Minami

[koganbot]

warthoginrome writes:

I don't know if you had the chance to run into this news, so I wanted to point it out, because the topic is common to the entire asian pop scene.

The story is about Minami Minegishi (20 y.o.), member of the japanese group AKB48. A tabloid published some photographs of her leaving the apartment of her boyfriend, Alan Shirahama (19 y.o.), member of the boy band Generations.

As you may guess, Minami is bound to a "contract" which prohibits any kind of relationships. After the bomb exploded, she decided (spontaneously?) to cut her hair and record a public apology. In the video she apologizes to colleagues, family, and fans, reproaching herself for having been "thoughtless and immature," and specifying that "I don't believe just doing this means I can be forgiven for what I did, but the first thing I thought was that I don't want to quit AKB48." In the meantime, the agency demoted her from the "senior" to the "trainee" rank, for "for causing a nuisance to the fans."

I don't really know why, but as soon as I saw the video, the T-ARA controversy came to my mind, because I find it hard to tolerate the unlimited power of the so called netizens (better, customers). This is really too much. I know that, after all, Minami is more fortunate than many boys and girls of her age living in much tougher conditions around the globe, but I feel bad for her anyway.

Checking this out myself, I see that American news outlets have been all over this story, reporting that the incident has provoked pushback and even outrage in Japan, people calling the treatment of Minami unfair and saying it amounts to bullying (many people assuming she had little choice in the matter of close-cropping her hair).



Some American (I assume) commentators at The Young Turks provided their own perspective, and my crap detector says that they didn't actually research the culture, that they're making guesses as to the attitudes behind the no-dating rule. ("You're no good unless you're virginal, you're no good unless you're pure, you're no good unless I actually have a shot at sleeping with you sometime in the future.") But then, I haven't researched it either. And just because they're guessing doesn't mean they're wrong.

Minami's in a better position than T-ara was as far as garnering sympathy, since the Netizens who were bullying T-ara were portraying T-ara as bullies themselves, which meant that attempts to defend T-ara (and to understand and accept T-ara and their overmatched CEO as humans who get to screw up) could be cast as attempts to defend bullying. On the other hand, T-ara are full-scale stars with a fanbase that's not going to completely abandon them, whereas Minegishi is one replaceable member of a vast enterprise. On the third hand, I know little more than zilch about J-pop and Japan and AKB48, and I don't assume Japan is Korea, and I don't assume there's a homogenous thing called "Japanese attitudes" and "Korean attitudes" anyway, any more than there's a homogenous thing called "American attitudes": there are always arrays of behavior and ongoing tensions and arguments over gender and sex issues (there wouldn't have been an injunction against adultery in Moses' day if people weren't committing adultery (as well as worshiping false gods and failing to honor mommy and daddy)).

Readers who understand K-pop and J-pop more than I do should comment. In the T-ara affair, fans and Netizens didn't hold just one view, and I think in general agencies and performers are far too timid in giving way to what they imagine are fan desires. (Not that all agencies impose such restrictions in the first place.) But also, performers like HyunA, for instance, are able to get energy from the limits that some fans and censors try to impose on them, since part of HyunA'a act is to cross the border into what she's supposedly not allowed to do. I wouldn't imagine it would ruin her image or devastate her fanbase if she were found to have spent the night with a guy. But I don't know. I assume (though I've not researched this) that Brown Eyed Girls are expected to have affairs and dates etc., and are even willing to stoke the rumors that they're sleeping with each other. And one of the Wonder Girls just got married.

By the way, I didn't attend much to G-Dragon's marijuana scandal in 2011, but my impression at the time was that it wasn't that big a deal, nor was it that potentially damaging (his hair follicles tested weakly positive for marijuana, and he explained this away by saying that he imagined it happened 'cause of a time he'd gotten massively drunk and someone offered him a cigarette, which he assumed was tobacco, and he felt he'd have been rude to refuse; this doesn't seem like the most convincing or contrite explanation). If you're going to be a bad boy, you gotta do something bad every now and then.

Something I'm curious about is whether, in Korea and Japan, rock and hip-hop stars (as opposed to pop stars) are expected to hew to limits in the same fashion. By "hew to limits" I don't mean "are subject to the same behavioral injunctions," since I assume they're not (I assume they are allowed to date and that rock and hip-hop guys are supposed to seem sexually active), but rather the idea that you don't want to offend or challenge your fans or appear genuinely arrogant rather than grateful to them for your success. I'd think, in contrast, that you'd lose cred if you seemed too compliant, too full of gratitude. But that's me looking at things from my perspective, here in America.

One thing about Netizen behavior: although it may not be absolutely pure self-expression — you have to have Internet access, you have to have time (both of which require money), and anyway the messages that have money backing them up become the ones sloshing around the culture and are therefore more likely to be the ones that spontaneously come out of people's mouths, even poor people's — it still, as expression goes, is more bottom-up than most. And though minority opinions can be drowned out, they can't simply be shut up. Anyway, I recently read this excerpt from Tom Slee's No One Makes You Shop At Wal-Mart, which is on a different subject — how free consumer choice can sometimes have results that no one wants. I don't make a direct connection in my mind between his thesis, on the one hand, and, on the other, the combination of paparazzi and fan selfishness that afflicts Minami. But when something seems not to be working, it's good to think why, and what could be done. Can a mass of people teach themselves how to think, how to plan? Is there a structure that could help us think and plan better?

At a minimum, what if some record company or agency announced that it would never make disciplinary decisions for any reason without first waiting two weeks?

*[UPDATE: The apology video was taken down from YouTube; here are some excerpts that are still up.]

Comments

[arbitrary-greay.livejournal.com]

Misogyny culture.

The general attack on wotas and fans is mitigated by the context of Asian Junkie itself, which shows that the writers are idols fans themselves, so their attack on wotas and fans is an attack on a specific group. It doesn't condemn the rest of AKB either.
There are advantages to a no-dating ban, even if the concept is silly. They are the excuses other apologists of the system have listed before, and if those practical reasons were actually the reason it exists, then scandals would only be a rule-breaking problem. But it's not, and the reason why scandals become scandals and not just contract breaches is because of the misogyny of the wota that tout the purity aspect of it. Asian Junkie targets the latter, and especially the slut-shaming aspect, and doesn't go on a rampage about all of the other "problems" with the group that the western outlets are going on about.

It's not just western media being late to the table. It's that they're acting like they're not, acting like they know it all, never acknowledging that others have already done a lot a the research and discussion legwork and hey, maybe those research inaccuracies wouldn't have been a problem if they had consulted those people in the first place? And like I said before, they act like they're bringing the shining truth of feminism and progress to us primitive unknowing complacent barbarians.

It's impossible not to connect this to a larger misogyny problem that should be addressed, sure, but a little bit of purity and idols can mix, as shown by their contemporary western counterparts. Idol and otaku culture do not have to be tied to purity. Hell, the scifi/fantasy geek culture side of things has sometimes been progressive on social issues.

[koganbot]

I doubt that there's more than a hair of difference between you and askbask, if even that. I will argue, though, that if the Asian Junkie person/people hadn't been idol fans themselves, what s/he/they were saying would have nonetheless been every bit as valid, just on the basis of being intelligent. S/he/they get their authority in my eyes from what they said, not from being idol fans themselves.

I don't expect the following to be controversial on this particular thread, but who knows:

(1) Asian Junkie is right that "You don't understand the culture" is not in itself an argument, it's a diversionary tactic. I'll add it's not an argument even when it's true. It's simply not an argument.

(2) The internationally ignorant self-righteous may be doing good here by embarrassing the fuck out of the Japanese idol system.

(3) The internationally ignorant self-righteous (a category that at the moment includes me) are themselves a worthy subject — or target — of analysis, not least for what they're doing to and in their own culture.

(4) Citing someone's social category/demographic characteristics is not an argument, because it does not address what they said. Ditto telling them what their motives are (which no one's been doing on this thread, but which is common all through my Internet universe). But noting someone's social characteristics may say something interesting about their context, if you follow up by saying something interesting about their context.

I tend to express plenty of uncertainty in my writing on these subjects, but even if I didn't, if I say smart interesting things, I'm saying smart interesting things, no matter who I am, no matter my level of ignorance or knowledge, no matter my motives, no matter my attitude, even if it's condescending. And even if what I say turns out to be wrong.

Maybe an example here would be useful, especially regarding (3). I don't know if you were paying attention to the anti-Taylor idiots a couple of years back,* who were claiming to be feminists, but the problem with them wasn't that they were outsiders to Taylor fandom, but rather that what they said was out-and-out bigoted and stupid and stereotyped and easily refuted. But even that wasn't the core of the problem. The problem was that they refused to recover from their misreadings. But one of my problems was that I was made so unhappy by the conversation that I didn't stick around to see if any of them did eventually recover. What the anti-Taylor idiots were doing, btw, was to insist that Taylor was singing songs that promoted purity and was promoting purity by her dress and demeanor as well, when actually Taylor was singing and doing no such thing. And my problem wasn't that the anti-Taylor idiots were trying to hurt Taylor, but that, (1) what they were doing was basic bullying, even though it was aimed at a superstar who had no idea they existed, and I don't know how to deal with bullying even just observing, and I haven't figured out how to call out people for bullying without being a bully myself, and (2) the liberal-left, of which I suppose I'm a part, I identify with it anyway, pretty much always cripples and pollutes itself with its own ignorance and bigotry. So I was pissed at what the supposedly leftist feminist anti-Taylor idiots were doing to the Left, though my being pissed was self-defeating, since I know damn well that movements for social justice always attract bullies to the cause, or people who are usually nonbullies and but who use politics to let loose with self-righteousness and stupidity they wouldn't normally allow themselves, and do so in ignorant destructive ways. And knowing this, I ought to figure out a way to say to myself, "This just comes with the territory, and I've got to deal with it or sidestep it." But I brood, and flee, instead.

*Not that they've stopped.

[arbitrary-greay.livejournal.com]

Asian Junkie being fans isn't what validates them. But when Asian Junkie makes a blanket "wota suck" statement, being fans themselves means that they aren't implicating themselves. When an outside media outlet makes that same blanket statement, it does group all idol fans into one category.

(1) Asian Junkie is right that "You don't understand the culture" is not in itself an argument, it's a diversionary tactic. I'll add it's not an argument even when it's true. It's simply not an argument.

(4) Citing someone's social category/demographic characteristics is not an argument, because it does not address what they said. Ditto telling them what their motives are (which no one's been doing on this thread, but which is common all through my Internet universe). But noting someone's social characteristics may say something interesting about their context, if you follow up by saying something interesting about their context.

I agree.

(2) The internationally ignorant self-righteous may be doing good here by embarrassing the fuck out of the Japanese idol system.

I agree. A large movement is necessary to fix the purity system problem, and large movements inevitably can't afford to get it all right, but it's just why the reaction of the fandom to this scandal is different from usual. Like with the Western coverage of Psy and Gangnam Style, I do think it's probably a beneficial thing overall.
Doesn't stop the coverage from annoying me, though, for the reasons stated.

The problem was that they refused to recover from their misreadings.
This is a problem with the purity "discussion" itself, both within the fans and external media now covering it. Everyone makes their initial salvos, no matter their stance, but go beyond that, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of their own misreading, much less try to correct it. So the same opinions are regurgitated at every scandal, no one changes their opinion, and the conversation has about as much direct interaction with each other as any of America's election debates.

I very much respect the way your initial post was written. It made some observations, comparisons, and hypotheses, but without turning them into conclusions, and then listed the unknown topics that might need to be explored before conclusions can be made, and kept the inquiry for information open to beyond those topics, acknowledging that there might be other issues at play that hadn't been considered because of the limits of personal experience/knowledge. The solicitation for potential opposing viewpoints guarantees some measure of direct interaction and self-adjustment of opinions, and the way it's worded somewhat impartially makes it more likely potential opposing viewpoint responders to be open to self-adjustment as well. Progress!

I wish I could remember to hold off on judgement like that more often.

[koganbot]

Thank you. I will say that a well-stated misjudgment can sometimes be more useful than a well-modulated set of hypotheses. Lex Macpherson and Chuck Eddy always walk in with their opinions blazing, quick to the draw and off the top of their heads (to totally mush up my metaphors); but not only do they often say interesting things, they listen to what other people say; and even before someone else shows up they reread what they wrote and start modifying their opinions. The Pazz & Jop discussion a couple of months ago was a good example of Chuck saying something provocative yet simplistic and then rethinking what he'd said. I wish there were more like him.

[koganbot]

Oh, and I still haven't had time to read your links, and not doing so will continue my ignorance. I understand this, and hope you'll be understanding too. And thank you all for being part of this conversation, which I still feel fundamentally outside of.