San Jose State University
SJSU ScholarWorks
Master's Theses
Master's Theses and Graduate Research
2008
Intergenerational dialogue within the Japanese
American community
Larissa Akiko Favela
San Jose State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses
Recommended Citation
Favela, Larissa Akiko, "Intergenerational dialogue within the Japanese American community" (2008). Master's Theses. 3592.
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/3592
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@sjsu.edu.
185
Appendix E
Discussion Questions Part B for Thursday, July 19,2007
Please answer these questions as openly and honestly as you can with your partner.
Please allow your partner the opportunity to answer these questions fully and openly.
Discuss these questions quietly with one another; please take notes about your discussion.
Q 1: How would you define Japanese American today?
Q 2: Most people know that the younger generations of Japanese Americans are
becoming more and more multi-racial. How does that impact the Japanese American
community?
Q3: How can the Japanese American community get the younger generations of Japanese
American's involved?
Personal Reflection:
Please take a moment to reflect and answer these questions. Please be as open and honest
as you feel comfortable.
Reflection Ql: How did it feel to have this conversation with an individual(s) from
another generation?
Reflection Q2a: What was hard about it?
Reflection Q2b: What was easy about it?
Reflection Q3: Were there any points of agreement between you and your partner(s)?
INTERGENERATIONAL DIALOGUE WITHIN THE JAPANESE AMERICAN
COMMUNITY
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of Communication Studies
San Jose State University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
By
Larissa Akiko Favela
December 2008
UMI Number: 1463392
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 1463392
Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
©2008
Larissa Akiko Favela
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION STUDIES
APPROVED FOR THE UNIVERSITY
'/k/*?
ABSTRACT
INTERGENERATIONAL DIALOGUE WITHIN THE JAPANESE AMERICAN
COMMUNITY
by Larissa Akiko Favela
This study explored the lack of communication across the generations within the
Japanese American community. The purpose of the study was to engage the different
generations in an intergenerational dialogue. Focus groups were conducted to examine
the factors contributing to the lack of communication. Data from the focus groups were
analyzed using Spradley's (1979; 1980) thematic analysis and were used to inform the
content of the intergenerational dialogue session. The process and content of the
dialogue session conducted was analyzed according to the principles of dialogic
communication and community-based action research (Spano, 2001; Stringer, 1996).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this Masters Thesis could not have been accomplished without
the assistance and support of many individuals. First, I would like to thank the Japanese
American community and Japantown for their willingness to participate in this research.
Without your contributions this Thesis would be nothing. Secondly, I would like to thank
my graduate advisor Dr. Rona Halualani and the members of my graduate committee,
Drs. Shawn Spano and Anne Marie Todd. Your guidance, encouragement and feedback
helped to make this work possible. Finally, I would like to express my utmost gratitude
to the multitude of family members and friends who prayed, encouraged, babysat, and
assisted me above and beyond my expectations. This thesis would and could not have
been completed without all of you there to help me. In particular, I would like to
recognize my parents who never stopped encouraging me. I would also like to thank my
husband for all of his love, patience, and support.
This Thesis is dedicated to my late grandparents, Abelino and Esther Ballon and
Nobuko Lowe. You always told me I could be whoever I wanted and I could do
whatever I wanted to do. I wish you could have been here to see the completion of this
work. This research is also dedicated to my son, Lucas, and my future children - may
you always remember and honor your roots.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: Exploring Intergenerational Communication within
the Japanese American Community
Introduction
1
,
1
3
Description of the Issue
Literature Review
11
Description of the Study
17
CHAPTER 2: Theoretical and Methodological Framework:
Dialogue and Focus Groups with San Jose Japanese American
Generations
20
Dialogue as a Theoretical and Methodological Framework
20
Community-based Action Research
30
Strategy to Prepare for Dialogue Session
34
CHAPTER 3: Focus Group Results and Analysis:
Emergent Issues Across Generations
47
Focus Group Procedures
47
Emergent Themes Found within the Focus Groups
50
CHAPTER 4: Engaging in Dialogue: Application and Analysis of
Dialogic Principles in Community-based Action Research
Event Preparation and Design: Analyzing the Process
92
93
From Preparation to Practice: Engaging in Intergenerational
110
Dialogue
vi
Analyzing the Dialogue Session
118
Impact of Dialogue Session
142
CHAPTER 5: The Need for More Dialogue: Reflections and Future
Explorations for the Japanese American Community
146
The Needfor Additional Dialogue: The Community's Preservation
147
and Transformation
Dialogue and Community Based Action Research as a Research
Method and Goal.
159
Final Reflections and Conclusions
165
REFERENCES
168
FOOTNOTES
177
APPENDIX A: Focus Group Participant Questionnaire
178
APPENDIX B: Focus Group Research Questions
179
APPENDIX C: Dialogue Session Survey
182
APPENDDCD: Discussion Questions Part A
184
APPENDDC E: Discussion Questions Part B
185
vii
1
CHAPTER 1
Exploring Intergenerational Communication within the Japanese American Community
Introduction
On February 19,1942, Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Roosevelt
and the lives of over 120,000 Japanese Americans, the majority of whom lived in
California and the Pacific Northwest, changed forever (Yoo, 2000). After three years of
imprisonment, the Japanese Americans were released from the internment camps in 1945.
"Those who were able to, moved ahead, determined to stake their claim as Americans in
the fullest sense of the word" (Yoo, 2000, p. 180). The Japanese American experience
not only reveals a tale of endurance, perseverance, triumph, and prosperity, it also
exposes our nation's problem with racism and discrimination. According to Yoo (2000),
this racism and discrimination created obstacles and challenges for Japanese Americans
that influenced opportunities and quality of life. The effects of these "national problems"
arose as issues in this study. Racism and discrimination contributed to the assimilation of
the Japanese American and the birth of a new multiracial generation. In the Bay Area,
the Japanese American Japantown San Jose community is in the midst of experiencing
and grappling with an intracultural and intergenerational predicament that reflects the
reciprocal relationship between communication and culture. Each successive generation
of Japanese Americans are becoming increasingly more Westernized and multiracial.
According to a New York Times article in 2004, those who identify themselves as
Japanese American are on the decline from 847, 562 in 1990 to 796,700 in the 2000
census (Navarro, 2004). Based on data from Census 2000, in comparison to other Asian
2
ethnicities, Japanese Americans are the most likely to be multiracial with 31 percent
indicating their racial status with the combination of another race category (Kim, 2002).
In Santa Clara Country alone, 4.7 % of the participants responded as belonging to more
than one race (United States Census Bureau, 2000). This is equivalent to 1 in 25 people
in Santa Clara County. This is substantial for a county where 35,124 people responded
as Japanese alone or in any combination out of 8% of all respondents who declared
themselves "Asian" (United States Census Bureau, 2000). For the Japanese American
community this social trend is not unfamiliar.
The community has always been aware that at some point they will not only have
to address the increase of multiracial individuals who are Japanese American, but also the
implications of multiraciality for preserving Japanese American identity and community
(King and DeCosta, 1996; Spickard, 2000). There are many factors contributing to this
trend, including a decrease in Japanese immigration and increasing intermarriage
between Japanese Americans with other races (Aratani, 2001; Navarro, 2004).
According to Root (1998), Japanese-White births are almost 40% more common than
monoracial Japanese births. Beginning as early as 1924 to 1933, interracial marriage is
recorded between Japanese and other races at 2.3 %; 0.6 % of those marriages were to
Whites (Panunzio, 1942, as cited in Kitano, Fujino, & Sato, 1998). According to Tinker
(1982), from 1940 to 1949,14.9 % of Japanese American marriages were outmarriages,
or marriage with others outside of their race. From 1960 to 1961, Japanese American
outmarriage rates were 67.9% in Los Angeles County alone (Tinker, 1982, as cited in
Kitano, Fujino, & Sato, 1998). According to Kitano, Fujino, and Sato (1998), most
3
recent outmarriage data indicates that over 60 % of Sansei (third generation, American
born Japanese Americans) women marry outside of their race, and over 50% of Sansei
males marry outside their race. Additionally, data from Census 2000 reveals that out of
the six major Asian American ethnic groups, Japanese Americans had the highest
percentage of outmarriage (to another Asian or to another ethnic group) in proportion to
their population at 30% (Le, 2008). This changing cultural landscape is causing
uneasiness within the Japanese American community regarding the future of their culture.
Specifically, these changes raise questions surrounding Japanese American cultural
identity. This Master's thesis focused on the intergenerational and intercultural
communication surrounding Japanese American identity, particularly in San Jose's
Japantown community.
Description of the Issue
Increasing assimilation of each successive generation and the increasing number
of multiracial Japanese Americans is causing concern regarding the preservation of
Japanese American culture and the Japanese American community. Initially, the topic of
senior care emerged within the Japanese American community in Japantown San Jose as
an issue of concern. The community was concerned about the issue of senior care
because of the apparent lack of interest and participation of the younger Sansei (third
generation), Yonsei (fourth generation) and Gosei (fifth generation) in the work of the
Japantown San Jose Senior Center, Yu-Ai Kai. The Nisei (second generation) of the
community are especially concerned about preserving the local and cultural legacy of
caring for the elderly. I became aware of this concern while involved with Japantown
4
San Jose's senior community center, Yu Ai Kai. Although employees of the senior
community center would talk about these issues, their complaint was that no
communication was taking place in the larger community addressing these issues.
Communication about the issues of senior care, the preservation of cultural values, and
cultural identity seemed to be openly discussed only by the "elders" of the community,
with little to no involvement of the younger generations. The individuals of the
community who directly affect the future of senior care were not included in the
conversation. This Master's thesis initially sought to explore this lack of open
communication across the generations, how and why this lack of communication was
taking place, and what could possibly done to address the issue.
As this study progressed, the issue of senior care was indeed an issue but other
more significant and pervasive issues emerged from the conducted focus groups. These
issues centered on the lack of interest, participation, and involvement of younger
generations in the Japanese American community at large. Conversations reflected a
growing concern about the definition of Japanese American cultural identity and the
preservation of Japanese American culture even with the rise of multiracial Japanese
Americans. Aside from the lack of open communication, the concerns that emerged
within the focus groups were issues of conflict. Issues regarding interest and
involvement of younger generations, the definition of Japanese American identity,
cultural preservation and preservation of the community, and the issue of multiraciality
are points of tension within the community. Discussion of these issues within and across
5
the Japanese American community reveals a diversity of opinions and perspectives that
are also intensely emotional.
Further examination of this intergenerational predicament reveals the dynamic
relationship between culture and communication. According to Gudykunst (1997), the
relationship between communication and culture is a reciprocal relationship; one
influences the other. Culture influences the communication style of individuals, and the
way individuals communicate can, over time, change the culture (Gudykunst, 1997).
This Master's thesis sought to explore this reciprocal relationship of culture and
communication further by exploring the impact outmarriage and assimilation have upon
the Japanese American ethnic culture and community.
Within the field of communication studies, there has been ample research on
intercultural communication, including Japanese cultural communication patterns
(Barnlund, 1989; Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990; Chen & Masako, 2003; Collier, 1996;
Gudykunst, 1983; Gudykunst, Gao, Schmidt, Nishida, Michael, Leung, Wang, &
Barraclough, 1992; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984; Hall & Hall, 1990; Kim, Hunter,
Miyahara, Horvath, Bresnahan, & Yoon, 1996; Klopf, 1991; Ting-Toomey, 1991; TingToomey, Gao, Trubisky, Yang, Kim, Lin, & Nishida, 1991). Most of the research
findings suggest and/or support the theory that Japanese culture is collectivistic or, the
harmony and good of the group or community as a whole takes precedence over the
individual (Hofstede, 1980,1983; Gudykunst, 1983, Gudykunst & Nishida, 1994;
Nadamitsu, Chen, & Freidrich, 2001). A few studies on intergenerational communication
have also been done within intercultural communication research, comparing and
6
contrasting Western communication patterns and Japanese, Asian American, or other
Asian communication patterns (McCann, Ota, Giles, & Caraker, 2004; McCann, 2003;
Mori, 2003; Sugimoto, 1997; Tanaka & Bell, 1996; Williams, Ota, Giles, Pierson,
Gallois, Ng, et al, 1997). These studies argue that there is a strong sense of filial piety, or
respect and deference of young Asian Americans to their elders, more so than their
Western counterparts. It is this concept of filial piety that the Japanese American
community fears is being threatened. In San Jose's Japantown San Jose, the lack of
participation of the Japanese American Sansei (third generation, American born) and
Yonsei (fourth generation, American born) (Nagata, 2001) in the affairs of the community
is perceived by some to be not only threatening a deeply embedded cultural value, but
threatening the preservation of the entire Japanese American culture and community in
the Bay Area.
The focus of this Master's thesis was on intergenerational communication about
issues affecting the Japanese American community, particularly Japanese American
cultural identity and cultural preservation within Japantown San Jose's Japanese
American community. This issue is particularly personal to me as a young, multiracial
Japanese American. On one hand, I am not always perceived by some in the community
as Japanese American because of my multiraciality. At the very least, I am not
considered to be authentically Japanese. On the other hand, I, as a later, Sansei-han
(third generation of a Japanese immigrant who immigrated after WWII) generation of the
Japanese American community, do see the need and urgency to preserve the cultural
values and traditions of Japanese American culture and the historical and cultural legacy
7
of Japanese Americans. In order to understand who I am, I need to understand the culture
that shaped my grandmother and my mother. This study has helped me not only to
understand my grandmother and mother even more, but this study has opened my eyes
into my own cultural, personal identity. Additionally, this study has given me insight into
why I believe what I believe, why I act the way I do - and essentially, what makes me
who I am. The research is also particularly interesting and personal to me as the mother
of a young, multiracial child. I would like my son to know his mother's, grandmother's
and great grandmother's cultural heritage so as he explores his own identity, he will have
a people to go to and a place to go where he will feel a sense of community because of
similar shared experiences and perspectives.
Japantown San Jose and the senior community center, Yu Ai Kai, are the
localized expressions of Japanese American cultural values (Mandziuk, 2003) and is the
site of this cultural struggle. Japantown San Jose, the center of the Japanese American
community, and Yu Ai Kai, one of the community's mainstays, are practical and
symbolic places for the intergenerational communication event to take place. In order to
understand Japantown San Jose's and Yu Ai Kai's significance to the community, it is
important to be familiar with the historical context surrounding Japanese Americans.
Japanese Americans - A Brief History
The Japanese American experience is unique among most immigrant stories in the
history of the United States. In 1890, Japanese immigrants began to land on the West
Coast from Japan. From 1890 to 1924, a total of 295,820 Japanese came to the United
States (Maki, Kitano, & Berthold, 1999). These original immigrants, those who
8
immigrated before WWII, are known as the Issei, those who were born in Japan and alien
to the United States. Their offspring, the Nisei, refer to the second generation, those of
Japanese descent who are "the American born" (Adams, 2001; Harth, 2000; Yoo, 2000).
By 1902, a small Nihonmachi, or Japantown San Jose, was established. By 1909, about
1% of the agricultural land was owned by Issei farmers (Maki, Kitano, & Berthold,
1999). Similar to most immigrant stories, the Japanese were subjected to discrimination.
However, they lived in relative peace until December 7,1941. After the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor, resentment and distrust of the Japanese grew. As Japanese
American reporter Larry Tajiri observed, "We are Americans by every right, birth,
education and belief, but our faces are those of the enemy" (as quoted in Yoo, 2000, p.
95). Shortly thereafter, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order
9066, which authorized the mass evacuation of Japanese Americans to internment camps
(Maki, Kitano, & Berthold, 1999; Yoo, 2000). The evacuation was sudden and rushed,
leaving little time for those affected to make arrangements for their families, their
businesses, or even pack (Mackey, 1998; Riley, 2002; Shirai, 2001). The majority of the
Japanese Americans in Santa Clara County were tagged for identification and sent to
Heart Mountain, Wyoming, Poston, Arizona, and Manzanar, California (Asakawa, 2004;
Japantown San Jose website; Yoo, 2000). They resided as imprisoned American citizens
for three years within the internment camps. It was not until December of 1944 that they
were allowed to return to their homes. However, very few had homes to go back to and
very few were welcomed back to the towns and cities where their homes were established
(Eap, 2001). Even those who served in the United States military found little welcome
9
(Nachman, 2007). Santa Clara County, San Jose, and Morgan Hill passed resolutions that
opposed the return of Japanese American's to the valley (Eap, 2001). The Japanese
American community has struggled and survived and now fight to recognize, honor, and
serve those who experienced the internment. The story of the Japanese Americans is one
of hope, survival, perseverance, and triumph. This is the history and the story that the
Japanese American community does not want their successive generations to forget. This
is a story that the San Jose community and larger California community ought not to
forget.
Yu Ai Kai, the Japanese American senior center, is a reflection of the notion of
filial piety. The organization, conceived in the early 1970's by Sansei (offspring of the
Nisei, third generation American born Japanese Americans) (Nagata, 2001) students from
San Jose State University, is a source of pride of the community (Sweeney, 1990). It
embodies the spirit of the Japanese tradition ofkeiro or respect or place of honor of the
elderly. "The senior center was the product of these Sanseis' quest to honor their elders
in the spirit of their culture while seeking their own cultural identity" (Karjala as quoted
in Yu Ai Kai Community Senior Center, 2004, p. 2). The organization was meant to be a
place of comfort and community for the elders, the Issei and the Nisei, who endured the
humiliation of the internment. The organization's vision statement which can be found
on their website (www.vuaikai.org) reflects the young Sanseis' aspiration: "To be a
leader in promoting seniors as valued members of your community, both as contributors
and beneficiaries, through sharing, preserving, and developing Japanese - American
culture" (Yu Ai Kai, n.d). For over thirty years, Yu Ai Kai has been dedicated to
10
ensuring that this vision is realized by providing quality care and services to the senior
community, regardless of ethnicity. The aging Nisei and older Sansei the pillars of the
organization, are still concerned about the younger generations losing touch with their
culture and cultural values. The Yu Ai Kai senior community center has become more
than a site that reflects the cultural value of caring for the elderly. The senior community
center is a monument through which the heroes of the Japanese American community are
honored. The lack of involvement of the younger generation in the matter of senior care
is the catalyst that brought the issues of multiraciality, cultural identity and cultural
preservation into the spotlight. There is a fear of losing or mitigating the cultural values
that characterize what it is to be Japanese American. There is a fear that the next
generations will forget the lessons from the past and the struggles of their parents and
grandparents.
Definition of Terms
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to define and explain terms used to
describe the different generations discussed in this research study. These terms, as noted
and pointed out by an active member of the Japantown San Jose community in a
conversation, reflect the cultural values of order and symmetry in the Japanese culture
(Asakawa, 2004; J. Yamaichi, personal communication, 5/21/07). Issei is the term to
describe the first Japanese immigrants to the United States, circa late 1800's and early
1900's (Asakawa, 2004). Nisei is the term used to describe the offspring of the Issei, the
first American born Japanese. Sansei describes those who are the offspring of the Nisei,
the third generation born in the United States; the second generation who are American
11
citizens. These three generations were those who were interned during World War II,
however, some Sansei were born after the internment. Yonsei and Gosei are the fourth
and fifth generations, respectively. A large percentage of these generational groups are
biracial or multiracial. The term hapa is a Hawaiian term for "mixed" that originally had
no ethnic connotation, but was later adopted as a term to refer to individuals who are
racially mixed (Asakawa, 2004). Those who are hapa are not always perceived to be
"pure" Japanese American due to the dilution of the blood line. Nikkei is a term used for
an individual who comes from Japanese ancestry. This term usually implies that the
individual is Japanese by blood, but not necessarily in lifestyle. In other words, they are
genetically Japanese or Japanese American, but culturally "White" (Asakawa, 2004).
Several questions arise out of the history of Japanese Americans. These are: To
what extent are the successive generations forgetting their heritage? Why or why not? Is
there really a lack of interest in the younger generations to preserve and serve the
community? Why or why not? While discussion about the issue of cultural heritage and
preservation is taking place among the Nisei and the older Sansei, is this a discussion
taking place across generations? If the Japanese American community is seriously
concerned about cultural preservation, then communication regarding the future
preservation of Japanese American culture must take place across the generations.
Literature Review
Cross cultural and intercultural communication scholars have continually argued
that Japanese culture is a collectivistic culture (Gudykunst, 1997; Hofstede, 1991; Ito,
1989; Sugimoto, 1997; Ting-Toomey 1991; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Collectivistic
12
cultures are characterized as emphasizing group based information in order to understand
and predict the behavior of others (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986a), rather than person
based information which tends to characterize individualistic cultures. Collectivistic
cultures tend to have only a select number of in-groups which heavily influence
communication and one's identity is developed based on one's relationship with others
(Hecht, Warren, Jung, & Krieger, 2005). According to Hamaguchi (1985), the Japanese
culture tends to focus on conceptualism or emphasis on concepts such as wa (harmony),
amae (dependency) and enryo (reserve or restraint) (as cited in Gudykunst, 1998). One's
own personal wishes and desires will become secondary to that of the group. Therefore,
one's identity is interdependent with the group, or one's identity is within the context of
the group as a whole. This emphasis and interdependence on the group over the
individual directly influences the style of communication. As Okabe (1983) explains that
the Japanese are deeply involved with one another and know the speech codes so well,
that simple messages with deep meanings can be easily understood by others within the
culture. Hecht, Warren, Jung and Kreiger (2005) found that the Japanese culture was
even more collectivistic than the Chinese culture, another Asian culture that is
characterized as collectivistic. Within the Japanese culture there is an intimate
knowledge and understanding of cultural rules, norms, and speech codes. This emphasis
on the group and one's relation to the group tends toward avoidance of group or
communal conflict and the promotion of group harmony and cohesion.
Cross cultural and intercultural communication research examining the Japanese
culture and communication patterns, particularly in comparison to other Western cultures
13
(for example, France or United States), is very extensive (Barnlund, 1989; Barnlund &
Yoshioka, 1990; Gudykunst, 1983,2004,2005; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986a, 1986b,
1994; Hecht, Warren, Jung & Krieger, 2004; Hofstede, 1980,1983; Sugimoto, 1997;
Ting-Toomey, 1986,1988,1991,2005; Ting-Toomey, Trubisky, & Nishida, 1989).
Much of this research focuses upon and explores cultural communication patterns, not
issues of cultural identity. Very little research has been done in intercultural or cross
cultural communication that focuses specifically on Japanese Americans, those who are
both American and of Japanese descent, their cultural communication patterns or their
cultural identity. Examining how Westernization and assimilation of the Japanese
Americans has influenced the culture and communication patterns would be a very
valuable study, particularly as we examine diversity and multiculturalism within the
United States. My research will explore how Japanese Americans, one of the oldest and
most influential immigrant cultures in California, negotiate assimilating into Western
culture while at the same time retaining and remembering their native ethnic culture.
Japanese Americans are an integral part of California history. At one time, this
community thrived in California. The internment of the Japanese Americans affected
many Japanese Americans living in the Bay Area. Japantown San Jose is one of the last
existing Japantowns in the United States (Navarro, 2004). The Japanese American
Museum of San Jose, a museum dedicated to chronicling and preserving the history and
experience of the Japanese American internment, is located in Japantown San Jose.
Research exploring intergenerational communication has also been conducted in
both fields of psychology and psychiatry, particularly communication regarding race-
14
related trauma. The Japanese American internment experience has been conceptualized
as a race-related trauma (Loo, 1993) for it is characterized as a prolonged exposure to
racial discrimination. The internment had a profound effect on the Japanese Americans'
sense of self and personal pride (Asakawa, 2004; Commission on Wartime Relocation
and Internment of Civilians [CWRIC], 1997). The loss of businesses and livelihoods of
many of the internees has been well-documented. Studies addressing race-related trauma
have explored how race - based trauma is communicated intergenerationally, usually
through storytelling, silence, and over - and under - disclosure (Danieli, 1998; Duran,
Duran, Brave Heart, & Yellow-Horse Davis, 1998; Lichtman, 1994). A few research
studies have specifically explored the intergenerational communication of the internment
within the Japanese American community (Carr, 1993; Loo, 1993; Nagata, 1990,1993,
1998,2003). Japanese American intergenerational communication about the internment
experience is less open in comparison to other studies exploring intergenerational
communication within other racial groups (Nagata & Cheng, 2003). This finding is not
necessarily surprising since it is consistent with past intercultural communication
research regarding Japanese communication patterns. Carr (1993), Nagata (1990,1993),
and Nagata, Treirweiler, and Talbot (1999) found that there is a surprising lack of
communication regarding the internment between the Nisei and the Sansei, especially
since the language barrier does not exist between these two generations as it did for the
Issei and the Nisei. However, in Nagata and Cheng's (2003) study exploring Nisei
internees' intergenerational communication regarding the internment, the Nisei
apparently reported 65% of conversations with their children were about the internment.
15
This number is twice as large as the 30% reported by the Sansei in a previous study
regarding Sansei conversations with their parents (Nagata, 1993). Nagata and Cheng
(2003) theorize that there may be inconsistency with what messages the Nisei may have
intended to communicate about race-related trauma and what is actually received by their
children. This same phenomenon could be taking place in Japantown San Jose regarding
intergenerational communication about Japanese American cultural identity and
preservation.
In the Communication Studies discipline, there are only a handful of research
studies examining intergenerational communication across cultures, and the amount of
literature is fairly limited (Cai, Giles, & Noels, 1998; Ng, Loo, Weatherall, & Loong,
1997; Ota, Giles, & Gallois, 2002; Ota, Harwood, Williams, & Takai, 2000; Williams,
Ota, Giles, Pierson, Gallois, Ng, et al., 1997). However, these studies have indicated that
younger generations have negative experiences when communicating with the elderly.
For example, Williams, Ota, Giles, Pierson, Gallois, Ng, et al, (1997) found in their
survey across nine different countries, that the Japanese rated high in perceiving the
elderly as non-accommodative (i.e., inattentive, close minded, not listening), but they
also tended to perceive the elderly with great respect and obligation. Ng, Loo,
Weatherall, and Loong (1997) found similar results in their study in Australia exploring
intergenerational communication experiences and contact within the Australian Chinese
and European cultures. Their study also indicated that although the Chinese in Australia
perceived the elderly with more respect than their European counterparts, there was very
little evidence of voluntary interaction with the elderly within both cultures.
16
Additionally, MeCann's (2003) study of perceptions of accommodation between
generations across three different cultures (Thailand, Japan, and the United States)
supported previous research that younger generations have negative communicative
experiences with the elderly. His study compared two collectivistic, Asian (Thai and
Japanese) cultures with the United States, an individualistic culture. The study indicated
less openness but positive communication between younger generations and the elderly
within the Thai and Japanese cultures, compared to the United States. So far, research
exploring cross-cultural intergenerational communication seems to suggest that younger
generations in collectivistic Asian cultures (like Japan) respect and accommodate the
elderly (to promote harmony), yet perceive communication with the elderly as a negative
experience. More recent research has begun exploring the effects of modernization and
globalization on the perception of young Asian individuals toward the elderly and the
cultural concept of filial piety. For example, Zhang, Harwood, and Hummert (2005)
examined intergenerational perceptions of conflict and conflict communication styles
with Chinese participants. The results of their study did support that modernization and
globalization is starting to influence cultural values and communication styles, in regards
to conflict.
Thus far, research conclusions exploring intergenerational communication are
largely based on one-to-one interviews and surveys based on participants' perceptions of
communication interactions with the elderly. However, this research only examines
intergenerational communication across two or more national cultures, as opposed to
within a single, ethnic culture. My research fills this void within the Communication
17
Studies discipline by focusing on intergenerational communication within the Japanese
American community.
Description of the Study
The intent of this thesis study is to explore what is contributing to the generational
communication gap in the San Jose Japanese American community. Based on these
findings, this research study attempts to bridge that gap by facilitating communication
across generations in an intergenerational dialogue session. This thesis study employs
qualitative research to: 1) examine and identify cultural issues and concerns of the
Japanese American community regarding senior care and the preservation of Japanese
American identity; and, 2) use the data to design and facilitate a dialogue session between
the different generations within the community regarding these issues. In order to
explore these issues, this study examines the following research questions:
RQ #l(a): How does each generation define Japanese American cultural
identity? (Or, what does it mean to be Japanese American?)
RQ #l(b): What are the major concerns of each generation regarding the
Japanese American community?
RQ#2: How is the Japanese American community changing? Are these good or
positive changes? Why or why not?
RQ #3a: What characterizes the communication between Nisei and Sansei and/or
Yonsei?
RQ #3b: What characterizes the communication between the Sansei and the
Yonsei and/or Gosei?
18
RQ #4: Based on the insights gainedfromthe research questions above, how can
a dialogue about major community concerns (i.e., the future of the
community, assimilation, and multiraciality, involvement and participation
of the younger generations, preservation of the Japanese American culture,
and others that emerge) be facilitated between the different generations in
the Japanese American community?
The goal of this study was to promote more open and positive communication
across the various generations in the Japantown San Jose community regarding the
present issues that face the community. Specifically, the research focused on issues such
as the future of senior care, involvement and participation of the younger generations,
and preservation of the Japanese American community and culture. It is the younger
Sansei (third generation) and Yonsei (fourth generation) who will bear the burden of
caring for the Nisei (second generation). Eventually, they too will grow old and need
care. Collaborating with the Nisei (second generation), Sansei (third generation) and
Yonsei (fourth generation), the community will be able to identify the needs of the
community (such as preservation of Japanese culture) and will be able to work together to
address those needs. As a result of this cross-generational collaboration, the younger
generations may have more of an interest in becoming involved, not only in the cultural
tradition of caring for the elderly, but more involved in the Japanese American
community as a whole. In order to accomplish this goal, this study incorporated the use
of dialogue and dialogic communication principles as aframeworkfor addressing and
communicating about these issues. The next chapter discusses how dialogue as a method
19
and approach was used to encourage more positive and open communication across the
different generations in the Japanese American community in Japantown San Jose.
20
CHAPTER 2
Theoretical and Methodological Framework:
Dialogue and Focus Groups with San Jose Japanese American Generations
Using dialogic communication as a theoretical and methodological framework
this Master's thesis examined how to narrow the intracultural communication gap across
the generational divide. This chapter delineates the specific method of dialogue and the
use of focus groups as the basis for the intergenerational communication event.
Additionally, information is presented on how this research project contributes to the
field of community-based action research and how this field of research supports the
principles of dialogic communication.
Dialogue as Theoretical and Methodological Framework
Dialogic communication is an attitude and approach to communication. Dialogic
communication promotes what Stewart and Zediker (2000) describe as multivocal and
collaborative communication through which participants have the opportunity to
"alternately speak to the issue and with each other about points of convergence and
divergence in their individual perspectives" (p. 238). This thesis is unique in its purpose
to apply dialogic principles within an intracultural context. Research has been conducted
in applying dialogic theory to interpersonal and pedagogical contexts (Artz, 2001;
Howard, 2002; Hyde & Bineham, 2000; Pearce & Pearce, 2001; Pearce & Pearce, 2004;
Stewart & Zediker, 2000). There have also been studies analyzing the application of
dialogic communication to local community issues involving cultural tensions
(Gurevitch, 1989; Spano, 2001). This study adds to this body of research by applying
21
dialogic communication in an intracultural and intergenerational context - the Japanese
American community. This thesis explored how the dialogic communication model can
be applied to the communication issues within the Japanese American community.
Dialogic Communication Defined
Dialogue is sometimes perceived as a highly specialized way people talk,
assuming a relationship between the participants (Spano, 2006). Dixon (1996) describes
dialogue as, "a special kind of talk - that affirms the person-to-person relationship
between discussants and which acknowledges their collective and intellectual capacity to
make sense of the world" (p. 24). This definition and explanation gives us a sense of
how some people describe what dialogue is. Pearce and Pearce (2000) argue that this
understanding of dialogue reveals the perception of dialogue as a noun. By perceiving
dialogue as a noun, dialogue is labeled as a type of communication. The other perception
of dialogue is to see dialogue as an adjective or adverb, referring to a distinctive quality
of'"dialogic communication' or 'communicating dialogically' that can be done in any
form of communication" (Pearce & Pearce, 2004, p. 45). Dialogue is not a separate form
of communication, another type of talk, which can be compared and contrasted. Rather
dialogue is an attitude and approach to communication.
Pearce and Pearce (2004) describe dialogic communication as "enriching the
conversation.. .to probe for untold and unheard stories, to explore the differences between
stories lived and stories told" (p. 47) by inviting "participants into a different kind of
relationship with each other, enriching the stories of self, other, and community" (p. 51).
Hammond, Anderson, and Cissna (2003) describe dialogue as "a human opportunity for
22
discovering or creating truth and empowering action" (p. 150). A dialogic approach to
communication allows for creativity and discovery through the stories, the
interpretations, and ideas of the participants. It provides new opportunity for participants
to work together, to collaborate together, to learn and to be empowered to act. Dialogic
communication encourages mutual understanding and respect amongst participants so
that they will feel safe and confident to work together. Therefore, dialogic
communication is the ideal attitude and approach to achieve intergenerational
communication within the Japanese American community.
Dialogue is described as an ideal because one cannot force or make dialogue.
One can attempt to communicate using dialogic principles; however, as stated earlier,
dialogue is an attitude as well as an approach. According to Martin Buber (2002),
dialogue will take place when people communicate with one another as "what they are" this is the realm of the "interhuman," the only realm in which dialogue can "blossom" (p.
675). Buber outlined certain characteristics of dialogic communication such as being
present during dialogue, meaning unfolding through dialogue, as opposed to being
imposed, and "being" rather than "seeming", or being genuine rather than self-conscience
in communication. This is when true dialogue occurs. Gurevitch (1989) expounds on
Buber by explaining that dialogue begins "only when the two parties grant each other the
power of presenting themselves as other origins of truth and justice" (p. 162). This opens
up participation to all parties involved and it encourages a mutual respect for each other's
beliefs, ideas, and perspectives. Hammond, Anderson, and Cissna (2003) describe
dialogue in the following ways: invites differences and commonalities so that change can
23
occur; provides an opportunity for a group to learn and to collaborate together as a team;
helps participants to feel safe in becoming vulnerable with one another; encourages
mutual participation and cooperation; takes place in a certain context in history and
possesses a place in the future; and allows commitment and honest communication about
your own perspective. By encouraging and fostering a dialogic approach, it was hoped
that a mutual understanding across the generational divide could be achieved. Therefore,
providing an opportunity for the Japanese American community to move forward to meet
the needs of the elderly as well as the community as a whole.
Characteristics ofDialogic Communication
Open to the other while holding one's ground. Openness to the other is one of
principles of dialogic communication. Openness in dialogic communication refers to the
acceptance of one's own position and perspective without requiring the adoption or
assimilation of another's position or perspective (Pearce and Pearce, 2004). Dialogic
communication research practitioner Kim Pearce (2002) explains that most people are
comfortable either being completely open to the other or holding their own ground;
meaning, it is remaining in the tension of those two that is the challenge and it is this
tension that characterizes dialogic communication. This tension could be understood as
the ability to be open to another's perspective, yet retain one's own perspective without
imposing change on the other. According to Pearce and Pearce (2004) holding this
tension is achieved not only through verbal and nonverbal communication of participants,
but with the assistance of a facilitator and the careful design of the speech moment (in
this case, the focus groups and the intergenerational dialogue session). Anderson, Cissna,
24
and Arnett (1994) point out that dialogic communication is not something that is
"mandated" or forced, nor does it just accidentally and spontaneously occur either. It is
something that needs to be facilitated. Encouraging this type of openness in
communication, in contrast to forcing it, would be my challenge as a facilitator and
research practitioner. As Pearce and Pearce (2004) describe, "the challenge in our work
as practitioners is facilitating people not necessarily interested in dialogue to engage in
this quality of communication in situations that are not conducive to it" (p. 47). This
would be the challenge to navigate around while attempting to encourage and facilitate
open and honest communication across the different generations about issues and
concerns that were also points of tension and difference. Gurevitch (1989) explains "only
when the two parties grant each other the power of presenting themselves as other origins
of truth and justice can dialogue begin" (p. 162). By encouraging the participants to hold
their own position, yet remaining open to the positions of others, the hope was that the
community would be able to take a look at the issues in the context of their differing
perspectives and work together to a) figure out what is meaningful and important to them
as a community in regards to cultural identity and preservation, and b) discover
productive, valuable, and workable solutions to address the concerns about cultural
identity and preservation.
Engaging the tension. One of the major characteristics of dialogic
communication is the engagement of participants in a tension - the tension of holding
their own ground or perspective, yet being open to the other, or as Stewart and Zediker
(2000) explain, standing one's ground while allowing others to happen to you. The key
25
word is while. This denotes a sense of both experiences happening at once and feeling
the tension that is created, yet allowing the tension to exist and engaging in
communication in spite of that tension. The facilitator must not only prepare and help the
participants engage in this communication moment. According to Pearce (2002), a
facilitator must tell the participants' story well, affirm the participants that their voice(s)
are heard, reflect how participants co-construct richer stories and perspectives, and gain
their trust and respect regardless of differing perspectives. These are all skills that need
to be learned and practiced by the facilitator.
Facilitating in the not knowing position. Dialogic communication, in a group
context, is invited, engaged in and practiced with the help of a skilled facilitator. In order
to allow for dialogic communication to occur naturally, the facilitator must put aside his
or her own preconceived ideas, assumptions, and opinions about the issues discussed and
hold a "not knowing position" or the position of neutrality. Neutrality does not imply
passivity, a point that Spano (2005) emphasizes. Rather, a facilitator that takes a neutral
or "not knowing position" allows for what Stewart and Zediker (2000) describe as
multivocality, or the opportunity for all voices and perspectives to emerge and be heard.
Additionally, as Spano (2001) describes, the facilitator is able to lead the conversation
with curiosity and wonder, "in order to remain fully open to unanticipated outcomes" (p.
38). It is important for a facilitator to be flexible and open to the unpredictable nature of
dialogic communication.
Dialogic listening and eliciting stories. The facilitator's ability to remain in the
"not knowing" position is assisted through engaging in dialogic listening and by eliciting
26
the experiences and stories of the participants. The goal of dialogic listening is not to
evaluate or judge what is being said, but rather to attend to what is being said and help
develop a mutual understanding of meaning (Pearce, 2002; Spano, 2001). This not only
creates an atmosphere conducive for the participants to speak freely, openly, and
honestly, but it also helps create a relationship of trust between the facilitator and the
participants. In order to accomplish this goal the facilitator's responsibility is to verbally
and nonverbally let the participants know that he or she is hearing what they were saying,
free from judgment. The facilitator's role is to encourage all voices to be heard and all
perspectives to be shared in order to encourage understanding. One way to encourage
understanding about the differing perspectives is by encouraging the participants to speak
about their personal stories and experiences. Spano (2001) explains how this human
element moves beyond opinion, but rather reveals how circumstances and experiences
brought participants to hold certain positions. Pearce (2002) describes this as "enriching
the conversation" through encouraging participants to present their perspectives as fully
and completely as possible allowing everyone to truly understand one another's position
(p. 35).
Systemic questioning. Another method in promoting the sharing and even
reflection on the participants' part about their own experiences and practices is through
the strategic use or wording of questions. Penman (2000) describes this style of
questioning as questions of practice, while Spano (2001) describes it as systemic
questioning. Questions or practice or systemic questioning is a way of asking questions
that do not ask for a direct response. Rather they serve the purpose of a prompt. The
27
goal and purpose is for all involved to come to a mutual understanding of the issues and
to understand how one came to a certain position or perspective in order to come together
and work cooperatively to address the issues. All the while, participants are
acknowledging the different journeys, experiences, and practices that brought each
participant to the position or perspective they hold. These questions of practice explore
how and what, which helps explore how we engage, participate, contribute, and cooperate
in the issues that affect our social lives (Penman, 2000). Spano (2001) explains the
purpose of systemic questioning is to "elicit responses that demonstrate connections and
reveal relationships that operate within a community, group, or organization" (p. 42).
Penman (2000) and Spano (2001) encourage this method of asking questions for drawing
out responses about experiences and ways of relating. This method of questioning
explores and reveals relationships - relationships between the issues facing the
community, group, or organization and how these issues relate to those involved and
affect their experiences, positions, practices, and perspectives.
Appreciative inquiry. Appreciative inquiry is a method of engaging participants
to consider what is positive or what is productive in a given context It calls for
participants to consider, identify and clarify, and draw on the resources that positively
and productively contribute to their community as they come together to consider the
future (Spano, 2001). The reason for using appreciative inquiry, particularly in the
intergenerational dialogue session, was to reveal and encourage the points of contact that
exist within the community and across the generations.
28
Reflecting and refraining back. Reflecting and refraining back is a key
component to inviting dialogic communication and is a responsibility held by the
facilitator. It is also the skill that proved particularly challenging for me as the facilitator.
"Reflecting back" is essential to the dialogue process and requires the full attention and
energy of the facilitator - researcher. "Reflecting back" is a technique, a skill that is
practiced and refined with experience. It provides a sense of perspective about the
communication moment(s) within the dialogic event. Its purpose is to help the
participants "come to a deeper understanding of the problems and issues that confront
them" (Spano, 2001, p. 43). Andersen (1992) describes reflecting as a "sophisticated
process" that helpsframeand reframe what has been said and done (as cited in Spano,
2001, p. 43). For example, "reflecting back" is merely restating or relating what has been
said about a particular issue. It can sound like, "what I hear you saying is that there is no
future for the Japantown community...", or "what I am hearing is that there are differing
definitions about who or what makes someone Japanese American." Reflecting back
does not reveal any "correct" answers or interpretations, rather it helps the participants, in
this case the Japanese American community, to see the potential and possible connections
or relationships with the issues facing the community. An example of a "reflecting back"
statement emphasizing a relationship is "What I hear from many of you is that you think
the younger generations seem to have forgotten or have no memory of the internment
experience and this is a contributing problem to the preservation of the community and
culture."
29
"Reflecting back" can also be used as a means for the facilitator to challenge the
"grammar" or the way issues are discussed and point out how that is helping or
hindering the process of collaboration. An example of this is: "It sounds as though not
all of you perceive the issue of multiraciality as a positive for the community."
"Reflecting back" is particularly important when it can help point out multivocality or
when there is a transition from univocality to monovocality. Hammond, Andersen, and
Cissna (2003) describe this moment as a "surprise.. .where meaning emerges through
relationships rather than through imposing or presuming individual will" (p. 141). The
"surprise" is experienced when participants realize mutuality, mutuality of interests,
positions, goals and outcomes, visions, even action plans. Participants realize that they
may not all be using the same language, but the meaning is the same in terms of
creating unity. "Reflecting back" can be a very powerful way to bring clarity to the
conversation. It can also be very empowering for the participants as they start seeing
the interconnections and the relationships between the positions of the others.
The exploration and application dialogic communication principles within the
Japanese American community, an intracultural context, opened up new avenues for the
relevance of dialogue as methodological approach. Additionally, it reinforced the idea
of dialogue as a practical approach in its variety of applications. The principles of
dialogue was applied and enacted in this research study along with the principles of
community-based action research in order to support the community as they explored
and examined the specific issues pertaining to them.
30
Conununity-based Action Research
This study also contributes to the growing number of research studies exploring
community-based action research. Action research as a method of inquiry is not limited
or restricted to one research discipline. It is used in a variety of fields to accomplish
specific goals. It stands as an approach to resolving community issues and problems
(Servaes, 1996, Stringer, 1996). The goal of action research is to empower citizens of a
community to enact change. According to Stringer (1996), community-based action
research possesses four characteristics:
•
It is democratic, enabling the participation of all people.
•
It is equitable, acknowledging people's equality of worth.
•
It is liberating, providing freedom from oppressive, debilitating
conditions.
•
It is life enhancing, enabling the expression of people's full human
potential (p. 10).
This approach rests on the assumption that human beings possess the intrinsic ability to
create knowledge (Kronenberg as cited in Servaes, 1996, p. 98) and they have the ability
and should have the opportunity to investigate and to discover knowledge. According to
Stringer (1996), the goal of action research "is to assist people in extending their
understanding of their situation and thus resolve problems that confront them" (p. 9).
According to Spano (2001), there are three core principles of action research:
•
Action research as democratic participation
•
Action research as skilled facilitator
31
•
Action research and practical outcomes (pp. 49-52).
Each of these principles formed the foundation for action research and the dialogic
framework used in this study.
Action Research as Democratic Participation
Action research, as a research approach and method of inquiry, is based on the
involvement and the participation of the community. As Heron (1996) points out, action
research works with the people and for the people. It is not research about them. It is the
community coming together about a specific issue in their community and working
together to resolve that issue.
Action Research as Skilled Facilitator
Action research involves the researcher as a partner with the community in
exploring and resolving a community issue. In action research, the researcher is not the
"expert", objectively examining the issue, and telling the community how to solve the
problem. Rather, the researcher is a facilitator, consultant, or as Spano (2001) describes,
a "conversational partner." The researcher encourages, assists, and guides the
community as they explore the issue and seek to resolve it together. The researcher and
the participants are both active in the research process. This aspect is particularly
important to me as I am personally invested in the community and the issues being
explored. I served in the dual role as both researcher and participant, as a Japanese
American, a member of the younger Sansei generation, and multiracial The issues and
concerns facing the community, namely the concern about the younger generation's
interest and participation, the impact of assimilation and multiraciality, are intensely
32
personal to me. My interest and positionality as a member of the community not only
granted me direct access to the community and participants, but also provided me with a
familiarity and intimacy of the community's cultural and communicative norms, the
issues involved, and the mode of interaction between the generational groups involved.
Action Research and Practical Outcomes
A characteristic of action research is that it results in practical outcomes that
benefit the participants and the community. Spano (2001) adds that these outcomes are
"material" or tangible (p. 52). The participants and the community have the reward of
seeing how their collaboration brings about specific results. Action research is a very
powerful approach to research for it not only produces tangible results, but it is very
empowering for the participants who get to see the results of their participation.
Caring for the Well-Being of the People
A key principle in community-based action research is the well-being of the
people involved which makes it unique from the more traditional, "objective" procedures
of academic research. Concern for the well-being of the people is not only an ethical
concern, but as Stringer (1996) explains, it is also pragmatic. It helps the facilitator and
research practitioner to invest in the people and their concerns which convince them that
they are not research subjects or objects, impersonal, cold objects to be observed and
analyzed, but rather personal, real research participants involved in the analysis and
process of research. Caring for the well-being of the people involved helps generate the
energy, commitment, and sense of ownership that strengthens the sense of investment and
responsibility of the group, community, or organization members (Stringer, 1996). My
33
role as facilitator as well as a community member was an important vehicle to gain the
attention of all the participants and encourage and empower them to consider how they
can come together, work with one another, and make an impact on the future of the
community.
Action Research and Dialogic Communication
Community-based action research fits well into the dialogic communication
model. Community-based action research takes into account the histories and identities
of participants, recognizes their culture and their social interactions with one another
(Stringer, 1996). This approach to inquiry encourages the participation and collaboration
of the community with the goal to enact change, which is consistent with the goals and
outcomes of dialogic communication.
This study also explored and evaluated how a dialogic and community-based
action research approach can be applied in an intracultural context within a specific
cultural community. Dialogue and community-based action research have similar
research approaches and goals. Both have similar ideals in democracy and the right of
individual perspectives to be expressed and heard. However, this study examined how
these two approaches adapt to an intercultural context through which cultural values,
beliefs, and communication patterns may not be consistent with the goals and method of
dialogic communication and community-based action research. What is "democratic"
and "equitable" to those in Western cultures, may not be perceived and understood with
the same meaning in other cultures. The United States is considered to be individualistic
as the individual is emphasized over the group (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1994). Japanese
34
Americans are influenced by both the American culture (known as an individualistic
culture), and the Japanese culture (deemed as more of a collectivistic culture). The
Japanese concept of enryo was mentioned earlier as one of the major characteristics that
influences communication patterns. Enryo is translated as reserve or restraint. This term
implies social conformity, that one will sacrifice personal opinions, desires and
preferences for the sake of group harmony (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1994). This attitude
may hinder the possibility of true dialogue to take place. Dialogic communication allows
for new and different perspectives to unfold which may not be consistent with Japanese
American cultural communication patterns. Assessing the dialogue session was
insightful as to how the Japanese cultural values, like enryo, influence the communication
that takes place.
Strategy to Prepare for Dialogue Session
In order to facilitate intergenerational dialogue in terms of a method, focus group
sessions were conducted with members of Sansei (third generation) and Yonsei (fourth
generation) and the Nisei (second generation) as well as those who are biracial or
multiracial Japanese American (also referred to as hapa). Focus group sessions with the
different generations allowed for each group to voice their concerns and therefore,
community concerns emerged. This method follows in the footsteps of the Public
Dialogue Consortium (PDC) in addressing the community concerns of Cupertino (Spano,
2001). The PDC conducted exploratory focus group interviews to encourage community
members to speak freely regarding community concerns and tensions. Stewart and
Shamdasani (1990) state that focus groups "are particularly useful for exploratory
research where rather little is known about the phenomenon of interest" (as quoted in
Spano, 2005, p. 60). The concern about the younger generation's apparent lack of
interest and participation in the affairs of the community had not been openly discussed
in a community setting and the community's thoughts and perceptions as a whole (and
especially the younger Sansei and Yonsei generations) were largely unknown. For the
purposes of this study, each focus group invited participants to discuss what it meant to
be Japanese American and to voice their concerns about the Japanese American
community.
Focus Group Demographics
Six focus groups were conducted with 34 participants in total over a five month
period. Participants were largely found through their association with Yu Ai Kai senior
community center, either as actively involved members participating in the center's
services or volunteering at the senior center, or had a relation with someone involved in
some way with the senior center. Participation was voluntary. Two groups consisted
primarily of Nisei, another two groups included only Sansei, one group consisted of a
mixture of Sansei and Yonsei, and one group involved hapa Sansei and Yonsei. The
focus groups were arranged to keep the different generations as separate as possible in
order to cultivate an open and comfortable environment for the participants to express
their perspectives and concerns. Out of the 34 participants, 26% were Nisei, 47% were
Sansei, 15% were Yonsei, and 12% were "other" [such as Kibei (born in US, but sent to
Japan for education) or Gosei (fifth generation)]. The average age of all the participants
was 55 years. 24% of the participants were between the ages of 18-27, with an average
36
age of 21; 29% of the participants were between the ages of 41-52, with an average age
of 50; 29% of the participants were between the ages of 62-78, with an average age of 70;
and 18% of the participants were between the ages of 80-90 with an average of 85.
Participants were evenly divided with 47 % male and 53 % female. All participants had
at least a high school education with 29% being high school graduates, 53% were college
graduates, 9% had a post-graduate education (the majority of whom were Sansei), and
9% were graduates of a trade school.
Focus Group Procedures
In order to incorporate the principles of appreciative inquiry, the process of
framing the conversation by first foregrounding a positive context from which the
conversation could begin (Spano, 2001). The focus group conversations began with a
question to the participants about what they enjoyed/appreciated about being Japanese
American. This not only provided a positive context for the beginning of the
conversation but it also provided the opportunity to see how similar and/or different the
various generations would respond. Secondly, the initial responses provided information
on how to frame the rest of the discussion questions. From mere, focus group
participants across all living generations were asked how they define "Japanese
Americanness", what does being Japanese American mean to them and how they
perceive the Japanese American culture to be changing, and what concerns they have
about the Japanese American community presently and for the future. All of the
questions were prepared in order to provide information for the intergenerational
dialogue session to be conducted after all of the focus groups were completed. From
37
these questions, discussions arose regarding cultural discrimination and assimilation, the
rise of multiracial Japanese Americans and their impact on the culture and community,
and the interest of the younger, more Westernized generations in the Japanese culture. In
order to foster more discussion on these issues, systemic questioning was engaged, or as
Penman (2000) terms, questions of practice - questions that inquire about and highlight
the participants' experience or everyday practice. These questions serve more as prompts
to reflect a genuine curiosity of the researcher as well as encourage openness and the
continuation of the conversation. According to Penman (2000), "the critical thing is to
follow the flow of the conversation, using the questions as the means to go forward" (p.
123). The prepared questions and the questions of practice along with their responses,
helped prepare the valuable content of the intergenerational dialogue session.
Focus group discussion also addressed perceptions of communication across
generations and how that communication is/is not effective, and how communication
could be improved. Through the focus groups, community issues and concerns of each
generation emerged and were discussed. The emergent issues and concerns were used to
inform the focus and direction of the dialogic intergenerational conversation. At the
conclusion of the focus group session, the participants were asked to fill out a
questionnaire anonymously for the purpose of demographic data (see Appendix A). This
data was used to record the different generations who were involved in the focus groups.
Recruitment of Generational Participants
Sansei (third generation) and Yonsei (fourth generation). Sansei and Yonsei
participants were invitedfromcommunity organizations involved with Yu Ai Kai or with
38
Japantown San Jose. The conversations with the Sansei and Yonsei were intended to
engage issues of cultural identity as well as their interest in participating in the
community. The Sansei and Yonsei were asked to identify andframetheir role within
the Japanese American community, their perception of how the community was evolving,
and what needs the community should address for future generations and future senior
care.
Nisei (second generation/elders of the community). The Nisei participants were
invited from Yu Ai Kai and other community organizations involved with Japantown San
Jose. Conversations with the elders of the community were intended to provide insight
into how they define cultural identity, how they identify and perceive their place within
the Japanese American community, and how their needs are/are not met in the
community in general, and through Yu-Ai Kai in particular. Likewise, these generational
participants were included because they would provide a different yet valuable
perspective on the future needs of the community.
Hapa (mixed, with Japanese ancestry). Hapa is a term originating in Hawaii that
means "part" or "mixed" (Asakawa, 2004). Originally, the term did not refer to race or
ethnicity. Now the term is colloquially used to describe those who are biracial or
multiracial. Hapa participants, or those who were part Japanese American and were
involved with Yu Ai Kai or Japantown San Jose community organizations, were invited
to participate in the focus groups. Such participation would yield valuable insight into
their definitions of Japanese American identity, their perceptions of their place in the
community, their perception of how the community is evolving, and what needs the
39
community should address for future generations and future senior care. The
contributions of the hapa participants were particularly important because they addressed
and reflected the issues currently facing the community: that is, the tremendous increase
of multiracial or hapa Japanese American youths.
Focus Group Questions and Data Analysis
The focus group conversations were audio recorded and transcribed. Data
collected focused specifically on how each generation defined and perceived Japanese
American identity, particularly what does it mean to be Japanese American. In order to
examine intergenerational communication dynamics focus group questions also explored
the perceptions each generation held toward one another. Questions addressed
perceptions of each generation's relationship to the others and their perceptions of
communication with other generations (See Appendix B for focus group research
questions). Questions asked explored perceptions of interest and involvement of the
younger generations, thoughts and perceptions about how the community was changing,
and what concerns each generation had regarding their culture and community. The
purpose of these questions was to determine how each generation perceived the other,
how each generation perceived the changing cultural landscape of the Japanese American
community, and how these perceptions affected each generation's attitude and approach
to addressing these issues. The following constructs were used in the focus group
sessions:
•
What are the perceptions of multiracial Japanese Americans?
•
How does this impact the community?
40
•
What reasons were given across the generations for preserving the
community and culture?
•
What reasons were given across the generations for preserving the
community and culture?
•
Are they the same or different?
•
What ideas arose in order to address this issue?
Also of interest was how each generation perceived the future of the Japanese American
community and the obstacles they must overcome. Themes that emerged from the focus
groups conversations were pieced together and analyzed as a whole based on the previous
research in Japanese communication patterns, intergenerational communication, and
communication of race-related trauma (Aronson, 1994). Responses from the focus
groups regarding specific questions were examined to see if there were points of
similarity within and across generations. Specific attention was given to the perceptions
each generation held toward one another. Responses were also examined against
Japanese communication patterns to determine the impact of assimilation (collectivistic
versus individualistic) if any, across generations.
Conversations about the internment became another category due to the
differences in generations in how the event was perceived and articulated as well as the
notion of cultural identity. Differences seemed to exist about how these two issues were
perceived and expressed by the different generations. By exarnining these responses,
themes began to emerge that moved beyond communication patterns, indicating
differences in perception and understanding of the issues such as outmarriage,
41
assimilation, and preservation, not only cultural preservation, but the preservation of
Japantown San Jose. This information was collected and analyzed using Spradley's
(1979,1980) cultural thematic analysis. Thematic analysis explores explicit and implicit
cultural values and beliefs that are lived and spoken. Often these cultural values and
beliefs are revealed through relationships with one another. Based on the content of these
conversations, particular attention was paid to similarities and differences in responses.
Shared experiences, perceptions, concerns, needs, cultural values, and beliefs were
catalogued and examined, looking for themes and relationships between the different
categories. Experiences, perceptions, concerns, needs, values and beliefs that were not
shared due to generational, cultural, or gender differences were also recorded. By
examining the responses, comments, and ideas in each focus group and comparing them
with one another, certain relationships and cultural themes emerged that formed the
subject matter for the intergenerational dialogic session.
The goal in examining the focus group conversations was to see points of
connection, or similarities in perceptions, observations, or solutions that not only unified,
but also would prove to be a springboard for the dialogue across generations. Points of
disconnection, tension, or disagreement among generational participants which could be
raised later in the intergenerational dialogue session were noted as well.
Intergenerational Dialogic Session
The data collected from these focus groups was used to shape a final public
dialogue session that included members from each generational group. Public dialogue
allows for community members to foster respect toward one another and have open
42
curiosity of one another's point of view rather than confrontation and debate. According
to Spano (2001), in a community engaging in dialogic communication regarding
community issues, "the quality of decision making would increase and the commitment
to the choices made would be enhanced" (p. 5). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of
the dialogue session, a survey was handed out to the participants at the end of the
dialogue session. The survey inquired after the insights gained about the Japanese
American community and the whole communication process (see Appendix C for
survey).
There were four main objectives for the dialogue session: 1) to bring the different
generations together to discuss the specific issues that emerged from the focus group
conversations (such as cultural preservation, assimilation and the growing reality of
multi-racial Japanese Americans); 2) to encourage actual discussion across generations;
3) to clarify certain misconceptions and negative perceptions the generations held with
regard to one another; and 4) to empower the community to collaborate together to find
workable solutions addressing the issues facing the community. My skills as a facilitator
of dialogic communication would directly impact the outcome of the dialogue session.
Intergenerational dialogue allowed for all members of the community to listen
and speak to one another about the cultural and community issues that emerged from the
focus groups. To provide a framework and guide for the dialogue session, the CVA
(Concerns, Visions, Action plans) model was used. The CVA model is transactional and
reflexive which, according to Spano (2001), means that we can start at any point and
move to another freely - there is no fixed or prearranged pattern to follow. The CVA
43
model is an abbreviation that explores the relationship between concerns, visions, and
action plans. As Spano (2001) explains, concerns that people have regarding a particular
issue that affects their community or organization are often associated with the visions
that they hold for their community or organization; action plans are specific, tangible
steps the community or organization can complete to make their visions a reality. The
CVA model helps individuals see the relationships between their own visions and
concerns and the model helps empower them by discovering practical, workable solutions
that address the concerns and help achieve their visions. Based on the perspectives in the
focus group discussions regarding how to approach the issues facing the community the
CVA model was used with the hope that both generations would see the areas of
commonality in their concerns and visions. The desired outcome was a sense of unity or
at least common ground for mutual cooperation, in spite of their age and generational
differences. This common ground would also serve as a springboard to address the areas
of difference as well as a mutual cooperation across generations in formulating
constructive and workable action plans.
Communication across generations through dialogue. More specifically, the
main purpose of the dialogue session was to facilitate and induce communication across
the different generations. According to Saunders (1999), by engaging in dialogue "one's
mind opens to absorb new views, enlarge perspectives, rethink assumptions and modify
judgments" (p. 82). As noted earlier in the discussion regarding the focus groups, the
older generations held a largely negative and cynical attitude toward the younger
generation particularly around the issues of interest and participation in their Japanese
44
American culture and community. The younger generations often felt misunderstood or
slighted by their elders. For this reason, the use of the CVA model as a guide for the
dialogue session proved insightful for both generations, particularly in helping both
generations realize their differences as well as their similarities. They shared similar
concerns and visions as members of the same community. The expectation for the
dialogue session was for the possibility of better understanding of the generations toward
one another and how there are similarities in their experiences, beliefs, concerns, and
visions for the community. The hope was that this understanding would pave the way for
both generations to come to a point of contact from which they could collaborate and
work together to reach their collective goals. This is not to say that each generational
group ignores the differences that exist. Collaboration, as Spano (2001) explains, "means
cooperating with people who are in some way different from oneself' (p. 31). Rather,
the different generations would work together in spite of their differences, fully
acknowledging and accepting those differences, but focusing their energy on those areas
they have in common. By focusing on the areas where mutual interests are shared to
achieve their common goals, the community can experience a unity that enables them to
overcome the differences. Again, as Saunders (1999) expresses, "as partners in dialogue
enlarge their common ground, they thereby change their relationships" (p. 84). This
thesis sought to encourage and facilitate intergenerational communication and dialogue
and by accomplishing this goal, the hope was that the community would also experience
the additional benefit of more open and engaged relationships across the generations.
45
Establishing common ground. In order to help establish common ground, the
dialogue session began by addressing those issues and themes that arose from the focus
group discussions that were shared by all generations. The session opened with a brief
synopsis of the focus group discussion results, focusing and highlighting the common
themes and issues that arose from all of the group discussions. The commonalities that
existed between generations, as well as with the hapa, were emphasized so that the
dialogue participants would see what the community shared as a group, ethnically and
culturally.
In order to encourage this perspective, the small group discussion questions
addressed the following: a) personal and cultural identity (How does being Japanese
American make you who you are? How is your Japanese American cultural identity
reflected in your life?), and b) personal perspective about Japantown's significance to the
culture and community and the important elements to preserve from generation to
generation. These questions not only asked the participants to reconsider some of the
issues discussed in the focus group sessions, but also highlighted some of the issues that
generated the most talk and discussion. The questions were designed to encourage the
participants to reflect, consider, and discuss in the dialogue session with the different
generational groups and in turn, perhaps help reveal points of convergence and similarity
(see Appendix D and E for discussion questions and reflections). Additionally, my
expectation was by providing this foundation of commonality or similarity the transition
to discussing those issues of difference would be less provoking or intense.
46
From common ground to points of tension. When discussing the points of tension
or difference, delicacy and tact were two qualities used to preserve the best possible
atmosphere for open, honest discussion. The most controversial or heated topic was the
issue of multiracial Japanese Americans, their place and role in the community. In order
to bridge these differences, the use of the CVA model, helped show how the different
generations shared some bonds of unity and commonality; within this context, a dialogue
about these larger, more intense and polarized issues could take place. Questions were
asked so that the participants had to reflect and share their own perspectives, use their
own definitions, and come up with their own solutions. The questions were designed not
only to look outward toward the community, but for the participants to also look inward
at their own position, their own identity, and their own role as members and cocontributors to the community.
In this chapter, the methodological framework in the preparation and design of the
dialogue session was described. The dialogue session was specifically designed in order
to encourage dialogic communication across the different generations in the Japanese
American community regarding specific issues. The content of the dialogue session was
derived from the preliminary focus groups of each generation. In the next chapter, the
data from these focus groups is examined more closely followed by a discussion about
how these themes were used to inform the planning and preparation of the
intergenerational dialogue session.
47
CHAPTER 3
Focus Group Results and Analysis: Emergent Issues Across Generations
The content of thefinaldialogue session of this study was based upon the themes
that emergedfromthe focus group conversations. Focus groups with generational
participants yielded several key themes about how the different Japanese American
generations perceived cultural identity and the future development of the community.
These themes were largely consistent in all the focus groups revealing some
commonalties among the generations. These common themes became the basis of
unification and commonality for the dialogue session. These themes also became a point
of departure in a discussion that revolved around a number of issues affecting the
community that were considered by some to be "hot topics" or controversial topics. This
chapter discusses the planning and preparation of the focus group conversations and some
of the common themes that emergedfromeach focus group. Additionally, a more
thorough exploration of the themes most relevant and significant to the study is
conducted by looking at key illustrative examplesfromthe focus groups.
Focus Group Procedures
Six focus group sessions were conducted over afivemonth period and lasted 1 lA
to 2 hours long. Participation was voluntary and participants received no monetary
compensation. Participants were largely found through their association with Yu Ai Kai
Community Senior Center, either as actively involved members participating in the
center's services or volunteering at the center, or had a relation with someone involved in
some way with the senior center.
48
As stated in Chapter 2, in order to cultivate more of an open and comfortable
environment for expression of personal opinions and perspectives, the different
generations were kept as separate as possible. Two groups consisted primarily of Nisei
for a total of nine participants, another two groups consisted largely of Sansei for a total
of twelve participants, one group consisted of a mixture of Sansei and Yonsei with six
participants, and one group consisted primarily of hapa Sansei and Yonsei with seven
participants.
Focus Group Participant Demographics
Out of the 34 participants, 26% (9) were Nisei, 47% (16) were Sansei, 15% (5)
were Yonsei, and 12% (4) were noted as "other" [such as Kibei (torn in US, but sent to
Japan for education) or Gosei (fifth generation)]. The average age of all the participants
was 55 years. 24% (8) of the participants were between the ages of 18-27, with an
average age of 21; 29% (10) of the participants were between the ages of 41-52, with an
average age of 50; 29% (10) of the participants were between the ages of 62-78, with an
average age of 70; and 18% (6) of the participants were between the ages of 80-90 with
an average of 85. Participants were evenly divided with 50 % (17) male and 50 % (17)
female. All participants had at least a high school education with 29% (10) being high
school graduates, 9% (3) were graduates of a trade school, 53% (18) were college
graduates, and 9% (3) had a post-graduate education (the majority of whom were Sansei).
Out of the seven participants in the hapa Sansei and Yonsei focus group, one was a
college graduate and five were currently attending college.
49
Focus Group Conversational Protocol
Question constructs. The conversations began by discussing how the participants
defined and perceived their Japanese American identity and heritage. Each focus group
session began with the question: What do you like/enjoy most about being Japanese
American? This question was asked first to address the first research question and hear
the different perceptions each participant possessed of their own Japanese American
identity, not only generationally, but individually. The question was intended as a
starting point or a common foundation upon to build relationship and encourage
conversation.
The second question also addressed the first research question by asking
participants to articulate their individual perceptions of Japanese Americans and how
they defined what it is to be "Japanese American." It was the second question that not
only started to differentiate between the different generations, but even individuals within
each generational group. Questions then transitioned to how each generation saw
themselves in comparison to their grandparents and parents, children and grandchildren.
These responses paved the way for discussion regarding how open or closed
communication took place with each group's parents/grandparents and
children/grandchildren as well as exploration of the many factors that contributed to the
way the different generations perceived, related, and communicated with one another (see
Appendix B for focus group discussion questions).
Based on the responses and flow of conversation, discussions emerged and
evolved around different topics. Consistent themes emerged from those topics. The
50
themes that consistently arose addressed assimilation of the Japanese Americans,
discrimination, the future of Japantown and the Japanese American culture, as well as
issues surrounding outmarriage and multiracial Japanese Americans.
Emergent Themes Found within the Focus Groups
The themes that emerged in the first focus group that was largely Nisei (first
generation) were similar to themes that emerged in the last focus group which was the
younger Yonsei/hapa (fourth generation and racially mixed). This trend could reflect that
although the older generations perceive a loss of culture in the younger generations,
perhaps there are some cultural ties that remain and are continuous. This raises questions
regarding preservation and assimilation and how these two phenomena are at work in the
cultural community. However, the differences that did surface seem to indicate the
existence of a generational and cultural divide.
Emergent Themes Consistent across all Focus Groups
There were many themes that emergedfromthe focus group conversations. The
majority of the themes revolved around Japanese American cultural values and practices.
What was surprising about the generational focus groups was the consistency of the
themes throughout. Although the themes were talked about or interpreted differently
from generation to generation, the consistency of their emergence seems to indicate that
there are common threads woven across generations.
Out of all the themes that emergedfromthe focus groups, the cultural notion of
shame, the importance of respect, the importance of the family, and the value of
education surfaced in all of the focus groups. The importance of the Japanese language
51
and cultural traditions and festivals surfaced more in the Nisei and Sansei groups as well
as the value of hard work and discipline. The internment arose more often in the Nisei
and Sansei groups than the hapa/Yonsei group yet the attitude of shikataganai or "it can't
be helped" emerged in both groups. Shikataganai was a theme that emerged more
explicitly in the Nisei and Sansei groups, yet the implicit attitude emerged in the younger
groups. A discussion of how shikataganai surfaced and was discussed by each generation
is discussed later in this chapter. Although these emergent themes are significant and
worth our consideration and exploration, for the purposes of this study a thorough
exploration of all of these issues would be too much for one dialogue session. In order to
encourage communication across the generations it was important to focus on the themes
that reflected points of contact or commonalities and address the issues most pertinent to
shaping the perceptions the different generational groups held toward one another. In the
discussion of emergent themes, exploration focused specifically upon the concepts of
respect and shame, the importance of family and tradition, and the emphasis on education
since these themes emerged as common in all of the focus group discussions. Language,
the notion of shikataganai and the impact of the internment represented "hot topics"
related to assimilation, multiraciality, and preservation. All of these themes were used in
the preparation and focus of the final dialogue session. The discussion will focus upon
the themes that were common across all generations, and then those topics that seemed to
be points of tension across generations.
52
Unifying Themes across Generations
Cultural pride. All of the themes are interconnected and all were expressed in the
focus groups, with some resonating more with specific generations. The overwhelming
commonality amongst all the focus groups was the cultural pride in the Japanese
American culture and history. Pride in their culture was most explicit in Sansei groups
and the Yonsei/hapa group. Many participants considered themselves to be part of a
"rich" cultural heritage. However, unlike the Sansei group, the YonseL4iapa group
seemed to be more proud of the legacy and reputation of the Japanese American culture
because of society's positive perception of the Japanese Americans rather than
recognizing the challenges and obstacles their own cultural group has overcome. For
example, when asked what they enjoy about being Japanese American, one response
went like this:
Facilitator (Fac): What I would like to know is what do you like about being
Japanese American?
Response: The stereotype that we're smart.
Fac: Why?
Response: Um, well, there's a bunch of other stereotypes you could have being
from a different race, you know what I mean? (F.G 6, p. 1, L 25-29).1
It was interesting that this young respondent refers to his/her perception by others and
specifically, the perception that due to their Japanese American heritage, s/he is "smart."
Many of the hapa and Yonsei seemed to be proud that there were not considered "FOBs,"
a pejorative term meant to designate Asians as "fresh off the boat" or newly arrived
53
immigrants (F.G. 6, p. 1, L 30). This comment refers to how assimilated the Japanese
Americans are in comparison to their Asian counterparts. This stereotype of being smart
is the direct result of the value the Japanese American culture places upon education, a
value that became very important particularly as the community recovered from the
internment. The young hapa Yonsei gave a quick response, unwittingly addressing more
complex issues rooted in the experiences of others two generations before.
In contrast, the pride expressed by the Sansei generation recognizes and alludes to
the sacrifices and the triumphs of their parents and grandparents. For example, here is
one response from a focus group participant answering the same question:
Well, I just feel that with this grave injustice that happened to the Isseis, Niseis
and.. .some Sanseis - their whole business about shikataganai, I just feel that
they're role models for us. And that is what pulled us through all of these
challenges.. .For them to go through this 3 lA years of such a terrible injustice and
then to be able to say, 'Well, it happened, shikataganai and we're going to make
the best of it and move on'. It's just a role model for all of us.. .But, the Japanese
American group was able to meet the challenge and move on and...make life
better for themselves. And I just feel, back to your other question, about why you
feel good about being Japanese American, that's another example (FG 3, p. 4, L
11-13,17-21).
Both the Sansei and the Yonsei/hapa groups appreciate and express pride in the cultural
values instilled in their upbringing. But such pride is also based on generational
members' closeness to the internment experience and their perceptions and reasons for
54
that appreciation differ. The Yonsei/hapa groups appreciate the benefits of their culture's
historical experience of moving on and recovering their lives post-war seemingly
unaware of the cost. The Sansei, who remember the experiences of their parents and
grandparents, realize the costs to their community and recognize the strength it took for a
generation to recover and prosper after such a traumatic experience. These different
perspectives and different answers to the same question reveal the far-reaching effects of
the internment and how the event influenced communication and the culture.
Centrality of the family. When addressing the concern of preservation, all of the
groups were asked what aspects of the culture they hoped would be preserved for
generations to come? The answers revolved around cultural traditions, cultural values,
and the family. All of the groups, Nisei, Sansei, and Yonsei/hapa voiced their
appreciation of how the family is central. Some examples of group responses were: "It's
all about the family" (FG 1, p. 3, L 13); "Family is more important than friends (FG 1, p.
16, L 14); and "Family is the most important thing" (FG 6, p. 3, L 21). Family plays an
integral role in Japanese American culture. It is not only the center of developing cultural
values, but it is also at the core of most of the Japanese American traditions. For
example, one response from the fifth focus group, comprised largely of Sanseis was
"close knit family ties". Similarly, the Yonsei/hapa group responded, "The importance of
being close to family" and "How important family is" (FG 6, p. 11, L 43). The similarity
of responses between the older Nisei and the younger Yonsei may surprise some,
particularly those in the older generations (the Nisei and Sansei) who hold a very
different perception of the younger (Yonsei and Gosei) generations. Some Nisei and
55
Sansei participants expressed their disappointment in the younger generations for not
holding onto the cultural values and traditions. The older generations did not perceive
the younger generations as caring or valuing the culture they possess referring to them as
"assimilated," "Westernized," or the "spoon-fed" generation. This perception of the
older generation is the basis of their concern regarding the future of their culture and
community. In one focus group, a group of Niseis entered into a heated discussion about
the younger generations' (including Sanseis) lack of interest in the culture. The
following is a brief excerpt of the exchange:
"A": I know, but do you think that younger Japanese Americans are more
interested in Japanese culture than we were?
Fac: I was going to ask you that question.
"B": Oh yeah.
"C": I don't think so.
A: You don't think so?
"D": Well, I think they're more so interested.
"C": In what way?
"D": Well, because we didn't think about it, but I think that "C": In what way are they [italics added] more interested in Japanese culture than
we are? I want to know.
"D": But it was the younger generation who first started the uh, what's it called?
Uh.. .redress kind of thing.
56
"C": Yeah, but that's redress, I'm talking about Japanese culture. I mean I'm
interested in Japanese culture. I like uh, the way back in Japan, like in the
Samurai days. I look into that.
"A": What about the people who play the taiko [Japanese drums]? They're
mostly younger people. Aren't they interested in that more than we were?
"C": Taiko?
"B": Well, you notice though, that "C": Taiko does not represent Japanese culture (FG 2, p. 10, L 33-51).
The exchange between participants C and D reflect the varying perceptions regarding the
definition of "interest" in one's culture. The discussion about how interest is defined
raises questions about the nature of culture. What is culture? Is it embodied or is it
performed? The exchange regarding the younger generation's interest implies that
culture is performative. Is one interested and/or invested in one's culture by seeking
redress? Or, is interest gauged more in terms of the knowledge and interest in one's
cultural history like the Samurai days? To what extent is cultural interest based on one's
involvement in cultural festivals? Is interest gauged externally or internally? The above
exchange raises important questions regarding interest, how interest in one's culture is
defined and ultimately, what defines and constitutes preserving one's "culture".
Understanding what interest in one's culture looks like will be extremely beneficial in
clarifying perceptions. For example, another Nisei described his perception of the
younger generations' interest toward their Japanese heritage as indifference:
57
"B": They don't have to have it, it seems like, you know? "We don't have to do
that".
Fac: In what others ways do you see that they're - or you said "they don't have to
have that". What do you mean? Can you give me an example?
"B": Well, like if you um,.. .well, I can't think of any right now, but uh, I can
probably - you know, if we used to do something, um, well, we used to gather
more, as a family. But not as much, because they're all busy with other things.
Actually, New Years Day is the only day that I get all - everybody, my relatives,
and everybody together. It used to be..every [italics added] holiday, Memorial
Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving.. .you know. (F.G. 3, p. 9, L, 3542).
The respondent referred to her own children and grandchildren and described how they
did not seem to need the Japanese part of their cultural identity. They were doing just
fine without it, which was a concern for her. Even one Yonsei admitted to her and her
contemporaries' privileged lifestyle saying, "I always think that my generation is the
spoon-fed generation" (FG 1, p. 12, L 20). She goes on further to explain how many of
her generational members do not understand the sacrifices and the challenges the older
generations have faced and overcome and therefore, take the privileges earned by the
older generations for granted. By examining the terms or descriptions used to refer to the
younger generations, one observation is that older generations perceive the younger
generations to be experiencing a sense of loss of their Japanese American culture.
58
Despite these differences in perception, there is one theme that consistently
emerged, not only as an important part of the Japanese American culture, but also as a
solution to this loss of culture. It is the theme of the importance and significance of the
family. This particular cultural value may be perceived by some within the community
as being attacked and in the process of deterioration, however, based on participant
responses, family still remains precious regardless of generation.
Language is culture. Before the internment, the Nisei generation struggled with
negotiating their identity as Japanese and as American. They also served as what at times
could be a frustrating role of a bridge between two cultures: the culture of their parents,
the Issei, and the culture of their home, the American culture. Due to discrimination,
many of the Nisei worked within the ethnic community which required a functional
knowledge and ability to speak Japanese (Yoo, 2000). Even so, their knowledge of the
Japanese language was still limited. The Nisei always had the balancing act of retaining
ethnic ties to their ethnic culture while trying to assimilate and become Americanized.
They wanted to be Americanized. After WWII and the internment, Issei and Nisei were
told forcefully to assimilate and to leave everything Japanese behind if they wanted to
live a peaceful existence. As one respondent expressed:
I know that after the war, they were told to assimilate, when they were leaving
camp. So, to try to not carry on your uh, cultural activities, including speaking
Japanese you know and all your traditions. To become American. In that way it
would be the easiest for you. Because there would be a lot of resentment (F.G. 1,
p. 10, L 25-28).
59
One Nisei whose family was interned while he fought for the United States Air Force
described his experience:
"A": Yeah, I was uh..You know before the war, I was raised in Warner Grove
and uh.., after grammar school, when we would get home at 3 o' clock, we would
all get together and speak nothing but Japanese. And I wore a uh, geta a
wooden.. .uh, what is it?
"B": box
"A": Yeah. And we spoke nothing but Japanese... However, the Japanese teacher
I had in Warner Grove, he uh, well.. .more or less pro-Japan. So, every April 29th,
that's uh, Emperor Hirohito's birthday, we would march into the room with his
picture and we would have to say, 'Bonsai'!
Laughing
"A": He'd know if you didn't say "Bonsai", and he would come over and hit
your head with a stick!
Fac: So, what happened.. .urn, so you said after school you would only speak
Japanese. When did that stop?
"A": When the war started.
Fac: When the war started.
"A": Yeah. Until 1942, when we were evacuated. I think it was April (F.G. 2, p.
2, L 12-27).
Even before the war, Niseis were encouraged by the Japanese American community as
well as the larger American community to "prove" their citizenship and show their
60
hardworking ethic (Yoo, 2000). After the internment, this test of citizenship was even
more emphasized. Nisei and Sansei members felt that they had to once again prove their
loyalty to America by becoming more American. They too, in a sense, lost their cultural
identity. As one participant explained, "The best way to assimilate is - is to not - not
continue with your cultural identity. Because you're gonna have a hard enough time"
(F.G. 1, p. 20, L 9-10). The Japanese American community as a whole did not
discourage assimilation due to the humiliation suffered through the internment. This has
resulted in the limited to nonexistent knowledge of the Japanese language in the Japanese
American community.
In Asakawa's (2004) book, Being Japanese American, he laments how even
members of the Japanese American community can not even correctly pronounce his or
their own Japanese surname. But, he reasons, we should not be surprised at the fading of
Japanese language competence when a whole community of people sought to assimilate
into mainstream culture (Asakawa, 2004). This lack of awareness or consciousness of
the internment and the loss of the Japanese language are precisely why the Niseis, and
some Sanseis, are concerned and perceive the younger generations to be uninterested and
indifferent regarding the Japanese American culture. The decreasing use of the Japanese
language amongst the Japanese American community was a concern brought up in all
focus groups, even the Yonsei/hapa. Here is an excerpt of one Sansei's opinion:
Fac: What else do you see being lost in terms of the Japanese culture?
"A": Well, definitely the language.
Fac: Definitely the language. Why is the language so important?
61
"A": Well, I think language is culture. And you know I didn't Niho (in aud) and
all that. And at one time I was trilingual, but I'm losing it because I don't use it
as much anymore and my son never even cared to learn. And in his era they
didn't go to Japanese language school on Saturday (F.G. 3, p. 9, L 47-50).
One of the participants in the fifth focus groups shared that out of all of the Sansei
members she is acquainted with, she can only think of two who are actually fluent in the
language. Similar to many other languages, Japanese cultural values are embedded
within the structure of the language. Language is seen as culture. It is the vehicle of the
Japanese values and beliefs that shape one's perspective of the world. For example, one
hapa who is fluent in Japanese explained:
Like in Japan, there's like showing respect for other people and stuff, its like built
into the language. But, in America, it's like a lot more impersonal even when you
are talking to someone that's..you know in a higher position than you at work or if
it's a teacher or its..I don't know. It's just very impersonal. (F.G. 6, p. 3, L 9-11).
To one Nisei, the fact that his daughter learned the Japanese language as an adult was one
of the many signs that encouraged him to believe that she cared for and valued her
cultural heritage (F.G. 4). The use of the Japanese language is seen as a means of
preserving cultural heritage. The decline of the Japanese language usage in the
community is perceived as diminishing the richness of the Japanese heritage. The newer
generations do not know the language and are not taught the language and therefore, they
do not know the culture. For the Niseis and some of the Sanseis, how can the newer,
younger generations preserve a culture that they do not know?
62
This particular criticism towards the younger generation seems to be harsh since
many of the Nisei also no longer speak the language and the majority of the Sansei were
never taught it. The decline in the use of the Japanese language does indeed signal a loss
of cultural heritage and one aspect of cultural identity. As Asakawa (2004) proposes, it is
very important for the younger generations to be able to communicate with the older
generations so they can learn as much as they can about their ancestors and therefore
their own roots. The knowledge of the Japanese language seems to be perceived,
particularly by the older generation, as a marker of authenticity.
The questions of culture, as embodied or performed, are raised once again while
examining the issue of language. Knowledge of the Japanese language seems to indicate
the sincerity of one's interest and involvement in the community and therefore, right to
identify as Japanese American. The issue of language suggests that it is a significant
factor in the discussion of cultural identity. Language is so significant that it emerged
once again and became a central topic of discussion in the intergenerational dialogue
session. The hidden concern embedded in the language issue seems to be the issue of
assimilation, Westernization, and outmarriage and their impact upon culture and cultural
identity. What makes the majority of the younger generations different from the Nisei
and Sansei? The younger generations are more assimilated into Western, American
culture and more and more of the younger generations are products of Sansei marriages
to others outside the Japanese culture. Although perceptions of the younger generation
seem to imply a loss of culture, the cultural value of respect emerged in all of the focus
groups, regardless of generation.
63
Respect. The notion of respect (respect for the dead, one's elders, one's family,
and those in authority) is one cultural value that characterizes the Japanese American
culture. Respect is a concept connected to family and is deep-seated in all of the cultural
traditions. Nisei members may have more of a negative or skeptical perception of the
younger generations, but many of the Sansei Yonsei, and hapa express their appreciation
for that cultural value and their desire to preserve and carry on that tradition. According
to one hapa Yonsei, "Thoughtfulness and respect are two things in the Japanese culture
and those are always good virtues to have" (FG 6, p. 11, L 41-42). The same Yonsei also
referred to her own upbringing, "You have to respect, like certain things you don't do.
It's like, the way you were raised..." (FG 6, p. 2, L 43). One Sansei shared that,
I try to teach my children or try to impress to them is to never forget the - the
people who gave us what we have today.. .1 want to make a point to my children
that when they see them in Japantown to introduce themselves and shake their
hand and thank them for all that they've done to um, give my children, myself,
and them what we have here today... (FG l , p . 16,L29, 31-33).
One Sansei explained, this is a reflection of the "Japanese heritage we grew up with"
(F.G. 4, p. 2, L 37). In all of the Nisei and Sansei focus groups, one cultural value they
hope is retained by the generations to come is respect. The notion of respect - respect for
authority, respect for elders, one's family, respect for the law and for the dead was the
constant, oft-repeated value the community would like to be preserved.
For the Sansei, respect for the elders is also respect for cultural history. The
Sanseis are the generation that lives with the legacy of their parents and grandparents
64
internment during WWII. Many Sansei participants brought up their parents' and
grandparents' experience of survival and accomplishment despite the discrimination and
subsequent incarceration. They respected their parents' and grandparents' endurance,
resolve, and attitude in overcoming an event that many Issei and Nisei perceived as
shameful.
Shame. Shame is closely related to respect and honor, however in a more
negative context. The notion of shame, prevalent in most Asian cultures, was implicitly
or explicitly expressed in a variety of contexts in all of the focus groups. For the Nisei,
they had the burden of overcoming the shame of the internment; the Sansei had the
burden of not disappointing their parents and grandparents who suffered from the
internment; and the Yonsei and hapa live their lives so that they do not bring shame onto
themselves or their families. For example, one Sansei expressed, "And then of course,
you know, there is a conduct of behavior.. .that not bring, uh, shame onto yourself (F.G.
1, p. 4, L, 28). Comments that were given in the focus groups revolved around examples
of how they tried to mitigate the shame brought on by the internment and its aftermath.
By striving for educational and professional success, the Sansei generation and many of
the Yonsei generation sought to avoid bringing more shame upon their families or the
community. These examples reflect the implications of the internment and the reaction
of the Niseis and the Sanseis toward being interned. The internment is a cause of shame.
The internment was humiliating for the Japanese American community. As a one
participant described "Especially... [the] Nisei thought they were American because they
were born here. And so that - that could be uprooted like that really hurt their feelings"
65
(F.G. 1, p. 17, L 18-20). The Issei and Nisei generation are commonly referred to as the
silent generation, due to their lack of communication and disclosure about their
internment experiences. When asked why the Issei and Nisei were so silent, a couple of
participants reasoned the following:
Fac: Why - why do you think they wouldn't like really talk about it? What is
that all about?
"A": Maybe shame?
"B": Yeah. They were humiliated (F.G. 6, p. 19, L 1-3).
As a result, many of the Sansei were encouraged to live respectful, quiet lives and not
bring any unnecessary or shameful attention to themselves.
When one set of participants were asked about how open communication was
between them and their parents, one respondent explained how her parents did not really
mention "camp," but they always emphasized one thing:
"A": When my parents uh, told me to be a good citizen and to obey the laws of
United States and stay out of trouble. That's what he told me.
"B": I think all ofthelssei's emphasized that. Stay out of trouble, be a good
citizen.
"C": Don't spread shame.
"B": Yeah, don't spread shame (F.G. 3, p. 18, L 3-7).
Due to their humiliation in being interned and treated as if they were traitors and
criminals, the "silent generation" never really spoke about their experiences. However,
the legacy of that experience affects the community to this day.
66
The notion of shame or guilt is such a deep seated cultural notion that it is even
built into the Japanese language. For example, one reflection of the notion of shame is to
be wasteful with one's food. The Japanese part of the Japanese American culture instills
the idea of how shameful it is to waste food. The Japanese word for wasteful is
mottainai, which carries a connotation of guilt. As Asakawa (2004) explains, this reflects
many of the Japanese values and customs that still remain with the Japanese Americans.
This idea came up in one of the focus groups when the participants were asked in what
ways they saw themselves as different from their children.
"A": I was taught not to be wasteful. I eat my rice to the last drop, you know?
The last kernel, you know? But it seems like the kids nowadays are so much
more wasteful.
"B": Everything goes in the garbage.
"A": Yeah (F.G. 3, p. 5, L 20-24).
However, that does not mean that this cultural concept is lost on the younger generations.
The concept of shame was never explicitly discussed but seemed to be reflected in
expectations that younger generation feels like they have to live up to. For example, one
response to the question exploring how one would define being Japanese American, one
response was:
Values... You know when we're growing up, like how - like how many customs
you're, I don't want to say required, but like expected to perform and like, things
you're expected to learn. And you're expected to do well in school. And um, you
know like certain things that are just like expected (F.G. 6, p. 3, L 27, 29-32).
67
The idea of expectations was explicitly expressed, however the implicit message seemed
to indicate that if the younger generations do not live up to these expectations they will be
a disappointment to and bring shame to their families. The idea of shame could even be
seen in some of the younger generation's responses regarding their parent's perception of
their cultural identity. One of the more obvious ways one counteracts the effects of
shame upon one's family is through education.
The importance of education. For many of the Sansei and Yonsei, there is no
question that one is to obtain a college education. For some, there was no question that
grades were to be "As" only. These expectations for educational success were often
unspoken. As one older Sansei expressed,".. .from the Japanese culture, it was always
you know, education is the most important" (F.G. 1, p. 4, L 20). Although it has been
argued that the younger generations are not as concerned or motivated in regard to
education, one hapa Yonsei expressed:
You know when we're growing up, like how - like how many customs you're, I
don't want to say required, but like expected to perform and like, things you're
expected to learn. And you're expected to do well in school. And um, you know
like certain things that are just like expected (F.G. 6, p. 3, L 28-32).
The Issei generation consisted of laborers with the Nisei becoming farmers or specialized
laborers, and the Sansei pursued college degrees and higher education degrees. One
conversation with two older Sansei reflects the connection between the cultural notion of
shame and the value of education, is as follows:
68
"A": You dare not, do anything uh, bad because you bring disrespect to so many
people. And uh, that's uh, part of our Japanese heritage. I think that's why our
generation grew up the way we did. Uh, our uh, the Isseis, were basically farmers
when they came from Japan. The Niseis, our parents, they upgraded themselves to
become Japanese gardeners, ok. And when you got to become a Sansei "B": Education.
"A": You were educated, you went to college and became the engineers and
doctors and so on and so forth. Each time we elevated ourselves. Did you know
that the Japanese Americans are not considered a minority?
Fac: yeah.
"A": We're considered White. And that's because we have elevated
ourselves.. .(F.G. 4, p. 3, L 13-24).
The Japanese American community is very proud of their accomplishments. They are
proud that they have "elevated" themselves and are successful, respected citizens in the
San Jose community. However, at what cost?
One Sansei, who possesses a Master's degree, commented that education was one
means of assimilating as a response to the internment. His parents and his aunts and
uncles all encouraged their children to pursue their education. Education was encouraged
to such an extent that many of his generation received upper graduate degrees like PhDs.
"I guess they felt that this-this was the best way to assimilate into the mainstream through education. And, so all of us did" (F.G. 1, p. 4, L 24-26). After the internment,
education symbolized hope. The Japanese Americans could redeem themselves as
69
citizens. They could show their communities and American society that they could
succeed and overcome the internment, as well as assimilate and be good citizens. In
another focus group, one Sansei was explaining her college experience in the seventies
and the difficulty for her to receive a scholarship for she was not recognized as a
minority, "On the one hand, you're proud of that. That we've assimilated, that we've
come this far" (F.G 4, p. 4, L 1). However, on the other hand, as some of the younger
generation express, you are still seen as "Asian" with all of the racial connotations
attached to that label. Furthermore, when your ethnic background is revealed, the legacy
of the internment and the racism that fueled the motives behind the internment, are still
very much alive. The older generations perceive the younger generations to be
assimilated and Westernized. Culturally, perhaps the younger generations are
assimilated. However, the experiences of some in the younger generation expose the
reality that the challenges some of their parents and grandparents had to face, are still
some of the same challenges that the younger generation must face today.
In the very institutions that have educated the Japanese American community and
provided the means of their professional, social and civic success, these schools, colleges
and universities have helped the Japanese American community to "assimilate". They
are also sites of racial and cultural struggle where the Yonsei and the hapa sometimes
have to fight subtle and not so subtle racist and discriminatory attitudes and behaviors.
One cultural value is not only admired but it is still alive and well even in the younger
generation: shikataganai. Shikataganai is an attitude that enabled the Issei and Nisei to
survive the internment experience and its aftermath. The older generation needs to know
that this attitude is still alive in the younger generations (including the hapa members).
Shikataganai, endurance, and perseverance. One reason why the younger
generations, especially the Sansei, respect the Issei and Nisei is due to the honorable
attitude the Issei and Nisei held while interned and while recovering their lives after their
release. The attitude of shikataganai, "it cannot be helped" (Asakawa, 2004, p. 60), or
the firm resolve to move on despite suffering and hardship is admired, particularly by the
Sansei.
"A": I don't think I've ever had to put up with the overt discrimination that they
[Isseis and NiseisJ had to put up with.. .you know?...'cause I think those
experiences were so traumatic.you know? Especially.. .Nisei thought they were
American because they were born here. And so that - that could be uprooted like
that really hurt their feelings. Because they thought they were participating in the
- in the system. And then to find out that they really weren't.
"B": That's one of the things I've always given them a lot of credit for was, that
generation never passed down the bitterness or anger of"A": No, no (interrupted "B") they kept it to themselves (F.G. 1, p. 17, L 18-21,
28,30).
In the Nisei and Sansei focus groups, the internment would always come up explicitly.
The attitude of shikataganai not only seemed to be admired, but also inspirational for all
of the Sansei who had live through the racism and discrimination after the internment.
71
.. .Their [Issei and Nisei] whole business about shikataganai, I just feel that
they're role models for us. And that is what pulled us through all of these
challenges.. .For them to go through this 3 Vz years of such a terrible injustice and
then to be able to say, "Well, it happened, shikataganai and we're going to make
the best of it and move on". It's just a role model for all of us.. .(F.G. 3, p. 4, L
12-13).
In the Yonsei/hapa focus group, the internment was implicitly referred to and usually
only in the context of discrimination in general or family history. This may imply that
Yonsei/hapa focus groups may not be as aware or sensitive of their cultural history. The
hapa in particular, do not seem as aware of the internment experience. Yet this
generation is aware and knowledgeable of the racism and discrimination that their parents
and grandparents faced. One could even argue that for the hapa, the struggle is even
more challenging since many of the participants are struggling with their own identity.
One hapa Yonsei who is XA White and 14 Japanese shared how he has had largely negative
experiences with White people and their reaction to his ethnic background. Here is an
excerpt of one of his experiences in high school:
"A": When I was in uh, high school, I got blamed for Pearl Harbor so many times
and I was like, I'm "B": Really?
"C": Are you kidding?
"A": .. .They were just so ignorant all the time. That's probably why I only hang
out with Asian people now. I mean, I don't shut myself off from everybody else,
but as my closest mends are concerned, they're all Asian. Except for those
people, who don't have a problem with, you know, they don't have a problem
with race, a problem with race either but we just find... that more
people.. .Other's might just look the other way, but we don't, that's our problem I
guess (F.G. 6, p. 6, L 49-51; p. 7, L 3-8).
Another hapa Yonsei, who is V* Irish and XA Japanese expressed some of her thoughts
about being hapa and surrounded by predominantly White friends in a predominantly
White school:
I have a lot of White friends and my nickname is always "Asia" or "Geisha", just
because I'm Asian, I don't know. Its, like, there's no harm in it I guess, but
they're always like 'we don't consider you "Asian"'. I guess like, that's kind of
like demeaning, when they say that 'cause its like what's wrong with being Asian,
you know? But, I don't know. They have Asian friends, but I don't know, I go to
a Catholic school where its like.. .the White people rule the school (F.G. 6, p. 6, L
34-39).
Most of the hapa and many of the Yonsei shared stories of discrimination. For the hapa,
the discrimination seemed to be the most challenging since they always experienced
tension, an inner push-pull between two or more identities that conflicted with one
another. When others would tease orridiculetheir Asian side, they automatically felt the
struggle to defend one or the other cultural identities without denying one or the other.
Many of the hapa participants are just entering their college years and are still in the
process of negotiating and discovering their own personal, cultural identities.
73
Shikataganai, the same attitude that the Issei and Nisei held and exhibited during their
struggle against racism, seems to have evolved and been redefined by the younger
generations. The spirit of shikataganai, to endure despite hardship and make the best of a
situation remains, however the attitude is manifested with a more "Western" cultural
flavor.
Many of the hapa either ignore these racist and discriminatory remarks and
behaviors, though hurtful, or they follow in their parents (the Sansei) footsteps and
defend their cultural heritage and diversity. For example, one hapa who identifies more
with her White side, than Japanese side expressed her reaction to being called "gook." At
first she expressed that it did not bother her, she just ignores those who are ignorant. But,
if pressed or provoked, her reaction takes on a more "Western" cultural response:
Besides if they said something bad of course I have something to say back to
them. And if they didn't like it, too bad you know? But.. .1 mean I would defend
it. Like what's wrong with it? Like she said, you know, what wrong with being
Asian? (F.G. 6, p. 7, L 36-39).
The younger generation may not fully be aware of the internment or the attitude of
shikataganai, but they are living with the presence of both whether they realize it or not.
Shikataganai is expressed much differently now. Circumstances differ, yet the struggle
against racism still remains. However, the spirit and essence of the attitude of
shikataganai still seems to be intact and alive within the younger generations. The
Japanese "culture" may not be performed as much in the younger generation as much as
certain cultural values and characteristics are embodied by them. The spirit and attitude
74
of shikataganai is necessary if they want to make a difference not only in society
regarding racial attitudes, but even within their own community, particularly those who
are hapa, Discrimination exists within the community just as much as it exists without.
Many of the older generations do not consider hapa to be truly a part of the Japanese
community. Those hapa who consider themselves part of the Japanese American
community are looked upon with suspicion and doubt by many Nisei and even some
older Sansei. This leads one to consider the points of tension or difference amongst the
varied generational groups. Though there were points of contact and similarity, there are
also points of disconnect, disagreement, and dissonance.
Themes that Reflect Points of Tension
Within the common themes that emerged in the focus groups, points of contrast or
difference emerged as well. The themes may be similar but the experiences, perceptions,
and even the solutions to the community issues were different. The focus groups also
revealed some interesting community issues and tensions regarding the impact of the
internment on communication, interracial marriage, and the cultural identity of biracial
and multiracial (hapa) Japanese Americans.
The focus of this study was to determine whether or not a communication gap
existed between the generations. One purpose of the focus groups was to explore why
this communication gap exists or does not exist and what is contributing to the lack of
communication. Specifically, the following questions were examined: Is there a
communication gap between the different generations? Yes. Why is there a
communication gap between the different generations? Three issues seem to relate to this
75
lack of communication between the generations: assimilation, the loss of the Japanese
language, and lack of communication about the internment and therefore a decline in the
cultural group's historical memory. All three of these issues seem to be direct results of
the internment.
The impact of the internment touches all generations. The lack of communication
between the older generations and the younger generations seems to be highly influenced
by perceptions. When the older generations were asked what contributed to their
perception that the younger generations are losing their culture identity of Japanese
American, responses centered on three issues: Westernization, multiraciality, and the loss
of the Japanese language.
"A": They are more Westernized.
"B": There are lots of outmarriage.
"A": It looks like they are losing their identity with the Japanese (F.G 1, p. 12, L
4-6).
"X": You know, I think I - 1 never learned Japanese - 1 can speak it a little bit
and understand it, but I never really learned Japanese. And my boys never went
[to Japanese school]. I mean, do you all speak Japanese?
"Y": No.
Clamor of responses, in the negative
Laughing
"Z": I think we lost our language in one generation.. .And I am sure it has to do
with the camps, and the internment...
76
Murmuring of agreement (F.G 5, p. 11, L 5-10,13)
The younger generation's perception is a bit different. When asked why they enjoy being
Japanese American, a few responses implicitly addressed the issue of assimilation and
Westernization:
"P": You don't have to live up to old customs, as much as previous generations.
Fac: Why do you think you think that it is an advantage?
"P": Well, you have more freedom.. .(F.G. 6, p. 2, L 10-12)
"Q": I mean its [cultural influence] certainly influenced by Western.. .but
its...unique (F.G. 6, p 2, L 19).
"R": Um, I guess its just, like what he said, we are so...we have like, a uniqueness
to us. But a lot of people, when you go into other cultures, like Chinese, a lot of
the kids are brought up on the Chinese culture. And, Japanese are brought up on
their culture, the Japanese culture, but not to the extent where we feel we are
forced to, I guess? Does that make sense? (F.G. 6, p. 2, L 27 - 30)
The first response was expressed by a hapa Yonsei who is Vz Chinese and Vz Japanese, the
second by a hapa Sansei who is Vz Japanese, lA Black, and VA Chinese, and the last
response was from a Yonsei who is Japanese from her mother's side and her father's side.
All appreciated the fact that their generation is given the option to pick and choose
certain aspects of their cultural identity and how they live it out in their own lives. The
younger generation appreciates their uniqueness of their Japanese and American culture.
This attitude and perception is very "Western." For the older generations, the attitude is
different. Uniqueness is not necessarily a trait or characteristic that is desirable. In the
77
Japanese culture, one does not want to bring attention to oneself. As one Sansei
explained, "We've heard the term, the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.
Basically, the Niseis followed that" (F.G 3, p. 2, L 15-16). Perhaps the older generation
sees many of the younger generation who are more assimilated and Western as well as
"mixed" as nails that stick up, but refuse to be hammered down.
After the internment, the Niseis and Sanseis were forced to assimilate. The
younger generations are more assimilated, beginning with the Sansei. Many of the
Sansei did not learn or stopped using the Japanese language altogether. They pursued
their education and started their own families. The "forced assimilation" led to
outmarriage and a new "face" of Japanese Americans, the hapa members. This has
altered perspectives regarding philosophy, lifestyle, and communication. For Sansei, the
Yonsei and hapa, their culture and communication style is much more Western than their
older counterparts. A couple of Sansei even admitted that ethnically they are Japanese,
but culturally they are American. For example, one who grew up in Southern California
shared, "I - I'm very American with Japanese ancestry. I'm not so much into this
Japanese culture that those of you who grew up here [Bay Area], are" (F.G 5, p. 6, L 24).
Many Sansei admitted to not becoming interested in their Japanese heritage until they
were in college or after they had children. One Sansei expressed how she became
acquainted with her Japanese heritage not through her family or her parents, who were
interned, but after she went to college.
For me, it was uh, I was more of late comer to a lot of the Japanese culture.
(laughs) For some reason, my parents just sort of, I think 'cause of the camp
78
experience, they - they - it was just, you know, we gotta be - totally -.. .1 mean
we didn't even really acknowledge a lot of the customs, except for, you know,
New Years, you know?...And it wasn't a rejection of it, but it just was not a part
of my growing up... And it was actually through getting involved with NOC
[Nihonmachi Outreach Committee] and you know, more of an activist type, as the
young adult, that made me aware of all that I was missing (F.G. 5, p. 3, L 11-20).
The internment influenced the majority of the Niseis to leave behind their Japanese
heritage in order to lead a more peaceable life. One Sansei who is involved in research
about the internment, shared some of the findings regarding Japanese cultural identity
development after the internment:
But the thing that I see the most, that really affects how Japanese you were in
your home was the war. So, if, when they got out of the camp, there was a very
strong ten years or so where people really tried not [italics added] to be too
Japanese in public. Maybe in the ho - house, people still ate Japanese food and
stuff, but there was a very big push to be as quiet or to be as - to at least to blend
in as much as possible (F.G 5, p. 12, L 1-5).
The forced assimilation, or at least the pressure to assimilate after the internment,
influenced a whole generation to leave behind their Japanese cultural heritage. The
issues of preservation, preservation of the Japanese American culture, community, and
Japantown in San Jose is directly related to the aftermath of the internment.
One outcome of the mass assimilation of the Nisei and Sansei was an increase in
outmarriage of the Sanseis to other cultures. In a few of the focus groups, some older
79
Sanseis who are both Japanese, discussed how outmarriage or out-marrying, forces
families to "choose" which will be the dominant culture. One couple related their own
personal experience with their daughter.
Fac: Are you noticing yet, in your own children, that maybe some of the culture is
slipping away?
"A": Yeah. Because my daughter, I have a daughter, she's not married to a
Japanese. She's married to a Mexican, and she's married twice and both times,
married to a Mexican. One was a Mexican-White and then the other one, now
she's married to a Mexican.
Fac: And you see that as - ?
A: And now she's slipping away from the Japanese culture.
"B": Yeah, but her kids were never in the Japanese culture.
Fac: Her kids were never even "in"?
"C": They were never involved here?
"B": That's why, that's why I personally, don't like it when I see Japanese
marrying outside, because in my opinion, a great majority of the time, the
Japanese heritage, which is in important to me, is gone. Is gone (F.G. 3, p. 15, L
4-15.
Again, in another focus group, one Sansei expressed how even if marriage occurs
between two Asian individuals, one culture will predominate. "Well, once tiiey're mixed
(in aud) it's hard...to keep it. Like, like I was telling you, my two, my two nephews are
Japanese and Thai. And they identify more with Thai" (F.G. 1, p. 21, L 24-26). For the
80
older generations, out-marriage is predominantly seen as a more harmful to the
community. As a result of increasing interracial relationships and marriages, it is
believed that more and more of the Japanese American culture is lost.
Assimilation and the implications of outmarriage are realities that affect the
community. The depth of these two issues resonates the most powerfully in the
experiences and perceptions of the younger Yonsei and hapa with others in the Japanese
American community. One Yonsei who is also hapa, expressed the tension that exists
between her and her Sansei mother: "I probably feel like I.. .as far as culture goes,
identify with Japanese. My mom would say otherwise" (F.G 6, p. 8, L 40-50). When
questioned about her parent's perception of her cultural identity, the tensions of being
multiracial again emerged: ".. .not a disappointment, but, how should I say it? Um, not as
Japanese [italics added] as she would like me to be. She always says I'm too white
'cause I'm too loud and I'm too open about how I feel (ibid, p. 9, L 35-37). The seeming
lack of interest of the younger generations may not be so much a loss of culture but more
of a struggle with their own cultural identity. Another hapa Yonsei expressed how both
of her grandparents were interned, yet she knows very little about their experience. She
even contributes her ignorance of the internment experience and her cultural heritage to
her family's assimilation as a consequence of the internment.
I think through that they really didn't want to carry on the culture. I mean, um,
like our aunties and uncles and stuff, they gave them you know, a taste of the
culture, but not enough, like, they didn't learn the language, they didn't learn
everything about the food, exactly. 'Cause I think is definitely important part of
81
it. (chuckling) But um, for us grandkids, I mean we barely know enough about
the culture. We just know whatever they allowed us to know (F.G. 6, p. 12, L 2429).
The Yonsei and hapa generations bear the consequences of the internment, just as much
as the Nisei and Sansei, just in a different way.
The multiracial factor -purity versus dilution. It seems as though the common
perception among most (not all) of the older Nisei and Sansei toward the hapa younger
generations is that the hapa are not Japanese enough or too "white". Therefore, they are
not qualified to be considered truly Japanese American. They need to "prove" their
Japanese-ness before they can carry on the Japanese American legacy. This attitude is
not only thought provoking and distressing but strangely familiar. It is reminiscent of an
attitude that occurred two to three generations ago, but it was an attitude held by the
Whites toward Japanese Americans during and after the internment. This discriminatory
attitude makes communication and understanding of the younger generations much more
challenging. The challenge could be intensified because many of the hapa perceive
themselves to be a part of the Japanese American community. They cannot nor do they
want to deny that aspect of their identity. This reveals a need for some level of
compromise, acceptance and unity on the part of all generations within the community.
The issue of multiraciality addresses the various definitions and perceptions regarding
culture: what is it to be Japanese American? For the older generations, culture and
identity seem to reflect performance - involvement in the community, in cultural events,
and the practice of certain customs. The younger generations, particularly those with a
82
mixture of racial backgrounds seem to perceive and understand culture and their own
identity through embodiment - it's their attitudes, their beliefs, their values. An
understanding of these differing perspectives and ideas regarding culture and cultural
identity is needed in order to help the Japanese American community explore their own
definitions and understandings of culture. If the community wants to survive and
preserve what is left of its cultural heritage, the community will have to come together
and come up with workable solutions that accept the reality of multiraciality and
assimilation on the one hand, yet maintain and retain the cultural values and traditions
that all members of the community want to preserve.
Lack of communication about internment and the loss of historical memory.
Another implication of the internment that has affected the community is the loss of
historical memory. Earlier, it was mentioned how the internment was and is perceived by
the Issei and Nisei as a shameful event. Therefore, the experience is not really talked
about. Many Sansei expressed how very little their parents and grandparents speak of the
internment. One Nisei privately expressed how hard it was for him to think about that
time in his life, that he did not want to remember. It is an event that stirs up lots of
intense emotions. One Sansei shared how she was part of a study examining the
internment:
"A":.. .talked to those 100 people and no one wanted to talk about the camps, no
one wanted to talk about it "B": Yeah, my dad would never talk about it. Ever (F.G. 5, p. 12, L 18-20).
Other participants shared similar experiences with their own relatives.
83
"A": ...but my grandma was in the camp. She never talks about it. I've...My
family has basically said, you know, that at this age there is really no point in
asking her about it because its bad memories or something like.. .but I've always
been curious, so I'd bring it up and she doesn't really - she doesn't, never talks
about her own life anyway (F.G 1, p. 19, L 5-7).
"B": They never talked to us about it [the internment]"C": Yeah, never talked about it (F.G 1, p. 17, L 32-33).
The younger generation's awareness, or lack thereof, of the internment is not only
influenced by time, but also through the lack of communication about the subject. The
perception that younger generations don't care about internment and what their ancestors
suffered as a result of assimilation and outmarriage is not completely correct. How are
the younger generations supposed to learn about the internment when their grandparents'
experiences and thoughts about the subject are not communicated to them? Education is
not a certain solution. For example, one Yonsei, who is full Japanese shared her high
school history lesson about WWII:
I mean, I hardly even know much about my culture. I mean, the only time I
learned more about my culture, was in high school, and it was like a two day thing
- this is what happened, they bombed us, and that's it. Like, there was not really
any talk about the internment camps, they said, oh, this is the internment camps they were herefromthis point to this point and that's it. Next topic.. .(F.G. 6, p.
12, L 30-34).
84
When focus group discussions transitioned to solutions to preserving the Japanese
American heritage and Japanese American experience, most of the focus groups came up
with the same solutions: it starts in the families and the need to preserve Japantown San
Jose as a place of public, historical memory.
Suggestions and thoughts about the preservation issue. The question of how to
preserve the Japanese American heritage was answered similarly and yet differently in
each generational group. For the Nisei, those who already raised their own children, the
attitudes and answers were skeptical or quizzical. Many of the Nisei seemed skeptical
usually because of the deep seated perception that the younger generation is disinterested
and will probably not change; they seemed quizzical because they were at a loss when it
came to coming up with solutions for the younger generation since they (the Nisei) were
going to be gone soon anyway. Many of the younger Sansei in the focus groups
expressed the need for the parents to be interested in their cultural heritage and to model
interest and involvement for the benefit of their offspring. Most responses indicated that
preservation begins and ends with the family. One active community member, who is
Sansei, expressed the following:
'Cause I belong to the youth organization and I'm uh, constantly [italics added]
trying get the urn, membership, influence their children toward becoming more
community active and more uh, volunteer towards the seniors. But I cannot
[italics added] get the parents.. .to convince them, than I have no chance with the
kids. So, I think the kids are, unfortunately are because of the parent's influence
(F.G. 1, p. 13, L 18-22)
85
Another Sansei who is also an active community member expressed similar sentiments
placing responsibility upon the older generations: "It's our [italics added] responsibility
to do the teaching and the modeling.. .Because they learn itfromus. In fact, I said earlier,
role models of the Issei for me, was how I learned. And we just need to do more to
model that" (F.G. 3, p. 12, L. 49; p. 13, L 5).
One Sansei expressed how the responsibility lies specifically with the parents.
She shared how her Yonsei niece who did married out to a Caucasian is doing what she
can to pass on her cultural heritage to her hapa children:
I think the parents need to bring them into the culture and let them learn from the
culture and learn to keep the culture, because my niece is married to a Caucasian,
but each of her children go to Japanese school. And, they've learned to read and
write Japanese since, uh, I guess since, uh they were five they went to school. It's
uh, Friday night after school kind of school for two hours. So they all went to the
Mountain View Obon and the boys, and the girls, all danced so they would be in
the culture. So, the parents bring them into the Japanese culture even though they
may be lA or lA or whatever. They could learn uh, the culture by being influenced
by being around whatever is happening, that is, um reputable (F.G. 6, p. 21, L 2835).
After the internment, it seems some families began to lose some, if not all, of their
Japanese cultural heritage due to the pressure and preference to assimilate. The answer to
the preservation question is for families to once again regain their cultural identity and
heritage. One solution is to preserve a place where the struggles and triumphs of the
86
Japanese American community are kept in public memory. For the Japanese American
community, that place is Japantown - San Jose.
Preserving Japantown is preserving public memory and preserving cultural
heritage. All of the focus groups recognized the need to preserve Japantown as well as
the reality that the Japantowns are fading. There are only three Japantowns left in
California. Japantown San Jose is the smallest of the three, but the influence of the
Japanese culture is the strongest. Japantown San Jose is significant because it is a place
of public memory. Mandziuk (2003) noted how memorializing or commemorating
public figures, places and events serves a rhetorical function where the "past mediates the
present, public values and contains markers of cultural clash over significant issues such
as race and gender" (p. 271). Mandziuk (2003) argues further that commemorating and
memorializing places are not arbitrary actions. They are interpretive, symbolic acts that
serve as an expression of cultural values, beliefs, or cultural knowledge, as well as sites
of struggle regarding the past and its meaning and implications for the present (as well as
the future). By exploring the events, figures, or places that are commemorated or
memorialized, one can gain an understanding of that particular culture, what they define
as "truth," and what cultural values and knowledge they would like to be remembered.
Japantown San Jose holds the Issei Memorial Building, which is the home of the
Japanese American history museum. There the internment experience is chronicled and
recorded for not only future Japanese Americans, but for the entire San Jose community.
The older Nisei and Sansei find comfort and familiarity in Japantown. Japantown San
Jose is where many who were displaced during the war, returned to rebuild their lives.
87
For many of the older generations Japantown San Jose is a taste of home. Many of the
older generations use the services of Yu Ai Kai where they can eat Japanese food and
partake in Japanese activities as they grow older. However, the main reason the older
generations want Japantown to survive is they don't want their history to be forgotten.
They want their story and their legacy to be communicated to the future generations.
They want to preserve the physical place where many of them returned to rebuild their
lives, where many of them partook of their cultural festivals and customs, where many of
them lived. They don't want the future generations to forget that they lived.
The younger Sansei see Japantown San Jose as a place of education and cultural
awakening for the even younger generations. Many of the younger Sanseis' offspring are
high school, college, or post college age, the time of life where one usually is seeking
their own personal, cultural identity. The Sansei believe mat curiosity of one's cultural
roots will bring the younger generations to Japantown so that they can be educated about
their culture. One Sansei commented how her college-age sons are currently too busy to
be involved in the community while pursuing their education. However, she believes that
after they graduate and begin their lives and perhaps start families, they will have a
stronger desire to know their Japanese cultural roots (F.G. 5). Japantown may also be a
place of comfort and appreciation for the Sansei. A few Sanseis commented about how
their parents, the older they become, the more the Japanese cultural traditions, activities,
and even food are sources of comfort. These Sanseis wonder if they too will have a need
for what Japantown offers, a place of comfort and familiarity
The younger generation of Yonseis and the hapa possess a desire to maintain
Japantown San Jose, similar to the reasons that the Sansei have for preservation. When
they are ready, they would like a place to go to, to find out who they are. As one hapa
Yonsei explained:
I feel like, the further we are getting from like, Issei from the original...
generation that came over, the closer - the more interested we are getting in our,
our roots of where we came from. Because like the more Americanized or
whatever, you become, the more you're searching for your identity and trying to
figure out well, why am I this way? And, I know I am not American because I
came from somewhere and..nowadays, half - the majority of people are mixed and
its - its nice to know like where that came from. Where certain personality traits
come from, certain ideas, like...my eye color. Like you know, little things even
(F.G. 1, p. 23, L 21-27).
Based on responses from the hapa participants, Japantown is a place for them to
understand a part of who they are - their own identity. When asked why they would like
to preserve Japantown San Jose and the Japanese American community their responses
were very revealing:
"A": Still intact.. .but the more and more time goes on that it's just going to get
washed out because of such, .things as interracial marriage and Japanese people,
like when we came here, like, we after tiie war tried to assimilate a little bit...(F.G.
6, p. 12, L 19-22).
89
"B": I really hope it stays intact. I would like to preserve what we have. I mean, I
hardly even know much about my culture.. .1 think just more awareness of...that
Japanese Americans are here and we're not going anywhere (F.G. 6, p. 12, L 3031,33).
Preserving Japantown San Jose and the Japanese American community seems to be more
of a matter of concern for the younger hapa than even the full Japanese Yonsei. Some
responsesfromthe hapa seem to reveal a sense of resentment toward those who are full
Japanese for they perceive the full Japanese to be taking their cultural identity and
heritage for granted.
"A": The people - the people who are trying to keep it alive though, aren't
Japanese.
"B": Yeah, I know, it's not Japanese it's all the "A": Most of the time Japanese people can't even -they could care less. That's
what's happening. Like, my friends who are Japanese, they don't care. I tell them
about it, and they're like, so?
"C": The ones that are full?
"A": Yeah, they're like so? "C": But they're full, that's not the same.
"A": They take it for granted. They don't understand what it's going to be like
once it's gone. And when it's gone, its too late (F.G. 6, p. 13, L 22-31).
For those who are mixed, with multiple ethnic identities and influences, Japantown San
Jose is a place where they could come to discover and understand a part of their identity.
90
When asked when, if and how they would be involved in the Japantown San Jose
community, many of the Yonsei, hapa and full, responded that it would be after college
and when they started their own families. This response seems to reinforce the thoughts
and beliefs of some of the Sansei. Based on focus group responses, all of the generations
have a desire and share the same opinion that there is a need to preserve the Japantown
community. It is a place of comfort and familiarity for the older generations and it is a
place of exploration and discovery for the younger generations. Ultimately, it is a place
of memory.
Steps Toward Shaping the Intergenerational Dialogue
Examining the themes that emerged from the focus group discussion revealed
numerous topics and issues upon which to base a dialogue session. The next task was to
sift through the themes of contact and similarity as well as the themes of dissonance and
points of tension and come up with helpful, purposeful, goal-oriented discussion
questions that would address the needs and interests of the community. The goal for the
dialogue session was to be eye opening for all the participants regarding their perceptions
and misperceptions of one another, particularly surrounding the issues of culture as
performed and/or embodied and the issue of interest and involvement, of what the
community and what the Japanese American culture means to each generation. The
dialogue session was designed to be constructively challenging for the community as they
deal with the realities of assimilation and multiraciality. An additional goal for the
dialogue session was for the time to be a valuable, positive, yet honest exploration of the
attitudes and perceptions held by the community. Finally, the dialogue session would be
91
an opportunity for the community to address some of the real issues affecting the
community, issues that are jeopardizing its unity and preservation.
92
CHAPTER 4
Engaging in Dialogue: Application and Analysis of Dialogic Principles in Communitybased Action Research with the Japanese American Community of Japantown San Jose
The purpose of the intergenerational dialogue session was to bring the different
generational members of the Japanese American community together to discuss and
converse about the issues facing the community in the present and the future. The
dialogue session was not only an exploratory study of intergenerational communication
but also an exploration of intracultural communication in a dialogic context. This
Master's thesis is unique because it explored not only the content of a dialogue session,
but it also explored the process of dialogue. In this chapter, dialogue as an engaged
practice is examined with as much attention as the material discussed. This chapter
explores the process of planning and preparing for the dialogue session, the process of
encouraging and engaging in dialogic communication in the intergenerational dialogue
session, as well as an examination of the content discussed in the intergenerational
dialogue session. This exploration and analysis of the preparation, planning, and process
of engaging in dialogue provides insight in the evaluation of how successful the
community was in the practice of dialogue, along with the productivity of the meeting
and its achievement of the objectives laid out for the dialogue session.
The dialogue session had four objectives: 1) to bring the different generations
together to discuss particular issues currently facing the community such as preserving
Japantown San Jose, cultural preservation and practice, assimilation, and the growing
reality of multiracial Japanese Americans; 2) to encourage actual discussion amongst the
93
generations with one another; 3) to clarify certain misconceptions and negative
perceptions the generations held with regard to one another; and 4) to empower the
community to find workable solutions to address the pressing issues facing the
community, specifically the younger generations' involvement in and preservation of
Japantown. Analysis addresses the strategic design and preparation made for the
dialogue session, what occurred at the actual dialogic event and my effectiveness as
facilitator/researcher. Analysis also focuses on whether or not dialogue occurred, as well
as the impact that the event and outcome had upon me as a co-participant/researcher of
the community and culture under exploration.
Event Preparation and Design: Analyzing the Process
The following section is an exploration of how the dialogue session for the
Japanese American community was strategically designed for the purpose of promoting
dialogic communication. I also explain the steps of preparation for the dialogue session
in regards to inviting participants, making the necessary arrangements at Yu Ai Kai, how
the themes from the focus groups informed the process of planning the points of
discussion, and preparation and considerations for me as the facilitator, a co-participant in
the research process, yet also the researcher.
Examination of the design process of the dialogue session is important to this
study just as much as the content discussed in the dialogue session. The purpose of the
intergenerational dialogue session was not only to bring the different generations together
and address specific issues but to also address these issues in a specific way through
dialogue. Reinharz (1992) explains how a conversation or dialogue format demonstrates
94
the tentative, emergent and contextual social construction of knowledge and meaning.
With this in mind, great care needed to be considered in the format of the actual dialogue
event particularly in terms of the following: logistics of creating an atmosphere and safe
space for the dialogue to emerge; how to engage the participants in conversation, in
terms of surrounding points of tension and conflict; and my role as researcher-facilitator
in the dialogic process.
Considerations Regarding Goals and Outcomes for the Dialogue Session
One of the primary goals of the dialogue session was to promote open, honest,
constructive conversation across the generations of the Japanese American community
about significant issues concerning race, culture, assimilation, and preservation of the
community and San Jose's Japantown. Ideally, in the dialogue session the younger and
older generational members would be able to communicate frankly and sincerely about
their perspectives, ideas, and thoughts about community issues for the purpose of all
generations to come to a mutual understanding. Dialogue additionally reveals how the
community mutually constructs their own understanding of these issues and enables them
to develop their own expectations and responses to these issues, not as different
generations or even individuals, but as one community. I hoped to help encourage and
usher in a mutual respect for one another's perspectives, feelings, and ideas regarding
Japanese Americans as a cultural community that is changing due to assimilation and
outmarriage.
Mutual respect. Mutual respect for one another's perspectives and feelings is
particularly important as the community deals with the issues of assimilation and
95
outmarriage. Both of these issues emerged consistently in the focus group interviews as
significant factors facing the community. These issues also stand as points of tension.
For the older generations, these two issues are regarded more negatively not only as
social realities, but also in regards to attitudes and perceptions about their impact upon
the community and culture. Addressing these two topics would require a level of tact and
acumen in order to encourage constructive, open, and yet honest conversation amongst
generations, especially when some of the younger generations either engaged in or are
direct results of these two social and cultural phenomena.
The role of the research —practitioner. It was also necessary for me to consider
my roles as researcher, facilitator, and participant. One goal of this project is to
contribute to the growing body of community-based action research. It is my
responsibility and role as researcher and facilitator to assist this community in
confronting, discussing, and collaborating together in order to resolve the issues affecting
them. In community-based action research, the researcher/facilitator is an active coparticipant in the research process inviting engagement and involvement with the
community and its members. According to Kickett, McCauley, and Stringer (1986), my
role was that of a catalyst, to help and enable participants to analyze and assess their
situation and work together to determine what they want to maintain and hold onto and
what they want to change (as cited in Stringer, 1996). Although the role of the
researcher/facilitator in community-based action research does not require "objectivity"
or being value-neutral and instead requires investing one's self into the research process
and human growth, my position as a participant in the community was intensely personal.
96
As the researcher, I am also a hapa, younger generation Sansei Japanese
American. My position as facilitator was at times challenging and problematic even
during the focus group interviews. As a researcher, it was my responsibility to facilitate
conversations that directly related and applied to me yet without making it personal and
about me. The dialogue session addressed how I am perceived and accepted in the
Japanese American community, as a younger, arguably more assimilated, byproduct of
outmarriage. For the sake of the research process, I often found myself having to
separate myselffromthe personal nature of the research in order to explore and examine
the themes and issues in a constructive, productive fashion while at the same time
recognizing my own feelings and perspective. I was also challenged to facilitate the
conversation in a way that revealed those assumptions, behaviors, and practices that
could be negatively contributing to the areas the community was concerned about.
According to Stringer (1996), my role as researcher/facilitator in the dialogue session was
to "create the conditions that will mobilize their [the community's] energy, engage their
enthusiasm, and generate activity that can by productively applied to the resolution of
issues and problems that concern them" (p. 25). It was my responsibility to be open to
the honesty of the responses of the participants in order to help the community address
the issues that concern them, in spite of the personal nature of those issues.
Strategic Preparation and Planningfor the Intergenerational Dialogue Session
Bearing the goals and outcomes of the dialogue session in mind and my role as
researcher, facilitator, and co-participant in the research process, planning and preparing
for the intergenerational dialogue session necessitated the consideration of multiple
97
factors. First, in terms of content, it was requisite to consider how to address and discuss
the emergent themes in a productive manner in order to achieve the goals and desired
outcomes of the dialogue session without being repetitive. Additionally, it was necessary
to bear in mind how to strategically and constructively address the points of tension that
arose from the focus groups in order to engage and interest the community to find
productive, workable solutions that addressed the areas of concern. I also had to consider
how to encourage and energize the community to actively pursue and commit to those
workable solutions that would address the issues and problems that concern them.
The second factor that required consideration was how to, with regard to method,
address the content in a way that would promote active engagement of all the participants
in the discussion. It was important to encourage thorough consideration of the points
brought up in the dialogue session with open, voluntary contribution and collaboration of
ideas to address and resolve the areas of concern especially across the generations. The
intergenerational dialogue session was to be a discussion across generations, generations
that previously were not communicating with one another about community issues. In
order to promote communication and open, honest discussion amongst the different
generations, I wanted to design the dialogue session in such a way as to engage the older
generation with the younger generation in a discussion about a specific issue so that both
generations would be able to understand the perspective of the other.
Setting the Stage: Preparing the Place, the Participants, the Event, and the Research
Practitioner
98
Preparing the place. One principle of both community-based action research and
dialogic communication is strategically and carefully setting the stage for communication
to take place. Based on the community-based action research principle of focusing on the
well-being of the people, I considered a location that would be not only convenient, but
also comfortable and familiar (Penman, 2000; Stringer 1996). Penman (2000) also
suggests considering whether familiar or neutral is more appropriate for the group of
individuals involved and the issues at stake. For the context of my project, I thought a
location that was both familiar and neutral would be appropriate. Yu Ai Kai is a wellrecognized, respected non-profit organization in the heart of the Japantown community.
By choosing Yu Ai Kai my project would not be associated with any business or
religious organization in the community and therefore free from the appearance of a
particular political or social agenda.
It was also necessary to pay close attention to the smaller details such as, the room
the dialogic event will take place in, and how the room will be arranged. For the sake of
familiarity as well as to promote a sense of intimacy due to the size of the room, I
planned to conduct the dialogue event in the same room that the focus group discussions
took place. In one sense, I hoped to take them all back to where the conversation began
and continue the conversation. I planned for the participants and myself as facilitator, to
be seated in a circular fashion, thereby promoting equality and openness where all the
participants could see the faces of the other and hear what one another had to share. This
arrangement also allowed me to be a co-participant and emphasized my role as a
facilitator or guide rather than in a leadership or authoritative role. This arrangement was
99
particularly important to me as the facilitator for I was not there to provide solutions or
give them answers. Rather, I hoped it would encourage the participants to engage in
discussion and be empowered to produce and form their own solutions and construct their
own answers as fellow members of the same community. The neutral role of facilitator is
a principle of dialogic communication that promotes and ushers in the openness and the
allowance for flexibility in the dialogic discussion event. The facilitator's skill in
enacting and communicating in a neutral, open manner affects the way communication
takes place. A neutral, open facilitator can help usher in more openness and engagement
on the part of the participants within the dialogic event.
To further create an atmosphere of openness, intimacy, and to promote comfort,
food and drink were offered to the participants. The purpose of this provision was twofold: first, there was the consideration of physical needs and comfort, and secondly,
relational and cultural considerations. The timing of the event, albeit most convenient for
the participants, took place after work around dinner time. Well fed participants would
probably be more apt to contribute to the conversation than participants who were
starving or food deprived. Second, mere was the cultural ritual of eating together. Many
cultures possess customs regarding the ritual of eating or mealtime. For many of the
Nisei, they lamented that one of the consequences of the internment experience was the
fragmentation of the family during meals. They believe the corrosion of this custom
began during the camps (F.G. 1). As one younger Sansei observed:
I think camp...created one thing that I just noticed, not just noticed, but I've
noticed is when people were in camp you went and ate at a certain time, so once
100
you finished you got up and you left, because the next group had to come in and
eat.. .lunch. So, you just sat down, ate your food and got up. So, a lot of times
the kids wouldn't eat with their parents. And would just - so it became uh, kind
of, uh separation...of the family unit. (FG 1, p. 18, L 25-29).
Many Nisei and even some of the older Sansei perceive the growing trend of families not
eating together to be a sign of increased assimilation and Westernization of the
community. In order to invoke and cultivate a sense of community, even family, I
purposely intended for the participants to partake in communal eating.
Preparing the people. In order for the dialogic event to be intergenerational,
participants from every generation, ideally, would be present and active in interest and
participation. To achieve this end, I set about inviting previous focus group participants
to join the dialogic discussion that would continue the conversation from the focus
groups but also continue my research study. Finding mutually convenient times for any
large amount of people is challenging, however I was surprised at the greatness of this
challenge. Due to the time consuming task of transcribing and analyzing the focus group
discussions, the dialogue event did not take place until the summer of 2007 and the last
focus group discussion took place the previous fall. Since some of the younger
participants were in college, I hoped that the summer would be more convenient for their
involvement and participation in the dialogue event. However, I did understand that the
length of time would play a factor in the interest and demographics of the participants.
The dialogue event was to be an intergenerational dialogue event therefore it was
necessary to have participants from each generational group involved. Not only was the
101
participation of each generational group important, but I my intent was to include a
variety of perspectives and positions that exist within the community. Therefore, a
balanced group of participants, in regards to gender, community involvement, education,
and etc... was needed.
Bearing these considerations in mind I knew that wording the invite to the
participants would be crucial to gaining the right amount of participants as well as the
right composition of participants. Penman (2000) suggests careful consideration of how
you present what you are interested in exploring, what you expect from the participants,
and what you hope to achieve. I contacted and invited participants to the dialogue
session through email and by phone, using the contact information that was given with
permission by the participants at the focus group discussions. The participants who
provided their email and phone numbers were those who expressed interest in further
participation of my research project. Gratefully, there were many participants to contact.
The emailed invitation opened with a reminder of their participation in the focus groups
as well as their interest at that time to be included in the final portion of my research, the
dialogue session. The invitation included a note of gratitude for their participation, an
invitation to consider participating in the next step to completing the research, and a brief
summary of points to be discussed at the intergenerational dialogue session. Meeting
particulars such as date, time and contact information were also provided. The invitation
was worded to be concise and to the point, yet with grateful acknowledgement to the
participants for their previous participation and a humble request to help me with my
research once again. The original invitation included three potential dates and times to
102
accommodate for busy summer schedules. Initially, responses were difficult to obtain.
However, after a couple more follow ups via email, I received more positive responses
and finally, a date and time were settled upon for Thursday, July 19,2007 from 7:00 pm
to 9:00 pm. Thirteen participants responded to being able to attend the dialogic event for
this suggested date and time.
One of my first lessons in remaining open and flexible as a facilitator and
researcher occurred in the process of navigating through all the responses and coming up
with a workable time for the dialogue session to take place. It was frustrating when some
of the focus group participants whom I considered to be valuable contributors to the
dialogic process would respond in the negative for certain dates and times. It was a
struggle to balance relying on participant's availability and attempting to maintain
complete control over who would participate in the dialogue session. I wanted to
preserve the organic and spontaneous nature of the dialogue, but I also wanted and
needed those participants who would be most invested and engaged in the process. Some
participants who I hoped could attend due to their interest in the study, their personal
positions and perspectives, and involvement in the community, were unable to
participate. One interesting and disappointing observation is that none of the participants
from the sixth focus group were able to participate. Only two out of the seven responded
to my email invitation. Unfortunately, neither was able to attend the dialogue session due
to family and academic commitments. The sixth focus group was comprised of the
younger Yonsei generation and was the most multiracial. The lack of their voices
amongst the others in the dialogue session was a significant loss and left a substantial
103
void in the conversation. I will discuss other implications of their lack of participation
later on in the next chapter (Chapter 5).
Demographics of dialogue participants. Out of the 13 respondents for the
dialogue session, five were Nisei, six were Sansei, and two were Yonsei. One of the
Yonsei was hapa. With regard to gender, the group was evenly divided with six women
and seven men. Two of the six women involved were a part of the Nisei generation,
three were Sansei, and one was Yonsei and hapa. Additionally, both Nisei women had
grandchildren who were hapa, and two of the Sansei women had married hanku-jin men
(or White men), and one of them had two children who were hapa The age range
amongst the female participants ranged from the age of 27 to 90, with the median age of
55.
Of the men, four of the men were Nisei, and three of the men were Sansei. The
four men who were married, all married Japanese American. Two of the Sansei men had
grandchildren who were hapa The age range of the male participants ranged from 45 to
78. The median age was 61.
All of the participants involved were high school graduates and all, except two,
received at least a college or technical school education.
Planning for the event. One of the unique and dynamic characteristics of dialogic
communication, and therefore a planned dialogic session, is its unpredictability.
Dialogue celebrates "in the moment" communication and promotes the openness and
spontaneity of face-face interaction. As Anderson, Cissna, and Arnett (1994) aptly point
out, dialogue cannot be forced or commanded, but it also does not happen by accident. It
104
is the spontaneity of dialogue that leads to more raw, honest, and genuine conversation.
Pearce and Pearce (2004) affirm that by understanding dialogic communication "we think
we have a better idea of how to invite and prepare the conditions for these moments to
occur" (p. 46). In order to prepare the conditions that were conducive to dialogic
communication I decided not to provide the specific discussion questions to the
participants. I only provided a general overview in the email invitation regarding the
direction and focus of the discussion topics. Upon reflection, providing more specific
discussion topics or questions ahead of time may have better equipped the participants to
engage in discussion and consideration regarding some of the issues addressed in the
actual discussion questions.
In considering the goals of the dialogue session, primarily that the dialogue
session was to be an intergenerational dialogue, it was necessary to think about how to
encourage the different generations to discuss not only soft topics, or topics that were less
controversial, but to also engage in meaningful discussion about some of the more
controversial and emotionally charged topics. This consideration was of utmost
importance particularly since the issue of the lack of intergenerational communication
contributed not only to the undertaking of this project but was also repeatedly supported
in the focus group discussions. The challenge was to not only initiate discussion between
the different generations regarding discussion points, but for the generations to engage in
discussion dialogically.
In order to accomplish the goal of communicating dialogically, the dialogue
session was to be framed by the context in which it was taking place, as one of the last
105
steps in the research process. As the facilitator, I planned to briefly review the focus
group discussions, the process, as well as some of the emergent themes from the focus
group interviews, and explain how the content of those focus group interviews was
analyzed and became the content of what was to be discussed in the dialogue session.
For the actual dialogue session, I emphasized my role as a guide, to help the group
engage and address the issues that emerged in their conversation. Their role as
community members was to discuss the issues facing their community using dialogic
principles. First, I emphasized the need to be open and honest about one's perspective as
well as the need to be open to one another's perspective, even if it is different. Second, I
emphasized the importance of active listening amongst the participants in order for them
to gain true awareness and understanding of one another's perspectives. Then, I
explained the design of the event. The event was designed to have four parts: two parts
with dyads or triads (depending on number of participants) engaging in discussion, and
then two parts of large group discussions based upon the smaller dyadic/triadic
discussions. Participants would get together in dyads or triads to discuss the prompts for
the dialogue session then, convene together as a group to discuss. This process would
occur twice. The event was designed in this manner in order to encourage the different
generations not only to converse and address the discussion points but to first process the
issues to be addressed. After this was done, I would be able to hear another generation's
and individual community member's perspective and practice some of the principles of
dialogic communication in small groups before practicing in a larger group. When the
larger group convened together to discuss the talking points of the dyads/triads, I once
106
again repeated the need for active listening and the necessity of open and honest approach
to communicating one's perspective but to also have an attitude of openness towards
perspectives different than one's own.
In order to explore the reactions of the participants' small group discussions, I
intended for the participants to take time to privately reflect and record their personal
thoughts about the questions asked and how they felt about the conversation with their
partner(s). During the larger group discussion, after discussing the main issues, I planned
to invite those who felt comfortable sharing their thoughts to discuss the process of
addressing the small group discussion sessions. My goal in this exercise was to
encourage the participants to not only be present but to also honestly explore how the
communication moment affected them personally. I questioned them in terms of the
following: Did the conversation make mem comfortable or uncomfortable? Why? At
any point did they agree or disagree with their partner? At any point did they not
understand the perspective of their partner? These reflection-based questions were asked
after each small group discussion and were designed to gauge a) the subject matter, and
b) how the subject matter discussed affected the thoughts and emotions of the
participants. The responses and reactions provided me with a better sense of how the
questions and the conversations affected the participants and how it influenced the large
group dialogue, and ultimately, the position and perspective of each participant.
Preparingfor facilitation. One of the characteristics, yet challenges, of a dialogic
event is the fact that it is "in the moment" communication, and therefore the outcome is
unplanned and unpredictable. According to Pearce (2002), the skills of the facilitator are
107
"crucial" to a meaningful, purposeful outcome and the meaningful experience of the
participants (p. 30). It is the responsibility of the facilitator to help create an atmosphere
where dialogic communication can take place. In order to do this, there are some distinct
skills that the facilitator must practice and model in order to guide the dialogic event.
Not knowing position. As the facilitator I needed to adopt the not knowing
position. I needed to be flexible, not fixed in my expectations for the direction of the
discussions as well as the outcome of the whole event. Taking an interpersonal
communication course that emphasized dialogic facilitation skills and provided
opportunities to practice these skills, helped me become more open to the unpredictable
and unplanned nature of the dialogic event.
Dialogic listening and eliciting stories. In order to accomplish this goal I knew I
needed to verbally and nonverbally let the participants know that I was hearing what they
were saying, free from judgment. I also needed to be sure that I made each participant
feel "safe" in speaking openly about their position, not allowing myself or other
participants interrupt the speaker while speaking or evaluate what the speaker was saying.
My responsibility was to allow all voices to be heard, all perspectives to be shared and to
encourage understanding. This principle also reaffirmed the role of the researchpractitioner in community-based action research as one who is concerned primarily with
the well-being of the people and is concerned with the nature and quality of relationships
(Stringer, 1996).
Systemic questioning. I also needed to consider how the discussion questions would
direct the content of the dialogic discussion. Penman (2000) suggests the researcher
108
rehearse questions and anticipate potential responses and reactions in order to prepare the
researcher and equip the researcher with the skills needed to preserve the atmosphere for
dialogue. Following Penman's lead, I had to carefully consider not only how to word the
discussion questions, but also based upon the participants, I considered potential
responses and reactions. Understanding that the questions I would ask the participants
would directly relate to the direction and outcome of the dialogue session. I paid careful
attention to exactly what issues needed to be addressed and how I would ask the
participants to think, explore, and discuss those issues. For example, the issue of
multiraciality is a subject that is very real for the community, yet it is a very emotionally
charged and weighted issue. The participants would not only be diverse in regards to
generational group, but I also knew that some participants either were multiracial or had
multiracial children. Approaching this particular issue required sensitivity, yet I
considered it an issue that the community needed to address and explore. Drawing on
community members' experiences, would make the issue less distant and abstract and
instead, make the issue very real and personal. Additionally, for some issues which were
regarded or perceived as negative, such as the issue of multiraciality, I wanted to
encourage a thorough exploration of all sides of the issue, even exploring how these
issues could be perceived positively.
Appreciative inquiry. Appreciative inquiry can be a very powerful method in
exploring certain topics, especially topics that are very emotionally charged. By
approaching the conversation and examining specific issues from a standpoint of respect
and the desire to understand and by focusing on those areas that the different groups
109
share in common, the community would possibly be more open to the challenge of
addressing sensitive issues. For example, the Japanese American community is proud of
the resilience and success of their parents and grandparents who survived the internment
experience. In the focus group discussions, the attitude, perseverance, and endurance of
the past generations was admired and revered, particularly by the Sansei. For the
dialogue session, I hoped to focus on these values and discuss with the community how
these values were still at work and could be drawn upon to address issues, such as
preservation, assimilation, and multiraciality, which faced the community.
Reflecting and refraining back. As a facilitator, I was challenged to be present in
the conversation at all times, being open and not trying to anticipate or control the
direction of the conversation in order to accomplish my personal agenda. Thinking
quickly, summarizing the conversation, and "reflecting back" in a way that remained true
to what was said but promoted more engaged or exploratory discussion was a challenge
for me as a facilitator, particularly surrounding those issues that created tension. The
careful consideration of framing the dialogue session, framing each discussion question,
and even the wording of each discussion question could be put in jeopardy if I was not
also careful in considering how I facilitated and reflected back the conversation that was
going on. By reflecting and refraining, I hoped to show the community that how they
spoke about issues affected the creation of meaning, which would directly affect the way
they address, approach, and act regarding community issues. I was also aware of how I,
as the facilitator, addressed, approached, and acted in that dialogic moment would affect
the whole entire communicative, dialogic session. In order to practice "reflecting back,"
110
I reverted back to the training in the Interpersonal Communication course as well as
rehearsing and anticipating, as Penman (2000) suggested, possible responses and
reactions based on the focus group discussions. Most importantly, I needed to remind
myself to be open, flexible, and allow the "other", in this case the participants and their
responses, to happen to me (Stewart & Zediker, 2000). The Concerns-Visions-Action
plans (hereafter CVA model) model proved to be very helpful in not only focusing the
dialogue session, but it also served as a point of reference to help guide my facilitation
style.
From Preparation to Practice: Engaging in Intergenerational Dialogue
The Event Unfolds
The dialogue event was planned to take place in the same room that the focus
group discussions took place in order to promote a sense of familiarity and continuity for
the conversation. However, the event actually took place in a larger, more open room
due to the kind consideration of my contact at Yu Ai Kai who thought that the bigger
room would be more convenient and to my liking and therefore allowed another meeting
to take place in the room I originally intended to conduct the dialogue session. This was
my second lesson as a facilitator to be open and flexible. Planning and preparation can
not provide one complete control over circumstances, but it can provide the needed
mental preparation to adapt to how events unfold. I set about to arrange the tables and
chairs in as much as a circular fashion as possible so all of the participants were facing
one another, not only to encourage conversation, but to preserve a sense of openness and
honesty essential for dialogic communication. Upon arrival, participants were asked to
Ill
sign in and to enjoy the food and beverages that were provided for their comfort and
convenience. Participants were then invited to sit down and make themselves
comfortable. Again, to promote and encourage openness and a sense of familiarity, I
asked the participants to briefly introduce themselves with their name and their
generation. Some of the participants were acquainted and familiar with one another due
to their connection to Yu Ai Kai, Japantown San Jose, or one of the focus groups, and
others were not. Name tags were also worn by the participants and participants were
asked to refer to one another by name when conversing with one another or responding to
one another during the event to further encourage familiarity. The use of names was also
a strategic tool to serve as a subtle reminder to all participants of the humanness of the
others to whom they speak; that their fellow participants were also members of the same
community that they all cared about and were concerned about as exhibited by their
enthusiastic participation. My desire was to highlight the necessity and importance of
respecting one another's perspectives.
After the introduction, participants were asked to split up into smaller groups of
either a dyad or triad to discuss the dialogue discussion questions before meeting together
again as a larger group. Participants would meet together in the dyads/triad twice, each
small group conversation preceding two large group dialogues. Each dyad/triad met for
20 minutes before all participants convened together for two 20 minute dialogue sessions.
The first dyad/triad meeting and dialogue addressed the issues or topics that the
generations seemed to share. The second dyad/triad meeting and dialogue addressed the
more intense topics or points of tension that surfaced during the focus group
112
conversations. The dialogue session concluded with a reflection and discussion of the
evening's events and the research study as a whole process.
Framing the dialogue session. Dialogic researcher practitioner Penman (2000)
stresses the importance of how the research practitioner frames the event for this
influences the perception of the participants regarding the topic, the issues involved, the
significance of the event, and their role as part of the research process. Additionally, it
had been sometime since some of the participants were involved in the study with the
focus group discussions. I thought it necessary to review who I was, what my thesis was
about, and why I had originally undertaken the study, as well as how it had evolved based
on the research. My intention was to state not only my academic interest in the research
but also my personal interest as a member of that particular community. By sharing my
personal interest and investment into the research and my desire to assist and give to the
community, I tried to stay true to the goals of community-based action research that
requires personal commitment and involvement in the research process.
Additionally, I wanted to provide the participants with a sense of progression of
how the focus group conversations led to and informed the content of the dialogue
session. According to Stringer (1996), my role was a catalyst - as the
researcher/facilitator my job was to inspire and encourage mobilization and productivity.
I wanted the participants to know that their time and energy mattered, that they were
active members and contributors to not only the research, but toward the community. In
order to achieve this I shared some of the common themes and points of tension that
emerged from the focus group discussions and how those issues would provide the basis
113
of the dialogue session. Then, I explained the agenda for the evening, the rationale
behind first discussing the discussion questions in smaller groups before convening
together to discuss the issues as a larger group, as well the importance of reflecting and
recording their thoughts as a part of the whole research process.
Framing the content. Results from the preliminary focus group interviews
revealed the differing perceptions and misconceptions the different generations held
towards one another. These perceptions influenced how the generations communicated
and interacted with one another. These perceptions also influenced the expectations the
generations held for one another. Perceptions of the older generation in the Japanese
American community towards the younger generation were largely negative. This
negative perception was largely based on the perceived degree of assimilation and
acceptance of Western cultural values and norms by the younger generation. The older
generation interpreted the acceptance of Western cultural values and norms as
confirmation of the younger generation's assimilation into Western culture and lack of
interest in Japanese American culture. The younger generation recognized the existence
of cultural differences between themselves and the previous two to three generations due
to the effects of assimilation and acceptance of Western values and norms, yet some
perceived this as validation of their identity as Japanese American. Others expressed the
conflict of their own identity. The multiraciality of many of the fourth and fifth (Yonsei
and Gosei, respectively) generations of the Japanese American community emerged as a
significant contributing factor to the increased acceptance of and assimilation into the
mainstream Western culture. I set out to frame the dialogue session as an examination
114
and exploration of these generational differences as well as the cultural differences that
were present, either explicitly or implicitly expressed, between the different generations:
the older, more traditionally Japanese Nisei and older Sansei and the younger, more
assimilated Sansei, Yonsei and hapa Japanese Americans.
The concerns regarding Japantown San Jose's future and the preservation of the
Japanese American culture were shared by the older generations as well as the younger
generations, by those who were full blooded Japanese Americans and those who were
hapa Japanese American. My desire was for the different generations to realize what
they held in common, how their visions could be in common, that the unity would
overcome the differences and that the community would come together and find
workable, practical solutions to help the community at large.
The content for the dialogue session was framed and organized according to the
CVA model that stands for the transactional and reflexive nature of communication, more
specifically communication regarding concerns, visions, and action plans. The CVA
model enables members of a community to see the relationship between their concerns,
how that shapes their visions for the community, and how that practically influences their
plans to address the concerns and achieve the vision. As I explained the discussion
questions, I highlighted how these questions surfaced during the analysis of the focus
group conversations. The first set of discussion questions addressed those issues that the
different generational groups held in common. As discussed in the Method section
(chapter 2), the first set of discussion points was intended to establish common ground in
115
order to emphasize what the community shared, those areas that unified them regardless
of generational group or ethnic or cultural make-up. Those questions touched on:
•
How being Japanese American influenced one's life and how they
"lived" and experienced this identity
•
Why Japantown San Jose should be preserved and how
•
What cultural traditions and customs should be preserved to carry
on Japanese heritage
The first set of discussion points also served to prepare for the discussion of the second
set of discussion questions. The second set of discussion questions touched on those
issues that were more controversial and unsettling for some members of the community.
Before plunging into a discussion of some of the more emotionally charged issues that
arose from the focus group conversations, I wanted to provide a sense of common ground
to serve as a foundation for addressing the points of tension. Some of the "hot" topics
included:
•
Who is included as "Japanese American" and how Japanese
Americanness is defined
•
Perceptions of the impact assimilation and multiraciality has on the
community
•
How to peak the interest and gain the involvement of the younger
generations
Before handing out the first set of discussion questions, I reviewed the basic principles of
dialogic communication as a framework for the conversations that were to take place that
116
evening in both the small group discussions and the large group dialogue, emphasizing
the importance of openness and listening to the other. Participants were then dismissed
to their dyads and triads. The dyadic conversations are included in the dialogue session
process for they served as a preparation step. The intent of the dyadic discussions was to
help promote the principles of dialogic communication as well as provide an opportunity
for reflection and consideration. My hope was that the dyadic discussions would serve as
a smooth transition step into dialogic communication about important and deep issues.
Dyadic Discussions
Before dismissing the participants into dyads and triads, I handed out the
discussion and reflection questions. For each small group discussion time, participants
were asked to reflect upon and record their own personal thoughts about the discussion
questions before leaving and splitting up into their small groups and engaging in
discussion. They were also asked to do the same thing before the dialogue session.
Reflection questions and additional space for the participants to record their thoughts
were on the back of the discussion question sheet. Since open and honest communication
was desired and the discussion questions were intentionally meant to provoke thought
and consideration, I thought it important for each generation to have the opportunity to
consider and have the ability to articulate their own position, opinion, or thoughts about
the issues before commencing in a small group (and large group) discussion.
Additionally, I wanted to be able to gauge the comfort level of the participants regarding
the discussion of some of the issues.
117
In order to encourage intergenerational communication, I tried to arrange for a
participant of a younger generation to be grouped with a participant of an older
generation in each dyad or triad. I also hoped that this communication across generations
within the smaller groups would prove to reveal and challenge each generation's
perspectives and perceptions, not only of the issues being discussed, but also of one
another. Due to the participants involved, one dyad ended up with two Niseis.
Additional rooms and additional space within the room where the dialogue
session took place were provided for the dyads and triads to meet together for discussion.
Two dyads and one triad met together in different areas of the larger room where the
large dialogue session took place. Three other dyads met in three other rooms for
discussion. As facilitator and researcher, I toured and observed each small group. In
order to capture each smaller group's conversations, I brought along a research partner to
help me record vignettes of the conversations for analysis of content as well as the
effectiveness of the process.
Setting Up and Concluding the Dialogue Session
After each dyad/triad had some time to discuss the questions provided and record
their own thoughts about it, all of the participants reconvened in the main room to have a
dialogue. The majority of each dialogue session addressed the discussion questions,
however, I reserved some time as the conversations concluded for the participants to
share their thoughts about what was just discussed. I wanted to provide the participants
the opportunity to voice any thoughts, concerns, or feelings of discomfort and if
necessary, discuss together as a group.
118
In conclusion to the whole dialogue session, there was a brief discussion about
steps forward for the community-based on what was talked about in the dialogue session.
The event concluded with a very brief review of the issues addressed in the dialogue
session and with my expression of gratitude to all the participants. Participants were then
asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding the effectiveness of the dialogue session to be
used as a tool of measurement in which to assess whether or not dialogue took place.
Analyzing the Dialogue Session
One of the challenges of public dialogue is being able to preserve the raw, organic
nature of dialogue while remaining focused and clear on the direction and purpose of the
dialogue session. This is especially challenging with a large group of people who are not
experienced in communicating using dialogic principles. According to Stewart and
Zediker (2000) the practice of dialogue can be either enhanced or obstructed due to many
circumstances - within and without. "Time available, exigencies of space, the presence or
absence of an audience, role definitions, and cultural norms" are all potential enhancers
or inhibitors to dialogue (Stewart & Zediker, 2000, p. 230). The fact that dialogue occurs
reveals, as Stewart and Zediker remind us, its emergent quality (2000, p. 230). The
planned dialogue session was the forum where theory met practice.
Analysis of Introduction and Overview of Dialogue Session
My review and analysis of the dialogue session recording exposes the lengthiness
of the introduction. On the one hand, the introduction was very friendly in tone and
seemed to put the participants at ease. On the other hand, the introduction and review of
the research study should have been more succinct and focused for the sake of
119
maintaining the participant's attention. The verbosity of my introduction may have
distracted the group away from listening, particularly to the directions for the small group
discussions. Additionally, it took valuable time away (approximately 10-15 minutes)
from the small group discussions and the large group dialogue, the implications of which
are discussed shortly.
Analysis ofDyadic Conversations
Initially, the dyadic conversations seemed a bit awkward. Answers were short
and straight forward with little disclosure or exploration of the discussion prompts. The
second round of dyadic conversations went much more smoothly with participants
immediately diving into discussion. Familiarity with one another and the event process
could be what contributed to the energy and depth of discussion for the second round of
prompts. Participants seemed to become more comfortable with one another about halfway through the first dyadic conversations which led to more personal disclosure of
stories and experiences. Overall, the dyadic conversations seemed to help encourage a
level of vulnerability in the participants. I noticed the most vulnerability, manifested
through the level of personal disclosure, in the female participants and those of the
younger generation Sansei and Yonsei. Two male Nisei participants who were partnered
together related in the dialogue session how they had so much in common because of
their generation, yet when I observed their dyadic conversations (at different intervals)
they said very little to one another and only glossed over the discussion prompts. The
following is the reaction of the two Nisei participants to my presence:
"A": (murmuring 3rdprompt)
120
"B": laughing
"A": (singing) I come from Alabama, my banjo on my knee.
Both laughing (Dialogue, p. 6).
These are the same two Niseis, discussed in the next section, who expressed in the first
dialogue session (following the first round of dyadic conversations) their difficulty in
recalling memories of their past. This levity exhibited by these two Niseis could be
indicative of many things. It could be a reflection of the communication patterns of their
generation, the "silent generation," a description that refers to their discomfort in
discussing issues that evoke certain memories or feelings.
Based on the video recorded excerpts and feedback from research partner, it is
important to note that the conversations that took place with my presence were
significantly richer in content and more focused. There are many potential explanations
for this. One explanation is my encouragement, elaboration, or clarification of the
instructions or of the purpose of the discussion question. Some participants needed more
explanation or prompting to begin discussing their own perspective. This need for
prompting could be due to a lack of interest on the part of the participants, insufficient
time to thoughtfully thoroughly consider the questions, or the vagueness of the discussion
questions. Or, it could be due to the effectiveness of the discussion questions. For
example, the two Nisei's mentioned previously. They were struggling over one of the
discussion questions that explored how their Japanese American identity influenced who
they were today. When asked about the struggle, both admitted how it was hard to
121
discuss this because they did not want to remember or trigger the emotions that were
involved in remembering. For example, participants expressed the following:
"A": Well, it's hard.
Fac: It's hard? How so? What do you mean?
"A": Well, I don't want to remember, you know? I try not to remember. It's
hurtful and I get angry and bitter. I mean, it's because I'm Japanese American
that I was discriminated against.. .even though I was an American.
"B": Hmmm. Yeah. (Dialogue session, p. 3)
In these participants' reflections, they both expressed feeling the tension of feeling at ease
and comfortable talking about that question while at the same time it was difficult to
discuss. Reflecting upon that particular dyad, I wish I had grouped those two Niseis with
those of a much younger generation and age group. Those two Niseis' experience and
perspective coupled with those of the younger generation may have proved to be very
insightful, valuable, and even inspiring to all included in the conversation. That moment
further affirmed the value and the need for more intergenerational communicative
moments to occur. The written reflections proved to be very valuable in relating how the
participants perceived the whole dyadic communication process.
Participant Written Reflections of Dyadic Conversations
In their written reflections, some participants expressed how insightful it was to
hear the perspectives of the younger or older generation. The reflections by a couple of
the female participants described the experience as "talking with an older aunt" or
"talking with my granddaughter" which seems to reflect the comfortable and intimate
122
environment that can be created in one-to-one communication (and perhaps the strong
familial ties embedded in the Japanese American community). Many of the reflections
attributed the high comfort level in openly expressing themselves to their peers to their
familiarity with their co-participants.
This intimacy that comes with a smaller audience could also explain the richness
and openness of the conversation that existed in the dyads/triad. For instance, in the
second dyad/triad meetings, two participants were discussing how multiraciality will
impact the community. The older Sansei (though Sansei by generation but whose
contemporaries are Nisei), strongly expressed to the younger Sansei how multiraciality
will lead to the demise of the Japanese American community. One of these Sansei was
also skeptical regarding the interest of the younger generations, hapa or full Japanese
American, in their culture.
"A": You don't think they are interested?
"B": Are they interested? They don't seem interested. I mean my grandkids
they are mixed and they don't care. I mean, you know, third, fourth they
don't seem interested and fifth? The fifth, well, Hmpf! I mean, what are
they... 1/8 Japanese? They're not Japanese American (Dialogue session, p.
14).
This conversation had the potential to be a very thought provoking and valuable
conversation for the rest of participants. The issue of multiraciality and the younger
generation's interest in the community was definitely addressed in the dialogue session
with openness but these thoughts and feelings revealed in the dyadic conversation were
123
not given the opportunity to be fully expressed in the larger group dialogue. One
example of this is in the following excerpt from the larger dialogue session:
Fac: What ideas or opinions do you all have to get the younger generations to be
involved?
"B": Do they want to?
"C": Well, you have to make it interesting and have different activities so that "D": Like Sake San Jose, that brought out a different generational group
(Dialogue session, p. 15).
Here the same participant who expressed a definite opinion within the dyad did not
express his full opinion in the larger group dialogue. He did not necessarily have the
opportunity to express himself fully due to his open-ended question and the responses of
the other participants. This is an example of the spontaneity and emergent aspect of
dialogic communication. You do not know nor have complete control over where the
conversation may go.
Although all of the opinions, thoughts, and perspectives in the dyadic and triadic
conversations did not get to be fully expressed in the dialogue session, I think the time
was valuable. It provided an opportunity for the participants to first, consider their own
perspectives and positions on the issues; secondly, it provided an initial opportunity that
was more intimate and less intimidating for people to express these perspectives and
positions, and thirdly, it provided an opportunity for the generations to make contact and
converse with another about these significant issues.
124
Importance of a Skilled Facilitator in the Dyads and Triad
The situation with the two Niseis and the two Sanseis also reinforced the
importance of a skilled facilitator. My role as a facilitator served to either enhance or
inhibit dialogue from taking place. Reviewing my interaction and communication with
participants in the dyads and the triad, I served mostly as an enhancer, encouraging
responses, eliciting reactions, drawing out more disclosure from the discussion questions.
However, I could also see how I served as an inhibitor, sometimes inadvertently causing
the participants to fall into tangents or draw awayfromthe conversation due to my
questions. In one case in particular, one Nisei and Sansei were discussing how their
Japanese American culture is reflected in their life. The two of them were discussing
marriage and the many cultural considerations, both old and derivative of Japan, and new
considerations formed from American influence. Their discussion explored how the two
collided, combined, are different and yet the same. Due to my ignorance of cultural
values and norms regarding marriage, especially those of Japan, my questions of
clarification and curiosity drew the participants awayfromtheir initial conversation on
the topic, a topic that they were both knowledgeable about.
Group Dialogue Session Analysis
As mentioned in the previous section, the dialogue session addressed many issues;
Most of the discussions that took place within the dyads and triad were far more intensive
and focused in addressing the discussion questions. Responses wererichwith cultural
experience and personal reflection. Pearce and Pearce (2004) assert that if the right
conditions exist, conditions where the "participants feel respected and confident that their
125
interests will be protected, they often welcome the opportunity to speak more fully than
usual about the things that matter most to them..." (p. 47). This seemed to be the case in
most of the small group discussions. That is not to say that participant responses in the
dialogue session lacked richness. Time was precious and limited, therefore not providing
the needed freedom for the participants to have the opportunity to fully disclose personal
experience or reflection. I often found myself struggling with encouraging more
conversation on a specific issue and needing to move on to the next issue because of time
constraints.
Facilitation in the dialogue session. The experience of facilitating the dialogue
session impressed upon me the importance of the skilled facilitator in dialogic
communication. As a facilitator I committed a misstep as the dyads prepared to
reconvene and discuss the second set of discussion questions. Due to the time
constraints, I asked the participants to focus on the last two questions and to dismiss the
first question that addressed the definition of who is Japanese American. Reviewing the
transcript and participant reflections, this proved to be a mistake. The question of who is
Japanese American, who is included in that definition, was a topic discussed by most of
the dyads in the first dyadic meeting and in the second meeting. The content of these
conversations revealed and exposed many perceptions regarding cultural identity, how it
is defined and who is included in the Japanese American community. For example,
examining the dyadic conversation between participants "A" and "B" regarding interest
of the younger generation, their conversation reveals one's perspective of who is
Japanese American.
126
"A": Yeah. So, I - if you wanna talk about, I mean, I'm not Japanese. I mean
you can put out different.. .faces.. .yeah. I don't think I'm a Japanese American.
You know? I could never be Japanese.
Laughing
Fac: Write that down then.
"A": I'm not Japanese. I'd be fooling myself and I'd be fooling others, but I'm
more American. I think I'm more American...you know I think I'm more — I see
- you know the banana thing - yellow skin with the white inside, you know?
That's what I am.
Both [participants] laugh
Fac: I thought that was Japanese American, though?
"A": Yeah, but.. .yeah I know but, but they expect me to be very Japanese and all
that, you know. Martial art champion, you know? (makes a face, what?!?) And
um, yeah, I appreciate everything — I know all about American and...then that's it.
I go to American movies, American plays, I eat American food, of course, once
and a while I want to show my Japanese and go eat Japanese food.. .(Dialogue
session, p. 5).
In this conversation, "A" seemed to be identifying more with his American cultural
identity and slighting his Japanese ethnicity. Yet, in the conversation about the
community's preservation, he seemed to be critical of the younger generation interest and
identity that is tending to be more and more multiracial. He stated, "The fifth, well,
Hmpf! I mean, what are they... 1/8 Japanese? They're not Japanese American" (Dialogue
127
session, p. 14). "A'Y rejection of his Japanese side yet skepticism of those who are more
multiracial Japanese American reflects the perspective of some of the Niseis and some
older Sansei, as well as the tension that exists in the community regarding Japanese
American identity. "A'V hesitance to identify himself as Japanese American could be in
response to the post-internment era when many Japanese Americans felt that they had to
prove their loyalty to America and that they were really American in heart and practice.
As Gil Asakawa (2004) reminds us, in the postwar period, "[Japanese Americans]
seemed to not want to bring any attention to themselves and endeavored only to be good,
if quiet, Americans. Many Nisei parents raised their Sansei children in an entirely
American environment, in some cases even forbidding the use of Japanese even at home"
(p. 18).
A discussion with the larger group about "A'V thoughts and what considerations
are involved in the process of definition (such as culture, ethnicity, history, lifestyle, or
interest), in the larger group dialogue would have been very enlightening. Addressing
how Japanese American is defined and who is included in that definition in the large
group dialogue session would have also enriched the conversation exploring the interest
of the younger generation as well as the multiracial identity of the younger generations.
As a facilitator, this was a valuable lesson in the huge responsibility that is laid
upon the facilitator as a guide and catalyst. It also revealed the tension that I experienced
in my role as facilitator as researcher and a member of the community. Penman (2000)
points out that in research in dialogue "it is in communicating that research is taking
place" (p. 103). The limited time and my interest in the issue of multiraciality influenced
128
my decision to disregard the first question addressing the definition of Japanese
American in the second set of discussion questions. My behavior as facilitator, the guide
and catalyst of the conversation, compromised the opportunity for true dialogue about the
issue to take place. I was to be proactively neutral, or attempt to, as Spano (2006)
describes, "willing suspend a particular point of view" that would expose my bias on
certain topics (p. 30). This neutrality does not mean I was to be passive but rather that I
was to be open to all viewpoints so that all the different voices could be heard. Again, as
Spano (2006) explains, 'Tacilitators are not against anybody or any view but are for
everybody and all views" (p. 30). As a co-participant and member of the community, I
found myself struggling to not force or impose my own agenda and remain open not only
to hear the many voices that spoke, but to hear the voices that would have spoken on an
issue had they been given the opportunity. The incident makes me wonder how the
dialogue would have been different if I had allowed events to unfold more naturally and
spontaneously.
Dialogue as a communicative practice. Dialogue is a communicative ideal
(Stewart & Zediker, 2000), a notion that will be discussed later on in this section, and
moment-by-moment engagement in dialogue gets one step closer to attaining this ideal.
In examining the dialogue session, it is valuable to look at the dialogical moments and
how with more practice those moments will develop into patterns, and eventually a way
of communicating.
Did dialogue happen? My answer is yes and no. Dialogic communication I
believe did occur, yet not consistently. There is a difference between dialogical moments
129
and sustained dialogue. Dialogue as a communicative practice is not the traditional way
of communicating where communication and meaning are understood as more
transmissive rather than co-created or emergent. Traditional understanding of
communication follows the transmission model where two or more parties are involved,
someone speaks and another responds. Dialogue resembles more of a constructive model
of communication, where meaning emerges and is co-created by all involved in the
communication moment. Spano (2005) and his colleagues recognize the challenges of
dialogue when participants are more familiar and more inclined to engage in non-dialogic
forms of communication (i.e., hierarchical or debate-like communication styles).
However, that is not to say that dialogue did not occur at all. What did occur is what
Stewart and Zediker (2000) describe as "the occurrence of dialogue in moments" (p.
231).
Dialogical moments. Dialogic communication is a practice, a way of
communicating that is learned and exists by remaining in tension. The dialogue session
in many ways seemed more like a discussion of ideas and stories more than a dialogue,
however, there were moments where I think dialogue "happened". Stewart and Zediker
(2000) acknowledge that participants engaging in dialogue are "negotiating moment-bymoment" (p. 231), they are learning and practicing simultaneously. Therefore, sustained,
consistent dialogue is unrealistic at this point in time. For example, when participants
addressed the issue of multiraciality, an issue that is considered controversial and
divisive, the dialogic tension of being open to the other while holding one's ground
seemed to be at work:
130
"A": Well, when Gil Asakawa was here he was urn, basically asked the same
question and he said that the multiracial Japanese Americans seem to uh,
speak up and represent Japanese American culture more than those who are
uh, full.
"B": "C", tell us about what you told me about your family
"C": Well, I uh, think its individual. I mean, urn, because my son is Japanese and
he uh, married a, a White girl and they love Japanese stuff. And their kids are
really into the culture. And then, there is my uh, other son, who is uh,
Japanese and he married a girl who is uh, uh, Japanese and they.. .(hands go
up in the air, shrug) they don't care. So, I think its individual.
"D": I think it's a generational thing. I think the younger generation and the
mixed are searching for their roots, you know? I mean, I'm not sure, but I am
a lot younger than most of you. (laughing)
Laughing
"D": I'm not sure, I'm just guessing. But, um, you know, the Issei came and they
had to work hard...and the Nisei and Sansei worked hard to be
successful.. .I'm from the spoon fed generation.. .1 was handed a lot.. .1 think
we have so much time on our hands we have the time to ask "who are we"?
(Dialogue session, p. 18).
This conversation included one Nisei, two Sansei, and one hapa Yonsei. Knowing the
positions and perspectives of these participants based on their involvement in the focus
groups and their conversations in the dyads, I was aware of the different perspectives
131
they all held about the issue, yet the communication that took place reflected an openness
to hearing the other's thoughts and opinions about an issue that had the potential to be
very emotionally charged. The participants had a freedom to share their own thoughts
and experiences about identity and multiraciality. There were no responses or comments
that took awayfromthe atmosphere of openness and the atmosphere remained congenial
as the discussion continued. Although the participants did not specifically comment
about how this issue was talked about, perhaps the way the issue was talked about
provided new insights into how multiraciality impacts the community.
Intergenerational dialogical moments. One of the main reasons this study was
launched was to explore the perceptions held by the older Japanese Americans (Nisei and
older Sansei) regarding the lack of interest of the younger generations in the Japanese
American community. One of the main goals of the dialogue session was to not only
provide a forum for intergenerational dialogue, but to also clarify the perceptions of each
generational group held toward one another. In the dialogue session, the issue of interest
was addressed:
"A": Are they [the younger generations] interested?
"B": I think that (in aud) to be involved.
"A": Do they want to?
"C": I think so.
"D": Yeah, I think so.
"A": I don't know.
132
"C": Well, I mean, like I was saying, you know. My generation is searching for
our roots. So, yes we want to be involved but "E": Life is so busy.
"C": Yeah, but you also have to make it interesting. Have different activities.
"F": Sake San Jose seems to bring out different generations (Dialogue, p. 22)
In this moment, the perception participant "A", one of the older Sansei, held of the
younger generation was challenged by the position of participant "C" who was hapa
Yonsei. Participant "C"'s story and experience was heard by all of the other generations
present. To further the conversation, as facilitator, I revealed some of the thoughts and
opinions held by those in focus group six (the younger and mixed focus group) regarding
the preservation of the Japanese American community and Japantown. Their thoughts
were not dissimilarfromthose of participant "C". They wanted the community to endure
and hoped Japantown would be preserved so they would have someplace to take their
families and teach them about their culture. The conversations that followed addressed
the many different ways the community could promote interest for the younger
generations to be more involved.
"G": The churches [Buddhist and Methodist] promote a lot of activities.
"H": There is YuAiKai too.
"A": What? Like bonsai tree trimming?
Laughing
"I": I think that is more for the older generation.
"J": There is CYS [Japantown youth basketball league].
133
"C": If you want us [younger generation] to get involved you need a good club or
bar or something. Maybe promote Japanese American DJ.'s? (Dialogue session,
pp. 22-23)
At one point, someone mentioned how the community's youth basketball league is
growing, however, to become a part of the league, players had to be at least 1/8 Japanese.
Referring to how the community will have to adapt to the multiracial Japanese
Americans, the response of one of the participants was: "Well, they're gonna have to
change. If they want to continue, they're gonna have to change" (Dialogue, p. 23).
Intergenerational communication took place and in the process new understandings
emerged regarding interest of the younger generation and multiraciality. While
collaborating together to come up with possible solutions to engage the interest of the
younger generation, the participants simultaneously addressed how the community will
have to change in order to allow for young hapa Japanese Americans. This is an example
of how dialogue can inspire mutual cooperation as well as change, or at least an openness
to change.
More lessons in facilitation. There were also moments that were not dialogical
moments, but rather learning moments, for the facilitator more so than the participants.
Spano (2006) and his colleagues acknowledge that even dialogic communication at times
"requires an engagement with and responsiveness to non-dialogic patterns of
communication" (p. 27). In order to engage and respond to non-dialogic communication,
they offer two suggestions: 1) teaching and modeling dialogic practices, and 2) strategic
134
planning and designing for the process and event (p. 29). Both of these suggestions are
responsibilities placed upon the facilitator.
My behavior as facilitator served as either an enhancer or blocker of dialogue.
Throughout the research process, during the focus groups and the dialogue session, I
attempted to model and to teach dialogic communication practices. Yet, review and
analysis of the dialogue session exposed my inexperience at facilitation and the need for
more growth. Kim Pearce (2002) of the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC) wrote a
training manual on facilitation of dialogic communication. She emphasizes the
importance of knowing who we are from all of our experiences, our desires, strengths,
weaknesses, and fears, and how that knowledge influences how we facilitate. I answered
the questions in her training manual for the purpose of knowing my strengths and
weaknesses in order to provide insight into how my personality and communication
patterns and perspectives would affect my ability to facilitate. Based on the
questionnaire, two areas that indicated improvement were the areas of attentive listening
and engaging the other through systemic questioning. In the actual dialogue session, one
of those areas improved, yet at the expense of the others.
Listening enables us to hear and seek to understand the position and
perspective of the other. It is a part of the process of allowing the "other to happen to
me" (Stewart & Zediker, 2000, p. 237). I noticed an improvement in my listening skills,
however, the evidence of this improvement is hard to perceive for it was not displayed
through enough systemic questioning nor effective reframing and reflecting back.
Systemic questioning is a technique that facilitators use to elicit the stories and
135
experiences of the participants and reveal the connections and relationships between all
of the various perspectives (Spano, 2006). Reflecting and reframing is another technique
used to reveal and foster understanding emphasizing the co-creation of meaning that is
taking place within the group (Spano, 2006). Reflecting usually looks like attentively
listening to all of the voices and the facilitator sharing what s/he heard and reflecting
back his/her understanding of what was said. Reframing is taking reflection one step
further. Reframing takes what is said in the group and recontextualizes it by suggesting
and presenting new possibilities for understanding (Spano, 2006). Working together,
these techniques help the group participant's understand the other perspectives in new
ways and perhaps build toward collaborative relationships, solutions, and possibilities.
There were many instances in both dialogue sessions where the use of systemic
questioning, reflecting and reframing would have encouraged more dialogue. As
facilitator, I gave the participants too much control of the conversation and not enough
guidance. Erring on the side of caution and realizing my lack of listening skills, I gave
up too much control leaving too much room for the participants to take over. In the first
dialogue session, the issue of identity negotiation arose, identity negotiation between
being Japanese and American.
"A": When they - when they had Pearl Harbor they treated us, they treated us
like Japanese.
"B": Yeah, yeah, but it was ignorance on their part too.
"A": I got discriminated against. So, I was very bitter.
"B": Yeah, but sometimes you know, during war time - who are you rooting for?
136
"A": Well, you know I was just a kid so "B": Yeah, I know but when you see those movies, like 37 Lower Tokyo [?],
who were you rooting for then?
"A": Well, I was rooting for the uh, uh "B": The American's right?
"A": Yeah.
"B": You know with the aircraft carrier and everything. Yeah. John Wayne.
What about that?
"A": Or the sands of Iwo Jima. I thought that was sad b/c he got killed.
Laughing
"B": So, there you go. You're American. (Dialogue session, p. 11)
Dialogue is a power equalizer (Anderson, Hammond, & Cissna, 2003; Gurevitch, 1989)
where all participants have a stake in the conversation. In the absence of dialogue,
participants fall into the categories of those who hold power and those who are
powerless. This exchange reveals the tension that exists in dialogic communication, in
this case the imbalance of the dialogic tension of openness to the other but holding one's
ground, as well as the tension the facilitator holds as a guide. Participant "A" did not
have the opportunity to complete his thoughts or fully relate his experience - a personal
experience that could have enriched the conversation and led to new insights about
cultural identity and its impact on the community. Participant "B's" voice became louder
than that of participant "A". The surprise of mutuality was suppressed by overwhelming
137
monovocality thus, stifling any opportunity for mutual understanding or creation of
meaning.
The use of systemic questioning could have given participant "A" more of an
opportunity to fully express his position about his own experience. Systemic questioning
would have encouraged more perspectives to be expressed thus suppressing
monovocality instead of mutuality. As Saunder's (1999) points out "inherent to dialogue
is the potential for growth, change, movement, and direction. As individuals incorporate
others' views into their pictures of a situation, their perspectives are enlarged" (pp. 8384). For example, I could have asked participant "A" to elaborate on his feelings or share
an experience that contributed to his thoughts, or I could have inquired how "rooting for
America" yet being treated as the enemy made him feel or shaped his experience.
Probing and inquiring into his personal story may have proved insightful to participant
"B" as well as the rest of the group, not only to how participant "A" felt about his
Japanese American identity, but also insight to the rationale behind those feelings. This
example further reinforces the notion of the importance of a skilled facilitator in dialogic
communication. I needed to be more present in that moment so I could help enhance that
dialogical moment by challenging the monovocality and invite the introduction or the
chorus of more voices. Instead, it seems as though a dialogical moment slipped away.
Although the participants and I discussed and addressed many of the pertinent
issues facing the community, I fell short of taking the conversations to the place where
the monovocality of the older generation could be challenged. The pervading, negative,
even cynical or indifferent perspective held by many of the older generations, and even
138
some of the Sanseis, regarding the future generations and the future of the culture seemed
to limit or at least bar creative discussion that could have given insights in addressing the
issues involved with the concerns of the future. Reflecting upon the dialogue session I
realized that I held an expectation for the participants to engage in the tension of their
differences. I realized my desire for the various generations to hear, listen, and be
introduced to a different perspective, the perspective of the younger generation.
Additionally, I not only wanted the perspective of the younger generation to be
introduced, I also wanted the recognition that this perspective is not only shaped by age,
but by culture - the multiracial Japanese American's culture. My inexperience as a
facilitator coupled with the fact that the hapa contingent consisted of me and only one
other participant, contributed to the lack of engagement and exploration of other voices.
Instead of challenging the monovocality, the monovocality was reinforced. The surprise
of mutuality was not given an opportunity to voice itself.
My inexperience was revealed during another occasion when the issue of
Japanese American identity negotiation emerged again. This moment could have been an
excellent opportunity to explore Japanese American culture, how it is defined, and
understood generation to generation. The conversation had moved toward characteristics
that distinguish Japanese from Japanese American. One participant was recounting an
experience from her recent trip to Japan. The bathrooms in Japan are different than those
in the United States so when she went to ask where the bathrooms were located she also
inquired about where a Western bathroom was located.
139
"A": Yeah, like when I went to Japan like, I don't know, last month, you know I
don't like to use those Japanese toilets. The ones on the floor.
Laughing
"A": So, I asked this young girl, I told her I wanted a Western toilet, is there one
in there? So, she went to one of the stalls and opened it and I go, 'Uh-uh'. And
she gave me this look Laughing
"A": So she goes - she went back to where [X] was and she was laughing away.
She says, 'There was this woman. She has a Japanese face but she talks funny'.
Laughing
(Dialogue session, p. 10-11).
From there the conversation turned into an inquiry of how the West is influencing Japan
(one bathroom at a time) which went on longer than I should have allowed. If I had been
more present in the moment, through the process of reflection and refraining, the group
could have embarked on an exploration of "what is it to be Japanese American?" "What
characterizes Japanese American culture"? A conversation and examination of culture
and whether it is embodied, particularly in how one looks, or performed could have led to
an opportunity for the hapa voice to be heard. Instead, a potential, valuable dialogic
moment was lost. The conversation that did occur was very congenial. Participants
seemed to be attending to what one another was saying, but the subject had no bearing on
the purpose of dialogue session. Eventually, I was able to regain my footing and
attempted to draw the conversations back to the issue at hand. Yet, my attempt to reflect
140
and reframe was cut short due to time. Instead, its tone sounded less like a refraining of
the issue and more of a "telling" of the issue. Upon review of that moment, it seemed as
though I was telling the participants what I heard, but in the way a lecturer speaks to
students, rather than a facilitator trying to encourage understanding or invite the inclusion
of other voices and perspectives.
My lack of experience in facilitation, particularly facilitation using dialogical
communication principles, definitely played a role in the final outcome of the dialogue
session. Some of the goals or desired outcomes of the dialogue session were for the
different generations to have a better understanding for one another, to see their
commonalities and differences, and to see how these commonalities and differences can
work together to address the issues of preserving their culture and community. Although
I think dialogical moments occurred and sustained dialogue is possible for future
community discussions, I am acutely aware of the part I played in the process of this
dialogue session; how I may have influenced the content discussed and direction of the
conversation and my ability to help the participants engage in dialogue in terms of
engaging in the tension, exploring the issues, and being open to one another. The
dialogue session was a stepping stone for that journey. However, the perception of the
participants was more optimistic and encouraging than my assessment. Their
perception's of the process and content gives me hope that this study did benefit the
community.
141
Questionnaire Results
The participant questionnaires at the end of the dialogue session provide insight
into how the dialogue session was perceived by the participants. These questionnaires
contained five questions asking the participants to rate certain qualities of the dialogue
session on a scale of one to five, one measuring the least or lack of, and five measuring
the most or very much so (see Appendix C). Questions addressed comfort level of
participants, ability for full expression of thoughts and opinions, perception of opinions
being heard and valued by others, relevance of the issues discussed, and perception of
effectiveness of the dialogue session. Space was provided for participants to add
comments regarding any one of these areas.
Perceptions regarding openness and comfort. The first three questions focused
on respondent's perception regarding their own subjective experience. The last two
questions addressed the process of dialogue. In regard to comfort level of the participants
during the dialogue session, the majority of answers were measured either four or five.
Sixty-nine percent of the participants responded as very comfortable (five). Those
participants who commented about their comfort reasoned that they knew the other
participants. Eighty-three percent of participants responded high as being able to express
their thoughts and opinions with 60% of those responses were rated as very able to fully
express themselves. Those that commented about the ability of full expression addressed
how the lack of time contributed to their ability to fully express their thoughts and
opinions. One participant commented about bis or her slow response contributing to his
or her ability to fully express himself or herself, however, time could still have played a
142
factor. Ninety-two percent of respondents considered that their opinions were very much
heard and valued.
Perception of effectiveness of dialogue session. All of the participants considered
the topics that were discussed were relevant with 66% responding the topics discussed
were very relevant. Additionally, all the participants thought the dialogue session was
effective with 58% of those participants responding as very effective. One participant
responded that at times the discussion went off topic, but the discussion always remained
interesting. Based on the responses to the questionnaire, the participants seemed to
perceive the dialogue session as effective. All of the assessment questions ranged from
three to five, the majority of responses measuring four or five indicating the positive
perceptions of the participants to the whole process. Additionally, based on their
responses it seems as though the dialogue session addressed relevant, important issues
that face the community. As one participant commented, "It made me think!" Another
participant suggested that I continue this research with more participants from the
community and even expand my research to the rest of San Jose and the Bay Area. He
expressed interest and curiosity in knowing what other Japanese Americans thought
about the issues and concerns discussed in the dialogue session.
Impact of Dialogue Session
It is refreshing and encouraging to know that the participants perceived the
dialogic session to be effective and successful. However, as the research practitioner, my
evaluation of the effectiveness and success is grounded upon the theoretical principles the
dialogue session was based upon as well as the specific outcomes of the session.
143
Action Research and Practical Outcomes
Spano (2001) points out that one of the keystones of action research and one of
the characteristics that makes it such a valuable research perspective is the production of
practical outcomes. Community-based action research includes the community and
group into the research process and "seeks to engage people in formulating solutions to
problems.. ."(Stringer, 1996, p. 35). One goal of this dialogue session was for the
community members to consider workable ideas to encourage the involvement of the
younger generations. A solid plan of action with concrete ideas addressing involvement
of the younger generation still needs to be produced. Time constraints and the depth of
the issue restricted the development of a complete plan of action. There is a need for
more dialogue sessions in order to adequately address the issue of stimulating the
involvement and interest of the younger generations. However, ideas were expressed,
interest to be involved in the process was peaked, and the related issues surrounding this
subject were clarified. The conversation about this issue was very encouragingfroma
facilitator's standpoint as well as a community member's perspective. The older
generations in the community involved in the dialogue session, once they realized that
there were those of the younger generation that were interested in their cultural roots,
were enthusiastic about collaborating about ways to encourage and stimulate the youth's
interest and involvement. The dialogue session ended on a note of hope — hope that
although there were obstacles and challenges the Japanese American community must
face, there was hope that the cultural roots and heritage will be preserved.
144
Action Researcher as Co-Collaborator
The action researcher is described as scholar-practitioners (Pearce & Pearce,
2004), a catalyst (Stringer, 1996), and a stakeholder (Penman, 2000). All of these terms
emphasize the participation and inclusion of the researcher in the actual research. Action
research and dialogic communication stresses the relationship the researcher has with her
research, therefore it is a reflexive relationship. Recognizing one's role as the research
practitioner and one's influence on the communication taking place, the meanings that
are emerging, realities that are being shaped, then and only then the research process is
complete. Therefore, another practical outcome of action research is the potential for
growth in understanding and skills for facilitators (Spano, 2001). Reviewing my
performance as a facilitator opened up my understanding of my limitations as a facilitator
as well my strengths. In this alone, I would argue the dialogue session was effective and
successful. The dialogue session furthered my understanding of how the researcher in
action research cannot be divorced from her research. Additionally, it revealed how
valuable this research perspective is in the development of theory, but also in its
practices. Action research is very powerful in how it can enable communities, groups,
and organizations to function with more unity and harmony in order to achieve their
goals. Reflecting and examining one's role played in the research leads to new
understanding of the emergent qualities of communication in general, and dialogue in
particular. This opens the door for further development and refining of skills in order to
make one better at facilitation, and wiser in the ways of action research.
145
The dialogue session proved the value of dialogic communication in a community
context and reinforced the importance of community-based action research. The dialogue
session demonstrated the need for additional dialogic opportunities and the need for
further exploration. In the next chapter, I provide a fuller, in-depth reflection of my
facilitation skills, of my role as a research practitioner and co-participant in the research
process. I also provide suggestions for future explorations for the Japanese American
community.
146
CHAPTER 5
The Need for More Dialogue: Reflections and Future Explorations for the Japanese
American Community
The intergenerational dialogue session raised more questions than it provided
answers or solid workable solutions to the issues facing the Japanese American
community. Examination of the whole dialogic event and process provides insight into
the intergenerational communication divide that exists, particularly around the issues of
the younger generation's involvement in Japanese American community and the
preservation of Japanese American culture. The dialogue session also provided a
stimulating and challenging training ground to apply the theoretical principles of dialogic
communication, facilitation, and community-based action research to practice.
If one sought to judge this research study on this dialogue session alone, the
results may look unsuccessful. Community-based action research is supposed to produce
results for the community in some material way (Spano, 2001; Stringer, 1996). However,
this research is not complete. It is a springboard for further exploration. This research
only confirms the need for more examination of the issues that affect this community, my
community. It raised valuable and thought provoking questions regarding identity and
inclusion (for me and others like me) within the Japanese American community regarding
the definition of culture and how it shapes identity, as well as the role of dialogue in
community-based action research as a research method and goal. The dialogue session
was also a valuable exercise for me to apply theory into practice and to reflect upon my
strengths and weaknesses as a facilitator. This research study was a successful first step
147
for the Japanese American community to begin the process of dialogue, addressing those
issues that so heavily weigh upon them.
The Need for Additional Dialogue: The Community's Preservation and Transformation
I would argue that future dialogue sessions are imperative if the community is
serious about preservation. If the community is sincerely concerned about the future of
their community and culture and addressing those issues that influence the preservation
of their community and culture, more discussion needs to take place. More questions
than concrete answers or solutions emerged from the dialogue session. Questions that
were already thought to be answered seemed to be resurrected due to the changing
dynamics the community is experiencing. For example, what is Japanese American?
This question is still relevant today especially as the community disagrees about who is
included in this definition. An exploration of the nature of culture and how it is defined
and described would prove to be a very insightful discussion not only for the Japanese
American community, but for the Communication Studies discipline, particularly the
field of intercultural communication.
One area that would be interesting to explore is how to preserve the Japanese
American culture while the community itself is transforming. During this time where the
cultural landscape is changing for many cultures, a re-examination of how we
conceptualize "culture", particularly with the rise of more and more multiracial
individuals, would be valuable. How "culture" and "cultural identity" is understood is
transforming, away from the strict, traditional definitions of culture that are largely
defined according to norms, beliefs, traditions and patterns of singular nation-states.
148
Currently, the field of intercultural communication is grappling with the dynamic and
complex influence that assimilation and outmarriage have upon cultural identity
formation. The dialogue session only affirmed that the issues of preservation, cultural
identity and practice, and the impact of assimilation and multiraciality upon the Japanese
American community will not be understood or resolved in one conversation.
Future dialogue sessions have the potential to be a forum where the "surprise of
mutuality" could take place where more members of the Japanese American community
could come and voice their own perspectives. The dialogue session of this study was a
beneficial opportunity for the Japanese American community to engage in an
intergenerational dialogue about community issues. Several of the themes that emerged
in the initial focus groups continued to arise in the dialogue session. These themes not
only reiterate the issues the community needs to address, but it also exposes the on going
tension of assimilation and preservation the Japanese American community continues to
face. The constraints of time and the gravity of the issues did not allow for thorough
discussion and exploration of all of the themes that emerged. Future dialogic discussions
need to address the transformation that is taking place within the community (i.e., the
growing number of multiracial Japanese Americans) and this transformation's impact on
the culture and community. The community needs to explore the various definitions and
conceptualizations of "culture" and "cultural identity" that exist in the community.
Without some mutual understanding of culture, what it is and how it is expressed, the
idea of preservation will be threatened. A better understanding of culture and cultural
149
identity may also intersect and alleviate the concern regarding the younger generation's
interest and involvement.
Preservation, "Culture ", Multiraciality and the Future
The issue of preservation was a high priority for the older Nisei and Sansei
generations, and surprisingly, it was a priority for the younger, hapa generation as well.
The data from the focus groups, particularly the findings regarding the interest of the
younger generations, their perception of Japantown San Jose and their culture, and their
desire to preserve their cultural roots and Japantown San Jose, surprised some of the
older participants. Responses from the sixth focus group and the dialogue session seem
to suggest that multiracial Japanese Americans are not only the future of the Japanese
Americans as an ethnic group, but also the future hope of preserving the Japanese
American community. Participants from the sixth focus group expressed their desire to
preserve the community, not only for their own exploration of cultural identity, but for
the benefit of their children (F.G. 6, p. 12). This is a particular interesting response since
the sixth focus group consisted of the Yonsei and hapa Japanese Americans. A similar
response emerged during the dialogue session from the only participant that was hapa and
Yonsei. This participant, as related in the previous chapter, also expressed her interest in
the Japanese American culture in her quest of her own cultural roots. Preservation seems
to be particularly important to the hapa in their quest for understanding who they are and
where they came from.
Participant conversations in the focus groups suggest that at some point,
multiracial individuals have a desire to know about their roots. This exploration of
150
identity seems to be particularly important to multiracial individuals who feel a sense of
division - they do not belong in any one cultural group. Multiracial individuals
participate and engage in multiple expressions of culture from a number of different
cultures. Preservation is important so that multiracial Japanese Americans can participate
and engage in something that has shaped who they are as an individual. The challenge
for multiracial Japanese Americans today is finding acceptance and membership in one of
their cultural communities.
Preserving Japantown San Jose. Discussion regarding preservation did not
progress for long without the mention of preserving Japantown San Jose. Japantown San
Jose's importance as a localized place of cultural expression and cultural memory can not
be ignored. The importance of Japantown San Jose for the community as a localized
expression of the Japanese American culture and historical heritage was a point that
emerged in all of the focus groups and in the dialogue session. Participants expressed
their belief in its importance for the preservation of the community, their desire for it to
remain in existence, as well as their sadness in anticipating it to one day fade away and
become a plaque of commemoration on the side of building. Having a place to engage
and express the different aspects of their Japanese American culture emerged in the focus
groups explicitly, and emerged more implicitly in the dialogue session. Preserving
Japantown San Jose and preserving Japanese American culture seemed to be, at times,
synonymous. Future conversations will provide insight into the reasons behind
preserving Japantown San Jose, particularly the idea that Japantown San Jose is a place
where you can express your "Japanese Americaness." If that relationship is true in any
151
way, it is understandable why the community is concerned about losing Japantown San
Jose; it reveals that the community is indeed losing their culture.
Another interesting avenue of exploration in future dialogue sessions is
uncovering whether there is more interest with the multiracial Japanese Americans or full
Japanese Americans regarding the preservation of Japantown San Jose. In the sixth focus
group, hapa and Yonsei participants made the observation that those who desire to
preserve Japanese American culture and Japantown San Jose the most are those who are
mixed, rather than those who are 100 % Japanese (F.G. 6, p. 13). The conversations with
the hapa participants seem to suggest the need for a place, a point of reference to go to, to
learn about their cultural heritage and participate in cultural practices. Exploration into
this area could provide valuable insight into the community's understanding of
Japantown San Jose's purpose and function, as well as address the complexities
surrounding the issues influencing the racial and cultural transformation of the
community and its impact and implications for preservation. Additional dialogue
sessions could motivate and inspire the community, older and younger, full and hapa
Japanese Americans, to come up with creative and realistic ideas for preservation.
Perceptions of multiracial Japanese Americans. In order for that conversation to
take place, an examination focusing on the existing attitudes toward multiracial Japanese
Americans is necessary. The community must face the different attitudes that exist in the
community, even those that are less than attractive, and realize their impact upon the
community. Studies done about outmarriage by New York sociologist Betty Lee Sung
indicate the negative attitude held by Asian immigrants regarding outmarriage, with
152
responses such as "we want our grandchildren to look like us" (as quoted in Wu, 2002, p.
282). Some responses from the older generation Japanese American seem to be similar.
Offspring from mixed marriages are called "diluted" by some of the older Niseis and
Sanseis and therefore not really Japanese. How the Japanese American community
conceptualizes and understands "culture" is important. Responses from some of the older
generations imply that culture is largely performative (participating in cultural practices
and traditions). This understanding of culture has led to the assumption and concern
about the lack of interest of the younger generations. However, this understanding of
culture, that it is largely performative, also speaks to an underlying idea of how a
Japanese American looks. For many of the older generations, conversations in the focus
groups and the dialogue session indicates that there seems to be a connection of cultural
identity with physical appearance.
This connection needs more examination, particularly since conversations in the
dialogue session touched on how Japanese Americans are culturally different from main
land Japanese. Japanese Americans are even considered inferior to mainland Japanese.
This judgment of inferiority is a result of the fact that although Japanese Americans do
not look different from mainland Japanese, they act different; they do not "act Japanese."
What is interesting is that multiracial Japanese Americans seem to be considered inferior
by older members of the community because they do not "look" Japanese. Physical
appearance is being equated with cultural identity and cultural authenticity. Discussions
revolving around cultural identity also involved discussion about certain characteristics
153
that identify who is culturally authentic, or who was really Japanese American, and who
was not.
Cultural authenticity. Cultural authenticity, especially in regard to the hapa,
emerged as a point of tension across the generations. The older generations seemed to
hold definite markers which identified who were "truly" Japanese American. Physical
appearance, cultural practices and traditions, and the knowledge and use of the Japanese
language emerged as the three most definitive markers to be labeled Japanese American.
Knowledge of the Japanese language continually emerged as the most definitive of one's
cultural authenticity.
For example, in one focus group, a participant considered the lack of use of the
Japanese language in the younger generations and in the community as a sign of losing
the culture. When asked why, the response was, "Well, language is culture" (F.G. 3, p. 9,
L 48). In the dialogue session, many of the Sanseis expressed regret that they were not
taught the language. One Yonsei related her father's embarrassment of his ignorance of
the language. His embarrassment is compounded by the fact that she does know the
language and she is hapa (Dialogue session, p. 14). One Sansei expressed how one of her
hapa daughter's goals is to learn and speak Japanese fluently. She spoke of her daughter
with such pride. Knowledge of the Japanese language is obviously perceived as an
expression of one's "Japanese Americaness." This issue is very interesting due to the
increase of Japanese language schools in Japantown San Jose. The role of language in
the discussion of culture and preservation raises many interesting questions. What are the
perceptions of knowing the Japanese language generation to generation? Is this due to a
154
certain perception of language? Is it a response to multiracial Japanese Americans? Or,
is it the response of multiracial Japanese?
Language also reflected the tension of cultural assimilation-preservation. In the
dialogue session while the participants were discussing the importance of language to
cultural preservation, one participant made a comment about how the Japanese language
had evolved and the current language spoken by Japanese is different. He related how his
parents went to visit Japan and experienced a level of discrimination.
"A": .. .when they went back to Japan, I mean when my parents went back to
Japan twenty years later, they were so disappointed. Their language now
antiquated and they're kinda singled out... as being, as being
uneducated...language evolves (Dialogue session, pp. 9-10)
While claiming language as a marker of cultural authenticity, the exchange quickly turns
to the distinction between the Japanese language spoken by the Japanese American
community and the Japanese language spoken by Japanese nationals. The evolution of
the Japanese language signifies the impact of assimilation upon the Japanese American
community. The Japanese language the Japanese American speaks is much older than
the current language spoken in Japan. Yet, language is still perceived by many members
of the Japanese American community (primarily the older generation) as an identifying
marker of one's interest and involvement in one's culture and community. Yet, even the
language reflects the process of assimilation the community has experienced.
Multiracial Japanese Americans may not speak Japanese or "look" Japanese, but
they "act" Japanese American. In the focus groups, the younger generation's perception
155
of Japanese American cultural identity had more of a philosophical or even spiritual
quality than their older counterparts. One Sansei participant described her understanding
of culture as, "I think of it as being how you think and how you act..." (F.G. 4, p. 17, L
29). This response touches more on the "embodiment" aspect of culture. Culture is more
than just following certain traditions or practices or speaking a certain language. The
younger generations recognize this invisible cultural attribute at work within them - this
"being." Some have an understanding of it and an acquaintance with it and others do not.
All are searching for how it makes them who they are. Further inquiry is necessary in
order to examine the definition and nature of culture focusing specifically on examining
culture as embodied, performed, and, most of all, personalized. Insight into these issues
could help uncover some of the underlying prejudices and perceptions that exist within
the community. These insights could also help provide a better understanding of the
different aspects of culture and how culture shapes the Japanese American community. It
may also provide a tangible, understandable motivation for the community to unite and
collaborate on how to address the issue of preservation.
Preserving the memory of the past, preserving the future. One issue that emerged
time and time again as a reason to preserve Japantown San Jose is the preservation of the
history and memory of the internment. Perhaps exploring discrimination and the impact
of the internment, another area that was not addressed thoroughly, could be a point of
contact and understanding across generations. Stories and experiences related to
discrimination and repercussions of the internment emerged repeatedly in all focus
groups, those that included the older, the younger, and even the hapa One cannot
156
explore the Japanese American community in the Bay Area without recognizing and
acknowledging the impact of the internment and the scars that still remain today.
"Looming in our community's collective memory, whether our families were affected at
the time or not, is the fact of the interment" (Asakawa, 2004, p. 18). A concern of the
older generation is that the younger generation will forget the historical legacy of their
cultural forefathers. Some Japanese American scholar's describe mis as "historical
amnesia" (Yoo, 2000). The concern is that the discrimination and humiliation
experienced by the Issei, Nisei, and even some older Sansei will be forgotten. Yet, some
experiences of the younger generation, one hapa Yonsei in particular, seem to indicate
that the discrimination that led to the scars of the past still exists today. "When I was in
high school, I got blamed for Pearl Harbor so many times..." (F.G 6, p. 6, L 48). The
discrimination that fueled the internment, although not experienced personally by
everyone in the community, is sadly still present today. The legacy of that event has been
experienced across the generational divide. Another intergenerational conversation
exploring the mutual experiences of discrimination and its relationship to Japanese
American history and cultural formation could prove to be a point of contact. Future
dialogue sessions could explore how understanding Japanese American culture, cultural
experience, and identity forges new relationships that transcend the generational divide.
By preserving the memory of injustices of the past, the present generation can work to
ensure the preservation of the future.
157
The Needfor the Inclusion of More Voices
Due to time constraints and the complexities surrounding these issues, thorough
discussion unpacking these subjects was not possible in the dialogue session for this
project. More dialogic conversations need to take place with the inclusion of more
voices, particularly those of the younger generation and those who are hapa. Although
the participants and perspectives present made a valuable contribution to the research, the
dialogue session was intended to be more intergenerational, with a wider array of ages
present. The inclusion of more voices would open the door to further insight about these
issues providing a wider variety of experiences, stories, and interpretations that could
shed light on how all generations interconnect and impact relationships in the
community.
Interest and involvement of the younger generation. Further development of ideas
about garnering the interest and participation of the younger generation in the community
is also needed. Based on the conversation in the dialogue session, interest in one's
culture seems to be interpreted as involvement and participation in the community and
cultural events. Or, more specifically, involvement and participation in Japantown San
Jose organizations and events. Most of the ideas in the dialogue session were based upon
this interpretation. For example, the youth basketball league (CYS), Yu-Ai Kai and the
Methodist and Buddhist churches, all located in Japantown San Jose, were mentioned as
options for the younger generation to become more involved in the community. Interest
also seemed to be interpreted as participation and involvement in cultural events, such as
Obon and Nikkei Matsuri, community cultural festivals that take place in Japantown San
158
Jose. It would be very insightful to explore if interest in one's culture equates to outward
involvement in Japantown San Jose's activities, organizations, and events. It may be
necessary for the community to reconsider how they perceive "interest in one's culture."
It would further explore the discussion about culture as performed and or embodied. Is it
outward participation and participation in a particular place (Japantown San Jose)? What
is the place of cultural values, customs and traditions in the measurement of interest? Are
cultural values, customs, and traditions evaluated only if performed outwardly or made a
part of one's lifestyle? Is culture doing or being? Exploration of this issue could make
the community reflect and consider their perceptions of who is included in the cultural
community and who is not.
A more thorough exploration and examination of these issues is needed using
action based research. Community-based action research, with its concern for the wellbeing of the community involved and its focus on pro-active collaboration and
cooperation in order to find productive, workable solutions provides the direction and
inspires the energy and motivation needed for the Japanese American community to
become empowered and address their needs and concerns. The reality of assimilation
and multiraciality and their influence upon the Japanese American culture and changing
face of the community are factors beyond the control of the community. Communitybased action research provides the method and approach that helps the community
address and consider those areas in which they do have some control. This method and
approach recognizes the responsibility of the community and gives them the power and
prerogative to take action. The Japanese American community needs to be empowered
159
and inspired if they have any hope of addressing and solving the significant issues before
them.
Dialogue and Community-based Action Research as a Research Method and Goal
Action research coupled with dialogic communication principles is a valuable,
empowering approach and perspective in addressing these issues that face the Japanese
American community. Saunders (1999) speaks of how dialogue concentrates on the
dynamics of human relationships and explores how to change those relationships in order
to usher in collaboration and cooperation to address issues and problems. The emphasis
on collaboration, the improvement of relationships and circumstances, and mutual
understanding provides the appropriate perspective and tools the community needs to
come together, across generations and cultures. Dialogue allows for the stories,
experiences, and individual perspectives to be expressed for the purpose of
understanding, and working from that understanding toward the realization of goals the
community sets for itself.
The impact of the internment experience upon the Japanese American community
and the consequential assimilation and outmarriage are realities that cannot be erased.
The community and culture that has survived and prospered in spite of adverse
circumstances is the same community and culture that can come to a place of
understanding, an understanding that is grounded in similarities of culture and
experience. Based upon this common ground they can find the common goals to
confront those issues that have divided them or at least inhibited true relationship with
others (the hapa) in the community. Community-based action research coupled with
160
dialogue is the promising way for the community to come together and face these
challenges. If any collaboration or cooperation is to occur for the Japanese American
community, the notion of understanding is key; that is, understanding the complexities of
the issues and the perspectives of all involved. Coming to a place of understanding will
overcome the cynicism of the older generations and the disinterest and intimidation of the
younger generations. Understanding will bring inspiration and hope that preservation of
the culture and the community is possible.
Perhaps greater understanding of the complexities of the issues, such as the
impact of assimilation and multiraciality, will also open the community's eyes to see that
their community is changing and their culture is inevitably changing. But that does not
mean that the culture is lost. It can be preserved. But acceptance of the change is
essential. Change must be embraced by the community and the voices of the multiracial
community members need to be heard. The community needs to "let the other [hapa]
happen to them", one of the significant characteristics of dialogue, and experience the
opposing tension to "holding one's own." Embracing the "other", in this case, the hapa,
the community will open the door for appreciation, understanding, and hopefully,
acceptance of those that reflect the future. Realizing the common thread(s) that they
share together, the community will be able to be honest and grapple with those issues that
create tension and make them feel uncomfortable. Engaging in the tension will open up
new possibilities for this community to embrace the change that is inevitably in their
future and work together to continue the legacy of our Japanese heritage rather than lose
it forever.
161
Unique Position of the Research Practitioner
One of the most eye opening and challenging parts of this project was my role as
facilitator, research practitioner. My role as research practitioner is not only unique due
to the nature of the role in community-based action research, but also due to my identity
as hapa. The role of research practitioner in community-based action research is a unique
position for s/he becomes a part of the process, especially when examining how a
community communicates. As Penman (2000) reminds us that "we are always moving
between the role of hero in the moral domain — acting into the process — and the role of
author in the aesthetic domain - reflecting on/comprehending the process" (p. 102). The
researcher has an impact on the process just as much as the participant, especially when
applying dialogic communication principles in research. Being open and neutral as a
facilitator was a struggle for me at times, not only as a research practitioner, but
personally, as a member of the Japanese American community. Facilitating free of one's
agenda can be difficult during research and it is more difficult if your research subject is
personal. As a hapa Sansei, I found myself reflecting and comprehending but also
reacting to some of the participant responses or conversations. Issues such as
multiraciality and who is included in the definition of Japanese American, tended to
touch a nerve. Hearing from some of the older Niseis and Sanseis that I am "barely"
Japanese American (referring to my ethnic composition of lA) or that my Japanese
American experience "doesn't count" (referring to my family not experiencing
internment) made listening and leading with "awe and wonder" difficult.
162
Spano (2001) emphasizes the importance of modeling dialogic communication
when dealing with those who may not be familiar with dialogic communication.
Remarks about my identity were not made to intentionally offend or insult me. However,
modeling openness to the other while holding my own ground, was more of a challenge
than I had thought. I found myself in those moments reacting to what was being said,
rather than attempting, or even wanting, to understand the individual communicating. I
wanted to defend and vindicate who I was and prove to my detractors that I was Japanese
American and did belong in the community. This feeling was particularly acute during
one of the focus groups when I was questioned by one Nisei about how I, as a multiracial
Japanese American who married "out" (outside the culture), was going to raise my
children. How was I going to get them involved? I felt like I was being interrogated and
challenged, not questioned out of curiosity. My initial thoughts regarding that moment
and subsequent reflection and analysis of the interaction between me and the participant
seems to suggest my "otherness" happened to him and his "otherness" happened to me.
All of the hapa the participant knew or interacted with had no interest in their culture or
in the Japanese American community and he was confronted with a hapa who was
interested. The interaction itself in the moment was confrontational and intimidating for
me. It was also a taste of the perceptions and some of the deep seated emotions that exist
within the community.
My inclusion in the community and culture always seemed to be challenged by
the older Nisei, particularly by the men. These experiences have only reaffirmed my
belief of the significance and value of this project. If the younger generations feel as I
163
did, intimidated, challenged, and offended, then it is no mystery as to the reason of their
disinterest in participating in the community. This experience only furthered my belief
that more dialogic engagement like that one needed to occur in order for the community
to be able to work together, in spite of their differences. More dialogue is necessary to
talk about the feelings, perceptions, and prejudices that exist in the community that could
compromise preserving the culture and community by excluding others based on the lack
of enough Japanese blood or lack of participation in one generation's collective
experience.
I must admit to a lack of understanding of how influential a role the facilitator is
to the way of communicating in a dialogue session. Concepts that were initially
theoretical became "real" as they were converted into practice. In dialogic
communication, the role of the facilitator is very powerful in the sense of impacting the
atmosphere. The facilitator either helps dialogue to take place or inhibits itfromtaking
place. I feel the responsibility of this dual role, of hero and author, more now than I did
"in the moment." For example, the significance of systemic questioning and reflecting
and reframing in the process of dialogic communication makes more sense to me as well
as how they are indeed skills that require practice and refinement. Actual practice and
application of these theoretical concepts enabled me to understand their role in ushering
in and encouraging a dialogic style of communicating.
This understanding has helped me realize how to facilitate with "awe and
wonder" (Penman, 2000), an idea that remained elusive to me even up to the day of
facilitation. Facilitating requires extra energy in order to have the attitude of "awe and
164
wonder" and remain mentally and intellectually present. What I mean by mentally and
intellectually present is the constant awareness and attentive state one must sustain in
order to hear the ideas, thoughts, feelings, experiences, and perspectives that are
communicated. One must process and unpack them and proceed either with systemic
questioning or appreciative inquiry, or reflect and reframe in order to continue the
moment(s) of dialogue. It requires being caught up with what is being said, yet with a
purpose in mind, rather than being distracted or merely listening. It is listening with
constant awareness and quick thinking, or reflecting and comprehending, yet
comprehending with a sense of openness and neutrality, so that the conversation would
be guided down new avenues of exploration.
I look forward to the challenge of working with the Japanese American
community as they embark on this journey. It will be a journey that will inevitably be
challenging, grievous at times, but ultimately, lead to a place of acceptance and hope.
With a renewed understanding of my community and the place from where they stand, I
am inspired and motivated and now, equipped to share this understanding. I am also
hopeful that those issues and topics that expose the vulnerability and incite emotions will
be addressed and resolved. I hope to assist in bringing more multiracial voices into the
conversation to share their perspectives and their thoughts about their culture. I envision
a dialogue that moves awayfrommonovocality to multivocality; where the pervading
notions of culture, as fixed, performed, spoken, and visible, are challenged and even
redefined or reconceptualized in order to encompass the dynamic, complex, personal, and
165
less visible quality of culture. I envision a dialogue where the limits of community are
expanded to welcome those of us who are Japanese American and.. .something else.
Final Reflections and Conclusion
This study exploring intergenerational communication has only scratched the
surface regarding the issues and challenges that face the Japanese American community.
This study began as an exploration of how culture and assimilation influenced
intergenerational dynamics. This thesis reinforces the notion that culture is not fixed,
static or linear in its influence. Culture is dynamic and complex. It affects more than just
communication. It affects everything. As our national landscape continues to become
more and more diverse, particularly here in the Bay Area, the population of multiracial
individuals will increase. Additional exploration and research could provide insight for
other ethnic communities regarding the complexities and challenges of assimilation and
cultural preservation. America is increasingly becoming a multiracial America. More
and more ethnic communities will see the "faces" of their people change. Additional
research in intercultural communication can explore multiracial identity formation, its
impact on communication and our communities. The Communication Studies discipline
can engage in the exploration of the communication dynamics in communities in order to
equip our communities on how to address the reality of assimilation and preservation
using dialogue and principles of community-based action research. Hopefully, our
communities will collaborate to preserve the cultural diversity that makes our local
cultural landscape so unique.
166
Hope of Preservation
I am confident the legacy of the Japanese American culture and community will
continue. History shows the resiliency of the Japanese American community and its
strength to overcome challenges. The Japanese American community is changing, in
looks and in how culture is practiced. Future Japanese Americans will look less
Japanese, but that does not mean they will act less Japanese American, yet in order for
the culture to leave a significant mark upon these future generations, steps need to be
addressed now. The community has already faced an evolution of culture three times
over. The Niseis experienced the first evolution when they served as living bridges
between the culture of their parents and the culture of their parents' homeland. They
raised their own children to be more American. The Sanseis, bearing the physical
characteristics of their Japanese ethnicity, lived through the second evolution. They
embodied the American values of equality and justice, values that seem to contrast the
Japanese values of shikataganai and gaman held by their parents and grandparents.
Interestingly, it was the American values that led the Sansei generation to fight for
reparations from the internment for their parents and grandparents. Now, the Yonsei,
many of whom are multiracial, are exploring who they are and are returning to their
cultural roots.
Culturally and in many cases, physically, the Yonsei and the succeeding
generations reflect a hybrid culture. Bearing the marks physically, ethnically, and
culturally of their diversity, yet seeking a community to belong to who will understand
them. The Japanese American experience reveals a people who embody endurance,
167
perseverance, survival, triumph, and prosperity. They have the ability to face the
challenges that are set before them, but only as a community. As a community they
supported one another before WWII, during the internment, and post war. Now it is time
for them to work together again, as a community, to adapt to the changing face of the
Japanese American and preserve the rich cultural heritage they possess.
When I began this research project, I did it for myself, to prove to my community
that I belong; to prove that I am Japanese American. Regardless of whether or not the
Japanese American community recognizes my Japanese American identity, I know that I
am Japanese American. I no longer need to prove it. I hope that I do not, nor any other
hapa, need to prove one's cultural identity. Now, I hope to continue this study and work
with my community for the sake of my son, so that he will know who he is, where his
mother camefrom,and her mother before her. He will need a place to go to remember
who he is and to be with people like him. If the Japanese American community works
together, he will have a place to go, and there he willfindother people like him.
168
References
Aratani, Lori. (2001, M y 6). Low immigration, intermarriage taking toll on Japanese
Americans. San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved from www.mercvirvnews.com.
Aronson, J. (1994, Spring). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative
Report, 2 (1). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR21/aronson.html.
Artz, L. (2001). Critical ethnography for communication studies: dialogue and social
justice in service learning. The Southern Communication Journal, 66 (3), 239.
Asakawa, G. (2004). Being Japanese American: A J A sourcebookfor nikkei, hapa... &
their friends. Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press.
Barnlund, D. S. (1989). Communication styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and
reality. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Barnlund, D. C , & Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14,193-205.
Buber, M. (2002). Elements of the Interhuman. In J. Stewart (Ed.), Bridges not wall: A
book about interpersonal communication (pp. 663-681). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Cai, D., Giles, H. & Noels, K. (1998). Elderly perceptions of communication with older
and younger adults in China: implications for mental health. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 26 (1), 32-51.
Chen, L, & Masako, I. (2003). Intercultural communication and cultural learning: The
experience of Japanese visiting students in the U.S. Howard Journal of
Communications, 14 (2), 75-96.
169
Collier, M. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic friendships.
Communication Monographs, 63 (4), 314-336.
Danieli, Y. (1998). International handbook of multigenerational legacies of trauma. New
York: Plenum Press.
Daniels, R. (1998). Incarcerating Japanese Americans: An atrocity revisted. In M.
Mackey (Ed.), Remembering Heart Mountain: Essays on Japanese American
internment in Wyoming. Powell: A Western History Publications Book. pp. 17-33.
Dixon, N. (1996). Perspectives on dialogue: Making talk developmentalfor individuals
and organizations. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.
Duran, E., Duran, B., Brave Heart, M.Y.H., & Yellow Horse- Davis, S. (1998). Healing
the American Indian wounded soul. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook
of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 341-353). New York: Plenum Press.
Eap, E. (2001). San Jose's Japantown: the people and history behind it. Santa Clara:
California Pioneers of Santa Clara County.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1983). Uncertainty reduction and predictability of behavior in low and
high context cultures. Communication Quarterly, 31,49-55.
Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., Schmidt, K.L., Nishida, T., Michael H. B., Leung, K., et al.
(1992). The influence of individualism-collectivism, self-monitoring, and
predicted-outcome value on communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23 (2), 196-214.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Nishida, T. (1984). Individual and cultural influences on uncertainty
reduction. Communication Monographs, 51,23-36.
Gurevitch, Z.D. (1989). The power of not understanding: The meeting of conflicting
identities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 161-173.
Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese. Journal of Japanese Studies
11 (2), 289-321.
Hammond, S.C., Anderson, R., & Cissna, K.N. (2003). The problematics of dialogue and
power. Communication Yearbook, 27, 125-157.
Hecht, M.L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J.L (2005). A communication theory of
identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W.B.
Gudykunst, (Ed), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Ho, D.Y.-F. (1994). Filial piety, authoritarian moralism, and cognitive conservatism in
Chinese societies. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 120,
347-365.
Howard, L.A. (2002). From Ivory Tower to Town Hall: Using dialogic inquiry as a
critical pedagogy. American Behavioral Scientist 45 (7), 1125-1135.
Hyde, B. & Bineham, J.L. (2000). From debate to dialogue: Toward a pedagogy of
nonpolarized public discourse The Southern Communication Journal, 65 (2-3),
208-224.
Japantown San Jose. (n.d). History ofJapantown. Retrieved from
www.japantownsanjose.org/history.html.
171
Kim, M., Hunter, J.E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. (1996).
Individual vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects
on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63 (1), 29-50.
Kim, R. (2002, March 4). Census 2000: Who we are. SF Chronicle. Retrieved from
http://www.sfgate.O)m/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/04/MNl 86589.DTL.
King, R. C. & DaCosta, K.M. (1996). Changing face, changing race: The remaking of
race in Japanese American and African American communities. In M.P.P Root
(Ed.). The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the newfrontier.Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Kitano, H.H.L., Fujino, D.C. & Sato, J.T. (1998). Interracial marriages: Where are the
Asian American and where are they going? In L.C. Lee & N.W.S. Zane (Eds.),
Handbook of Asian American Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp. 233-260.
Klopf, D.W. (1991). Japanese communication practices: recent comparative research.
Communication Quarterly, 39 (2), 130-143.
Le, C.N. (2008). Interracial dating and marriage. Asian Nation: The landscape of Asian
American. Retrieved from http:/Avww.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml.
Lichtman, H. (1994). Parental communication of Holocaust experiences and personality
characteristics among second generation survivors. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 40, 914-924.
172
Loo, C. (1993). An integrative - sequential treatment model for post traumatic stress
disorder: A case study of the Japanese American internment and redress. Clinical
Psychology Review, 73,89-117.
Martin, L. G. (1988). The aging of Asia. Journal of Gerontology, 43, 99-113.
McCann, R. M., Ota, H., Giles, H., & Caraker, R. (2003). Accommodation and
nonaccommodation across the lifespan: Perspectives from Thailand, Japan, and
the United States of America. Communication Reports, 16,1-23.
Mori, J. (2003). The construction of interculturality: A study of initial encounters
between Japanese and American students. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 36 (2), 143-184.
Nachman, D. (Producer). (2007, May 12). Dreams to dust: Americans interned
[Television broadcast]. California: NBC Universal.
Nagata, D.K. (1990). The Japanese American internment: Exploring the transgenerational
consequences of traumatic stress. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3,47-69.
Nagata, D. K. (1993). Legacy of injustice: Exploring the cross-generational impact of the
Japanese American internment. New York: Plenum Press.
Nagata, D.K. (1998). Intergenerational effects of the Japanese American internment. In
Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook qfmultigenerational legacies of trauma
(pp. 125 -139). New York: Plenum Press.
Nagata, D.K. (2001). Echoes from generation to generation. In E. Harth (Ed.), Last
witnesses: Reflections on the wartime internment of Japanese Americans. New
York: Palgrave.
173
Nagata, D. K. & Cheng, W.J.Y (2003). Intergenerational communication of race-related
trauma by Japanese American for internees, American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 73 (3), 266-278.
Nagata, D.K., Treiweiler, S.J. & Talbot, R. (1999). Long term effects of internment
during early childhood on third generation Japanese Americans. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69,19-29.
Navarro, M. (2004, August, 2). Young Japanese Americans honor ethnic roots. New York
Times. Retrived from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/national/02japan.html.
Ng, S.H., Liu, J.H., Weatherall, A., & Loong, C.F. (1997). Younger adults'
communication experiences and contact with elders and peers. Human
Communication Research, 24 (1), 82-109.
Okabe, R. (1983). Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States. In
W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current
perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Ota, H., Giles, H., & Gallois, C. (2002). Age stereotypes and vitality in Japan and
Australia. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23,253-266.
Ota, H., Harwood, J., Williams, A., & Takai, J. (2000). A cross-cultural analysis of age
identity: Japan and the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 21,33-42.
Pearce, K. A. (2002). Facilitating dialogic communication: Basic facilitation training
manual. Unpublished manuscript.
174
Pearce, K.A., & W.B. Pearce, W.B. (2001). The Public Dialogue Consortium's schoolwide dialogue process: A communication approach to develop citizenship skills
and enhance school climate. Communication Theory, 77 (1), 105.
Pearce, W.B., & Pearce, K.A. (2004). Taking a communication perspective on dialogue.
In R Anderson, L.A. Baxter, & K.N. Cissna (Eds). Dialogue: Theorizing
difference in communication studies (pp. 39-56). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Root, M.P.P. (1998). Mutiracial Americans - changing the face of Asian America. In
L.C. Lee & N.W.S. Zane (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American Psychology.
Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp. 261-287.
Riley, K.L. (2002). Schools behind barbed wire: The untold story of wartime internment
and the children of the arrested enemy aliens. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Servaes, J. (1996). Participatory communication research with new social movements: A
realistic Utopia. In J. Servaes, T.L Jacobson, & S.A. White (Eds.), Participatory
communication for social change. New Delhi: Sage.
Shirai, N. (2001). Tule Lake: An Issei memoir. Sacramento: Tom's Printing.
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College.
Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Stewart, J., & Zediker, K. (2000). Dialogue as tensional, ethical practice. Southern
Communication Journal, 65, 224-242.
Stringer, E.T. (1996). Action research: A handbookfor practioners. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
175
Sugimoto, N. (1997). A Japan - US comparison of apology styles. Communication
Research, 24 (4), 349-370.
Sung, K.-T., (1995). Measures and dimensions of filial piety in Korea. The Gerontologist,
35,240-247.
Sweeney, Frank. (1990, April 27). Asian elders to get a new Japantown home. San Jose
Mercury News. Retrieved from www.sjmercury.com.
Tanaka, K.M. & Bell, R.A. (1996). Equivocation in American and Japan: A crossnational comparison of the effects of situational conflict and status.
Communication Research, 23 (3), 261-297.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expression in three cultures: France, Japan and the
United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 29-46.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H.S., Lin, S.L., etal. (1991).
Culture, face, maintenance and styles of handling interpersonal conflicts: As study
in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296.
United States Census Bureau. (n.d). Census 2000. Retrieved from
http.V/factfinder.census.gov.
Van Nuys, F. (1998). Sowing the seeds of internment. In M. Mackey (Ed.), Remembering
Heart Mountain: Essays on Japanese American internment in Wyoming. Powell:
A Western History Publications Book. pp. 1-16.
Williams, D.A., Ota, J.H.H., Giles, H., Pierson, H.D., Gallois, C , Ng., S.H., et al. (1997).
Young peoples' beliefs about intergenerational communication: An initial crosscultural comparison. Communication Research, 24 (4), 370-394.
176
Williams, A., & Coupland, N. (1998). The socio-political framing of aging and
communication research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(1),
139-152.
Wu, F.H. (2002). Yellow: Race in America beyond black and white. New York: Basic
Books.
Yoo, D.K. (2000). Growing up Nisei. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Yu Ai Kai Community Senior Center. (2004). YuAi Kai 30fh Anniversary Program.
[Brochure].
Yu Ai Kai's Vision Statement. (n.d). Retrieved from Yu Ai Kai Community Senior Center
Website: www.yuaikai.org.
Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relations and
communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55,374-388.
Zhang, Y.B., Harwood, J. & Hummert, M.L. (2005). Perceptions of conflict management
styles in Chinese intergenerational dyads. Communication Monographs, 72 (1).
pp. 71-91.
177
Footnotes
1. References to focus group conversations will notated by signifying the focus
group (according to the order conducted), the page number of the transcript, and
the line(s) quoted. For example, (F.G. 1, p. 3, L 12-13).
178
Appendix A
Focus Group Participant Questionnaire
Please fill out the following questionnaire. This information is used solely for
demographic purposes. All information will be kept confidential.
1. What is your age?
2. Gender (please circle one):
M
F
prefer not to state
3. Area of residence (example: San Jose):
4. Place of birth:
5. Where were your parents born?
6. What is your education level? (please circle one)
High school graduate
College graduate
Post-graduate
Other (please specify):
7. What languages do you speakfluently,other than English?
8. Please answer the following three questions on a scale from 1 - 10,1 = less involved
or salient, and 10 = more involved or salient. Please provide 1—2 cogent examples
to explain your answer (example, supports and participates in Japanese American
community events, attends (ed) Japanese school, etc...).
9. On a scale of 1 - 10, how involved are you in the Japanese American community?
10. On a scale of 1 - 10, how involved are you in the San Jose - Japantown community?
11. On a scale of 1 - 10, how relevant or salient is your Japanese American identity to
you personally?
179
Appendix B
Focus Group Research Questions
1. Set up focus group - introduce - 1 am a sansei
2. Please tell us your pseudonyms, where you live, and what generation you are.
3. What do you like about being Japanese American?
4. How do you define 'Japanese American'? Or What does it mean for you to be
Japanese American?
5. To what extent are you similar to your Japanese American parents/grandparents (for
younger generations)? To what extent are you similar to your Japanese American
children/grandchildren? (for older generations)?
6. How would you characterize or describe your own generation?
7. How do you think the other generation would describe your generation?
8. How would you characterize or describe the relationship your generation has with the
Nisei generation (or for older - sansei/yonsei)?
9. If says positive, do you think that your generation has a positive and open relationship
with the older generation?
10. How might this be improved?
11. How would you describe how your generation communicates with the Nisei
generation (or for older - sansei/yonsei)? Do they communicate frequently?
12. How might this be improved?
13. What do you think gets in the way of open communication with the other generation?
14. How is the Japanese American community changing?
180
15. Are these good or positive changes? Why or why not?
16. What major concerns do you have regarding the Japanese American
culture/community?
17. Be open to other themes. If it comes up - ask the following:
a. For seniors: How can we/the community get the younger generations interested
in/involved with taking care of our elders/the older generations?
b. For younger: Do you perceive your generation as caring for the elders and or
interested in caring for the elders? what would make you get more involved with
taking care?
c. For seniors: With the increase in mixed Japanese Americans, how can the
community adapt to the changing face of Japanese American cultural identity?
18. What concerns do you have regarding the future of the Japanese American
culture/community?
19. What do you think needs to be done in order to address these concerns?
20. What do you think Japanese American identity will be like in the future (for younger
- for your own kids - for older, for the younger generations)?
21. What is it about Japanese American culture would you like to be kept alive (or passed
down)? What will be our legacy as Japanese Americans? [What would you like a
Japanese American to "look like" in the future]?
22. Are you interested in dialoguing with the other generations? Do you think that the
other generation is interested in dialoguing with you?
181
23. What would you like that dialogue to look like? Give me your wishlist for how you
would like that dialogue to occur — where, on what topics, with what goals, what
tone?
24. Ask if questions or would like to make comments
25. Announce that you have a sign-up sheet for interested people in doing a dialogue
session — (prepare sign up sheet - ask for cell, email and name - and say good food
will be involved).
Appendix C
Dialogue Session Survey for Thursday, July 19, 2007
Thank you so much for your participation in this dialogue session. Please take a moment to
fill out this survey about the effectiveness of the dialogue session. Thank you!
Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1 - 5; 1 being the least, and 5 being
the greatest.
1. On a scale of 1 - 5, how would you rate your level of comfort during the dialogue session?
Least comfortable
1
very comfortable
2
3
4
5
Why or why not?
2. On a scale of 1 - 5, how would you rate your ability to fully express your thoughts and
opinions?
not able to fully express
1
very able to fully express
2
3
4
5
Why or why not?
3. On a scale of 1 - 5, did you feel as though your opinions were heard and valued?
Not heard or valued at all
1
very much heard and valued
2
3
4
5
Why or why not?
4. On a scale of 1 - 5, how would you rate the relevance of the topics discussed?
Not relevant at all
1
2
very relevant
3
4
5
Why or why not?
5. On a scale of 1 - 5, how would you rate the effectiveness of the dialogue session?
Not effective at all
1
2
Why or why not?
very effective
3
4
5
184
Appendix D
Discussion Questions Part A for Thursday, July 19 2007
Please answer these questions as openly and honestly as you can with your partner.
Please allow your partner the opportunity to answer these questions fully and openly.
Discuss these questions quietly with one another; please take notes about your discussion.
Q 1 A: How does being Japanese American make you who you are?
Q IB: How is your Japanese American heritage/culture reflected in your life?
Q 2: Why do you think it is important to preserve Japantown San Jose?
Q3: What cultural traditions, customs, and values would you like to see preserved and
carried on through the generations? Why those particular traditions, customs and values?
Personal Reflection:
Please take a moment to reflect and answer these questions. Please be as open and honest
as you feel comfortable.
Reflection Ql: How did it feel to have this conversation with an individual(s) from
another generation?
Reflection Q2a: What was hard about it?
Reflection Q2b: What was easy about it?
Reflection Q3: Were there any points of contact or agreement between you and your
partner(s)?