I once had a deep conversation with a Japanese friend that I think is worth sharing: The topic was on the contrast between 'politeness' and a genuine desire to be kind to other people. In Kyoto, many people (not all) see themselves as guardians or proponents of Japan's cultural history. In the service industry and business there is the concept of omotenashi which could roughly be translated to hospitality.
Our conversation delved into the nuances of Kyoto-jin culture and the perspective of Japanese people who are not Kyoto-jin (long-time residents of Kyoto City proper). My friend is from Fukuoka and he admits that Kyoto's gatekeeping subculture is often intimidating. The reason he says is because the rules of honne to tatemae (roughly the conflict between “one’s true feelings” and keeping “outward appearances”) are very prevalent. He gestured in a comical way that people wear a “mask of politeness” when in the presence of others, but they often speak ill of others when they're home or among associates.
I personally have been at the receiving end of this treatment and I was laughing with him about how certain people behave in such situations. To be perfectly honest, I find snobbish behavior rather silly and I would usually show my discontent with such people in Western countries. I explained to my friend that my critique of such behavior is plainly expressed in a few moral axioms that I will get to later. But for one simple example: it’s more sensible to make an earnest effort to be kind to other people. I know personally that keeping up fake appearances drains my energy and always feels like a waste of time. So why is it that Kyoto-jin and people in similar cultural hubs keep up this two-faced politeness?
Well, the answers are both complex and overcomplicated. But I mainly point to two critical periods in Japanese history: 1) the Bakumatsu, and 2) the postwar occupation by the United States. Kyoto has been a longtime political capital of Japan and still is the heart and de facto cultural capital. In short, people were constantly at civil war over who should govern Japan- the Emperor or the Shogun.
These tensions came to a head right in Kyoto as the epicenter of a civil war termed the Bakumatsu (a fight over whether the rule of the Shogun would continue). In that conflict suspicions were high. And concepts like sonnou joui (revere the emperor, expel the foreign barbarians) were the norm when the US forced trade on the ill-equipped, Shogun-ruled Japanese empire. In that time print news of assassinations and uprisings were prevalent. So people barred their windows and put up their defenses in suspicion of people even within their own homesteads.
The postwar period was also a major cultural cue for Kyoto-jin because they were one of the cities that remained mostly intact from American bombing raids. John Dower, author of Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II, described postwar Japan as living in devastation and a shaking loss of dignity. This was called the “kyodatsu condition” and it describes a time when people would not help others out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather they were pitted in a state of survival against “shiranai hito” (strangers in a pejorative sense).
So then, upon understanding these two watershed moments in Japanese history we can see the harshness and survival instinct of Kyoto-jin take shape. Kyoto is densely populated with temples and shrines that have lasted through generations that outdate the US by centuries. To compare the two histories by length is laughable. Kyoto-jin have, for better or worse, a pride to uphold as a matter of social obligation. They withstood countless raids and fires and the devastation of wartime and postwar occupation. So their status as cultural gatekeepers rings true even to me.
However, like my Fukuoka-jin friend, I take issue in the way people show their pride and thinly veiled disdain toward “outsiders” wherever I go. And I use issues like this one as an opportunity to discuss ethics and moral behavior in general. In a society where keeping up appearances and politeness are paramount, I find that people often lose their humaneness in the process. For, what good is politeness if the people you associate with are actually deceitful, ill-tempered and lack respect for others?
As I mentioned before, it takes a lot of effort to keep up appearances. It is much easier and wholesome to simply cultivate a disposition of kindness and humaneness. Some might make the mistake that this critique is from an American or Eurocentric / Christian worldview. But no, these concepts are shared commonly throughout human civilizations. For Japan, the roots of such concepts were initially transferred by Confucian and Buddhist teachings.
According to the Confucian philosopher Mengzi [known as Moushi in Japan] (372-289 BCE) humans are born with four sprouts or seeds: “concern for others”, “sense of shame”, “sense of humility”, and “sense of right and wrong”(Mengzi 2A:6) which develop into four virtues (jen [humaneness], yi [righteousness], li [propriety], and zhih [wisdom]). If people do not cultivate these sprouts with care they become selfish and unreliable to others. Outside influences can also corrupt these sprouts.
The Buddha, on the other hand, said that basically all corruption to a person's moral character is ultimately a person's own doing. Of course this doesn't mean the Buddha blames victims for anger towards injustice, but that the mind is the ultimate source of suffering (Dhammapada, Yamakavagga 1-20). Mengzi said human nature is fundamentally good but self-cultivation is essential. The Buddha would agree.
In fact, the entire foundation of Buddhism is self-cultivation starting from introspection upon learning basic tenets and the “Four Noble Truths”*. The two would differ, however, in the nuance describing human nature as being ultimately “good” or “bad”. Rather than evaluate people based on the very simplistic duality between good and evil, the Buddha offered a different contrast: wisdom and ignorance (vijjā and avijjā). And like Mengzi, the Buddha considered this duality to be a matter of fact. This is the composition of the human condition and explains the sources of suffering or compounded problems.
I do admit that this essay does not delve deep enough to explain more nuanced approaches to omotenashi in Kyoto. I feel it should be mentioned that in Kyoto's long-lived customs that the concept of ichigen-san okotowari (no first-timers served) carried onward and outward from the O-cha-ya (the famous tea houses where geiko/geisha and maiko serve high-society customers). The Gion district, where the majority of these O-cha-ya are located, has, in a sense, spread outward to encompass the rest of Kyoto city proper. The spirit of ichigen-san okotowari is actually lived out by continued descendants of Kyoto-jin. This cultural more has thus disseminated into a social habit known as "othering" in the most explicit, yet cunning sense.
In my view, the othering habits of proud people are ultimately an affront to their own supposed moral norms. In the US or UK, for example, we all know of the so-called snobs whom live in gated communities, go to politicized churches, and speak of moral values. But we also know those snobbish, hoity-toity people are actually dishonest to the core. They have misanthropic views towards people they look down on. Their “politeness” rings hollow because they do not cultivate positive humaneness and consideration towards others. This cultural elitist mentality is completely understandable from a certain viewpoint, but it cultivates very negative intentions and flashpoints where conflict or animosity can arise.
In Japanese sociology wa or harmony is the central tenet. I believe that true 和 wa is possible only with true and honest intentions to give dignity to others. And I also think that the concept of wa should be adapted around the world- but only if people are capable of cultivating sprouts of humaneness. It cannot be disseminated by force. Let me also just say that although this essay is mostly a critique of social behavior in Kyoto, I will always remember that I have had the privilege to meet many kind and warmhearted Kyoto-jin as well. It would not be fair to say otherwise. It is so easy for so-called outsiders to feel unwelcome or intimidated by the traditional customs of Kyoto. But I was welcomed by many people several times. I just hope there might be a balance and more compassionate way of life in the future to come.
In summary, I felt this discussion was a great opportunity to highlight the value of replacing “politeness” with genuine kindness using norms that have already been established and explicated in ancient Asian philosophies. As a critical theorist, I often think it is helpful to force the dichotomy between being “polite” and being kind; as being polite does not imply someone is kind. The real moral value in politeness has always translated into the skillful mitigation of conflict. But if it is apparent to others that the motivation for politeness is disingenuous, then the very act defeats its own purpose.
*the Four Noble Truths are: 1. Life is never truly satisfactory. In short, we suffer (we all get ill, we all grow old, we all die) [dukkha]. 2. Unsatisfactoriness is caused by our craving and attachment and our reluctance to accept change [samudaya]. 3. The cessation of suffering is possible by eradicating craving and attachment. [nirodha] 4. The cessation of suffering can be accomplished by the Eightfold path. [magga].
Photo: a maiko in Gion District, Kyoto. (May 2016) -Nicholas LeMon-Armin
Comments