> 1. the idea of japanese homogeneity is a well-contested one. identity and
> homogeneity is as much a state doctrine of japanese nationalism as a
> demographic statement - disentanglng the two is not that easy to do,
> especially once you accept the premises that social division and
> categorisation is only evident in 'ethnic differences' recognised by the
> state;
I agree with what you say above.
>
>
> 2. by 'relative homogeneity' you clearly do not mean 'relatively
> egalitarian',
Absolutely.
> and there is a tendency to assume in this depiction that
> conflict (and therefore expenditures of means of social control) only arises
> when there are different ethnicities within the same nation-state;
>
No. Not only then. It is just that ethnicities make conflict more likely -- although they much just channel some fixed quantum of conflict onto an easy target.
Recall what you said above about the constructed homogeneity. For example, in my school we construct homogeneity along different lines -- where race does not matter much, but teaching styles and ideologies do. You do not have to construct homogeneity by excluding others [One Nation, etc.], but by coming closer to recognizing a common humanity.
I think that I mentioned that the Japanese, from what I know are racist -- at least my Japanese friends have told me so -- All Americans smell bad from eating butter .....
Anyway, thanks for the interesting note.
> 3. you've implied that it is the relative absence of 'other ethnicities'
> which makes for the relative absence of social conflict. in the line of
> causation then, and by implication, if there are no 'ethnic differences'
> there is no conflict, and hence no need for repression. in a more emphatic
> way, this is the foundational premise of racist groups like One Nation and
> americanfront, and one which lends itself readily to the 'solution' of
> separating 'races' as the logical approach to questions of social conflict.
>
> some excerpts from Koichi Iwabuchi's, "Complicit exoticism: Japan and its
> other"
>
> the rest is at: http://kali.murdoch.edu.au/cntinuum/8.2/Iwabuchi.html
>
> "Japan's constructed and celebrated unity has never been a monolith but is
> precarious. However, debunking the myth of "Japaneseness" is quite different
> from understanding the symbolic power of national identity. In spite of the
> easily-known falsity of a unified "Japaneseness", and of the inequalities
> which exist in the "real" national society, why and how are 'imagined
> communities' (Anderson) maintained? The crucial issue here is how the
> differences 'stitch up'...'into one identity' (Hall "Question" 299).
> ...
> Purity cannot mark itself through itself. Only impurity marks purity.
> ...
> As for Japan, in the path to Japan's modernisation, the emphasis on
> "Japaneseness" has been crucial for the power bloc as a means of mobilising
> the people. This strategic "Japaneseness" is something which maximises
> national interests and minimises individualism, consisting of traits such as
> loyalty to or devotion for the country.
> As Gluck noted 'in the imagined West, people were incapable of loyalty and
> filiality, and this was sufficient to define these traits as essentially
> Japanese.'
> ('37)
>
> Thus "the West" has been utilised to counter "undesirable" consequences of
> modernisation such as the rise of individualism or labor unionism, which give
> priority to people's rights. For example, it was when social movements like
> labor unionism became popular in the '9'0s that ie (household) ideology was
> intensively advocated
> (Crawcour). This ideology stressed the traditional values of paternalism,
> through which Japan itself and companies were compared with families.
> Clearly, this myth of "Japaneseness" was utilised to repress people's demands
> for "democracy" or human rights, by attributing social conflict and dissent
> to western "disease". Through selective comparisons with key significant
> Others, self-Orientalism also unmarks the exclusion of the voices of the
> repressed such as minority groups like Ainu, Koreans and burakumin (Japanese
> Untouchable) which make up four per cent of the population, and women or the
> working class. By asserting "we Japanese" as opposed to "them, the
> westerners", the discursively constructed "Japaneseness" is reified. Kano has
> argued that the strength of the concept of "the Japanese" lies in its
> all-inclusive meanings and that the concept of "the Japanese" implicitly
> includes all aspects of land, inhabitants, language, race, ethnicity and the
> nationality, all of
> which have not been historically differentiated from each other (quoted in
> Nishikawa 226-7). Any discourse of "Japaneseness" tends to start with taking
> such an ambiguous definition of "the Japanese" for granted. Thus, Japan's
> self-Orientalism has been quite selectively manipulative and repressive.
> Self-Orientalism obscures the fact that Japan's particularism is actually
> hegemonic within Japan. "The West" is
> necessary for Japan's "invention of tradition", the suppression of
> heterogeneous voices within Japan, and the creation of a modern nation whose
> people are loyal to "Japan". Self-Orientalism is a strategy of inclusion
> through exclusion, and of exclusion through inclusion. Both strategies cannot
> be separated from each other and work efficiently only when combined
> together."
>
> Angela
> ---
> rcollins at netlink.com.au
>
> --------------------------------------
> michael p wrote:
>
> >This meant that it did not have to waste its potential on bigotry. I
> >understand that Japan is as bad as the rest of the world in asserting
> >the superiority of its people, but the appointed inferiors in Japan are,
> >as I understanding it Koreans and the untouchables. Neither make up a
> >large share of the population.
> >
> >So Japan does not have to build large prison complexes to house young
> >Koreans or does not have to contend with a large undeducated Korean or
> >untouchable class who are not give the opportunity to contribute to
> >society.
> >
> >rc-am wrote:
> >
> >> Michael p wrote:
> >>
> >> >Japan had a relatively homogeneous population...
> >>
> >> what does this mean?
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901