Do whites have it better in Japan? Post your opinion in the comments section!
Now, I want to critique a passage from the essay, Japanese-ness, Whiteness, and the “Other” in Japan’s Internationalization, by Etsuko Fujimoto. This essay appeared in the book Transforming Communication About Culture (2002), edited by Mary Jane Collier. The passage I am citing begins on page 10.
[Before I begin, I want to note, my concerns here are, chiefly:
ONE, to defend the right of those who choose to assert themselves after having faced discrimination in Japan.
TWO, to look to the future of my children who are Japanese nationals.
THREE, to express sincere concern for my home of 13 years, Japan.]
Now to begin citing the relevant passage:
“Westerner,” “U.S. American,” and Gaijin, as Equated with “White”
The term gaijin has been cited as primary evidence of the Japanese insider-outsider mentality and unwillingness to allow non-Japanese persons into the insider’s circle (Befu, 1983; Kumagai, 1996; Woronoff, 1997) , a U.S. American writer who is married to a Japanese woman and has become a permanent resident of Japan, confirms this view of the term. Because anyone who is not Japanese is a gaijin. Aldwinkle believes that the term represents a binary view of the world.
Debito Arudou’s (formerly Dave Aldwinkle) views are on-line, in an essay entitled Is Gaijin a Racists Word, I Argue Yes. There he states the following reasons (each with elaboration):
1) It is a title that ignores too much.
2) Once a gaijin, always a gaijin, anywhere.
3) Is it discriminatory? [Arudou answers yes.]
4) Can you escape being a a gaijin? [Arudou answers no.]
5) It is a title that is defining us in ways many of us don’t like.
Fujimoto states, “Because anyone who is not Japanese is a gaijin. Aldwinkle believes that the term represents a binary view of the world.” Arudou states something similar to this in elaborating point (2) above, but I’m not at all sure it’s his main point. It is the point that Fujimoto dwells on the most.
Aldwinkle (1996) describes a number of situations in which the concept of gaijin negatively defines many non-Japanese people in ways that they do not like. For example, he remembers that his U.S. American friend was introduced by a Japanese person as gaijin, not even as an American, at an international symposium. He also recalls, from a trip to Venice, a young female traveler who told her friend to wait until some gaijin entered the picture frame so that the pictures would look more exotic. Aldwinkle argues that seeing non-Japanese persons as gaijin is racists because even if gaijin persons choose to naturalize and become Japanese citizens, they still will be treated as gaijin and not as Japanese. Thus, “once a gaijin, always a gaijin.”
This summarization doesn’t seem quite right to me, but trying to figure out exactly how would take too long. Arudou’s views are on-line, people can compare Fujimoto’s summary with Arudou’s actual statements.
Aldwinkle’s (1996) argument is well warranted; the use of the term gaijin perhaps exemplifies the binary mentality that is insensitive to individuality of international migrants and Japan’s unwillingness to expand the inner circle of who may be Japanese. The pervasive use of the term continuously reproduces monolithic representations of foreigners who have heterogeneous experiences and voices (Hedge,1998). Under this binarism, any foreigner, even a white person, is marked and gazed at as the other.
Even a white person? Even? What’s intended by this? Are we supposed to be surprised or appalled or made curious or what exactly?
Look, let me talk very straight here. I think there are prevalent attitudes in Japan, which SOME people possess, that differentiate people on the basis of skin color. For people who hold such views, the lighter your skin — the smarter, prettier, and more ethical you are percieved. Yes, that’s horribly wrong. But note, for SOME Japanese, no matter where you fall on that scale, if you are not Japanese, you are not JAPANESE, period. You are somehow ESSENTIALLY different from themselves. That’s the problem that needs to be addressed.
It’s quite possible that SOME Japanese might view themselves as inferior to whites and superior to blacks. However, I would wager such people would still feel they are Japanese in an essentialist sense, and that they feel this separates them off from others in some intangible way. This is the whole basis for Nihonjinron.
[Just for the record, let me state, there are SOME Japanese who could careless about your skin color or whether you are Japanese or not. They happen to be among some of my favorite people. In saying some Japanese view whites or others as fundamentally different, we’re talking about prevalent values that have influence of one kind or another. We aren’t talking about ALL Japanese.]
As much as the term gaijin “others” non-Japanese person, it is too simplistic to conclude that it is the only way in which Japanese-ness/non-Japanese-ness is defined.
But who made this assumption to begin with? This is the proverbial straw man.
The term [gaijin] implies white Westerners more often than it does nonwhite foreigners, and it connotes positive attitudes such as curiosity, awe, and admiration more often than it does negative attitudes (Koshiro, 1999; Russell, 1996). March’s (1992) study reveals the same signifier-signified relationship. He surveyed a total of 270 Japanese in Tokyo in 1983 and 1987 to understand the extent and nature of Japanese people’s “gaijin complex.” In the studies, 60% to 70% of the participants reported that they were apprehensive about interacting with gaijin. In examining the reasons for their apprehension, March found that the respondents were referring to Caucasian people when they thought about the reasons; they were intimidated by gaijin’s blond hair, attractive looks, and tall and well-proportioned bodies and because they felt inferior due to their own poor English and communication skills.
First of all, someone asking 270 Japanese in Tokyo some survey questions is hardly scientific. Secondly, I think it’s a fairly uncontroversial fact that gaijin originally referred to (white) westerners (at least postwar anyway). What changed was the presence of large scale migration of Asians into Japan during the 1980s. Gradually, these new workers became gaijin rodosha. That is, the term gaijin expanded to encompass these new migrants as well. While many still probably think of gaijin as being white, the term is now used for all foreigners.
Finally, I hear this over and over again, that whites are treated special in Japan. How? I really have no idea what the author is saying in this regards, but it sounds vaguely racist to me. (I know, I know, don’t shoot the messenger. She probably has a point.)
Okay, I agree that SOME in Japan tend to rank people according to the lightness of their skin color, but the real question is, how does this affect people’s lives in real terms? Is the author saying it’s easier for whites to get apartments, or to get jobs at ordinary Japanese companies? Or merely to be TV talents? Are there specific discriminations taking place that focus on people of other skin colors that don’t take place for whites? If so, what? And if there’s positive or reverse discrimination then it needs to be specified.
So what if some Japanese think being white is good in some vague, racists sense, that doesn’t automatically translate into positive discrimination and a rosy situation for everyone who is white. In fact, the situation for whites probably isn’t so good outside of English teaching. It’s quite possible to have a positive stereotype of a group of people based on their skin color, and then in a negative way discriminate against them. Good or bad, an outsider is an outsider.
I’m also concerned that the author might be insinuating that supposedly because whites are by some viewed well, that the form of racism present in Japan is western, and therefore it’s the west’s fault and not Japan’s. This would be an absolving of responsibility of those in Japan who practice racism, and it would be a misstatement of the problem. Let’s look at what else this author has to say…
In the process of Japan’s kokusaika, “white” was assumed to represent not only “U.S. American” but also “Westerners” and “gaijin” (Koshiro, 1999; Russell, 1996). Mouer and Sugimoto (1986) point out that Japan’s heavy reliance on the West and the United States as the major reference groups severely undermines Japan’s effort to be internationalized. The reliance has included uncritical adoption of the dominant U.S. racial non/representations as discussed in the previous section. In other words, these four concepts — white, U.S. American, Westerner, and gaijin — often have been imagined to be synonymous. This assumed link among different identity location manifests in a number of ways in Japan’s non/acceptance of international residents and tourists in Japan.
This does not quite sound reasonable to me. The author seems to be asserting that those in Japan use America as a benchmark, and all Americans are white, therefore whiteness must be good. Well, not all Americans are white, and so I don’t understand this reasoning process. If America is the benchmark then where’s the emphasis on multiculturalism? I’ll also note that, Mourer and Sugimoto’s 1986 book Images of Japanese Society is brilliant as far as I’m concerned, so I’d really like to see what specific passage the author has in mind.
More recent evidence of presumptions about and favoritism toward white person in Japan’s internationalization comes from an ethnography of the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Program (McConnell, 2000). The Japanese government began the JET Program in 1987 to promote international exchange and foreign-language learning in local governments and schools throughout Japan (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, 2000). About 90% of the participants work as assistant language teachers (ALTs) who “team-teach” foreign-language classes with Japanese teachers, and the rest work for local governments as coordinators of international relations (CIRs). McConnell (2000) conducted a long-term field study of the JET Program to examine how contemporary Japanese society is dealing with the struggle for cultural and educational change through a program that is “the centerpiece of a top-down effort to create ‘mass internationalization’” (p.x).
McConnell’s (2000) study reveals racial favoritism and presumptions in a number of ways. For example, he found that program coordinators rarely placed nonwhite ALTs and CIRs in rural schools and local government because people were expecting white faces. Schools also preferred ALTs who spoke North American English to those who spoke other variations of English. One African-American participant, for example, shared her experience that she was repeatedly asked whether she could speak standard English. Caucasian participants from various countries also commented that they usually were assumed to be from the United States. McConnell notes that those problems with racial, language, and regional favoritisms improved as years passed, and in 1997 about 35% of CIRs were from non-English-speaking countries such as China, South Korea, and Russia. He cautions, however, that the changes should not be taken with too much optimism given that “Japan has largely defined itself in relation to the United States as the embodiment of ‘Western’ culture and perceive ‘American English’ as the most desired form of English for the foreseeable future” (p. 236).
There is obvious favoritism in the English industry towards those who fit the stereotypical view of what a westerner is suppose to be like. He or she is suppose to be blond and blue-eyed and genki. In general, credentials aren’t important. A tall, blond, blue-eyed person with a bubbly personality, a bad accent, and a degree in basket weaving might well be chosen over a dour Japanese-American with excellent English and impeccable qualifications. Obviously that’s wrong, but it’s a problem internal to the English industry. It’s not clear to me that this problem can immediately be carried over to all aspects of Japanese society. That is, aside from the English industry, I don’t see whites as having an advantage in Japan. In fact, the opposite might very well be true, in that they are at a disadvantage. Moreover, whites from non-English speaking countries have a very HARD time in Japan, precisely because they can’t teach English.
The stereotype of whites as being westerners and speaking English is primarily useful in obtaining English (conversation) jobs. It’s not really useful in any other way, and in fact, may well be a liability to people who want to do other things in Japan.
Again, back to the point I was making earlier, who is responsible for these stereotypes? I would say the media and the educational system. Again and again, I see portrayals of Asian countries in school textbooks and on TV shows as poverty stricken backwater places, and of whites as English speaking, blond, blue-eyed, genki, individualists. These ideas are not in any way imported from the west, and those responsible for building these stereotypes exist in Japan, not elsewhere. So the responsibility for changing these attitudes lies solely within Japan and not elsewhere.
International migrants in Japan may experience difficulty in living in Japanese society. As the preceding examples show, the racial hierarchy can situation the experience of nonwhite persons as qualitatively different from that of white Westerners in Japan. Such differential approaches to international migrants are most blatant when race and class intersect. For example, Japanese affluence has resulted in a labor shortage in labor-intensive factories and construction sites. Asian migrants — including Pakistanis, Thais, Chinese, Malays, Bangladeshis, and Iranians — have filled positions. Despite their growing importance and necessity to Japan’s industries, their physical presence often is considered undesirable and disruptive to the social order. A number of cases have been reported of verbal and physical abuse experienced by Asian migrants at work (Higuchi, 1998; Utsumi & Matsui, 1989).
Look. Whites at times face discrimination problems in Japan. “Asian migrants” at times face discrimination problems in Japan. Does the author want to say that “Asian migrants” have it worse than whites?
I admit that there is blatant discrimination in the English industry. When looking for an English teacher, Japan looks for someone from an industrialized country with a four year degree, who speaks English as their native language. When looking for cheap labor, Japan looks towards developing countries. Is that in and of itself discriminatory?
Hm … well … yeah, I guess THAT is. Japan could probably find very good and highly qualified teachers in India, Singapore, Thailand and many other places if it sought them out. This opens the whole English conversation versus English language can of worms. I think the government needs to be held accountable here for this type of blatant discrimination, however, I feel less sure over private schools. Anyway, this is a problem with the English industry. But does any of this translate into being able to fit in and live a normal life for whites or non-whites? Probably not.
Ultimately, let’s look at it this way, discrimination is bad, period. When whites fight discrimination in Japan, they attract attention to the issue, and this may well help “Asian migrants” who are being discriminated against as well. And vice versa.
And consider this, one big problem with discrimination in Japan is that SOME people say and do things in Japan with the stated reason that they are Japanese (not in a legal sense but in an essentialist sense). To the extent that these people would rather not do these things, but feel compelled to do them out of being JAPANESE, they are basically discriminating against themselves. I think ANY foreigner who asserts his RIGHTS in Japan is setting a good example for EVERYONE, regardless of skin color, nationality, religion, or ethnic origin. This is good for Japanese and non-Japanese.
There seems to be a misconception that rights are merely one view equal to other views, and as such, a form of ideology. This misunderstands fundamentally the difference between a discussion about rights and an ideology. We assert rights because it’s a method of objectifying DIFFERENCES and working them out. This means that while ideologies (and some religious views) are dogmatic, discussions revolving around rights are open ended and inherently fallible. RIGHTS are not a western ideology, but a methodology first hit upon in the west (as far as I know) for working out differences.
Issues of discrimination need to be framed in terms of human rights. Once a particular human right is established and accepted, the claim is universal. So, whether it is a white with an English job or an Asian migrant with a low-paying 3K job arguing for rights (or vice versa), their actions stand to help us all.
Note this also applies towards legal precedents as well. If a white English teacher sues his conversation school over some type of labor malpractice and wins, that decision will apply towards EVERYONE. And even if they lose, they’ve raised the issue for all of us.
According to Tony Laszlo, director of ISSHO Kikaku (a nonprofit organization that facilitates multiculturalism in Japan), in some local cities with growing numbers of nonwhite and non-Western immigrants, local businesses have posted signs explicitly refusing service to foreigners (Laszlo, 2000). Immigrants have begun to take actions to resist such overt discrimination. For example, Mainichi Interactive, an online Japanese newspaper, reported a recent court case of racism in which Ana Bortz, a Brazilian reporter for a Tokyo-based television station, sued a jewelry store for forcing her out of the store because she was a foreigner (”foreigner Wins,” 1999),. Because the abuse and discrimination are, for the most part, against nonwhite migrants, it is imperative that the role of hegemony in privileging or marginalizing certain difference be acknowledge (Hedge, 1998).
What specific discrimination is primarily against nonwhite migrants? We really need specifics here.
The favoritism toward white Westerners often has worked as hegemony that allowed Japan’s discriminatory approaches toward migrants to emerge along racial lines.
It’d be nice to have an example outside the English industry. The problem again is primarily that NON-Japanese have a predetermined place outside of Japanese society, even while they are in that society. The place for whites is that of a genki English teacher, who must behave as a guest. The place of “Asian migrants” is something more unpleasant, perhaps. Maybe the (racist) stereotype is that they are poor 3K workers. Okay? The problem is still one of pocketing people into predetermined roles, is it not?
Reducing the relationships between Japanese and migrants to the binary positions of insider-outsider or to Japanese-gaijin does not completely account for this difference.
The writer here seems at odds with herself. She clearly admits that whites have their place, as English teachers, and that “Asian migrants” have their place, as shall we say 3K workers (according to the stereotype). Yes, even if it’s true that the “Asian migrants” have it worse in regards to racists stereotypes, what relevance does this have to solving the problem of discrimination? Does she really think whites have it so good in Japan? My guess is most stop having it so good, the day they stop pretending to be guests.
Interrogating whiteness in Japan’s movement toward internationalization helps to uncover the disparate locations that Japan’s international migrant occupy. Similarly, it is important to examine the construction and the functions of Japanese-ness in Japan’s internationalization because the insider is not singular but rather includes multiple social formations.
The author explores this last sentiment in the rest of her essay, which I won’t post here.
