Update

Our two interns have left so the office is super small and super quiet; consulting dept. is down to little old me and my supervisor again. Hope to get a new victim intern soon.

Still lonely, still missing She on occasion. Not just someone-to-hold-lonely though. I think I actually feel existentially lonely too at times. Missing old friends.

Finally managed to get a well-earned break and traveled to a place called Hampi in northern Karnataka. Absolutely beautiful. Pretty much spent two days in the sun and have a case of sunburn, HA! I burn so rarely that the pain and itching always, always comes as a total surprise.The sunburn hypothesis never even enters my mind until my skin starts peeling en masse like I got hit with a few gamma rays.

Apropos of Nothing

My colleagues in the office have been admonishing me to get a maid, and I can understand why. By the time I get round to cleaning on the weekend, my place has picked up more dust than the Event Horizon; and there are a number of mini-beasts relieving themselves in my apartment.

My policy is to leave creatures alone if they aren’t evil/Filthy McNasty/bothering me. Animalia non grata are few: mice, rats, houseflies, drosophila, mosquitoes, Japanese hornets, and giant centipedes (the latter two were shooed out of the house or thrown out with long chopsticks respectively).

The other day, a wasp was ambulating on my living room curtain when lifted its abdomen, and fired a rod of excreta onto the floor. Later a gecko, regarding me with a wary eye, lifted up its tail and released a sticky black globule, which landed with a nasty little soft thud on the cistern of my toilet. It was in the right area I suppose; cheeky son of a bachelor.

Red in Tooth and Claw

I was having a conversation with one of the interns in which I mentioned that I couldn't live in New York. “Not enough green”, I said, to which he immediately retorted, “and you’re living in Bangalore?” 

He had a point for sure, the rapid development of this city is literally brutalising the landscape. Urban planning is non-existent: Well there are plans but they aren't implemented; there are regulations, but they are worked around. Just the other day the one patch of green I had next to my apartment was removed to reveal a nasty eyesore of red-brown earth littered with the plastic detritus of untold multitudes. Some cinder blocks have been foisted upon the ground along grooves barely deep enough to fill up in the rain. 

I was standing on the balcony at the office and shortly after my exchange with the intern, I observed a group of crows taking turns eating the carcass of a rat. Suddenly, one of the local raptors – a hawk, methinks – swoops in, and without landing, or even so much as a by-your-leave, snatches up the rat. I burst out laughing, turned to him and said, “This is why I can live in Bangalore!”

The Swing of Things

Things are super hectic these days as I’ve had a lot on my plate: draft development plans for the two programmes I’m to design and run, analysis of the monitoring and evaluation strategy for a programme of facilitated dialogues and design of new surveys, design of an exercise for use in the facilitation, drafting a letter to peeps at the UN. I love the pace and the energy of my office. My only concern is that I suffer from bouts of extreme loneliness. 

The people I love are all so far away from me.

So, about that foul mood...

I had landed a job, a rather good job in some respects. Now it is gone from me. 

At the moment I do not have a mouth with which to tell the tale. I need to get to a better place first, and I fear that will not be happening anytime soon. My good friend tells me I may have dodged a bullet, but I remain haunted by visions of my nascent career being smothered in its sleep.

A cool boss?

These pics courtesy of TPM may have endeared me a little to Republican National Committee Chairman Micheal Steele. However I can't shake the niggling suspicion that the interns in these pics are actually  mocking him. Steele reminds me a little of a boss I used to have when I was on the JET programme working for the board of ed. of a small Japanese city. A bit of a clown, and more than a little inappropriate at even the best of times. He exchanged shaggy-dog gags at social events, and would creep out my female colleagues by making comments with sexual undertones. I regarded him perhaps as I would a drunk uncle who would prove to be an amusing spectacle at any wedding reception but my own. And I could certainly see him striking similar poses.

Fell deeds await

My last full day of work at the org today. I hand in my report to the chief and the directors tomorrow - basically a set of recommendations on strategic and methodological issues. The report is very short, only about four pages, as I want it to be read. Since after I leave Japan I'll have some responsibility for disseminating a recent publication, the org is likely to be in frequent contact with me. I figure if there's anything they need clarification on they can ask me. Who knows, it might even lead to a paid consulting gig in the future.

Tonight is my farewell party, and I managed to convince my colleagues to broaden their horizons and have it at an African restaurant. Fell deeds await.

Well, well, well. What have we here?

UPDATE: Article in English added.

Seems the political winds might soon start blowing in favour of immigration.

In a speech given at the recent APEC meeting Hatoyama talked about Japan's low fertility and aging population; saying that Japan needs to work toward becoming a more desirable place for people from overseas to visit, live, and work.

Apparently he even used the word "immigrants". That being said, he seemed to shy away from calling his stance the basis of immigration policy, reflecting his position of giving primacy to child allowances and broader access to education in order to improve fertility rates.

LINK (if you read Japanese) LINK (In English)

I think this may be encouraging in two respects. Firstly if my understanding is correct, according to the article Hatoyama acknowledged that family oriented policies are not the only answer to demographic trends.

Secondly, The ability of child allowances required to raise the fertility rate in any significant way have been called into question by a number of studies (see page 13 of THIS paper. The whole thing is worth a read, though). The Hatoyama administration are going to have to seek other approaches. This presents a possible entry point for the organisation.

phase shift

One thing that's tickled me pink is my invisibility to most of the people that come to the office. They just don't see me. What I hadn't realised was that they don't see me because I don't actually exist. At least not in the Japanese dimension

I've realised is that I'm phasing in and out of this dimension. No amount of metatron is involved in this feat, dear readers. Not even a thimbleful.

I can do it with two words "Hai, dozo". In one instance, a guest was thunderstruck by my sudden materialisation in his proximity. Upon hearing the high-pitched voice of the OL bidding him welcome, the mysterious apparition - my body - must have shifted back out of the Japanese dimension. His expression of relief that it had all just been a hallucination was quite endearing. Perhaps he decided from then on to stop sneaking a jar or two of ale at lunch-time.

"Mistakes were made" pt.2

The chief and I talked it out this morning. We're cool.

Though it turns out that the office lady also remembers the chief pretty much putting me in charge of sorting out the org's site. Guess he forgot. I don't automatically impute differing accounts of events to dishonesty, so I'll leave it at that, and get over my hurt feelings.

I'm happy that I could at least generate some discussion about what purpose the site is to serve and what needs to be done to make it congruent with organisational strategy. What still leaves me feeling some kind of way however is the niggling suspicion that nothing will happen with the site. Nothing was actually decided at the meeting. Moreover since it is only the office lady who will have to deal with the site's functionality issues, and the directors all do their own thing, they have little reason to feel an overhaul is a priority.

"Mistakes were made"

Presented at the board meeting yesterday, could not have gone worse. I had the impression that I'd been put in charge of sorting out the org's website, which is pretty but has awful functionality, and is not very efficient. I brought in my man young city extraordinaire to probe their requirements for a new site under the premise that he'd be doing me a favour, and that it was just the directors that needed to buy the pitch (which they seemed to).

The chief put the lockdown on me hard.

I was upset, still am actually, but I realise that it's likely I completely misunderstood the result of the previous discussions I'd had with the chief on the subject.

I called in later to apologise to the chief. There will be much low bowing when I come in on Monday as well. Heckuva job, Rubi!

Working my way back to you

I've been a little light on the work related posts lately, as I've been very busy trying to knock out a working draft of my final report -and that's just the English version. The chief is also looking to publish some of my work before I complete my assignment, so the pressure is on to dot the "I"s and cross the "T"s on my manuscript. Getting this all done within the next three weeks will be no mean feat. I will also be presenting at the next board meeting which will be held on Friday, after I have a meeting with the Secretary-general of one of the big Japanese human/minority rights NGOs.

Anyway, I thought I'd fill you in on a little of what I've been up to. I've hashed out a general idea of the organisational theory of change. Now, the process of a theory of change based evaluation basically involves conducting a context analysis, constructing organisation theories of change, identifying assumptions and testing validity by seeing how well it fits the context.

Tracking down information to test the theory of change has been quite a challenge so far. It's been good work for the noggin though. The basic theory of the organisation seems to be that a transformative change in the opinions and attitudes of a critical mass of the Japanese population will lead to a transformative change in the immigration policy framework. More specifically a change in key individuals in the media (mainly national newspapers) who act as gatekeepers to the dissemination of information can be leveraged (in addition to direct lobbying, or nemawashi as the chief prefers to call it) to change the attitudes and opinions of elites, policymakers, and the population at large. Pressure from elites and members of the public, will lead to transformation on the socio-political level, which in turn will lead to synthesis of new policy framework.

I test the theory basically by asking myself, what needs to be true for B to come as a result of A. For example that articles in national newspapers will lead to a change in thinking about immigration. One of the main assumptions would have to be that newspapers are considered a credible source of information in Japan. Another would be that information and opinion in newspapers have influence.

There is some evidence to support those notions. The mass media remains a powerful institution in the Japanese context. Numerous researchers (Russell 1991, Murphy-Shigematsu 1993; Yamashita 1996; Tsuda 2003; Shipper 2005, Hyung Gu 2006; Maeshima 2009) present information that points to the influence of the mass media over Japanese public opinion.

According to a 2005 survey carried by the Japanese public broadcaster NHK 93% of the population watches television at least once a day, (a 2007 poll by the Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association (NSK) puts the figure at 91.3%) while the nation on average watches 3 hours and 43 minutes of television every day. Japanese newspapers have an extraordinarily high diffusion rate, with a per capita circulation of at least 528 newspapers per 1000 people according to the latest data from the NSK. Information from the same organisation provided good evidence that a solid majority of Japanese (60.7%) see newspapers as having influence over society. Though only 36.8% think they can trust the information provided by this medium, newspapers are the single most trusted form of media after NHK which 38.5% of respondents saw as providing trustworthy information.

End game

My assignment will soon be over. I'll leave Japan in about 4 weeks. I've mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I'm excited about seeing my friends and loved ones again, however I feel as though I'll be leaving just as I'm really beginning to get into my groove. I've been made to feel like a valuable part of the organisation, and my work has been enjoyable. The prospect of staying on to discuss and oversee any implementation of the recommendations I'll submit in my report is quite exciting. I think I'd jump at the chance to take on that sort of responsibility. Again though, I've mixed feelings about living in Japan long-term. Despite the fact I consider it -or perhaps more accurately parts of it- to be one of my homes.

Coexistence and Complexity

I ought to be writing a paper, but right now I'm much too depressed and demotivated to even look at my draft.

I think that because I initially set out to write out my thoughts on my experiences here for close friends and classmates that I did not realise that there are some people who may actually look to be informed, and want to be able to read what I post here and be confident that I actually know what I'm talking about. For the same reason, I believe I have been writing with the assumption that the terms I am using would be easily understood by anyone reading this blog.

In being a champion for coexistence, what I hope to be doing in my role at the organisation is pull my colleagues to a place where they can view the context in which they work, and on which they work from a coexistence perspective.

A coexistence perspective is to me one that queries to what extent ideas, initiatives, policies and contexts embrace diversity for its positive potential, pursue equality, recognise interdependence between different groups, and eschew the use of weapons to address conflict. It examines if  there is, as Oxfam GB put it, recognition of all people's status and rights as human beings, and a just and inclusive vision for each community’s future.

It is my perception that in order to design initiatives and policies for coexistence,  that is to say a society with positive relationships across social differences, practitioners must endeavour to practice the values they seek to encourage. Practioners I think have to be prepared to "jump out of their skins", and attempt to assist others to make that leap. I think very basically that that leap is empathy, but it's very hard to empathise when you are firmly part of a context that does not readily facilitate it.

A societies "others" are not synonymous with the normative. As such their representation, over which they have little control, is generally unbalanced and dehumanising. What I mean by that is the complexity, diversity, and value of their lives -the same complexity, diversity, and value we give to "our" own-  is often poorly conveyed, if at all. I think Chimamanda Adichie expresses the concept beautifully in this speech

(I have a ridiculous girl-crush on Adichie... and Rachel Maddow.)

I attempt to get my co-workers to combat the privilege they have in facing little if any penalty for being satisfied with a single story about the groups whose interests they ostensibly represent. At the same time, it behooves me to make sure that I don't fall into the same trap. It's hard, but hopefully you guys can help keep me honest.

Championing coexistence

Had an interesting convo with my colleagues the other day that made me think about the importance of having minority groups represented in institutions and organisations, especially those tasked with addressing issues pertinent to minority groups.

The conversation was about the protest raised over a McDonalds commerical being run in Japan. The commercial uses a goofy, bespectacled white fellow called Mr. James as a mascot for a promotional campaign. The imagery is problematic because it plays into all sorts of stereotypes about Japanophile white men, and non-Japanese residents in general. Dovetailing with historical presentations of non-Japanese as weird, perpetual outsiders, with broken Japanese.

You can read an article by the leader of the protest, Arudou Debito HERE

Personally, I think that it's a little more complex than Prof. Arudou makes out. I agree with the professor that the use of broken Japanese (which has since been remedied, kinda), and the representation of this character serve to perpetuate offensive stereotypes and behaviour towards non-Japanese. Where I kinda part ways with his argument is where he asks whether the stereotyped have a chance to reply and balance views. Debito argues no, and I would agree with him in the general sense. In general non-Japanese are not given a voice in the media, and are not presented in a balanced, humanising way. However I have to say that there is a lot more balance when it comes to caucasians. I would argue that most images of whites in Japan, are presentations of a people and culture that it is desirable to emulate. Anyone exposed to the Japanese media, will see representations of white politicians, scientists, sportsmen, musicians, models. The same can't really be said of non-whites. Then again it could be argued that the positive imagery only applies to caucasians who are not known to be living in Japan. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to tackle this with Prof. Arudou soon.

One of my colleagues' response was to say that they just couldn't understand what the problem was about. "It was just like that time when the `Little Black Sambo` book came out, black people said it was racist, how was it racist? Little Black Sambo is cute."

My response to my colleague was that Little Black Sambo means something completely different to black people. The images in that book have been used to denigrate and dehumanise black people, and are part of a history of oppression. That the key is to hear out the people who are upset or offended, let them know that their voice is valued, and try to learn about their history and their views of history. Ultimately it makes your society stronger.

Consider yourself part of the furniture

Been busy with applications for research funding and graduation, calling up researchers and journalists, and reading literature on getting ideas to policymakers effectively. Still feel as though I've achieved very little.

I think that I'm quite settled into the organisation. I'm sharing jokes, I'm teaching the office lady to sing, I feel a camaradie with her against "the man", exchanging knowing looks with her in when "the men are talking". I listen to her, and sympathise with her grievances. I share my own freely. I feel trusted and wanted. I walk with the chief to the station almost everyday on my way home. I'm feeling more and more like a valued addition to the organisation, to the extent that it feels kind of weird writing down things that are said as part of my evaluation.

Done! Done! On to the next one!

Finally finished with my translation of the policy essays. Currently getting it mailed out to some of the chief's contacts in the press and academia. I'm wondering how to get it into the hands of people with some real clout in the Japanese context.

Come, I evolve

I'm thinking that perhaps I'm beginning to be perceived as having specialist knowledge of utility to the organisation. First, the chief solicited my criticism of his ideas concerning the development of a Japanese ethnic identity. Second, I've been granted the authority to make whatever changes I deem necessary to the manuscript of my translation of his policy papers. Needless to say, that's a lot of trust he's placed in me. I won't feel right unless I run the modifications by him for his approval. On the other hand I think it puts me in a position to point out some things that the chief, and directors just may not see.

For example the chief has a real antipathy to one group that advocates for Zainichi Koreans. "They called me an assimiliationist, and a colonialist!", he said. Basically my understanding of the chief's position is that Zainichi should sever their self-concept from the Korean penninsula, and become Korean-Japanese i.e. naturalise.

I pointed out, or rather tried to point out that if you use the word "extinction" to describe how intermarriage (and naturalisation) will "solve" the "Zainichi issue" it could reasonably be seen as problematic. The first is that by framing the problem as a Zainichi issue, and not one of a history of Japanese exclusion and oppression, you may give the message that the social problems are due to to the existence of these people in Japanese society and perhaps implicity that these problems are their responsibility to fix. As opposed to the idea that the Japanese majority has arranged their trouble for them, and therefore the Japanese majority must move to solve the issue. It's kinda like saying, "well if you stopped being/acting gay, people would stop persecuting you", when the onus should be on changing the behaviour of the people doing the persecuting.

Second, the message that these problems will go away once there are no longer any Zainichi again could be seen as framing the issue as being the responsibility of the disadvantaged group, and send the message that once they no longer exist the problem will be solved.

As such it is understandable that such a group would use the words "assimilationist" and "colonialist" in their criticism. As the chief's message could appear bereft of a nuanced understanding of the resistance to naturalisation, and as merely a continuation of the history of Japanese colonial, and post war policies towards its (former) imperial subjects, albeit wrapped up in somewhat more pluralist language.

Another example is that newspaper article from the Nikkei Shimbun. No one in the office batted an eye at the journalist accepting the education minister's rationale for keeping the current nursing exams Indonesian nationals at face value, or the "we Japanese"-centered subtext. I've only had a rant about the article to you lot (my dear readers), and the office lady. The chief was so excited about the support of the Nikkei, I didn't want to rain on his parade. I think however that I'll have to recommend not just looking at the levels of the use of "immigrant" as opposed to "foreign worker" in the media, or stories that support the organisation's position, but also at how immigrants are being framed. The increased use of the word "immigrant" doesn't mean much if every story mentions crime, or concern trolls. Working the media means being media-savvy. I'm about to take a look at all my GLAAD literature to mull over some ideas.

Research group

The chief gave a talk at a meeting held yesterday by a research group on immigration. I toddled along with the chief, and a board member. The Secretary General of one big Japanese union was in attendance, who if I heard correctly, has the ear of at least one minister. People in attendance were largely in agreement with the changes the chief proposed. However my perception is that few of them are real movers and shakers. Conspicuous lack of representatives from the government, and from the communities that any change in policy would affect.

The board member who came along strikes me as a man who keeps abreast to happenings in Japanese politics. He was aware of the new controls over the policymaking process(outlined here) the DPJ is bringing in, which I was thinking of alerting them to, that may require a rethink of lobbying strategy. I also caught a glimpse of part of at least one of his theories of change when he discussed the need to first engage in "agenda setting" through the media to build awareness, and the pressure on lawmakers to respond. I'm looking forward to reading his answers to the questionnaire I sent him.

The boss keeps calling me Obama, before correcting himself and saying my actual surname. I suppose I could kinda take it as a compliment, if Obama wasn't the worst presn't EVAR in the whole history of the United States!!eleventy-one!

よほどを知れ

There's been a little something that I've found a little perplexing about the writings I've been working with thus far. Basically I've been a little concerned about the dearth of citations and sourced statistics. This is something quite alien to me, and a little disconcerting in light of the work I had to put in with regards to citations in order to get myself published.

My good mate, who lives here in Tokyo, made a very interesting observation about my impressions. He argued that it's merely indicative of the fact that Japan is a high context culture. The fact that my boss is who he is, a man with a long history in the bureaucratic officialdom, gives him a level of credibility that makes citations unecessary.  His message is viewed in its context. Who is giving the message? What organisation does this person represent? What is this person's academic credentials? He also said that a lot of business and academic practices, coming from this cultural background, fall short of international standards.

I've been mulling this over a bit, first I wonder if this is in fact an accurate analysis of the cause of my observations. Second I've thinking a little bit about what I can bring to the organisation. As far as I know, my name will on the work I've produced. As I need the exposure to make this internship a beneficial investment, it is certainly not in my interests to put something out there that isn't ready for prime-time. More imporantly though, and what I think I'll have to argue is that it isn't in my boss' best interests either. I believe that I am correct in my belief that without sources, the English version of the chief's book I've written will be viewed with some interest, but that it will lack the gravitas that the chief will need if he hopes to influence the appropriate movers and shakers in the English-speaking world.

This has also made me think again about my role in the organisation. Am I wearing my evaluator hat when I make this observation? I just being myself, an enthusiastic employee? It's probably a mix of factors (complicates the idea of being a detached non-participant evaluator). Considering my context (young, less experience, non-Japanese) would my arguments be taken seriously? Can I even be seen as a qualified advisor and evaluator here?