Japan's New Middle Class: The Salary Man and His Family in a Tokyo Suburb (24 page)

For the wife, loyalty to her husband and children takes clear precedence over loyalty to other relatives or friends. The one unavoidable conflict is in the switch of allegiance from the family into which she was born to the family into which she marries. This conflict is generally resolved in favor of the family into which she marries, but in the first few years of marriage this may not accord with her feelings. The narrowness of the range of loyalty, however, has meant that the conflict at most affects her, her parents, her husband, and his parents. In personal relations, the husband's loyalty to wife and children now even takes precedence to his loyalty to his parents, but he generally tries to remain loyal to both.

The narrow range of present-day loyalties sets limits to the amount of loyalty conflict, but the increase of mobility outside these narrow groups makes it necessary to find some substitute for loyalty as a basis of trust. Although in most cases the value of honesty is

thoroughly accepted, in some cases it is considered moral to deceive outsiders. Most people feel no responsibility for helping or being kind to strangers because there is no universal ethic which says that all men should be treated equally, that outsiders should be trusted and treated with kindness. This ethic poses serious problems with the increase of contacts between strangers as is evidenced by the widespread use of private detective agencies. The practice of making contacts with outsiders through mutual friends is thus very crucial in providing a basis of trust between strangers which is not provided by a more fully developed universal ethic.

A related problem is a person's difficulty in maintaining identity and focusing his sense of loyalty when he is not a member of a close-knit group. For example, there is often a gap in late adolescence when a youth has weakened his ties to his family but has not yet replaced them with loyalty to a new family or place of work. In this transition, the ties between classmates may temporarily fill the gap, but
ronin
who are studying for examinations and even college students often have no friendships strong enough to provide a stable basis of loyalty. School and university provide little dormitory life, and few fraternities or clubs exist to provide a feeling of belonging. It is at this age that some larger ideology seems especially attractive. Once a young man becomes a salary man and enters a firm, however, he has a feeling of belonging and becomes progressively less interested in an over-all ideology.
^[10]

A final change in the pattern of loyalty is the easing of the rigidity with which loyalty is demanded. For example, New Year visits of paying respect to one's superior are slowly losing their compelling quality among salary men. Bringing periodic presents to one's superior no longer seems so essential, and some capable young men do not bother with this custom any more. The relaxation of formalities is not, however, a dilution of regard for the essence of loyalty. Mamachi residents still are primarily oriented to the old values rather than the new. Even if critical of the old values they continue to think in terms of the traditional. Most of the attack on old values

[10] The fundamentalist "new sects" have a wide following among people who would otherwise lack close-knit groups: migrants to the city, women with marital difficulties, and men who lack secure employment. Mamachi salary men have little interest in these "new sects."

is not on the basis of the new values of individualism but on the basis of antifeudalism. Among groups of close friends, for example, there may be complaints about superiors, but the content of the complaint is not likely to be that the superior did not provide enough freedom but that he did not adequately look out for his followers. To the extent that democratic values have an influence it is to soften the harshness of the demands of loyalty and permit more tolerance for the group members who do not always follow automatically the dictates of the group consensus.

Although the underlying value of loyalty has remained, the patterns of loyalty have undergone sufficient change to polarize responses to these changes. If the modern values of loyalty which stress collaterality rather than hierarchy and allow a narrower range of loyalty and increased tolerance of deviation are placed at one end of the continuum, and the traditional views at the opposite end, it is possible to distinguish four general kinds of reaction: those who conform to the new pattern, those who conform to the new but do so defensively, those who defensively support the traditional, and those who conform to the traditional.
^[11]

The first, and perhaps the most common of the four types, consists of those who fit easily into the new patterns. These are the people who are loyal to their own group, faithful to group members, follow group consensus, do not want to take things literally, and are not interested in ritual displays of loyalty. They believe in frankness. They have ideas of their own, but are willing to permit other members freedom and variation, and they are deeply devoted to their group. They try to avoid situations where they might be called on for help by distant relatives and if called will offer a minimum of help in as kindly a manner as possible.

The second type, those who defensively conform to the new standards, hate tradition and any contemporary vestige of feudalism they can uncover. They resent any insinuation by foreigners that they accept tradition or that the Japanese in general are traditional-minded. Within their own family or immediate work group they

[11] These correspond essentially to Talcott Parson's deviance paradigm which includes conformity, compulsive conformity, compulsive alienation, and alienation. See his
Social System,
Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1951, chapter 7.

remain loyal and follow the group, but many project their feelings of annoyance at conformity on the ideological plane, complaining, for example, about the power of tradition, conformity, and the older generation. Many young girls who are able to contain whatever negative feelings they have toward their own mother, project onto mothers-in-law in general the negative feelings they suppress at home. Within the tight-knit group, often one must control one's negative feelings, and any alienation which one feels is projected outside the group toward any kind of traditional pressure for conformity.
^[12]

Some members of this category are not accepted either by groups upholding modern or those upholding traditional patterns, but their annoyance is more likely to be directed toward the traditional than the modern. Some of these people are envious of not being in the in-groups and would possibly be more moderate if included. At times these are the people who are concerned about what they consider the tyranny of the majority. They so resent the arbitrariness of the majority, that they do not fully accept the principle that the minority should abide by the decisions of the majority.

The third group, those compulsively alienated from the new values, are upset when others do not show proper respect for tradition and the traditional values of hierarchy and authority, self-discipline, and absolute obedience. Though considerably smaller in number and less vocal than those opposed to tradition, they may be just as adamant. This is the group who often promote the reintroduction of moral training in school and encourage teaching children more respect and conformity.

Finally, there are those who are completely alienated from the new values but who feel almost no conflict in their opinion. They are fully integrated in their own groups and, although unhappy with the newer values, do not necessarily express their opposition in terms of ideology. For example, when others argue that traditions must be changed, they may not offer any counterargument, but by their behavior and attitudes they continue to show high regard for

[12] As Dr. Takeo Doi has suggested, it is in part the psychological strain in adjusting to the consensus in their own group that makes it so difficult to accept a consensus arrived at in another group.

tradition. Often because of their age or high status in the community, they retain the admiration of other people in the community and are somewhat insulated from the pressures to change.

To be fully respected a person must not only be loyal but competent (
yoku dekiru
or
sainoo ga aru hito
). Competence is defined partly as talent or genius (
tensai
) but partly as the capacity for hard work (
kinben
) and perseverance (
gamanzuyoi
). Although Mamachi residents no longer take seriously the view that a talented person is being rewarded by
inga
(the Buddhist doctrine of cause and effect) for virtue in a previous life, there is an overtone to the word
tensai
which implies that a person is blessed by heaven. Although it can be misleading to rely too much on linguistic usage because the origin of the word does not necessarily coincide with its present meaning, it is not irrelevant to note that the
ten
of the word
tensai
is written with the character for heaven. But even if having talent does not denote a moral quality, hard work certainly does, and it is thought that competence is in large part the result of years of practice and hard work. Although competence is less crucial than loyalty, a person who has an important position and is not competent is regarded as undeserving, and, if it can be done gracefully, he may be replaced by one who is competent as well as loyal.

Performance (or in Florence Kluckhohn's value-orientation theory, "doing") is not valued for its own sake, but for the sake of the group. Competence is likewise considered important in the context of its meaning for the group, because a person's performance not only affects himself but his co-workers. Because groups are tight-knit, a member's success and satisfaction depend on the success of the entire group, and one slacker can undermine the position of all the others. In performing a task, one is not rewarded simply for giving his best efforts, but must produce the results for the group or suffer the consequences. If a school child misbehaves or is caught by the law, the teacher is held as partly responsible, regardless of what efforts he might have made to redirect the errant child. If a child is injured on a school trip, the mother who accompanied the class is considered partly responsible regardless of how the injury actually occurred. Because a person's responsibility is so total, most

activities are not decided and carried out by a single individual but by the group.

Because most groups are relatively stable, a person usually is not judged on the basis of a single performance. The intimate association of group members over years makes it possible for them to know each other's abilities and weak points intimately. A person's general competence becomes, in effect, an ascriptive point of reference for respect accorded him by other group members. Even if he is not officially accorded a high position within the group, the fact that in forming group consensus other co-workers respond readily to his advice means that he is constantly receiving recognition for his general competence. For a person to be really competent, however, he must not only have technical skill but skill in human relations. Since groups operate by consensus, a person who antagonizes others is not given a chance to realize his potential competence regardless of technical competence.

Group members cannot all have an equal amount of loyalty and competence, and if one member is loyal but not competent or competent but not loyal, this poses a problem which might be called "incongruency of respect," and requires that the group develop some way of reconciling this incongruency. Usually, except for the time of movement between groups as in examinations, the value of competence is subordinated to the value of group loyalty. For example, within a business firm, a man is generally rewarded for his competence only after there is complete consensus that he deserves to be. A man's advancement is in part based on seniority, and at the lower level of the business hierarchy formal differentiation of men on the basis of competence is minimal. When, after several years, differentiation in status is finally made on the basis of competence, there is a feeling that the person who is promoted completely deserves the promotion, and, if anything, should have received it earlier.
^[13]
Therefore, ordinarily, ability is rewarded but in such a way that group consensus is not disrupted.

However, the individual with ability who does not respond to group consensus is difficult for the group to deal with. If a person

[13] For this information I am indebted to Professor Kazuo Noda of Rikkyo University.

is incompetent as well as unresponsive, the group can effectively isolate him. Even the talented man whose services are needed may find himself in a less important position than he deserves if he is unco-operative, and if permitted to occupy a position of prominence, informal sanctions may be directed against him to limit his autonomy and power. Similarly, a mother whose children are successful in school but who does not subscribe to the attitudes of the community may not be given a position of prominence. Such cases are not always settled easily and gracefully, but once an effective group consensus is achieved, effective informal techniques can be used to isolate, degrade, and embarrass the deviant.

The common solution to the converse problem, the incompetent person who is loyal to the group, is to give him a position of honor and prestige which carries little responsibility and power. Since there is no clearly defined table of organization or rules of office, bureaucratic and private voluntary associations are flexible. This flexibility makes it possible on the basis of group consensus, to create special positions for such people where they will be accorded respect and yet where their lack of ability will not hinder group effectiveness. Of course, the person may be aware that he is not regarded as competent but often he appears grateful just to be treated with honor.