aka Sento

[Ono Seiko and Aaron Gerow]

Yeh Yueh Yu made an extremely important point which is worth repeating:

>Carmen Coustaut had problems with 
>my methodology, i.e., western feminist film criticism which she thought 
>was problematic to apply to any non white cultural texts, including her 
>own work and certainly, my subject area.  I value my feminist education in 
>the States but I appreciate even more her skepticism toward the imposition 
>of feminism upon the world outside of  white academic, social, and 
>political contexts.  I appreciate the feminist anxiety expressed in the 
>writing of Gerow and Markus, but I think what is more important is not the 
>lack of feminist education in Japan but how and why feminism is pertinent 
>and essential in analyzing films made by women a!
>nd in this case, those by the filmmaker formerly known as Kawase.    

All of us do need to be more self-critical about the methodologies we use 
when studying Japan, especially as the study of Japanese cinema becomes 
more theoretical.  I was just teaching Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto's essay, "The 
Dangers of Being Radical," in my Meigaku class today and discussed with 
the students that very point.  Mitsu, of course, does not wish to deny 
theory (rather, he hopes for an end to the binary division between 
history and theory), but he does remind us how many of theory's questions 
are directed at Western agendas which may not have any relevance to 
Japanese concerns (thus often contributing to new colonizations of the 
non-West).  I, for one, still wonder how relevant psychoanalytically 
based feminist theory is to the analysis of Japanese film.

But I do want to make a distinction here which is important.  Neither I, 
nor I think Markus, were arguing that "feminism is pertinent and 
essential in analyzing films made by women" in part because we were 
discussing not the situation of film analysis but of film production.  
True, it can still be a problem when we confine our discussion to forcing 
the standards of Western feminist film production on that of Japanese 
women, but as at least I was trying to do, the situation is different 
when it is connected to the issue of feminist cultural production in 
Japan.  My point was not simply that Kawase/Sento was not living up to 
the standards of Barbara Hammer, but that her public (and thus political) 
construction of her self-image runs counter to the efforts by millions of 
Japanese women who are struggling to change laws that bind them to the 
patriarchal family system.  This is not a question of West vs. East, but 
of real political stuggles WITHIN Japan.

That is why I have always had a problem with any assertions that Western 
theory is by definition inappropriate to Japan either as methodology or 
as political practice.  Even when voiced as a defense against theoretical 
colonialism, such assertions often end up reproducing the clear-cut 
geography of East vs. West (Self vs. Other) that colonialist discourse 
creates in the first place (this, I think, is one of Mitsu's points in 
his essay).  It ends up creating categories such as "non-white," 
"non-West," etc. as categories of the Other which are unified within and 
which thus share nothing in common with the "West."  But any look at 
Japanese history shows that "Japan", especially in the modern age, is 
never ever completely "non-white" and "non-West."  This is not merely a 
theoretical point, but a practical one.  How can one question the status 
of feminism in Japan as a when there is a long history of both feminist 
politics and feminist theory in Japan, much of it very influenced by 
"Western" theory?  Questioning the applicability of feminism threatens to 
label those Japanese feminist scholars as "colonialist" or, even 
worse,"Westernized, non-Japanese" scholars.  Given how the Japanese right 
is doing precisely that, and with much more vigor these days, it should 
be clear how politically dangerous that can be.

This is not to argue that any theory goes when studying Japan.  Or that 
Western theory should be held up as the tool of liberation for the 
Japanese left.  Rather, I just want to underline how difficult the issue 
of theory is.  While it is important to understand, from the perspective 
of those colonized by the West, how theory can serve as a tool of their 
oppression, it is also important, from the perspective of those dominated 
by non-Western nation-states, how the denial of "Western" modes of 
criticism in the name of "non-Western independence" is often just a 
reassertion of the very boundaries that serve to oppress people within 
Japan and other "non-Western" nations.

The post-colonial world is more complicated now.  It would be nice to 
just ask Kawase/Sento to be more aware of the feminist movement around 
her in Japan, but even that movement is not exclusively "Japanese."  And 
anyway, she's met Barbara Hammer and I don't think it's unreasonable to 
hope there might be some influence there.  On both sides.  (Note that 
Barbara Hammer is considering filming a documentary on women in Japan.)

Aaron Gerow
YNU