AMAE as Metalanguage: A Critique of Doi's Theory of AMAE

Abstract

For many years Doi's ideas on the links between amae and the satisfaction of dependency needs have influenced discussions of the so-called Japanese character. In reviewing Doi's theory, however, major problems emerge. Beginning with the very definition of amae, one finds that Doi has chosen to stress only one aspect of amae. When one returns to his lexical sources, one discovers that the common denominator in the various definitions of amae does not lie in a single, monolithic motivation, as Doi proposes. Instead, it is suggested, amae should be viewed as a metalanguage. To understand the metacommunicational significance of amae, one must consider the rules that govern the behavior of the interactants in amae. Three different situations of amae are delineated. In the childhood interaction, the child playfully mimicks the infant's attachment behavior. With the adult coquetry situation, one observes the female playfully behaving as if she were the child mimicking the infant-mother prototype. Finally, in the third context subset of amae, there is a "trespassing on" or "taking advantage of" another person, with the beneficent approval of the second interactant. The common factor thus appears to be a mutually agreed-upon suspension of certain ordinary restraints on behavior. A metalanguage theory of amae, as an alternative to Doi's proposal, places emphasis on the culture-specific message of the interaction itself rather than on a single, monolithic motivation or an object-language interpretation. Indeed, various motivations are suggested, depending on the specific context of amae as well as the individual case. In this way, it is hoped, a metacommunicational approach to the understanding of amae may broaden the consideration of motivational issues, extending far beyond Doi's insistence on dependency and the search for passive love.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.