著者

前田 尚子 Maeda Naoko

出版者

Graduate School of International Development. Nagoya University

雑誌

Forum of International Development Studies (ISSN:13413732)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.26, pp.47-64, 2004-03

---

It is frequently said that the Japanese people have not been able to establish positive relationships with other ethnic peoples while accepting the many differences that exist among peoples of different social and cultural backgrounds. On the basis of this view, a number of researchers have criticized Japan’s assimilative policy and the Japanese way of communicating, and have produced a brand of discourse that encourages individuals to know and respect the diversity between Japanese and other cultures.The intent of this paper is to critically examine, using the concept of Constructionism, the views of discourse dealing with heterogeneity. For that purpose, I examine how the concept of “the self”is argued within the discourse on heterogeneity, and how individuals’selves (realities) are constructed through the acceptance of this particular discussion. I will show that the current discourse on heterogeneity advises people to have such selfimages as to be themselves and to be conscious of their own characters, as well as to be relativistic and to respect others equally. These points of views on heterogeneity appear to be rationalized on the grounds that they attempt to harmonize these two specific types of self-image. In addition, I will point out the limitations of the current discourse on heterogeneity. The discussion itself cannot avoid the systemic way of thinking that allows individuals to pursue self-image to be themselves and conscious of their own characters while harmonizing the efforts to be relativistic and respectful of others equally,even though there is an assumption that people can attain the first of these self-images by themselves. The discussions concerning heterogeneity are in error since they include the assumption that individuals’complementary roles in their systems are a result of self-determination. Finally, I will describe the occurrence of two paradoxes that arise as a direct consequence of the inaccuracy of these assumptions. The more eagerly individuals pursue their authenticities by themselves, the more tightly they are bound to one of the complementary roles within their systems. Furthermore, the more strongly they emphasize the differences or boundaries between themselves and others, the more they fail to recognize that they themselves are the parties concerned in the construction of mutual selves(realities). As a final result, individuals develop an attitude called “the denial of coevalness”.