The Individual in American and Japanese Media

In a previous post, Individualism, I had commented on a common theme running throughout American media: the individual who is unlike the rest of society, yet in the end overcomes ostracism by saving the day. Clichés like this may make for many isomorphic movies, but they seem to be revealing of a culture. For a contrasting cliché, I'd like to now turn to portrayals of the struggling individual in Japanese anime.

In the anime Rurouni Kenshin, the protagonist is a former assassin during the Meiji revolution who has vowed to live a life of peace, protecting the innocent and never killing anyone again. In the prologue movie, Samurai X: Trust and Betrayal, we see Kenshin learning swordsmanship and then leaving his master to help the cause of the rebels to overthrow the corrupt government. He is willing to do whatever is necessary to bring about a new age for the good of the people; when his actions end up killing one close to him, though, he realizes how he has misused the power within him, and his struggle from that point is to learn to use it rightly. His struggle is brought to a head in the second season, when he must confront a new threat to the Meiji regime without losing himself in his old ways of bloodshed, but with sufficient power to actually stop the antagonist.

Trigun has a similar theme; the hero, Vash, is a being with superhuman abilities who, despite his pacifism, seems to cause destruction wherever he goes. As the series moves along, he is drawn into a web of revenge in which the antagonist seeks to make him hurt those around him. Through these schemes, cities are destroyed and many die. Vash's struggle throughout is to control his power in a way which helps those around him, rather than harming them.

The series Fullmetal Alchemist similarly gives a example of a protagonist seeking to hone and control his abilities to help others. Ed, the titular alchemist, and his brother Al attempted to bring their mother back to life through alchemy. The result of this was that their mother did not come back, but instead Ed lost an arm and a leg, and Al was saved only by preserving his soul in a suit of armor. Ed feels guilty for what he has done, and seeks the philosopher's stone in order to undo the damage. Eventually, he finds out what the philosopher's stone really is and how it is made, and faces a moral crisis concerning its use. The theme all along, though, is Ed's goal to refine his strength for the sake of undoing the problems which he has caused.

Yet another example, for the sake of something different, comes from the series Hikaru no Go. Hikaru is a normal kid until he encounters a ghost in a go board. The ghost, a go player throughout two lifetimes, becomes attached to Hikaru and gets him into the game as well. Hikaru finds that he has talent at the game (further helped by his tutor's centuries of experience), and attracts the attention of a rising star in the Go world. Hikaru pursues the game in order to be counted as this opponent's rival. Hikaru, while standing out from others, is not struggling against society, but rather to develop his own strength. The theme of helping others is not as strong, but it does come up; the series does point out how the dedication of one person affects those around that person.

The examples could be multiplied without end. Generator Gawl features three students who seek to undo the scientific experiment which would lead to an apocalyptic future, a feat which requires the character Gawl to learn how to use his power rightly. The anti-hero Shinji in Neon Genesis Evangelion constantly fights with his position of responsibility as an Eva-pilot. Lain in Serial Experiments Lain has to figure out who, and what, exactly she is and deal with the consequences surrounding her creation. Ichigo in Bleach gains the powers of a death-god (shinigami) and seeks to grow stronger to confront the dangers which threaten those he cares about.

So, in all of these cases, there is a person who stands out from the crowd. However, their struggle is with their own strength and its use, even when they are outcasts. They seek to control their power, generally for the good of society and/or undoing their mistakes.

Compare this to many American shows: Rudolph already has a lit nose, Mumble in Happy Feet dances as soon as he is hatched from his egg, Rémy in Ratatouille cooks from the beginning of the film, Dumbo has big ears from birth, and Shrek is always an ogre. While there is character development (at least sometimes), the feature which makes the character stand out is inherent and not a power to be controlled; those around the person must learn to see the feature as useful, or at least tolerable.

I find it interesting that in an individualist society like America, the media has such a tendency to show the social issues which arise, where society is largely what has the problem. In a communal society like Japan, the focus is on the individual and the individual's own development to become fit for their role. Of course, all of this is written with broad generalities, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

Individualism

Currently reading:
Beginning Latin Poetry Reader
   by Gavin Betts & Daniel Franklin

I just finished watching Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and was struck by the continuity in the theme of the ugly duckling in American culture. From the time of Rudolph in the 60s, to Happy Feet and Ratatouille today, we have celebrated the misfit who overcomes the odds and saves the day. But why must we keep giving the message? There must be a market for it, or else it would have fallen out of use. However, we still need to remind people that those who march to the beat of a different drummer are not the devil incarnate. Even in a culture which celebrates individualism, we become a herd of "individualists," committed to being unique in the same way as everyone else.

In most cases, this struggle is portrayed as one in which the lonely individual is the hero, and society is simply morally deficient. And it is hard to disagree with this assessment. It is hard to disagree with Nietzsche in declaring most people to be part of the slave mentality, even apart from his association of this with Christianity. Kierkegaard's assessment of those who live at the aesthetic level, the level of living life beautifully in the moment without ever making any real decisions, is woefully accurate. Confucius struggled with finding any rulers, or even many people period, who would seek more than their own glory to work toward the betterment of the Chinese society. Socrates was condemned by the majority, and let us not forget the mob chanting "Crucify!" at the trial of Jesus. This is without even getting into the atrocities committed for racial reasons. It seems to be just plain wrong to go with the flow, in all times, in all places.

But surely this can't be the entire story. Even if we admit that people are sinful, there seems to be some instinct hard-wired into some people to be primarily a part of the community. Why would God create this desire for communal harmony in us if we were all called to deny it? Can everyone spend the time seeking the truth for oneself, without substantial help and simple trust in others?

Kant, in his Conflict of the Faculties, lays out the situation as follows: There were three higher subjects (faculties) in his day, Theology, Law, and Medicine. The doctors would never be able to get around to healing anyone if they had to always go back and reassess their medical knowledge. Similarly, the judges could never hand down a verdict in a case if they had to question the validity of every law which passed their way, and theology could never get underway if the theologians had to constantly turn back to prolegomena and the results of historical studies for Scripture. On the other hand, we need philosophers who question these results, who keep the conversations open. We should not close down the questions entirely, but concern with the theory keeps us from practical results. If we require everyone to go against the herd instinct, to go his or her own way, then society would collapse.

Which leaves us in the following dilemma: we need society in order to carry on our lives, and society needs firm structures in place in order to function. These structures, however, will marginalize and commit violence against some people in the society. Further, in practice the society often goes astray, leading to the necessity of individuals going against said society. New movements will begin, only to fall back into the same problems as the necessity arises for a societal order (cf. almost any religious movement which promises freedom from the old way of life), and committing the same sins.

So, in the end, we can either give standards which will burden those who do the work in society, or we can fall victim to institutional sin. We can be Pharisees or publicans, but how hard it is to walk as Jesus walked! Gentleness leads to inaction and strength to violence, and how difficult it is to traverse the middle path.