Cultural and Ideological Conflict

I really enjoyed reading Milton Murayama’s All I Asking For Is My Body, particularly Part III, the section from which the book takes its title. What most intrigued me was the ideological conflict that I saw as absolutely central to the book—that is, the clash between American and Japanese cultural values. In my American Lit (1865-present) class, we have discussed at length the classic American values of freedom, liberty, rugged individualism, self-creation, and mobility—social, physical, and economic. In Murayama’s novel, Mr. Snook expresses this American liberalism and individualism, and his conversations with his Japanese students reflect the lack of understanding between the two viewpoints. When asked what else is out there besides making money, Mr. Snook replies, “What about fresh air and freedom for the individual? What about standing on your own feet? What about thinking for yourself, using your own noodle?” (Murayama 34). His student, Tubby, responds by asking, “What’s freedom?” (Murayama 34). Because Japanese cultural values are largely dependent on rank, order, and hierarchy, they are inherently in conflict with those American values expressed by Mr. Snook and, throughout the book, by Tosh. The Oyama family embodies Japanese cultural values, particularly filial piety; the family itself revolves around a hierarchical system in which the parents deserve unquestioned respect and possess absolute authority. Each person has his or her rank within this family unit—for example, the “number one son.” This idea of a proper order or rank extends beyond the family into the real world; with regard to the plantation system, Tubby declares, “It teach everybody to know his place. It make everything run smooth” (Murayama 34). Mr. Oyama also explains, “We should know our place and not anger them. That’s the only way we’ll gain their respect” (Murayama 37). Knowing one’s proper place in the social and economic hierarchy is something valued and respected by the Japanese in a way that seems entirely incompatible with the American idea of social and economic mobility—in other words, the American dream.

My own reaction to the Japanese cultural values based on proper rank and hierarchy demonstrates the lack of comprehension between these values and the typical American ideals. I found it incredible that Mr. and Mrs. Oyama were perfectly willing to saddle their sons with the responsibility of paying back a $6,000 debt. Their sense of a child’s obligation to his parents extended so far as to make it okay to sacrifice their children’s educations. Coming from an American cultural perspective where it often seems that parents are more obligated to their children than vice versa, I found this somewhat shocking.

The ideological/cultural clash between Japanese and American values is truly embodied in the character of Tosh. He is caught between his old world, Japan, and his new world, America. While he clearly sees himself as American and prescribes to the set of classic American values, he is forced by his parents to abide by Japanese cultural standards and morals. He is caught between two ideologies, two cultures, two worlds. This conflict, however, is not entirely individual; rather, it is systemic (or institutional/structural, to use terms we have discussed in class). Tosh’s entrapment between two cultures and two sets of values is not the fault of any individual or individuals. Instead, it is the result of something structural or systemic. When discussing his frustration with his father, Tosh explains, “It’s not all his fault. That’s the Japanese and Confucian system” (Murayama 48). We have discussed in class the way in which racism is often structural or institutional as opposed to something personal or individual, and it seems that this same thinking can be applied to cultural values as well—they are systemic instead of individual, and therefore the blame or fault cannot be entirely placed upon the shoulders of any one person.

This cultural/ideological conflict also seems to possess a large generational component. Mr. and Mrs. Oyama spent their youth in Japan and have therefore been socialized to Japanese culture and values, but Tosh has grown up in America, where he has clearly been socialized to accept American values. I read a book for a politics class last semester called Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration, and I found myself applying to Murayama’s book a lot of what I learned in that book about the differences that develop between various immigrant generations (with respect to ethnic enclaves, language adoption, social customs/values, etc.). It does seem that the most difficult immigrant generation is Tosh’s, the second generation immigrant born in the new country yet growing up in a household that prescribes to cultural values of another country. Can second generation immigrants like Tosh embrace two cultures or sets of values at once? Is there a way for Tosh to reconcile his Japanese heritage and his American culture? Tosh himself would likely say no—he asks his father to cancel his Japanese citizenship and declares, “We have to cut off all our ties with Japan and become American” (Murayama 37).

I found a few more connections between Murayama’s book and other texts we have read for class. The lack of panethnicity on the plantation echoes much of what E. San Juan Jr. writes of in Historicizing the Space of Asian America. Even though both are Asian, the Japanese and Filipino plantation workers see absolutely no connection between themselves and seem to possess entirely different cultures and values (though much of what we hear from the characters is racially prejudiced). Indeed, in the words of Roger Daniels as quoted by San Juan Jr., “The conglomerate image of Asian Americans is an illusion” (San Juan Jr. 45). I also noticed a connection between Murayama’s novel and Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s Racial Formation in the United States. Mr. Snook wonders how the plantation workers could possibly be happy with their place in society: “I always thought everybody low on the pecking order hated it. Not so. Not you” (Murayama 33). Mr. Snook’s realization echoes Omi and Winant’s discussion of how hegemony requires, to a certain degree, the consent of the exploited: “Although rule can be obtained by force, it cannot be secured and maintained, especially in modern society, without the element of consent” (Omi & Winant 67).