PubMed1997
It is well-known that Takeo Doi tried to describe Japanese culture using the Japanese term "Amae". However, with many Japanese students of psychotherapy pointing out that his use of the term was arbitrary, his Amae-theory fell into confusion. Actually, with the single word Amae, he explained many heterogeneous psychological phenomena including pathological dependency as well as maternal separation. In this paper, I use my own clinical observations to clarify the Amae-phenomenon and define it as follows: The "Aame" the Japanese usually experience in daily life differs from both pathological dependency (which M. Balint described as "ocnophilia"), and an affinity for friendly expanses in the therapeutic depressive position (described by M. Balint as "philobatism", by me as "sumu-akirameru"; c.f. Keiichi Nagayama: Considerations on the Guilt Feeling towards Mother and Maternal Separation using the Japanese Keywords "Sumu-Akirameru" and "Sumanai", Psychiatria et Neurologica Japonica, 96: 83-108, 1994). In psychotherapy, Japanese patients only become able to form Amae connections with others after experiencing the two opposites (ocnophilia and philobatism) mentioned above. Although Amae is phenomenologically different from those extremes, it consists of two elements carrying some attributes from those extremes. One element consists of interpenetrating and mutually interdependent personal relations in a small familiar group; and the other element is a kind of protective and harmonious space in which the Japanese enjoy "temporary and partial regression in the service of the ego". As these two elements are both present in Amae, where dependence and independence are concerned, Amae toes the midline and has a double meaning. A fundamental principle of interpersonal relationships in Japanese society, Amae calls upon members of a small group to be moderately individualistic. If a member lacks ego flexibility regarding Amae and cannot obey this principle, he cannot adapt to a small familiar group. From the Western standpoint of individuality, Amae and interpenetrating personal relations in Japanese society must be regarded as regressive phenomena, whereas, for the Japanese, Amae is a personal skill necessary for social adaptation. Whereas Sumu-Akirameru (Nagayama) and Philobatism (Balint) are ontological phenomena that tend to avoid external objects, Amae involves the need for relationships and is a somewhat socialized phenomenon in Japan. Although Amae and Sumu-Akirameru are different phenomena, they share several characteristics: 1) both tend towards protective harmonious spaces which have both specialty and boundaries; 2) things arise spontaneously and unintentionally in both phenomena; 3) the Japanese use both to confirm their sense of self; 4) both have the qualities of "corporality" and "living in". Because of these common areas, the Japanese tend to perceive Sumu-Akirameru and Amae as one experience, although they are different, separate phenomena. This tendency leads the Japanese to group behavior patterns, and unconsciously forces them into a double bind between individualization and group behavior patterns. This cultural tendency and phenomenological ambiguity of Amae itself allow the Japanese to easily project many kinds of psychological phenomena onto Amae. It is this projection deeply rooted in Japanese culture that confused the Amae-theory (Doi). Clarification of this cultural tendency not only contributes to the study of Japanese psychotherapy (Morita therapy, Naikan therapy), but also to that of "narcissism" and Preoedipal subjects in psychoanalysis.