Liberal Japan?
A reader who does business in Japan writes:
Your Indian correspondent paints an accurate picture of Japan and East Asia, but I believe the influence of liberalism in Japan is greater than he indicates.
Japan was never “colonized,” but it voluntarily (one might say pre-emptively) adapted and absorbed Western intellectual traditions wholesale, including all the liberal and socialist traditions. There are strong liberal and leftist traditions in academics and the media that go back over a century. The left has never been in charge in Japan, but it has always been a strong “dissenting” presence. Many of the changes the left was calling for before the Pacific War were implemented in postwar society with the aid of the liberal U.S. occupation authorities. Thus Japan has long had national health insurance, for instance.
Today, US/European liberal trends such as feminism and postcolonial theory are directly imported by intellectuals and there are really no arguments against them, just the continued inertia of tradition.
It may be comparable to the U.S. in the 1950s or 60s in this way—liberalism has won the intellectual battle, but hasn’t actually taken over society yet. In addition, the war experience and atomic bombings have been interpreted as proving that “all war is bad,” and a large proportion of the population is strongly pacifistic. These trends are countered by an as-yet strong bureaucratic structure and “patriarchal” leadership, as well as by the lack of mass immigration, which could change as low birthrates lead to calls for immigration. Japanese people still identify “Japanese-ness” with race because that is still the reality “on the ground.”
There are disturbing trends toward “globalization” in Japan resulting, for instance, in study of the Chinese and Japanese classics being replaced by English conversation in the schools, which is thought to be more useful but which makes Japanese youth less and less distinguishable from other educated Asians. The landscape and architecture are also becoming homogenized by massive public works projects sponsored by the national government and competed for by local administrative authorities. There is often a liberal subtext to these projects; for example, I know of one city where projects have included a “women’s center,” an “international center” for foreign residents, a “peace memorial,” and centers for minority groups such as the descendants of Koreans and the former outcaste class. Also, I see in the Japanese the same sense of weakened identity that affluent white Westerners have; they lack a sense of national purpose, they feel vaguely guilty for their imperialist past and present prosperity, and they feel “bored” with their own country. When Japan played Korea in the World Cup, many Japanese remarked on how passionate the Koreans were for victory compared to themselves.
One does sense that the authorities are looking at the West and are determined not to make the mistake of allowing mass immigration from racially and culturally different countries (though international marriage and immigration have risen sharply in the last two decades). There is also a genuine mistrust of China and fear of North Korea which could lead to the abolition of the anti-war clause in the constitution.
All in all Japan is in an excellent position to survive the upheavals of the coming century and do much better than the Western nations. Still, liberalism is doing its work there with tangibly negative results.
An Indian living in the West replies:
How many blacks are there in Tokyo? A friend just returned from Tokyo and said that some parts of the city have been “taken over” by African blacks who are pimps and peddle drugs. I am certain this is true because my friend wouldn’t lie to me. Of course, if such a thing happens in a tiny corner of a city as huge as Tokyo, then it doesn’t really matter. But if this happens on a larger scale, then it would seem that Tokyo is on the same destructive path as, say, Paris or Amsterdam or London.
I have to disagree with your reader somewhat. National health insurance is an indicator that the Japanese believe in taking care of their own people. The correct test would be if anyone could willy nilly walk into the country and use the nationalised health service as is now the case in most of Western Europe. If not, then its a health service by Japanese for the Japanese. That if NOT leftist or liberal.
What your reader says about the leftists winning university arguments is interesting but I don’t think they bear the same relevance as they do in America or Europe. Japan is very different in that the university leftists have little say in the running of the country. And like most Asian countries, the smartest people do not study history or sociology. They study hard sciences. And because of this, the leftists are not as strong because they are deprived of the smartest people. Also, Japan is not really a “democracy” and the liberal intellectuals have almost no say in the making of policy. The Japanese bureaucracy will remain insulated from these things for a very long time.
One should also be careful in distinguishing what the Japanese intend for Japanese ears and what they intend for the foreigners. A perfect example of this is Kenchi Ohmae; he is a “believer” in a borderless world and passes himself off as a free trader and a libertarian—in America of course. In Japan, he doesn’t say much.
Lastly, Japan has the second highest military budget in the world. They wouldn’t have this if the Japanese civil service had convinced itself that pacifism is the only way to go. I think Japan is still a healthy society.
Charlton G. writes:
Another reason the Japanese have been able to deal more effectively with the decadence of modernism is the way they handled defeat after WWII. Unlike Germany, which was enfiladed by the left as a result of the extreme zealousness of denazification, the Japanese were able quietly but firmly to deflect much of the criticism of war guilt. Japan has been careful to keep radical elements from tearing down their traditions and from rewriting their history books. You won’t find in Japan the trauma-inducing drumbeat of self-flagellation that is so evident in Germany (and the West in general). In other words, Japan is protecting itself from the vicious psychic attacks that are the rule elsewhere. As long as Europeans are constantly apologizing for the past, they cannot rebuild a healthy nation state. Japan has handled this touchy situation with much wisdom and tact. I agree that they are well positioned to come out of the 21st century in much better shape that the West.
LA replies:
Charlton has articulated very well the psychic effect of liberalism on Westerners.
The reader who began this discussion writes:
To respond to the thread thus far:
I agree with most of the points made by your Indian correspondent. His statement about the relative powerlessness of left-wing intellectuals is interesting and rings fairly true—not that Japanese historians and sociologists aren’t intelligent, but they are outsiders to the central power structure.
He’s right about the health-care system too, and that raises the question of how “liberal” many of the postwar reforms were apart from the constitutional democratic reforms, which were substantial indeed.
African hawkers for strip clubs can be seen nightly in the Roppongi district of Tokyo, seemingly targeting Westerners rather than Japanese. Probably like most of the seamy aspects of life in Japan this is “managed” by restricting it to certain areas and by having a “no-tolerance” policy of certain behaviors. So the Africans can, say, sell pot to people (with occasional crackdowns to show who’s in charge) but if there were ever a rash of assaults on Japanese they would be out of there. The same is true of prostitution and gangster extortion. They are rampant but are kept in their place so that ordinary people do not normally find themselves endangered by them.
I am not saying Japan is about to collapse in a conflagration of liberalism, but the “liberal malaise” that I described does exist, as do liberal rhetoric, liberal education, and liberal social projects.
American-style lawsuits are also increasing at an enormous rate due to an expanding definition of “rights” in the courts. One might argue that Japanese liberalism remains superficial, a trapping of modernity that has not permeated the society the way it has in the West (just as the Japanese have a Christian-influenced sense of morality without having become Christian). The Japanese see themselves as pacifists and yet they keep their military in place.
They are sorry about World War II but don’t let the Chinese use that to push them around.
All in all the case of Japan convinces me how important ethnic homogeneity is. With that, a society can go through all sorts of turmoil and still recover.
And, with their high IQs, their underachievers are less of a burden than “ours.” Apart from that, the Japanese have a work ethic which tempers the ill effects of liberalism. Overcoming setbacks in life or work seems to be a central cultural theme.
Rollory writes:
I notice, in the discussion of Japan, none of the comments mention what MUST be the elephant in the room: the fact that Japan’s birthrate is and has been collapsing as surely as the most liberal European societies. National health care and the social safety net, whether it is just for Japanese or not, is a major contributor to this, as it removes one of the incentives to have children—that of assuring a caretaker in old age.
The reader continues:
The whole Japan issue had me thinking for a long time over the question: in what sense is modern liberalism a distinctly Western, white phenomenon? It seems that in Japan, and in a different way in India, the West is the “source” of liberalism, a discourse adapted by Western-educated elites for its “prestige” value, analogous to classical music. Maybe such societies can come to resemble liberal Western societies greatly in some respects without being truly liberal.
What liberal phenomena are unique to Western, white countries? Here are a few ideas—there must be many others:
1. The presence of an underachieving, racially different minority and the attempt to integrate that minority fully into society. And, ultimately, the suicidal practice of mass immigration.
Different from trying to undo discrimination based on social class, caste, or national ancestry—e.g. Japan’s outcaste class or Korean nationals, who are racially indistinguishable from the majority. Different from, say, Chinese in Malaysia or Asians in Africa, who are a racial minority but not underachievers.
Can liberalism actually be separated from its anti-white character? Would an Indian liberal call for mass white immigration to India to “diversify” the country? Is a black liberal really a liberal, or someone pursuing black empowerment THROUGH liberalism?
2. The normalization of homosexuality and other sexually deviant behavior by attempting to integrate it into traditional social institutions based on heterosexuality.
Different from the many non-Western cultures that are tolerant of homosexuality as a sub-culture or as a temporary life phase, etc.
3. Maybe most importantly: there is something about the unique qualities of Christianity and Christian societies that informs modern liberalism, gives it its evangelical and utopian quality, and gives it a deep antagonism towards traditional, Christian-based society. It is as if the very high moral standards of Christianity are perfectly inverted into an uncompromising hostility toward tradition. Also, perhaps, Christian meekness morphs into passivity in the face of threats.
Most Japanese are only superficially religious but I don’t think there is a rift between them and those who actually practice a faith. I imagine secular Hindus also do not see themselves as being at war with traditional religion. There is also the case of Chinese communists destroying Buddhist temples in the Cultural Revolution; I’m not sure how to fit this in but I can’t see it as “liberal.” I think in many non-Western societies social change, even upheaval, is not as destructive of the social fabric as Western liberalism
4. Social welfare states, egalitarianism, pacifism, gender equality movements, low birth rates…all of these are found in non-Western societies, but it would seem do not necessarily make those societies “liberal.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 04, 2007 06:34 PM | Send