Ethnographic Studies in Subjectivity. Oakland: University of California Press, 2021. xiii, 270 pp. (B&W photos.) US$34.95, paper. ISBN 9780520383494.
It is necessary and helpful to distinguish between descriptive analyses and normative proposals when we discuss social problems like poverty, depopulation, and so on. For example, it is one thing to confirm that a part of Japan has a declining population, but it is another thing to claim that the Japanese government should prevent depopulation. If the area is close to a coast which could suffer from a tsunami, the depopulation might be seen as desirable. Thus, there could be many different normative claims regarding one descriptive fact.
Nobody can contest the fact that loneliness and suicide are central to Japan’s social problems. Chikako Ozawa-de Silva’s book, The Anatomy of Loneliness, discusses those crucial problems by focusing specifically on Japan’s situation before and after the big earthquake of March 11, 2011. More than 15,000 people were killed directly by the earthquakes and the subsequent giant tsunami. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station was severely damaged by the tsunami, resulting in the emission of radioactive materials into the air. Many people were evacuated and forced to live in shelters or other parts of Japan. More than ten years later, people who were evacuated are more prone to suffer from loneliness or various types of illnesses as a result of their uncomfortable post-evacuation lives and additionally, some have chosen to commit suicide. The number of earthquake-related deaths among Fukushima residents, including suicides, has risen to more than 2,300 (it could have been worse, but doses of radiation there were so low that nobody died of radiation injuries). In addition, since 2020 there has been the additional issue of the coronavirus pandemic. Even before the earthquake, Japanese society suffered greatly from the problem of lonely dying, typically afflicting men living alone.
Ozawa-de Silva treats this bewildering situation in Japan as deserving academic investigation from anthropological and psychological points of view. Her arguments are consistent and well organized. This book should be regarded as extremely valuable, as it is rare to come across an English-language contribution that offers a different viewpoint.
Ozawa-de Silva’s arguments are developed as descriptive analyses of Japan’s current problems, particularly focusing on the issue of loneliness. Her arguments first analyze the concept of subjectivity (and empathy). Clearly, the issues of suicide and lonely dying in contemporary Japan are closely related to the problem of loneliness. According to the author, loneliness, which is conceptually different from depression, is defined as “feelings of dissatisfaction that arise concerning relationships to others or the environment” (16). This feeling of dissatisfaction “is actually fundamentally connected to the nature of subjectivity itself” (19). Then, what is “subjectivity”?
What is quite insightful and unique in Ozawa-de Silva’s argument is her clear explanation that the notion of subjectivity has a “Janus-faced nature,” which is explained in terms of the contrast between “looking out” and “looking in.” Namely, our subjectivity intrinsically involves both aspects of our sharing the world with others (looking out) and experiencing ourselves as separate from others (looking in). “Both states are grounded in our biology and psychology. Yet together, these two aspects of our humanity result in an inherent tension and potential for loneliness” (26). This is the most essential point in The Anatomy of Loneliness. She continues, “On the one hand, we have a deep biological and evolutionary need to belong and to share a world, to have intimacy, trust, and safety. On the other, we have an increasing realization that we often do not belong, are not accepted as we are, and do not share a world. It is this tug of war that sets us up for loneliness” (26). As this shows, biological and environmental as well as psychological elements are emphasized in explaining loneliness.
Based on that basic framework, Ozawa-de Silva develops her arguments by skillfully taking a scalpel to Japanese traditional attitudes about suicide (chapter 2), social conditions about Japanese people’s employment, and an unusual idea of “permission to die” or “courage to die” (chapter 7). However, she does not conclude that loneliness should be entirely rejected. Rather, she says, “I believe loneliness has something to teach us” (212), and “[l]oneliness also has sources in our societies and our cultural norms and expectations” (213). She searches for a positive meaning for loneliness, and makes the astute remark that “[l]oneliness is mentionable and manageable” (218). She concludes that ”[i]t will take imagination to envision new ways of being and new ways of living together, ways that promote the well-being of all” (219). Here the author’s arguments finally reach some normative claims beyond descriptive analyses.
I conclude this review with two observations. First, it seems to me that one aspect of subjectivity, the looking in, individualistic aspect, should be finally subsumed in the “looking out” aspect. Namely, I argue that the concept of pure “individual” defined as being separated from others is just a fictional illusion. The reason is simple. We are connected with others biologically (via DNA), influence each other physically (breathing), and acquire a linguistic way of thinking through education provided by others. Additionally, our ordinary lives must be conducted with many materials (floor, cushion, spoon, etc.) supplied by others. The concept of “person” that implies social roles is therefore more appropriate than “individual.”
Second, even if we could confirm as a descriptive fact that loneliness induces suicide, it is not certain what kind of normative claim should be drawn from such a fact, as there are a myriad of ethical and metaphysical problems regarding how to assess the meaning of death. Death is not harmful according to an Epicurean view, and some people actually hope for euthanasia. Certainly, we should scrutinize more deeply how to understand the meaning of death from a metaphysical point of view to truly elucidate problems about loneliness and suicide.
Masaki Ichinose
Musashino University & University of Tokyo, Tokyo