When they arrived and got into the meeting hall, the speaker leaned heavily on the word for “worker”. He promised that everything they would do would be in tight coordination with the Workers Council, etc…. I think he probably used it in just about every other sentence he spoke.
At the very end of his long presentation, he asked if anyone present had any questions. There was just one — an older man in the back held up his hand and said:
“You do realize that the Flemish word for ‘worker’ is also the Dutch word for ‘slave’, right?”
Oy.
Language is hard. It’s easy to misinterpret, even if you think you’re an expert, and even if you’re communicating in person.
But e-mail eliminates all the unspoken communication like body language and actual tone of voice, which is about 90% of all normal human communication.
We need to keep these things in mind, every time we communicate with someone, even if it is in person, and we think we are an expert.
Japanese people very easily feel compelled to defend their group, because if not they are often treated as "anti-japanese" by the most right-wing (which are the most vocal) of their relations/neighbors. This in turn leads to a lot of self-censorship.
I think you're on the wrong track; some people just take everything personally. Compare this story from an American married to an American: ( https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=49908 )
> Early in our marriage I’d find myself in the middle of situations like this:
>> Shamus is struggling with some ridiculous multi-stage problem with Windows 98.
>> Shamus: AAAAAAARG. WHAT THE FUCK?!!??! FRRRGGGKKKKK.
>> He can’t hold it any longer. He slams his fist into the bottom-right of his keyboard and caves in the bottom of the numpad. He’s vaguely aware that he’s just injured his hand, but he can’t feel it yet because of the adrenaline rush.
>> Heather dashes into the room in a panic.
>> Heather: What’s wrong?!?!?!
>> Shamus struggles to get a grip on himself
>> Shamus: It’s… Windows. It… first it wanted the disk, and THEN it says it can’t FIND the disk even though the disk is FUCKING RIGHT THERE! I CAN SEE IT IN THE FILE EXPLORER BUT WINDOWS WON’T LET ME FUCKING ACCESS IT AND THEN–
>> Heather slams her hands over her ears and looks like she’s on the edge of tears.
>> Heather: Stop shouting at me!
> I’ve lost count of the number of times I shouted, “I’M NOT ANGRY AT YOU, I’M JUST ANGRY.”
> Once I understood some of the problem, I was able to explain it to my wife. Now she knows not to dash into the room just because I’m shouting at Uplay or whatever.
To me it seemed like the kinjo is too hot an issue to criticize. OR maybe, obeying to the kinjo is virtue signaling, and criticizing their decision to obey is denying their virtue.
It did not occcur to me that it could be a more deep cultural difference, let alone a linguistic one.
I think the third option is that are just as frustrated about the rules as you, but what are they going to do about them? From their perspective, it’s easier to suck it up and be free to get on with their lives as opposed to rocking the boat and attracting the ire of the neighborhood Karen, who inevitably has unlimited rage, time, and energy.
To the Japanese person, the main question on their mind is is the thing the village council is telling them to do in the best interests of the community and their neighbors.
To question of if the village has the legal authority to make them do something, and implying that if they don't then the Japanese person has no more problems, misses the fact their their real struggle is deciding how to be a good neighbor and citizen. Obeying the village government isn't the virtue they're "signaling", caring about being a good neighbor or member of society is the virtue they actually have and maybe the cost of being one is really the issue, or lamenting over if it's necessary to do what was asked to be a good citizen.
I don't think so. I'd say 90% of the time they don't know who set the rules or why they are that way. They just follow them to avoid attracting the attention of the local busybody, there's always one. That extends to many situations in Japanese society too, it's why you rarely see people confronting, eg troublemakers and bullies in public, or until somewhat recently, at work. They'd rather ignore them and get on with their day than become a target.
Another thing they value is to not make change until one is certain it is actually an improvement, and they assume existing rules were made with the same care. The above can be very frustrating because there's some changes that are obviously for the better and some rules not made with the best intent or carefulest consideration.
But the idea that Japanese are all cowards dismisses that the demure personality comes from a collective cultural agreement that requested change must be thoroughly considered, and that it is in some way implying the previous makers of a rule were unwise or lacked consideration. So to propose a change without being what they'd consider a brute or idiot would take maybe more energy than that person is willing to give for the issue.
Who accused Japanese of being cowards? People here are raised to avoid conflict and let things go. It's not cowardly, it's a useful way of keeping a community together. Unfortunately, it also a tool for めんどくさい人 to get their own way.
The avoidance of conflict extends to an avoidance of even merely justifying oneself, or of any "rational" (rikei) discussion.
Almost each time I start a rational discussion with somebody in Japan, except in an engineering context, I get a very negative reaction and I'm seen as a trouble-maker.
I don't think it is very sane to have rules that virtually nobody dares to refine or fix.
I don't think it's about their opinions, it's just a language you have to be more polite in. Doesn't feel any different from the South or UK to me.
Pure politeness is as well present in French, but in Japan it's an aversion to openly and directly confront others.
You don't have it in Osaka as much as in Tokyo or Kyoto (that's why I'd think it's not the language), and in Tokyo people are overly stressed by their work, commuting, and overpopulation in general, so they need to compensate it by an impressive spectrum of skills for passive agessivity (which is not really better).
Disclaimer of competing interests: I'm a French guy in Japan.
I stopped finding it "interesting and different" when I realized that it led to a LOT of miscommunications even among Japaneses and could end up ruin lives because of the unwillingness to point out even minor things.
Happy to hear this is mostly a Tokyo thing (though it does extend to my coutryside in the Chiba peninsula)
I work in the tech industry. As a senior engineer, I've had to mediate MULTIPLE misunderstandings over the years (and also hearing random complaints) about French tech workers being perceived by native English speakers, Indians, Asians as condescending, offensive, or rude.
Having worked with them closely and spent personal time trying to understand them, I know it's not in their hearts. Humans are humans. Rude ones, polite ones, friendly ones, impersonal ones. On a culture-wide scale we all average out. But the language is a problem. I almost feel bad for them.
And so I've literally had to tell people "<so and so> isn't rude, or condescending to you. They're just French."
Never met a single far right Japanese nationalist living there over a year. But nearly all looked at the pros and cons of their society, and felt theirs were better than the list other countries had, for providing a life they wanted to live, and don't care about how those align with other countries interpretation of those things.
Your explanation is one I've often heard from people whose main Japanese friends are the "far left" who have spent significant time living outside of Japan by choice, hardly a group that could be said to represent the average Japanese person. Most Japanese also just find emotionally charged complaint to be disrespectful, even if it's not about Japan. There's a lot to learn about the nuances of their culture, a simple explanation is usually very incorrect, and might not even be a contributing factor.
Curious to hear where your explanation of vocal right wing neighbors comes from.
The recognition that a form of organization is imperfect is very different from "not loving it".
For example I want to improve the way my computer program works, that does not mean I hate it, that's pretty much the contrary.
As much as I love Japan, I want it to be better. New problems have emerged that did not exist in the past, so the mistake is to change nothing.
(I say "I", but that extends to Japanese people who share this view too.)
Most of the people who want to improve the society (they are often labelled "progressives", yes I feel I belong to this side) meet the opposition of people that want to keep it as it is ("conservatives").
The problem is when "progressives" are depicted as "anti-<name of the organization>", here as anti-Japanese, by some of the most extremist "conservatives".
You seem to make the same association, and I'd like to inform you that this is right-wing propaganda, and it is obviously an erroneous fallacy.
So, as you have yourself integrated this fallacy, it means that you have been at least in indirect contact with the right-wing ideology, even if you seem to not be aware.
This association of terms prevents any movement.
The reality is that there are no "anti-Japanese" and "pro-Japanese", only "pro-{new,futuristic,improved}-Japan" and "pro-{traditional,old,unchanged}-Japan".
And the funny part is that in "old Japan" some conservatives want to go further in the past, but then they need to take an arbitrary reference in time. They like the Meiji period, but on many aspects Japan from the Heian period was way more "progressive" than nowadays and than what they are prepared to accept.
One more element I'd like to answer to you is why you did not notice any "progressive" people around you. They are very quiet. Because of the pressure created by a part of the society, they tend to keep it to themselves. For example, I discovered only last month that a neighbor was vegan (as I am, too), and she never reveals it because it invariably attracts harsh and negative comments on her from some other Japanese people (the "vocal conservatives" which I was speaking about). I categorize veganism as a progressive characteristic, and reciprocally it is absolutely labelled as anti-Japanese by people (okay let me say they are right-wing?) on Twitter for example.
Last but not least, let me precise that when I say "improved Japan" I do not mean "westernized Japan", as you seemed to imply in your critic too. On the contrary, I think that the path to the future is not yet showcased by any existing country, it has to be crafted.
PS: Oh, and several years ago I was very "conservative" regarding Japan, I had pink glasses and was in unconditional love with every single aspect of it to the point that I was blind to the problems even when they slapped me in the face. So I understand you, I was there before.
That said, as much as you think I've integrated right wing fallacies (assuming the progressive Japanese you've spoken to have spent significant amounts of time living outside of society, something you equated to the right wing label of anti-Japanese) you have also integrated left wing fallacies (pro-{new,futuristic,improved}-Japan" and "pro-{traditional,old,unchanged}-Japan"/that left wing thinking is oppressed in Japan, the country with the largest communist party in the democratic world).
The main argument of people who don't agree with you is that many progressive policies aren't, in fact, creating an "improved" Japan, and are just upholding western values that don't serve them any benefit.
I'm also a vegan socialist, and have spent plenty of weekends hanging with friends who frequent Shinjuku-gyoemmae, if you know what I mean, and have been vocal about all of this to people in Japan, and experienced no push back.
Perhaps I am shielded from critique being non-Japanese myself, but to call Japan a country dominated by Conservatism feels very different from the one I experienced, and seems to me that it only appears that way to the very most demanding progressives who are just as quick to label normal Japanese people as right wing. Everyone against them seems extremist to an extremist, so I have trouble believing your view isn't also deeply oppositely biased and not a clear view of the society.
Please drop me an email if you want.
Damn monkey brains
This can happen also within a single culture. When two companies do some business together but instead of meeting often and talking directly (or zoom), spend weeks to carefully craft emails and never talk face to face.
There are so many evil politicians who order to murder people or made the laws which restrict human rights. But if you meet them in person, you will definitely feel they are nice person.
Malcolm Gladwell: "The people who got Hitler right were those who never met him, and the people who got him wrong were those who did spend time with him."
Here's a clip from an interview with Gladwell on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvOilwY0yOQ&t=178s
Yes. Especially true when it happens between an American and a Brit.
Also true between Germans and Brits, when the Germans are so good with their English, the precision with their wordings which tends to trigger some Brits.
Email is terribly crappy. You completely lose language nuance. I always try to give people the biggest benefit of the doubt even when I'm certain that the person on the other side of the email is a raging asshole.
I think its just "Seeing a face activates friendliness brain circuits." I really do have no other explanation how you can completely defuse situations just by having people sit down and talk at lunch, a bar, etc.
However, my problem is that I have an extremely good command of the English language. This is very useful when I talk as I can make full use of humor, simile, metaphor, florid prose, idioms, etc. to keep things interesting for people.
And I completely lose English as a second language people because they can't keep up with my language gymnastics at speed. If I have non-native listeners and I have to communicate, I have to deliver the talk once to myself, watch it, suppress all of my language weirdness, and deliver it again. It's really tough.
Of course, people who speak English as a second language love listening to me one-on-one as they learn all manner of crazy ways to say things.
B: "Fuck no"
A: *Initiates launch*
A: "Shouldn't I launch the nukes?"
B: "No."
Can be understood as "yes, do it" because they are used to an opposite logic when answering negation. "Yes" means "I agree with the negation" and no the opposite.
And they seem to have a hard time accepting that the logic is different in English.
‘Can’t’ is really too passive to use if it really is ‘must not’ for anything serious, so while the sentence could work either way in spoken communication (because you can convey enough context with tone of voice and emphasis to imply which sense you mean), it would still not be a great choice of words if you mean the second sense.
In this case a negative imperative is what you should be using. Moreover, since it's a life-or-death matter, we need to carefully explain ourselves. "Do not add too much water to the reactor. If you add too much water, the reactor could explode. The reactor should never contain more than 1000 litres of water. If it is overfilled, immediately follow the steps in 3.4.1 to perform an emergency evacuation." By being careful in our follow up, we reduce the risk of any misunderstanding. We cannot prevent a person from misunderstanding, but at least they are more likely to realise they have misunderstood something and seek clarification.
"Must not" is reasonably well-understood by native speakers of English, but it is confusing to non-native speakers because even though "must"="have to", the negations have different meanings. It is no use being technically correct if the person whose responsibility it is thinks you said "you don't have to add too much water to the reactor". The prevalence of "must" also varies throughout the native-speaking world.
Which means “You don’t have to”
“Yo must” could be correctly translated to “Du musst” though...
While I would interpret the sentence from only the context you provided in the way that you describe, I would characterize the question as unclear. A military chain of command would definitely phrase the question more like "Mr. President, can you confirm you are giving us the order to launch the nukes? Please present your confirmation code."
But I understand what you mean about negations having opposite meanings in (spoken) English (where context is clearer). I consider that kind of negation and answer to be sloppy written grammar and something to avoid in written English.
Your cat is on your kitchen table, looking at the chicken. Me: Indirect : is the cat supposed to be on the table ? Direct : your cat is about to eat the chicken! get away cat!
Obviously, to one culture, the 'is the cat...' version is quite explicit and forceful. To the other, not at all.
https://multiculturalyou.com/2020/06/22/direct-and-indirect-...
(I didn't read the whole thing, but the first two sections or so are pretty much what I meant)
A branch of my company went through a merger with another branch in a different country, and with a different language. Needless to say, it was difficult, and people didn't all take it well. The interesting part was that both sides thought the other side was being actively hostile, and were brandishing emails as 'proof'.
I was eventually asked to do something to reconcile both sides of the new merged team, since I am a native speaker of both languages and understand both cultures. I read the emails, and was flabbergasted. Side A could read email from B as hostile, but side B had genuinely sent something they thought was perfectly ok, and I could see why. The other way round was the same. To be more specific, some cultures are far more direct than others, and what seems offensive to one is perfectly acceptable to the other. The other way round would be saying something 'forcefully' but very indirectly, and the other side understanding it as 'no' when it meant 'yes'.
I ended up solving the problem by organizing a very nice lunch, where everyone realized the 'others' were actually nice and friendly human beings, and that email was not always the best way to communicate.