Shock of Western vs Japanese values

[Maciamo]

In all honesty, that is most likely the response most Americans would give as well to how the country can be improved.

I you ask me what could be improved in Europe, I'd say the education system (as explained in another thread), more democracy (frequent referendum about important issues, internet polls taken in consideration by politicians, etc.), reform the unemployment benefit system so as to have less lazy people not looking for jobs, crack down on criminality (with expulsion of foreign criminal with non-permanent visa, which isn't even the case now ! - probably the only place in the world ), stimulate the economy, create more private (paid) universities to rival with American ones (as currently they are all free and at very similar levels, but not enough excellent ones due to lack of funds), etc, etc. I don't even know where to stop, as there are so many obvious things that everybody know need to ne improved.

But when I ask educated Japanese business people, I only hear about the economy, while the situation regarding democracy, education, etc. are much worse in Japan than in Europe (I hope that people who consider me a "Japan-basher" will finally understand that I am being very kind in my criticism of Japan, compared to what I would do "at home", in Europe, with my own government and people; because I don't even have the right to vote in Japan ).

[giant_robot]

Ok, yes, in some part morals are based on culture, and what is wrong for some people is right to others, but there are some common points that most cultures can agree on. For example, you speak of want for material posessions being wrong as if that were purely a Western sentiment. What about Buddhism? "Desire is suffering." It's a religion supposedly embraced by Japan. I think the real issue you're describing is not so much that Japanese people have different values, but that they are amoral by their own standards.

That being said, who isn't? It's easy to go to a different country and put their actions under the microscope, but the truth of the matter is, like Emoni said, most people in the world are bad by the standards they believe in. Perhaps the difference in Japan is they are simply less ashamed of it. Perhaps they are simply more honest. I don't know, I just had to clarify that morality is really not that different the world over.

[Maciamo]

What about Buddhism? "Desire is suffering." It's a religion supposedly embraced by Japan.

Modern Japanese people are certainly much more influenced by Confucianism (seniority system, hierarchy, meritocracy, etc.), or even Shintoism (in anime at least ) than Buddhism. That is funny how most Westerners see Japan as a Buddhist country. Maybe is it because they don't know (so well) the 2 others, and Buddhism is a world religion known to be present in most of East Asia. If Modern Hindu Indians live very much according to Buddhist beliefs, as they consider it a branch of Hinduism (Buddha was Hindu, that is a fact), I can't say that East Asian, and especially Japanese, are the right receptacle for believing in an ascetic life devoid of material desire. Actually, looking in depth at the culture and mentality, I'd say that the Japanese culture is one of the most unadapted to Buddhism. But Confucianism certainly fit them to the bone, even without temple or without book. It's just innate or deeply ingrained in the culture.

Adding to the above quote, Phoenicians & Greeks influenced each other in many a way. They dominated the Mediterranean at roughly the same time & had a lot of economical & cultural contacts. The Phoenicians constituted one of the main links between the cultures of Europe & the Middle East. I don't know, how far this influence went, but according to some, quite far. You can't really draw distinct lines between all these cultures.

Yes, and I forgot to mention that Knossos in Crete was also a Phoenician city. As Phoenicians had some many contact and mingling with the Greeks, and were integrated into the Roman Empire, we could say that they are as much part of the Western heritage. After all, even the Greek and Roman alphabet derived from the Phoenician one (the first real alphabet in the world, while Babylonian/Assyrian and Egyptian scripts were more like kanji).

From the birth of Christianity to the beginning of the Renaissance, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of individualism.

Alright, I have to admit that the mediaeval knights had very strong family and lord-vassal ties, actually similar to that of the Japanese samurai. But, middle ages apart, we could at least say since the Renaissance and beginning of the colonization in the late 15th century.

There was also no systematic idea, back then, of placing high value on the individual.

But many soldiers, explorators, artists or thinkers cared a lot about their image, prestige and personal achievment. Pizzaro, Cortes, Columbus, Magellan, Cabral, da Vinci, Michelangello, Machiavelli, the Borgia family, etc. were all motivated by their own personal gain and success. Rather than caring about the good of the nation, even Columbus who claimed discovering the West Indies for Spain (which sponsored the expedition), was Genovan (Italian), and first asked the court of Portugal to finance his project. He couldn't care less which "country" he was working for. All that matters were the results and proving he was right. I am not going to explain for each of them, but they all lived a very individualistic life, IMHO.

For instance, the notion that the state exists to serve individuals, rather than the other way around, is an enlightenment idea.

Yes, but that is a idea related more to democracy, equality and human rights than just individualism. Actually, it was one of the first "socialist" ideas that the state should "care for the people". Before, kings and princes were only concerned about themselves, very individualistically. It may be that the Enlightment first sacrifice the selfishness of the powerful for the benefit of the weak. This has its roots in the moralistic and idealistic heritage of the West, not its individualism.

In my Opinio, the most individualistic period in Western Europe was roughly from the mid-15th to mid-18th century. After that, the concepts of democracy, equality, nation-states (19th century), etc. appeared and people felt for the first time that they acted for their nation or empire, rather than just for themselves like before. Patriotisma and nationalism rose, until it exploded in WWI, which people fought only for the glory and pride of their nation, not for themselves (who hoped waging this horrible war anyway ?).

Individualism surged again after WWI, and especially after WWII. But it is true that some European countries are nowadays less individualistic and more group-oriented (Spain, Portugal and Greece in particular).

Non European Western countries like the US or Australia had a different evolution. Individualism was at its strongest in the 19th century (Gold Rush, cow boys, the "border", etc.) . The US only started to develop a strong sense of nation made of patriotic people after WWI and WWII, I think. But in some way, the US has never reached the same level of "providencial State" as Europe, because it favoured ultra-liberalism over socialism.

It is funny to see that nowadays patriotic and ultra-liberal Americans are less likely to travel abroad (further than Canada or Mexico) by themselves, or usually travel in group (with other Americans), while Northern European of less patriotic and more socialist countries (that also include the UK), do not hesitate to travel for months around the world all on their own (meeting new people everyday on the way). In that respect, I'd say Northern European (led by the British and the Dutch) are more individualistic than Americans or Southern Europeans. I guess it's all a matter of balance between individualism and collectivism regarding government, family, job, travel, personal success, leisures, etc.

[chikazukiyasui]

Alright, I have to admit that the mediaeval knights had very strong family and lord-vassal ties, actually similar to that of the Japanese samurai. But, middle ages apart, we could at least say since the Renaissance and beginning of the colonization in the late 15th century.

The way I see it, we begin to see some hints of individualism in the Renaissance, but the real thing doesn't emerge until around the 18th century.

But many soldiers, explorators, artists or thinkers cared a lot about their image, prestige and personal achievment. Pizzaro, Cortes, Columbus, Magellan, Cabral, da Vinci, Michelangello, Machiavelli, the Borgia family, etc. were all motivated by their own personal gain and success.

I do not consider personal ambition to be equivalent to individualism. If it were, then Japan's Warring States period would be a fine example of a time when individualism dominated Japanese society, since it was shaped by the ambitions and rivalries of numerous daimyos. In that event, your claim of a long-standing difference between the West and Japan with regard to individualism would face a problem.

I grant that there is a link between personal ambition and individualism, but they are not the same thing. Pursuing ones own goals without regard to the demands of the collective (be that the clan, the nation, the church or the corporation) is one thing, but believing it is morally superior to do so is quite another, and it is the latter that I take to be individualism. It comes out of the philosophy of Hobbes and Rousseau. Individualism, as described above, is very important to modern Western values, but only became significant in the 18th century, and has been growing increasingly important ever since. Individualism inspires Westerners to complain that the Japanese "all dress the same", or " don't express themselves enough", or "sacrifice themselves too much for their job". It wouldn't occur to most 17th Century Europeans to think that any of these were distinctive and wrong features of Japanese society.

Yes, but that is a idea related more to democracy, equality and human rights than just individualism. Actually, it was one of the first "socialist" ideas that the state should "care for the people".

Modern belief in democracy follows from individualism, not the other way around.

Before, kings and princes were only concerned about themselves, very individualistically. It may be that the Enlightment first sacrifice the selfishness of the powerful for the benefit of the weak. This has its roots in the moralistic and idealistic heritage of the West, not its individualism.

Kings and Princes varied in how selfish they were. It makes no sense to discuss the individualism of a King or Prince, though, since their role makes them unique in their milieu. Only ordinary people can be individualistic. Kings and Princes ruled (supposedly) by Divine Right, and many of them sincerely believed in that Divine Right. Divine Right entailed obligations, and they believed in the obligations, too. None of that sits well with individualism.

In my Opinio, the most individualistic period in Western Europe was roughly from the mid-15th to mid-18th century. After that, the concepts of democracy, equality, nation-states (19th century), etc. appeared and people felt for the first time that they acted for their nation or empire, rather than just for themselves like before.

In my opinion, that is nonsense. The mid 18th century is when individualism first arose to any kind of significance, and the concepts of democracy and equality are only means to an end - namely, of supporting individual rights and freedoms and self-expression. Capitalism, Romanticism, Modernism, all contributed to increasing the importance of individualism.

Patriotisma and nationalism rose, until it exploded in WWI, which people fought only for the glory and pride of their nation, not for themselves (who hoped waging this horrible war anyway ?). Individualism surged again after WWI, and especially after WWII.

I see those as vestiges of pre-Enlightenment thought, and to some extent, reactions against the Enlightenment. Wars between tribes and clans and city-states and nations and sects, in which people took sides according to collective loyalties, were very much the norm before the Enlightenment, and a big part of the Enlightenment project was the ambition to bring such stuff to an end by establishing universal ideals with which everyone could agree. WWI and WWII were blips on a general upward curve of individualism.

But it is true that some European countries are nowadays less individualistic and more group-oriented (Spain, Portugal and Greece in particular).

Indeed.

Non European Western countries like the US or Australia had a different evolution. Individualism was at its strongest in the 19th century (Gold Rush, cow boys, the "border", etc.) . The US only started to develop a strong sense of nation made of patriotic people after WWI and WWII, I think. But in some way, the US has never reached the same level of "providencial State" as Europe, because it favoured ultra-liberalism over socialism.

Liberalism is an Enlightenment idea that emerged mainly in Britain starting in the 17th century (with Hobbes, who wasn't a quite liberal, but who sowed its seeds by establishing the idea of individualism), and has evolved continually since then, but achieved most of its present form by the late 19th century (with JS Mill and Herbert Spencer). American and Australian politics are totally shaped by that tradition of philosophy.

I'd say Northern European (led by the British and the Dutch) are more individualistic than Americans or Southern Europeans. I guess it's all a matter of balance between individualism and collectivism regarding government, family, job, travel, personal success, leisures, etc.

Different Western countries all have different ways of balancing the Individual and the Collective, but all of them, I think, would tend to consider themselves more individualistic than Japanese society, and I think they'd probably all have a point. Whether they'd be right in thinking that Japanese collectivism (which I suppose stems to a large degree from Confucianism) is a bad thing is another matter.