Letters Exchanged between KENZABURO OE and EDWARD W. SAID .

March 11, 2002 1:17 PM

Letters Exchanged between KENZABURO OE and EDWARD W. SAID . Asahi Shimbum prints an interesting dialog between writers Oe and Said on the topics of cultural imperialism and the far-reaching impacts of September 11 and America's reaction.
posted by gen (14 comments total)

Given the people involved, I would have expected that exchange to be a lot more interesting than it was. Disappointing, IMHO.
posted by aramaic at 1:34 PM on March 11, 2002

Any country or culture that feels American culture is "bad" is perfectly free to go ahead and exhibit the finer points of their own culture throughout the world as an alternative.

In the meantime, we've heard all this. It was interesting, in an academic way, the first time and, ultimately, does absolutely nothing to fix the problems between the cultures.

My fervent wish for the future is that some practical people on both sides make real effort to bridge the cultural gaps and fix the problems that contributed to 9-11, while at the same time aiming to decrease and deflate the sheer quantity of fatuous gasbaggery that keeps the lines between the cultures good and sharp, and the poison in the minds of the people fresh and virulent.
posted by UncleFes at 1:54 PM on March 11, 2002

Any country or culture that feels American culture is "bad" is perfectly free to go ahead and exhibit the finer points of their own culture throughout the world as an alternative.

I'm not sure that this sentiment is really a response to what Oe and Said were discussing. Oe, at least, doesn't really seem interested in saying that American culture is "bad"; he's not really addressing America at all. That's what I found interesting about Oe's letter--it wasn't addressed to Said as an American. Rather, he seems to be trying to start a conversation with Said as someone on the outside: his discussion of American policy is less a criticism of American policy than an exploration of how other cultures can respond to this policy.

I'm not being very clear here.... I got the impression that Oe was uninterested in making arguments to sway American policy. He wasn't arguing that American culture was "bad" or "good"--he was treating it more as an indifferent force of nature and asking the question: given this force, how do we respond? And I think it's natural for anyone to get a little defensive in the face of such a force, and to worry about what parts of his own culture (e.g. Japanese constitutional pacifism) it might obliterate.

So much of what we in the USA hear from overseas is a direct criticism of American policy intended for American ears. In this respect, I found this exchange to be a refreshingly novel view from the outside.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:17 PM on March 11, 2002

Sorry, that's my knee jerking you hear in the background :) I think American culture, for all its faults, is still the best if only for its ability to adapt to changing times and assimilate elements of other cultures. And Said irritates me, with his snide arrogance. It pains me to see someone who was able to take advantage of all America had to offer and then turn around and slander it even as he continues to enjoy its freedom, tolerance and wealth. So much of the world is mired in tyranny, oppression, poverty and hate, and could benefit from a little Americanism.

I know its a 'Murrican aphorism, but... if I hated America as much as Said purports to, I'd be hard-pressed to continue living here and subjecting my family and loved one's to its depredations. But maybe I think too much that those who talk the talk ought walk the walk.

Save your flames, people, I'm done.
posted by UncleFes at 2:41 PM on March 11, 2002

Sort of a survey of the current strain of globalism and imperialism theory. Worth it if you're interested and haven't read anything deeply analytic on the topic.

“[Oe] was treating it more as an indifferent force of nature and asking the question: given this force, how do we respond? ”

Right on. There is criticism of US policy there, but overall it isn't an indictment. Oe says that's just the way it is. He is pretty impotent to change US policy, readily admits it, and consquently is more interested in Japan.
posted by raaka at 2:54 PM on March 11, 2002

I think American culture, for all its faults, is still the best if only for its ability to adapt to changing times and assimilate elements of other cultures.

Sorry, but I can't let this comment pass, particularly in a discussion of something written by a Japanese citizen. The adaptability and flexibility of American culture is far from unique, as is its fervent assimilation of other cultures. Crack open a cultural history of Japan some time, or take a trip there.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:04 PM on March 11, 2002

Crack open a cultural history of Japan...

OK, can I start with the implicit Japanese assumption that homogeneity is a good thing? So good, in fact, that it's been used to justify racism to my face?

Or maybe I could just skip the causes, and go straight to the spectacular racism itself? Perhaps I could also briefly mention the amazing inability to see racism as a bad thing -- to the point of mentioning racism as a matter of pride? Other countries, for the most part, at least have the decency to be mortified by their own racist elements. Japan practically celebrates them.

Um, sorry for the sudden bitterness there, but I'm still pretty peeved at the way I was treated in Japan, simply due to my ancestry. In real life I'm a very quiet inoffensive person, and in Japan I'm treated like I'm liable to start raping women and stealing things at the drop of a hat.
posted by aramaic at 3:22 PM on March 11, 2002

If it's aspects are universlly appealing and it can effectively assimilate the best elements from other cultures, why worry about the effects of American culture? People around the world could see Japanese (or any other) culture as a better alternative to Americanization and opt for it. I'm not trying to denigrate Japanese culture, from what I know of it there is much to recommend it, and some aspects are certainly superior to American culture. In fact, had you asked me in the late 1980s, I would have probably said that Japanese culture would be the normative culture before the end of the century. But what ahppened was that American culture assimilated the japanophiliac aspects of the times and co-opted them. Now the best of Japan is part of America.

I've always felt that "American cultural imperialism" is really a code phrase for "our culture is failing to compete successfully with our initiates (read: youth) when they come into contact with aspects of American culture."
posted by UncleFes at 3:27 PM on March 11, 2002

OK, can I start with the implicit Japanese assumption that homogeneity is a good thing? So good, in fact, that it's been used to justify racism to my face?

Look, I'm not arguing that Japanese cuture is in total superior to any other culture; I'm just using it as an example of a culture that quicly adapts to changing times and readily assimilates aspects of other cultures. UncleFes seems to think that this mode of cultural evolution is somehow unique to America; it is not, and Japan is a great example of this. The other examples I have are mostly historic: Greek culture in the Alexandrian era, Indian culture (on and off) pre-Independance.

If it's aspects are universlly appealing and it can effectively assimilate the best elements from other cultures, why worry about the effects of American culture?

I think the problem is that the "universally appealing" aspects of American culture are perceived as coming along with some pretty unappealing baggage. For example, Oe is concerned that Japanese pacifism is being sacrificed at the expense of following the American lead. Strongly religious individuals outside of American are wary of the secularism of American society; dedicated secularists in, say, Western Europe are wary of the religious rhetoric coming out of the mouths of American leaders. Both religious and secular societies might be able to gain by adapting aspects of American culture, but they aren't sure what must be sacrificed to accomplish these gains. That sort of thing, more or less.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:52 PM on March 11, 2002

So far, two points of interest for me. One, as Oe notes, many individuals working with NGOs and locals in tough spots like Afghanistan are seeking a way to do something constructive, person-to-person, without getting caught up in the global geopolitical conflicts. I've heard people refer to themselves as "internationalists" or "third-world solidarity workers" but I know of no generally accepted term for this perspective / point of view. Two, I agree with Said that using the word "terrorism" is inherently problematic, because everybody has their own idea as to who falls into that category. Helping get us "out of the box" of the jihad / war-against-terrorism narrrative long enough to follow a few of the concurrent historical threads is an important task.

"Doubtless we are now in a new phase of history, of which the regulation of political discourse by central authority is an intimidating reality for individuals everywhere. Isn't it also our role, I would ask you cherished Oe-san, not only to outline the reality but also to present alternatives to it? ... surely there are other "realities'' to which we can appeal, here and in Japan. Maybe we can go into this in our next letter."

The kernel of this exchange will probably come in the next letters ... would gen or someone else post them for us, if you spot them?
posted by sheauga at 5:16 PM on March 11, 2002

Said's continual lies make believing anything he says next to impossible. He claims we are pursuing a "clash of civilizations" and universally against Islam, when the "clash" was the theory most evocatively expressed by bin-Laden-ism, and we have made common cause with Islamic nations across the globe. We are, in fact, attempting to refute the "clash of civilizations" thesis, by making the assumption against Huntington's warning that Islamic nations such as Pakistan are, in fact, capable of reforming and transforming themselves into modern, moderate democracies. The thesis of Huntington's theory is that we may well find that other cultures, perhaps Islam, do not value the same things we do -- but nobody is underlining this point more than Said in his defining himself by his opposition to the culture that is much more than America, but all of the West and much of its post-colonial heritage. It is Said who is pursuing the "clash", not the United States.

He claims we have sought the "total destruction" of only Muslim nations since Vietnam, at once lumping together three extremely different military actions (Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan), ignoring the localized politics involved (with Iraq, our defense of Arabic, Islamic nations against another; with Somalia, destruction undertaken by the culture against itself, which our intervention was hoped to correct; in Afghanistan, an unasked, unplanned war against a foe who chose the time and place of their defense in an Islamic country), while making other actions we did in the same time period in defense of Muslims (the Middle East peace process at Camp David II, the defense of Kosovar and Bosnian Muslims against ethnic cleansing by Christians, the angry denunciations of Russia for its brutal war in Chechnya), and the clear rhetorical exclusion of the NATO-Yugoslav war.

If this is how fast and loose the man plays with the facts, Said's conclusions aren't worth wiping your ass with.
posted by dhartung at 6:29 PM on March 11, 2002

Dan I'm sorry but it seems that he could just as easily write the same thing about you. You are both playing with the same facts, just different interpretations. I really don't see any lies in Said's missive, just a few interpretations that seemed a bit hysterical. And to top it off, you've added some facts of your own (Camp David II as a defense of Muslims?!) which someone else could call 'lies,' when in fact they are just your opinion.
posted by chaz at 7:26 PM on March 11, 2002

Gosh, Eddy, you seem to forget that the war you so intelsely dislike began because the World Trade Towers, set in the city in which you work and live, was destroyed....and all the perps were Arab Muslims. And those being trained in Afghanistan were 99.5 perecent Muslims, and the cells all over Europe are or were Arab Muslim. There may be a pattern here that explains some things, no?
posted by Postroad at 2:55 AM on March 12, 2002

UncleFes: I've always felt that "American cultural imperialism" is really a code phrase for "our culture is failing to compete successfully with our initiates (read: youth) when they come into contact with aspects of American culture."

This is so true it should be set in stone. Though I've always wondered about Japan. I know next to nothing about it but it seems to me they somehow manage to get the best of both worlds. Japanese traditional culture survives alongside every type of Western faddism.

In the paranoia corner, perhaps going on and on about American cultural imperialism is Hollywood PR - it certainly makes America much more attractive and rebellious-looking to youngsters everywhere.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:27 AM on March 12, 2002