Daily Yomiuri on the “gaijin” debate

And think of how sexist English is, for one has to use “he” or “she” to refere to a third person singular whereby spot-lighting the sex of the person in question. “This is my colleague, Pat. S/he is…” How about using “it” in stead of “he” or “she”.

At first glance he seemed to have a point but on reading the article in full my conclusion is that he is merely pretending to be intelligent. Sorry Mike Guest I can only give you 4/10 for your essay.

I don’t think the Japanese would be offended if I introduced him/her using “Meet my Japanese friend, Taro.”

Further, my understanding is that spoken Japanese has some subtle differences, depending on where one grew up in Japan. Hence introducing a person by his background somewhat places the conversation in context. For instance, a gaijin who thinks he speaks keigo may or may not grasp the subtle nuances in an exchange.

Japanese people have so much difficulty communicating clearly, even to each other. So often that they prefer using English with non Japanese, when they can be direct without sounding rude.

I don’t quite see this author’s point. Is the term “foreigner” (in Japanese) a socially taboo word amongst the local foreign population in Japan? What would this author have prefered to be labelled? “Hakujin” (Caucasian) or perhaps simply “Aitsu”=”that guy” (which I beleive to be much more derogatory IMHO). What would this professor of Miyazaki University preferred to be called? Maybe none of the above. Perhaps he wants society to recognize him as a prof. Maybe it’s a pride issue that he may have had that prompted to write this essay.

For a person who “speaks Japanese” he missed the most important thing. Japanese people when speaking in Japanese have the habit of stating the obvious. Ex: Walk outside in the middle of feb. and the first word out of their mouths is “COLD”, never fails.

It’s more like saying, “This brotha needs some help with his computer.”

Either way, these academic discussions are completely useless. When the Japanese are ready to accept gaijin as one of them purely at face value, will this conversion have any relevance.

Btw, I often introduce people as my “friend from Japan/Germany/etc.”

I find Mr. Guest’s whole argument agreeable except that he hasn’t given enough consideration to the exact differences between “gaijin” and “gaikokujin” which will help you understand how “gaijin” is used in Japanese. He is correct in pointing out that the two words differ in terms of register, but they are also different, if close and overlapping, in their meanings.

Mr. Guest has made two important points in his essay.

1) He divides the usages of words denoting a person/s into two types: a) the usage as a form of address b) the usage as a form of reference. While he sees “gaijin” in the former usage as rude, he sees no problems in the latter.

2) He explains, by his own anecdotes in a train and in a electronic goods shop, why some cases in which the Japanese tend to use “gaijin,” or any other word to the same effect, should be considered inappropriate. He concludes it is redundancy in the usage that brings about the problems.

I agree with these points although I think we need to analyze more closely how and why “gaijin” is, in some cases, considered rude.

Alex (or anybody), call me Mike (actually, I wish the paper wouldn’t dwell on the uni. prof. bit because it can make these columns sound like some sort of argument from authority).

One or two responses to a few critical comments that deserve answers:

1- Regarding ‘Gaijin’ as meaning ‘Caucasian’- I did say ‘in practice’ in the article and contrasted it with the more general meaning. If a group of NJ Asians are around most Japanese will refer to them as ‘Asia-jin’ or ‘Chugoku-jin’, ‘Kankoku-jin’ if they are identifiable as such. Black people, Arab people, Indian Sub-continent folks will be similarly referred to using a more local classifier. A big mixed group of NJ’s though, yes, will likely be referred to as ‘Gaijin’.

Interestingly, this is why many Japanese can refer to such people as ‘Gaijin’ when they are in other countries- it doesn’t functionally- really mean ‘foreigner’ per se.

2- A few people talked about redundancy as normal in Japanese, that it is used as a means of establishing distance in relationships (which often have more significance in Japan). I understand- and it is true that Japanese language and social customs have this quality. But, according to Japanese language norms, in an electronics shop I am a ‘customer’- and in fact it was the marked usage of the term (as ‘foreign customer’) that lead to the 2nd clerk being confused. In short, the first clerk did not follow the Japanese norms of propriety- he didn’t play the Japanese language game. Imposing the norms of English upon Japanese language/culture was not the issue. Establishing “status and group membership” (see JamesB above) beyond that of customer/worker is not normal in a service encounter in Japan, so ‘foreign’ was redundant here.

3- As for the “cold” redundancy example- this type of language usage has a social integration function, a way of making contact with others or otherwise engaging them (yeah I know sometimes things like ‘samui’ are muttered to no one in particular). All languages have ways of doing this. But since most Japanese recognize this function it doesn’t really mark language in the way comments like “Hi, my sweet and adorable wife” upon returning home (Aha- he’s probably been drinking or skirtchasing) or “Let’s make some space. A Middle-Eastern guy is getting on the bus behind us” (need I explain?) would- and would in any language.

I certainly agree that most usage of ‘gaijin’ is unconscious and not meant to be derogatory. But, since redundant usage can cause people to do a double-take or believe that something is being implied when it should not be a factor, it might be good to make students (if we are teachers) aware of this and even be aware of it in our own language (a lot of friction between people arises simply from unconscious ‘I wonder what THAT was supposed to mean?’ usage of language). Overly heightened consciousness of ‘foreigners’ or ‘foreigness’ and their alleged implications can affect a lot of J-NJ interactions, making them awkward and stilted.

It can be like when the gorgeously hot woman starts talking to you (if you’re a straight male, that is) or that ultra-tough and mean-looking SOB wants to have a word with you, you start behaving a bit oddly, saying things differently- things you don’t really need to say, generally looking affected. You can’t get it out of your head that she is HOT or that he might put your lights out.

I also agreed (in the article) that the term ‘Gaijin’ will not disappear. As I said, as long as there is a legitimate basis for classification (as fh says, which being a small and usually visible minority implies) some term to express this will be needed. The keyword here though is ‘legitimate’.

PnetQ- I liked your summary of the points I made. Spot on.

I should have said earlier that the habit of some Japanese to refer to NJs in their own countries as ‘gaijin’ is generally limited to Western countries (a further argument for the functional equating of ‘gaijin’ with Caucasian). The same people would not refer to Chinese people in China or Indian people in India as ‘gaijin’. And, yes, I can accept this precisely because it seems that ‘gaijin’ does not strictly mean ‘foreigner’.

Overthinker- A Guest in Japan. Hmmm. Never noticed that before . A little like Mr. Smoketoomuch perhaps.