask their foreign
guests about it, and that such a favor will be appreciated.

Foreign Strangers
Those strangers who are easily (sometimes falsely) identified as nonJapanese by their appearance, are treated differently from Japanese strangers. A
majority of Japanese, excluding those who want to practice speaking English, shy
away from Western strangers. They feel uneasy about dealing with those“inscrutable” and “unpredictable” foreigners, who are not expected to act
according to the Japanese cultural code of communication and conduct. A large
number of older people have had mixed emotions of admiration, awe, and fear
toward white Caucasians, who are usually larger in stature and have, in modern
history, represented economic prosperity, superior technology, and military power.
In addition, Japanese don’t want to be embarrassed in public by being seen as
unable to communicate with foreigners. Ordinary Japanese in Japan, for example,
would never ask foreigners on the street for directions, as Americans do in the
U.S., where they cannot at first glance distinguish foreigners.
Still, there are many other Japanese who treat foreigners, especially
Westerners, with much curiosity and hospitality, as if the visitors were their own
invited guests or celebrities. Most Japanese are generally lenient towards foreigners
who don’t follow Japanese etiquette and customs if they can speak little or no
Japanese. However, the higher their level of oral proficiency in Japanese, the more

32

they are expected to understand and participate in the Japanese culture. Some
Westerners hold to the myth that, as their Japanese improves, Japanese people
become less friendly, hospitable, or interested. Those Westerners do not seem tounderstand that, as they become proficient in Japanese, they should also behave inculturally correct ways, and that they are less likely to receive preferential
treatment. It is essential to keep in mind that the speaking of Japanese is theperforming of Japanese culture. It often happens that, from their short stays inJapan, some Western visitors incorrectly generalize about how Japanesecommunicate and interact with each other. Such visitors don’t realize that they
have been treated as okyakusama, or visiting guests, who are not expected tofollow the dictum, “When in Japan, do as the Japanese do.” And many othervisitors take advantage of the freedom of being a foreigner, a freedom from theirown social rules that they cannot enjoy back in their own country.

Unfamiliar Surroundings and Situations
Most Japanese are not committed to any religious doctrines or ideologies thatclaim to explain the origin of the universe and guide people into the eternal future.
Most Japanese do not believe in any absolute entity that supposedly created, and isin charge of, everything in this universe. To them, the universe is dynamic anduncertain; this world is almost as uncertain as the other world after death (most old
religious establishments in Japan are of little help in coping with uncertainty inboth of these worlds). When Japanese face unfamiliar situations or foreign affairs,
they take a wait-and-see attitude, and then try to work things out by trial and error,
hopefully making incremental improvements. When dealing with uncertain
situations, most Japanese are not great chess players, supposed to anticipate thefuture and plan alternative strategies. Type D Japanese need to know what others
have in mind before deciding on their own position and their plan to react.
Since each uncertain situation or circumstance may be different or unique,Japanese do not like to be bound by a policy or principle that applies equally to allcases of a given event, or by detailed contracts that attempt to anticipate all
possible circumstances. In fact, phrases like “step by step (suteppu bai suteppu inJapanese)” and “case by case (keisu bai keisu)” are often heard in Japanesenegotiations. This attitude is also reflected in Japanese business contracts. Japanesecompanies prefer a business contract that is general and vague in nature; they also
want to re-negotiate a contract if the circumstances under which it was originally
signed change substantially. Such companies stress the spirit of a contract morethan its letter, reflecting a business relationship based on trust.
Another way in which Type D Japanese face uncertainty is sharing fear, risk,
and/or responsibility among interdependent individuals. This posture or strategy istypified by a frequently-cited popular saying, “Akashingou min’nade watareba
kowakunai (We wouldn’t be afraid of crossing against the red traffic light if we all
did together).” Even when used for constructive purposes, this strategy, like anyother strategies, can bring positive or negative consequences. Japanese companies,

33

for example, have been using the ringi system and consensus decision making toshare risk and responsibility among management and staff. Once a decision is
made, it is carried out effectively—or sometimes recklessly, as if no one were
responsible for its consequences. Another example of risk/fear sharing can be seen
when traveling overseas in tour groups organized by travel agencies. There is, ofcourse, nothing uniquely Japanese about this economical and safe way of visiting
foreign lands. However, many Japanese are more likely than Americans to become
audacious or irresponsible when in groups—although individually they might tend
to be rather inconspicuous and restrained.
There are two opposing views among students of Japanese regarding how
quick or slow the Japanese are to change or to adapt to new circumstances. Someargue that the Japanese are very slow to change because they are group-oriented
conformists, who emphasize consensus decision making based on past experiences
and precedents. Others refute this argument, pointing out how Japan has flexibly
adapted to enormous changes in its political and economic systems since the Meiji“revolution,” which dismantled the feudal system in the late 19th century.
These two views do not seem to contradict each other, because they focus on
different aspects of Japanese attitudes. Generally speaking, Japanese are flexible
and readily adapt to new circumstances brought about by the world that is external
to their interdependent relationships. But they are slow to change the very nature of
their interdependent relationships, or the rules of the game that govern thoserelationships. Japanese tend to accept new circumstances as unavoidable anduncontrollable when brought about by the external forces—such as typhoons, orthe “Black Ships” of Commodore Perry. Japanese are likely to react and adapt to a
new reality rather than try to change or control it. Such external environments,
however, represent uncertainty, unpredictability, and insecurity, which theJapanese want to minimize. To compensate for such uncertainty, Japanese seek
security, stability, continuity, and comfort in their interdependent relationships—as
they do from family, friends, colleagues, political factions, business affiliations,and so on.
Japanese interdependent relationships are by no means immune to change.
The restructuring of businesses in the aftermath of the burst “bubble” economy has
been changing intra- and inter-firm relationships. A growing number of women are
demanding re-definition of the roles they play in society. A younger generation ofJapanese, raised in an affluent Japan, value autonomy to a greater degree andinterdependence to a smaller degree. However slow they may be, Japanese will
adapt to the new realities of their interdependent relationships.

34PART TWO
Cases ofRational Japanese Behavior

35

5
Learning JapaneseCase 1. Classroom Manners
Main Characters:Students in a beginning Japanese class at a U.S. university.
Mr. Osamu Yamada, from Japan, a fifty-four-year-old professor of Japanese
literature, visiting the U.S. university through a faculty exchange program.
This is his first time to teach Japanese in the U.S.

This is the third meeting of JPN 102, Beginning Japanese. Professor Yamada has
given a short quiz. One of the students, who finishes the quiz early, stretches her
arm forward with the quiz sheet in her hand, suggesting that the professor come to
get it. After the quiz, Professor Yamada finds one student wearing a baseball cap
and drinking a soft drink, and another chewing gum while they are practicing some
expressions. While the professor is explaining grammar, one student has his feet ona chair nearby. At this point, Professor Yamada stops his lecture and tells the classthat some of the behaviors he observes would be considered disrespectful to the
instructor. Then, some students argue that these behaviors are not necessarily rude
or disrespectful, and are not uncommon in a classroom on a U.S. college campus.
They also point out that when they took JPN 101 last semester, their instructor, Ms.
Tanaka, did not say anything about such behaviors in the classroom. Ms. Tanaka isa native speaker of Japanese who has received an M.A. degree in linguistics froman American university. While this discussion goes on, one student hurriedly
leaves the classroom without saying a word.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.

What do you think of the students’ behaviors described above?
Why do you think Ms. Tanaka did not say anything about her students’ ehavior
in JPN 101? Do you think she does not consider such behavior disrespectful toan instructor?

Analysis
Proper manners and etiquette differ across cultures, and change over time. In
contemporary Japan, the classroom (or kyoushitsu, which literally means “the room

36

for teaching”) still represents a formal setting, where learners should show respect
to the individual whose role is to teach, and who tends to be older. The behaviors
described in this case would be regarded as bad manners in Japan today. This does
not mean, of course, that all Japanese students behave in a respectful manner: there
is always a gap between the expected norm and the reality, especially in large
group settings, which will increase the degree of uncertainty.
Ms. Tanaka would agree that some of the students’ behaviors are considereddisrespectful to instructors in Japan. One difference between Ms. Tanaka and Mr.
Yamada is that the former is much more familiar with how American students
behave in the classroom. She has probably become accustomed to their occasional
eating and drinking during class. In comparison, Mr. Yamada, an older, male
Japanese professor, expects the greater degree of deference shown by his students
in Japan.
Another possible difference between the two instructors might lie in the ways
they look at cultural proficiency. Some instructors of Japanese in the U.S. let theirstudents behave the way they “normally” do in other classes, as long as their
behavior does not interfere with instruction or with other students’ learning andpractice. Those instructors are more concerned with improving students’ linguistic
skills than with making them observe the Japanese code of conduct. After all, they
are not in Japan Other instructors think that a foreign language class should be
different from classes in other disciplines, which might use a lecture format. They
believe it is essential to foreign language instruction that students not only
understand, but also practice, the target culture.
As learners’ oral proficiency levels improve, they are expected by Japanese
to have a corresponding proficiency in Japanese culture and to behave accordingly.
Achieving a level of oral proficiency in Japanese might do more harm than good if
it is not accompanied by an equivalent competency in Japanese culture. Those
instructors who emphasize cultural proficiency believe they should simulate, asmuch as possible, the cultural environment of Japan in the classroom. If Professor
Yamada had had much experience teaching in American school environments,
during the first class he might have explained the significance of cultural
proficiency and specified the rules to observe in his class.
Professor Yamada is fully aware that many young Japanese today are unable
to use the honorific language properly, and that some students in a huge lecture hallignore a boring lecture, constantly whispering, or even sleeping. However, once
they are employed by Japanese companies, those young people have to go throughtraining to speak and behave properly in the Japanese business environment. To
most American students, the Japanese language class will be the only opportunity
to practice Japanese culture. It is up to students whether they will choose, in the
future, to observe Japanese culture in accordance with their language proficiency
level. But Professor Yamada seems to believe that it is his responsibility to let
students know what older Japanese regard as proper manners.
I recommend that the following manners be observed in the Japanese class:37



Turn in a completed exam or homework assignment preferably holding it withboth hands, and with the front page turned so that that the instructor can easily
read it. If you have difficulty walking toward your instructor in a crowded
classroom, at least stand up and show that you are trying to.

Stop eating and drinking when the class starts. Chewing gum, when it is done
discreetly, might not be a problem in a large lecture class, but it is notrecommended in any foreign language class that requires speaking practice.

Don’t put your feet or legs on a chair nearby or on the top of a desk.



Take off your hat or cap. Compare sitting in a classroom to visiting a church, ora sacred shrine or landmark. Incidentally, the Japanese equivalents for“Christian church” (kyou-kai) and “classroom” (kyou-shitsu) use the samekanji (Chinese character), kyou, which means “teaching” or “religion.”Tell your instructor in advance when you have to leave the classroom early.

38

Case 2. Arigatou or Thank you?
Main Characters:

Laura Johnson, an eighteen-year-old freshman who studied Japanese in highschool for four semesters. She has been placed in JPN 102, Beginning
Japanese, which is a sequel to JPN 101.
Professor Hiroshi Noguchi, an instructor of Japanese at a U.S. college.

Laura came to the Japanese class five minutes late. As soon as she sat down,
Professor Noguchi came to her seat and gave her a handout. Laura said, “Doumoarigatou,” to mean “thank you.” To her surprise, she was told by the professor thatthe phrase was not appropriate. Laura was puzzled. She remembered that“arigatou” and “arigatou gozaimasu” were translated in her high school Japanese
textbook as “thank you” and “thank you very much,” respectively. She also
remembered that “doumo” would make “arigatou” a little politer. To Laura,“doumo arigatou” seemed most appropriate on this occasion.
Later in the class, the students learned and practiced an expression“Otomodachi desuka (Is he/she your friend? or, Are you his/her friend?).” Lauraalready knew the expression. She asked Professor Noguchi this question, referring
to a student sitting next to her. The professor hesitated a moment to answer thequestion, and then somewhat reluctantly said, “Iie (No).” But he explained in
English that he knows the student well, and that he is happy to have good students
like him in his class. His explanation was interrupted by the bell.
Laura is the only student in this class who waived JPN 101. All the otherstudents took JPN 101 from Professor Noguchi. From her classmates she heard
good things about the instructor, including that he had held a party the previous
semester for all his students. It seems to Laura that the professor has developed
good rapport with his students. Although she finds the class enjoyable, and the
instructor kind and gentle, Laura feels a remoteness of some sort in his formalmanner. She also wonders why the professor does not regard his students asfriends.
Questions to Consider
1.

2.

Do you think the reason “arigatou” or “doumo arigatou” is not polite enough toexpress her gratitude is because, as a new student, Laura lacks the familiarity
the other students have with Professor Noguchi?
Why do you think Professor Noguchi said “no” when Laura referred to a
student and asked, “Otomodachi desuka”?

39

Analysis
One of the most common mistakes learners of Japanese make is the use of“arigatou” to thank meuenohito, or people who are older and/or higher in status.
“Arigatou” is most appropriately used when thanking persons who are younger
and/or lower in status, such as children, as well as family members, friends, or
acquaintances of equal status. Students should not say “arigatou” to their teachers.
When expressing gratitude to meuenohito, adding “doumo” to “arigatou” makes
little difference, unless it is followed by “gozaimasu.” Since “arigatou” and“arigatou gozaimasu” are usually translated in Japanese language textbooks as“thank you” and “thank you very much,” respectively, many students tend to thinkthat “arigatou” is appropriate for most occasions. Laura should have said to theprofessor, “arigatou gozaimasu,” which is most appropriate when thanking
meuenohito such as one’s teachers, business clients, and workplace superiors.
Laura simply could have said “doumo,” without “arigatou,” to adequately
express her gratitude to the professor. “Doumo,” which by itself means “very” or“very much,” is used to emphasize either “arigatou” or “sumimasen (lit., I’msorry),” but adding “doumo” to either word hardly changes the level of formality orpoliteness of speech. When it stands alone, “doumo” is an abbreviation for either“doumo arigatou” or “doumo sumimasen.” This “sumimasen (I’m sorry for yourtrouble or thank you)” is used as a polite expression of gratitude, although it is not
as formal as “arigatou gozaimasu.” Therefore, when “doumo” is used alone, it canmean “doumo sumimasen,” which could be appropriately used to thank the
professor in this case. The following examples will illustrate the difference
between “arigatou” and “doumo.”
1.

2.

A secretary has made photo copies for her superior.
Superior: Arigatou.
Secretary: (makes a slight bow without saying anything).
You want to thank an adult stranger who has shown you directions.
You:
Doumo (or doumo sumimasen).
Stranger: (usually says nothing).

Although Japanese become less formal as they get to know each other better,they are still careful to observe an appropriate level of formality that depends onwhom they interact with and what settings they are in. Professor Noguchi seems tobelieve he should maintain a certain degree of formality in his Japanese class. This
will probably be his way of showing his students a proper manner to interact withteachers and other meuenohito. Nevertheless, Professor Noguchi can be a “friend”
of his students in the English sense of the word. But the professor cannot be their“tomodachi.” The Japanese word “tomodachi” means a friend with whom one has ahorizontal or equal interdependent relationship. The Japanese instructor cannot be,
by definition, a “tomodachi” of his students, because of the acknowledged
difference in role and status between students and teachers. Professor Noguchi
realized that Laura used “tomodachi” in the English sense, but he could not answer

40

in the affirmative because it would have been culturally incorrect. He momentarily
hesitated to answer the question because it made him feel awkward to answer, infront of other students, “Iie (No, he’s not my friend).”
The following examples are some other casual-familiar level phrases which
students should avoid when talking to their instructors:
Casual/familiar

Appropriate

1. Un (Yes).
2. Wakatta (I understand).
3. Iiyo (That’s fine).
4. Gomen’ne (I’m sorry).
5. Chigau (That’s incorrect or different).
6. Honto (True. Really?)
7. Sou (That’s right).
8. Chottto mattte (Wait a second).

Hai.
Wakarimashita.
Iidesu.
Sumimasen.
Chigaimasu.
Hontou desu (ka).
Sou desu.
Chotto matte kudasai.
Shou shou omachi kudasai.
Mou ichido onegai shimasu.

9. Mou ichido (Say it again).

41

Case 3. Contact and Connection
Main Characters:Professor Kayoko Matano, who teaches Japanese at a U.S. university.
Bill Parker, a senior student majoring in Japanese and minoring in English. He
took three Japanese courses from Professor Matano.

Bill wants to go to Japan after he graduates. He has heard from his friends thatmany Americans teach English—regardless of their educational qualifications—atprivate language schools in Japan and that they earn more than enough money to
pay for living and travel expenses. But he has read somewhere that those good days
are over in the post-“bubble” economy. It no longer seems as easy as it was towork legally at a reputable language school. Bill has also learned that he will haveto find an employer who will apply for a proper visa for him before going to Japan.
One day Bill drops by Professor Matano’s office during her office hours. He
explains the situation and asks her to suggest a few language schools to contact.
Bill is an amicable, polite student with good academic standing. His enthusiasm
impresses the professor. She tells Bill that one of her old friends in Japan has an
uncle who runs a language school in Osaka, and promises to ask the friend toinquire of her uncle if there is a teaching position available.
Four weeks later, Bill receives good news from Professor Matano. Herfriend’s uncle is willing to hire Bill for one year. Bill is pleased, and immediately
contacts the school by himself to make necessary arrangements. Everything goessmoothly, and Bill is to leave for Japan in early July.
Bill graduates in May. One month later Professor Matano receives a phone
call from her friend in Japan, who says that her uncle got a letter from Bill
expressing his regret that he would not be able to come. Professor Matano is very
upset and disappointed; she even feels “betrayed.”
About two months later, she gets a phone call from Bill, who asks her towrite a letter of recommendation to a graduate school to which he is applying foradmission.
Questions to Consider
1.

2.

Why do you think Professor Matano was more than upset when she learned
that Bill was not going to Japan? What seems to have been the logic behindBill’s failure to inform the professor of his decision as soon as possible?
What should Bill have done to avoid this situation?

42

Analysis
In his mind, Bill made a rational choice between going to graduate school orworking temporarily in Japan. After he sought information from Professor Matanoand got assistance from her, Bill contacted the school by himself and madenecessary arrangements. The school offered the job and Bill accepted it: it was anagreement between Bill and the school. When he changed his mind, he
immediately notified the school of his decision. In his letter, Bill apologized to theschool for any inconvenience his decision might have caused. He had alreadythanked Professor Matano for her help before he graduated, and so he felt that heshould take care of the matter without bothering her any further.
Professor Matano was upset because Bill failed to consult her before he madehis final decision, or at least to inform her of his decision before notifying thelanguage school. In her mind, Bill’s choice affected not only the school, but her
friend in Japan and the friend’s uncle, as well as herself. She did Bill a favor byasking her friend to contact her uncle, Mr. Kobayashi, who runs the school. She isindebted to the friend for her help, and the friend to her uncle for helping her
friend. And Mr. Kobayashi’s decision to hire Bill affects the operation andpersonnel management of his school. Mr. Kobayashi decided to offer Bill a job,
without formally interviewing him in person, because he thought he could trust a
student recommended by a university professor, who was also a good friend of hisniece’s. Such a student, Mr. Kobayashi reasoned, would not let his professor down.
If this trial case were successful, Professor Matano thought, she might develop aninterdependent relationship with the language school. Such a relationship would
benefit not only her students who want to go to Japan, but also Mr. Kobayashi, who
could expect her assistance in selecting and securing reliable teachers of English.
Bill’s action frustrated this possible scenario, and caused her and her friend a lossof face.
Bill has every right to change his mind, but he should have explained it toProfessor Matano so that she could notify and apologize to her friend and Mr.
Kobayashi before Bill did. The last thing she wanted was to give them theimpression that she couldn’t care less once she introduced her student. Developing
and maintaining good contacts and connections is essential for Japanese toeffectively deal or work with others in their highly interdependent society. Bill’s
conduct by no means helped Professor Matano in this respect.
Postscript
When she received a phone call from Bill for the first time since his
graduation, Professor Matano had already seriously reflected on this unfortunate
incident and on Bill’s lack of cultural awareness. She had begun to think that thefault lay partly with her. She acknowledged that, like many other instructors ofJapanese, she had been preoccupied with improving students’ language
proficiency, but had neglected to develop their cultural competency. Although Bill
had taken courses like Japanese history and Japanese arts, he apparently had had

43little opportunity to learn the ways in which contemporary Japanese think,communicate, and interact with each other in their interdependent relationships.
This incident gave Professor Matano an opportunity to reconsider the roles thatcollege instructors of Japanese should play.

44

6
Living in Japan

Case 4. Close Encounters of the Gaijin Kind
Main Characters:Debbie Cole, a twenty-three-year-old Caucasian, participating in the JET(Japan Exchange and Teaching) Program sponsored by the Japanese
government. Debbie studied Japanese for four years at a university in the U.S.
and six months in Japan. She speaks Japanese well.
Amy Onoda, a friend of Debbie’s, visiting Japan for the first time. Amy is athird-generation Japanese-American who speaks only “survival” Japanese.

When Amy arrived at Narita International Airport, she found that some of theJapanese immigration and customs officers were just about as unfriendly andbureaucratic as their American counterparts. As she passed through the final gate,
Amy was very glad to spot Debbie waving to her among a crowd of Japanese. Twoof them took a train to downtown Tokyo and spent a few days there before going toa small town in Tochigi Prefecture, where Debbie was teaching English at a highschool.
Amy was fascinated with Tokyo, dazzled by both the foreign and the familiar.
She especially enjoyed walking into one fine shop after another. It was not likedriving to a shopping mall in the U.S., where one finds many franchise stores that
display the same merchandise. And she had never seen so many people walking sofast in a clean, bustling street—and in such an orderly fashion. By the end of her
first day in Tokyo, Amy had already had an interesting experience. When she hadgone to a restaurant with Debbie, the waitress had spoken to Amy, but not to
Debbie, even though it was Debbie, in her fluent Japanese, who had actuallyordered for Amy.
The two Americans left Tokyo for Debbie’s small town in Tochigi Prefecture.
It was a two-hour train ride. When their train stopped at a small station, an old lady
with her little grandson rushed in and looked for open seats. Several people werestanding in the car and every seat seemed to be occupied. When the old lady cameclose to Debbie, she stood up and offered her seat, saying “Douzo.” The old lady
looked a little surprised and hesitated for a moment. Then Amy repeated the sameword, which means “Please.” The old lady quickly responded, “Sumimasen (Thankyou),” and let her grandson take the seat. The little boy also looked a little

45

surprised, and whispered to his grandmother, “Gaijin (foreigner),” as he took
Debbie’s seat.
Debbie had obtained a Japanese driver’s license. She was able to lease an
economy car for almost nothing from a local dealership owned by one of the PTA
members of her school. It took a while to get used not only to this Japanese car,with its steering wheel on the right-hand side, but also to the Japanese traffic signs.
In this car, Debbie took Amy to Nikko, the most famous tourist spot in Tochigi.
The Toshogu Shrine in Nikko was full of visitors, including groups of high school
students on a field trip. A group of students approached Debbie and asked her, in
broken English, to pose with them for their group picture. One student said to
Debbie, “Sain, puriizu (Sign, please),” asking her to write her name on a piece of
paper. This would be for the memory of his first close encounter with gaijin. Other
members of his group followed suit, asking her for her “autograph.”
On their way back to Debbie’s apartment from the day’s trip to Nikko, they
were stopped by a police officer for a minor traffic violation. As soon as the officer
saw Debbie behind the wheel, and Amy sitting next to her, he said to Amy,
“Doushite otakuga unten shinaino (Why aren’t you behind the wheel?).” Unable tounderstand what the officer said, Amy started talking in English, while Debbie
asked him, in Japanese, what seemed to be the problem. Apparently confused, theofficer let them go without issuing any ticket.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.

Why did some Japanese interact differently with Amy and with Debbie?
Do you think Amy and Debbie had the above-mentioned experiences justbecause they happened to meet those Japanese who rarely see foreigners face
to face?

Analysis
Gaijin is a colloquial abbreviation of “gaikokujin” and means “a person who
is from another country.” However, the term gaijin used in informal speech usuallyrefers to a person who is identified by appearance as “non-Japanese,” most often a
Caucasian. Japanese tourists visiting the U.S. often refer to Americans as gaijin,even though those Japanese are themselves gaijin in a foreign land.
Today, for the first time in Japanese history, a large number of foreigners
visit, live, and work in Japan, and millions of Japanese travel abroad. The Japanesemarket is flooded by foreign products and popular culture, especially American.
Still, even today, a majority of Japanese have little or no personal contact withforeigners, and most don’t have any non-Japanese friends with whom they arewilling to discuss personal matters or in whom they can confide. Because ofJapan’s historical isolation and cultural-language differences, most Japanese
simply don’t know how to communicate and interact with gaijin, who are believed
to exist outside the realm of Japanese predictable order.

46

To be Japanese—in the mind of Japanese—one must meet at least three
conditions: look Japanese, speak Japanese, and act Japanese. Obviously,
appearance is the first thing that Japanese observe when identifying foreigners,
especially Westerners. Debbie Cole is no doubt a gaijin in the eyes of Japanese; but
Amy Onoda looked Japanese to the waitress in Tokyo, to the old lady in the train,
and to the police officer who stopped Debbie’s car. Amy was assumed to speak
Japanese, while Debbie was not. Incorrect assumptions confused and embarrassed
the old lady and the police officer.
Foreigners are a familiar “sight” to people in big cities, who are better
prepared to look indifferent, instead of watching gaijin with conspicuous curiosity.
This does not mean, however, that city folks are better able to communicate andinteract with foreigners. It really depends on individuals—on their personality as
well as on their language skills and cross-cultural awareness. In comparison toadults, kids are far less prepared to look indifferent, whether they live in big cities
or in small towns: they show natural curiosity when they see someone who looks
quite different from Japanese.
Throughout their life most Japanese do not have an opportunity to learn how
to treat or communicate with foreigners—not from their parents, not from theirteachers, and not from their colleagues. The Japanese cultural code of conduct is no
guide for them, either. Facing uncertainty with no proper guide, some Japanese shy
away from foreigners; some adventurous ones try their English on Westerners,
assuming that all of them speak English; and others treat gaijin as if they were theirinvited guests or celebrities. Still, there is an increasing number of Japanese whoare making friends with foreigners, as both sides are trying to minimize language
and cultural barriers.
A final note. When Debbie offered her seat to the old lady, she didn’t sit
down herself, but let her grandson take the seat. This is not uncommon in Japan.
Many Japanese parents and grandparents tend to “overprotect” their children or
grandchildren when they are among a crowd of strangers. It is rational for such
adults to put the well-being of their “helpless little dependents” before their own
and others’. You will rarely see young passengers offer their seats to the elderly ona bus or train. Instead, you will notice the sad reality that many elderly people arevery competitive in finding and occupying a seat. Strangers in public are, after all,“equals,” among whom scarce goods like open seats are allocated on a “first come,first served” basis.

47

Case 5. Your Japanese is Good!
Main Character:Amanda Harris is the forty-five-year-old wife of an American businessman.
She and her husband lived in Hong Kong for three years before he was
assigned to his company’s branch office in Tokyo.

After having lived in Hong Kong, a dazzling, bustling modern city in the Far East,
Mrs. Harris thought she was well prepared for her new life in Tokyo. She soon
found, however, that besides superficial similarities Japan is quite different from
Hong Kong, especially the people and their attitudes toward foreigners. She feltthat it was much easier to get acquainted and make friends with Chinese in Hong
Kong, who, she thought, were more open and straightforward than the Japanese.
Soon after she and her husband settled in an expensive but small (large byJapanese standards) Western-style apartment, Mrs. Harris had opportunities tomeet a group of foreign nationals, American and European. It didn’t take a minuteto find that they didn’t like living in Japan. Like Mrs. Harris, they were there notby their own choice. Every time they got together, they complained about Japanand the Japanese: “Why can’t affluent Japanese do things the ways we do themback home? Houses are cramped, with no swimming pool. Everything is so shortand small. Ceilings are low; streets are narrow and chaotically winding; trains andbuses are always jam-packed. Everything is so expensive. We can’t even afford
maids, like we had in Thailand, the Philippines, and India. The Japanese aresuperficial, unfriendly, deceitful, ethnocentric, chauvinistic, exclusive, anddiscriminatory. And most of them can’t speak English....” Mrs. Harris decided tostay away from this group; she was determined to know Japan better, and to makefriends with Japanese.
Mrs. Harris started taking Japanese language and cooking classes. She also
volunteered to teach English for a small group of Japanese housewives. In thecooking class, every Japanese praised her Japanese, “Nihongo ga ojouzudesu ne(You speak Japanese well),” when she said simple phrases like, “Hajimemashite(Pleased to meet you).” Some classmates tried to use English and apologized fortheir poor English. Many repeatedly asked her the same questions, such as where
she was from, if she liked Japanese food, and if she had children. The conversation
usually went no further.
Mrs. Harris became well acquainted with several Japanese women of her age.
She enjoyed going out with them, having lunch, shopping, watching sumo,
attending concerts, visiting museums, and chatting at fancy coffee shops. These
women were always polite, considerate, sensitive, and circumspect; they were all
good listeners. Nevertheless, she knew she missed something in her association
with them. Conversations with them were enjoyable, but somewhat superficial.
They only rarely discussed social issues; nor did they talk about their marriage,

48

their personal concerns, or their problems. It seemed to Mrs. Harris that this had
little to do with the lack of language competency on either side. She heard from her
husband that his Japanese colleagues at the office seldom talked about their wives
and marriage; nor did they express their personal opinions on political, religious, orphilosophical issues. Mrs. Harris wondered if she could cultivate a more open andcandid friendship with Japanese.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.

Japanese tend to praise foreigners’ Japanese regardless of their proficiency
level. Is it just an empty compliment, or does it imply something else?
Japanese seem to feel they have to speak English to Westerners in Japan, andoften become embarrassed when they fail. Why do you think this is the case?
What seem to be the obstacles for Mrs. Harris in establishing open and candid
friendships with Japanese?

Analysis
When people of different cultures meet, which language to choose is not only
a personal or cultural matter, but also one of relative political and economic power.
The difference in attitude between many Americans and Japanese towards choiceof language is reflected, respectively, in the following statements one often hears:“They don’t speak English over there”; and “Nihongo ga ojouzudesu ne (YourJapanese is good).”
Many American tourists do not hesitate to talk to Japanese strangers and store
attendants in English, asking, “Do you speak English?”—which sometimes sounds
like a demand rather than a question. Japanese visitors in the U.S., on the other
hand, would not dare to speak in Japanese to Americans they don’t know. To many
Americans, English is part of an American culture and institution that should beuniversally emulated. It is the language for international business and diplomacy,
as well as for science and technology. To most Japanese, their language is only forJapanese who are born Japanese, look Japanese, and act Japanese. They don’t
normally expect Westerners to be proficient in Japanese—although they often see
some gaijin personalities speak fluent Japanese on TV. The concept, “They don’t
speak Japanese over there,” does not exist in the Japanese mind: English is thelanguage that Japanese are supposed to learn and use when communicating with
Americans.
“Nihongo ga ojouzudesu ne” is simply an expression of surprise, and is notmeant to be a statement evaluating or praising foreigner’s competency in theJapanese language. It is a compliment to a foreigner for making an effort to speak
Japanese. (If you meet a Japanese who never compliments you on your Japanese,he or she might be one of those demanding, professional language instructors.)
Some Westerners, who have stayed in Japan for many years and speak Japanesewell, get really tired of this compliment or surprise. Some of them have come to49

conclude that the Japanese believe foreigners will never master or truly appreciate
the language.
Most Japanese students study English for six years in high school. However,the English oral proficiency level of most senior high graduates is lower than theJapanese oral proficiency level of American college students who have studied
Japanese for only a few semesters in a good Japanese program. This poor
performance is by no means the fault of Japanese students. It is a total system
failure: almost everything is fundamentally wrong with the Japanese (public)
English education. Those who can speak English have learned at expensive private
language schools, have taken private lessons from native speakers of English, havestudied by themselves using audio tapes and CDs, and/or have studied abroad.
Many Japanese who cannot speak English really feel embarrassed when they are
spoken to by foreigners; they envy the foreigners’ courage and effort to speak
Japanese. “Nihongo ga ojouzudesu ne,” then, is a sincere compliment as well as asurprise.
Interdependent Japanese are circumspect, mindful of the possible
consequences of what they say about people around them. In social gatherings witha group of people who are not their intimate friends or relatives, many Japanese try
to bring up such topics as sports and entertainment, which everybody can discuss
without expressing their private or personal views. They try to avoid religious,
philosophical, and political topics, because these are considered private in nature—things most appropriately discussed only among close friends or relatives. Japaneseknow that every individual has significantly different views and opinions on thesesubjects. Many Japanese fear that open and candid discussion of such topics maylead to unnecessary argument or personal embarrassment, frustrating the purposeof a group gathering—experiencing connectedness and camaraderie. Unlike theyouth, mature Japanese adults are also expected to refrain from serious academic
discussions in social gatherings where acquaintances or colleagues meet.
Many Japanese would feel uneasy and be at a loss for what to say if someone
were to make a casual reference at a social gathering to his or her own personalmatters, concerns, or problems, such as the breaking-up of a relationship, a divorce,or a cancer treatment. Personal concerns and problems are most appropriately
discussed in private, with intimate friends and relatives.
Japanese can cultivate and maintain durable, trustful friendships, sharing
common interests and sentiments—without discussing social and political issues,and even without inquiring in detail into friends’ private or personal matters. Like
Americans, Japanese do share personal feelings and concerns candidly with theirfriends, but they are more selective and cautious about whom to confide in, andunder what settings. The language barrier will normally make it harder forforeigners to form friendships with Japanese. Ironically, however, cultivating
friendship may be much harder if foreigners tend to rely almost entirely on words.
Japanese are more suspicious of words, or what is verbally expressed; they are
more heedful of one’s attitude and sincerity, and rely more on nuance, indirectness,gut feeling, and non-verbal communication.
Postscript

50

Mrs. Harris eventually became acquainted with Mrs. Tsuchiya, who had spent
three years in Michigan when her husband had been assigned to his company’s
subsidiary plant near Detroit. The two women agreed to be conversation partners,
using English and Japanese alternately. One day, when they were alone at Mrs.
Harris’ place, chatting over a cup of coffee, Mrs. Harris told Mrs. Tsuchiya aboutsome of the difficulties and troubles she was experiencing in Japan. After listening
to her attentively, nodding silently, Mrs. Tsuchiya began to talk about the roughtime she had had in Michigan, her loneliness, her sense of isolation, and her
worries about her kids’ education—above all, her helplessness and guilt over theinability to function as a good mother and wife in that foreign environment. She
couldn’t even help her children do their homework in English, which wasdevastating to this good “education mother.”This exchange was magic. Both women felt much closer after that, and Mrs.
Harris knew that a new friendship was beginning to form.

51

Case 6. Curiosity and Hospitality
Main Character:

Sandra Tracey is a twenty-nine-year-old high school teacher from Michigan.
She teaches Spanish and coordinates the ESL (English as a Second Language)
program at her school in Michigan. Ms. Tracey has been invited by Shiga
Prefecture to teach English at local schools. She has studied beginning Japanesefor one year.

Her plane landed at Kansai International Airport, which is on a man-made island in
the Bay of Osaka. Ms. Tracey was cordially greeted at the airport by a Japaneseteacher of English and a staff member of the prefectural office. From there, it was a
two-hour train ride to Otsu City, the prefectural capital of Shiga-ken. Sandra wasbarely awake when she crawled into the small bed in her hotel room.
The next day was the start of a hectic few weeks marked by a series of formal
and informal receptions, and by sightseeing tours, as well as meetings withteachers, school board members, and government officials. The Japanese hosts had
everything arranged in minute detail, not only for those meetings and receptions,but also for everything else for Sandra—including lodging, transportation, andeven what she ate and drank. After formal receptions and meetings, Sandra’s
Japanese colleagues took her to restaurants for casual dining and drinking. Eventhen, they ordered every meal and drink for her and picked up the bills. Sandra wasat first excited with the gorgeous receptions and exotic food, as well as with all theattentions given to her, but after only a few days of this lavish hospitality she began
to wish that her Japanese hosts had consulted her before making choices andarrangements for her sake.
Sandra settled in at an apartment the Shiga Prefecture rented for her. Her
landlord, Mr. Ikeda, lived in a large wooden house with a small pond in its
beautiful traditional Japanese garden. He had a granddaughter who went to theschool where Ms. Tracey would teach English. He asked his granddaughter’sJapanese teacher to tell Ms. Tracey that he wanted to invite her to dinner. With all
the receptions held for her, Sandra had never been invited to a Japanese home, andshe had heard about Mr. Ikeda’s gorgeous house. She understood that many
Japanese are reluctant to invite gaijin to their cramped living quarters, often
referred to as “rabbit hutches.” She thought this would be a good opportunity toexperience Japanese home cooking and casual entertainment by a Japanese family.
Sandra was wrong. She was escorted instead to a large room in an elegant
Japanese restaurant. Ms. Tracey, or Toreishii-san, was introduced to Mr. Ikeda’s
relatives—his wife, his married children and their children—and to his friends aswell. On the tables were dozens of dishes of Japanese cuisine, including local
delicacies of fresh water fish caught in Lake Biwa. The Japanese hosts and guests
paid undivided attention to how Sandra used chopsticks and how she reacted to52Japanese cuisine every time she tried a new dish. Some of them looked reassured
by Sandra’s reactions. As they relaxed after a few rounds of drinking, some guests
started asking “usual” questions, such as: “What is your impression of Japan?”;“What do you think of Japanese customs and etiquette?”; and “How do you likeraw fish?” Then an elderly lady surprised her by asking, “Mada ohitori? (lit., Are
you still single?)” Trying to be polite, Sandra simply said “yes,” without
mentioning that she had got divorced a few years earlier. The elderly lady
continued, “You should get married soon so that your parents will stop worrying
about you.”
Questions to Consider
1.

2.
3.

Why did the Japanese hosts arrange everything without consulting Sandra? Do
you think that Japanese hospitality is based on the paternalistic attitude of“father knows best”?
Why do you think Mr. Ikeda invited Sandra to a restaurant and not to hishome?
Westerners are often asked both the “usual” questions and some too-personalquestions by Japanese whom they have just met for the first time. Why do you
think this is often the case?

AnalysisInterdependent Japanese are biased toward predictability in interacting withpeople. One way for them to reduce uncertainty is to behave according to the roles
they are expected to play, such as those of host toward guest. When a host has tomake arrangements for a series of meetings, luncheons, and dinners with different
people, he needs to plan everything ahead of time so that everyone can rely on eachother to welcome the guest in a properly predictable manner. The expected role of
the guest is then to appreciatively accept and participate in the host’s arrangements.
It will save time and possible confusion, or even embarrassment, if everything isarranged ahead of time. Japanese guests should hesitate to reveal their preferences,because such a revelation burdens the host, who is trying to make a variety ofarrangements to accommodate different preferences. Anticipating a guest’s
reservations or reluctance, a Japanese host will therefore not consult with that guest
about his or her preferences.
Consider the following hypothetical situation where a party of ten Type D
Japanese dine at a Western-style restaurant. The party is made up of an invited
guest and individuals who differ in age, status, and role. The guest will have to face
the awkward honor of ordering first. No one, especially an individual who is
younger and/or lower in status, will want to order something more gorgeous or
expensive than what is ordered by the guest or by those higher in status. The guest
thus tries to show modesty and reservation, giving the impression that he is nottaking advantage of the host’s hospitality. At the same time, the guest suspects that
others who want to play it safe may order the same thing he will order. To the53

guest, the benefit of individual choice is outweighed by the cost of decision making
and by worry over making a bad choice that may affect other people. The guest
might prefer to eat at a Japanese restaurant where the host orders the same set mealof several dishes for everyone, or where everyone shares a special order of several
dishes prepared for the whole party.
In the case of Ms. Stacey, the Japanese acted according to their expected roleas good hosts: they tried to please the guest and everybody else by avoiding
confusion and embarrassment. The hosts were especially careful to reduce
uncertainty, since they had to deal with an unknown, a guest who had come all theway from a foreign land. Detailed arrangements, they reasoned, would avoid
possible embarrassment for both the hosts and the guest.
Japanese entertain guests either at their “humble” home or at a restaurant,
depending on the occasion and whom they are entertaining. In addition to these two
factors, the number of guests is a significant determining factor, because mostJapanese houses are small and not designed to hold as large a party as is common
in the U.S. It is considered most appropriate to entertain at a fine restaurant guests
who are higher in status, such as important clients, or anyone special, like aninvited foreign visitor to whom the host wants to show his or her honor and respect.
On special occasions, such as houji (a Buddhist memorial service for the dead),many Japanese entertain even relatives such as aunts and uncles at a nicerestaurant.
Mr. Ikeda’s choice to entertain the guest at a restaurant was probably
motivated by two considerations. Most importantly, he wanted to show his respectand honor to Ms. Tracey, who was to be a foreign guest teacher at the school his
granddaughter attended. In addition, he probably wanted to impress his relatives
and friends by his association with a gaijin tenant and guest. It was probably anovel experience for his relatives and friends to meet and dine face to face with thisgaijin teacher.
There is a fundamental difference between Japanese and Americans in theassumptions they make when dealing with foreigners. Japanese assume they haveto make adjustments and cope with how to communicate and interact with gaijin,
while Americans expect anyone, when in America, to do as Americans do. The“usual” questions, which may annoy Western visitors, are part of a first screeningthat many Japanese unconsciously conduct when dealing with gaijin, unknowns
who represent something external to the Japanese world of interdependence.
Before getting to know each other as individuals, Japanese want to know first if
foreigners like Japan and things Japanese, and if and how they will try to learn andadjust to Japanese culture. Type D Japanese are very much concerned with what
other Japanese think of them as individuals. In dealing with a gaijin, however,many Japanese first want to know what he or she thinks of Japan and Japaneseculture—before wishing to know how the foreigner views them as individuals.
Questions such as, “Do you like grilled eels?” and “Have you ever eaten
nattou (fermented soybeans)?” represent Japanese curiosity about foreigners’
interest in things Japanese and about their willingness to try to adapt to Japaneseculture. If a foreigner says she likes nattou, the Japanese reaction will be54

amazement (there are many Japanese who don’t like this “smelly” food). On theother hand, if she doesn’t like nattou, it will help Japanese to confirm thestereotypical image of foreigners. It matters little whether she likes nattou or not.
What matters is if she has ever tried it; or that, by doing so, she has shown respect
to Japanese culture.
Ms. Tracey was surprised by the elderly lady’s abrupt, “personal” question
about whether she was married. To many Japanese, however, marital status is not
too personal a question to be asked by acquaintances, and even by those whom one
has just been introduced to. In a culture that emphasizes differential
interdependence, information about one’s age, gender, occupation, marital status,
family, and so on, is not considered too personal or private. The question, “Are you
married?,” is considered no more personal than the question, “Do you havebrothers and sisters?” Such information can be easily obtained anyway, fromsources other than the person himself or herself. Information about one’s marital
status is not very personal—not as personal as one’s religious faith or politicalbelief, which can be kept to oneself if one chooses. “Are you married?” is often
heard as part of an ordinary social conversation as people become acquainted. Suchinformation may later become useful in developing interdependent relationships.

55

Case 7. Bad Experiences
Main Characters:

Anonymous travelers, students, or expatriates who feel they have experienced
discrimination overseas.

A journalist has interviewed 145 tourists, students, or expatriates, and has
documented the accounts of their experiences in her book (its bibliographicalinformation is provided in the analysis section below). The following accounts arebrief summaries of some of the incidents reported in her book.










When Mr. A walked in the street, local kids often called out to him using aderogatory term or a racial slur. When he rode a bus or train, it often happened
that no one took a seat next to him.
When Mr. B went to a disco by himself, he was often denied admission.
Ms. C and two other ladies went to a restaurant that was almost empty. The
waiter obviously saw but ignored them. When Ms. C called the waiter, he said,“I’ll be with you.” The ladies waited ten minutes, fifteen minutes, but thewaiter never came to their table.
When Ms. C went to a fine shop, she was ignored by the female clerk. The
same clerk, however, gave a friendly smile as soon as she saw another customerof her own race.
Mr. D opened the door of a store and held the door open for someone coming
after him. Then a group of well-dressed, middle-aged ladies passed Mr. D in anarrogant fashion and entered the store without saying a word.
From his seat in a plane, Mr. E saw a cute little girl toddling around in theaisle. When he said “hello” to her, her mother scolded her, saying “Don’t playwith anyone of that race.”
Mr. F was waiting in the line of one of the cashiers in a supermarket. When Mr.
F’s turn came, the cashier let a customer behind him cut in and attended to her
first. Whenever this happened, Mr. F would say to himself, “Not again!”Miss G attended a school in a small town. Whenever she went out to town,
where she stood out because of her complexion and hair color, somebody
always watched her behavior. Back at the school later, her classmates often told
her things like, “You were walking with a boy along the street in town, weren’tyou?” She felt she had little privacy.

The above examples represent only a small number of the accounts reported
in the journalist’s book, and these incidents are not as serious or offensive as manyothers documented in it.

56

Questions to Consider
1.
2.

What do you think is the nationality of the people who had such badexperiences overseas?
Have you ever had similar experiences at home or overseas?

Analysis
All these incidents represent a small sample of what some Japanese tourists,
students, or expatriates have experienced overseas. They are from Ikuyo Satoh’sbook, Kaigaide Sabetsu Saretakoto Arimasuka (Have you ever been discriminatedagainst overseas?; Tokyo: Shufunotomo Sha, 1995). I have introduced the above
examples here in my book because some of them are similar to what many
foreigners complain they experience in Japan. Satoh writes that it is significant forJapanese to know what it is like to be discriminated against, and to consider theirown discrimination against fellow Japanese and non-Japanese (p. 7). I cannot agreewith her more.
Mr. A had bad experiences in Australia. In English-speaking nations,Japanese walking in the street are sometimes called “Jap,” “Chinaman,” or“Chink.” Many Westerners in Japan don’t like to be referred to as “gaijin,” which,as I explained in Case 3, means “a person who is from another country.” It is
important to note that gaijin is not a derogatory term. By calling Westerners“gaijin” or “gaijin-san” (san is an honorific suffix equivalent to Mr. or Ms.),
Japanese might show a lack of cross-cultural awareness or sensitivity, but notcontempt or hostility against Westerners.
Some Japanese will hesitate to sit next to a gaijin, even if every other seat istaken. This is primarily because they are afraid of being spoken to in foreign
languages. It would be embarrassing to be seen unable to communicate with gaijinin public. There are certainly some people who just don’t like to be so close to theunknown that is represented by those who are not expected to behave like
Japanese.
Mr. B was denied admission to a disco in New York. Ms. C felt unwelcomed
at a restaurant in Munich, Germany, and she was ignored by a white clerk at an
expensive shop in Beverly Hills, California. In Europe, many high-class hotels
presumably have a quota for Japanese guests, and expensive restaurants segregate
Japanese tourists in a section that is distant from good seats set aside for Western
guests. It is often explained that Japanese tourists are not welcomed because of
their “bad manners.” In other words, they don’t know how to dine and act
according to proper European manners. Similarly, some restaurants, night clubs,
and inns in Japan politely say, “No gaijin, please.” They want to avoid any possible
trouble with gaijin, who are not expected to know Japanese customs.
At a store in Great Britain, Mr. D was treated as if he were a doorman. This is
an interesting case. It is not part of Japanese etiquette to hold a door open forsomeone behind you in public places. To Japanese, public space is something

57“equally” shared by everyone—a space where each person is generally responsible
for his or her own well-being. Mr. D held the door open, following British
etiquette, and was mistreated by middle-aged white ladies.
Mr. E was aboard a plane bound for the U.S. when he heard a white woman
say to her little daughter, “Don’t play with the yellow.” Mr. F often experienced
this “nothing-out-of-the-ordinary” type of incident at supermarkets in the U.S. Miss
G’s feelings that she had little privacy occurred in a small town in France.
Prejudice prevails throughout the world of rational people; it doesn’t
discriminate against races, ethnic groups, or regions. Some Japanese consciously
discriminate against non-Japanese individuals, especially against other Asians andblack people; and many others are not fully aware that they do discriminate. Todaya great number of Japanese travel or live overseas, and many of them experience
the pain of being subjected to bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination. It is time—and always the right time—to turn attention to discrimination at home.

58

Case 8. A Host Family

Main Characters:Eric Peterson is a nineteen-year-old college student from Ohio, who has yet to
declare an academic major. Eric first became interested in Japan when Honda
Motor built a huge automobile plant in Marysville, Ohio, a small town east of
Columbus. He decided to travel to Japan during the summer and study Japanese
at a private language school. Through a non-profit organization, he has luckily
found a host family in Saitama Prefecture who will let him stay for threemonths.
Yuriko Mizuno, a thirty-nine-year-old housewife, who lives with her husband
in a medium-sized town in Saitama Prefecture. The couple has an eleven-yearold son. The Mizunos are a middle-class family.

Mrs. Mizuno had a friend, named Yokota-san, who attended an eikaiwa or English
conversation class at a private language school. Mrs. Yokota proudly told Mrs.
Mizuno that the Yokotas would soon have an American student, Eric, living withthem for three months. Mrs. Yokota was excited about the opportunity to use herEnglish, and hoped that this visit would have some educational effects on her
children.
Ten days after Eric’s arrival, Mrs. Yokota fractured a bone in her right arm
and found it hard to do household chores—especially cooking—with her arm in acast. Recalling that the Mizunos were also interested in becoming a host family,
Mrs. Yokota asked Mrs. Mizuno if she could look after Eric until her arm washealed. Mrs. Mizuno consulted with her husband, and then agreed to have Eric withthem. Mrs. Yokota offered to pay for living expenses for Eric, but Mr. and Mrs.
Mizuno politely declined her offer. They insisted that “hoomusutei” or “homestay”
should be volunteerism. Mrs. Yokota told Mrs. Mizuno about Eric, his family,
what kind of food he liked, his daily routine, how she treated him, and so on.
Eric moved to the Mizunos. Mrs. Mizuno hastily bought a new futon mattresslarge enough for him, and let him occupy kyakuma, or the guest room—the only
available room in their house (kyakuma is primarily for entertaining guests, not for
long-term occupancy). She also bought Eric a yukata (a cotton summer kimono),
which can be worn for comfort after a bath or at summer events such as the Bon
Festival (which honors the spirits of ancestors). Eric loved traveling. He suggested
some places he wanted to visit. Over the weekends, the Mizunos took him to manysightseeing spots.
Eric would get up at seven, take a shower, eat an American-style breakfast,
and attend Japanese classes in the morning. In the afternoon, he would give English
conversation lessons to several Japanese women whom Mrs. Yokota had
introduced to him. He was happy with this arrangement: he was well paid out of
their pocket. When he wasn’t teaching English, Eric would often hang around with

59

Japanese girl friends he had met at the language school. He often brought suchfriends to his room. He also talked for a long time with his friends over the phone,and made overseas calls at least once a week. Eric was expected to come home byseven thirty for dinner, but often came home late—although he would call Mrs.
Mizuno a few hours before the dinner time. Eric did not care for traditional
Japanese food, so Mrs. Mizuno cooked Western-style dishes for dinner almost
every day. When he came home, he always took a shower—even if late in theevening. The Mizunos bathed in the Japanese style at regular times. The Japanesesummer was very hot and humid, Eric complained. His room was air-conditioned
whenever he was in.
About seven weeks had passed since Eric first began to stay with the
Mizunos. Mrs. Yokota’s arm was now healed. However, Eric wanted to stay with
the Mizunos for the remaining five weeks of his stay in Japan, instead of moving
back to the Yokotas and making adjustments again. Before leaving for a weekend
trip with some Japanese friends, Eric asked Mrs. Mizuno if he could stay with herfamily. Mrs. Mizuno said she would consult with her husband and with Mrs.
Yokota.
When Eric returned from his trip, he was asked to come to the office of theassociation which coordinated homestay in that area. He was told that he should
move back to the Yokotas. It was explained to him that the Yokotas were his “real”
host family, and that his returning would be the right thing to do.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.

What do you think of the formal explanation given to Eric for the reason heshould move back to the Yokotas?
Why didn’t Mrs. Mizuno tell Eric in person that he should return to the
Yokotas?

Analysis
Many inexperienced host families in Japan have a tendency to regard theirprimary role as “looking after their foreign guests.” (When they look after highschool students, they often expect a letter from the students’ parents, expressing
gratitude and asking good care for their sons or daughters.) Such host families feelthey have to make as many adjustments and special arrangements as possible, sothat their guests will find their stay to have been not only comfortable andenjoyable, but also memorable. They often buy a new bed or futon mattress, newkimono, and other gifts. They try to find an English-speaking doctor if their guests
catch a cold. They even make substantial changes in their diet, such as serving beefor chicken every day, rather than fish and tofu. Obviously, such an arrangement
does not last long without causing strain or stress on the family, especially on thehousewife. Some foreign students or visitors truly appreciate their hosts’ efforts,
but others are not even aware that their hosts are making many adjustments to theirlifestyle. To some visitors, homestay is little more than an extremely cheap and60

convenient alternative to renting an apartment, which is not only very costly but
also procedurally complex for foreigners.
It seems that there are two major reasons for the Mizunos’ decision to send
Eric back to the Yokotas. First, it is very likely that Mrs. Mizuno felt stress, andthat the family wanted their normal life back. Seven weeks is too long a time forthem to endure cross-cultural differences under such conditions. An experienced
host family will tell its visitors in advance about house rules, and will respectforeigners’ privacy and autonomy, as long as they observe these rules, and to theextent that their stay will not excessively interfere with the family’s normal
lifestyle.
Mrs. Mizuno was a novice as a host mother, and she had anotherdisadvantage. She had been told by Mrs. Yokota what kind of food Eric liked, how
he spent the day, and how he had been looked after at the Yokotas for the first ten
days. Highly conscious of this precedent as a basis of comparison, Mrs. Mizuno
seems to have felt obliged to follow suit: she probably wanted to be favorablycompared with Mrs. Yokota as a host mother. As a result, the Mizunos ended up
making more adjustments than they felt comfortable with.
A second, equally significant, reason is provided by the formal explanation
given to Eric. Mrs. Mizuno was a pinch hitter, so to speak. Mrs. Yokota asked forher help only when she thought she could not look after Eric herself. Eric could
have been happy with just free room and board, without being looked after; but
Mrs. Yokota believed that it was her responsibility to look after him. Now that her
arm was healed, she wanted, and was expected, to fulfill her responsibility.
Besides, the Yokotas probably had made many plans for Eric and themselves.
Eric’s return to the Yokotas was a happy solution for both families.
When a conflict of interest or difference of opinion exists, Japanese are more
likely than Americans to use an intermediary rather than to settle face to face. Thisis an approach preferred by Type D Japanese, who want to maintain harmony
between interdependent persons. By using an “impartial” third party, Mrs. Mizuno
tried to give the impression that Eric’s returning to the Yokotas was something
recommended by the association, independent of her family’s preferences. The
Mizunos did not even reveal their preferences to Eric. Such an intermediary is
perceived as something that exists external to one’s interdependent relationships—
something that is beyond one’s control and influence. Therefore, the logic goes,interdependent Japanese should accept or adjust to any suggestions or
recommendations made by the intermediary.
To many foreign students, homestay is an attractive alternative to renting anapartment. However, it is important to keep in mind that most middle-class hostfamilies will usually end up making substantial financial sacrifices when they havean additional person in their households. Utilities such as water, gas, and electricity
cost much more in Japan than in the U.S. Most Japanese houses do not have central
heating and cooling systems, partly because of the high utility costs. Food is also a
lot more expensive in Japan than in the U.S. And in the Japanese household, it is
the role and responsibility of the housewife to make ends meet and to save every
penny, or rather yen.

61

Case 9. Living in a Small Seken
Main Character:Janet Cramer is a thirty-four-year-old editor for an English-language newspaperin Japan. She came to Japan eight months ago and taught English until she
found the editor’s job in Tokyo.

A few weeks after she had moved into her apartment, Janet was visited by her
friend, from whom she learned that her landlord had received a complaint from thechair of the jichikai (neighborhood association) about her disposal of garbage.
Accompanied by her friend, Janet soon paid a visit to the chair, introduced herself,
presented a small gift, and apologized for whatever inconvenience she had caused
to her neighbors. Then, her apology was matched by the chair, who said that it was
his fault to fail to explain the proper procedure. Sumimasen (I’m sorry).
Janet was advised by her friend to initiate aisatsu, or greetings, whenever she
saw her neighbors, saying “ohayou gozaimasu” in the morning and “kon’nichiwa”
in the afternoon. Her friend explained that such simple greetings, with a slight bow,would make a great difference toward a better relationship with people in her
neighborhood. Her friend was right. Soon Janet found her neighbors friendly andhelpful. They provided useful information about daily living, such as about nearby
discount stores, cleaning shops, beauty salons, and the post office, as well as about
how to discard large-sized trash and how to repel or kill bugs and insects. Whenexchanging greetings with her neighbors, however, Janet still found one thing odd:
their greetings were almost always followed by a brief reference to the weather. 1
In late spring, Janet was sneezing at home and in the workplace for several
days. Her boss recommended a doctor whose office was located relatively near
their workplace. Janet went to see the doctor and described the symptom. She
found the doctor neither very friendly nor sympathetic; he simply said that she
probably had hay fever. She was not satisfied with this diagnosis, because she had
never had allergic reactions to pollen before. Then the doctor asked her what she
was doing in Japan. When she presented her business card and mentioned the nameof her boss, the doctor suddenly looked and sounded very friendly to her. The
doctor then even volunteered to write a letter of introduction to an allergy specialist
at a university hospital.
One day, when Janet dropped by a supermarket on her way home from work,
one of her neighbors approached her and said that her next-door neighbor, Mrs.
Kobayashi, had been hospitalized for acute appendicitis. Mrs. Kobayashi was amost helpful and kind neighbor to Janet. She had given Janet her used furniture,1

Phrases such as “Ii tenki desune (A nice day.) ”and “Atsui desune (Hot, isn’t it?)” are more orless equivalent to the English expression “How are you?” as a greeting. The Japanese translation of“How are you?,” “Ogenki desuka,” is not used as a daily greeting; it is closer to “How have you
been?”

62

household utensils, and many other items—including an omiyage (a souvenir gift)
she had brought back from her last trip to Kyoto. The next day Janet told acolleague about Mrs. Kobayashi and asked him about the etiquette of visiting apatient at the hospital. She was surprised to hear that she should put a 5,000-yen
bill in a special envelope and give it either to the patient or to one of her family
members.
In late October, Janet received a card from one of her Japanese friends,
inviting her to that friend’s wedding reception. This time, Janet wasn’t surprised tohear from her colleague that she had to present the couple with an envelope
containing money as a wedding gift—although she was amazed at the amont ofmoney that a friend is generally expected to give. Janet called up her friend andwished her happiness. She imagined that her friend must be very busy and worried
with last minute preparations and confirmation. Contrary to her expectation, Janet
was a little surprised by her friend’s matter-of-fact remark, “It’s all taken care of,you know.”
Janet was planning to visit her parents back in Nebraska during the Christmas
and New Year holidays. She went to a department store to buy some Christmas
gifts for them. One large section of a floor was staffed by an army of sales clerks
who were busy taking orders for oseibo—gifts given at year end as an expressionof appreciation for favors received during the past year. These sorts of gifts aredelivered by a department store mostly to one’s business clients, superiors,
instructors, doctors, and others from whom one has received favors, as well as toclose relatives living far away. The year does not end without this most important
gift-giving part of the season.
Questions to Consider:
1.

2.
3.
4.

The jichikai chair apologized to Janet for his failure to explain theassociation’s rule regarding garbage disposal. Admitting his fault, why did hebring the neighbors’ complaint to Janet’s landlord in the first place?
Why did the doctor apparently change his attitude towards Janet?
Is it true that weddings are not a big deal to most modern Japanese women?
Why do you think giving gifts (including money) is so prevalent and socially
important in this culture?

Analysis
Janet had to rely on her Japanese friend as a guarantor when she signed thelease contract. When her neighbors brought their complaint to the chair of theirneighborhood association, he went to her landlord, who turned to Janet’s guarantor
as an intermediary. It seems that neither party wanted to deal with the gaijin face toface. Apparently not a Type B American, Janet visited the chair and apologized.
She didn’t know that garbage must be divided into two types, burnable and nonburnable, and that the collection spot and day differ for each type of garbage. The
chair matched her apology, instead of accepting it. This counter-apology was most

63

appropriate from the standpoint of maintaining harmony and equal status amongpeople in the neighborhood, of which Janet is now a member. Japanese also say“Sumimasen (I’m sorry)” even when they are not directly responsible forsomething; they apologize for any inconvenience they might have caused in one
way or another. 2 It does not necessarily mean admission of fault or responsibility.
Remember this magic word.
Introduction, personal or otherwise, thereafter transforms a stranger into an
active member of the small seken or in-group through which Japanese areconnected. Japanese are well aware that the way in which they treat such an
introduced stranger has an effect on their own interdependent relationship with theintroducer. The effectiveness of such introduction depends on differences inrelative status, familiarity, and on the degree of indebtedness between the
introducer and the one who receives the introduction. The doctor that Janet saw
probably knows her boss well, either personally or businesswise. He and her bossmight have attended the same school or university. In any case, the doctor would
not have been embarrassed if Janet had at first told him that Mr. so-and-so had
recommended to seeing him. And wherever you go, on any occasion, don’t leave
home without meishi (a business card). Meishi establishes one’s identity in theseken.
Gift giving in contemporary Japan is both personal and social, part of a larger
system of differential interdependence. Gifts are given or exchanged to confirm
and re-confirm interdependent relationships, as well as to show affection,
friendship, sympathy, gratitude, or respect. Gifts today can be classified into two
types—one requires money in the form of new bills, and the other consists of goods
or products. Gifts of money are given to those who are expected to need asubstantial amount of cash for special occasions, happy or unfortunate, such as
weddings or funerals. Other recipients of money gifts include the sick who are
hospitalized, victims of disasters such as fire and floods, and children celebrating
the New Year, who “need” more money than their regular allowances in order tobuy toys and other goods, and to save money in the bank. The New Year’s gift, orotoshidama, is given to children by parents, grandparents, and close relatives suchas aunts and uncles.
There are two important seasons for giving non-monetary gifts, ochuugen, inthe middle of the year, and oseibo, at year’s end. (The terms ochuugen and oseibo
also refer respectively to the gifts themselves.) Such gifts are given to show respect
to people who are higher in status, such as one’s superiors at the workplace or
one’s instructor in tea ceremony, as well as to people from whom one has received
specific favors. Most ochuugen or oseibo gifts are things that can be enjoyed by thefamily members of the recipients, such as gourmet food, fruits, sweets, and drinks.
Other important customary gifts include omiyage and temiyage. Omiyage orsouvenir gifts are brought to one’s relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors, and so
2

The expression “sumimasen” is used on two other occasions: when expressing gratitude for an
act of kindness (I’m sorry or thank you for your trouble); and when attracting attention, as of a sales
clerk (Excuse me).

64

on when one returns from a trip. Temiyage is a small gift, such as a box of sweets,that one takes when visiting a friend, relative, or acquaintance.
The culture of differential interdependence has specific rules that therecipients of gifts should observe with respect to returning a favor or giving a
return gift—who should give what, when, and how. For example, the recipients ofkouden (incense money)—that is, the family members of the deceased—should
give a return gift equivalent to about one-half the value of kouden, once the funeralrites of forty-nine days are over. In the case of ochuugen or oseibo, recipients are
not expected to return the gift if they themselves are higher in status than, or have
granted specific favors to, the givers.
Weddings have the important function of seeking social recognition for amarriage. Attendants at a Japanese wedding ceremony and/or its reception
generally constitute a who’s who of the most important or influential people in the
couple’s interdependent relationships. The average wedding reception is attended
by fifty to 100 guests, who include workplace superiors, co-workers, business
partners, as well as close relatives, friends, and (much less frequently) the gobetween (nakoudo) accompanied by his or her spouse. Recently, the reception—
where the couple and their families show their social status—has become moreelaborate, extravagant, and ostentatious. The average reception is estimated to cost
between 35,000 to 45,000 dollars. 3 It is common that a large portion of such afinancial burden is borne by parents and other relatives, who wish to make thefamily and their child look better in the eyes of their small seken. Most weddings
are held at hotels, wedding halls, or Shinto shrines, which arrange and conduct
every phase of a wedding ceremony and its reception. The engaged couple does nothave to worry about the priest, a master of ceremonies, wedding gown and coat,flowers, a photographer, a video cameraman, cake for the cake-cutting, food,honeymoon arrangements, etc. The couple can rely on the professional people foralmost everything.

3

According to a survey conducted by Recruit, the average cost for a wedding ceremony,
reception, and honeymoon in 2008 was 4,210,000 yen. “Zexy Kekkon Torendo Chousa,” October
2008.

65

Case 10. Young People

Main Character:Edward MacDowell is a twenty-one-year-old exchange student from a
university in Arizona, studying at a private university in Kyoto. He is in a
special program for exchange students whose Japanese is not proficient enoughto participate in regular classes for Japanese students.

At a reception party held for foreign students, Ed spotted Professor Uemura,with whom he had become acquainted when the professor was a visiting scholar atEd’s university in Arizona. Ed remembered that he had played golf with him acouple of times and that they had eaten dinner at a Japanese restaurant in Phoenix.
Ed approached Professor Uemura, who was speaking in Japanese with some
Korean and Chinese students. Half wishing to show off his acquaintance with theprofessor, Ed said in a loud and friendly voice, “Uemura-san, hisashiburi ne.
Ogenki? (Uemura-san, it’s been a long time. How have you been?)” Professor
Uemura looked embarrassed and made a slight frown.
Ed found his academic schedule was not very demanding, and so heoccasionally sat in on large lecture classes for Japanese students. Many students
looked bored with the ninety-minute lectures. Some slept in the lecture hall; somecame late or left early; and others whispered with their neighbors.
Ed wanted to make friends with many Japanese students, rather than hangaround with the other Americans. He learned that Japanese students join athleticand non-athletic clubs on campus, where they make friends, and through which
they have opportunities to socialize with many other young people. Since Ed loved
to play tennis, he decided to join the tennis club. Tennis courts are in short supply
in Japan, as are many other inexpensive facilities. Joining the tennis club madesense in that respect, too.
The club turned out not to be the one for Ed. It took him only a few weeks todecide to quit. Ed felt as if he had joined a feudal society: the hierarchical club was,he thought, ruled by a class of senpai or senior members, to whom new and juniormembers must show deference. He was often scolded by his senpai for his failure
to use honorific language when talking to them. Daily practice was mandatory, andthe same “inefficient” routine was imposed on every member, regardless of ability
or experience. When Ed made a few suggestions to improve the training method
and the practice routine, he was branded as “namaikida (cheeky or saucy).” Even
when not practicing, club members always hung around together, eating anddrinking. It seemed to Ed that their lives revolved around the club.
Ed soon found that he had picked the “wrong” group or association: heshould have joined, and did join, the tennis saakuru (circle) instead of the tennis
kurabu (club). With the tennis circle, Ed could schedule his own practice and enjoy
tennis in a more casual, friendly atmosphere. He made many friends, both male and66

female. Getting to know many young Japanese, Ed discovered more differences
than similarities between them and their American counterparts.
He noticed, for example, that young people, especially women, wore casualclothes of expensive famous brands. He wondered why many young Japanese
seemed to be blindly loyal to such brands. It was considered fashionable to wearsuch expensive clothes, as long as it was in a discreet, unostentatious manner. Ed
also found that many girls were indecisive; or, rather, he thought that they had
given up their “right” to express preferences and to make decisions. “What would
you like to eat?,” Ed would ask his date. “Anything will be fine” would be theusual answer. If he asked, “Where would you like to go?,” she would answer,“Wakan’nai (I don’t know).” Recently, however, Ed has reassessed this view about
his dates. It now seems to him that those “indecisive” girls somehow get what theywant—in the final analysis.
Ed observed that Japanese college students were generally gentler and softer
than their American counterparts. Japanese students were generally passive inclass; they seldom expressed their own opinions in public. The average Japanesecollege student did not study as hard as the average American student. Most
Japanese students were supported financially by their parents, but many worked
part-time to earn spending money for pleasure. He learned that many of the private
universities in the Kyoto area mailed grade reports directly to the students’ parents,
most of whom were paying the tuition for their kids. Ed did not feel that theseyoung Japanese projected an image of the “corporate warriors” who were thedriving force of a nation once known as an “economic animal.”
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.

Why did Professor Uemura frown and look embarrassed?
Is there a rational explanation for the “brand loyalty” prevalent among many
young Japanese women?
What seems to be the difference in attitude towards interdependence between
young Japanese and older generations?

Analysis
Ed used an improper level of formality and politeness when he talked toProfessor Uemura at the party. He should have used keigo (honorific language),saying something like, “Uemura sensei, ohisashiburide gozaimasu....” The suffix“-san” (meaning Mr., Mrs., or Ms.) is not appropriate when addressing one’s
teacher. When he first met Ed in Arizona, Professor Uemura was not an instructor
at the university where Ed was studying. The professor probably talked with Ed in
English on an equal basis. But now Mr. Uemura was Professor at the Japanese
university where Ed was studying: he must be respected in such a capacity andstatus, especially in public. Ed’s words sounded rude in front of the Asian students
the professor was talking with. (Some instructors of Japanese in the U.S. are too

67lenient towards—and, therefore, not truly kind to—students who unknowingly
speak rudely to them.)
Individuals tend to balance a wish to be different from others and a need to be
accepted by peers or people around. Type D Japanese, especially young women,
are more likely than other types to fear rejection by their peers. Being very
different in the wearing of clothes runs the risk of being rejected in two different
ways—either by failure, or by too much success. A young woman senses the subtle
disapproval of her peers if she fails to show individuality in a fashionable manner.
If she succeeds too much, however, she may be resented by jealous peers forbreaking the unwritten code of harmonious egalitarianism. Here famous brands
come to the rescue. By definition, a famous brand is one that is accepted by many
people as something good; it is available to anyone who is willing to pay the price.
In addition, variety within a single product line provides opportunity to express
individuality in a fashionable way, acceptable to peers. With famous brands,
rational young Japanese are able to seek “individuality” without appearing to beappreciably better or worse than their peers.
Ed did not know about a significant aspect of contemporary college campus
life—the difference between kurabu (club) and saakuru (circle). In a sense, kurabu
represents a fading tradition, while saakuru symbolizes a trend among youth toseek a new way of interdependence. Until recently, college students have been
expected to join one of the clubs on campus, where they have learned, among otherthings, how to adapt to cooperative group living in a hierarchical environment.
Students belonging to athletic clubs have been preferred candidates for positions asJapanese corporate warriors. They had the essential qualities Japanese corporations
sought in their employees: endurance, obedience, and the ability to work as teammembers. Recently, this alternative to the club has emerged and has beenflourishing. Today, far more students than join traditional clubs join circles, where
they enjoy sports and other activities in a more equal and relaxed environment.
Most young Japanese, both male and female, still value interdependence; theyseek intimacy and a sense of belonging in a small group. They do their best to
avoid isolation from, or rejection by, their peers and people around them. They arecircumspect—very heedful not only of others’ words and deeds, but also of thecircumstances or settings they are in. They are more sensitive to peer pressure thanare older Japanese. They won’t easily open up, even among friends—unless they
are very close friends, who can trust each other. Older Japanese are a little more
open in this respect. Young people today also show less tolerance for status
differences and hierarchical relationships. Their attitudes towards interdependence
may be shifting a little closer to Type C on the equality-hierarchy scale. Comparedwith older generations of Japanese, however, young people now seem to be more
dependent, especially on their parents, than interdependent.
There seems to be a small but increasing number of young people who feellonely or empty by themselves, but who do not want to incur the costs ofcommitment and emotional involvement that are associated with interpersonal
relationships. These youth may enjoy casual superficial associations, without
friendship or commitment; or they may engage in activities such as playing video68

games, which they can enjoy without human interaction. In searching for their own
self in affluent Japan, they may be too delicate and irresolute to be either“independent” or “interdependent” in their attitudes towards the people around
them.

69

7.
Business Settings

Case 11. Am I Doing All Right?
Main Character:

Diane Wright, twenty-three years old, is expected to graduate in December
with majors in business administration and Japanese. She lived in Japan forthree summer months while attending an intensive program in Japanese. During
her short stay in Japan, Diane became acquainted with, and taught English to, aJapanese manager from a large chain of retail stores that had affiliates in the
U.S. Through that contact, she was given the opportunity of a job interview
before returning to the U.S. to complete her joint-degree program.

The interview was a bit of a surprise to Diane. The Japanese language classes
she had taken did not teach anything about how to prepare for mensetsu, or the job
interview. The interview was conducted both in English and in Japanese. In
addition to the sort of questions commonly asked in the U.S., the Japaneseinterviewers asked Diane questions such as:Tell us what type of persons you don’t like.
How long do you intend to work for our company?
What would you do if you disagreed with your superior regarding an opinion ororder he has given?
What does kyouchousei (cooperativeness) mean to you?

Diane worried about how she did in the interview, because she could not
answer some of the questions in Japanese very well. Two months after her return to
the U.S., Diane received a phone call from a manager with the personnel
department, offering her a job. He said that the salary and benefits would becomparable to what new Japanese recruits with university degrees receive. She
accepted the offer, although she was not sure what she was expected to do. She
thought it would be a good experience, anyway.
Soon after her arrival in Tokyo, where the company’s head office was
located, Diane participated in an orientation program for new recruits. She learned
something about the company, but did not learn much about what her
responsibilities were, or how to carry them out. She was told that she would learn
those things on the job.

70

Diane was first assigned to the international department, where she primarily
wrote letters in English and checked translations. Her male co-workers weregenerally friendly and cooperative, although her boss seemed formal and somewhat
cold. Most of the female workers in the department were called OL (office ladies)and carried out only clerical work. Diane thought that OL might better stand for“ochakumi (tea-serving) ladies.” It turned out that this tea-serving practice soon put
Diane in an awkward situation. She was the only female employee in thedepartment who was herself served tea, instead of taking turns serving it. Diane
thought, on the one hand, that taking part in such a demeaning practice was out of
the question: she was not an OL anyway. On the other hand, she felt a sense of
envy and rejection from the other female workers, whose assistance andcooperation were needed to get her work done. Diane felt that something must be
done about the situation. Her boss simply told her to be flexible.
Six months later, Diane was re-assigned to the sales department. Many of thestaff members there tried to speak to her in English, which they apparently wanted
to practice. She was often asked to participate in after-hours socializing. Diane still
remembers the morning following the night she first went to a few bars with hercolleagues in the international department. That evening, everybody seemed to be
having fun, talking casually in both English and Japanese, and singing in a karaoke
bar until late at night. Diane was called on a first-name basis, instead of Wrightsan. She thought that she had broken, or even “melted,” the ice in the relationshipwith her colleagues. The next morning, when Diane greeted her colleagues in amuch more informal/familiar manner than before, they all looked very
embarrassed. Diane was Wright-san again.
Nearly a year had passed since Diane first joined the company. She began tofeel that she was not learning anything significant at this workplace. She felt she
was not given any important or meaningful assignments she could carry out on her
own. Diane always worked together with her senior male colleagues, assistingthem one way or another. In addition, she was unhappy with the lack of positive
feedback from her boss; she had no idea how she was being evaluated, or where
she was going in terms of her career. She brought her concerns to her boss, but hejust asked her to be patient and flexible. Later, Diane was told that her salary would
be raised substantially the next year; but that did not satisfy her.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.
3.
4.

What do you think is the rationale for the company’s employment of Diane?
What do you think are the intentions of the interviewers, asking questions
such as those listed above?
How would you cope with the tea-serving situation if you were in Diane’s
shoes?
Why did her colleagues look so embarrassed when Diane spoke to them themorning following the night of socializing?

Analysis

71

Diane Wright was probably not hired because of her experience and skills,
but more likely because of her educational background and potentials. The
company may have had two motives for the employment of Diane. One motive
may have been to promote kokusaika (lit., internationalization), a term vaguelyreferring to individual or institutional efforts to become functional in theinternational arena—political, economic, or otherwise. The company may havewished to increase the Japanese employees’ awareness of kokusaika through faceto-face interaction with foreigners. Another motive may have concerned thecompany’s wishful thinking regarding its overseas employment strategy. The
company was not expecting Diane to stay long with them in Japan. But they may
have hoped that, were Diane patient enough to stay for a few years and to learn
their way of running business, she might eventually have become a good candidate
for a managerial position at one of their affiliates in the U.S.
Companies will not invest much to train employees who are not expected tostay with them for very long. It is often said that it takes five years of on-the-job
training for Japanese university graduates to become worth the salary they receive,
while it takes only half a year in the case of female clerical workers, known as OL,
who are expected to quit when they get married. Japanese companies are also
reluctant to hire the eldest son of a family whose father or uncle runs a small or
medium-sized business, because such a son may some day quit in order to succeed
his relative as an executive. Many Japanese companies assume that American
office workers will not stay long with one company, and they are not as eager toinvest in them as they are in Japanese male university graduates. Since such
American employees, especially the talented ones, will often become unhappy withthe treatment they receive, they will quit the companies, thus contributing to theapparent validity of this self-fulfilling prophesy by Japanese management.
It seems that most Japanese companies who hire foreigners for the sake of
kokusaika have neither a special training program for them nor a specific, wellcoordinated plan to utilize their talents and skills—except in the case of those withhighly technical skills, such as computer systems analysts and securities traders.
Diane was hired, not because of any request by a department to fill a position ormeet a need, but probably because of the personnel department’s decision,
pursuing the company’s kokusaika policy. Apparently, neither the company nor the
departments where Diane worked thought much about how to train or employ her.
If the company wanted Diane to stay longer, to qualify for a position at an affiliate
in the U.S., they should have sat down and discussed with her the necessary steps
to take toward such a career path.
The types of questions often asked in Japanese job interviews reflectemphasis on applicants’ attitudes as significant criteria for evaluation. Japaneseinterviewers stress such qualities as endurance, cooperativeness, enthusiasm,
adaptability, flexibility, and responsibility. They also emphasize sekkyokusei, theinitiative to begin a task or to take action without being told what to do. This isbecause interviewers think many Japanese candidates lack this ability or quality.
By Japanese standards, American sekkyokusei may be regarded as an

72aggressiveness, that may lead to the making of arbitrary choices without
consultation with colleagues and superiors.
Regarding the tea-serving situation, there will be no “correct” solution until
this practice is discontinued. This is what Diane did, who is probably a Type C
person. She made a compromise between her principles and her need to get alongwith other female employees. Whenever possible, Diane went to the small kitchenarea and helped them prepare to make tea or clean up, but she did not bring a cup
to any colleagues or visitors. At the same time, she engaged in brief chitchat inorder to build up good rapport with her fellow female employees.
In the Japanese business culture, it is essential to change gears quickly, even
abruptly, between informal-social modes and formal-business modes ofcommunication and behavior. As explained in Chapter Two, Japanese, who arebiased towards predictability, interact with others more variously than do
Americans, depending not only on who the others are, but also on what settings
they are in. Japanese have more distinct rules about how to behave in different
settings; this decreases uncertainty and facilitates interdependence. An informalsocial mode may be most suitable for after-hours socializing, to establish rapportand exchange information, but it disrupts the predictable order of the hierarchicalinterdependence that prevails in the Japanese workplace. A certain level offormality must always be maintained in business settings, no matter how familiar
you become with your colleagues.

73

Case 12. Those Japanese Bosses
Main Characters:Taichi Shimizu, forty-six years old, is a sales manager at a Japanese-owned
company in the U.S., sent from the parent company in Tokyo.
James Watts, twenty-eight years old, is am employee working under Mr.
Shimizu. James lived in Japan for three years, attending an international highschool in Kobe, when his father was working for a U.S.-owned company.

James thought Mr. Shimizu to be unlike any of the Japanese he had known inJapan; he considered that his boss perhaps didn’t like him. One day, Mr. Shimizu
told James to refrain from speaking to him in Japanese. He said that James’“aggressive” Japanese bothered him. James did not quite understand this remark,because he had always been careful to use the polite level of speech, instead of thecasual/familiar level to which he had become accustomed in Japan. James thought
that, rather, it was his boss who sounded direct, even curt, when making requests orgiving orders, lacking the usual Japanese politeness and indirectness. He also
thought that Mr. Shimizu’s English lacked sophistication.
James believed that Mr. Shimizu was not as competent as American
managers of comparable rank and position. Mr. Shimizu did not seem to knowmuch about the principles of American-style marketing. He rarely gave specificinstructions or explanations for carrying out his orders; he would often tell his
subordinates to figure out how to implement an order that had come from his own
Japanese boss. Both Mr. Shimizu and his boss, for that matter, were indecisive;
they were always reluctant to make decisions without first consulting the head
office in Tokyo.
James complained that Mr. Shimizu had told him to be flexible, to cooperatewith other colleagues, and to take action without being told, even though he wasgiven neither clear authority nor directions. James believed that his boss did nottrust him to carry out an assignment; his boss often asked him not only how a job
was progressing, but also many questions about detailed points of the assignment.
James would think to himself, “I am not a child.”
One day Mr. Shimizu asked James if he could complete an assignment by acertain deadline. When James said that he was not sure, his boss told him to try to
do his best. In a week or so, Mr. Shimizu asked James how he was doing, andJames replied that he could probably get the job done by the deadline. As thedeadline approached, Mr. Shimizu, who had gone off on a five-day business trip,
now returned, expecting that James’ assignment would be done. He found,however, that James had taken a leave of absence to attend the funeral of his uncle,
who had died three days before. When James returned, he told Mr. Shimizu that it
had been an emergency, and that he had told Mr. Shimizu’s boss. James knew that
his boss was angry, although he said nothing but “Komatta (I’m in trouble).”74

When the assignment was finally completed, Mr. Shimizu found that James
had not used the data that should have been used. James said he had not been awareof the data, and pointed out that Mr. Shimizu himself , his boss, had failed tomention it. Mr. Shimizu was furious this time, insisting that everybody in the officeknew about the data. He demanded that James answer why he had not consulted
him, or his colleagues, if he had not been familiar with the subject matter of thisparticular assignment. He continued to ask why James had not asked for help fromhis colleagues in order to finish the job before taking leave to attend his uncle’s
funeral.
Questions to Consider
1.

2.
3.

Do you think that Mr. Shimizu is an arrogant, rude man, whose
communication style lacks the politeness and indirectness commonly foundin most Japanese? Why do you think Mr. Shimizu does not want James to
speak to him in Japanese?
Why is it that many Japanese managers overseas are reluctant to makedecisions without first consulting the head office in Japan?
If James were a Japanese, how do you think he would have handled thesituation of not being able to meet the deadline?

Analysis
As every learner of Japanese should know, there are three kinds of polite
expressions commonly used in daily conversation: (1) teineigo, the neutral polite
expression (with -masu or -desu endings); (2) sonkeigo, the honorific expressionthat shows respect to superiors by honoring the action or state of the superiors
themselves; and (3) kenjougo, the humble expression that shows respect to one’s
superiors by humbling the action or state of oneself. Even native speakers,
especially youth, often have difficulty properly using these polite levels of speech,
called keigo. It is quite easy to offend your Japanese superiors or customers if you
speak Japanese fluently but don’t use keigo properly. Novice-level speakers ofJapanese are not expected to use keigo; they are in most cases off the hook.
When he was in Japan, attending an international high school, Jamesprobably had little opportunity to learn, not to mention to use, those polite levels ofspeech. It is most likely that James learned Japanese from young Japanese of his
own age, among whom a casual/familiar level of speech is most common andappropriate. Even though James knew the grammatical difference between thecasual and polite levels of speech, it was a different matter to actually use keigo inconversation with his Japanese superiors.
In speaking to Japanese superiors, there is a more difficult problem thanlinguistic difficulty. Even if you can use keigo properly, your boss may still feelthat your Japanese sounds “aggressive,” owing to the differences in communicationstyle between Japanese and Americans. For example, when exchanging opinionswith your Japanese boss, the English “I disagree” or “I don’t think so” may not75

present a problem; but their Japanese translations may sound “aggressive” to yourJapanese boss, even when expressed using keigo. You should not be a yes man (orperson), but expressing disagreement to your boss must be done in a roundaboutmanner. A general rule in Japanese corporate culture is that it is only appropriate toexpress your own opinion when asked to by your superior. You must be carefuleven when you praise your boss. Suppose, for example, that you have asked yourboss to make a speech or presentation on the Japanese QC circle, and that, after the
speech, you want to say something like, “It was an excellent or impressive speech.”
The Japanese translation of this, “Totemo yoi hanashi deshita,” should be avoided,
because a word like “yoi” (good) here implies a judgment or evaluation of yoursuperior’s ability by a subordinate. It is more appropriate to say, “Okagesamade
benkyou ni narimashita (Lit., Thanks to you, I (or we) learned a lot).”
When speaking in Japanese, a Japanese boss is culturally allowed to be bluntor abrupt in making requests of subordinates. The problem is that many Japaneseincorrectly assume that Americans prefer to express themselves only in a direct andstraightforward manner. When speaking in English to their subordinates, Japanesemanagers often fail to use expressions such as “I’d appreciate it if you could....”A majority of Japanese sent by parent companies to their foreign affiliates
will stay no longer than five years. Their primary concern is to play safe overseas,
without committing any blunder, and to be rewarded later for the hardship of living
away from home—often separated from their wives and children. Such employees
have a strong incentive to get their head office involved in any important decision,in order to share responsibility with them. With the approval by the head office, itwill be everybody’s shared responsibility if something happens. The head officealso wants to be involved in its affiliates’ decision making. As I explained in
Chapter Three, when a Japanese organization has an ambiguous delineation ofindividual authority and responsibility, one of the ways to compensate for theambiguity of the system is face-to-face contact and communication among the staff
and managers. A head office is always concerned about how its branch offices inJapan are following its policy and strategy. However, in the case of overseas
subsidiaries, a head office worries much more, because of both the physical andcultural distance. Decision making takes a longer time due to the Japaneseemphasis on consensus. As much as an overseas office wants its head office
involved in decision making, so does the head office wants to be involved in thatprocess.
About the final question. When he returned from the funeral, a Japanese
subordinate would have, first and foremost, apologized to Mr. Shimizu. Mr.
Shimizu understood that it was an emergency, but any Japanese would apologize
for the inconvenience that he or she might have caused. The culture of differential
interdependence requires a Japanese subordinate to apologize to his or her boss
even if the subordinate believes that he or she is right. Remember that “Sumimasen(I’m sorry)” does not necessarily mean admission of fault or responsibility. In
many cases, it is simply an admission that one’s choice has caused inconvenience
to others in one way or another. An immediate sincere apology would have madethe situation much better for James.

76

The next thing a Japanese employee would do is report to his boss aboutprogress on the job, to make sure that he is doing what the boss has in mind. Thenhe would work overtime to finish the job as soon as possible. When the job wascompleted, he would apologize again for the failure to meet the deadline. In a
Japanese organization, it might have been possible to ask colleagues for help, since
it is likely co-workers within the same section would know what each member was
doing.

77

Case 13. What Consensus?
Main Character:Benjamin Clark is a twenty-six-year-old employee of a Japanese-owned
company in the U.S. He started working for the company six months ago. He
majored in finance at college, and has no Japanese-language background.

When Ben first entered the company, it was explained to him that although this
U.S. corporation (i.e., incorporated in the U.S.) is basically run in the Americanway, the management also emphasizes Japanese-style consensus and cooperation.
Half a year later, however, Ben began to doubt what consensus they were talking
about.
Ben remembered the day when he made a proposal for the first time at a
meeting that was chaired by buchou, the department head. He came up with a new
idea which he then developed into a proposal, after thoroughly reviewing it
himself. He believed—and still does—that it was a good idea which was worth atleast consideration and discussion among colleagues in the department. At themeeting, Ben threw out his new idea and briefly explained its merits. When hestopped talking in order to see the reaction of his colleagues, an awkward silence
permeated the meeting room. The silence was broken by the department head, who
said, “It’s an interesting idea, but not feasible at the present time.” With that
remark, the meeting had been adjourned, all the items on the agenda alreadyapproved.
As soon as the meeting was over, Ben was approached by his immediateboss, Section Manager Takeuchi. He looked very upset. “Why didn’t you tell me
about your proposal before the meeting?” he questioned Ben indignantly.
“Why wasn’t my idea even discussed?” Ben shot back.
“You need to know the importance of building up consensus,” Mr. Takeuchi
argued.
“That’s exactly what I wanted to do at the meeting,” Ben complained. “But I
wasn’t given any opportunity.”“You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying,” said the section manager.
“Anyway, I must know about anything that is on the agenda before a meeting isheld. I was really embarrassed before all those people.”“You mean you didn’t see the memo I sent the day before yesterday?” said
Ben.
“What memo?” Mr. Takeuchi asked. “You should talk to me in person aboutsuch a matter.”Since this incident, Ben has begun to believe that Japanese decision making
is basically top-down rather than bottom-up, contrary to the image depicted bysome management books. There were many informal, small-group meetings where
everyone could freely exchange ideas and opinions. In fact, there were too many

78such meetings, often seeming to Ben to be a waste of time, the typical agenda
having little to do with what he himself was working on. However, Ben believedthat the important decisions were made by the top management or the head officein Japan, and that these meetings were often used just to obtain their ceremonialapproval. If not by the top management, Ben suspected, decisions were made by agroup of Japanese managers and staff who did not engage in open discussion orargument. “Consensus,” he lamented. “But whose consensus?”
Questions to Consider
1.
2.

How do you think Ben’s idea of consensus differs from Mr. Takeuchi’s?
What do you think of Ben’s view of Japanese decision making?

Analysis
Consensus is “an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole or bymajority will.” 4 There would be little disagreement between Ben and his Japaneseboss on this definition of consensus, although Type D Japanese prefer unanimity tomajority will. Ben’s complaint seems to be directed against the way in whichconsensus is reached, including the seeming lack of opportunity to participate in
the process. Ben apparently believes consensus should be reached through open
discussion or argument, even if often heated, where differences of opinion are
expressed. If an opinion cannot win unanimous agreement, consensus must be
reached by majority.
Like many Type D Japanese, Mr. Takeuchi seems to believe that consensus
should be reached in different manners, depending on the nature of a group and thesettings a group is in. The important thing is to make sure that a decision byconsensus, once reached, is then implemented cooperatively and smoothly within
the framework of interdependence. When consensus is sought informally, within asmall group of familiar individuals who are not much different from each other inrank or status, ideas and opinions may be openly and freely exchanged. However,consensus tends to be sought informally before a formal meeting is held if thatmeeting is to be attended by a larger number of people representing different
interests across sections or departments. Series of informal meetings are held
between individuals, as well as within and across small groups, in order to makeadjustments and to iron out differences before a formal meeting is held. This
informal process of building up consensus is well known today as nemawashi.
Type D Japanese want a formal meeting to proceed in a predictable manner,without openly embarrassing or antagonizing important members with any
unexpected or heated discussion. The nemawashi process is essential to Japaneseorganizations who emphasize interdependence.
Knowing about the concept of nemawashi is one thing; effectively
participating in the process is quite another. One must often use the nemawashi
4

The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992).

79

process intensively and vigorously in order to build up consensus and to finallyhave a new idea or proposal accepted at a formal meeting. Nemawashi is aconstant, never-ending process. Employees must develop and maintain goodinterpersonal relationships with their colleagues; they also must share andexchange information by actively attending many meetings, some of which may
not be directly related to each participant’s work. After-hours socializing is often
part of the nemawashi process.
Ben is obviously out of the nemawashi process. Not only does he notunderstand the significance of nemawashi, but such a consensus process isprobably not his style. However, a more basic problem lies with the Japanese side,
who supposedly run this corporation in the American way. Many American
employees, like Ben, often feel left out of the nemawashi process. Japanesemanagers and staff constantly receive information from their head office, and muchof this information is presented and disseminated in Japanese. They often meet bythemselves to discuss important matters and to reach consensus. They naturallyfind it much easier this way to reach consensus. Having individuals like Ben
participate in such a process would complicate the discussion, not only because oflanguage problems, but also because of the difference in the amount and nature of
the information they share. If Japanese want to stick to the nemawashi process,they should actively help American employees to effectively participate in thisprocess.
In hierarchical organizations, most important decisions are either made orapproved by formal leadership or top management. In Japan, there are many small
and medium-sized companies run from the top down by dominant owners orpresidents, known as “wanman” (very likely Type B persons). In many large
Japanese corporations, however, decision making below top management is a morediffused process in which even lower-rank employees have a comparatively goodchance to influence the decision. There is also a formal process of decision making,known as ringi, in which a proposal in the form of ringisho (circular letters) is
initiated by middle managers and staff, then circulated to various sections anddepartments for approval. Changes in the original proposal are made using thenemawashi process. By the time the proposal reaches top executives for final
approval, the process has already involved, from the bottom up, many of the people
who are most likely to be affected by the proposal’s implementation.
When Japanese executives make important decisions, they often give broad
directions to middle managers—most likely buchou or department heads—
requesting the formulation of detailed plans to implement the decisions. In thisway, executives get middle managers and staff involved in the decision-making
process before formalizing their decisions. By the time these final decisions arepresented at formal meetings, it is likely they are already known to the attendants
and are ready to be implemented.

80

Case 14. Negotiating with Japanese
Main Characters:

Yoshio Abe is a fifty-two-year-old buchou or general manager of a large
Japanese manufacturer, which is contacting several American companies as
possible suppliers of electronics parts. Mr. Abe heads a negotiation team of six
Japanese.
Henry Moore is a forty-nine-year-old vice president of a medium-sizedcompany in the U.S., which has been contacted by Mr. Abe’s company. His
negotiation team consists of three members, including himself.

The Japanese manufacturer thoroughly researched the American company andits products. Before formally meeting with Vice President Moore, Abe Buchou
made one of his section managers contact the American company for a preliminary
meeting. The Japanese section manager presented a list of the company’s desires,
needs to be met with regard to any possible purchase of parts. It looked to theAmerican side like a set of stringent demands specifying price, delivery, andquality.
Abe Buchou and his team visited the American company. Vice President
Moore welcomed them, although he was a little disappointed that the Japanese side
did not send a decision maker who matched his own rank. He thought that this wasa sort of “scout” team to gather information and exchange opinions. In accordancewith the agenda agreed upon prior to this meeting, Mr. Moore told one of his
managers to make a presentation that would respond to the “desires” expressed by
the Japanese side.
The presentation was carefully worded; nonetheless, it was an attack against
the Japanese demands. The manager aggressively criticized the Japanese position
point by point, to the extent that their suggested terms were out of the question.
Providing figures and charts, he passionately demonstrated how his company’s
products were excellent in quality and competitive in price. He offered analternative set of terms to be discussed. It was an impressive presentation—at least
to the American side. Then Vice President Moore did not forget to play his part: hesounded more conciliatory, stressing that his company was eager to work hard toreach an agreement for mutual benefit.
Stone-faced, the Japanese team members all listened quietly to thepresentation. There was a moment of silence after Mr. Moore’s remark. Then Abe
Buchou opened his mouth. An expression of dismay crossed his face. “I’m sorry
you regard our position as out of the question. You are only one of the several
companies we are considering as a business partner,” said Mr. Abe in a forcefulvoice. He then stood up and led his team out of the meeting room. Expecting acounterattack, the American side was dumbfounded with this abrupt ending of thenegotiation. They had expected a long series of meetings with the Japanese, given

81

their emphasis on consensus decision making. They wondered whatever had
happened to Japanese patience and reservation.
Soon after news of this broken-up negotiation spread throughout theAmerican company, a junior employee, Mike Stafford, found that a member of theJapanese team, Ken’ichi Ogata, was someone he personally knew well. Mike had
met Ken’ichi when they were students at a university in Washington; he had
occasionally helped Ken’ichi with his English writing lessons. Mr. Moore decided
to let him contact Mr. Ogata informally, although Ken’ichi was the most juniormember of the Japanese team. Mike explained the situation to Ken’ichi andexpressed his company’s wish to resume negotiations. Mr. Ogata reported thisinformal meeting to his immediate boss, who then talked to General Manager Abe.
Fortunately for both sides, it was decided that the business talk would be started
again.
Questions to Consider
1.
2.

Why do you think the Japanese team was headed by a buchou instead ofsomeone whose rank matched that of Mr. Moore?
What do you think made Abe Buchou decide to walk out of the negotiation?

AnalysisType D Japanese with Japanese organizations assume strikingly different
attitudes towards negotiation, depending on their relative status and theirbargaining position vis-à-vis the companies they deal with. Generally, the larger acompany is, the higher its status. Since buyers normally enjoy a higher status in thecompetitive market, when a larger company is the buyer, its negotiators expect tobe treated with respect, both for themselves, and more importantly, for their termsof trade. When there is ambiguity over relative status and bargaining position, TypeD Japanese are uncomfortable with any notion of negotiation that implies possible
confrontation. When a company believes it is in an inferior position, it shows
respect to the other side’s demands. At the same time, by explaining the hardship it
will suffer if it accepts the original demands without any change, the weakercompany tries to gain understanding, sympathy, and hopefully some concessions
from the other side.
The Japanese manufacturer in the above case apparently believes that it issuperior in status and bargaining position. The company came to the negotiationtable with a consensus on what it wanted and on what terms. The Japanese side
might eventually have made some concessions, but it definitely expected the otherside to show respect to its position and needs. The American side, on the other
hand, tried to equalize the status difference, believing negotiation to be a process ofrecognizing difference of opinion, then reaching agreement through bargaining andcompromise. To them, confrontation, attack, and counterattack are the normally
expected elements of such a game. However, the game they played not only

82

offended Abe Buchou, but it also made him feel he could not deal with a company
who made outrageous demands of a “superior” buyer.
Abe Buchou has its title translated into English as General Manager, but
Department Head is a more accurate translation. In large Japanese corporations, it
normally takes a long time to be promoted to the rank of buchou—often as long as
three decades from the time one enters a company, if one is capable and lucky.
The rank of buchou with a large Japanese corporation is a very respected andinfluential position. It is often considered comparable to the rank of junior vicepresident in American corporations. A large U.S. corporation will have several
vice-presidents, but a Japanese corporation in Japan, large or small, will have only
one or two executive vice-presidents. The Japanese believe that their fuku-shachou,or vice-president, is generally higher in rank and status than most junior vicepresidents in American corporations.
It was fortunate for the American company that it happened to have an
employee who personally knew a member of the Japanese negotiation team.
Having an informal channel of communication is very important when dealing with
the Japanese. Although most Japanese corporations are status-conscious, they also
firmly believe that building personal trust is an important step toward establishingmutually beneficial business relationships.

83

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, Ruth. Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture.
Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin, 1946.
Buchanan, James M. The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Condon, J. C. With Respect to the Japanese. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 1984.
Doi, Takeo. Amae no Kouzou. Tokyo: Kobundo, 1971.
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper andBrothers, 1957.
Ezaki, Yasuko, and Hideshi Moriguchi. Zainichi Gaikokujin. Tokyo: Shobunsha,
1988.
Feinberg, Walter. Japan and the Pursuit of a New American Identify. New York:
Routledge, 1993.
Graham, J. L., and Y. Sano. Smart Bargaining: Doing Business with the Japanese.
Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1984.
Hall, E.T., and M. R. Hall. Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese.
Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1987.
Hampden-Turner, Charles, and Alfons Trompennaars. The Seven Cultures ofCapitalism. New York: Currency/Doubleday, 1993.
Hayashi, Kichiro. Ibunka Intaafeisu Keiei. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha,
1994.
Hirschman, Alfred O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.
University Press, 1970.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Iwata, Ryushi. Nihon no Keiei Soshiki. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1985.
Kawahara, Takumi. Gakkou ni tsuiteno Joushiki to Uso. Tokyo: Takarajimasha,
1993.

84

Lincoln, J. R., and A. L. Kalleberg. Culture, Control, and Commitment.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
McKenzie, Richard, and Gordon Tullock. Modern Political Economy: An
Introduction to Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Minami, Hiroshi. Nihonjinron: Meiji kara Kon’nichi made. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten, 1994.
Mitchell, William C, and Randy T. Simmons. Beyond Politics: Markets, Welfare,and the Failure of Bureaucracy. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
Miyamoto, Masao. “Zainichi” Nihonjin. Tokyo: The Japan Times, 1993
Nakane, Chie. Tate Shakai no Ningen Kankei. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1967.
NLI Research Institute. Nihon no Kazoku wa Dou Kawatta noka. Tokyo: NHK
Shuppan, 1994.
Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action.
University Press, 1965.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Pucik, V., M. Hanada, and G. Fifield. Management Culture and the Effectivenessof Local Executives in Japanese-Owned U.S. Corporations. Tokyo: Egon
Zehnder International, 1989.
Rowland, Diana. Japanese Business Etiquette. New York: Warner Books, 1988.
Satoh, Ikuyo. Kaigai de Sabetsu Sareta koto Arimasu ka. Tokyo: Shufunotomo
Sha, 1995.
Sumikon Intercom Inc. (Ed.).
Gakuseisha, 1990.

Nichibei Bijinesu Nego no Hon’ne.

Tokyo:

Takaku, Tatsuo. Buka Joushi: Yattewa Naranai Koto Yarubeki Koto. Tokyo:
Nihon Nouritsu Kyoukai Manejimmento Sentaa, 1995.
Wolferen, Karel van. The Enigma of Japanese Power. New York: Vintage Books,
1990.
Yoshida, Kazuo. Nihon-gata Keiei Shisutemu no Kouzai. Tokyo: Touyou Keizai
Shinpousha, 1993.