Awareness Context and Social Recognition: Reconsidering a Case Study of “Dialogue” between Different Ethnic Persons in Japan

Ken’ichi Yamaguchi

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.19.3.04

Authors

Ken’ichi Yamaguchi Fukuyama City University, Japan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4348-3853

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.19.3.04

Keywords:

Awareness Context, Social Recognition, Consensus, Symbolic Interactionism, Grounded Theory, Critical Theory, Social Justice Inquiry, Zainichi Korean, Conflicts between Traditional Cultural Community and Modern Society

Abstract

This study incorporates Honneth’s social recognition into awareness context theory by reconsidering a case study of the dialogue between Zainichi Korean and Japanese people in Japan. It revitalizes the theoretical significance of Strauss’ symbolic interactionism in terms of its focus on power dynamics and conflicts between the majority and minorities that differ in the cultural or ethnic background in modern global society. Incorporating critical theory into symbolic interactionism is a method of enhancing its contemporary significance. However, the discrepancy between them remains unresolved. There are some previous studies on Zainichi Koreans’ dialogue and the public sphere. Still, this case uniquely fits the aim of this study. As a result, it proposes both a substantive theory as a social justice inquiry in Japanese society and a modified formal theory of awareness context by adopting the theoretical perspective coined in this study and using abductive reasoning in the reconsideration. The substantive theory proposes a joint action characterized by unending mutual recognition and pragmatist dissent as a pragmatist public sphere between different ethnic persons in Japan. It is a method of grassroots communication that realizes liberal democracy as the form of modern society in Japan, liberating people from the Japanese communitarian mindset of Wa. The formal theory proposes new awareness contexts focusing on information and social recognition, which applies to the majority-minority relationship that differs in cultural or ethnic backgrounds from a theoretical perspective by focusing on conflicts between traditional cultural communities and modern society. Additionally, as an implication of this study, a pluralistic character of symbolic interactionism united by common frameworks of formal theories is proposed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Ken’ichi Yamaguchi, Fukuyama City University, Japan

Ken’ichi Yamaguchi is an associate professor at Fukuyama City University, Japan. He is a symbolic interactionist who studies A. L. Strauss’ interactionism and grounded theory. His research areas are intercultural or interethnic communication, multicultural conviviality in Japan, and social justice inquiry in everyday life. Recently, he focused on inquiring about the incorporation of critical communication theory into symbolic interactionism, the applicability of symbolic interactionism to non-western society, and the development of grounded theory methodology for a case study.

References

Athens, Lonnie. 2017. “The ‘Struggle for Recognition’ (or ‘Status’) as the Basis for Internecine Conflict in Diverse Modern Societies?” Symbolic Interaction 40(4):581-583. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.310

Blumer, Herbert. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bohman, James. 1999. “Theories, Practices, and Pluralism: A Pragmatic Interpretation of Critical Social Science.” Philosophy of the Social Science 29(4):459-480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319902900401

Brown, Richard H. 2007. “Alternative Modernities: A Cultural Genealogy of Japan’s Modernization.” Asian Journal of Social Science 35:488-510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853107X240314

Chapman, David. 2008. Zainichi Korean Identity and Ethnicity. London, New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203944813

Charmaz, Kathy. 2005. “Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Application for Advancing Social Justice Studies.” Pp. 507-536 in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Third Edition, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2008. “The Legacy of Anselm Strauss in Constructivist Grounded Theory.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 32:127-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32010-9

Charmaz, Kathy. 2017. “The Power of Constructivist Grounded Theory for Critical Inquiry.” Qualitative Inquiry 23(1):34-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105

Charmaz, Kathy, Robert Thornberg, and Elaine Keane. 2018. “Evolving Grounded Theory and Social Justice Inquiry.” Pp. 411-443 in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Fifth Edition, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Corbin, Juliet M. and Anselm L. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153

Denzin, Norman K. 2007. “Grounded Theory and the Politics of Interpretation.” Pp. 454-471 in The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n21

Eramian, Laura and Peter Mallory. 2022. “Inequality, Rules of Irrelevance, and Recognition in Broken Friendships.” Symbolic Interaction 45(3):403-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.589

Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.

Fukuoka, Yasunori. 2000. Lives of Young Koreans in Japan. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Gibson, Barry. 2007. “Accommodating Critical Theory.” Pp. 436-453 in The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, edited by A. Bryant and K. Charmaz. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n20

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1964. “Awareness Context and Social Interaction.” American Sociological Review 29(5):669-679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2091417

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1965. Awareness of Dying. New York: Aldine.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gathering. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1986. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hall, Peter M. 1997. “Meta-Power, Social Organization, and the Shaping of Social Action.” Symbolic Interaction 20(4):397-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1997.20.4.397

Hellström, Ingrid, Mike Nolan, and Ulla Lundh. 2005. “Awareness Context Theory and the Dynamics of Dementia: Improving Understanding Using Emergent Fit.” Dementia 4(2):269-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301205051096

Honneth, Axel. 2002. “Grounding Recognition: A Rejoinder to Critical Questions.” Inquiry 45(4):499-519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/002017402320947577

Honneth, Axel. 2005. The Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Honneth, Axel. 2012. Reification: A New Look at an Old Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.

Honneth, Axel. 2014. “Preface to the Japanese Version.” Pp. vii-viii in The Straggle for Recognition, translated by H. Yamamoto and K. Naoe. Japan: Hosei University Press.

Inoue, Tatsuo. 1986. The Manner for Conviviality. Japan: Sobunsya.

Jacobsen, Michael H., ed. 2019a. Critical and Cultural Interactionism. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315141640

Jacobsen, Michael H. 2019b. “Introduction: The Coming of Critical and Cultural Interactionisms.” Pp. 1-11 in Critical and Cultural Interactionism, edited by M. H. Jacobsen. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315141640-1

Joas, Hans. 2000. The Genesis of Values. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kim, Taeyoung. 2021. Zainichi Koreans and Mental Health. London, New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003177050

Kim-Wachutka, Jackie J. 2020. Zainichi Korean Women in Japan. London, New York: Routledge.

Komiya, Nobuo. 1999. “A Cultural Study of the Low Crime Rate in Japan.” British Journal of Criminology 39(3):369-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/39.3.369

Langman, Lauren. 2019. “Symbolic Interactionism and the Frankfurt School: A Critical Appraisal.” Pp. 164-188 in Critical and Cultural Interactionism, edited by M. H. Jacobsen. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315141640-10

Lee, Hongjang. 2016. Ethnic Experiences of Zainichi Korean. Japan: Seikatsu Shoin.

Lee, Misook. 2018. The Age of the Japan-Korea Solidarity Movement. Japan: University of Tokyo Press.

Lie, John. 2008. Zainichi (Koreans in Japan). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Maines, David R. 1982. “In Search of Mesostructure: Studies in the Negotiated Order.” Urban Life 11(3):267-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089124168201100301

Mamo, Laura. 1999. “Death and Dying: Confluence of Emotion and Awareness.” Sociology of Health & Illness 21(1):13-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00140

Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. 2007. Exodus to North Korea. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Muedeking, George D. 1992. “Authentic/Inauthentic Identities in the Prison Visiting Room.” Symbolic Interaction 15(2):227-236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1992.15.2.227

Ragin, Charles C. and Howard S. Becker, eds. 1992. What Is a Case? New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rawls, Anne W. 2000. “‘Race’ as an Interaction Order Phenomenon: W.E.B. Du Bois’s ‘Double Consciousness’ Thesis Revisited.” Sociological Theory 18(2):241-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00097

Ropers, Eric. 2020. Voices of the Korean Minority in Postwar Japan. London, New York: Routledge.

Ryang, Sonia, ed. 2005. Koreans in Japan. London, New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29904-4_99

Ryang, Sonia and John Lie, eds. 2009. Diaspora without Homeland. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520098633.001.0001

Scheff, Thomas J. 1967. “Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus.” American Sociological Review 32(1):32-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2091716

Scheff, Thomas J. 1970. “On the Concepts of Identity and Social Relationship.” Pp. 193-207 in Human Nature and Collective Behavior, edited by T. Shibutani. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003420446-17

Scheff, Thomas J. 2005a. “Looking-Glass Self: Goffman as Symbolic Interactionist.” Symbolic Interaction 28(2):147-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2005.28.2.147

Scheff, Thomas J. 2005b. “The Structure of Context: Deciphering Frame Analysis.” Sociological Theory 23(4):368-385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2005.00259.x

Schwandt, Thomas A. 2007. The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. Third Edition. Los Angeles: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986281

Schwandt, Thomas A. and Emily F. Gates. 2018. “Case Study Methodology.” Pp. 341-358 in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seo, Akwi. 2012. Creating a Subaltern Counter Public. Japan: Ochanomizu Shobo.

Shalin, Dmitri N. 1992a. “Introduction: Habermas, Pragmatism, Interactionism.” Symbolic Interaction 15(3):251-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1992.15.3.251

Shalin, Dmitri N. 1992b. “Critical Theory and the Pragmatist Challenge.” American Journal of Sociology 98(2):237-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/230008

Strauss, Anselm L. 1982. “Social Worlds and Legitimation Processes.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 4:171-190.

Strauss, Anselm L. 1993. Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Strauss, Anselm L. 1995. “Identity, Biography, History, and Symbolic Representations.” Social Psychology Quarterly 58(1):4-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2787139

Strauss, Anselm L. 1997. Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity. New Jersey: Transaction.

Timmermans, Stefan. 1994. “Dying of Awareness: The Theory of Awareness Contexts Revisited.” Sociology of Health & Illness 16(3):322-339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11348751

Tonomura, Masaru. 2004. Historical Study of Zainichi Korean Society. Japan: Ryokuin Syobo.

Wolfe, Joel D. 2002. “Power: A Pragmatist Proposal.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 25:305-326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(02)80054-0

Yamaguchi, Ken’ichi. 2008. “Toward an Empirical Study of ‘the Manner for Conviviality’: A Consideration of ‘Dialogue’ in the Social World of Param-Sendai.” Shakaigaku Kenkyu 83:133-155.

Yamaguchi, Ken’ichi. 2011. “Toward Communication Open to Various Opinions: A Case Study on the Communication Mode between Zainichi Koreans and Japanese.” Pp. 291-312 in Essays in Commemoration of the Inauguration of Fukuyama City University: Designing a City, edited by the executive committee of “Essays in Commemoration of the Inauguration of Fukuyama City University.” Japan: Kojima Shoten.

Yamaguchi, Ken’ichi. 2012. “The Gaps and ‘Dialogue’: A Case Study on the Communication Structure between Zainichi Koreans and Japanese in Contemporary Japanese Society.” Toshi Keiei 1:63-80.

Yamaguchi, Ken’ichi. 2013. “Forming an ‘Intimate Public Sphere’ between Zainichi Koreans and Japanese: How Did Pram-Sendai realize ‘Dialogue.’” Pp. 25-50 in Korean Diaspora and East Asian Societies, edited by M. Matsuda and K. Jung. Japan: Kyoto University Press.

Yamaguchi, Ken’ichi. 2018. “‘Dialogue’ Confronting ‘Gaps’: A Convivial Ethic in the Impossibility of Mutual Understandings between Zainichi Koreans and Japanese.” Ritsumeikan Seizongaku Kenkyu 1:33-43.