are explicit a repeatedly invoked by people to describe or justify their
actions. They represent instances in which the behavior and the value
attached to it seem at odds. Stewart writes, “Because cultural norms are
related to behavior as cliches, rituals or as cultural platitudes, they
provide inaccurate descriptions of behavior”. He points out that Americans
are devoted to the concept of self-reliance but accept social security,
borrow money, and expect a little help from their friends. Culture bearers
are usually more aware of their cultural norms than their systems of values
and assumptions. As Stewart explains, "being fundamental to the
individual's outlook, they [the assumptions and values] are likely to be
considered as a part of the real world and therefore remain unquestioned".
Table 1, illustrates some of the general value orientations identified
with North Americans. The left-hand column indicates what the polar point
of the orientational axis might represent. The Contrast American column
does not describe any particular culture, but rather represents an opposite
orientation. Of course, the American profile is drawn in broad strokes and
describes the mainstream culture; ethnic diversity is of necessity blurred
in this sweeping treatment.
Thus, with the reservations noted above, it can be said that in the
relationship of human beings and nature, Americans assume and thus value
and believe in doing something about environmental problems. Nature can and
should be changed. In addition, change is right and good and to be
encouraged. That toe pace of change has increased to a bewildering point in
the United States at the present time presents problems, but, as yet,
change has not been seen as particularly detrimental.
Equality of opportunity is linked to individualism, lack of rigid
hierarchies informality, and other cultural givens. It is manifested in
American laws regarding social conduct, privacy, and opportunity. This
contrasts with an ascriptive social order in which class and birth provide
the bases for social control and interaction.
The achievement orientation calls for assessment of personal
achievement, a latter-day Horatio Alger (Lee Iacocca) orientation. A future
orientation is joined to the positive value accorded change and action.
Directness and openness are contrasted to a more consensus-seeking approach
in which group harmony is placed above solving problems.
Cause-and-effect logic joined to a problem-solving orientation and a
pragmatic approach to problems defines the much-vaunted scientific method.
Intuition and other approaches to evidence, fact, and "truth" are
associated with being orientations and philosophical approaches to
knowledge and knowing. Competition and a do-it-yourself approach to life
are well served by a future orientation, individualism, and the desire for
change.
The statements above simply point out some very general orientations
that have driven and, to some degree, still guide North American society.
Change is always in the air. Many have pointed out, as Stewart himself
does, that these orientations represent white middle class American values.
They do. They serve the purpose, however, of providing a frame of reference
for cross-cultural comparison.
Table 2 offers a contrastive look at some American and Japanese
values.
Such culture-specific contrast alerts us to the need to examine our
cultural values and assumptions from the perspective of others. As one
studies the dimensions of contrast, one cannot help but marvel at the
communication that does take place despite such diversity. Okabe, in
drawing upon Japanese observations about some well-known American values,
reveals a new perspective to us. For example, the bamboo whisk and octopus
pot metaphors refer to a reaching out tendency in the United States as
opposed to the drawing inward of the Japanese.
Omote means outside and omote / ura combines both the inside and
outside world. In the heterogeneous, egalitarian, sasara-type, doing,
pushing culture of the United States, there is no distinction between the
omote and the ura aspects of culture. In the hierarchical takotsubo-type,
being, pulling culture of Japan, a clear-cut distinction should always be
made between the omote and the ura dimensions of culture, the former being
public, formal, and conventional, and the latter private, informal, and
unconventional. The Japanese tend to conceive of the ura world as being
more real, more meaningful.
Interpersonal relationships contrast on the basis of the role of the
individual and group interaction. Japanese patterns are characterized by
formality and complementary relationships that stress the value of
dependence or amae. Amae is the key to understanding Japanese society. The
concept of amae underlies the Japanese emphasis on the group over the
individual, the acceptance of constituted authority, and the stress on
particularistic rather than universalistic relationships. In the
homogenous, vertical society of Japan the dominant value is conformity to
or identity with the group. The Japanese insist upon the insignificance of
the individual. Symmetrical relationships focus on the similarities of
individuals; complementary relationships exploit differences in age, sex,
role and status. There are many ways in which the Japanese publicly
acknowledge a social hierarchy-in the use of language, in seating
arrangements at social gatherings, in bowing to one another and hundreds of
others. Watch Japanese each other and the principles will become quite
apparent. Notice who bows lower, who waits for the other to go first, who
apologizes more: (1) younger defers to older; (2) female defers to male;
(3) student defers to teacher; (4); the seller's bow is lower than the
buyer's; and (6) in a school club or organization where ranks are fixed,
the lower ranked is, of course, subordinate. These features of
interpersonal relationships lead to an emphasis on the public self in the
United States and on the private self in Japan, Americans being more open
in the demonstration of personal feelings and attitudes than the Japanese.
Let us look to this question in detail.
JAPANESE INTERPERSONAL NORMS
Numerous studies by social scientists of national character or culture
have appeared in recent years, initially as a response to the need for
knowledge of enemy countries in World War II. Most of these studies have is
asked a substantive question: what is the nature of the behavior shared by
all, or a majority, of the members of a national society? Once this shared
behavior is "discovered," its written description becomes an outline of the
national culture of that country. This approach has been extensively
criticized on the grounds that the behavior of the members of any complex
society is so variable that any attempt to describe the shared items
results in superficial generalization. Critics have also pointed out that
descriptions of national cultures frequently consist of statements of norms
only, and do not denote actual behavior.
At this point in the account of our own research it is necessary to
raise questions about the nature of national cultures. However, we shall
not attempt to claim that our answer to these will be valid for all members
of the Japanese nation. We do claim validity for our own subjects and are
also willing to guess that much of what we say will apply to the majority
of Japanese men who were socialized in prewar and wartime Japan in families
of the middle and upper income brackets. We shall not claim that our
subjects necessarily behaved in the manner suggested, for the description
itself pertains to norms or principles and not to behavior. In a subsequent
section we shall provide a description and analysis of the behavior of our
subjects with reference to these norms.
This procedure implies the concept of a "cultural model": essentially
a highly generalized description of principles, shared by a large number of
people and maintained in the form of personal values. To some degree these
principles or norms constitute guides or rules for behavior: sometimes
followed literally, sometimes not, but always available as a generalized
protocol for use by the individual in finding his way through social
relationships and in judging the acts of others.
The first half of the model we shall construct pertains to the
patterns of interpersonal relations in the two societies, Japan and
America. We recognize that as representatives of the class of modern
industrial nations, these two countries have cultures very similar in many
respects. The Japanese are, in fact, often called the "Americans of the
Orient," a phrase referring to their industrious orientation toward life
and nature; their interest in mass-cultural pursuits like baseball; and
their success with capitalist enterprise in a collectivist world.
Similarities in all these areas are a fact— but it is equally apparent that
some significant differences have existed in other aspects of social life
in the two countries. Among these differences the norms and patterns of
interpersonal behavior are probably the greatest. Thus, while a Japanese
and an American may share an interest in baseball which brings them closer
together that either one might be to a member of some other nation, the two
may differ so widely in their habits of behavior in social situations that
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
