« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
Inevitable karaoke here in Nagoya - I tried 'Common People' for the first time but realised it was a bit 'hardcore' and then resorted to 'Can't Help Falling in Love with You' which worked better. But I was surprised to see that there were two Arctic Monkey songs available. Gordon Brown, get ready now for your next trip to Japan...
Also, on the ground floor of the karaoke box building, they had electronic/manual darts. Really. Dodgy cameraphone evidence below:
In Japan for two weeks from today, partly to escort my father on his first ever trip to Japan and partly for work.
A couple of first impression observations from my father caught my imagination. "Uniform seems very important here." He was looking at the immaculately turned out (cap, gloves) express delivery (takkyubin) driver/delivery man at the time.
His second observation was that it was curious that Japanese demanded and gave 100% perfection in the workplace and yet aesthetically preferred imperfections - for example the handthrown peasant pot.
I think these two are linked. Japanese people don't see any inconsistency in being a perfectionist at work and enjoying imperfections outside work. They also don't have as much of a problem as we do in the West with subsuming our private identity to a uniform. It's an acceptance of plural identities again. They would find the debates about wearing crucifixes or veils in the UK and the rest of Europe puzzling. To most Japanese, wearing the uniform expected in your work, without any deviation or allowances for personal preferences is 'atarimae' (obvious, goes without saying) or 'joshiki' (common sense).
'Atarimae' is a difficult word to translate. We're staying at a very eco friendly, 'organic' hotel here in Tokyo (which I chose because I knew my father would like) and in my room (because they know I speak Japanese I suppose) they have left a book 'Atarimae no ie ha naze tsukurenainoka?' 'Why aren't 'obvious' houses being built?' Which sounds odd in English. What they meant by the title is, given that petrochemical based building products are unsustainable and don't last well, why aren't more houses in Japan built to last out of eco friendly products?
He also wondered what katsuo, or bonito looked like. It's a fish which Japanese dry and then use the shavings from the dried meat for flavourings. I had no idea. Turns out it's a type of tuna.
Speaking as I was in a previous post about people whose judgement I respect and Borat, I am beginning to think, based on the review of another person whose judgement I respect that I really am not going to enjoy the film. I also agree with Christopher Hitchens about the indefatigable politeness of most Americans, and this is indeed in contrast to most Brits.
A Dutch participant in one of my training sessions last week said that a technique he used to get his Dutch colleagues to agree to something he wanted was to threaten or start to do the exact opposite. The class agreed that this was probably a technique which would only work in the Netherlands.
I don't think this is what Rita Verdonk, the Dutch Immigration Minister, has in mind though with her proposed ban on burkas and niqabs but surely such a ban will provoke an increase in defiant burka/niqab wearing martyrs? Much though I disagree with women wearing burkas (and veils), I also find myself instinctively opposing the idea of legislation to stop people wearing them, although I do not have a problem with employers or state institutions banning them on their premises.
A review of the book 'Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space'
in the Financial Times today says the author, John Bowen, is particularly interesting on the centrality of laicite in the French republican tradition and how in France freedom must be attained through the state, rather than against the
state, as John Locke and the English liberal tradition argued. If we take the John Stuart Mill assertion that power can only be exerted over a person in order to prevent harm to others, then the French would argue that wearing a veil does harm others, because it undermines the universality of French values, with potentially divisive consequences.
The Bowen book apparently points out that the French legislation banning "ostentatious religious signs" in schools has problems in its application:
"The complexities of determining “religious affiliation” were exposed in a parody of the administrative order “clarifying” application of the law. “A scarf worn by a Christian girl will be accepted, as long as she is not a nun, and the same for a turban worn by a Jewish pupil and a Sikh’s large cross,” the parody noted. “A registry will be kept of each pupil’s religion to make clear which signs each may not wear.”"
Rather than defining what is to be prohibited by references to religion, I suppose a more acceptable and practicable rule or law outside of France would use definitions regarding safety or hindrance of professional duty. Which is indeed what it seems the Dutch parliament is going to focus on, by justifying such a law on security grounds, although apparently such legislation already exists to some extent. Enforceability might still be an issue - are the Dutch going to have to introduce some kind of national prefect system, like we used to have at my old-fashioned state grammar school for measuring tie and skirt lengths? If it was the UK we'd probably end up enforcing such a law by tutting forcefully behind burka wearers' backs, on the assumption that policemen have got better things to do, and because we don't like to make a fuss.
The Dutch participant also said that the key Dutch cultural value was freedom. (The British participants said the key British cultural value was fairness, which is presumably why we get ourselves into a twist about burkas vs turbans vs crucifixes vs kippahs)
People whose judgement I respect have loved the Borat movie so maybe I will too, but I am not a big fan of comedy which involves deceiving and humiliating members of the public. It's lazy and nasty. I don't like it on the otherwise consistently excellent Dead Ringers and I never watch Dom Joly although he seemed capable of being clever, witty and original on last night's Have I Got News For You. The defence for the Borat film seems to be that 'it's OK this time, because he's exposing the real underbelly of America.' Hmm. If we're going to indulge in our prejudices and stereotypes about entire populations, then it looks like the litigious stereotype of Americans may also be about to be exposed. The process surrounding and the content of the release forms do seem very dodgy - hope your film company's got comprehensive insurance and good lawyers, Sacha Baron Cohen.
I'm looking forward to seeing 'Starter for Ten' (although on current working mum form it's likely to be only as an inflight movie or some time next year on pay per view) for the not very profound reason that I too started university in 1985, which is when the film is set. But this publicity photo bothers me - unbelievable though it may seem in this current long hair hegemony, most of us girls wore our hair short then, with lots of gel. Scarves would not be dangling round the neck but wound in the hair. And BIG earrings. And either no make up or very obvious make up - kohl eye liner, bright lipstick, loud eye shadow. Think Bananarama, Madonna, Yazoo.
I've double checked via Google to make sure my memory is not faulty and it's not.
"Young women wore wild earrings, often long or of peculiar design. Shoulder length earrings often contrasted with hair that was chin length or shorter. "
While we're on the subject of long hair hegemony, an American friend of mine, who has recently moved from the Netherlands to Surrey, told me she knew she was going to like me because I had short hair, like her. She was feeling very alienated by the universal long blond hair that all the middle aged mums in Surrey seem to feel is de rigeur.
The first few paragraphs of the excerpt given by Norm Geras of Barack Obama's autobiography had me nodding with admiration for his mother and his view of her. "Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives." Then he disappoints with his 'why I nonetheless joined a church', because he wanted to belong to a group. So mundane. As I said in my letter published a couple of months ago in the Financial Times (cough cough):
"Sir, Although the new Commission for Integration and Cohesion will not be looking at the issue of faith schools, there is no doubt in my mind that Amartya Sen is right ("Multiculturalism: an unfolding tragedy of two confusions", August 22) that the impact of faith schools on the values we as a society want to teach our children must be considered.
Based on my own experience of living overseas as a child and the work I do now in helping people to adjust to different cultures, it is clear that cultural values are formed at an early age - from about five to 12 years old. After this age, it is increasingly difficult to change one's values. Instead, the overwhelming motivator is to "belong".
That is why fundamentalist groups find rich pickings for converts at universities, when a young person has moved away from home and is trying to find a new sense of belonging. If that young person has already absorbed values which allow him to see other groups as less than human, it is a dangerous combination. I hope therefore the commission takes a two-pronged approach.
First, a check that the values promoted during our children's formative years do not include any sense that people of other faiths (and of course other ethnicities) are less worthy and do include western liberal values such as the one that Prof Sen highlights, of "being able to reason freely".
Second, that despite Britain's class-ridden tradition, our society finds ways to provide all young people with a sense of belonging and access to the networks that provide good jobs, education and a rich social life. I strongly believe the kind of mentoring schemes Ruth Kelly, the communities and local government secretary, mentioned would be an effective way to do this."
One of my best friends at my Oxbridge college was a working class Goth who loved French literature and whom I met singing Haydn in a choir. The God Squad got her in her second year, and I believe she was vulnerable to their 'charms' for the very reason I liked her - she had so many supposedly conflicting identities. So she never really belonged to any one group and that had ultimately made her feel unhappy and lonely. They offered her unconditional belonging. Well not entirely unconditional - I believe she had to confess to all her sins at a prayer meeting, which were many and involved a lot of sex and drugs - they should have sold tickets at the door.
Not wishing to sound too cynical, but I would imagine that having chosen a 'public life' as Obama puts it, belonging to a powerful and motivated group such as an African American church must be helpful. More helpful than becoming an Arthurian, which is what my Goth friend became after she lost her faith.
As always around this time of year a journalist will write lamenting the decline of Bonfire Night and the way it has been elbowed aside by the import of 'ghastly' Halloween Trick or Treating from the US. This year even the Financial Times has such an article, as a leader (subscription required), saying;
"Until recently, families and communities lit bonfires with a "guy" on top and let off fireworks. Children collected money in the streets to buy fireworks, asking for "a penny for the guy". The custom has all but died out, and youthful exuberance is now channelled into extortion on Hallowe'en through trick or treat, a US import that suggests the Americanisation of British culture. This is sad, for several reasons. "
Well, for a start, I am old enough to remember children asking for 'a penny for the guy' and frankly the whole thing had become a scam and an excuse for petty mugging long before Halloween Trick or Treating took off. Thuggish little oiks usually stuffed an anorak and trousers with newspaper and stuck a mask over the hood, with no intention of burning any of it. Conversely, the amount of creativity which we saw in the costumes of the children (and teenage girls and boys) who came round to our house on Halloween was impressive.
People around us had a lot of fun decorating their houses too - I brought back the tackiest Halloween decorations I could find in Target from my trip to the US last week and far from annoying the neighbours, as I had intended, we got compliments instead. My husband made a fab mummy costume for our son, which won the unofficial neighbourhood best costume prize according to one of our neighbours.
I get the sense that communities in the northern hemisphere* want to have some kind of excuse for a festival of misrule around the autumn equinox (just like Saturnalia and the Lord of Misrule around the winter solstice, now subsumed by Christmas). My Yorkshire friend was telling me that in her hometown they have Mischief Night around now, where they play tricks on people. Halloween has always been a focus for this, and complaining that it's an American import is just another example of kneejerk British anti-Americanism. According to Snopes, it's only recently that Halloween has become as commercial it is in the US too. Blame global capitalism (and Scooby Doo I would say) if you must.
In any case, the view of thousands of fireworks being let off that we can see out of our windows across the Sussex Downs and Brighton was as spectacular as always last night and I have no doubt that the Lewes Bonfire night was going as strong as ever.
*In Japan the Halloween equivalent, Obon, where dead ancestors' spirits come back to earth, is actually in July and August, including lighting fires and setting off fireworks
This from Prof Norm Geras (sort of) reworks the Sen quotation at the top of this blog:
"...there seem to be many citizens of liberal societies who can't imagine any serious threat to them, or that these societies may need to be fought for - literally. And that is a mistake. By now, not to be able to imagine it is merely turning your head away. Liberalism and secularism need the strength also of a fighting self-belief."
The reason that I have not blogged for a week was that I was conducting some training sessions in the Bible Belt of the USA and had little time or inclination to write, although the sessions themselves provoked some further thoughts for this blog.
I had mentioned religion last time I did these sessions and was told by the HR Manager that "we don't talk about religion or politics", but as the American participants brought it up last time, I thought I had better come prepared this time too, and sure enough, just as I was explaining the 'plural identities' concept - talking about how we assume different identities depending on the situation, not just national cultural identity but as a parent or a middle aged person or a southerner etc, someone immediately asked 'what about religion?'. So I added it to the list and then talked about how important the religious identity seemed to be to Americans compared to Europeans, and straight away another participant interjected that indeed, for him, his religious identity came before everything else. It turned out he was a Mormon (although it seems he prefers the acronym of LDS (Latter Day Saints). Throughout the two days his total certainty of his own rightness but at the same time willingness to speak out was both irritating and welcome.
Above all, it brought home to me one of the issues at the heart of current debates about integration of immigrants, American foreign policy, Muslim identities etc - both Islamic fundamentalists and a large proportion of the US (not us! said my friends that I stayed with afterwards in Princeton) see their religious identity as the most important identity, that can never be put into the background, whatever the situation. As Sen argues, and as has been borne out, it's an attitude which prepares the ground for violent conflict. It's an attitude which Europeans mostly do not understand or have much time for.
Some of the slides I made for the training, in anticipation that they would bring up religion and US-Europe relations, came from the fascinating book "America against the world: Why we are different and why we are disliked", based on research on cultural values by the Pew Institute, amongst others.
Believe in God:
US 94%
Great Britain 61%
France 56%
Germany 50%
Is it necessary to believe in God to be moral?
No Yes
US 40% 58%
Great Britain 73% 25%
France 86% 13%
Germany 66% 33%
