Difference between revisions of "Aidagara (Japan)"

|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.

|}

|}

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.

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.

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.

# 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.