Cultural Differences and Governance

[Chou Toshio]

Another attempt at a semi-serious (semi-cong??) thread in a forum.

One thing that has always boggled me in Socialization Empire is how easily smogonites jump to criticize the policies/ideology of other countries. Yes, I am to some extent wishing to criticize all the criticism directed at my home country, the US, but this works both ways. While I am resigned to face directly all the debate from my fellow countrymen, I do feel that I (and others) should practice reserve when criticizing another man's law in another man's country.

To me, this is strongly connected to the real differences-- both cultural and logistical, between countries.

In this modern age of internationalization, it is too easy to try and treat all first world countries the same, and expect uniformity. This is especially true of governance, and particularly regarding humanitarian and/or economic laws/policy. I disagree in a need for uniformity, and would argue that rather, in an ever internationalized world, there needs to be greater sensitivity for cultural differences.

As an American living in Japan, I am constantly reminded of the cultural differences, and need to seek understanding of "the other" in order to make peace with myself and with my environment. Japan is not going to change on my behalf. As a Japanese-American born and raised in Hawaii, I even feel the real (possibly greater!?) cultural barriers and the same need to "live and let live" when living in the Mainland US-- even in my own country!

As one lives in between cultures, one learns to appreciate their differences, and learn to accept that everyone has their own way of doing things-- that this is not necessarily bad, but simply different. I must warn that much of this article will be comparing to Japan (and possibly bringing in Hawaii/US differences) because those are the cultures I understand best.


Now, it's one thing to say "we need to be culturally sensitive"--that's easy! It's another thing completely to actually be culturally sensitive, and learn to "live and let live"-- especially in regards to governance. Especially on sensitive topics.


Let's talk about National Health Care for a second.

Japanese are (were) constantly curious as to America's lack of national health care, appalled that we lacked it, and questioned me about it.

I turn the question around at them, expressing that the US is simply different from Japan. I mean, let's look at what Japan IS:

Japan Has:
-An almost uniform diet low in transfats, sodium, red meat and other bad stuff
-A much higher general health-awareness
-One of the highest average life expectancies in the world (despite a much larger smoking population!)
-A population that frankly, naturally, has a much higher metabolism rate than White/Black Americans
-An almost non-existent obesity rate
-A heavily Confucian-influenced culture where people believe their bodies are treasured gifts given to them by their honored parents lol

The fact of the matter is, Japan is simply naturally healthier. I may be one of the most Right-Wing members on Smogon, but even I would be happy to support national health care if I were Japanese rather than American. I would know that my tax dollars are going to help fellow countrymen that are doing their best to be healthy, are living generally healthy, and have simply run into unfortunate complications. I'd also know national health care would be a much lesser strain on my wallet.

That's a lot different from thinking my money is going to the millions of fat American Joes and Jills whose hearts are giving out because they've spent their whole lives hooked up to cheap Micky-D's lard.

Clearly, national health care for Japan, and national health care for the US are completely different undertakings, with much different connotations for society and culture.



We can talk about welfare or other programs for the poor/homeless for a second as well.

If you walk through Ueno Park in Tokyo, you will see a fair number of homeless Japanese. They'll be in the park-- a neat and tidy tent pitched out of tarp and clean cardboard and most notably, a crisp sharp suit hanging on a branch next to it.

Now, I don't know about you, but I see that homeless man and his suit, and I know-- this guy has not given up on life. He's got goals. He's got ambitions, and most importantly, he is 一生懸命, giving it his all to make it. I can tell you I'd be much more willing to drop that guy my spare change than a man with a cardboard sign on the curb. Odds are though, I could offer him my change, but he'd refuse to take it. It would be too much of an embarrassment. In general, compared to American homeless, the Japanese homeless have pride-- they're embarrassed by their situation, they hate being a burden on society, wish they could refuse its aid, and are 一生懸命 to get out of it. This shows in the pressed suits, neat organized tents/slums and the absolute refusal to beg.

Now you ask me about welfare in Japan, and I'd say "Hell yeah! Let's support them if they'll take it!" It's a different story from the US. There's a reason the Right-Wing complains about lazy farts just living off of government hand-outs: American poor are not like Japanese poor.



Origins of Cultural Differences

While I am here talking about Japan and the US, let's talk about where these cultural differences originate from-- they don't come from nowhere. Cultural differences evolved for reasons. Ok, culture might not be perfectly rational, but just like Economists believe humanity to be generally rational long term, almost everything in culture has some form of acceptable rationale.

In high school (in Hawaii) we were all required to take Asian history, including Japanese history. When 25% of your population is American-Japanese and your economy is dependent on Japanese tourism, Japanese history becomes pretty damn relevant to you.

On the first day of class, my teacher said, "Before I start talking about Japan, imagine that half of America's population was living in California. Now imagine that high mountains prevent 75% of the land mass from being inhabited, so that you have half of the US living in 25% of California. NOW let's talk about Japan."

People wonder why the Japanese are so polite and so community-oriented as a culture. Well, when you've crammed your population in so tight, and can barely move around without invading someone else's space, you better learn to be extremely polite to get along-- or have war. Look at Japanese history/culture and you'll see plenty of both. In addition, geographic isolation as an island country and relatively great uniformity of race and culture are big factors.

Now look at the US. lol

Now, without kidding or making jokes, it's clear that the US is simply a different beast all together. You have a huge land mass--comparable with China--with an overall low population density compared to that land mass. You have high population density centers, but in cities greatly distanced from each other geographically, and generally speaking, with their own distinct cultural differences and populations. Not to mention a great variation of races, backgrounds, and other such individual differences between individuals and life styles.

Now I'll be the first to rave about differences amongst Kansai, Kanto and other Japanese areas, but really, you could blindfold me, drop me in a random city, and if you prevented me from talking/asking anyone, I could be hard pressed to figure out if I was in Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, or wherever. It'd be even harder if you dropped me in a Japanese country-side.

The point is that geographically, demographically, logistically, you can rant about American pride all you want, but there is no freaking way the US could ever be as uniform or communal as Japan. There is no way a truly socialistic culture (like Japan) would be born in the US, and it's only natural that a highly individualistic culture would develop-- this only helped along by history, and the birth of the country based on a philosophy of "innate freedoms of (individual) humans."



Now I ask you, look at these two examples, the US and Japan, and do you honestly believe that the same sort of governance, laws and policies would work for both? That the two should be uniform in their humanitarian stances or economic policies?

Honestly, suggesting such would be laughable.

In my opinion, to have peace, there has to be room to "live and let live," to be culturally sensitive or at least be aware of one's inability to be culturally sensitive.

There's no way for a Japanese person to know that differences in religion and background make uniform school lunches in the US impossible.

There's no way for an American to know that in Japan a belief in "everyone educated from the same starting point" means that parents should not drop their kids off at school, and all students should go on their own legs.

No one is wrong, we just have our own way of doing things.



Now I also understand that there is a limit to all things. What about the Nazis? There has to be a common expectation upheld amongst humanity as well.

Where is the balance between "live and let live," and "standing up for common humanity?" To what degree should cultural differences be allowed to determine governance?

I am opening up discussion with these questions, while also urging for an overall greater cultural sensitivity between posters of different countries on these boards.

 

[khz]

Well, the government has a responsibility to act in the interest of its people. Therefore the government should be acting on the principle that their policy is the best one to help the people in that particular country after considering the unique circumstances of that country. That makes sense because each country's government is in the best position to make these decisions, which means the US government best knows the most appropriate US policy, the Japanese government best knows the most appropriate policy in Japan and so on.

However, I think the line is drawn in that the minimum rights that a person has must be respected not only within a particular culture but also throughout other cultures. By that I mean that a government has to act knowing that the people outside that particular country have the same rights as those within their jurisdiction and they have to respect those rights within their policy and meet these necessities to the best of their abilities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good starting point, but the key here is "to the best of their abilities." That means that whilst someone in a 1st world country not only expects some form of healthcare but also receives it, people in a 3rd world country should expect to receive healthcare but due to practical reasons outside of their governments direct short term control (e.g. lack of infrastructure or trained medical professionals) may not receive it. Obviously if the people don't have the rights they deserve because the government is corrupt/racist/otherwise incapable of functioning then they're in the wrong, but if it's just impractical because of wide spread poverty then that can be excused so long as the government makes an active effort to correct that.

 

[Deck Knight]

The key thing to remember about American governance is that America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Our officials are democratically (small D) elected, but our form of government is a Constitutional Republic. The actual structure the Founding Fathers set up is quite intriguing, setting up a bicameral legislature composed of the House of Representatives directly elected by the people and a Senate which, originally, were not directly elected but rather chosen by the elected House members of that state. Each state would have congressional representation based on the state's population and two Senators regardless of population.

The key point to pull out of the basic infrastructure of American governance is that The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a better parallel to the nation of Japan than the nation of The Unites States of America. As much as a goodly portion of our population dislikes Romneycare, especially as it spirals out of control, it was constitutional because the powers of the seperate states are substantially less limited than those of the federal government.

So to tie this all back in, most countries are either of insufficient size or too different a political persuasion to understand what makes United States policy so titanically slow in "catching up" with all the other cultures around the world. Most of the needs of the United States are decided on a state level and don't neccesarily trickle up to national policy.

For example calls to make English the official language of the United States usually fail miserably not because the cultural expectation to speak English does not exist, but because most states never supported it enough to make it a national priority. For as much grousing Americans get for not being multi-lingual, exactly which languages should we be learning? Take a walk down the street and you'll get every flavor of language imaginable. It's not like Europe, where France, England, and Spain meet its highly relevant to know English, French, and Spanish. American society isn't really organized in dense packets of homogeneousness. English and Spanish are prevalent enough in most areas, but nonetheless you'll run into every dialect on earth driving down the main drag of any given major American city. English being the most common of these, it's the going tongue, and any other tongue you get from your familial origins.

Now being a stalwart American I believe global governance is a farce. I barely trust the federal officials whom I actively engage in electing to do the right thing on fiscal and moral policy (definitely short term, hopefully reality smacks them before long term becomes a problem), and as much as I begrudge my state's politics and culture in general, I'd rather the hacks with a vested interest in Massachusetts decide what our education curriculum or health care policy or revenue streams are than the hacks of some faceless federal bureau.

Another thing unique to America's cultural standpoint is we seriously doubt the power of collective governance. Whatever the weaknesses associated with the general distrust of collective leadership, Americans scarcely all fall off the same political cliff together. There's always some loudmouth telling the herd they're about to take a nosedive into the bad end of a mountain pass. We're willing to work with other nations insofar as they let us run our own affairs, and we'll take care of our own internal demons, conmen, and charlatans as they arise. There is the expectation that everyone watches everyone else with vigilance without the assistance of some titled official watching over the process.

So to boil it all down to a coherent philosophy of governance, America's national cultural policy is embodied by Reagan's famous line "trust, but verify." Assume your friends, neighbors, and officials are acting in the proper interest and in the proper honesty, but if it has high potentially negative consequences then confront them about it. The natural innovation of America individualism keeps the system from grinding to a halt with distrust, since most people upon verifying a good idea try to spread it around. Disinformation throws a monkey wrench into this process (and there's a lot of disinformation in the world, both accidental and purposeful), but disinformation on important things is usually sorted through the wringer of a thousand fact-checkers quickly.

Borders. Language. Culture.

"Live and let live" ends and "standing up for common humanity" begins when someone outside a nation tries to subvert these things through either force or more cunning means. A nation without borders cannot be a good global citizen because it is inherently unstable. The nation state is the basic unit of international responsibility. Either through war or lax immigration policies, the country cannot be counted on to have long term stability without its borders. Language is equally important to preserve since without it, internal communications in a country break down, leading again to international instability. Finally is culture. Culture should only be changed from within, not without, save that culture violates another nations borders, language, or culture. American individualism is not broken and does not need fixing by supranational busybodies. The people inside a culture have to want it to change, or else it is pointless, and the grevious responsibility of eradicating the borders that harbor such an invasive, threatening culture must be considered.

 

[FlareBlitz]

You've given me a lot to address here, so forgive me if I'm a bit scattershot.

The first thing I'd like to address is your assertion that Japanese culture is different enough that public healthcare works for them but will not work for us.

- The Japanese diet is indeed healthier than ours, but not by as much as you seem to think. Their food has a LOT of sodium, the use of Monosodium Glutamate is commonplace, and so on. More relevantly, their portions are much much smaller, which is a cultural issue, but not something that we can't fix (you'd be surprised how far ending certain government subsidies and tax breaks would go in this regard). Anyway, I do grant this point: the Japanese eat healthier than we do.

- This isn't really true. The Japanese, as you point out later, have very high smoking rates and don't really care all that much about "health food"; you'll notice that the natural/organic foods industry is nearly non-existent there, it has nearly no brand value.

- Their life expectancy works against your argument here: Japan has FAR more old people than the US. Older people require more medical care. If it works for them, it should work even better here...

- I wasn't aware that the Japanese had genetically different metabolism rates? That's kinda cool, if true.

- This point might just be due to the other points that you made, or even because of their healthcare system!

- I guess this explains all the tentacle porn.

Anyway, I didn't mean to nitpick that too much, it just bugs me a bit when people say that universal healthcare would not work in America for cultural reasons...we're not that culturally dissimilar to the other 1st world nations that have tried it.

On to your general point though, I actually do agree that system of government (and even moral/social philosophy) should be viewed with consideration to that people's culture. I don't think this should preclude the introduction of possibly beneficial policy measures (i.e. slowly introducing a democratic government and a capitalistic economy to a population used to authoritarian-communist government), but I think it bears careful consideration. Just as an example, in an obedient culture like Singapore, the government could get away with a quick ban on trans fats, while in America, it might be better to introduce punitive taxation or subsidization of healthier options.

 

[tape]

just a short post, really. something from Chou that has always bugged me in how he viewed stuff in several ways.

I know together we can do something good for a greater gain, but sometimes your highly-japanized ideas really just don't fit with me. As far as you've made me understand, Japan gives ratshit about what you think or can do by your own. I've seen this in the "Marriage/Lovers/whatever" thread where you were like "you MUST marry to give the state more kids". It's like we were born to give more workers, or something. You also seemed to give the idea that love wasn't something you had to be comfortable with, just something you had to do (to an extent).

I really prefer the highly-Capitalized (?) weakly-Socialist ways America works (most of the time) and I don't have a problem with it.

p.s.: I'm more of a fan of European governments, but I wouldn't mind living in either or.

 

[billymills]

My beliefs about government are split into two areas: ideally I think that there should be a single universal government that simply acts on a per-use basis. (For example you would pay a tax for each thing you do that could have an impact on society, for example polluting, or using health care, etc.) In this case, a healthier diet under the Japanese diet would have a lower tax rate than the American diet. (This system would be rather difficult to manage precisely.)

However, tangibly it's more likely that regional governments are more likely to be effective at this time. There is very little sense of universal unity, and many people in Canada and the US especially tend align themselves with their country instead (or province in some cases...). Imposition of a universal government would simply not be accepted, and not followed at this time.

However, build up of various international organisations does create general guidelines for how government should operate. While I don't agree with all of them, it does help us determine which laws are reasonable in other countries, which laws are necessary internationally, while still giving wiggle room for actions that are interpreted differently in different cultures.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The point I'm raising is not really about whether or not our government actually is better for us or not. For instance, I never actually said that we shouldn't have national health care, but rather that the implications of and implementation of national health care would mean something extremely different for the US than Japan. Now of course it's impossible to assume that a government for a given country always knows and does what is best for that country (it can't even be assumed that said government is even interesting in acting for its country)-- my only real overlying point was that culture should be considered when making policy, and that those who do not understand the culture should not speak up regarding policy so easily. I'd think from your post we can agree on that though.

just a short post, really. something from Chou that has always bugged me in how he viewed stuff in several ways.

I know together we can do something good for a greater gain, but sometimes your highly-japanized ideas really just don't fit with me. As far as you've made me understand, Japan gives ratshit about what you think or can do by your own. I've seen this in the "Marriage/Lovers/whatever" thread where you were like "you MUST marry to give the state more kids". It's like we were born to give more workers, or something. You also seemed to give the idea that love wasn't something you had to be comfortable with, just something you had to do (to an extent).

I really prefer the highly-Capitalized (?) weakly-Socialist ways America works (most of the time) and I don't have a problem with it.

p.s.: I'm more of a fan of European governments, but I wouldn't mind living in either or.

Just for clarification . . .

Keep in mind that while I'm pretty intimate with Japanese culture and have great pride coming from Japanese heritage, I don't actually like the way Japan does things more often than not. Generally speaking, I like America's way of doing things best.

High capitalism and non-socialism are both things I prefer for instance.

Also, regarding household, marriage, and parentage-- those things are a matter of personal philosophy. I do not begrudge others for choosing different paths in life. Absolutely, of course, it's each person's life to live.