Japan's New Middle Class: The Salary Man and His Family in a Tokyo Suburb (23 page)

[3] Although I attempted to make these abstractions independently from other studies, I must admit that the strikingly similar findings of Bellah in his analysis of Tokugawa documents and of Matsumoto and of Caudill and Scarr in large-scale samplings of attitudes and value-orientations have sensitized me to these values. However, at a minimum, I have a number of independent observations which lend support to these findings. Bellah concluded that the fundamental societal values in the Tokugawa Period were "particularism" and "performance." The fact that these societal values correspond to "loyalty" and "competence," the qualities valued in personal behavior, would lend support to the view that there has been considerable continuity in the value system. Caudill and Scarr, using Florence Kluckhohn's value-orientation theory on large Japanese samples, found that in the activities sphere, the desired mode of behavior for Japanese is "doing," which corresponds to the individual quality I have termed "competence." Caudill and Scarr noted that collaterality was the preferred mode of relationship within the nuclear family and the work organization. Matsumoto and Ishida also noted the importance of collectivity orientation within the in-group and found that these relationships now tend to be directed more toward peers than to superiors and inferiors. Caudill and Scarr found, however, that outside the nuclear family and the immediate work group, the individualistic orientation is likely to be stronger. Cf. Robert N. Bellah,
Tokugawa Religion,
Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957; William Caudill and Harry Scarr, "Japanese Value Orientations and Culture Change,"
Ethnology,
1961, 1:53–91; Matsumoto,
op. cit.;
Takeshi Ishida,
Gendai Soshiki Ron
(A Theory of Modern Organization), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1960.

Despite changes in the nature and direction of expression, loyalty of the individual to his group remains the most important attribute of the respected person. In its extreme form, loyalty means that the individual can be counted on to place group interests above his own. Group loyalty means not only identification with group goals but a willingness to co-operate with the other members and to respond to group consensus enthusiastically. If given an assignment by his group he must accept the responsibility. He should avoid any situation that might be embarrassing to a member of his group and always maintain an interest in the welfare, comfort, and sense of honor of the others. A daughter is respected if she considers her parents' wishes in thinking of marriage, and an employee is respected if he does not leave a job to accept more money elsewhere. Even if differences of opinion are expressed within the group, members are expected to stick together vis-à-vis the outside. It is no longer required that the individual express loyalty in formal ways through ceremonies and gift-giving. Today a person is judged loyal when his total attitude shows that he whole-heartedly supports the interests of his group.

There is considerable discussion about Western concepts of individualism (
kojin-shugi
) but, in the dominant Mamachi view, individualism is opposed to loyalty. If one accepts the Kantian view that morality implies duty, Mamachi residents do not consider individualism as a kind of morality—they do not conceive of individualism as the responsibility of a person to be true to his own ideals. Individualism does not imply a sense of oughtness or responsibility, but rather it is seen as the right and privilege of an individual to look out for his own interests even against the interests of the group. To the extent that individualism brings with it any duty at all, it is simply the obligation of the person in power to permit a measure of freedom to the person lower in the hierarchy. In the common view, traditional Japanese morality meant only responsibilities and duties, no rights. One was supposed to be loyal to his master even if it meant getting little in return. What democracy and individualism mean to the Mamachi resident is that subordinates now have the right to expect something from their

superiors, and some people in Mamachi now use this as grounds for insisting on their rights. Although it is now felt that a superior should grant some such privileges, it is still considered crude and selfish for a person to stand up for his rights. Few people in Mamachi consider it a higher morality to be concerned more with one's own benefit than with the welfare of one's group.

One of the characteristics of loyalty as a basic value is that no principle is more important than regard for the other members of one's own intimate group. Hence, there is no fully legitimate basis for standing against the group. Once group consensus is reached, one should abide by the decisions. Although some deviants attempt to justify their failure to follow group consensus in terms of democracy or freedom, these values have not been internalized sufficiently to justify the deviant's behavior to himself, let alone to other members of the group. It is true that there is now sufficient acceptance to cause some hesitation and tinges of ambivalence before an overly frank or pretentious deviant is put down, but not enough to counter effectively the eventual pressures toward group consensus, nor enough to turn an occasional deviant into a hero for courageously defying his group for other principles.

The lack of absolutes also facilitates the adjustment to new ideas very rapidly once the group arrives at a consensus. This has created a realism and pragmatism which makes it possible to absorb new patterns of behavior as long as they are mediated by the group. Although many Japanese decry the abandonment of principle in their easy accommodation to new power situations,
^[4]
there is no doubt that this ability has made it easier to absorb new ideas in a period of rapid social change. This requires, however, considerable discussion, and there are continual informal get-togethers and discussions among Mamachi residents trying to achieve a consensus. This same process is used at the most general level to determine group values

[4] See, for example, Tadashi Fukutake,
Man and Society in Japan,
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1962. Western observers noting the existence of non-Western patterns in Japan are prone to regard them as traditional. In fact, many are not traditional but the results of considerable change, and Mamachi residents place little value on the preservation of tradition. They express a willingness, even eagerness, to sacrifice traditional practices if they seem not to fit with a realistic adjustment to the world today. This also accords with the Caudill and Scarr findings of an overwhelming preference for the "present time" value orientations as opposed to "past" and "future." Cf. Caudill and Scarr,
op. cit
.

and at the most concrete level to determine group attitudes toward specific subjects within the family or within some group in the community. In the bureaucracy, the
ringi seido
(system of joint consultation by people on the same level)
^[5]
reflects the same pattern. In the
ringi seido
a person does not have specific responsibilities assigned to him but rather continually checks back with the group for final approval. Although one may question the efficiency of such a procedure, it does maintain close group co-operation. If a group achieves consensus, this makes it possible to absorb changes relatively easily because no old rules or principles interfere with consensus.
^[6]

The lack of absolute standards taking precedence over consensus also makes it difficult to decide by what rules the group should arrive at a consensus. The general consideration in reaching a consensus is the good of the group as seen by various people, but the problem of various strengths of feelings, relative status within the group, and objective considerations about group benefit can make the process of reaching a consensus extremely complex. Because people's feelings are carefully considered in reaching the consensus, there is no simple way for members to resolve disputes without considering all the subtleties of their relationship to each other and to the group.

The lack of absolute standards taking precedence over consensus creates problems for a person moving from one group to another. It takes time to be accepted in a tight-knit group. Furthermore, the newcomer cannot be sure of group standards, and he has no standards of his own which he knows he can apply to the new group. Even if the practices and standards of judgment in his new group are similar to those of his old group, in a dispute or in case he incurs the displeasure of the group, he has no way to justify his behavior. Unfamiliar with the norms of the group, he tries to be par-

[5] From Kazuo Noda, unpublished manuscript.

[6] Group consensus is perhaps the most widespread model for decision-making. For example, more than 90 percent of divorces are by collusion. Cf. Takeyoshi Kawashima and Kurt Steiner, "Modernization and Divorce Rate Trends in Japan,"
Economic Development and Culture Change,
1960. This model of conciliation and group decision is also a general model in Japanese law. Cf. Takeyoshi Kawashima in Arthur Taylor von Mehren, ed.,
op. cit.

ticularly careful until he understands the nature of the group consensus.

Although loyalty has been a basic Japanese value for centuries, there have been several modifications of patterns of loyalty within the last few decades. One of these is the increasing importance of the ties with equals as opposed to the tie between superiors and inferiors.
^[7]
Traditionally, the hierarchical positions were more inclined to be ascribed in terms of age
^[8]
or in terms of status in the community. Increasingly, hierarchical positions are subject to patterns of achievement, and if a superior is unable or unwilling to go along with group consensus he may be politely moved to a position of honor without power and, in effect, be replaced by someone who is more responsive to group consensus. Even in present-day Mamachi, however, it is often difficult for others to dislodge a person of authority without causing embarrassment and schisms in the organization. But even if he remains in his position officially, informal consensus can be used effectively to slow down his programs if he is not willing to follow the group consensus. "Feudalistic" has been an effective rallying cry in limiting the power of the superior.

There is also another sense in which the collateral dimension has replaced the hierarchical. In the traditional pattern, it was common for a boy to enter a shop at a fairly early age and for a girl to marry at a fairly early age; once in the small shop or the family, the young person was subject to the wishes of his superior. Now, with the prolongation of schooling and the postponement of the age at which work and marriage begin, the peer group takes on an importance at this stage which it previously lacked. Furthermore, in the large firm the salary man has many peers. When he joins the firm, he is inducted in a large class and receives training in the class. This peer group of newly inducted members becomes an important

[7] However, even in traditional times, there were variations which stressed collateral as opposed to lineal ties. Cf. John Pelzel and Florence Kluckhohn, "A Theory of Variation in Values Applied to Aspects of Japanese Social Structure,"
Bulletin of the Research Institute of Comparative Education and Culture,
Kyushu University, 1957.

[8] Cf. Edward Norbeck, "Age Grading in Japan,"
American Anthropologist,
1953, 55:373–384.

source of solidarity which tends to place limitations on the extent to which they are subject to the authority of the superiors.

A second change in the pattern of loyalty is in the narrowing of the range of loyalty. The most popular epithet for criticizing traditional patterns is "feudalistic." In Mamachi, many traditional bonds have loosened or evaporated. For example, elders in the community who arbitrarily impose their will on community organizations would be considered feudalistic. Main family members in the country who make demands on the branch family in Mamachi are considered feudalistic. High status people who try to control some activities of low status people in the community are considered feudalistic. Too much interference by a work superior in the personal life of an employee would be considered feudalistic. All this means that group loyalties in contemporary Mamachi are focused on the nuclear family and the immediate work group.
^[9]
The link between the work group and the company means on certain occasions that one is loyal to his own company vis-à-vis other companies and to his nation vis-à-vis other nations, but this wider loyalty never takes precedence over the loyalty to one's immediate group.

The narrower range of primary loyalties has minimized potential conflicts between loyalties. In comparison, for example, in the traditional Chinese or southern Italian family, which lacked a sharp limit to the loyalty required on both sides of the family, continual conflicts existed between loyalties to various relatives. In those societies, gifts or favors to certain relatives were taken as an insult to others, and lineage fission was often accompanied by family quarrels or feuds. Even in traditional Japan loyalties and obligations sometimes conflicted, and a hierarchy of primacy evolved by which conflicts were resolved. For example, in conflicting loyalties, a samurai was to neglect his family in favor of his lord. In some cases, however, as in the loyalty conflicts of friends versus relatives, it was not clear how these were to be resolved.

In contemporary Mamachi, however, because the basic loyalty is to one's immediate group, the conflicts of loyalty generally do not

[9] Caudill and Scarr found that responses to questions dealing with community relations and relations with relatives were very individualistic. Caudill and Scarr,
op. cit
.

create serious problems. The greatest problems today appear to be resulting from the not-yet-completed process of narrowing the range of loyalties. Although most families now consider that loyalty is limited primarily to the nuclear family and the immediate work group, a few try to take advantage of the rather weak expectation that it should extend to a wider circle. Aside from such problems, the conflict of genuine loyalties is rare. The most common conflict of loyalty between family and work group occurs when a husband is transferred from the Tokyo area to another city. Although moves to new communities are less common than in the United States, sometimes a man will be sent to another Japanese or overseas branch of his company for a year or two. The man nearly always accepts the move without protest, but often, because of the problems of setting up a temporary home and disrupting the children's education, the wife and children remain in Mamachi. This need not lead to a serious conflict of loyalties because even at a distance, the husband continues to meet the basic needs of his family. He supports the household and looks out for his children's future. To the extent that a conflict does exist between family and place of work, it is not usually the conflict between the family and the firm but between the family and the company gang, since it is the gang rather than the firm which places the heaviest demands on the husband's time and money.