Contemporary Japanese Thought

Ever since the women’s liberation movement first appeared in Japan in the early 1970s, its treatment by the mass media has been characterized by “teasing” and “ridicule.” “Viragoes’ Sexual Sensibilities Revealed in the Journal Woman-Eros,” “The Frightful Contents of the Lib Calendar,” “Women on Top in Preventing Rape and Pregnancy, Proclaims this Brainy Women’s Libber,” “Four Days at a Women’s Lib Retreat: ‘Men are Better After All,’” “The ‘Adorable Aspects’ of Amazons Assembled for the Jamboree”—these are some representative titles of articles dealing with “women’s lib” in weekly magazines.¹ Of course there were articles that presented the movement straightforwardly, and this treatment of course differed depending on the nature of the media.² But we can still say that the media’s mainstream attitude was one of “teasing” and “ridicule.”

As goes without saying, this attitude of “teasing” has deeply offended women in the lib movement. “We know they will tease us whenever we do or say anything, but we will just grit our teeth and go on anyway.”³ “Ever since women calling themselves women’s lib started appearing in Tokyo last October, the articles have been filled with jeering laughter and mockery. In a word, they portray us as ‘ugly women making a fuss.’”⁴ “Why do you immediately caricature someone when you hear the word ‘lib’?” one woman protested to a reporter.⁵

It had been no different in the United States. Jo Freeman summarizes the media response to the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s as follows: “Most of the media compounded this problem by treating early women’s liberation activities with a mixture of humor, ridicule, and disbelief.”⁶ Whereas reporters had examined the political message underlying the parodic antics of the Yippies,⁷ “they just glanced at the surface of the women’s actions and used them to illustrate how silly women were. The press treated women’s liberation much as society treats women—as entertainment not to be taken seriously.”⁸ Likewise, in looking at the history of women’s liberation movements in general, we can say that society’s basic response has always been one of teasing and ridicule. The radical activities of the British and American suffragists as well as the Japanese Blue Stockings were confronted repeatedly by “mocking” and “teasing.”

Based on these facts, we could censure journalists’ attitudes and criticize their innate predispositions. In this article, however, I would like to consider this “teasing” of the women’s liberation movement as a political expression and examine the logic and meaning of its rhetoric.

For the way “teasing” is expressed has a particular quality that goes beyond mere criticism, attack, or harassment. We can see this, for example, in the fact that the angry response of the “teased” women differs from the response to a mere attack. It is a kind of anger that seems to turn inward and be deprived of an outlet. Such anger would not arise in response to an intentional attack. We could thus say that this anger arises in response to the way “teasing” is expressed, rather than in response to the intentions behind the criticism or attack.

Of course, as Freeman states, “teasing” has its roots in the contempt for women in general. But disdain does not necessarily breed “teasing”: coolly ignoring women or blatantly insulting them would be other possible consequences of contempt. When other groups of disdained people stood up to demand an end to discrimination, they did not encounter the kind of concentrated barrage of “teasing,” “ridicule,” and “mocking” that the women’s movement encountered. Instead they were either treated with blatant hostility or ignored completely.

We can thus surmise the existence of a kind of deep “categorization” at work, one that is hidden from our consciousness. We can suppose that there exists some kind of “interpretive framework” that makes us react to some groups with “teasing” and to others with “blatant hostility.” This interpretive framework operates unconsciously, on the side of both the “teased” and the “teaser.”

Together with this deeper “categorization,” “teasing” adds a meaning that goes beyond the content as expressed in words. This added meaning is a structural one inherent in the rhetoric of “teasing.” Because it is not clearly verbalized, it works as if it were a “trap” or “bind” that constrains interaction. As a result, those who are “teased” are positioned within the “teasing” itself, where they can find no outlet, and have no choice but to let their undirected anger simmer inwardly.

Because of this process, “teasing” comes to have a strong if tacit political power. In Japan, the mass media’s response of “teasing” has had a significant effect of psychologically distancing many women from the lib movement. Precisely because this effect has been achieved tacitly, however, any critique of such teasing has so far failed to be persuasive.

In this article, I would like to take up the “structure of teasing” itself, examining the various “categories” to which “teasing” is applied and considering why and how “teasing” comes to have political effects. In such a brief space, of course, I cannot explore this “structure” too deeply. What follows is thus merely one attempt to expose the political effects of “teasing” from an immanent analysis. In this way, we can begin to clarify why the lib movement was faced with such a fusillade of “teasing” as well as uncover the extent of its political effects.

What then is “teasing”? As seen from one side of this act, it is a form of interaction. “Teasing” is an act that is directed from the “teaser” to the “teased,” and is usually accompanied by words. In this section, I would like to consider the verbal dimension of “teasing.”

In general, words have dual meanings: the meaning of their content itself and that of their particular context or situation, i.e., the way words should be taken. The same is true of “teasing.”

Let us begin with the latter. “Teasing” words are situated in the context of “play,” that is, they are not meant to be taken “seriously” or literally. As part of “play,” these are words of ease and latitude, and so escape the responsibility that words customarily hold in daily life.

Hence “teasing” is usually accompanied by certain kinds of markers, as for example snickering, a certain tone of voice or gesture, and suggestive winking. These markers are not necessarily exhibited directly to the “teased.” They might be exhibited to a third party, instead. There are of course instances in which the “teased” person is “unaware” of such markers. Whenever anyone recognizes the markers as such, however, these words are then proclaimed to be “teasing” and “play.”

“Teasing” prevents the specification of the utterance’s agent of responsibility precisely because it is not regarded as “serious.” It is of course clear in a face-to-face situation who is speaking, but the content of the teasing statement is expressed as if it were hearsay or a self-evident fact. We do not feel teased by statements that take the form of “I think you are X,” in which content is ascribed to the speaker’s thoughts and intentions, for here the location of responsibility is clear. But since “teasing” is “play,” it is unnecessary to clarify responsibility. The rules of “play” render this unnecessary.

Hence “teasing” words are made “universal” and “anonymous” so as not to be ascribed to the individual’s intentions.

In, for instance, magazine articles in which “teasing” is conducted by words alone, the markers are given through the sentences’ tone, vocabulary, and style. What is important here is to leave the subject of the sentence ambiguous and “anonymous.” Thus one writes, “Wow! How frightening! Don’t go near them!” etc.

When “teasing” arises within a group, everyone present is compelled to be complicit in it unless there is a particular reason to object, for such “teasing” is “play” and a form of “joking.” As “play,” it would be the greatest sacrilege to break the rules. Everyone present is thus forced into a passive complicity, that of not breaking the rules. It not only takes a great deal of courage to break the rules, it also requires a legitimate reason to persuade everyone present.

On the other hand, the person who initiates the “teasing” tries to establish the game by actively involving others. In this way, the teaser successfully renders “teasing” words more “anonymous.”

The double meanings and contexts of these words clearly show that “teasing” presupposes not only the existence of the “teased,” but also that of an audience as third party. Principally or structurally, “teasing” words maintain a stance of “play” to the audience and one of “universal, anonymous, self-evident statements” to the “teased.” Yet this fact does not prevent the following: first, that both these meanings are read by the two different parties, each of whom must nonetheless continue to act according to their given script; and second, that even with no audience, such words represent “teasing” since the “teased” person can always also act as audience. The “teased” can always proceed according to the script as if there were an audience, as can the “teaser” as well.

This double meaning is fundamentally the structure of “teasing” itself. Anything can be “teasing” insofar as it contains this structure. Lying to someone who has forgotten that it is April Fool’s Day and ridiculing their response, sticking a rude note on someone’s back, telling horror stories to children and enjoying their reaction—these are all acts of “teasing” that arise between someone who knows this is “play” and another who mistakes it as “truth.” In all such cases, the audience is shown that this is a “game” or “play,” yet such is concealed from the “teased.”

Let us next consider the content of “teasing” words. While, of course, anything can become a target of “teasing,” such words reveal a few obvious patterns based on their content. The most important of these is to shift the intent or motivation of the “teased” onto an unintended or only privately expressed context.

When, for instance, the “teased” is enthusiastic or passionately involved in some act, “teasing” “mocks” these acts or words by placing them in a different context. One example would be to call a domestic dispute a “friendly tussle.” “Seriousness” and “enthusiasm” make excellent targets for “mocking.”

Another tactic is to ascribe a more base motivation, one different from that which is publicly expressed, to the actions and words of the “teased.” Examples can be found in ascribing mercenary motives to moral or ethical claims, or finding signs of romance in a couple’s innocent behavior. In such cases, the “teaser” claims to know the real intentions better than the “teased.” The motivations and intentions ascribed to the “teased” are those that would normally be considered “shameful” or “embarrassing” to express publicly, and yet might very generally or universally be held by anyone. Hence it can be claimed at one and the same time that it is only natural for the “teased” both to have and to “hide” such motivations.

In their content, then, “teasing” words can make some kind of claim about the acts and attributes of the “teased.” Since this claim is made within the context of “teasing,” however, such words are declared to be “play.”

From this analysis, we can see that the pattern of social interaction called “teasing” has the following characteristics. First, by fundamentally belonging to the context of “play,” “teasing” actions and words avoid the responsibility of “serious” social interactions. Second, its words must nonetheless be presented to the “teased” as “anonymous, universal, and self-evident” in order for this game to exist. Through this double meaning, the “teaser” stands in a superior position to the “teased.” Third, “teasing” words can in their content make some kind of claim about the actions and attributes of the “teased.”

“Teasing” is usually not deployed with strangers. Rather it takes place between two familiar parties, and functions to confirm that our relationship is of such familiarity that we can “tease one another.” For it is difficult to “tease” without expecting to be forgiven, since otherwise the act’s disingenuous nature may incite the anger of the “teased.” “Familiarity” is confirmed when the “teased” acknowledges the “teaser’s” expectation to be forgiven.

Such mutual “teasing” might arise among those in a familiar and equal relationship, or in a relationship between cohorts. Here “teasing” is indeed a pastime or game, much like children’s “play.”

However, “teasing” will have various other meanings when one side is clearly dominant over the other or is in a role of protecting the other. Let us consider a relation between a stronger and weaker party, in which the former is clearly dominant, and examine its various aspects.

In such a relationship, “teasing” obviously has the function of confirming that the two parties are in a relation of “familiarity” as well. In this familiar relation between a stronger and weaker party, there exists a “mutual teasing” that is a kind of “expression of affection.” Here the weaker party’s act of “teasing” the stronger serves to confirm that the latter’s protection or affection is indeed turned toward the former, while the stronger party’s “teasing” of the weaker shows the former’s “leniency” and affirms his affection for the latter.

Yet those who are generally considered to be in a socially weaker position tend to receive “teasing” from absolute strangers. Children are one example. This kind of “teasing” is often the expression of “familiarity.” Adults who “tease” children rarely have malicious intentions. Children are sometimes highly offended by such “teasing,” however, not despite but precisely because this “familiarity” comes from a stranger. For such “teasing” occurs without regard to the child’s own intentions. The very fact that a stranger has judged the child’s intentions as insignificant is a sign that he has slighted the “teased” child as inferior. This, in turn, can be “deployed” as a tactic to disparage the other. To use a nickname or term of familiarity with someone with whom one is not really familiar, or with a stranger, clearly conveys an intent to disparage.

In a relationship between a stronger and weaker party, “teasing” often performs the function of veiling those actions in which the actual intent is to attack, criticize, or punish. Here “teasing” is deployed for this very purpose.

Since “teasing” exists in the context of “play,” it can be “deployed” to hide one’s aggressiveness. In society, competition and fighting are restricted except in institutionally sanctioned modes. In unsanctioned fights, then, it becomes necessary to cloak one’s aggressiveness. Particularly in relationships where it is clear which side is stronger and which weaker, the outcome of the fight is clear from the beginning. To confront each other “seriously” in such a case would be disadvantageous not only to the weaker side, but to the stronger side as well since it would arouse the censure of society. This is when “teasing” is “deployed” as a useful tactic because it is positioned within the context of “play” and yet can still present information about the other’s actions or attributes. Such deployment of “teasing” not only occurs among parties who know each other, but is widely practiced between those who are stronger and weaker in terms of social categorization.

When the weaker side adopts the form of “teasing” to critique or attack the stronger, this usually has the purpose of restraining the latter’s reactive aggression and of protecting itself. Since the weaker side might be easily crushed by the stronger side’s counterattack, it tries to hide the intentions of its own attack or critique within the format of “teasing.” Since “teasing” is “play,” social norms restrict countering it with actual attacks, which would be considered “breaking the rules.” Even in “teasing” among equals, to actually become angry in response to “teasing” would be considered “immature.” For the stronger side to become angry and attack the weaker in response to such “teasing” would be truly “unbecoming.” Since the weaker side recognizes this, it tries to avoid attack from the stronger by placing its own critique or attack in the context of “teasing.” The fact that “teasing” is a kind of “anonymous” expression also works to the weaker side’s advantage, for it can express its critical intentions without revealing itself as an individual actor on stage. Because of its nature as a game, “teasing” can draw many members of the audience into complicity.

To critique or attack a stronger party by adopting the form of “teasing” is also to reconfirm the existence of the stronger-weaker relation through the use of this form itself. By using the tactic of “teasing,” the teaser redefines himself as the weaker side, as unworthy of being taken seriously. As a result, the stronger side is compelled to submit to the norm of leniency. This explains why the jester is allowed to make very biting critiques of those in power. The self-definition of Edo period writers of gesaku fiction can also be understood from this perspective. By defining their own work as “playful writing,” these writers positioned themselves as unworthy of being taken seriously, and as a consequence gained the right to “tease,” “mock,” and “parody” everything.

On the other hand, the stronger side’s “teasing” of the weaker is often deployed in order to hide the former’s intentions of attacking the latter, thus avoiding social censure. The side that is clearly more powerful would lose face by fighting “seriously” against the weaker. By presenting its aggressive intentions via the circuitous route of the “play” called “teasing,” the stronger can show its “leniency” and “composure” and uphold appearances.

Yet this tactic can be “deployed” as a way to disparage the other. For the very use of the form of “teasing” defines the other as unworthy of being taken seriously.

The above analysis has thus shown the following: “teasing” performs the function of acknowledging “familiarity” by confirming that the two parties can mutually “forgive” one another. But in stronger-weaker relations, “teasing” can be “deployed” as a social act that realizes actual intentions of disparagement, attack, or critique. Conversely, through the form of “teasing,” one can define oneself as “unworthy of being taken seriously” and define the other as “not worth taking seriously.”

I hope to have shown that when it comes to the meaning and function of “teasing,” factors such as the degree of familiarity and the social categories of stronger and weaker play an implicit role. While “teasing” can drastically change its meaning and function depending on the mutual relation of these categories, these are always related to the meanings of “contempt” and “familiarity.”

Based on the fundamental characteristics of “teasing” as analyzed above, let us now attempt to answer the following question: How might one be able to object to the information presented in the form of “teasing”? On the one hand, there are cases when “teasing” might simply be a form of “play” to be enjoyed by all. As mentioned in section 2, above, however, there are also cases when this involves actual attacks or disparagement. When the “teased” party feels it has been disparaged or unreasonably censured, how would it be possible to object?

Objecting is difficult, for “teasing” insists that it is “play” and proclaims that its actions and words escape conventional social responsibility. As stated previously, a reaction of criticism and “serious” objection would only violate the rules of “play,” resulting in a failure to persuade the audience.

Perhaps such objection would only lead to further snickering as “immature,” or to being treated with silent contempt as inappropriate, or to incurring anger or critique as “unreasonable.”

Insofar as the structure of “teasing” is established, objections must inevitably be judged as rule-breaking. Hence the objections to “teasing” must assume the additional task of dismantling its very structure.

Such dismantling is achieved by “proving” that “teasing” is not “play” but rather an intentional attack on the part of specific individuals or groups. By “proving” this, it might be possible to pull the audience—the potential accomplice of the “teaser”—toward the “teased.” As a result, “teasing” words could be taken out of the context of “play” and reread as the intention or ideas of a specific individual or group. Only in this way can the content of these words be critiqued.

However, the responsibility for such rereading rests with those who object to “teasing.” In contrast to one who objects to censure or attack, then, one cannot object to “teasing” by remaining “innocent.” For this rereading is tantamount to attributing ill will or aggression to the “teaser,” and such attribution is in itself a declaration of a hostile relationship. Hence the “teased” or objecting party is also performing a hostile act through objecting. What makes matters worse is that the objecting party is in this way the first to declare hostility. Such objection thus cannot take the form of an innocent insistence on having been “unreasonably attacked,” such as would be the case with objecting to overt censure or attack. Rather it must take the form of aggressively pointing out and attacking the other side’s ill will or shortcomings. The objecting party cannot object without thereby sullying its own hands. Since it cannot make its own innocence the grounds of validity, then, this objection at most only provides the locus for further debate. The “teaser” can easily argue against the objector on the basis of the fact that the latter broke the rules.

Regardless of the anger it feels toward this “teasing,” the “teased” party finds it difficult to discover an outlet for its emotions. Its anger will thus turn inward. The desire to object is dulled simply by imagining the various difficulties that an objection to “teasing” would encounter. One might come to feel that the best strategy would be to totally ignore this “teasing.”

It is in this sense that being “teased” can feel more devastating than being censured or attacked. Censure or attack against beliefs and ideologies can in fact end up strengthening these, but since “teasing” does not provide an outlet for anger, it leads to a sense of emptiness, as if one were wrestling against oneself. The person entangled in the structure of “teasing” is caught in its bind. Attempting to disentangle oneself is like struggling to escape from a quagmire.

Freeman has correctly identified the essence of this “teasing,” finding that the tone is equivalent to that which society in general uses to treat women. Based on this insight, let us first consider “teasing” against women in general.

First, women are on a daily basis made the objects of “sexual teasing.” It is a common occurrence for young women walking down the street to be whistled at by strange men or to have rude jokes made at their expense.

Sexual matters are very important as material for “teasing.” As sex is the most familiar matter for human beings, it is difficult for consciousness to express it. Sex is customarily an area of taboo for expression. It is thus generally only possible to talk about it in a very twisted form. The snickering that accompanies such talk is proof of the twisted relation between the body and expression. Hence, to be subjected to sexual language inevitably calls forth embarrassment and confusion. This makes sexual matters privileged material for “teasing.”

In this society, men are seen as the superior sex. For men, women represent the sexual other, and any woman can be reread in this way. A man and woman in a sexual relationship are recognized by society as being in the most “familiar” of relationships. “Teasing” is an act that would be allowed in such relations, and is an expression of such “familiarity.” Yet since all women are potentially sexual objects, “familiarity” is attributed to all women at the level of fantasy. As a result, “sexual teasing” can be directed at any unknown woman.

Second, women are seen, like children, as belonging to a socially inferior category. Like children and the elderly, women are considered to be in need of protection. Those in such need are seen as lacking the right to reject the attention of others, since they might potentially require this help at any time. From another perspective, this means that there are believed to be fewer barriers against approaching someone who belongs to this inferior category. As a result, greater “familiarity” tends to be attributed to those who belong to this category.

Consequently, women in general tend to more easily become objects of “teasing.” It is rare for a woman to be treated “seriously” and more common for her to be treated “lightly,” as something trivial.

All of this results in fantasies of “private life” and “familiarity” being attributed to women. Thus, as Freeman notes, society in general comes to treat women as a kind of entertainment.

It goes without saying that the “teasing” directed at the women’s liberation movement is based on such “teasing” of women in general. Yet we might also understand it as a more complex kind of defensive reaction.

First, we must ask why the women’s liberation movement became the same kind of target of a fusillade of “teasing” as that directed at women in general, for the mass media usually refrain from “teasing” active women with “serious intentions.” Housewives involved in the peace movement and mothers advocating children’s happiness generally avoid becoming the targets of “teasing.” Why then did the women’s movement (especially that of the early 1970s) become the same kind of target of a fusillade of “teasing” as that directed at women in general? First, because women insisted on their rights as women. Second, because the lib movement presented the sexual realm as an issue. For these reasons, the mass media treated the movement as “women’s behavior.”

As a result, all of the claims of the women’s liberation movement came to be reread. Such rereading is very easily achieved once the women of this movement are treated as sexual objects. Seen in this way, these women are now defined as physically unattractive. Their claims can then be interpreted as “frustrations on the part of sexually unfulfilled women,” or “the sad musings of ugly, unpopular women.” Thus it was said that women would shout about independence, freedom, and liberation because they couldn’t find decent men.

Once women are treated as sexual objects, those who censure and critique men are seen as “viragoes” and “amazons” who reject the “familiarity” of sexual relationships. Conversely, the physical characteristics of women involved in the women’s liberation movement are imagined as stereotypes: they must be manlike women with “unkempt hair” or “severe hairstyles.” When interviews were held based on these created images, it was found that these women were “surprisingly” “quite attractive” and “unexpectedly feminine.”

However, the fact that the women’s liberation movement could be treated in the same way as women in general reveals the strength and depth of the root of sexual discrimination. We all unconsciously commit various acts of “discrimination.”⁹ When an antidiscrimination movement arises that problematizes this phenomenon, however, we become conscious of such “discrimination” and are made to transform ourselves. Yet such a change of attitude was not prevalent in response to the women’s liberation movement.

This is first of all because the category of women is considered (like that of children) to be a natural category, and second because women are too close to men. As a result, sexual discrimination is less likely to be recognized as “discrimination,” and the women’s liberation movement that insists on abolishing such “discrimination” is not received “seriously.”

Yet here we can grasp society’s (and especially men’s) panic in relation to the women’s liberation movement. For men, women are others who are positioned in the fantasy of “familiarity” and in a relation of “indulgence.” Criticism on the part of this “familiar other” perhaps touched off a panic among men who “did not know how to deal with” these women. Thus, rather than clearly critiquing or censuring the movement, these men sought to “dodge” it through “teasing.” For one can always deploy “teasing” as a tactic of attack even when one cannot logically justify one’s own position.

Yet the negative effects of such “teasing” of the women’s liberation movement were much greater than any possible critique or censure. First, by discussing the movement only in the context of “teasing,” the impression was created that it was not worth treating “seriously.” It was said that “it is no use getting upset at what women are saying,” just as “it is no use fighting with children.” Without in any way critiquing or debating the points in question, then, the persuasiveness and effects of the movement’s claims were weakened.

Second, and more important, the impression was created among women in general that the kind of women involved in the women’s liberation movement deserved to be “treated sexually.” In this society, “serious” women, like “housewives” and “mothers,” are exempt from becoming “objects of sexual teasing” when they are treated individually in public situations. Even if they are objects of “sexual teasing” on a daily basis, few women are treated that way in public situations. In the mass media, even fewer women are treated this way. Thus, in fact, such women are seen as having reasons for “deserving such treatment.” By treating women in the women’s liberation movement as objects of “sexual teasing,” the mass media were able to create the impression that these were extremely peculiar women. As a result, the majority of women in general would want to position themselves as different from them. For to be “treated as sexual objects” in public situations would signify a kind of “diminished status.” This would represent a kind of sanction against women who have “fallen” from the position of such “respectable women” as “mothers” and “housewives.”

The lib movement questioned the very division of women between the “sacred image” of the “mother” and the “secular image” of the “female.” It consequently chose the standpoint of “woman.” Yet this choice provided much ammunition for “teasing.”

If this “teasing” clearly bore negative political effects on the claims of the women’s liberation movement, women activists would naturally feel intense anger toward it. Yet since “teasing” was positioned in the context of “play,” it was extremely difficult to object to it. The more one objected, the greater the chances of supporting the “teasing” claims of “hysteria.” Even when one sensed here the existence of a deep-rooted “discriminatory consciousness” against women, little could be done except to continue one’s “futile resistance” within the “trap of teasing.”

Ehara Yumiko, “Karakai no seijigaku,” in Josei kaihō to iu shisō [The thought of women’s liberation] (Tokyo: Keisō Shobō, 1985), pp. 172–194. First published in the journal Josei no shakai mondai [Women’s social issues], no. 4 (1981). Author’s note: This essay owes much to the works of Ervin Goffman.