Change in Japanese national identity?

My initial problem with receiving this blog assignment was that I did not know much about Japanese national identity before the disaster. I have thus chosen to write about an article portraying an aspect of this change, rather than myself choose an article that I think is a symbol of change in national identity.

The article I have chosen is this one, and it is discussing whether one might expect to see a change in this national identity, with special focus on Japan as a peace-state, in the aftermath of the 3.11 disaster.

I find it very interesting how the article theorizes that several effects of the 3.11 disaster might lead to Japan taking a more militaristic turn in the near future. I find it especially interesting, due to the fact that my own thoughts and experiences with Japan so far has been that of an astonishment of how "undemocratic" a democratic country can be. What I mean by this is the fact that save the formal democratic systems of elections, parliamentarism etc., one really does not see any large degree of popular participation in this system. The lack of transparency, and the uncanny tendency of people to have an almost blind trust in how the political elite go about solving the countries day to day problems can really be considered undemocratic. Added to this, the homogeneity of the Japanese society also imposes a strict set of norms to the Japanese people, further imposing on democratic plurality.

In this particular case, the article therefore makes an extra strong argument in it's theorizing about militarization, as disasters of these calibers often provide a further excuse for governments to infringe upon democratic rights and freedom. One saw it in Japan in the 20s, and also in America after 9.11, so with previous statements from Japanese politicians regarding becoming more powerful in East Asia and also in the world, the future development of Japanese national identity will be interesting to follow.

Comment on norwegian news article

The article I have chosen to focus on in this blog assignment is an article that was posted in the Norwegian online newspaper "Aftenposten" (the evening post). It was first published the 12th of March, just one day after the disaster, and was written by the national Norwegian news bureau (NTB). The newspaper in focus is considered one of Norway's more serious newspapers, despite it's tabloid format.

The reason I chose this article is mainly because it is not one of the countless fear mongering worst case scenario news articles that emerged in the aftermath of this disaster, but rather an article that focuses on a rational view towards the whole incident, and warns about comparing the Fukushima nuclear disaster with Chernobyl.

The article is partly an interview with the Norwegian prime minister, and starts out with him comparing the initial scenes of the tsunami with the 2004 Christmas disaster of south east Asia. Further on he ensures the Norwegian contribution to humanitarian and rebuilding aid, and that they will assess the dangers of Norwegians currently residing in Japan. He then moves on to pointing out that there is no reason for panic, and warns against fear mongering and calling this disaster a "new Chernobyl".

As mentioned, this particular article does not correspond well to the general trend of news reports in the aftermath of the 3/11 disaster, in the way it takes a rational, calm and considered approach to the situation. In general Norwegian news in the aftermath of this disaster, fear mongering was running rampant, and you almost got the idea that Japan was about to sink into the sea at any point.

At the same time as the article is very rational, it is the representation of a subjective opinion, and not an analysis or discussion. It is written rather as a comment from an authoritative figure, and one might say it does not represent any general opinion or culture. In using the rationale of the required reading, on might even call it an action of calming down the population from the government, using the national newspapers as a means of communicating this message.

Volunteering

Before taking this class and especially before reading the required material the volunteer group assigned me, I had never given much thought to what the term volunteering actually implied. I have always associated volunteer working with going abroad, helping the less fortunate - but I realize now that the term is much broader than that.

As the assignment text also states, there is a line between volunteering and other sorts of work that one participates in without the idea of pay. I would perhaps draw this line and call volunteer work all work that is done on ones own volition (of course) and does not involve pay or other physical rewards. As I stated in the beginning, I used to consider volunteer working as work done towards people and situations one is not necessarily directly connected with, and I still hold that belief to some degree. Especially in the West, where the need for local volunteering is limited, it can be seen as a tendency to travel abroad and do volunteer working in places that one previously had no affiliation with.

As is the case after the 3.11 earthquake though, you clearly see people volunteer working within their own country, and I do not think the term volunteering holds that much of a different meaning in Japan than other places in the world, but the way Japan in a big degree is a homogeneous society may increase the willingness to help out a bit. One difference one might point out though is the way it is almost seen as a requirement for Japanese people with the capacity to help, to go and do volunteer work. I am not sure, but I believe that this notion would not be that strong if a disaster of the same magnitude happened in Europe.