| World time |
Tuesday 20 January 2009
Friday 5 December 2008
Saturday 23 February 2008
Mean/End distinction
Distinction of Mean/Ends
Associated with: The “end justifies the means”- a philosophy of consequential ethics
Definition: An ethical prescription that emphasizes the outcome of an action and determines moral correctness by weighing the merits of that action against the merits of the outcome.
Significance: Provides a basis for analyzing and evaluating moral deliberations.
Kantian ethicists (strict legalistic rulers) and situationists/utilitarians (subjective interpretations) argue over theories of ethics. Father of imperative category Kant believed that moral actions must hold up universally and unconditionally. On the other side, situationists argue that circumstances alter cases. Actions have no meaning or value in and of themselves; they become meaningful in the light of the purpose they serve. I.e. any act is either wrong or right depending on the situation. The essential meaning of this philosophy is that a good end justifies a bad means.
Либертарианизм
Тодорхойлолт: Эрх чөлөөг хамгаалахын тулд нэг бол засгийн газрын оролцоог хязгаарлах, эсвэл засгийн газрыг үгүй болгох шаар длагатай гэсэн үзэл санаанаас үүдэн бий болсон улс төрийн хөдөлгөөн. 20-р зуунд үндэс нь тавигдсан. Чөлөөт үйлдвэрлэл, индивидуалист үзэл баримтлал, анархи үзэл зэрэгтэй холбон үзэж болно.
Ач холбогдол: Хувь хүний автономит байдал нь нийгмийн үндсэн зарчим мөн.
Либертарианизмд хувь хүний өөрийнхөө хувь заяаг өөрөө шийдэх асуудалд хөндлөнгөөс хутгалдан орж буй ямар ч нийгэм болоод улс төрийн байгууламжийг буруу үйл ажиллагаа явуулж байна гэж үздэг олон төрлийн хүмүүсийн бүлэглэлүүд багтдаг байна. Бусдыг: http://libertari.mn/mongolian
Ач холбогдол: Хувь хүний автономит байдал нь нийгмийн үндсэн зарчим мөн.
Либертарианизмд хувь хүний өөрийнхөө хувь заяаг өөрөө шийдэх асуудалд хөндлөнгөөс хутгалдан орж буй ямар ч нийгэм болоод улс төрийн байгууламжийг буруу үйл ажиллагаа явуулж байна гэж үздэг олон төрлийн хүмүүсийн бүлэглэлүүд багтдаг байна. Бусдыг: http://libertari.mn/mongolian
Monday 20 August 2007
THE NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND ITS CRITICS
The new managerial model emerged in the public sector in 1980s and 1990s to rectify inadequacies of the traditional model of administration is still very controversial. The approach, which has had many names but finally settled on “new public management” was supposed to alleviate many of the problems associated with the traditional model both in developed and in developing countries. However, it was also to bring about dramatic changes in the way the public sector operates.
Despite the fact that almost two decade has passed since inception of this managerial approach in government, it still is controversial. In fact, the criticism of the public administration reforms in general and the NPM approach in particular has taken roots right at their initiation and now has become even more forceful. Critics of the NPM approach argue in many different aspects and in my report, I would like to mention about some of the most serious and challenging critiques.
According to the literature, some argue that the NPM did not bring about change of paradigm in the public administration science; some argue that there is not an international change of movement; and the others argue that the reality is nothing has happened. There are even people who argue that the public management reforms assaulted the democracy. Another group argued that NPM was just an ideological movement of the time and it no longer exists.
A paradigm shift or not?
Arguments concerning the paradigm shift constitute the most interesting part of the critisims surrounding NPM. Paradigm shift is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. List of those who argue there is no paradigm shift include such as Gruening (2001), Hood (1995, 1996), Lynn (1997) and etc. They, particularly Lynn argued that the paradigm change was brought about by the traditional model of public administration derived from Weber, Wilson and Taylor. Lynn wrote, “The variation in the models of reform being tried around the world strongly suggest that there is no new paradigm, if by paradigm we use Thomas Kuhn’s original definition”. However, the changes presented by the managerial approaches are more than enough to constitute a paradigm shift. Even the most fervent of NPM critics agreed there have been tremendous changes carried out as results of the reforms.
An international movement or not?
Hood (1995) argued that NPM is not a global phenomenon for three reasons: 1) any single new style of public administration will not be adopted worldwide; 2) the idea of `a new global paradigm ignores the very different local political agendas to which contemporary public management changes are responding` (1995); 3) whether the agenda for public management reform `has been stable enough over the last decade or two to be counted as a single set of ideas and practices` (1995). However, a survey conducted among 123 countries of the world revealed that “significant government reform is goind on round the world” (Kamarck, 2000) and Kettl (2000) argued,
Since the 1980s a global reform movement in public management has been vigorously under way. The movement has been global in two senses. 1) it has spread around the world including Mongolia, Sweden, New Zealand and the United States. 2) it has been of sweeping scope. Governments have used it to reshape the role of the state and its relationship with citizens.
Assault on democracy?
One rather serious critisim of the NPM is related to democracy and it evolves around 4 points. First argument is that democracy requires bureacracy. Secondly, increased accountability of public managers for results might allow politicians to avoid accountability with reduction of political accountability. Thirdly, it might be argued that discrimination might be applied in distribution of outcomes. Finally, there is a reduction in scale and scope by government. However, some defenders of reforms such as the OECD argues, “the public management reforms are not responsible for any problem of democratic deficit, rather they are part of the solution” (1998).
Future prospects?
Critics of NPM claim that NPM will disappear or even that there never was such an approach in practice. Lynn (1998) even wrote that the NPM will fade away and listed down the reasons why he thinks so: 1) the initial shape of the Westminster reforms that inspired the term will eventually be disfigured; 2) as comparative work across countries and sectors accumulates, fundamental differences among reforms will begin to eclipse superficial similarities; 3) the term “new” will be viewed as an inconvenient adjective for emerging themes; 4) political debate will require a fresh theme to attract attention.
The above are few aspects in which the NPM approach has been under attack ever since it has been incepted regardless of the greater public sector achievements in countries like UK, New Zealand, Australia, some apparent changes in the US, Germany and the fact that number of developing countries like Mongolia are perusing the approach. According to famous writers in the field, there exist quite extensive critiques of NPM approach, some of which make interesting points while others are clearly written by hardline followers of old style public administration, who are unable to see anything positive in the changes. After analyzing the relevant literature on the subject, I have discovered that at least the existing critiques are not adequate enough to deny the impacts of NPM approach. I agree with authors like Owen Hughes that now probably the time has come to omit the word “new” from the NPM approach since two decades have passed after it was first introduced in the developed part of the world ultimately being spread out to the developing world. In the end, I would like to say that however controversial the NPM approach is, the public sector is not going back to the old model of administration; it will effectively challenge the problems on the way and propose solutions.
NOTE: Works of Gernod Gruening (2001), Christopher Hood (1995), Elaine Kamarck 2000), Donald Kettl (2000) and Laurence Lynn (1997) were cited in Owen E.Hughes’ book “Public Management & Administration”, the 3rd edition.
REFERENCES:
1. David Rosenbloom & Robert Kravchuk “Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector”, 2002, Mcgraw-Hill Publishing,
2. Kate McLaughlin, Stephen P. Osborne and Ewan Ferlie, “New public management : current trends and future prospects”, 2002, Routledge.
3. Martin Minogue, Charles Polidano & David Hulme “Beyond the New Public Management”, 1998, Edward Elgar Publishing.
4. Mike Dent, John Chandler & Jim Barry, “Questioning the New Public Management”, 2004, Ashgate Publishing.
5. Owen E.Hughes, “Public Management & Administration”, the 3rd edition. 2003, Palgrave Macmillan Press.
Despite the fact that almost two decade has passed since inception of this managerial approach in government, it still is controversial. In fact, the criticism of the public administration reforms in general and the NPM approach in particular has taken roots right at their initiation and now has become even more forceful. Critics of the NPM approach argue in many different aspects and in my report, I would like to mention about some of the most serious and challenging critiques.
According to the literature, some argue that the NPM did not bring about change of paradigm in the public administration science; some argue that there is not an international change of movement; and the others argue that the reality is nothing has happened. There are even people who argue that the public management reforms assaulted the democracy. Another group argued that NPM was just an ideological movement of the time and it no longer exists.
A paradigm shift or not?
Arguments concerning the paradigm shift constitute the most interesting part of the critisims surrounding NPM. Paradigm shift is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. List of those who argue there is no paradigm shift include such as Gruening (2001), Hood (1995, 1996), Lynn (1997) and etc. They, particularly Lynn argued that the paradigm change was brought about by the traditional model of public administration derived from Weber, Wilson and Taylor. Lynn wrote, “The variation in the models of reform being tried around the world strongly suggest that there is no new paradigm, if by paradigm we use Thomas Kuhn’s original definition”. However, the changes presented by the managerial approaches are more than enough to constitute a paradigm shift. Even the most fervent of NPM critics agreed there have been tremendous changes carried out as results of the reforms.
An international movement or not?
Hood (1995) argued that NPM is not a global phenomenon for three reasons: 1) any single new style of public administration will not be adopted worldwide; 2) the idea of `a new global paradigm ignores the very different local political agendas to which contemporary public management changes are responding` (1995); 3) whether the agenda for public management reform `has been stable enough over the last decade or two to be counted as a single set of ideas and practices` (1995). However, a survey conducted among 123 countries of the world revealed that “significant government reform is goind on round the world” (Kamarck, 2000) and Kettl (2000) argued,
Since the 1980s a global reform movement in public management has been vigorously under way. The movement has been global in two senses. 1) it has spread around the world including Mongolia, Sweden, New Zealand and the United States. 2) it has been of sweeping scope. Governments have used it to reshape the role of the state and its relationship with citizens.
Assault on democracy?
One rather serious critisim of the NPM is related to democracy and it evolves around 4 points. First argument is that democracy requires bureacracy. Secondly, increased accountability of public managers for results might allow politicians to avoid accountability with reduction of political accountability. Thirdly, it might be argued that discrimination might be applied in distribution of outcomes. Finally, there is a reduction in scale and scope by government. However, some defenders of reforms such as the OECD argues, “the public management reforms are not responsible for any problem of democratic deficit, rather they are part of the solution” (1998).
Future prospects?
Critics of NPM claim that NPM will disappear or even that there never was such an approach in practice. Lynn (1998) even wrote that the NPM will fade away and listed down the reasons why he thinks so: 1) the initial shape of the Westminster reforms that inspired the term will eventually be disfigured; 2) as comparative work across countries and sectors accumulates, fundamental differences among reforms will begin to eclipse superficial similarities; 3) the term “new” will be viewed as an inconvenient adjective for emerging themes; 4) political debate will require a fresh theme to attract attention.
The above are few aspects in which the NPM approach has been under attack ever since it has been incepted regardless of the greater public sector achievements in countries like UK, New Zealand, Australia, some apparent changes in the US, Germany and the fact that number of developing countries like Mongolia are perusing the approach. According to famous writers in the field, there exist quite extensive critiques of NPM approach, some of which make interesting points while others are clearly written by hardline followers of old style public administration, who are unable to see anything positive in the changes. After analyzing the relevant literature on the subject, I have discovered that at least the existing critiques are not adequate enough to deny the impacts of NPM approach. I agree with authors like Owen Hughes that now probably the time has come to omit the word “new” from the NPM approach since two decades have passed after it was first introduced in the developed part of the world ultimately being spread out to the developing world. In the end, I would like to say that however controversial the NPM approach is, the public sector is not going back to the old model of administration; it will effectively challenge the problems on the way and propose solutions.
NOTE: Works of Gernod Gruening (2001), Christopher Hood (1995), Elaine Kamarck 2000), Donald Kettl (2000) and Laurence Lynn (1997) were cited in Owen E.Hughes’ book “Public Management & Administration”, the 3rd edition.
REFERENCES:
1. David Rosenbloom & Robert Kravchuk “Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector”, 2002, Mcgraw-Hill Publishing,
2. Kate McLaughlin, Stephen P. Osborne and Ewan Ferlie, “New public management : current trends and future prospects”, 2002, Routledge.
3. Martin Minogue, Charles Polidano & David Hulme “Beyond the New Public Management”, 1998, Edward Elgar Publishing.
4. Mike Dent, John Chandler & Jim Barry, “Questioning the New Public Management”, 2004, Ashgate Publishing.
5. Owen E.Hughes, “Public Management & Administration”, the 3rd edition. 2003, Palgrave Macmillan Press.
KUUKI
CLIMATE OF OPINION OR KUUKI
Content
One.
Introduction
Two.
What is Kuuki?
- Ki concept as origin of the Kuuki
- The Kuuki studies
- Is kuuki really Japan specific?
- Kuuki vs. other similar concepts and ideas
- The kuuki phenomenon and modern history
- Summary
One. Introduction
Several years back, Mr. ITO Younichi, Proffessor from the Keio University, who has published numerous articles on mass communication theories, has written an article entitled, “Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy”. The article was a reading assignment by my supervising professor at one of his seminars and I found it rather interesting. I was thinking of knowing more about the phenomenon called “kuuki” and fortunately, Professor Collet has given me the opportunity of exploring this phenomenon. I want to thank Professor Collet for this opportunity.
The latter half of the Japanese word kuuki is derived from the Chinese concept qi (spelled as ch’i in Chinese and ki in Japanese and Korean). Qi is believed to be part of every living thing that exists, as a kind of “life force” or “spiritual energy”. It is frequently translated as “energy flow,” or literally as “air” or “breath” into the English language. Since such a powerful energy is part of this term, my paper does not only deal with the “climate of opinion” among the general public, but also within the mass media, known as the fourth government, and the actual government.
My paper starts with description of the qi concept as the original roots of the phenomenon called kuuki followed by highlights in the kuuki studies. My paper continues by comparing the kuuki processes with other public opinion concepts such as spiral of silence, agenda setting, spiral of cynicism etc. Further it discusses the conditions under which the kuuki emerges and functions politically. Many historical as well as present day movements of various natures such as jingoism, anti-Communism and anti-war, would be introduced and analyzed. They will be, of course supported by corresponding examples.
Two. WHAT IS KUUKI?
Qi concept as Origin of the Kuuki
As I mentioned above, kuuki is originated from the Chinese concept qi. Qi is one of the communication-relevant concepts unique to East Asian cultures. In all East Asian cultures, it is commonly understood and referred to as energy flow, either in human bodies, art works, natural environments, dwelling designs, furniture arrangements, or gravesite locations. Qi is a two-thousand-year-old concept and has been studied by many scholars in East Asia, including China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Qi is an influential and complex concept in Chinese philosophy. Since introduced from China, the concept of qi, known as ki in Japan, has played an important role in the discussion and study of health, emotions, intentions, public opinions, human relationships, and even martial arts. Japanese dictionaries contain many definitions of ki, such as spirit, temperament, awareness, or atmosphere. Many of them are closely related to human communication. In this part, I will report the evolution of the meanings of ki, its perceived functions, and studies of ki related to communication research.
Now, let’s look at definitions and conceptualizations of ki in contemporary Japan. Obviously it is not an easy task to exhaust the definitions of ki. Scholars have been trying to define it with some functional focus. Shinmura (as cited by Chung et.al) defined ki from five aspects: 1) Ki as the basic component that fills the space between heaven and earth. Ki of this concept covers the occurrences of natural phenomena such as wind and rain, or heat and cold. 2) Ki as the energy of an impelling force of the life. 3) Ki as the state and work of the mind. This definition includes the spirit, motivation, energy, and emotion. 4) Ki as the atmosphere with which people feel surrounded. This ki serves as an unspoken assumption that people share a context when communicating. 5) Ki as a specific taste and conspicuous characteristics which symbolizes a thing or an issue. As Hamano (as cited by Chung et.al) pointed out, Japanese people perceive ki as something ethereal rather than something physical. Essentially, it can be concluded that the main idea of ki for Japanese people stands for their sensitivity to other’s feelings, and also refers to an altruistic feeling of pleasure.
Subsequently, he presented three types of ki in interpersonal relationship: 1) Japanese people feel that ki appears as something alien to their egos and without their conscious awareness. This indicates that Japanese people accept ki as something that is uncontrollable and cannot be rejected. For example, ki is seen in such idiomatic expressions as ki ga sumu (to be satisfied; to be calm) or ki ni suru (to worry about; to be anxious about). These expressions show that ki is regarded as something that exists in itself and comes from somewhere other than the psychological field of the person. 2) Ki in interpersonal relationships is the ki recognized in the presence of another person. For example, ki ga au (to get on well with each other) or ki-gane suru (to feel uneasy; to be shy) cannot be felt without the existence of others. In addition to ki studies at the interpersonal communication level, ki also is studied at the mass communication level. This will be looked into in details in the next part of my paper.
What is Kuuki?
The word kuuki or 空気 (it has ki at the end!) in Chinese characters means literally “air” in the English language. However, the functional meaning of this word is said to be “climate of opinion” and also it was simply explained as “a climate of opinion requiring compliance” in the Dictionary of Media & Communication Studies (Watson & Hill, 2000, pp.165-166). According to Noelle-Neumann, the term “climate of opinion”was first invented and used by English philosopher Joseph Glanvill in 17th century in the meaning similar to public opinions. However, these days, “climate of opinion” refers to distribution patterns of public opinions rather than the opinions themselves.
In this part I will briefly describe the kuuki studies of two men from Japan. One is social critic Shichihei Yamamoto and the other is Ito Youichi, Professor of Keio University. Probably, they are the only people who are most noticeable among the academicians concerned with the phenomenon so far even though Ito claims that since the publication of Yamamoto’s book the term kuuki has often been used in journalism and opinion magazines. This could be true since I don’t have access to Japanese language sources! Many of today’s Japanese writers, scholars and academicians etc. seem to think Japan is enough for them and are producing their works in the Japanese language only. Even though it has no relation to my paper, Mr.Donald Keene, Professor emeritus at Columbia University, who has many works in English and Japanese languages in his credit and recepient of numerous awards and prizes including the Grand Prize of Japanese Literature, shares the same view.
Shichihei Yamamoto’s “Study of Kuuki”
Social critic Shichihei Yamamoto published a book entitled “Study of Kuuki” in 1977 in Japanese language. According to him, kuuki is not just “air”, “atmosphere”, or “standard of judgment”. Kuuki requires each individual, group or organization to accept and comply with it, making those who do not agree with it silent or reluctant to speak up. If one cannot simply say “I don’t agree with it” and instead need to give many long reasons to explain why he/she doesn’t agree, or he/she needs strong courage to say in public that he/she doesn’t agree with it, then it is kuuki! Yamamoto suggests that the process of creating kuuki is usually “unconscious, unintentional and spontaneous, but this does not preclude the possibility of creating artificial kuuki”.
When the group is dominated by irrational, crazy or desperate kuuki, the results can be serious. There are many examples in Yamamoto’s book to confirm this. For example, when being asked why they let suicidal military operations during the war, the former ex-generals replied feeling shame, “Now you can talk like that but you don’t know [the] kuuki of that time”.
Ito Youichi’s “Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy”
As I mentioned in the beginning of my paper, Professor Ito wrote an article entitled “Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy” much later (2002) than Yamamoto. Ito defined kuuki as “social, political, and psychological pressures demanding compliance to a certain specific opinion, policy, or group decision and usually accompanied by threats and social sanction”. He specifies five conditions to be met in order for kuuki to be strong enough to exert influences. The five conditions are:
1) The majority opinion accounts for the majority in more than two of the three sectors: government, mass media, and the public.
2) The majority opinion accounts for the majority across the three sectors.
3) The majority opinion increases over time.
4) The intensity of the majority opinion is escalating.
5) The subject matter tends to stir up the “spirits” inherent in individuals such as basic values, norms, prejudices, antagonism, and loyalty to the collective or patriotism. When these conditions are met, the kuuki phenomenon would be created out of the ki concept.
Is kuuki really Japan specific?
The purpose of my paper was to find out whether the kuuki phenomenon was Japan specific. In reality, it is not Japan specific phenomenon!. Concepts similar to the Japanese kuuki existed all over the world since very ancient times. An example to this can be the argument between two Athenian generals in 415 B.C. They were Nichias and Alchibiades and they argued whether or not Athens should send troops to Sicily. In this argument Alchibiades, who repeatedly emphasized the superiority of Athens over the weak Sicily, won and eventually Athens sent troops. However, this proved to be a mistake and the war dragged on for three years and in 413 B.C. Athens was completely defeated. Meanwhile, the supporters of Nichias, who have foreseen this defeat long ago kept silence for the fear of being accused for anti-patriotism. (Thucydides, Greek historian, 460 B.C-400 B.C). Even though no one has ever referred to this as kuuki effect until Ito, the supporters of Nichias were clearly afraid of the stronger political, social and psychological pressure that could the majority, who believed in the superiority of Athens, could exert on them.
However, Japan is the country where the term kuuki began to be first used as an academic term and it seems that until date, Japan is the only country in the world that has been using the concept of kuuki even though some sources inform that the West is lately showing increased interest. Then, how did Japanese people come into contact with the kuuki effect? How did actually kuuki evolve in Japan? Well, here comes the story.
Immediately before Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05, the Japanese newspapers were divided into two groups: antiwar and prowar．As the war broke out, the pro-war newspapers expanded their circulation whereas the antiwar ones had no chance at all. Moreover, one of largest antiwar newspapers (Kokumin Shimbun) was attacked by mobs, set on fire and eventually gone bankrupt. Another major antiwar newspaper (Yorozu Choho), learning a lesson, decided to change its editorial policy and became a prowar newspaper.
In fact, prior to war, this latter newspaper was famous for its anti-government reporting, and at the time it changed its editorial policy, the president and editor-in chief of the newspaper is reportedly exclaimed, “Newspapers should be anti-government during peace time and chauvinistic during wartime”. I believe that was exactly what the Japanese newspapers did during the years ahead. Then comes the 1931 Manchurian incident followed by the 1940-1945 Second World War (SWW). The then-editor-in chief of the Japanese most prestigious national newspaper recalled:
“Newspapers at that time did not necessarily try to flatter those in power. Rather, they wrote to please readers. I may sound evasive, but there existed some kind of mechanism that aggravated the situation through subtle interactions [between newspapers and the public]. …Newspapers form public opinions, but public opinion also influences newspapers. The general masses are not like horses that can be tamed and trained to do their master’s bidding. {italics added}.
The sentence in italics clearly indicates that the kuuki process was doing its job by provoking and promoting the “war spirit” among the Japanese public. In simple words, it was not an individual person such as the Emperor Hirohito or Prime Minister Tojo Hideki, who were regarded as equals to Hitler and Mussolini by others that had led Japan to war or imperialistic ideas. Rather, it was the Japanese newspapers that were over concerned with increased circulation and profit. By creating the war kuuki, they also helped the military to replace the civilians, who were ruling the country and eventually take over the government. That is why Yamamoto Shichihei published the book “A Study of Kuuki”, where he reportedly argued that kuuki was the single responsible factor for Japan’s history from 1930 through 1945.
According to Yamamoto (as quoted by Ito), in ancient times, Greeks and Jews were aware of the danger of group decisions made under the influence of the “spirit” or when the “spirit” was working, and they made it a tradition to avoid such group decisions made under the influence of “spirit”. Instead, they applied thorough discussion and avoided an easy consensus. However, tradition is completely different in Japan: the priority is consensus and therefore, it is better to avoid discussions that may delay the consensus. Under such circumstances, the kuuki is very dangerous. According to Yamamoto, all the decisions in Japan from the early Meiji period until the end of 1945 were made under the strong kuuki influence, and he argued that it would be better for Japan to study this kuuki influence instead of ignoring it.
Kuuki vs. other similar concepts and ideas
Yamamoto’s pledge to study kuuki influence was welcomed by Ito, Professor from the Keio University. He often talked about this phenomenon during his presentations outside of Japan and in many countries his colleagues were interested in finding out the similarities as well as differences between the kuuki and other similar concepts. Here the kuuki is compared to such public opinion, mass communication and social psychological concepts as spiral of silence, the hegemony, agenda setting, enforcement of social norms, spiral of cynicism, the social psychological theories on conformity, contagion, and mass hysteria.
Kuuki vs. Spiral of Silence
The spiral of silence is a theory proposed by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. According to Ito, the spiral of silence and the kuuki are similar. The spiral of silence theory asserts that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority. If kuuki was always produced and sustained by the mass media, these two concepts might be almost identical, wrote Ito. However, the spiral of silence theory assumes that the mass media can transform the minority opinion into a majority opinion while there is no such assumption in the kuuki concept. As for kuuki, it does not matter where it originated or how it was produced as long as the function and impact of kuuki is playing its toll on policy decisions, mass media contents and public opinion.
Kuuki vs. Hegemony
Hegemony is a concept that has been used to describe the existence of dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force. It is assumed that hegemony has always functioned for the benefit of the power elite or the capitalist class whereas the kuuki does not have such an assumption. On the contrary, the kuuki forced or intimidated the power elite to resign in disgrace. For example, resignation of the disgraced President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal. If hegemony refers to a general framework, thought pattern or attitude, then it is different from kuuki. In this case, kuuki has to be related to some specific opinion, policy or decision.
Kuuki vs. Agenda Setting
The agenda-setting is the theory that the news、mass media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them. These two concepts are different. Because, the focus of the agenda setting theory is agenda while the kuuki focuses on the nature, attributes or directions of the content. In addition, if contents of the mass media maintain their variety, it is unlikely that the agenda setting function of the mass media would create a kuuki. When the agenda setting function of the mass media can create a kuuki? When the agenda happens to pertain to social norms, morals, or ethics, it determines the direction of the content. For example, in case of a scandal, the people involved start nagging and criticising, which is an indication of kuuki.
Kuuki vs. Enforcement of Social Norms
Violation of legal acts, social norms, moral and ethical values take place all over the world and the mass media eagerly report such incidents. At this time, kuuki demanding to hold the guilty party responsible is easily produced and the demands are upheld.
Kuuki vs. Spiral of Cynicism
“Cynicism' generally describes the opinions of those who maintain that self-interest is the primary motive of human behaviour, and are reluctant to rely upon sincerity, human virtue or altruism as motivations. Kuuki and spiral of cynicism are two contradictory concepts even though kuuki is mentioned to resemble to “spiral” processes. Cynicism is not actually a matter of specific opinion, policy or decision. Rather, it is a matter of one’s attitude. Kuuki is a phenomenon that motivates and energizes people to speak out or act whereas cynicism acts as the force, which deprives people of motivation and energy.
Kuuki vs. Conformity & Contagion
Conformity & Contagion are psychological processes by which people's beliefs or behaviors are influenced by others. People can be influenced via subtle, even unconscious processes, or by direct and overt peer pressure. Therefore, kuuki and these psychological processes are similar in the sense that they all deal with either positive or negative social influences on individuals as well as groups within the society. However, the effect of kuuki is obvious and the people feel the pressure whereas the impact of the conformity or contagion is subtle and subsequently, the public or the individual may not be aware of it.
Kuuki vs. Mass hysteria theory
Mass hysteria is the sociopsychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same hysterical symptoms by more than one person. It may begin when a group witnesses an individual becoming hysterical during a traumatic or extremely stressful event. Kuuki may overlap with this phenomenon is some extreme cases only. Otherwise, kuuki is less emotional and less irrational due to its quality of being attached to specific opinion, policy or decision. For example, just before the U.S. and British Military invasion of Iraq, in March 2003, a protest mobilization called "The World Says No to War" led to as many as 500,000 protestors in cities across the U.S. Was this anti-war kuuki or mass hysteria? Since this is related to a specific decision, of course, it was a kuuki process.
The kuuki phenomena and the modern history
According to Ito, several kuuki phenomena have emerged in the modern history of humanity. Jingoism is one of them and Ito drew the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor that led to the Spanish-American War as an example in his article. It is chauvinistic patriotism referring to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats or of actual force against other countries in order to safeguard a country's national interests.According to Encyclopedia Americana, (1964, p.) the fierce fighting on the increased circulation between newspaper syndicates led by William R.Hearst on one side and Joseph Pulitzer on the other side helped transform the Cuban insurrection of 1895 into the Spanish-American War of 1898. However, Ito argues that jingoistic kuuki cannot be produced by the mass media only. It should be a bipolar effect, which means the general public is needed as an inseparable part. The mass media’s role is to energize and motivate the ki (気) that is within every person, who is a member of the general public so that it is turned into either a positive or a negative kuuki. Ito argued that in 1930s, if the Japanese newspapers encouraged and promoted antiwar spirit growing among the general public instead of chasing after jingoistic articles, an antiwar kuuki might have been created. Further he explains that under such circumstances, a powerful civilian prime minister would have emerged in Japan and there wouldn’t have been a need to engage in the war.
The next phenomenon is Antiwar Kuuki. His article refers to all the well-known examples in human history such as the Vietnam War. Of course, the Americans believed that their administration was fighting against the expansion of Communism before it reaches the American soil. However, everything turned upside down and eventually, the cries led to antiwar kuuki and the rest is a well known history.
One interesting example is Japan’s PM Toshio Kaifu’s efforts to dispatch the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to Kuwait. This effort was a dramatic one in Japanese history of early 90s. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution bans the SDF to engage in military activities except those of the pure self-defense purposes, and as soon as PM Kaifu proposed the SDF involvement in Kuwait crisis, substantial part of Japanese population started the protest. Approval rating of Kaifu’s policy steadily went down from 60% in July 1990 to 48% in Nov 1990 in connection with the matter . The rate of non-supporters of Kaifu increased from 23% in July 1990 to 36% in 1990. (Source: Yoimiuri monthly survey). How this protest, then, turned into an anti-war kuuki? Simply because the Japanese mass media got involved in the case and the interaction between the general public and the mass media has become so intense and dangerous for the PM to continue the case any further. The case was thus dropped. Just like in the period of Russo-Japanese war, the mass media in Japan were divided into two: those who supported PM Kaifu’s proposal and those who opposed him . Because of this antiwar kuuki, Japan lost face among the international community even though it contributed US $13 billion and the Kuwaiti Government somehow “forgot” to include Japan in the list of countries, whom they thanked for generous help.
The last of the modern kuuki phenomenon is justice kuuki. The most notable example is impeachment and regisnation of US President Richard Nixon in 1972. In case of President Nixon, the mass media coverage, of course, was more than ample. However, what was the kuuki process? According to Mccombs, Einsiedel and Weaver (as quoted in Ito):
“The process had three elements. First, certain events were highlighted, drawing people’s attention and creating discussion. Second, the media framed the events in some contexts. …..Third, the media linked the specific events of Watergate to more general political symbols”.
The impeachement process was televised and the American public was eagerly following every event. They heard how Nixon tried to cover himself up, how he dismissed the independent prosecutor over the tape case and etc. The American people’s “spirit of justice” equal to “justice kuuki” in Japanese understanding was aroused over such a shameful and disgraceful event and eventually, R.Nixon resigned in the most shameful way.
If to look at above examples, kuuki is definitely a social construct with tremendous pressure for compliance. However, how would we know if there is a kuuki process going on in case of any significant event? According to Ito, the public opinion survey data and the kuuki share unique relationship. Because Ito argues that the public opinion survey data is the best indicator of kuuki. Naturally, a single survey result can not produce sufficient results to indicate the existence of kuuki. In order for the climate of opinion to be felt as kuuki or as pressure, number of supporters of a particular cause must be constantly increasing. If the number is decreasing, nobody would feel any pressure at all and the desired effect would not be achieved. Surely, the biased nature of this method must be considered.
Summary
Kuuki is created as a result of either bipolar or tripolar processes. It is bipolar when the process involves the mass media and the public opinion and tripolar in case the third party, most commonly, the government is involved. When clashes or disagreements occur between the government policies and the mass media or the mass media and the public opinion or the government policy and the public opinion, kuuki is produced as a result. To resolve the disagreement, the majority of the involved parties pressurize the minority for compliance. Gradually, the party in the opposition will give up and change its view. Such is the power of kuuki.
Kuuki is undoubtedly a very powerful phenomenon depending on whose hands it is in. If it is in the hands of narrow-minded ruthless people, it can be really destructive like in the case of ancient argument between two Athenian Generals or at the of eruption of the Spanish-American war. Either it can be very constructive, for example, at the time when the public demands enforcement of social norms. Because, such demands are usually made when one breaches established social norms, legal acts, ethical or moral values, which are all unacceptable.
According to both Yamamoto and Ito, kuuki is very dangerous to a society like Japanese. Japanese is the extremely consensus oriented society, where thorough discussion of matters before the final decision making is absolutely discouraged, or even restricted. Discussions are traditionally seen as time-consuming hindrances. There is even an unbelievable example: under the pre-war Constitution, the Prime Minister, who couldn’t build consensus within his Cabinet had to resign!! Even today, in order to conduct a business in Japan, one is expected to get approval of all the concerned parties well in advance so that there would not be any disagreements later on. I heard about a word Nemawashi (根回し) in Japanese, which refers to an informal process of quietly laying the foundation for some proposed change or project, by talking to the people concerned, gathering support and feedback, and so forth. It is considered an important element in any major change, before any formal steps are taken, and successful nemawashi enables changes to be carried out with the consent of all sides. This word is so closely tied to Japanese culture that it is very difficult to translate it into English. Its original literal meaning is: digging around the roots of a tree, to prepare it for a transplant. Well, this Japan-specific term can still be applied in the corporate world while the political world handles the matters in a different, kuuki-free style so that the history is not repeated.
REFERENCES:
1. Ito, Youichi. ““Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy”, Communication Yearbook. The International Communication Association, 2002. pp. 266-296
2. Chung Jensen, Hara Kazuya, Yang Chungli and Ryu Ji-Myung “Contemporary Ch’i/Ki Research in East Asian Countries: Implications to Communication Research”.
www.kuis.ac.jp/icci/publications/kiyo/pdfs/15/15_03.pdf
3. Ito Yoichi. “The Influence of Historical Experiences on the Japanese Political Communication Reseach”. Keio Communication Review, No.29, 2007. http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/2003.html#no25
4. James Watson. “Representing Realities: An overview of News Framing”.Keio Communication Review, No.29, 2007. www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2007/pdf/James%20WATSON.pdf
Content
One.
Introduction
Two.
What is Kuuki?
- Ki concept as origin of the Kuuki
- The Kuuki studies
- Is kuuki really Japan specific?
- Kuuki vs. other similar concepts and ideas
- The kuuki phenomenon and modern history
- Summary
One. Introduction
Several years back, Mr. ITO Younichi, Proffessor from the Keio University, who has published numerous articles on mass communication theories, has written an article entitled, “Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy”. The article was a reading assignment by my supervising professor at one of his seminars and I found it rather interesting. I was thinking of knowing more about the phenomenon called “kuuki” and fortunately, Professor Collet has given me the opportunity of exploring this phenomenon. I want to thank Professor Collet for this opportunity.
The latter half of the Japanese word kuuki is derived from the Chinese concept qi (spelled as ch’i in Chinese and ki in Japanese and Korean). Qi is believed to be part of every living thing that exists, as a kind of “life force” or “spiritual energy”. It is frequently translated as “energy flow,” or literally as “air” or “breath” into the English language. Since such a powerful energy is part of this term, my paper does not only deal with the “climate of opinion” among the general public, but also within the mass media, known as the fourth government, and the actual government.
My paper starts with description of the qi concept as the original roots of the phenomenon called kuuki followed by highlights in the kuuki studies. My paper continues by comparing the kuuki processes with other public opinion concepts such as spiral of silence, agenda setting, spiral of cynicism etc. Further it discusses the conditions under which the kuuki emerges and functions politically. Many historical as well as present day movements of various natures such as jingoism, anti-Communism and anti-war, would be introduced and analyzed. They will be, of course supported by corresponding examples.
Two. WHAT IS KUUKI?
Qi concept as Origin of the Kuuki
As I mentioned above, kuuki is originated from the Chinese concept qi. Qi is one of the communication-relevant concepts unique to East Asian cultures. In all East Asian cultures, it is commonly understood and referred to as energy flow, either in human bodies, art works, natural environments, dwelling designs, furniture arrangements, or gravesite locations. Qi is a two-thousand-year-old concept and has been studied by many scholars in East Asia, including China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Qi is an influential and complex concept in Chinese philosophy. Since introduced from China, the concept of qi, known as ki in Japan, has played an important role in the discussion and study of health, emotions, intentions, public opinions, human relationships, and even martial arts. Japanese dictionaries contain many definitions of ki, such as spirit, temperament, awareness, or atmosphere. Many of them are closely related to human communication. In this part, I will report the evolution of the meanings of ki, its perceived functions, and studies of ki related to communication research.
Now, let’s look at definitions and conceptualizations of ki in contemporary Japan. Obviously it is not an easy task to exhaust the definitions of ki. Scholars have been trying to define it with some functional focus. Shinmura (as cited by Chung et.al) defined ki from five aspects: 1) Ki as the basic component that fills the space between heaven and earth. Ki of this concept covers the occurrences of natural phenomena such as wind and rain, or heat and cold. 2) Ki as the energy of an impelling force of the life. 3) Ki as the state and work of the mind. This definition includes the spirit, motivation, energy, and emotion. 4) Ki as the atmosphere with which people feel surrounded. This ki serves as an unspoken assumption that people share a context when communicating. 5) Ki as a specific taste and conspicuous characteristics which symbolizes a thing or an issue. As Hamano (as cited by Chung et.al) pointed out, Japanese people perceive ki as something ethereal rather than something physical. Essentially, it can be concluded that the main idea of ki for Japanese people stands for their sensitivity to other’s feelings, and also refers to an altruistic feeling of pleasure.
Subsequently, he presented three types of ki in interpersonal relationship: 1) Japanese people feel that ki appears as something alien to their egos and without their conscious awareness. This indicates that Japanese people accept ki as something that is uncontrollable and cannot be rejected. For example, ki is seen in such idiomatic expressions as ki ga sumu (to be satisfied; to be calm) or ki ni suru (to worry about; to be anxious about). These expressions show that ki is regarded as something that exists in itself and comes from somewhere other than the psychological field of the person. 2) Ki in interpersonal relationships is the ki recognized in the presence of another person. For example, ki ga au (to get on well with each other) or ki-gane suru (to feel uneasy; to be shy) cannot be felt without the existence of others. In addition to ki studies at the interpersonal communication level, ki also is studied at the mass communication level. This will be looked into in details in the next part of my paper.
What is Kuuki?
The word kuuki or 空気 (it has ki at the end!) in Chinese characters means literally “air” in the English language. However, the functional meaning of this word is said to be “climate of opinion” and also it was simply explained as “a climate of opinion requiring compliance” in the Dictionary of Media & Communication Studies (Watson & Hill, 2000, pp.165-166). According to Noelle-Neumann, the term “climate of opinion”was first invented and used by English philosopher Joseph Glanvill in 17th century in the meaning similar to public opinions. However, these days, “climate of opinion” refers to distribution patterns of public opinions rather than the opinions themselves.
In this part I will briefly describe the kuuki studies of two men from Japan. One is social critic Shichihei Yamamoto and the other is Ito Youichi, Professor of Keio University. Probably, they are the only people who are most noticeable among the academicians concerned with the phenomenon so far even though Ito claims that since the publication of Yamamoto’s book the term kuuki has often been used in journalism and opinion magazines. This could be true since I don’t have access to Japanese language sources! Many of today’s Japanese writers, scholars and academicians etc. seem to think Japan is enough for them and are producing their works in the Japanese language only. Even though it has no relation to my paper, Mr.Donald Keene, Professor emeritus at Columbia University, who has many works in English and Japanese languages in his credit and recepient of numerous awards and prizes including the Grand Prize of Japanese Literature, shares the same view.
Shichihei Yamamoto’s “Study of Kuuki”
Social critic Shichihei Yamamoto published a book entitled “Study of Kuuki” in 1977 in Japanese language. According to him, kuuki is not just “air”, “atmosphere”, or “standard of judgment”. Kuuki requires each individual, group or organization to accept and comply with it, making those who do not agree with it silent or reluctant to speak up. If one cannot simply say “I don’t agree with it” and instead need to give many long reasons to explain why he/she doesn’t agree, or he/she needs strong courage to say in public that he/she doesn’t agree with it, then it is kuuki! Yamamoto suggests that the process of creating kuuki is usually “unconscious, unintentional and spontaneous, but this does not preclude the possibility of creating artificial kuuki”.
When the group is dominated by irrational, crazy or desperate kuuki, the results can be serious. There are many examples in Yamamoto’s book to confirm this. For example, when being asked why they let suicidal military operations during the war, the former ex-generals replied feeling shame, “Now you can talk like that but you don’t know [the] kuuki of that time”.
Ito Youichi’s “Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy”
As I mentioned in the beginning of my paper, Professor Ito wrote an article entitled “Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy” much later (2002) than Yamamoto. Ito defined kuuki as “social, political, and psychological pressures demanding compliance to a certain specific opinion, policy, or group decision and usually accompanied by threats and social sanction”. He specifies five conditions to be met in order for kuuki to be strong enough to exert influences. The five conditions are:
1) The majority opinion accounts for the majority in more than two of the three sectors: government, mass media, and the public.
2) The majority opinion accounts for the majority across the three sectors.
3) The majority opinion increases over time.
4) The intensity of the majority opinion is escalating.
5) The subject matter tends to stir up the “spirits” inherent in individuals such as basic values, norms, prejudices, antagonism, and loyalty to the collective or patriotism. When these conditions are met, the kuuki phenomenon would be created out of the ki concept.
Is kuuki really Japan specific?
The purpose of my paper was to find out whether the kuuki phenomenon was Japan specific. In reality, it is not Japan specific phenomenon!. Concepts similar to the Japanese kuuki existed all over the world since very ancient times. An example to this can be the argument between two Athenian generals in 415 B.C. They were Nichias and Alchibiades and they argued whether or not Athens should send troops to Sicily. In this argument Alchibiades, who repeatedly emphasized the superiority of Athens over the weak Sicily, won and eventually Athens sent troops. However, this proved to be a mistake and the war dragged on for three years and in 413 B.C. Athens was completely defeated. Meanwhile, the supporters of Nichias, who have foreseen this defeat long ago kept silence for the fear of being accused for anti-patriotism. (Thucydides, Greek historian, 460 B.C-400 B.C). Even though no one has ever referred to this as kuuki effect until Ito, the supporters of Nichias were clearly afraid of the stronger political, social and psychological pressure that could the majority, who believed in the superiority of Athens, could exert on them.
However, Japan is the country where the term kuuki began to be first used as an academic term and it seems that until date, Japan is the only country in the world that has been using the concept of kuuki even though some sources inform that the West is lately showing increased interest. Then, how did Japanese people come into contact with the kuuki effect? How did actually kuuki evolve in Japan? Well, here comes the story.
Immediately before Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05, the Japanese newspapers were divided into two groups: antiwar and prowar．As the war broke out, the pro-war newspapers expanded their circulation whereas the antiwar ones had no chance at all. Moreover, one of largest antiwar newspapers (Kokumin Shimbun) was attacked by mobs, set on fire and eventually gone bankrupt. Another major antiwar newspaper (Yorozu Choho), learning a lesson, decided to change its editorial policy and became a prowar newspaper.
In fact, prior to war, this latter newspaper was famous for its anti-government reporting, and at the time it changed its editorial policy, the president and editor-in chief of the newspaper is reportedly exclaimed, “Newspapers should be anti-government during peace time and chauvinistic during wartime”. I believe that was exactly what the Japanese newspapers did during the years ahead. Then comes the 1931 Manchurian incident followed by the 1940-1945 Second World War (SWW). The then-editor-in chief of the Japanese most prestigious national newspaper recalled:
“Newspapers at that time did not necessarily try to flatter those in power. Rather, they wrote to please readers. I may sound evasive, but there existed some kind of mechanism that aggravated the situation through subtle interactions [between newspapers and the public]. …Newspapers form public opinions, but public opinion also influences newspapers. The general masses are not like horses that can be tamed and trained to do their master’s bidding. {italics added}.
The sentence in italics clearly indicates that the kuuki process was doing its job by provoking and promoting the “war spirit” among the Japanese public. In simple words, it was not an individual person such as the Emperor Hirohito or Prime Minister Tojo Hideki, who were regarded as equals to Hitler and Mussolini by others that had led Japan to war or imperialistic ideas. Rather, it was the Japanese newspapers that were over concerned with increased circulation and profit. By creating the war kuuki, they also helped the military to replace the civilians, who were ruling the country and eventually take over the government. That is why Yamamoto Shichihei published the book “A Study of Kuuki”, where he reportedly argued that kuuki was the single responsible factor for Japan’s history from 1930 through 1945.
According to Yamamoto (as quoted by Ito), in ancient times, Greeks and Jews were aware of the danger of group decisions made under the influence of the “spirit” or when the “spirit” was working, and they made it a tradition to avoid such group decisions made under the influence of “spirit”. Instead, they applied thorough discussion and avoided an easy consensus. However, tradition is completely different in Japan: the priority is consensus and therefore, it is better to avoid discussions that may delay the consensus. Under such circumstances, the kuuki is very dangerous. According to Yamamoto, all the decisions in Japan from the early Meiji period until the end of 1945 were made under the strong kuuki influence, and he argued that it would be better for Japan to study this kuuki influence instead of ignoring it.
Kuuki vs. other similar concepts and ideas
Yamamoto’s pledge to study kuuki influence was welcomed by Ito, Professor from the Keio University. He often talked about this phenomenon during his presentations outside of Japan and in many countries his colleagues were interested in finding out the similarities as well as differences between the kuuki and other similar concepts. Here the kuuki is compared to such public opinion, mass communication and social psychological concepts as spiral of silence, the hegemony, agenda setting, enforcement of social norms, spiral of cynicism, the social psychological theories on conformity, contagion, and mass hysteria.
Kuuki vs. Spiral of Silence
The spiral of silence is a theory proposed by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. According to Ito, the spiral of silence and the kuuki are similar. The spiral of silence theory asserts that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority. If kuuki was always produced and sustained by the mass media, these two concepts might be almost identical, wrote Ito. However, the spiral of silence theory assumes that the mass media can transform the minority opinion into a majority opinion while there is no such assumption in the kuuki concept. As for kuuki, it does not matter where it originated or how it was produced as long as the function and impact of kuuki is playing its toll on policy decisions, mass media contents and public opinion.
Kuuki vs. Hegemony
Hegemony is a concept that has been used to describe the existence of dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force. It is assumed that hegemony has always functioned for the benefit of the power elite or the capitalist class whereas the kuuki does not have such an assumption. On the contrary, the kuuki forced or intimidated the power elite to resign in disgrace. For example, resignation of the disgraced President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal. If hegemony refers to a general framework, thought pattern or attitude, then it is different from kuuki. In this case, kuuki has to be related to some specific opinion, policy or decision.
Kuuki vs. Agenda Setting
The agenda-setting is the theory that the news、mass media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them. These two concepts are different. Because, the focus of the agenda setting theory is agenda while the kuuki focuses on the nature, attributes or directions of the content. In addition, if contents of the mass media maintain their variety, it is unlikely that the agenda setting function of the mass media would create a kuuki. When the agenda setting function of the mass media can create a kuuki? When the agenda happens to pertain to social norms, morals, or ethics, it determines the direction of the content. For example, in case of a scandal, the people involved start nagging and criticising, which is an indication of kuuki.
Kuuki vs. Enforcement of Social Norms
Violation of legal acts, social norms, moral and ethical values take place all over the world and the mass media eagerly report such incidents. At this time, kuuki demanding to hold the guilty party responsible is easily produced and the demands are upheld.
Kuuki vs. Spiral of Cynicism
“Cynicism' generally describes the opinions of those who maintain that self-interest is the primary motive of human behaviour, and are reluctant to rely upon sincerity, human virtue or altruism as motivations. Kuuki and spiral of cynicism are two contradictory concepts even though kuuki is mentioned to resemble to “spiral” processes. Cynicism is not actually a matter of specific opinion, policy or decision. Rather, it is a matter of one’s attitude. Kuuki is a phenomenon that motivates and energizes people to speak out or act whereas cynicism acts as the force, which deprives people of motivation and energy.
Kuuki vs. Conformity & Contagion
Conformity & Contagion are psychological processes by which people's beliefs or behaviors are influenced by others. People can be influenced via subtle, even unconscious processes, or by direct and overt peer pressure. Therefore, kuuki and these psychological processes are similar in the sense that they all deal with either positive or negative social influences on individuals as well as groups within the society. However, the effect of kuuki is obvious and the people feel the pressure whereas the impact of the conformity or contagion is subtle and subsequently, the public or the individual may not be aware of it.
Kuuki vs. Mass hysteria theory
Mass hysteria is the sociopsychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same hysterical symptoms by more than one person. It may begin when a group witnesses an individual becoming hysterical during a traumatic or extremely stressful event. Kuuki may overlap with this phenomenon is some extreme cases only. Otherwise, kuuki is less emotional and less irrational due to its quality of being attached to specific opinion, policy or decision. For example, just before the U.S. and British Military invasion of Iraq, in March 2003, a protest mobilization called "The World Says No to War" led to as many as 500,000 protestors in cities across the U.S. Was this anti-war kuuki or mass hysteria? Since this is related to a specific decision, of course, it was a kuuki process.
The kuuki phenomena and the modern history
According to Ito, several kuuki phenomena have emerged in the modern history of humanity. Jingoism is one of them and Ito drew the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor that led to the Spanish-American War as an example in his article. It is chauvinistic patriotism referring to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats or of actual force against other countries in order to safeguard a country's national interests.According to Encyclopedia Americana, (1964, p.) the fierce fighting on the increased circulation between newspaper syndicates led by William R.Hearst on one side and Joseph Pulitzer on the other side helped transform the Cuban insurrection of 1895 into the Spanish-American War of 1898. However, Ito argues that jingoistic kuuki cannot be produced by the mass media only. It should be a bipolar effect, which means the general public is needed as an inseparable part. The mass media’s role is to energize and motivate the ki (気) that is within every person, who is a member of the general public so that it is turned into either a positive or a negative kuuki. Ito argued that in 1930s, if the Japanese newspapers encouraged and promoted antiwar spirit growing among the general public instead of chasing after jingoistic articles, an antiwar kuuki might have been created. Further he explains that under such circumstances, a powerful civilian prime minister would have emerged in Japan and there wouldn’t have been a need to engage in the war.
The next phenomenon is Antiwar Kuuki. His article refers to all the well-known examples in human history such as the Vietnam War. Of course, the Americans believed that their administration was fighting against the expansion of Communism before it reaches the American soil. However, everything turned upside down and eventually, the cries led to antiwar kuuki and the rest is a well known history.
One interesting example is Japan’s PM Toshio Kaifu’s efforts to dispatch the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to Kuwait. This effort was a dramatic one in Japanese history of early 90s. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution bans the SDF to engage in military activities except those of the pure self-defense purposes, and as soon as PM Kaifu proposed the SDF involvement in Kuwait crisis, substantial part of Japanese population started the protest. Approval rating of Kaifu’s policy steadily went down from 60% in July 1990 to 48% in Nov 1990 in connection with the matter . The rate of non-supporters of Kaifu increased from 23% in July 1990 to 36% in 1990. (Source: Yoimiuri monthly survey). How this protest, then, turned into an anti-war kuuki? Simply because the Japanese mass media got involved in the case and the interaction between the general public and the mass media has become so intense and dangerous for the PM to continue the case any further. The case was thus dropped. Just like in the period of Russo-Japanese war, the mass media in Japan were divided into two: those who supported PM Kaifu’s proposal and those who opposed him . Because of this antiwar kuuki, Japan lost face among the international community even though it contributed US $13 billion and the Kuwaiti Government somehow “forgot” to include Japan in the list of countries, whom they thanked for generous help.
The last of the modern kuuki phenomenon is justice kuuki. The most notable example is impeachment and regisnation of US President Richard Nixon in 1972. In case of President Nixon, the mass media coverage, of course, was more than ample. However, what was the kuuki process? According to Mccombs, Einsiedel and Weaver (as quoted in Ito):
“The process had three elements. First, certain events were highlighted, drawing people’s attention and creating discussion. Second, the media framed the events in some contexts. …..Third, the media linked the specific events of Watergate to more general political symbols”.
The impeachement process was televised and the American public was eagerly following every event. They heard how Nixon tried to cover himself up, how he dismissed the independent prosecutor over the tape case and etc. The American people’s “spirit of justice” equal to “justice kuuki” in Japanese understanding was aroused over such a shameful and disgraceful event and eventually, R.Nixon resigned in the most shameful way.
If to look at above examples, kuuki is definitely a social construct with tremendous pressure for compliance. However, how would we know if there is a kuuki process going on in case of any significant event? According to Ito, the public opinion survey data and the kuuki share unique relationship. Because Ito argues that the public opinion survey data is the best indicator of kuuki. Naturally, a single survey result can not produce sufficient results to indicate the existence of kuuki. In order for the climate of opinion to be felt as kuuki or as pressure, number of supporters of a particular cause must be constantly increasing. If the number is decreasing, nobody would feel any pressure at all and the desired effect would not be achieved. Surely, the biased nature of this method must be considered.
Summary
Kuuki is created as a result of either bipolar or tripolar processes. It is bipolar when the process involves the mass media and the public opinion and tripolar in case the third party, most commonly, the government is involved. When clashes or disagreements occur between the government policies and the mass media or the mass media and the public opinion or the government policy and the public opinion, kuuki is produced as a result. To resolve the disagreement, the majority of the involved parties pressurize the minority for compliance. Gradually, the party in the opposition will give up and change its view. Such is the power of kuuki.
Kuuki is undoubtedly a very powerful phenomenon depending on whose hands it is in. If it is in the hands of narrow-minded ruthless people, it can be really destructive like in the case of ancient argument between two Athenian Generals or at the of eruption of the Spanish-American war. Either it can be very constructive, for example, at the time when the public demands enforcement of social norms. Because, such demands are usually made when one breaches established social norms, legal acts, ethical or moral values, which are all unacceptable.
According to both Yamamoto and Ito, kuuki is very dangerous to a society like Japanese. Japanese is the extremely consensus oriented society, where thorough discussion of matters before the final decision making is absolutely discouraged, or even restricted. Discussions are traditionally seen as time-consuming hindrances. There is even an unbelievable example: under the pre-war Constitution, the Prime Minister, who couldn’t build consensus within his Cabinet had to resign!! Even today, in order to conduct a business in Japan, one is expected to get approval of all the concerned parties well in advance so that there would not be any disagreements later on. I heard about a word Nemawashi (根回し) in Japanese, which refers to an informal process of quietly laying the foundation for some proposed change or project, by talking to the people concerned, gathering support and feedback, and so forth. It is considered an important element in any major change, before any formal steps are taken, and successful nemawashi enables changes to be carried out with the consent of all sides. This word is so closely tied to Japanese culture that it is very difficult to translate it into English. Its original literal meaning is: digging around the roots of a tree, to prepare it for a transplant. Well, this Japan-specific term can still be applied in the corporate world while the political world handles the matters in a different, kuuki-free style so that the history is not repeated.
REFERENCES:
1. Ito, Youichi. ““Climate of Opinion, Kuuki, and Democracy”, Communication Yearbook. The International Communication Association, 2002. pp. 266-296
2. Chung Jensen, Hara Kazuya, Yang Chungli and Ryu Ji-Myung “Contemporary Ch’i/Ki Research in East Asian Countries: Implications to Communication Research”.
www.kuis.ac.jp/icci/publications/kiyo/pdfs/15/15_03.pdf
3. Ito Yoichi. “The Influence of Historical Experiences on the Japanese Political Communication Reseach”. Keio Communication Review, No.29, 2007. http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/2003.html#no25
4. James Watson. “Representing Realities: An overview of News Framing”.Keio Communication Review, No.29, 2007. www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2007/pdf/James%20WATSON.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
