In Search of a Japanese Rhetoric: an alternative view

Robert Wichert

Abstract

Introduction

• As our world becomes more capable, it also shrinks. The capability to travel at high speeds safely has encouraged tourism and commerce between nations, continents, and hemispheres. It is not unusual to travel to winter climes when it is summer at home. Likewise the "snowbirds" travel to warmer lands in search of a comfortable retirement. The global business person can travel to distant markets at supersonic speeds. If needs at home can be met by seeking out goods in foreign lands, the needs are met by the modern clipper ships of commerce, the airliners. With the capability to travel, the world seems smaller and more accessible. Low airfare and low air freight prices further encourage this practice. The ability to travel to foreign lands does not guarantee success, however. The weather may not be as we expected. The trip may be made more difficult due to scheduling difficulties, mechanical breakdowns or physiological difficulties associated with changes in time-zone, exacerbated by no change in the traveler's biological clock. Physical, mechanical, and biological problems aside, the cultural changes encountered by the international traveler are probably the most profound difficulties they face. Since our studies have shown that communication is basic to human existence, intercultural communication is essential to successful travel.
• Our world has grown smaller in ways other than the ability to travel with ease. Global unrest and warfare has resulted in many persons being forced to flee their homes. These people need to seek safety in new homes in new lands. They are forced to bring their culture with them to their new homes. They know no other culture, and yet they find themselves in a new place. Their journey may have been supersonic or slower, paced by tides and currents. In any case, they are now faced with the daunting task of living in a whole new world. This is another case of intercultural communication, with more serious consequences than a spoiled vacation or a missed market opportunity. In a still more serious way, intercultural communication forms the basis for peaceful coexistence, dominance by others, or global warfare. The goals of nations may differ. Trade and commerce may militate for strong sanctions. Persecution and genocide may prompt intervention. Resources and land may require defense, or acquisition. Any of these acts may be right or wrong. If they involve different cultures, the opportunity for miscommunication is increased. With the grave consequences of miscommunication between nations in today's world, intercultural communication takes on even more importance. "In today's world, communication with persons of other cultures has become a daily necessity."(1) Intercultural communication is not only a necessity for success, it may be a necessity for survival.

Japanese Communication

• Before discussing Japanese communication styles, Kiyoshi Midooka makes it clear that studies of Japanese communication, including his study, have likely been flawed on several accounts. First of all, most Japanese people have little interaction with other cultures and studies are limited to a few Japanese subjects. The Japanese people are not all alike, even though they are characterized as such.(2) The pluralistic approach advocated by Sugimoto and Mouer(3), that would take these and other factors into account, is difficult to achieve given the limited data available, and the ethnocentric nature of the researchers and subjects alike.(4) For the purposes of our discussion, we will be discussing aspects of Japanese communication that are regarded as "Japanese style" by the majority of researchers, with exceptions noted when necessary.
• Much of the nature of Japanese communication can be learned by understanding the concepts of Wa (keeping peaceful relations with others),(5) and Amea (welcome dependence upon parents).(6) In addition to Amea and Wa, the familial respect and reciprocity expressed as ko stresses the expectation of dutiful family respect and obedience.(7) The popular personal Buddhist religion of Japan is passive and introspective in nature, tending to eschew spoken words in favor of contemplation.(8) These concepts shape Japanese life and communication, tending to encourage communication that is free from conflict and subject to the preordained hierarchy of Japanese society. This supports the concept that persuasive communication is not studied or practiced in Japan.
• In the 1350 years of recorded history, up to and including WW II, the Emperor of Japan led a strictly hierarchical nation. The very fabric of society was formed to emphasize the expectations of the hierarchy, and the individual was destined to fit into the preordained plan. No persuasion was required, the plan took care of persuasion. This is clearly a major deviation from our Western rhetorical history. As Western culture studied the early work of the Greeks and Romans, they saw teachers struggling to equip their students with the tools to survive in a democracy. This is in marked contrast to the Japanese cultural bias to avoid conflict and go along with the group. Democracy stresses the individual. Japanese culture stresses the group. The basic reason for the Greek and Roman rhetorics did not happen in Japan. Democracy did not happen in Japan in the same way that it happened in Greece and Rome. In Japan, any democratic efforts were very late, and built upon the history of the Empire. The hierarchical society, led by the Emperor, established the basic arrangement of things. There was no need for public debate in Japan like the debate of Greece and Rome. As the British scholars expanded their rhetorics to consider both the speaker and the audience, they continued to stress persuasion, with an emphasis on Christian preaching and Truth. Again in marked contrast, the Japanese may be unable to separate the communication act into speaker and audience.
• Midooka offers that perhaps for the Japanese, the molecular element of communication is the dyad. Because communication is so dependent upon context, the speaker cannot be removed from the audience. Any discussion of communication must include both parties. If the dyad is the smallest unit of communication, any discussion of the speech or the words or the message are also too small to fit the model. This tends to discourage rhetorical theory of the sort we have come to expect from Western theorists.
• Study of the Modern and Post-Modern theorists follows their rhetorics into a social consciousness, and an attitude of concern. Mindful of the power of persuasion, the Modern and Post-Modern theorists focus on power in society, and how it affects communication in all its forms. This concept of power in society is absent from traditional Japanese thought. The power is understood to flow from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom, each level content to accomplish their part of the pyramid. The idea that this hierarchy might be questioned runs counter to traditional Japanese culture, and thus eliminates the need and the possibility of a Western style post-modern rhetorical theory in traditional Japan.
• Midooka points out that the nature of communication between Japanese people varies dramatically based on their relationship. If two people are strangers, the communication is apt to be abrupt and rude. Once two Japanese people know each other by name, they become much more polite, with expectations of politeness from the other party. As the relationship between people becomes closer, they become more like allies in working for their mutual good. Over time, if their relationship becomes more intimate, they may drop all barriers and actually achieve a status of informal intimate trust, without posturing. These four levels of communicative behavior serve to separate the Japanese culture into groups of "us" and "them".(9) Obviously the outsider, being from a different culture, is much more likely to be regarded as "them" than as "us". Intercultural communication efforts with the Japanese must be mindful of this division of acceptance. Once business cards are exchanged, one can move beyond the status of stranger to that of a named and known entity. Only over time can one achieve the status of accepted ally. It is probably erroneous to expect meaningful communication about vital subjects until this third status is reached. Rushing the process may lead to needless failure.
• The built in bias against the unfamiliar communication partner is exacerbated by the Japanese tendency to be less emotional in argument than Westerners.(10) How unnerving it must be for an unaccustomed Westerner to attempt communication with a distant acting partner, made all the worse by the partner's showing little emotion in their speech. How easy it must be to assume indifference or aloofness. With the higher levels of emotion and intensity in everyday communication ingrained into the Western approach, it may be just as hard for the Westerner to accept the Japanese approach as it would be for the Japanese person to give the Westerner a big Hollywood hug.
• Japanese society is very conscious of hierarchy. A person's place in society is determined greatly by their age, sex, and lineage. None of these factors can be changed, but are supposed to be accepted. The manner in which the person accepts and fulfills their station determines, to a great extent, their success in life. One can advance in degree, but not in station.(11) Failure to accept and fulfill one's place in society results in failure and shame. The existence of these hierarchical relationships leads to differences in communication between persons on different levels.(12) An inferior person might disagree with a lesser person, but never with a superior. The highest levels may never be criticized, except by their most intimate associates. Strong claims of self expression are seldom made to superiors.
• In Japanese society, there will almost certainly be one view held for official purposes, and real private feelings may surface only in more relaxed circumstances. When public or corporate policy is discussed, it will be of the official sort, and one's real inner feelings will be changed, through intrapersonal communication, to become more in line with the feelings of the others in the group. This Nemawashi process results in a cohesive group decision process where one is told the beliefs of the others, and one changes one's own mind to match.(13) This is clearly a form of persuasion, but takes the form of self directed persuasion, to match the beliefs of the individual to those of the group. The "rhetoric" in such a situation is merely the informative description of the views of the group. The real persuasion is done by the listener, in response to the hierarchical nature of the group, and the inclination to keep peaceful relations with others (Wa).
• In contrast to the official discussions and the Nemawashi process, more informal meetings may happen after the official talks are completed. These Nijikai parties, at restaurants or bars perhaps, are a time for more personal discussions, perhaps leading to better communication between the participants in subsequent meetings.(14) In this way the business relationship might progress from the second stage of known entity to the third stage of trusted ally. The irony of this revolves around the agreements reached earlier, that were reached without personal belief being considered. Only in subsequent relations would the pertinent personal beliefs discussed at Nijikai be a factor. In this way the first agreements reached may be small ones, leading to more important relationships over a much longer time period than is expected in Western business cultures. The first agreement paves the way for the discussions at the Nijikai party, paving the way for additional understanding in the future. This is a slow process in comparison to the Western business paradigm.
• Japanese communications include much more than the words. Non-verbal cues are very important in Japanese communication events. In many cases the non-verbal cues may be more important than the verbal communication accomplished. For instance, it may be contrary to keeping harmony (Wa) to disagree. For this reason a public agreement may mean nothing at all. The non-verbal cues of venue and status of the speaker and audience must be considered. There may be higher status persons to be considered. There may be no agreement at all, other than an agreement not to disagree in public. Midooka points out that the characteristics of Japanese style communication discussed above are becoming accepted by Japanese and foreign persons alike. They may become a self fulfilling prophesy if unchallenged for a sufficient time.(15) Perhaps some additional work to define the manner in which persuasive communication is accomplished could result in better understanding by Japanese and foreigners alike. Additional work to discover Japanese rhetorics could tie all of these factors into a coherent system.

Japanese Rhetorics

• The lack of speech training in Japan has been documented by many theorists in both the East and the West.(16) Most theorists find no evidence of speech or persuasive rhetorical training for the 1350 years of recorded history up to and including WW II. Japanese colleges offer communication courses in the 1990s, but they focus on mass media, not persuasive rhetoric.(17) In addition to a lack of speech training, there is a clear lack of public political speechmaking. Public office is regarded as necessary, but unpleasant, and not sought after.(18) Since public office is not sought, it is likewise not vigorously defended. There is no need for political speechmaking of the American sort. No need to "stump" on the campaign trail. This form of political rhetoric and speechmaking, so firmly rooted in Western tradition, is absent from Japanese life.
• Instead of persuading a business associate to follow a particular course of action, a corporate worker would solicit personal support for his ideas from his colleagues. This "favor trading" system of unanimous consent to a plan is called ringi-seido and involves the internal discussion and unanimous approval of all involved parties before a plan is passed up the hierarchy for ratification. In this way a plan is developed at the lower levels, and completely accepted by the organization, before it is provided to the highest levels. The highest levels then internalize the plan, and prepare to embark upon it.(19) This is in marked contrast to a Western approach. The Western approach would be more likely to include persuasion of the management groups, convincing them that the plan was correct, and persuading them to embark upon it. If the Western managers decide to accept the plan, they would then start the system in reverse, convincing and persuading all lower levels to follow it. Clearly there is more rhetoric involved in the Western approach.
• In addition to the lack of rhetorical theory and teaching, the Japanese have also become less argumentative than Western oriented Americans.(20) The lack of argumentative behavior is clearly in line with the ideal of avoiding conflict discussed earlier. The Japanese students studied did not have a higher index of avoiding arguments, but were much less prone to initiate them, compared to Western students. Argumentative discourse is contrary to the ideal of calm unanimous consent. Argumentative workers are not rewarded in Japan as they might be in American business. Argumentative workers in Japan might be seen as contrary to the corporate system. In America argumentative workers might be rewarded for bringing about open discussion of the issues. In Japan this is not encouraged. Clearly there is more opportunity for rhetoric in America than in Japan.

Westernization

• During the late 19th century, Japan began to incorporate Western technologies and ideas. The Meji restoration sought to reform feudal Japan, in response to the changing modern world.(21) Yukichi Fukuzawa was a strong advocate of Western style persuasive speech in this period. He fought the traditional Japanese culture that would support the other side of the issue, but he made great strides in bringing a Western style rhetoric to Japan. He struggled to find a Japanese word for "speech". He finally coined a Japanese word, enzetsu, meaning to state one's views or opinion or theory. He drew upon his experience with the existing word enzetsusho, that described an informal spoken presentation to the head of his clan. The word enzetsu was widely accepted following his original use. If the word for "speech" was so much trouble, late in the 19th century, the study of rhetorics in Japan was obviously far different from the study of rhetoric in the Western world.
• The work of Fukuzawa may be the first Western style study of rhetoric in Japan. He listed the learning tools of observation, reasoning, conversation, reading, and speechmaking. He argued against the Confucian teachers who encouraged silence and discouraged speaking. He believed that Japan would become more successful in world affairs if speaking was encouraged, and rhetoric was studied. Critics of his work felt that the Japanese language was not suited for spoken use, preferring the written forms.(22) Translations were a problem for Fukuzawa. Not only translations from Western languages, but translations from the written characters of Japanese to spoken Japanese words with clear unambiguous meanings.(23) It appears from the literature that non-verbal cues exist in the written characters, that cannot easily be translated to spoken words.
• Fukuzawa wrote in Fukuo hyakuwa (One Hundred Essays of Fukuzawa) that "freedom of speech is the most important index to the extent of the establishment of civilization". These were radical words in feudal Japan. It appears that Fukuzawa was the radical rhetorical theorist of the late 19th century. He argued against the passive Japanese culture, promoting individual rights and the rights of women. He continued his work for many years, dying in 1901. Western rhetoric is accepted in Japan today, due in large part to his work.
• The acceptance of Western rhetoric in Japan has extended to debate and international commerce as well. Japanese people have embarked upon their own intercultural communication studies in order to compete in the modern world. Japanese student debaters have succeeded in Western style debate. Japanese commerce has become a persuasive force in the world. Japanese corporations have established foreign holdings and foreign factories, persuading foreign countries to give them rights and benefits. The use of Western style persuasive rhetoric has been taught to Japanese business people to make them more effective.(24) In most cases, this instruction has been in the use of the English language for business. This difficult task has somewhat separated the practice of persuasive communication from the Japanese language.
• Even though Japanese business people have become successful persuaders, they tend to persuade in English, and agree in Japanese.
• The traditional Japanese culture has not been fully converted by Fukuzawa's work. As discussed previously, Japanese universities study communication, but mass media, not rhetoric, is the object of study. The earliest newspapers were published in Japan in about 1615.(25) These newspapers did not take a persuasive editorial approach, however, preferring to provide informative entertainment. The history of mass communication in Japan has included disagreements between the mass media and the government. Disagreements between mass media and the public have occurred as well. These disagreements have not resulted in Western style rhetorical criticism being taught in Japanese universities. It appears that the traditional Japanese values of calm acceptance and unanimous approval by the group have still persisted in many ways.

Religious Persuasive Preaching

• Many Western rhetorical theorists were ministers. The British period particularly contained Blair, Campbell and Whately, all ministers. It may be wise to look to preaching for examples of Japanese rhetoric. Satoshi Ishii suggests that preaching has persuasive purposes as well as educational and entertainment values.(26) Buddhist preaching was introduced in Japan in the 6th and 7th centuries (Western calendar). This predates by many centuries the introduction of Western style rhetoric in the late 19th century. Historical texts have been identified, giving advice to preachers on their looks, their demeanor, and their training. As Buddhism spread in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, Agui Temple was founded as a place to study and teach preaching. The Agui School in Kyoto produced a great number of important preachers, as well as the important speech arts of rakugo, kodan, and rokyoku, among others. Several principles of preaching, similar to Roman canons of rhetoric, were established by the Agui School. These principles included subject choice, content organization, language and style, voice and bodily action, and memorization. Content organization was further broken down into theme glorification, tenet explanation, allegory, proof by storytelling, and concluding persuasion. This system of rhetoric was refined and practiced for centuries. This may have been one example of a traditional Japanese rhetoric.

In Comparison To Other Eastern Cultures

• The Chinese culture has also been described as devoid of a rhetorical history.(27) Frank and Xing argue that if the contextual and non-verbal aspects of communication are taken into account, Chinese culture does, in fact, have a rhetorical history. This approach, taking the culture as it is, and not trying to compare it to Western ideals, can lead to a better understanding of persuasive communication in China. This same approach might lead, after some additional work, to a better understanding of the rhetorical history of Japan. Perhaps history texts and history courses in Japanese universities would provide the same kind of information. This additional research could help intercultural understanding, and intercultural communication.
• In contrast to Chinese and Japanese communication practices, Korean communication is more argumentative and forthcoming with real feelings.(28) Park and Kim argue that the strife ridden history of Korea has modified the calm Confucian teachings with pragmatic survival skills. This may explain some of the rapid strides made by Korea in the world market in recent years. Once the country was able to pursue international commerce, they progressed quickly.
• While the Japanese are more apt to use silence and non-verbal cues compared to American people, this might be explained by the relative homogeneity of Japan compared to America.(29) It is clear that if a traditional Japanese rhetoric is identified, it will contain non-verbal cues, and written as well as spoken persuasive language.

Conclusion

• We have not identified our traditional Japanese rhetorical history. The evidence of Buddhist preaching is compelling, but incomplete. The lack of speech training in the traditional Japanese educational system in use today, makes it difficult to agree that the education of preachers constitutes the rhetoric of Japan. The Westernization of Japan has included many of the Western style communication traits, including persuasion and debate. But this is truly Westernization, not Japanese tradition.
• The fact that much of this persuasive communication and debate is done in English, for business purposes, disqualifies it as traditional Japanese rhetoric. It is hard to justify this Westernization as even a modern Japanese rhetoric, since it relies so much on foreign relations and foreign language.
• It appears that intercultural communication in Japan is more advanced than traditional rhetoric. Additional research in the history of Japan might lead us to a more useful rhetorical tradition. There have obviously been disputes in Japan. Arguments have been made, people have been persuaded.
• Much of Japanese persuasion has been intrapersonal in nature, drawing the individual into the group. This is itself a rhetorical tradition, but from a different view. The emphasis on group agreement may be a rhetoric, of sorts. Certainly the concept that it is best to quietly accept the state of affairs represented by the will of the hierarchical society, and the clan and the work group, is a rhetoric of sorts. These teachings do not show how to persuade, as much as they teach how to be persuaded into agreement with the group.
• In keeping with Michel Foucault's approach to looking at all available artifacts of communication, the history and traditional teachings of Japanese culture should be explored. No researcher so far has taken this approach. It would require a masterful command of the language. It would almost certainly need to be done by a Japanese person. The language barriers may be too great to leap for the foreigner. If this was accomplished, intercultural communication might be improved.
• It appears that the Japanese have leapt ahead of rhetoric, and decided instead to accomplish intercultural communication with foreigners as a more urgent need. The Western world, with its emphasis on rhetorical history, may be missing the point.
• In today's modern world it is not what you have been, but what you will be. Up until now, the rest of the world has adopted Western methods in order to advance their standing. This situation is changing.
• The Western world might take some lessons from the Japanese. The Western world view has been assimilated to a great extent by the Eastern cultures, while still preserving their cultural identity. The Eastern world has learned from the West. The reverse has not been true. Surely Western studies of the East and the Third World must become more important to Western culture if they are to grow and thrive in this small world.

References

1. Condon, John C. and Yousef, Fathi S. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. Macmillan. GoBack
2. Midooka, Kiyoshi. "Characteristics of Japanese - Style Communication" Media, Culture and Society v12 (1990): p477-489.GoBack
3. Ibid. GoBack
4. Ibid.GoBack
5. Ibid.GoBack
6. Doi, L. Takeo. "The Japanese Patterns of Communication and the Concept of Amea" The Quarterly Journal of Speech v59,2 (April 1973): p181-185.GoBack
7. Morrison, John L. "The Absence of a Rhetorical Tradition in Japanese Culture." Western Speech V36,2 (Spring 1972) p89-102.GoBack
8. Ibid.GoBack
9. Midooka, Kiyoshi. "Characteristics of Japanese - Style Communication" Media, Culture and Society v12 (1990): p477-489.GoBack
10. Ishii, Satoshi and Frymier, Ann Bainbridge and Klopf, Donald W. "Affect Orientation: Japanese Compared to Americans" Communication Research Reports v7,1(June 1990): p63-66GoBack
11. Morrison, John L. "The Absence of a Rhetorical Tradition in Japanese Culture." Western Speech V36,2 (Spring 1972) p89-102.GoBack
12. Ibid.GoBack
13. Ibid.GoBack
14. Ibid.GoBack
15. Ibid.GoBack
16. Morrison, John L. "The Absence of a Rhetorical Tradition in Japanese Culture." Western Speech V36,2 (Spring 1972) p89-102.GoBack
17. Remarks of Naomi Ohta, Communication Studies graduate student, CSUS, 1995.GoBack
18. Morrison, John L. "The Absence of a Rhetorical Tradition in Japanese Culture." Western Speech V36,2 (Spring 1972) p89-102.GoBack
19. Nishiyama, Kazuo. "Interpersonal Persuasion in a Vertical Society - The Case of Japan" Speech Monographs v38,2 (June 1971) p148-154.GoBack
20. Ishii, Satoshi, and Prunty, Alicia M. and Klopf, Donald W. "Argumentativeness: Japanese and American Tendencies to Approach and Avoid Conflict" Communication Research Reports v7,1 (June 1990): p75-79.GoBack
21. Okabe, Roichi. "Yukichi Fukuzawa: A Promulgator of Western Rhetoric In Japan" The Quarterly Journal of Speech v59,2 (April 1973): p186-195.GoBack
22. Okabe, Roichi. "Cultural Assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States." The Rhetoric of Western Thought 5th ed. Golden, James L., Berquist, Goodwin F., and Coleman Willian E. Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1993. p440-446.GoBack
23. Okabe, Roichi. "Yukichi Fukuzawa: A Promulgator of Western Rhetoric In Japan" The Quarterly Journal of Speech v59,2 (April 1973): p186-195.GoBack
24. Nishiyama, Kazuo. "Speech Training for Japanese Businessmen" The Speech Teacher v24 (Sept 1975): p251-255.GoBack
25. Ito, Youichi "Mass Communication Theories From a Japanese Perspective" Media, Culture and Society v12 (1990): p423-464.GoBack
26. Ishii, Satoshi. "Buddhist Preaching: The Persistent Main Undercurrent of Japanese Traditional Rhetorical Communication" Communication Quarterly v40,4 (Fall 1992): p391-3397.GoBack
27. Frank, David A., and Ju, Xing. "On the Study of Ancient Chinese Rhetoric/Bian" Western Journal of Communication 57 (1993): p445-463GoBack
28. Park, Myung-seok, and Kim, Moon-soo. "Communication Practices in Korea" Communication Quarterly, V40, No.4, (Fall 1992): p398-404GoBack
29. Klopf, Donald W. "Japanese Communication Practices: Recent Comparative Research." Communication Quarterly v39,2 (Spring 1991): p130-143.GoBack