Chapter X—
Authority in the Family

The Tradition of "Male Dominance"

In the official ideology of "traditional Japan," the wife not only obeyed her husband, but showed that she enjoyed obeying him. According to traditional guidebooks on women's behavior, a woman's pleasure and freedom came not from asserting her independence, but from learning to want to do what she was required to do. She had no conception of rights, only of duties, and the only way to change her life was by attuning her character to the position she was expected to occupy.

However, when one asks concrete questions in Mamachi about a person's own parents and grandparents, one is often told that in their case the stereotype was not nearly so absolute, that the woman in fact had considerable say in how the house was run. In practice as well as in theory, the woman did show respect to her husband in public, but not necessarily at home. Even in traditional Japan, the husband often took little part in directing household affairs, and if the wife was supervised, it was usually by the mother-in-law rather than the husband. Even a generation ago, there was often a sizeable gap between the "beautiful virtue" of absolute obedience and actual practice.

Although the male dominance never approached the ideal, unquestionably male dominance has declined. As the popular saying goes, "since the war, stockings and women have grown stronger." Even the traditional saying, "fushoo fuzui," ("when the husband calls out, the wife jumps," the same pronunciation "fu" meaning either man or woman) is now sometimes interpreted by punsters as meaning "The wife sings out and the husband jumps." Others jokingly comment that even husbands who give orders to their wives

in public now apologize to their wives when they return home. While the power of the Japanese woman within the family has unquestionably increased with the growth of democratic ideology and women's political rights, these jokes, like wartime American cartoons showing rich ladies rushing to obey their maids, should not be taken to mean that the power balance has completely changed.

The contemporary Mamachi wife does have more freedom and power than the wife a generation ago. Because she receives the largest portion of the husband's regular salary without daily pleading, she controls the family budget. With new electrical equipment she has free time to use as she wishes. The increased possibilities open to her in shopping, in outside activities, and in friendships have broadened her range of personal choice. Because the Mamachi wife has no commitments outside the household, and is usually free of direction from her mother-in-law and other relatives, she has effective control over her own sphere of activities.

Maintenance of Decentralized Authority

Farmers, small shopkeepers, and even independent professionals do not have a sharp separation between family activities and business activities. Since the father conducts his business in the home and the wife helps him in his work, she is constantly subjected to his authority. In those homes the father's centralized authority remains effective even though it is increasingly resented.

In the Mamachi salaried family, however, authority is decentralized, with the wife managing the home and the husband managing his work and recreation. In general, this principle of separate spheres of authority has been highly successful in maintaining harmony and satisfying the desires of both husband and wife.

The husband's sphere presents no problem. The wife knows little about the husband's work and therefore has virtually no opportunity to exert influence over his activities, nor does she have to help him with his work.

There is, however, a problem in the wife's maintaining authority over her sphere. As the husband has more free time to spend at home, and as the relative isolation of the nuclear family from relatives permits a closer relationship between husband and wife, the

wife has more difficulty retaining exclusive power over the household. The impact of democratic ideals has raised her status in relation to her husband's, but, paradoxically, by encouraging the husband's participation in the home, she restricts her own sphere of free activity. The husband still has more authority than the wife, and while he must also be sensitive to her wishes and may try to refrain from giving her orders at home, he finds it hard to avoid it entirely. And as much as the wife wants to please her husband by being gentle and obedient, she resents her husband's interference. The Mamachi wife's real concern about power is not about women's rights in political and economic affairs, or even equality within the home, but about protecting her right to manage the household without the husband's interference.

Major family issues, like the children's schooling and choice of marital partner, usually pose no jurisdictional difficulties. Such issues are considered legitimate concerns of both husband and wife, and discussions begin before either has a firm opinion and continue until a consensus is achieved. A couple may passionately disagree on the content of these issues, but there is no disagreement about the process of reaching a decision.

Often the minor issues lead to serious marital disagreements because they most clearly raise the question of who has the authority to make household decisions. Even minor queries from the husband about the method of food preparation or about the allocation of money for children's clothes can arouse a wife to a vigorous defense of her autonomy.

Eventually, if the trend toward husband-wife closeness and mutual understanding increases, it might be possible to arrive at a new principle of allocation of authority: the co-operative sharing of decisions on issues now resolved separately by either husband or wife. Such a principle, however, would require much more intimacy and mutual discussion than now exists in most Mamachi families, and a conviction on the part of the wives that they can achieve as much by open expressions of opinion as they can by subtle manipulations. This seems unlikely in the near future because Mamachi families solidly dislike extended mutual exploration of emotion, particularly the more primitive sentiments of love and hate, and consider it best for each to control his feelings and to limit his

expression of personal demands. The principle of shared authority may be possible at some time in the future, but, at present, the families' efforts are directed at maintaining the principle of decentralized authority. The wife in particular has developed subtle means of preserving her autonomy. If, for example, the husband raises questions about her household methods, she is likely to act so surprised by his intrusion that she must pause and think for a minute. Then she gives either a noncommital answer that indicates she does not quite understand the question, or a brief factual answer. In either case her reply is polite but rather stiff so that the husband does not feel comfortable in probing further. She prefers to avoid questions altogether, and to this end she practises concealment and evasion. Just as the husband does not inform his wife about his work, so she omits many details of household events in their conversations. She values preserving a desired type of relationship with her husband more than reporting carefully on household affairs. Most wives would even prefer that their husbands not give any help, rather than risk raising questions that might threaten their autonomy.

A good illustration of wifely technique of putting aside hesokurigane (literally navel money, i.e., secret savings) to preserve independent management of household finances is the case of one clever wife who decided that sizeable house repairs were necessary and in due time broached the subject to her husband. When he learned the estimated cost, he said it was too high and they could not afford the repairs. When the wife wondered what he would consider a reasonable price, he announced his estimate. A few days later the wife happily reported that she had found a place which would do the repairs for slightly lower than the husband's estimate, and he consented to the work. In fact, the wife had not found a cheaper firm, but she had been saving regularly in a private account and used her own money to make up the difference between her husband's figures and the cost of repairs.

The husband's increasing participation in home life does constitute a threat to decentralization of authority and requires the wife to use such clever techniques to prevent interference. The wife's eternal vigilance in preventing the husband's intrusions and his conscious restraint in expressing views about problems of household management are the price of her autonomy in the home.

The Nature and Exercise of the Husband's Authority

The fact that the husband's status is superior to his wife's is reflected in a variety of ways. Although he may call her by her first name, it is not proper for her to reciprocate but she may call him anata (a term used between spouses), or a term indicating parenthood, like otoochan (father).^[1] A group of Mamachi mothers went into gales of laughter when talking about an American wife calling her husband's name from across the room and the husband calmly responding to her call. They explained that a Japanese wife would neither use her husband's first name nor call across a room to him, although a Japanese man could do both. When the husband arrives home, he expects and receives the family's attention. His wife and children hustle about getting his pipe and paper and if he wants anything else they are prepared to fetch and carry for him. If he wants an evening in town at the movies or at a bar, this is his privilege. But it is not a privilege which extends to the wife. Today both husband and wife laugh at the old tradition of a woman walking three paces behind the man, but in public women still defer to men. In mixed gatherings a woman speaks when spoken to, and then she often simply agrees with others rather than adding ideas or opinions of her own. When guests visit, the wife is more of a servant than a hostess. Of course the wife's deference and demeanor do not mean that she submits to all her husband's whims, but in a showdown, if the husband is insistent, the wife yields.

The average husband is most likely to express his arbitrary authority on matters of his personal pleasure or his wife's handling of the children. He is quick to anger if his comforts are not properly attended to at home and, lacking a clear conception of the work involved in housekeeping, he may become furious if the wife seems to spend more time cleaning or caring for the small children than attending to his pleasures. At the same time he wants the children to receive adequate maternal attention, and if a favorite child complains to the father that the mother has been harsh or that she was

[1] Cf. Takashi Koyama, Gendai Kazoku no Kenkyuu (An Investigation of the Contemporary Family), Tokyo: Koobundoo, 1960. The fact that differences in kinship terminology continue to reflect differences in relationships is indicated by the fact that more modern than traditional couples use first names and Western terms like "papa" and "mama."

not home when the child returned from school, the father is likely to explode and demand that the wife provide proper care for the children. Often he lays down the rules which the mother must enforce concerning the children's discipline, their friends, and their social functions. On such matters, and sometimes even on various idiosyncratic matters, he can express his rights even if the rest of the family considers him arbitrary. Although they may not be aware of how much he must yield to his superiors at work, some wives have suspected that the husband's arbitrary outbursts might have more to do with problems in the office than with problems at home.

Since the husband's superior authority is no longer supported by the democratic ideals espoused by many husbands and wives, it is noteworthy that she accords him so much prestige and so many privileges. What most wives fear in their husband is not some kind of ultimate sanction like cruelty or divorce but his more immediate flashes of anger. Few wives have experienced physical violence, but since men are considered by nature more volatile, more explosive, and less able to endure hardships and sacrifices than women, wives feel they must be cautious not to arouse this anger. Aside from the fear of the husband's explosions, the continued subservience of the wife is undoubtedly related to the lack of alternatives for her in case of divorce or separation. But it is not simply the economic dependence of the woman on her husband, as emphasized by Marx and Engels, that gives the husband superior authority; it is the lack of socially acceptable alternatives that makes her more dependent on him than vice versa. Even if the wife is not consciously aware of these ultimate sanctions, they do serve to support the customs which give the husband his superior authority.

Despite his occasional explosions and more frequent dogmatic pronouncements, the typical husband thinks of himself as considerate and most of the time he is. While he wants to be sufficiently forceful to command the respect of his family, generally he is genuinely fond of his wife and children and wants to enjoy their love and admiration. He feels unhappy if his children regard him as frightening and he tries, not always successfully, to overcome their fears. Not only does the husband want to behave as a kindly father and husband, but he also feels sympathetic and sometimes

even guilty about the sacrifices they make for his pleasures. It is precisely his sympathetic human feeling toward his wife and children and his desire to be liked by them which constitute the most effective curbs on the arbitrary exercise of his authority. Many a salary man is slow to demand what he considers his rights, out of consideration for the family's conveniences.

The Art of Husband Management

Because the husband is accorded a superior position, he can be direct in stating his wishes. Wives can be direct in stating their children's needs and basic household requirements, but most are reluctant in stating their own personal desires. However, some modern young wives enjoy frank discourse with their husbands, and in some older families the woman runs the household either because she has higher social status or stronger temperament.

Still, most Mamachi wives attain their wishes by subtle strategy rather than open request. The strategy is not always conscious, for in many ways a woman deals with her husband as she deals with anyone: by keeping a harmonious relationship and avoiding any show of unpleasantness. But this often requires such planning that it takes on the quality of an art—the art of husband management.

The Mamachi wife's arts for managing the husband are similar to those of an experienced American secretary in dealing with her boss. She studies his character and knows his moods. She knows when he must be left alone, when he can be humored, when she can take advantage of his "good days." She knows what issues she can decide on her own, what issues she can discuss openly, what issues she can discuss providing she hides certain facts and exaggenerates others. In face of his anger, she knows how to plead innocence or misunderstanding and how to lighten the anger by criticizing her own stupidity, ignorance, or inattentiveness, or by simply waiting until the anger has dissipated.

But the Mamachi wife works much harder to please her husband than a secretary does to please her superior, and in some ways she treats her husband as her eldest child. As in dealing with her child, she tries to keep him continuously happy and satisfied, because then he will respond automatically to her wishes.

A young bride searches out every little indication and listens

carefully to every phrase to discover what things please her husband. She tries to avoid any direct criticism of his behavior and any assaults on his masculine ego. At most, within the hearing of her own husband she might give him a hint indirectly by complimenting another wife on something that wife's husband had done. If the husband presents a view as fact, she will not offer contrary evidence even if she is convinced he is wrong. When she wants something, she makes vague suggestions that appeal to his desires rather than to logic or her own desires. If she wants an item for the home, she is not likely to talk about its use or cost, but about how beautiful it would look or how magnificent an important friend thought it was. These hints and vague suggestions do not require the disapproving husband to make a definite refusal, a refusal that might be embarrassing for him to change later.

Yet, many a wife who is reserved and self-effacing is amazingly persistent over time, continuing to find new examples, or new authorities, or new ways to point up the advantage of her plan. Some husbands yield not because they have been sold on the advantages or have been taken in by the cleverness of the wife's strategy but because they are not strongly enough convinced of the disadvantages to be able to withstand the wife's persistent efforts.

A persistent campaign may be illustrated by the woman who decided that it was time for their family to have a television set. One day she commented to her husband that a neighbor had just bought a nice-looking Hitachi television set through a dealer friend for only 48,000 yen. A few days later she incidentally told her husband that she had heard of another family who bought a television set at a different place for even less money, but that it did not look quite as nice as the first set. Since the husband still showed no interest, she dropped the topic. But a few nights later she called his attention to an article about a special educational television program being run and she openly wondered whether such programs really helped the children's studying. In the meantime, she and the children talked about how nice it would be if the father would buy a television set and the children began asking him for one. It was not long before the father announced that he had decided it was time to buy a television set.

It is usually difficult for the father to refuse his children directly,

and it is not unusual for a mother to coach a child on how and when to make a request of the father or to stimulate the child's desire so much that he will ask the father for it without the mother's urging.

Not all husband management is positive, for there are times when the wife must cope with ill temper and anger. When a man is critical of his wife she suggests, but does not openly state, her self-sacrifice to the husband by working harder, paying more attention to the husband's desires than usual, heaving an extra sigh or two, or by looking haggard, tired, and harrassed. Other wives respond to anger or criticism with somber quiet, or great surprise and innocence at the husband's criticism, or with self-accusations of inadequacy. Rarely does a Mamachi wife stand up directly against her husband to defend herself.

Some housewives are so skilled at husband management that the household runs smoothly. The husband feels flattered by his wife's hard work and devotion, retains his superior status, and yet the wife is, with proper subtlety, able to manage the household. In other cases, the wife, unable to charm him, deal with his rages, or get permission to buy things she wants, will run to her friends for help in interpreting her husband's behavior or in devising a more suitable strategy.

To some extent the skill is acquired as she gets to know her husband. Although some modern couples try to have frank discussions in their meetings before marriage, these discussions are often theoretical and do not fully cover all the aspects of the couple's actual attitudes. Even today, newly wedded couples often meet only three or four times before their wedding. Some brides try to follow their modern beliefs and express their views openly, but many are still reserved for the first months or even years of marriage until they feel it safe to begin expressing opinions or making personal requests. Some cautiously test their husbands' attitudes by dropping hints or talking about a neighbor family in which the wife has certain privileges or possessions. Many wives, after several years of marriage, recall how frightened and pitiful they were shortly after their wedding, afraid to make any requests, worried that they would not be able to satisfy their husbands. As they become more familiar

with their husbands, prove their faithfulness, and produce a child (particularly a male), they acquire more confidence in their wifely ability.

The art of husband management is essentially an adjustment of the wife to the superior position of the husband. Because household affairs are more important to her and she has less authority than her husband, she spends more time trying to understand him than he does trying to understand her. She acquires more information relevant to the management of the household and spends more time devising plans to achieve her aims. The art of husband management, which is the outgrowth of these efforts, increases the likelihood that her wishes will be realized. It is an art which helps equalize the power of husband and wife without upsetting the superior position of the husband. In some ways, despite her lower status, she has more power over the activities of the home than the middle-class American wife who consults more closely with her husband.

The Mother-in-Law and Daughter-in-Law

Most homes in Mamachi do not include a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law, but if they do, the difficulties between them are almost certain to dominate the family scene. In private conversations and in newspaper columns, the relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is commonly recognized as the most serious problem facing the modern family.^[2] Some girls agree to marriage on the condition that the husband make arrangements for his mother to live elsewhere. Some wives have pleaded with their husbands to prevent the mother-in-law from moving in. Some wives and mothers-in-law have tried to adjust to each other, but the arguments have been so vicious that they have been forced to separate. Some wives, who might otherwise be unhappy, console themselves with the thought that at least they do not live with their mothers-in-law. Yet, as much as they both try to avoid living together, the cost of setting up separate households combined with the limited financial resources, the filial feeling toward parents, and the lack of

[2] The common American stereotype is that the Japanese wife is rebelling against her husband, but it would be more accurate to say that the focus of rebellion, if present at all, is not the husband but the mother-in-law.

other satisfactory arrangements for elderly people sometimes leaves no acceptable alternative, especially when the young couple is just getting started or after the mother-in-law is widowed.^[3]

In traditional Japan, the only hope of the daughter-in-law for success was to prove her loyalty to the mother-in-law by learning how to satisfy her every wish. Not only was it virtuous for a young bride to obey her mother-in-law, but it paid off in the long run. Only after proving her devotion could she hope to have the freedom to do things on her own. If she failed badly, she was sent back to her original home in disgrace. Divorces were commonly initiated not by the husband but by the mother-in-law. Some Japanese have observed that in America relations with the mother-in-law are a kigeki (comedy), in Japan a higeki (tragedy).

Compared to the problem of the mother-in-law, the problem of the father-in-law seems almost inconsequential. Because the salary man has no business connection with his father-in-law, there is no serious authority problem between them. The daughter-in-law generally has little problem with her father-in-law because he takes little interest in the home. Often there is a positive attraction between daughter-in-law and father-in-law, which is not entirely dissipated even though it is often dealt with by avoiding any situation where the two of them would be alone. Even when the father-in-law is harsh and demands that the daughter-in-law cater to his wishes, she generally finds this much easier to adjust to than the harassment of the mother-in-law.

Although the wife would prefer to live with her mother than with her mother-in-law, if they live together the husband may have a power struggle with her mother, especially if the wife and mother give each other mutual support in resisting the husband's wishes or in making demands on him.^[4] But the fact that he spends so little time at home restricts the scope of this conflict. Although the wife's mother usually has considerable authority and the wife sometimes

[3] On the average, husbands are about three or four years older than their wives, and women live about five years longer than men. Hence, in the average family, a woman lives about eight or nine years as a widow. During this time she is likely to live at the home of one of her children.

[4] In two or three families where the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law got along relatively well, they likewise gave each other mutual support and sympathy in trying to get the husband to be more diligent in fulfilling family responsibilities.

resents being dominated, the positive feelings between mother and daughter are strong enough to bind their negative feelings. Especially if the wife has never lived apart from her mother, she feels dependent on the mother for advice and therefore readily follows her suggestions.

But there is no such positive bond to control the wife's feeling of annoyance with her mother-in-law. If the daughter-in-law does make a serious effort to serve the mother-in-law and is able and loyal, she may at times be treated almost as if she were a daughter instead of a daughter-in-law. But if she is not very competent or comes from a family of lower status than the husband, she may still be treated more like a servant. But even the best relationships are strained, and the strain is likely to be especially severe if the mother-in-law is a widow and lives with her only son.

Unlike the situation in traditional Japan, the critical problem in present-day Mamachi is not the harsh work load required of the daughter-in-law, but the lack of clarity of lines of authority. The mother-in-law has legitimate bases for arguing that the daughter-in-law obey, and the daughter-in-law has legitimate bases for expecting certain privileges. The ideal daughter-in-law is supposed to yield to the mother-in-law, but the ideal mother-in-law should not be harsh with the wife. In contrast to the situation in the United States, where the wife has primary authority, or to the situation in traditional Japan, where the mother-in-law had primary authority, there is no clear guiding principle. The object of the husband's primary loyalty is equally unclear. The answer to the traditional question, "Whom should a husband save if his wife and mother were drowning?" was "His mother" because he could always get another wife. Now the wife and mother are much more on equal grounds in competing for the husband's loyalty, and since there is no clear solution, the situation is one of continuing competition.

Although the mother-in-law occasionally goes out, most of the day both she and the daughter-in-law are at home. The latter generally does the heavy work and the mother-in-law often performs the more complicated tasks of cooking and sewing. But there is no such clear way for dividing up authority. If, for example, the mother-in-law has no income of her own, it is not clear who should decide how much spending money the mother-in-law should have. Since

each typically has few interests outside the home, it is hard for the mother-in-law to refrain completely from supervising her daughter-in-law. The latter, in order to avoid the mother-in-law's disapproval, is cautious about going out of the home, buying things for the home, preparing food, and cleaning the house. Even a mere question from the mother-in-law sometimes makes the wife anxious. It is not only the actual commands of the mother-in-law which create the difficulties but the daughter-in-law's feeling of being unable to run the house as she wishes. As some wives put it, they feel as if they are forced to live with an enemy in their home.

The mother-in-law sometimes acts out her annoyance by being more critical and less willing to let the wife go out to visit friends, attend PTA meetings, or buy clothes for herself. The daughter-in-law may act out her annoyance by following the letter of the law laid down by the mother-in-law while defeating the spirit of the mother-in-law's wishes.

The battleground for the dispute is often the children. The grandmother tries to enforce her wishes on the children and to encourage them to resist their mother. The mother tries to win the children to her side and subtly encourages them to disobey their grandmother.

The wife fortifies herself for the struggle by keeping up with the latest information from newspapers, magazines, and books. She tries to keep up with the modern advice, and in discussions with the grandmother she relies heavily on "modern scientific information" to support her point of view and show that the grandmother is old-fashioned and superstitious. The grandmother typically respects scientific information, but sometimes suspects the daughter-in-law of manufacturing the things which she "read in a recent magazine." The mother-in-law relies on her superior experience and her moral conviction that because the daughter-in-law is joining her family, she should learn the family's custom (kafuu ). The mother-in-law, after all, knows her son's likes and knows what it means to rear children. Many a daughter-in-law, not confident of her own ability to please her husband or handle the children's problems, reluctantly yields to the mother-in-law's experience.

If the husband supports either his mother or his wife against the other, his opinion is decisive, and in one way or another, the wife and mother frequently appeal to him for his support against the

other. The husband, however, ordinarily tries to stay out of the dispute. He tries to play down the seriousness of the dispute, and to encourage each to be more sympathetic to the other. Only when the husband regards the situation as unbearable or judges one side as being particularly unreasonable does he take the initiative in settling the dispute by encouraging his mother to accept modern ways or the wife to be kind to the aged.

The most commonly suggested solution to the conflict between the two women is for both to show reserve, and to contain themselves even when angry. Many advice columns include hints for how the two could adjust to each other, but the crux of the advice is usually another way for humoring the other one or a way for containing one's own feelings of annoyance.

But the problem involves fundamental attitudes and status relationships. Like the Negro in the American South, the daughter-in-law no longer feels compelled to accept a subservient position. But the price of her emerging freedom is a breakdown of the old social order and an uncontrolled competition between her and her mother-in-law. The Mamachi daughter-in-law has not yet been granted complete freedom even in the most modern family, and a stable new order of relationships has not yet been established except for avoidance, a solution which is not always possible.