The Model And Fuji-No-Sato

The model, then, helps us visualize the evolution of social relationships at Fuji-no-Sato. Our purpose in using it is analytical. Given that the residents are mutual strangers until they move to the community, it can be theorized that their relationship will develop, as shown in Figure 2-2, from the outer edge of level two toward, and possibly into, level one. How and how far their relationships move in this direction is the focus of our analysis. Our initial intuition is that, at the beginning, the residents employ outer second-level norms and maintain distance appropriate to that mutually perceived relationship. As they get to know one another, they will adjust the application of norms and the perception of distance while changing the definition of their relationship.

We take this as an "emic" analytical model of social integration at Fuji-no-Sato. We do not try to operationalize the concept of "community" as a dependent variable, but simply assume that Fuji-no-Sato functions as a socially defined context, limiting the kinds of possible relationships among its members. Viewing Fuji-no-Sato as an independent social system, then, and following Rosow's definition, we define social integration as the locating of individuals in the system and the patterning of their relationships with others. Likewise, "socialization" is defined as an important mechanism of integration—the process of development of patterned social interaction. "Norms" refer to social standards against which one's behavior is to be evaluated. "Roles" generally mean constellations of rights and duties—meaning both formally recognized roles, like elected offices in the residents association (which are very limited) and the much more important informal roles of neighboring, friendship, and so on.

There are five interrelated factors that render relatively problematic any attempt to develop "deep" interpersonal relations on the part of the residents at Fuji-no-Sato. (1) Although American relationships seem to the Japanese to be too shallow and ephemeral, it is nonetheless true that when Americans meet each other for the first time, they handle the establishment of relationships better than the Japanese do in 'similar situations. (2) It is difficult in Japanese interpersonal relations to differentiate conceptually feelings from other social values. The Japanese generally expect both emotional and instrumental needs to be met in their relationships with others. It is necessary, then, for acquaintances to keep both perspectives on their developing relationships. Although the Japanese may be less skillful than Americans in building new relationships, they expect and often attain deeper and more sensitive relationships. (3) As Plath pointed out, it takes considerable time for the Japanese to develop solid first-level relationships. The depth of relationships generally correlates with their duration. This is a serious obstacle to the rapid development of deeply meaningful relationships among Japanese. At Fuji-no-Sato, however, this time factor is mitigated by at least two of the "background factors" identified by Ross: the physical distinctness of the community (which intensifies "we" feeling among residents) and its limited size (which concentrates opportunities for interaction). Both factors

tend to accelerate the intimacy process. (4) First-level relationships, with the exception of family, are usually informal outgrowths of second-level relations, which are formal and role-specific. In other words, the Japanese develop new first-level relations only with people in the second level who share some basis for sustained, frequent interaction—an attraction or a natural tendency to be together over long periods. (5) Fuji-no-Sato is very unusual as a Japanese setting because the residents' relationships do not begin with the performance of ascribed roles. The residents lack preexisting structural reasons for regular interaction that would naturally lead to the development of first-level relations.