Aidagara (Japan) - Revision history

Admin at 15:37, 29 September 2019

2019-09-29T15:37:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 29 September 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:
	[[:Category:Redistribution\|Redistribution]] – [[:Category: Substantive ambivalence\| Substantive ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Instrumentality of sociability\| Instrumentality of sociability]] – [[:Category: Economies of favours\| Economies of favours]]		[[:Category:Redistribution\|Redistribution]] – [[:Category: Substantive ambivalence\| Substantive ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Instrumentality of sociability\| Instrumentality of sociability]] – [[:Category: Economies of favours\| Economies of favours]]
	\| categories =		\| categories =
	[[:Category:Japan\|Japan]] – [[:Category: East Asia\| East Asia]] – [[:Category: ~~Social network~~\| ~~Social network~~]] – [[:Category: Favour\| Favour]]		[[:Category:Japan\|Japan]] – [[:Category: East Asia\| East Asia]] – [[:Category: Personal connections\|Personal connections]] – [[:Category: Favour\| Favour]]
	\| authorofpiece =Yoshimichi Sato		\| authorofpiece =Yoshimichi Sato
	\| authorinstitution =Department of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Japan		\| authorinstitution =Department of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Japan
Line 19:		Line 19:
	[[Category:Japan]]		[[Category:Japan]]
	[[Category: East Asia]]		[[Category: East Asia]]
	[[Category: ~~Social network~~]]		[[Category: Personal connections]]
	[[Category: Favour]]		[[Category: Favour]]
	[[Category:Entry]]		[[Category:Entry]]

Admin at 13:10, 20 May 2019

2019-05-20T13:10:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 20 May 2019
Line 47:		Line 47:

	==References==		==References==
			<References />

			==Further Reading==
	# 浜口恵俊. 1982. 『間人主義の社会日本』. 東京: 東洋経済新報社.		# 浜口恵俊. 1982. 『間人主義の社会日本』. 東京: 東洋経済新報社.
	# Hamaguchi, E. 1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.		# Hamaguchi, E. 1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.

Admin at 12:59, 20 May 2019

2019-05-20T12:59:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 20 May 2019
Line 29:		Line 29:
	[[File: Hamaguchi chart 1.png\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Figure 1: Interaction between individuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 2).]]		[[File: Hamaguchi chart 1.png\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Figure 1: Interaction between individuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 2).]]
	Hamaguchi argues that methodological individualism cannot capture important characteristics of social relations in Japan and proposes using methodological contextualism instead. Methodological contextualism, in contrast to methodological individualism, assumes that the boundary of an actor covers his or her relations with another actor (see Figure 2 below). Such actors are called contextuals or relational actors in methodological contextualism. Contextuals, in contrast to individuals, cannot exist without their relationship with another actor, because the relationship is a part of his or her self. Furthermore, contextuals do not think that they can fully control their relationship with another actor, while individuals think that their relationship with another actor is in their full control.		Hamaguchi argues that methodological individualism cannot capture important characteristics of social relations in Japan and proposes using methodological contextualism instead. Methodological contextualism, in contrast to methodological individualism, assumes that the boundary of an actor covers his or her relations with another actor (see Figure 2 below). Such actors are called contextuals or relational actors in methodological contextualism. Contextuals, in contrast to individuals, cannot exist without their relationship with another actor, because the relationship is a part of his or her self. Furthermore, contextuals do not think that they can fully control their relationship with another actor, while individuals think that their relationship with another actor is in their full control.

			This relationship between contextuals is called ''aidagara'' in the Japanese cultural context. Then the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations in methodological individualism becomes clear. A social relation is one between independent individuals, while ''aidagara'' is a kind of social system in which contextuals interact.

	[[File: Hamaguchi chart 2.png\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Figure 2: Interaction between contextuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 3).]]		[[File: Hamaguchi chart 2.png\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Figure 2: Interaction between contextuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 3).]]

	This relationship between contextuals is called ''aidagara'' in the Japanese cultural context. Then the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations in methodological individualism becomes clear. A social relation is one between independent individuals, while ''aidagara'' is a kind of social system in which contextuals interact.

	The most important characteristic of ''aidagara'' is that the Japanese do not think that ''aidagara'' between them is a result of their intention, because they do not think that they can control it. Rather, they think that it is created by a power beyond them, which they call en (Hamaguchi 1985<ref>Hamaguchi, E.1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.</ref>). ''En'' is thought to be an unobserved power that realises ''aidagara'' between people. Thus the Japanese use the word to positively interpret their new relationship with another person. For example, two Japanese business persons who encounter each other at a business meeting would say, ‘''Koremo nanika no go-en desuraka kongotomo yoroshiku onegaishimasu''.’ (''En'' enabled us to get together, so let’s keep our good relations). ''En'' is also referred to in wedding ceremonies such as in ‘''En ni megumarete kekkon surukotoni narimashita''’. (Good en made us get married).		The most important characteristic of ''aidagara'' is that the Japanese do not think that ''aidagara'' between them is a result of their intention, because they do not think that they can control it. Rather, they think that it is created by a power beyond them, which they call en (Hamaguchi 1985<ref>Hamaguchi, E.1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.</ref>). ''En'' is thought to be an unobserved power that realises ''aidagara'' between people. Thus the Japanese use the word to positively interpret their new relationship with another person. For example, two Japanese business persons who encounter each other at a business meeting would say, ‘''Koremo nanika no go-en desuraka kongotomo yoroshiku onegaishimasu''.’ (''En'' enabled us to get together, so let’s keep our good relations). ''En'' is also referred to in wedding ceremonies such as in ‘''En ni megumarete kekkon surukotoni narimashita''’. (Good en made us get married).

Admin at 12:59, 20 May 2019

2019-05-20T12:59:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 20 May 2019
Line 27:		Line 27:
	\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ''Aidagara'' is a Japanese term used generally to mean that a social relationship exists between two persons. However, the meaning of the relationship is actually rather more complex. Hamaguchi’s theory of methodological contextualism helps to explain the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations (Hagaguchi 1985<ref>Hamaguchi, E.1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.</ref>). Methodological individualism, according to Hamaguchi, assumes that the boundary of an actor as an individual does not include his or her interaction with another actor. In other words, he or she can exist as a singular entity (see Figure 1). When he or she then interacts with another actor they get involved in social relations with the other actor.		\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ''Aidagara'' is a Japanese term used generally to mean that a social relationship exists between two persons. However, the meaning of the relationship is actually rather more complex. Hamaguchi’s theory of methodological contextualism helps to explain the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations (Hagaguchi 1985<ref>Hamaguchi, E.1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.</ref>). Methodological individualism, according to Hamaguchi, assumes that the boundary of an actor as an individual does not include his or her interaction with another actor. In other words, he or she can exist as a singular entity (see Figure 1). When he or she then interacts with another actor they get involved in social relations with the other actor.
	\|}		\|}
	[[File: Hamaguchi chart 1.png\|300px\|thumb\|~~center~~\|Figure 1: Interaction between individuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 2).]]		[[File: Hamaguchi chart 1.png\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Figure 1: Interaction between individuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 2).]]
	Hamaguchi argues that methodological individualism cannot capture important characteristics of social relations in Japan and proposes using methodological contextualism instead. Methodological contextualism, in contrast to methodological individualism, assumes that the boundary of an actor covers his or her relations with another actor (see Figure 2 below). Such actors are called contextuals or relational actors in methodological contextualism. Contextuals, in contrast to individuals, cannot exist without their relationship with another actor, because the relationship is a part of his or her self. Furthermore, contextuals do not think that they can fully control their relationship with another actor, while individuals think that their relationship with another actor is in their full control.		Hamaguchi argues that methodological individualism cannot capture important characteristics of social relations in Japan and proposes using methodological contextualism instead. Methodological contextualism, in contrast to methodological individualism, assumes that the boundary of an actor covers his or her relations with another actor (see Figure 2 below). Such actors are called contextuals or relational actors in methodological contextualism. Contextuals, in contrast to individuals, cannot exist without their relationship with another actor, because the relationship is a part of his or her self. Furthermore, contextuals do not think that they can fully control their relationship with another actor, while individuals think that their relationship with another actor is in their full control.

	[[File: Hamaguchi chart 2.png\|300px\|thumb\|~~center~~\|Figure 2: Interaction between contextuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 3).]]		[[File: Hamaguchi chart 2.png\|300px\|thumb\|left\|Figure 2: Interaction between contextuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 3).]]

	This relationship between contextuals is called ''aidagara'' in the Japanese cultural context. Then the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations in methodological individualism becomes clear. A social relation is one between independent individuals, while ''aidagara'' is a kind of social system in which contextuals interact.		This relationship between contextuals is called ''aidagara'' in the Japanese cultural context. Then the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations in methodological individualism becomes clear. A social relation is one between independent individuals, while ''aidagara'' is a kind of social system in which contextuals interact.
Line 46:		Line 46:
	Although they share some common characteristics, ''aidagara'' and ''en'' differ from social capital in two ways. Firstly, ''aidagara'' is not necessarily a by-product of a relationship. As previously mentioned, two businesspersons meeting each other for the first time would believe their ''aidagara'' was established thanks to ''en''. Furthermore it is important to note that ''aidaraga'' is not intentionally created. These differences make it challenging for outsiders who attempt to interpret relationships between Japanese people through the Western model of social capital, which does not work in the same way in Japanese society.		Although they share some common characteristics, ''aidagara'' and ''en'' differ from social capital in two ways. Firstly, ''aidagara'' is not necessarily a by-product of a relationship. As previously mentioned, two businesspersons meeting each other for the first time would believe their ''aidagara'' was established thanks to ''en''. Furthermore it is important to note that ''aidaraga'' is not intentionally created. These differences make it challenging for outsiders who attempt to interpret relationships between Japanese people through the Western model of social capital, which does not work in the same way in Japanese society.

	==References ~~and Bibliography~~==		==References==
	# 浜口恵俊. 1982. 『間人主義の社会日本』. 東京: 東洋経済新報社.		# 浜口恵俊. 1982. 『間人主義の社会日本』. 東京: 東洋経済新報社.
	# Hamaguchi, E. 1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.		# Hamaguchi, E. 1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.

	~~==References==~~

Editor2018 at 19:40, 15 May 2019

2019-05-15T19:40:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 15 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice =Aidagara		\| nameofpractice =Aidagara
	\| flagemoji =		\| flagemoji =🇯🇵
	\| definition =Social networks in Japan		\| definition =Social networks in Japan
	\| location =Japan		\| location =Japan

Editor2018 at 19:37, 15 May 2019

2019-05-15T19:37:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 15 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Aidagara		\| nameofpractice =Aidagara
	\| location = Japan		\| flagemoji =
	\| imagemap = Japan map.png		\| definition =Social networks in Japan
	\| ~~imageflag~~ = Japan ~~flag.png~~		\| location =Japan
	\| authorofpiece = Yoshimichi Sato		\| imagemap =Japan map.png
	\| authorinstitution = Tohoku University		\| clusters =
	}}		[[:Category:Redistribution\|Redistribution]] – [[:Category: Substantive ambivalence\| Substantive ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Instrumentality of sociability\| Instrumentality of sociability]] – [[:Category: Economies of favours\| Economies of favours]]
			\| categories =
	'''''~~Original text by~~ Yoshimichi Sato'''''		[[:Category:Japan\|Japan]] – [[:Category: East Asia\| East Asia]] – [[:Category: Social network\| Social network]] – [[:Category: Favour\| Favour]]
			\| authorofpiece =Yoshimichi Sato
	~~<div~~ class="~~toccolours mw~~-~~collapsible mw~~-~~collapsed~~">		\| authorinstitution =Department of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Japan
	''Aidagara'' is a Japanese term used generally to mean that a social relationship exists between two persons. However, the meaning of the relationship is actually rather more complex. Hamaguchi’s theory of methodological contextualism helps to explain the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations (Hagaguchi 1985<ref>Hamaguchi, E.1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.</ref>). Methodological individualism, according to Hamaguchi, assumes that the boundary of an actor as an individual does not include his or her interaction with another actor. In other words, he or she can exist as a singular entity (see Figure 1). When he or she then interacts with another actor they get involved in social relations with the other actor.		\| authorwebsite =[http://db.tohoku.ac.jp/whois/e_detail/1358b7b8eaf80e6f6c0b4043e0839563.html Profile page at TU]}}
			<big>'''By Yoshimichi Sato, Department of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, Japan'''</big>
			[[Category:Redistribution]]
			[[Category: Substantive ambivalence]]
			[[Category: Instrumentality of sociability]]
			[[Category: Economies of favours]]
			[[Category:Japan]]
			[[Category: East Asia]]
			[[Category: Social network]]
			[[Category: Favour]]
			[[Category:Entry]]
			[[Category: Volume 1]]
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|-
			\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ''Aidagara'' is a Japanese term used generally to mean that a social relationship exists between two persons. However, the meaning of the relationship is actually rather more complex. Hamaguchi’s theory of methodological contextualism helps to explain the difference between ''aidagara'' and social relations (Hagaguchi 1985<ref>Hamaguchi, E.1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.</ref>). Methodological individualism, according to Hamaguchi, assumes that the boundary of an actor as an individual does not include his or her interaction with another actor. In other words, he or she can exist as a singular entity (see Figure 1). When he or she then interacts with another actor they get involved in social relations with the other actor.
			\|}
	[[File: Hamaguchi chart 1.png\|300px\|thumb\|center\|Figure 1: Interaction between individuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 2).]]		[[File: Hamaguchi chart 1.png\|300px\|thumb\|center\|Figure 1: Interaction between individuals. Source: Hamaguchi (1985: Figure 2).]]

	~~<div class="mw-collapsible-content">~~
	Hamaguchi argues that methodological individualism cannot capture important characteristics of social relations in Japan and proposes using methodological contextualism instead. Methodological contextualism, in contrast to methodological individualism, assumes that the boundary of an actor covers his or her relations with another actor (see Figure 2 below). Such actors are called contextuals or relational actors in methodological contextualism. Contextuals, in contrast to individuals, cannot exist without their relationship with another actor, because the relationship is a part of his or her self. Furthermore, contextuals do not think that they can fully control their relationship with another actor, while individuals think that their relationship with another actor is in their full control.		Hamaguchi argues that methodological individualism cannot capture important characteristics of social relations in Japan and proposes using methodological contextualism instead. Methodological contextualism, in contrast to methodological individualism, assumes that the boundary of an actor covers his or her relations with another actor (see Figure 2 below). Such actors are called contextuals or relational actors in methodological contextualism. Contextuals, in contrast to individuals, cannot exist without their relationship with another actor, because the relationship is a part of his or her self. Furthermore, contextuals do not think that they can fully control their relationship with another actor, while individuals think that their relationship with another actor is in their full control.

Line 33:		Line 45:

	Although they share some common characteristics, ''aidagara'' and ''en'' differ from social capital in two ways. Firstly, ''aidagara'' is not necessarily a by-product of a relationship. As previously mentioned, two businesspersons meeting each other for the first time would believe their ''aidagara'' was established thanks to ''en''. Furthermore it is important to note that ''aidaraga'' is not intentionally created. These differences make it challenging for outsiders who attempt to interpret relationships between Japanese people through the Western model of social capital, which does not work in the same way in Japanese society.		Although they share some common characteristics, ''aidagara'' and ''en'' differ from social capital in two ways. Firstly, ''aidagara'' is not necessarily a by-product of a relationship. As previously mentioned, two businesspersons meeting each other for the first time would believe their ''aidagara'' was established thanks to ''en''. Furthermore it is important to note that ''aidaraga'' is not intentionally created. These differences make it challenging for outsiders who attempt to interpret relationships between Japanese people through the Western model of social capital, which does not work in the same way in Japanese society.
	~~</div>~~
	~~</div>~~

	==References and Bibliography==		==References and Bibliography==
Line 40:		Line 50:
	# Hamaguchi, E. 1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.		# Hamaguchi, E. 1985. ‘A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies’, Journal of Japanese Studies 11(2): 289-321.

	==~~Notes~~==		==References==
	~~<references />~~

	~~[[Category:Informal Practices]]~~
	~~[[Category:Asia]]~~
	~~[[Category:Japan]]~~
	~~[[Category: Relationships]]~~
	~~[[Category:Economies of favours]]~~
	~~[[Category:Gift]~~
	~~[[Category:Favour]]~~
	~~[[Category:Transactions of favours]]~~
	~~[[Category:Exchange]]~~
	~~[[Category:Network]]~~
	~~[[Category:Social Capital]]~~
	~~[[Category:Opportunity]]~~

	~~[[Category:Entry]]~~

Admin at 14:45, 8 October 2018

2018-10-08T14:45:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 8 October 2018
Line 50:		Line 50:
	[[Category:Gift]		[[Category:Gift]
	[[Category:Favour]]		[[Category:Favour]]
	~~[[Category:Social System]]~~
	[[Category:Transactions of favours]]		[[Category:Transactions of favours]]
	[[Category:Exchange]]		[[Category:Exchange]]

Admin at 14:39, 8 October 2018

2018-10-08T14:39:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 8 October 2018
Line 46:		Line 46:
	[[Category:Asia]]		[[Category:Asia]]
	[[Category:Japan]]		[[Category:Japan]]
	[[Category: ~~Social~~ Relationships]]		[[Category: Relationships]]
	[[Category:Economies of favours]]		[[Category:Economies of favours]]
	[[Category:Gift]		[[Category:Gift]

Admin at 14:38, 8 October 2018

2018-10-08T14:38:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 8 October 2018
Line 53:		Line 53:
	[[Category:Transactions of favours]]		[[Category:Transactions of favours]]
	[[Category:Exchange]]		[[Category:Exchange]]
	[[Category:~~Social Networks~~]]		[[Category:Network]]
	[[Category:Social Capital]]		[[Category:Social Capital]]
	[[Category:Opportunity]]		[[Category:Opportunity]]

	[[Category:Entry]]		[[Category:Entry]]

Admin at 16:10, 5 October 2018

2018-10-05T16:10:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 5 October 2018
Line 55:		Line 55:
	[[Category:Social Networks]]		[[Category:Social Networks]]
	[[Category:Social Capital]]		[[Category:Social Capital]]
	[[Category:~~Opportunities~~]]		[[Category:Opportunity]]

	[[Category:Entry]]		[[Category:Entry]]