Amae
May 21, 2007
Amae(ru) is according to Dr. Takeo Doi a word that cannot be directly translated into English. Doi starts out by making a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis based observation that any word that exists in one language but cannot be expressed easily in others, refers to a phenomena which is culturally important in culture of the first language, but not so important in the culture of the others which lack a means of its expression.
It is very true that Amae(ru) does not translate well into English. I would use "(to) fawn upon" or perhaps "to be a baby," or "to be cute." It refers to the action and emotional state of mind of a baby towards its mother (care giver). By "emotional state" I mean that it involves the expectation, need or desire to evoke the love in the other. Another way of putting amae(ru) is "passive love" i.e. feeling and behaving in such a way as to be loved (by a parent). It does not refer to being sexy, flirting or pouting or all the other ways of attracting eros (i.e. being "erotic" ?) but ways of attracting what C.S. Lewis calls "affection," the love of parents towards children. So amae is anticipating, and behaving in such a way as to receive love, affection, or induldence. The last word is moot too since the active form of amae in Japanese, amayakasu is usually traslated as "to indulge". One of Doi's most accessible examples is the behaviour of a puppy. A puppy (or an older dog, since dogs are always children to their masters) might roll on its back and wait for its belly to be stroked. Or it might come up to you wagging not only its tail, panting, and looking you in the eye. This is partly just being happy to see you but it is also a call for affection.
On top of the fact that Doi's insight regardign Amae started from a Sapir-Whorfian insight, it has a yet stronger relationship with language, or rather the lack of language. This connection can be approached in two ways.
First of all Doi's first, and for me most memorable, example of amae, is from when he arrived in the USA and visited a friend. His friend put some cookies or something on a table and said "If you are hungry, please help yourself." Coming from the culture of "amae," Doi felt put out. He was hungry, but he was in an amae frame of mind. He did not want to say, "Well I don't mind if I do," and tuck into the cookies. He wanted his host to actively perceive ("sasshi") that he was hungry and give him a plate of cookies. He wanted to be mollycoddled. The word "mollycoddle," not so common in English, helps us to understand the term amae. Some one who wants to be mollycoddled does not articulate their desire but hopes by their person or their actions to elicit indulgence from an other without the use of language. As soon as they put their desire into language they are putting themselves on an equal footing, as another separate desiring individual - but the person who "amaes" (if I am allowed to conjugate the verb) wants to merge (Doi argues) with the other.
This brings us on to the second connection between amae and the absence of language. Doi, argues that amae is the desire to merge with the other, as if (?) still not an independent entity, and puts forward a theory of individuality (quite common these days among narrative psychologists) that says that being an individual is to linguistically articulate oneself and ones desires. To amae is to refuse to go down that path to linguistic self-hood.
Endo Shusaku is possibly Japan's most famous Christian. Not only was he a Christian but also, as mentioned above, he tried to define a sort of Japanese Christianity. Indeed, Endo Shusaku attempted to take the best of Christian and Japanese culture to propose a more Japanese, and in a sense an even more Christian version of Christianity! In perhaps his most famous book ("Silence") Endo Shusaku raised the question of the martyr, the person that sacrifices themselves for others. The Christian bible tells us, "There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend." However, Endo suggests that there is greater love. Endo seems to come to the conclusion that the ultimate "martyr" could and would lay down his life for another, but ultimately she would also refrain for doing so, even if it meant rejecting all that she had lived for, if she felt that she would be held as an example, and thus encourage friends to lay down their lives as well. Putting it as tritely as this does not do service to Endo's sentiment but, Endo argues (successfully judging by the rave reviews from Western Catholics at Amazon.com) that sometimes it is even more difficult to *live on*.
Living on, even when this means not being entirely true to ones beliefs, is close to the philosophy of the Bodhisattva, such as. Kannon. A Bodhisattva is someone that could throw off their ego and reach nirvana/satori but decides to hang around, at the brink of satori, in the hope, working towards the day when, all other sentient beings reach nirvana/satori too.
It also reminds me of "About Schmidt" a film I saw today, in which the hero, played by Jack Nicholson, doesn't say what he really thinks, what he really believes, but chooses a polite, positive *silence* for the sake of those that he loves (perhaps a controversial reading of this bleak, but real and interesting film.)
Putting Endo's question back in terms of a possibly non PC gender related question: "who loves more, the fathers that go to war -- perhaps to die -- to protect those they loves, or the mothers that refuses to go to war, and would rather live in slavery, and abjection, for the same reason?" I think that opinions are likely to be divided. I am afraid that my sentiment is on the side of the warrior, but one might argue that a true blue Shinto-ist would come out on the side of the mother.
Shusaku Endo is a very famous novelist. His books are even more popular among Japanese Christians, who make up less than 1% of Japanese Christians.
Takeo Doi is also, as far as I am aware, a Japanese Christian. It is concievable therefore, in my opinion, that Takeo Doi may have been in part, subliminally inspired by the novels of Shusaku Endo. This is however, highly unlikely since (as kindly pointed out by Maraku below) Doi makes no mention of Shusaku in Amae no Kouzou. Takeo Doi does however, suggest, in the first chapter of his seminal work, that the origin of the word amae may be related to the name of the deity at the top of the Japanese panthenon, Amaterasu Oomikami. This suggests to me a common sensitivity motivating Shusaku Endo's and Takeo Doi's realisation that Japan is a country of amae. To Japanese Christians as they both are, it may be striking that there is a strong difference between their own religion, as expressed in the Bible, and that of the majority of Japanese who are much more enclined to amaeru to, request indulgence of, their deities.
Thanks to VikingSlav for the first paragraph and inspiration for this article.
N.B.
I would like to apologize for an earlier version of this article that suggested a closer link between the work of Shusaku Endo and Takeo Doi. This suggestion was entirely my own and based entirely upon supposition and speculation. In any event, nothing can be taken from Takeo Doi's immense achievement of making the notion of amae available to generations of psychologists, some of whom use the theory to cure people. And incidentally, academically, I am of course not fit to wipe Dr. Doi's shoes.
Trackback address for this post:
http://www.nihonbunka.com/htsrv/trackback.php/60
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
The immediate textual source for this theory is Kuki Shuuzoo's 'Iki' no koozoo, which established the precedent for thinking of Japanese identity in terms of key words.
2007-06-06 @ 03:26 Thank you for your comment.
I must have misunderstood both Doi and Sapir Whorf.
I thought that Doi mentioned Sapir/Whorf, which he clearly did not.
And I was not aware that the latter were limited to gramattical uniqueness.
I have heard, and possibly persused Iki no kouzou. Thank you for pointing out the link.
I hope it be acceptable if I change the above to say that Doi's theorey is based on an insight *similar* to that of Sapir-Whorf?
Tim
Timothy Takemoto ne Leuers
PS. That would not be the Peter N. Dale, of "The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness" fame would it? If so then I would be especially honoured. I got in touch with Dr. Dale about his book and how to get hold of it several years ago and remain a fan.
2007-06-06 @ 04:05 "I hope it be acceptable if I change the above to say that Doi's theorey is based on an insight *similar* to that of Sapir-Whorf?"
I'm only an intruder here, and hardly have rights of interdiction. Doi of course is familiar with the Whorf-Sapir analysis, but, in citing it, he remarks:-
“もっとも本書で取り上げているのは、日本語と欧米語の全般的な比較ではなく、いわば「甘える」の一語に尽きるといって過言ではない'.” 「甘え」の構造 p.74
That is, his argument is not Whorfian at all, it is not concerned with the syntax of thought but rather semantic. Elsewhere in the book he mentions the early work of the former Republican senator for California, S.I.Hayakawa, who was also influenced by Whorf, but whose general orientation on language was heavily influenced by Alfred Korzybski’s once influential, but almost forgotten, Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1933). Korzybski, like Whorf and Sapir, considered language in its coercive aspect as moulder of thought-patterns, but, in distinction to the other two, he devised a technique to round on this inbuilt habit of one’s mother tongue to railroad thinking along predetermined lines. Both Hayakawa and Stuart Chase wrote popular books on this, the latter in particular with his ‘The Tyranny of Words’ (1938), would have changed Doi’s naïve preconceptions about the ostensible straightforward signposting of words to truths of culture. Words are highly charged with complex valencies of signification and affect, and only a wary regard for their ambivalence can free us from the pitfalls of naïve usage.
It is not, secondly, a matter of 'insight', but simply, if one may hazard to use that unfortunate adverb, that in a period of crisis while living abroad and suffering "culture shock", with an unsatisfactory analysis behind him under a Japanese psychoanalyst, in which he failed to grasp the dynamics of transference, Doi coined the deverbal noun ‘amae’ to explain the lack of anticipated affect in his relationship with his American hosts. Kuki, in a classic work, had written that: ‘甘える者 と 甘えられる者との間には、 常に積極的な通路が開けている。’ 九鬼周造「いき」の構造 p.51
Casting about for heuristic indulgence, Doi fell upon a classic of Japanese identity theories, namely Kuki’s prewar opuscule, and signalled his debt by alluding, in his own title, to Kuki’s seminal text of 1930. Hhe follows most of Kuki’s analytical strategies. 構造-ing words began with Kuki’s book in cultural discourse, but fell from favour in the post-war identity literature, apart from the exception of Umehara Takeshi’s ‘Warai no kôzô’ (1962).
Both Kuki’s theory of Edo chic, and Doi’s theory of ‘amae’ arise from the anomie of momentary expatriation. Both are forms of assertion of difference in terms of the erotic, deferred or sublimated. Kuki disowns Western love in favour of the sustained tensions of ephemeral flirtation with sophisticated geisha he thought perfected in the brothels of Fukagawa, while Doi, a more orthodox Catholic than Kuki, evokes the ambiguous heritage of narcissistic dependency to account for the strengths and weaknesses of interpersonal relationships in Japan, where spiritual and affective autonomy is denied, and equality, sexual and otherwise, is ineludibly subordinated to the hierarchy of giver and receiver of indulgence(s). The difference between the two is that ‘iki’ is embodied in a woman who embodies the maternal as object of desire, and yet cannot be wholly possessed, whilst ‘amae’ configures the object of desire as the mother, who proves to be an inadequate ersatz father. Kuki would sustain the illusion of an eternal romance, eternal because unconsummated, between mother and child, a state of permanent matricentral dalliance, as played out in male-female solicitations outside of marriage; Doi, at least here, decries the absence of a real father-role in Japanese society and the family, and hungers for a return of patriarchal authority, at least, within the modern Japanese male.
A far cry from Derrida and Lacan, however.
2008-06-19 @ 16:34 Leave a comment:
