Satchi

[Lanceart]

MESSAGE REFUSED
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter B. High <j45843a at nucc.cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp>
To: <KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Satchi


> Aaron Gerow wrote:
>
> > But while I think Peter's ur-stories have a lot of promise and can be
> > utilized quite fruitfully, I wonder if we should be wary of such stories
> > for the same reason there were problems with structuralism.  There is
the
> > tendency to see them as "natural," which often leads to a kind of
> > functionalism; they become "defined" (often though a central binarism)
in
> > ways that occlude the fissures and deferrences of signification; they
> > focus on texts and signification at the expense of reading; they tend to
> > write out the messiness of historical moments in favor of longue durees;
> > etc. (others can add to the list).
>
> As often happens among scholars whose point of view and/or area of
interest
> tend to  coincide as closely as  Aaron's and mine, we often feel the need
> to interject a "yes, but..." in order to stake out our own territory, and
> insights. This I believe is what Aaron is doing in the paragraph above;
and
> quite rightly so. However, since I feel the above paragraph contains a key
> misconstruing of what I said (mea culpa, indoubitably), I want to see if I
> can set things right.
>
> I am of course aware of the rebuttal of the structuralist position Aaron
> refers to here and believe it is well taken. However I am not aware of how
> this very good advice relates directly to what I said. I am also not quite
> clear about what he means by "functionalism" and am therefore equally
> unclear about why I need to be wary of that  frumious bandersnatch. In
> other words, while Aaron warns that my idea of "ur-stories" may be caught
> up in the Structuralist Fallacy, I must complain that I am being subjected
> to the debater's categorical fallacy (in other words, that I have been
> thrust into the wrong "ism" box).
>
> The key element of Aaron's criticism (of the structuralists) is that "they
> tend to write out the messiness of historical moments in favor of longue
> durees;  etc." This of course reflects the anti-historical bias of their
> discipline and would signify a grave failing in any historian.
>
> The point I want to make here is a tricky one since I have to recycle some
> of the very terms Aaron uses, but in a different context. I am suggesting
> that these ur-stories represent (archetypical?/traditional?) forms
> pre-provided within a specific culture for the casting, as news and/or
> entertainment, developments of the day. In fact they do function to "write
> out the messiness of historical moments," since they represent patterned
> forms of representation.  I would add that they also tend toward  an
> essentially conservative interpretation of the world and therefore , by
> implication at least, have a role to play in signification. However, since
> the content is invariably "current events" taking place within the
> radically different circumstances of each era, ideology included, they
also
> completely vulnerable "defferences of signification." Take for example the
> American "Horatio Alger" ur-story.  We can find it at work in contemporary
> accounts of the life of Thomas Edison, up through the twenties. On the
> other hand, it turns into a parodic weapon to be wielded against Dick
Nixon
> in the late sixties and early seventies. We even find it in the background
> sketches of the rise of Apple Computors. Complicating matters is the fact
> that ur-stories can intertwine in the same account--Apple was even more
> often cast as David in combat with the IBM goliath.
>
> In any case, I don't think it is any more tenable to hold that ur-stories
> characterize any particular era than it is to attempt a similar
> characterization by simply invoking its incidents, scandals and what-not.
> The latter are indeed "messy," being subject to constant reinterpretation
> as to their facts and significance. But we must also recognize that as
> patterned forms of representation purveyed to the public, ur-stories seem
> to have a life and career of their own in the real world. Why was America
> swept up in grief at the death of JFK,jr.? Why, because he was the last
> prince of "Camelot" of course!
>
> Actually,  the line of inquiry which fascinates me most is the way in
which
> the narratives of what I called the MEGA-sphere (of politics and other
> events of High Historico-social Import) tend to be "counterpointed" by
> stories (scandals, affairs etc) in the minor key, spawned by the popular
> media dimension. As I have already pointed out, the Manchurian Incident
was
> quickly followed by public fascination with the Lovers' Suicide Rage; the
> Feb. 26 coup incident was counterpointed by the Abe Sada Incident. Now, in
> the midst of millenialist fears and all the stuff going on in the Diet,
> millions seem more concerned with the  Satchi affair. My hypothesis is
that
> the counterpointing (popular press) stories, while clearly unrelated in
> their details to the "crisis" of the  MEGA-sphere,  still, on some
> virtually subliminal level, vibrate with an allied significance.  Both the
> *bidan* tales of valor spewed out on the front page during the Manchurian
> Incident and the lovers' suicides were all sagas of death, and  therefore
> thematically linked--the region where they interpenetrated being the issue
> of Fascism ("fassho") which was just then dominating public discourse.
>
> So what would be the significance vibration shared by Satchi and the major
> domestic news issues of the moment? The flag and anthem issues arise
amidst
> a wider, and increasingly nationalist, discourse about Japan and the War
> (guilt/responsibility/factuality), Japan as an "independent, full-fledged
> nation" and the sense that Japan must  re-emerge on the international
stage
> as a full-fledged national entity. At the fringes of this discourse is the
> persistent debate about Japan having lost its identity, its old values and
> traditonal virtues of straightforwardness. One of the most prominent
> incarnations of Satchi herself was as the sharp-tongued moralist,
attacking
> members of the loose-living younger generation. At the same time, she
> represent(ed) a travesty of the old,traditional image of the proper,
> selkf-effacing "obasan." Enter Asaka Mitsuyo, the proxy representive of
the
> good old (semi-mythical) world of chambara drama (she was an *onna
kengeki*
> actreess). ASsaka proceeds to publicly prosecute Satchi for her duplicity
> (her distortion of factuality) and lack of "common-sense" (she borrowed
> things and failed to return them--a nearly unforgivanble sin in the old
> moral order). Seen this way,  motifs of both the MEGA-sphere and the
> counterpoint clearly intertwine, or "vibrate" as I have been putting it.
> Quintessentially, we find vaguely analogous issues of identity--who are
> you? who are we? Also there is the very Japanese iassue of "midare wo
> tadasu" (correcting things out of order/ finding and adopting the correct
> forms).
>
> Once again, any comments?
>
> Peter B. High
> Nagoya University
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>