Iwabuchi Koichi. Recentering Globalization: Popular Culture and Japanese Transnationalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2003.Iwabuchi questions the traditional theories of cultural imperialism that assume a "West/East" binary, in which the Eurocentric "West" [primarily America] is the propagator of mass culture and the undeveloped "East" is the submissive receptacle of the West's influence. While certainly a lot of work has been done to question the overall validity of such a linear, unidirectional model [Iwabuchi is heavily indebted to and quotes liberally from Appadurai, Stuart Hall, Bhabha], Iwabuchi claims that there hasn't been enough exploration on the "East" as an
active participant in the globalization [specifically, global cultural domination] process.
so he looks at the Japanese culture industry and and their ethic
dochaku, "glocalism," or global localism, "a global strategy which does not seek to impose a standard product or image, but instead is tailored to the demands of the local market" (Featherstone, in Iwabuchi, 46). the Japanese do not specifically create their goods for Asian domination, but the extent to which it has been integrated into Asian economies such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, etc. [not to mention otaku communities in North America and Australia] is spoken of in disturbing, problematic terms. from what Iwabuchi has found, nationalist Japanese writers are very self-congratulatory when describing the spread of Japanese mass culture across Asia, and many non-Japanese audiences have been infected with a sort of "longing" for Japanese modernity via these pop cultural products.
what Iwabuchi sees in Asia is a tendency towards a mutually exclusive trichotomy of "West"/"Asia"/"Japan", in which Japan is separate from the rest of Asia for a whole host of reasons. the superiority is derived partly from the belief [both in and out of Japan] that the Japanese are the world's best cultural synthesizers -- they've mastered the ability to digest Western influences and spit out something "uniquely Asian", yet not entirely Japanese. it is their ability to bring modernity to the rest of Asia -- still in development, and many parts quite unevenly -- that sets them ahead of the pack, and in part relieves them of historic guilt. being able to win back the trust of Asia, if only on a superficial, economic level, gives Japan a sense of assurance that they
did have something unique going on all along:
It is claimed that the appeal of Japanese popular culture lies in its subtle indigenization of American popular culture, making it suitable to "Asian tastes," and that therefore Japan has had a special leading role in constructing the sphere of Asian popular culture. The hybrid nature of Japanese popular culture is also seen to present modern, liberal facets of Japanese society to other parts of Asia. In this case, the spread of Japanese popular culture in other parts of Asia is conceived as improving Japan's image as an oppressor in Asia and thus overcomes the legacy of its history of imperial aggression in the region. (19)Iwabuchi breaks it down, analyzing common media spectacles with Japanese origin -- certain game show formats, anime, and the commercial cult of the idol singer. he talks a lot about economics, and how it was mainly in the 80's and 90's that Japanese culture was all the rage, peaking alongside the Asian economy. but after the crash of the 90's, the rest of Asia was given a chance to "catch up" to Japan in industrial development, so Japan no longer has the upper hand on pop culture production. he uses case studies in Taiwan, with Japanese TV dramas, Singapore's Dick Lee, and Hong Kong's movie industry [specifically Wong Kar-Wai] to show that the assymetrical structure of transcultural exchange, mainly through popular Japanese points of view. the Japanese are very proud of themselves when their media products are accepted so fanatically in other parts of Asia, but when the Japanese consume
other Asian pop cultures, they tend to condescendt it by framing foreign achievements as "the rest of Asia
is becoming as capable as we have been," or the rest of Asia's cultural products being somehow more "pure" or "tender" or "vigorous", qualities that Japan is seen to have "lost" after its economic crash.
his examples are extensive, but ultimately inadequate -- not to mention inelegantly analyzed. i'm really skeptical of his readings, especially when (a) his informant pools are so small and restricted and (b) as seemingly innocuous and shallow as pop culture might be, it's nearly impossible to generalize because its superficiality leads to so MANY possible readings. reading Iwabuchi, i thought, of course mass culture's weakness is that the SAME message is piped out to millions at the same time, but the wonder of it, the reason a society can still sustain mass culture, is that so much can happen on the reception side -- and i can think of dozens of more active responses than what Iwabuchi considers for Asian audiences.
for example, his conclusions on Taiwan were based on a few dozen extremely qualitative interviews. no matter how closely he listened, it's still statistically irrelevant. granted, he tried talked to a wide swath of people -- industry experts, marketing analysts, mothers and fathers and teenaged fans alike, but his conclusions seem so selective and dated. after all, the ban on Japanese-language television in Taiwan was only lifted in
1993. and there's still so much residual tension to counter the growing popularity of Japanese TV dramas that now many dramas ARE overdubbed, and there's a whole industry of similarly stylized,
Taiwanese-based and produced TV dramas to bring the phenomenon back to a localized level. and if you want to count number of titles on the shelf, let's be perfectly frank -- you'll find the MOST Japanese titles in the hentai and porn section. that's the stuff that escapes official recognition, and wouldn't that throw a wild hammer into the cogs of whatEVER the Japanese want to think about their cultural superiority? when it comes down to it, how much does official, public, or even academic rhetoric really do to
influence individual use and reception?
(to be continued.)