Abstract
Among researchers on Japanese masculinities, the term salaryman (literally salaried male worker) exemplifies Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity in Japan. Hegemonic masculinity here refers to the culturally approved or most desirable form of masculinity, one that embodies a currently accepted strategy for justifying patriarchy. Recent studies of masculinity have attempted to look beyond the hegemonic, stereotypical view of Japanese men as salarymen to other subordinated and marginalized masculinities. Even so, the construction of hegemonic salaryman masculinity has not been well explored. Sound structural analyses are still needed to deepen our understanding of Japanese society.
In Salaryman Masculinity, Tomoko Hidaka explores the construction of salarymen’s masculinity from the mid-1920s to the present day. In the study, salaryman is operationally defined as a male white-collar employee who works or worked for companies employing more than 1,000 workers. Collected from in-depth interviews, the primary data include the life histories of 39 Japanese salarymen, with an age range of late-20s to late-70s. In order to consider continuity and change in the construct of hegemonic masculinity over half-a-century, Hidaka adopted what she calls the “three-generational approach”; she classified the participants into three generational groups: Cohort One (born before the end of WWII), Cohort Two (born between the end of WWII and the mid-1960s), and Cohort Three (born between the mid-1960s and late-1970s). Drawing on Connell’s gender theory, she illustrates how salarymen’s masculinities have been shaped, maintained, and changed through the structure of society. In other words, she introduces the men’s narratives and then relates the narratives to the analysis of economic and social conditions in Japanese society.
While referring to the recent economic downturn and indicating signs of changing gender relations among younger generations, the author primarily emphasizes the enduring, significant effects of major institutions on the formation of participants’ masculinities regardless of generational cohorts. In the family of origin and in school, where hierarchical structures based on age and gender were dominant, the male study participants were treated favorably compared to their sisters and female schoolmates, which assured that men were the ruling sex. In sports activities and peer groups, conspicuous sex segregation and male homosocial relationships predominated. An atmosphere of admiration for physical prowess and competition was ubiquitous. On the study participants’ path to complete adulthood, joining a company as a full-time permanent worker and providing economic support for his family were essential for achieving hegemonic masculinity. Governmental policies for equal opportunity had only limited impact on their workplaces, and they, as elite male workers under hierarchical company systems, still gained great advantage from the subordination of female employees and male freeters (casual workers). When the salarymen married, they benefited from both sexes’ internalization of patriarchal power relationships and the gendered division of labor, which were supported not only by the husbands’ desires but also by their wives’ willing acquiescence.
On the other hand, Hidaka also illuminates the negative aspects of being salarymen. Their benefits carried a price and made them vulnerable in certain ways. Their socially-privileged statuses and a steady income were brought in exchange for loyal company devotion, which necessitated long working hours and frequent transfers, often leading to conflicts in their family lives. Their longstanding work-centered life during the term of employment resulted in a miserable life after retirement. Nothing seemed to satisfy the men, and as a result of long hours and frequent transfers, they found themselves isolated from their wives and communities. In short, the salarymen’s hegemony depended on the power of their companies in their lives.
This book’s appeal lies in the uniquely comprehensive explanations of the construction of salarymen’s masculinities based on abundant, specific cases of men’s lives and their vivid narratives of their real feelings on gender issues. A most impressive aspect of the study is the older participants’ open disclosure of chauvinist views and tenacious resistance to changes in gender relations. In the work-related context, they resisted women employees’ advancement by underestimating their ability and performance, seeing them as inadequate for work because of their maternal responsibilities, or evaluating elite women as unfeminine. In the familial context, they expressed flat refusal of the idea that fathers should be actively involved in childcare, all the while regarding the breadwinning role as adequate contribution to child rearing. In contrast, some younger participants expressed a realization that current social conditions may no longer secure men’s former ideal lifestyles. These men prioritized individual lifestyles and regarded work not as something that made life worth living, but as just an expedient in their lives. Some participated in childcare without hesitation, and others believed that having children after marriage was not self-evident but a couple’s choice. These lively illustrations of participants’ viewpoints and feelings reflect the excellence of Hidaka’s interview skills. She used personal and family networks to find willing participants, and behaved like a polite, young Japanese woman rather than taking a professional position as a sociologist on gender studies. By doing so, she established good rapport with all the participants.
With all its positive attributes, however, this book leaves something to be desired in the full expression of “continuity and change in salaryman masculinity.” The book’s organization primarily corresponds to the order of formative stages and institutions in men’s lives. In each chapter, the author gathers a large number of fragments from participants’ lives, compares and then synthesizes them into general findings. Indeed, this method of description leads us to a more objective conclusion of how various social institutions have affected the participants’ construction of masculinity at each stage. However, this descriptive method does not sufficiently take advantage of the life history data across three generations. When Hidaka generalizes findings from a sample of participants with an age range of over 50 years, the complexity of the participants’ lives and the historical dynamics of social change seem trivialized into mere differences within and between generations.
There seems to be another pitfall in the generalization of the sampling data. The participant sample is obviously biased, at least in terms of their birthplaces and residences—factors that considerably affect their lifestyles and their notion of gender relations. Nine of the 39 study participants grew up in Kagoshima, which is often considered one of the most conservative districts in Japan. In addition, half of the interviews in Cohorts Two and Three were conducted in Kagoshima. Sampling bias may be unavoidable in the snowball method, but it is not always a defect in qualitative analyses. However, when the author generalizes the characteristics of salarymen’s lives from the entire sample, how much generality “the general characteristics” actually have is open to discussion.
Despite these limitations, the book remains a peerless study with thick description and comprehensive accounts of hegemonic masculinity’s construction over long periods in a particular region. No doubt this study can hold its ground against a large number of other studies on regional masculinities and will become a sourcebook for future research on Japanese masculinities.