I am just curious why you seem to think that the Japanese language or culture are similar enough to western culture, having been essentially disconnected form it entirely from the beginning of time until the late 1860s, that there would be no cultural issues whatsoever regarding the translation of these concepts, let along the existence or ideation of them?
In other words, can you explain just why you think an issue as culturally complex as suicide is not going to suffer from translation issues and any with grader can understand all of the terms and concepts needed without knowing a thing of Japanese language, culture, history, etc.?
I’m sorry, I’m not quite grasping your objection. Who is it who you think doesn’t know a thing of Japanese language, culture, or history? Me? The author? The people who took the survey? The survey was given to Japanese people in the Japanese language. The author, according to his book, is a native Japanese man who lived in Japan until the age of 32 and then came to America, got a PhD, studied at Harvard, and taught in American universities, so is fluently bilingual. I speak Japanese, too, for what it’s worth.
90% of the people I know who speak English as a native language couldn’t describe in sociolgical terms how suicide fits in the US realm. I’m gonna go on a limb and say that the same is true of folks who learn Japanese as a second language (or even speak it ias a native language) regarding Japanese sociology.
I am not objecting that someone where does not know about Japanese sociology. I am trying to determine if you do though. If you speak Japanese, then you are pretty aware of some of the differences in the way the speaker relates to the listener or others, right? Do you think it simply stops at rules like “use the -masu form in this situation but not that one”? Is the concept that some adjectives have tense, or that there is not really a distinction in the language between present and past tense, or that the speaker and listener are operating in high context-land compared to English’s low context-land and countless other elementary examples give you notice that maybe Japanese are “not in Kansas anymore”?
I am not accusing you of anything, I am trying to evaluate your words in context for what weight of authority I should give them.
Oh, I see. I am not a sociologist, much less an expert in Japanese sociology. The most I can do is research the work of people who do seem to be experts, but it’s possible that I have been misled about the academic value of the book I found. If so, I will readily admit it. If you have a suggestion of something written in Japanese on the topic of Japanese suicide that you think is more accurate, I would humbly appreciate the opportunity to read it.
SWell, my Japanese is not up to reading this in Japanese by a long shot, but the English translations of Takeo Doi were extremely helpful in my understanding Japanse society and the way individuals think about themselves and each other and might be germane to the discussion: Takeo Doi - Wikipedia
It’s been a long time though, and I am having trouble locating my copies (heck, that might be because I don’t have them anymore). Still, I recommend them highly to any students of Japanese language and/or culture.
Ok, got it. Thanks. (I do mean that sincerely. I *was *still under the impression that, while not actually encouraged the way the novelists would have us believe, suicide for “disgrace” was tolerated and perhaps even met with silent approval by at least the older members of Japanese society. I now believe that to be outdated, so thank you.)
What I was trying to do was to answer what I believed the question the OP to be asking: how health professionals in the US handle mental health care in a multicultural society. I’d give the same answer if the OP used the example of honor killing your daughter for having sex before marriage in a Palestinian family. It wouldn’t necessarily be considered a symptom of a mental illness, but it wouldn’t be allowed to happen unopposed if your family was in the US, no matter what your cultural background. Or the clitorectomy example I already gave.
Killing your family member is not a symptom of a mental illness if you are Palestinian? Fascinating!
Can you please point to a page in the DSM IV, where the symptoms for mental illnesses are described and listed comprehensively, and show us this exception?
It seems to me that if something is an accepted part of one’s culture, then doing that thing is not necessarily indicative of mental illness. I’m not talking about the Palestinians, but to look at some historical examples, the Roman patriarchs that exposed their unwanted infants, the US slave masters who owned and abused human beings, female circumcision in an isolated society that has never heard of an alternative – I think these are all horrible, immoral things, but I find it hard to accept that a whole society could be considered mentally ill.
Sure. Just as soon as you show me where killing your family member is listed in the DSM IV.
Killing *anybody *is often not a sign of mental illness. It’s called murder, or manslaughter. But of course, sometimes it is. Depends on why the person did it. Killing a family member as part of a cultural practice is not a symptom of mental illness, no. It’s reprehensible and wrong and illegal in the US, but it’s not a sign of mental illness.
Back to suicide: Depression, or the depressive episode of Bipolar disorder, has to show 5 or more symptoms during the same 2 week period for diagnosis. Suicidal ideation alone isn’t 5. Schizophrenia generally requires 2, of which suicidal ideation isn’t one (although there may be voices telling the patient to kill himself - but that alone isn’t enough for diagnosis, either.)
Again: anyone with suicidal thoughts who brings it to a doctor’s attention and doesn’t have a diagnosis to explain those thoughts (like disfigurement, bereavement, etc.) will be evaluated for mental health. But that doesn’t mean they’re going to be diagnosed with a mental illness.
Medicine and other health care has come a long way since the Romans. If they show up today, they will be treated by the standards of today.
Anyone who treats people as slaves in the US will certainly come to the attention of the mental health system.
To the extent that removing the sexual organs of young girls for the purposes of control occurs where modern mental health holds sway, they yes, you can be sure that behavior will draw the attention of the mental health pros.
Not that “drawing the attention of” is not the same as “attaching a diagnosis”. I can have the sniffles, but that doesn’t mean I have a cold.
I have mentioned it several times in this thread, really, you should look into reading DSM IV before making such broad sweeping generalizations. Google or your local library are your friends.
Murder and manslaughter are terms of justice and the legal system, not the mental health system.
Cite?
I would say that not everyone who kills is mentally ill, and killing itself is not a symptom. But I am not aware of any cite that specifically rules out “killing a family member as part of a cultural practice” as outside the scope of the mental health system. Is that what you are saying? If so can you provide convincing cites? If not, can you clarify what you are saying please?
This is almost exactly the point I was getting at obliquely all along. The difference being, you can’t have the diagnosis without being evaluated, and neither disfigurement nor breavement are in and of themselves diagnoses found in dsm iv (according to a quick google search). They may be symptoms to be considered in context wit the rest of whatever is going on in someone’s life in order to assess one’s mental health, but they are not diagnoses.
Okay, I found a Japanese site, in case that will be more meaningful to anyone. No, I have not investigated in depth to see the credentials of the people that did this survey.
On the graph the first black section is “I think so” and the next, dark gray section is “I mostly agree.” 1,808 people were surveyed.
The first line, “a.” is “In the end, we should leave it up to individuals to decide about ending their life.” Basically 35% agree.
“b” says “It can be good to keep living without committing suicide.” Most agreed on that.
“c” says “It can’t be helped but to kill your young child too when you commit suicide.” 5.5% agreed with that. Yikes.
“d” says “It can’t be helped but to commit suicide in order to take responsibility.” That’s 8.6%.
I’m not finding a similarly in-depth survey on American attitudes about suicide, but here’s a gallop poll that says 15% of Americans view suicide as morally acceptable, with doctor assisted suicide acceptable by 46%.
But the Japanese survey can not be separated from cultural norms regarding sharing of opinions outside one’ center group, and what one thinks and shares closer to the center. Here is a very brief and incomplete discussion of the concept.
In short, you can’t compare polls across the US and Japan, and even within Japan, you can’t assume people aren’t telling you something other than their true feelings.
Why would government agencies or scholars conduct surveys in Japan if there is no useful data to be gathered? The people reporting and discussing the survey obviously think they have solid information, unless you think they too are just saying what they are expected to say. I understand the importance of honne and tatemae but this is an anonymous survey.
I’m unclear on why you think I can learn something from Takeo Doi, but not the people presenting this survey. They are both Japanese, but one source is trustworthy and one is untrustworthy by definition? I know you can’t be disparaging Japanese research in general as you are obviously passionate and knowledgeable about the culture.
Are you saying there are no cites on Japanese suicide attitudes that you would accept?
What I said was that interpretation of data, and also comparing two unrelated sets of data is a road to fallacious arguing.
then present me some information that says if someone in Japan asks you a deeply personal question, but says it is anonymous, that all consideration of tatemae and honne go away.
You can learn something of Takeo Doi, because that is the best extent source for explaining the Japanese issues you have raised translated into English.
I didn’t say you couldn’t learn anything from the survey, I am suggesting is is one paper, that’s all, don’t draw grander conclusions from it than you should.
Correct, I have no such intent in mind. I don’t have any info on these researchers or how their work fits in their broader fields, their reputation, what sources of error there might be, etc.,
No, just that I would expect any cites to be placed in the proper context for interpretation, just like any other scientific paper. And I would also suggest that most of the context I would look for (others might vary) is going to be addressed in Doi on the Japanese side.
Is there anything useful at all you’re bringing here, then?
I think this is about you not contributing to either side of the debate or contributing anything useful, but instead a compulsion to remind us: “Now children, whatever point you think you may be making, remember Japan is a different culture and I’ve studied Japan. Why aren’t you paying attention to me?” Sorry, alice, but according to my copy of DSM IV that’s classified as “being an insufferable bore.”
My point is that people making fallacious arguments should expect to be called on it. This being the Straight Dope and all, (generic) you can expect someone to point out (generic) your fantasies about Japanese suicide and Palestinian honor killings are not based in reality, and to explain why.
And I hope you didn’t pay cash for that copy of DSM IV, because it seems to be counterfeit, there is no such classification. it probably shouldn’t be relied upon to make sense of this thread.
It would be really helpful if you had a cite specifically about Japanese suicide, rather than rebut my survey graph by suggesting I obtain and read a general book about Japanese psychology.
Koxinga, please refrain from insulting other posters in GQ. Since this is pretty mild, I’m making this a note rather than a warning, but let’s dial it back.