Concerning the "losing face"-issue
I would be very grateful indeed if German politicians (and I suppose that applies to most of the Western politicians, too) would make greater efforts to give each other a bit more "face". The way in which they – especially before elections – use to call each other names and to blemish each others characters is, IMO, highly disgusting. I would really prefer them to just clearly state the points in which they disagree concerning the ways in which the country should be run but still show SOME manners in doing that. How can you explain to your kids why they should not call each other "stupid" if the men and women leading the country are setting them such a bad example? So, I really see that there is definitely a great value in caring about how the other feels and in being concerned in your interaction with others to not put them to shame. Sure, being a Western woman, I certainly would draw the line between politeness and clarity somewhere else than most North East Asian people would but, generally, I see and appreciate the value of giving each other "face", and I also respect the fact that others draw the line somewhere else.
So, I am fully aware that Naruhito has broken one of the most important rules and has violated one of the most essential values of his culture – and that he knew in advance that he would have to pay a high price for that. But that is exactly why I admire him because I think that sometimes an individual has to deal with an extreme situation where he/she has to serve his/her country and nation by seemingly betraying his/her country and nation.
I think I have already expressed this view in another thread but I want to explain here more fully what I mean: The highest duty in Prussia (whose traditions were valid for Germany at least until 1945) was obedience – not only because obedience is a value that is generally held in higher esteem in monarchies than in republics – but in a very specific Prussian way that to other nations may seem exaggerated. For example, we have a very famous play about a Prussian prince who by disobeying his superior´s order wins a battle. His uncle - who reigns the country - afterwards sentences the prince to d.eath for his disobedience, without minding at all the fact that the superior´s decision had obviously been wrong. The content of the play is basically about how the prince comes to understand that this sentence is just. (He is granted mercy in the end but only because he understands that he has not deserved it.) (For those who want to know: Heinrich von Kleist: "Prinz Friedrich von Homburg")
The winning of a battle is nothing – obedience to your superior and doing your duty is all – and that is Prussia. (It may sound inhuman and cruel - and it certainly often was - but it did have some good effects: for example, it was next to impossible to bribe a Prussian public executive although they were poorly paid – whereas at the same time in France (before the French Revolution) it was quite clear that in order to get anything you had theoretically a right to from a public executive you had to pay them first – you would probably not even have called that bribing because everybody had to do it anyway.)
And the spirit of Prussia was still very livid among military people during the Second World War. So, when some of them decided to try and kill H.itler and were looking for allies among their fellow officers they got several times the answer – from courageous, honest people: "I understand why you want to do this, and I will certainly not tell anybody what you have asked of me. I am completely aware that this guy is a criminal and nothing more. But I have sworn an oath to obey him, he is our country´s supreme leader and we are in a desperate war against half the world – I cannot disobey his orders, because I would feel like a traitor then." Obedience, loyalty to the head of the state, duty were the highest values of the Prussian tradition. They simply felt that they could not break them.
Fortunately, there were several brave men who did overcome these doubts in spite of all the loyalty to tradition in which they had been raised and who understood that it can be more important for a true patriot to stop your country from committing unimaginable crimes than to protect it at any cost from losing a war.
And as you maybe know (if not, there is a movie upcoming featuring Tom Cruise
- well, I do doubt that ALL details will be correct but basically this is a true story), they tried to kill H.itler in July 1944. And although they were not successful and although afterwards hundreds of people who had been secretly working against the regime were put to trial, t.ortured and executed in consequence, they had, at least, succeeded to show the world that not all Germans supported H.itler. Fortunately for Germany and fortunately for me and for all who were born after the war there were these few men and women (only hundreds or maybe thousands - among millions) who preserved for us a chance to say: "I am German" without dying on the spot for shame.
And still, they were not appreciated by the majority of the German population - for a long time. Some of their children were called by their schoolfellows "traitor´s children" – even after the war. Most people at the time still thought that Stauffenberg and his friends were dishonorable traitors who had betrayed their country in a time of emergency.
And this is why Naruhito´s way of acting touches me so. He knew that he would be criticized for what he was doing. But I think that his was an extreme case in which obeying to the rules would – as I think he sees it – not only have caused great damage to himself and his family but to HIS COUNTRY ITSELF. Not only because it was in danger of losing a future empress in whose high potential the crown prince has never ceased to believe but, I think, also out of principle. There has to be a moderation in everything and a boundary to everything: I mean, if nobody talks about the elephant in the room that IS certainly uncomfortable - but also bit funny. For example, if a Japanese reporter is getting uneasy with a British correspondent saying that the British people are quite fine with having a woman as their sovereign and are a bit at a loss to understand why the Japanese shrink from this thought with so much horror (see the link in my post from the 21st), I might think that silly and may think that it does not make much sense because probably most Japanese are already aware, anyway, that the British people have a queen and do not seem to mind it, but I still can accept it as this is not immediately dangerous to anybody´s welfare. But when a person´s life is at stake? If people do not want to admit that someone is dangerously ill and therefore withhold a medical treatment that could save a life? Or to go back to metaphors: What if the animal whose existence nobody in the room dares to mention is not an elephant but a rattle snake? What, if the room is a school class? What if it is not only one rattle snake but one hundred? What if the room is a nursery? Where do you draw the line?
If keeping face is the highest value of a society, fine. But there should be also "emergency exits" out of this general "keeping face" for worst case scenarios, and there have to be people who set up the example and show these emergency exits for everybody to use.
And Naruhito is by no means the first one in his family to show such an emergency exit to the nation. His grandfather did the same when he admitted that the war was lost and asked the Japanese to stop fighting and save their lives. He could have "kept his face" by dying in the fight, undefeated - and taking millions of Japanese with him. (By the way: that is what H.itler did – when his own precious self was doomed to die he wanted, at least, to take with him as many Germans as possible. He ordered to destroy everything necessary for the survival of the German people, provisions, houses, harvest, cattle etc. Fortunately, just for this once many people – but by far not all! – disobeyed his orders.) But the Japanese tenno, in his turn, decided that the lives of his people were more important than his "face". He did not want to sacrifice so many human lives and preferred to "lose his face" instead. And he set the example for the Japanese to also rather give up a bit of their "face" in order to survive. Who knows how many would have committed s.uicide without his brave decision. That IS a true leader!
