COMA101 Final Paper
Japanese Mores in the Philippine Setting:
An analysis on how a Japanese man acclimatizes to the Philippine Culture
A 32- year old Japanese man named Masahiko Miyawaki visited my family last February 16, 2008 for a vacation. He stayed in our house for almost a month. My older brother used to be teaching English language to some Japanese. Mr. Miyawaki was one of his students and later on, they became good friends. Mr. Miyawaki was warmly accepted by our family. We ate together, talked about each other’s country and sometimes we also went out together.
During Mr. Miyawaki’s first week of stay at home, we somehow felt uncomfortable talking to him. I, myself, was somehow cautious of the words I was saying for I might offend him or I might say something that he does not use to hear. I just couldn’t help but consider the fact that we grew up in different society, with a very different culture and tradition from each other. However, we become more comfortable talking to each other later on.
It was Mr. Miyawaki’s longest stay in the country and what’s more is that he stayed at our house. He never stayed in a hotel for he wanted to totally experienced how is it being a Filipino.During his whole stay here, he had the chance to be exposed to a lot of people and to interact with them.
I’ve also noticed a lot of unusual actions from him. Like actions that are not usually done by Filipinos.
One instance was when I invited him to watch the Tatak UPMin celebration of the university last February 19, 2008. The event was held at the Matina town square. When we arrived at the venue, we didn’t directly join the crowd sitting in front of the stage. Mr. Miyawaki looked around for a moment before we looked for some seats. After a few minutes, some of my classmates arrived standing at the side of the hall. I took him with me to introduce him to my classmates. When I started to talk, I’ve noticed that he stayed not too close to them compared to my distance from them. He probably stayed about three feet away from my classmates. That made my classmates somehow felt awkward. By then, I remembered what also happened when we were lining up to the cashier at SM Supermarket. He also stayed quite far from the person before him in the line. I didn’t bother to ask him why anyway.
Those situations remind me of some of the theories I’ve encountered that could possibly help me explain everything that had happened in those situations.
The friendship that we have, had undergone several stages before we totally became good friends. The process can be explained by the Social Penetration Theory as introduced by psychology professors Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor. The theory states that closeness among people can only happen through a gradual process of self-disclosure (Griffin 119).
This psychological theory, as with many others, is applied in the context of interpersonal relationships such as communications. This theory makes predictions about relationship development based on levels of self disclosure. Based on a sort of cost-reward model, this theory argues that for a relationship to develop, both parties must self disclose. In judging this theory, it is able to make predictions depending on levels of self-disclosure. .
In our situation, I was the one who opened to him first. I started discussing about myself, what my hobbies are, my favorites, the things that I like and dislike and etc. Then later on he also told me some details about himself like what I did. This had taken us more than a week before we totally felt comfortable talking to one another. The more time we spend with each other, the more likely we are to self-disclose more intimate thought and details of our lives.
These situations are what exactly the social penetration theory suggests. It stresses that only through opening one’s self to the main route to social penetration- self disclosure- by becoming vulnerable to another person can a relationship develop. The social penetration theory affirms that as relationships develop, communication moves from relatively shallow, not intimate levels to deeper and more personal ones.
Another theory called the Uncertainty Reduction Theory also explains the developmental process of our friendship. The theory was proposed by Charles R. Berger. It predicts and explains relational development between people who does not know each other (Griffin 130). The focus of this theory is to reduce uncertainty by using human communication to gain knowledge about the other person, thus creating a more predictable and controlled relationship.
At first I really perceived him as a stranger since I really don’t know him that well yet. The scope of this theory is narrowed down to rest on the premise that strangers, upon meeting, go through certain steps and checkpoints in order to reduce uncertainty about each other and to form an idea of whether one likes or dislikes the other. Our interaction is viewed as going through several stages: The entry stage, the personal stage, and the exit stage.
When we started to asked each other questions such as where do you live? What are your hobbies? How do you find our country, and other “getting-to-know-you” questions. Right then, we were entering the entry stage. This stage of relational development is characterized by the use of behavioral norms. The contexts of the exchanges are often demographic and transactional.
By the times that we were talking about each others beliefs and culture and trying to probe each others attitude, these had been the cue that we were undergoing the personal stage of the process. Typically this stage is entered after the strangers have had several entry stage interactions. Both of us had probed each other the indications of one another’s values, morals, and even our personal issues in life. Emotional involvement in us tends to increase as disclosures are made.
The final stage of our relational development was the exit stage. After the two stages that we had undergone, we had been able to interrelate comfortably with each other, thus, made us continue to develop our friendship. That was then the exit stage wherein the people involve will decide if they still want to develop the relationship or not.
As days passed by, we had more chances to spend time with each other now that we’ve felt at ease when talking to one another. The scenario that happened during the Tatak UPmin celebration as well as what I’ve noticed when we were in the supermarket, I realized that he was so conscious preserving his personal space those times.
The term personal space has been used to describe an imaginary bubble extending out from our bodies, an area considered to be almost as private as the body itself (Jensen and Trenholm 58).
But as defined by a theorist from the University of Arizona named Judee Burgoon who developed expectancy violations theory stated that “Personal space is the invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines the individual’s preferred distance from others”.
An anthropologist named Edward T. Hall had presented some concepts that would explain these kinds of situation. Hall pioneered the study of interpersonal distances called proxemics. Proxemics has set four types of interpersonal spaces: Intimate distance, personal distance, social distance, and public distance.
When Mr. Miyawaki was talking to my classmates he properly maintained the interpersonal distance he must use. He stayed not too close from them perhaps because he did not want his personal space be entered. Hall stated that the personal distance serves as a protective bubble around us. It ranges out from eighteen inches to four feet that protects us from unwanted touches by other people ( DeVito 249).
This was what Mr. Miyawaki had done. He was trying to prevent himself from getting unwanted touches from the people around him whom he does not know. Nevertheless he could still touch them (shaking their hands) but only through extending their arms.
However what Mr. Miyawaki did surprised my classmates. Their reaction towards him is being justified by the Expectancy Violations Theory by Judee Burgoon. The theory explains what happens when we increase or decrease our distances from other people ( DeVito 251). Expectancies are primarily based upon social norms and specific characteristics of the communicators. The theory proposes that expectancy will influence the outcome of the communication as positive or negative and predicts that positive violations increase the attraction of the violator and negative violations decrease the attraction of the violator
My classmates really did not expect what Mr. Miyawaki had shown them. They just thought that he was just like some Filipinos, who becomes so excited meeting new people and does not really care about interpersonal spacing. Though Mr. Miyawaki had violated the expected actions or distance of my classmates, this had not given them a negative notion about him.
From the Expectancy Violation theory, there are also theories that would certainly support Mr. Miyawaki’s preservation of his personal space.
One of which is the Protection Theory. The theory states that a person establishes a body buffer zone around himself that serves as a boundary from unwanted touching and/or attack (DeVito 250).
Mr. Miyawaki became uneasy being with some of my classmates whom he does not know well and as a matter of fact he is not used to interact of a lot of people. Perhaps that’s what made him felt the need to maintain a specific distance that he’s comfortable with. Since most Filipinos, like my classmates for example, are not so sensitive when it comes to maintaining distances, nobody seemed to sensed Mr. Miyawaki’s adjustments those times. We, Filipinos do observe proper spacing but not always as what I can observe.
Another one is the equilibrium theory which I still under the vast field of interpersonal communication. Since it was Mr. Miyawaki’s first time to meet my classmates thus the level of relationship between them had not yet been establish well. The Equilibrium theory agrees on what Mr. Miyawaki had done. The theory states that intimacy and distance vary together: the greater the intimacy, the closer the distance; the lower the intimacy, the greater the distance (DeVito 251).
Masahiko had just met my classmates so certainly as what the equilibrium theory says, he must maintain a distance proportionate to their level of intimacy. Since they were my classmates, perhaps he also thought that they are good people for they are my friends. Thus he stayed not just too close yet not too far from them.
All of these situations starting from the time we’ve first met up to now, I have realized some vague actions and scenarios that had happened were all properly justified and understood well through the help of some certain theories. However the social penetration theory seems to pertain to real world experiences; but Altman and Taylor have disregarded several main factors that influence self disclosure. Gender, race, and ethnic background could greatly influence the process. However, in Mr. Miyawaki’s situation, I don’t think that would be a great issue to focus on. I have understood deeply the process and the phases that we have undergone before we have totally established a good interpersonal relationship. Now I have a clear view on why some things happened during his long stay in the vicinity with my family.
In this analysis I just looked in the general notion of the theories and then used them to explain certain situations. Thus through the help of the theories I have presented, we may be able to negotiate some cultural fences successfully. By taking away these fences, we will achieve our ultimate goal of communication.
