May 24, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Honne and Tatemae
We all know neither Clinton nor Gore had a prayer of ratifying Kyoto. But they sure gave it a lot of "lip service". The truth is that covering up self-interest with lip service is a global, time-honored tradition. George W. Bush, however, refuses to spend much rhetorical or diplomatic time on initiatives he won't support in the end. This makes for effective leadership at home but it's driving Europe crazy.
There is a clear tradition of differentiating belief and intent in communication in Japan - in fact there are some special words for it - Honne and Tatemae. This is important cultural homework for anyone hoping to develop a close relationship with Japanese (and a concept I tripped over once or twice during my time there):
Honne is one’s deep motive or intention, while Tatemae refers to motives or intentions that are socially-tuned, those that are shaped, encouraged, or suppressed by majority norms. For example, an accepted code of Tatemae, “Be kind to everyone,” may be broken in order to justify the Honne that one’s own children are not expected to make friends with slow learners.......Another dimension of this dichotomy is that Honne is expressed privately while Tatemae may be openly professed. Observing the formalities of a business meeting, a person tends to follow protocol. Later, while enjoying conversation with his colleagues over a glass of beer or sake (rice wine), the same person will frankly express his Honne regarding the issues raised at the meeting. Aiming at peace and harmony, the public self avoids confrontation, whereas the private self tends toward sincere self-expression.
In a goal-seeking situation, Tatemae might be considered polite or tactical, while Honne is purposeful and strategic. In general, Japanese oopenly embrace Tatemae in order to foster highly-valued consensus. I'll leave it to others to define the applicability of this polite/sincere dichotomy in Europe, but it exists to some degree in all cultures.
The face-saving powers of less-than-fully sincere engagement are more important to the politically divided European polity than they are here. Many European governments are coalitions, deeply divided within. A coalition leader (much like a CEO) must often make sure that the opposing viewpoints of his divided constituents are aired. It gives him the ability to say "I did the best I could", and seems to satisfy the condition that he "listened".* Those leaders with greens and pacifists in their majority must air those coalitions' views or risk political loss. Tatemae must be observed. In other words, braod coalitions increase the demand for consensus-building tactics.
The Independent (and others) urge President Bush to come around to a particular cross-section of beliefs represented by the Independent and Guardian and their loyal readers. Repent, they admonish, and come back to signing agreements and mouthing platitudes. Address threats that are decades away at worst while containing and preserving the status quo in parts of the world that already consider themselves at war with the west. "Multilateralism", in the form of treaties and talk, is paramount. These views are representative of a significant political force in Europe, ignored by European diplomats at their peril.
Steven Den Beste has penned some required reading reminding us of exactly who honored, and to what degree, one of the most important multilateral organizations of the twentieth century - NATO.
I saw some sympathy, but I saw damned little solidarity in the aftermath of the September attack. I saw the US make plans to take out al Qaeda and the Taliban, and I saw round denunciations of nearly everything we planned or did from the capitols of Europe. I saw us accused of war crimes; I saw us being told repeatedly that we were going to lose; I saw us being told that we were going to cause a humanitarian catastrophe. None of those things happened.I saw NATO invoke Article V, and the total extent of NATO commitment was to move half a dozen AWACS planes from Europe to the United States, to free up American planes to commit to combat. Also, a small number of NATO ships were moved into the eastern Mediterranean, far away from any potential combat. The only other thing NATO did was to try to claim that because Article V had been invoked, that the US no longer was permitted to do anything militarily unless it got permission from Europe first.
With the significant exception of Great Britain, European participation in this NATO action has been more tatemae than honne, as Steven points out. The "incredible goodwill" Bush is supposedly squandering was welcome sympathy, not true coalitional action.
I'm thoroughly American. I prefer directness (even the kind of antagonistic directness this page sometimes generates). Furthermore, in a time of crisis, effective leadership requires blunt, inspirational communication, the kind that Ronald Reagan delivered in Berlin years ago -
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
The State Department, highly attuned to diplomatic sensitivities and master of Tatemae, was on record opposing that statement right through its delivery.
Bush is unwilling to alter his political communication for different audiences. He is no good at Tatemae. Paying Clintonian lip service to Europe gives the impression of "listening" as all these Guardependent editorials (and my correspondent Ted) require. I'm willing to consider this may be a weakness. On the other hand, conflicting signals about our commitment to an aggressive war on terrorism (No Iraq plan on his desk? Hardly.) might make Europe feel better, but imperils Bush with the folks who actually vote for him back home. It may take a better (and less sincere) communicator than Bush to be tough for the core audience yet make potential coalition partners feel sufficiently mollycoddled.
The divided nature of European governments, and the political necessity of keeping the United States at arms-length is a reality that we have to recognize. Similarly, Bush being tough on terrorists could not be a more basic necessity of political survival.
Much as some European multilaterists may think (wholly unrealistically) that national sovereignty and democratic institutions aren't modern , they still represent the system under which U.S. and Europeans must operate. Excuse me for being cynical, but at the end there really is only coalition and self-interest. Actors push towards or away from multilateralism (or permanence of coalitions) based on self-interest. Folks, we are all unilateralists. Multilateralism for the sake of multilateralism is a ridiculous conceit (much like confusing humans for the planet, pointed out in the post below).
I don't want to be nuked by a fanatic with a bomb supplied by Saddam. I don't want Israel to be nuked by the first thugocrat with a working nuclear missile. Do we have any doubt that these plans are in the works? Is there something about having 3000 civilians targeted and incinerated that does not suggest a state of war? Isn't targeting civilians directly against one of the oldest international agreements? Do we need new treaties to oppose it with every bone in our bodies? Why won't you listen to me?
Citizens of Europe, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for yourselves and the millions of victims of Middle Eastern terrorists and kleptocrats, if you seek peace, basic human rights and democracy for citizens of all countries: Come to liberty's defense! Condemn tyranny and defend democracy! Condemn the slaughter of civilians for the sole of purpose of establishing and maintaining fanatical dictatorships. Europe, help us tear down these regimes!
* Interestingly, both Japanese and Europeans seem to view our habit of enthusiastically shaking hands and addressing people we hardly know by their first name as completely insincere. But at least we guys don't go around kissing other dudes - yuk! (for the humor-impaired: I'm kidding here).