'One must not inconvenience others' is a strong sentiment dominating Japanese society. A middle-aged man in Japan, raised with such teachings from his parents, found himself supporting his ill parents while working, only to be laid off during a restructuring. With unemployment benefits running out, he isolated himself, leading to the murder of his 86-year-old mother and an attempted suicide. As society ages, such tragic news is increasingly heard not only in Japan but also in Korea.
'I cannot inconvenience others; I have no choice but to die...' The logical leap connecting these two statements grows faster and faster, and this way of thinking seriously represses us.
Individuals who do not want to inconvenience their children or society tend to obsess over securing ‘retirement funds,’ strong ‘insurance,’ and ‘social welfare’ planning to live independently. If prepared alone, will all problems be resolved? Is such a society truly safe and happy?
The conflict surrounding the decline in the working population has created deep rifts in Japanese society. Political philosopher Kōsuke Nagasawa, whom I interviewed a few years ago, also conveyed the seriousness of the situation. 'A young man who took care of disabled individuals and the elderly in a nursing home ended up committing mass murder, killing 19 people. He argued that he merely committed proxy murder for those who burden society. Yet surprisingly, there were many people online who sympathized with that thinking.'
'Is a person without exchange value not worthy of living?' 'Does capitalism truly operate solely on exchange value?' These questions struck Japanese society, which has gone through extreme social disasters such as earthquakes and low growth, and subsequently, Japan's life philosophers began to propose practical concepts to tackle this issue in diverse and detailed ways.
Young philosopher Yutaka Chikauchi, who published a book titled 'Why do we feel joy when giving gifts?' is one of those. In this book, subtitled 'The Philosophy of Giving that Fills the Gaps of Capitalism,' he demonstrated that the mathematical gaps in the market economy are filled through a fusion of 'nuisance and giving' where the recipient and sender do not match.
Philosopher Yutaka Chikauchi, who triggered a 'giving craze' in Japan, asserts that 'a society where no one inconveniences anyone is simultaneously a society where one's existence is not needed by anyone.' Only the healthy 'liability consciousness,' which considers the blessings received and strives to repay something to the community, can create avenues worthy of living in society.
The statement made by Tomohiro Sawada, author of 'Minority Design,' who confessed in an interview with 'Kim Ji-soo's Interstellar,' 'Thank you for being a jewel-like nuisance,' aligns with this sentiment.
There are many cases where nuisances have become currency and created social capital within the market economy. When we receive something for free in our daily lives, the feeling of 'I feel sorry for just taking' engenders economic circulation. For example, the liability consciousness of readers stating 'I feel sorry for reading everything for free' can transform a consistent social media writer into a bestselling author.
I interviewed the charming linguist Yutaka Chikauchi, who argues that the world consists not of 'give and take' but of numerous gifts.
─Yamamoto Shū, who wrote 'How does philosophy become a weapon of life,' and Japanese humanitarians seem to be experts in living. I feel that instead of looking at all disciplines from a macro perspective, they craft them practically and in a good sense, with a focus on reductionism. Is society demanding that from philosophers?
'Philosophy should not be a major cultural asset displayed in museums, but something that helps ordinary people live their daily lives. In that sense, not only grand theoretical outcomes but also what is used in everyday life, like 'mingei' (民藝), is important. Though I haven't rigorously verified it, I think there's a characteristic in Japan (or the Japanese language) that prioritizes narratives over theories. Such 'narrativity' tends to blend well with ordinary life.'
Creating concepts is essential for philosophers, as it contributes to humanity's survival by offering good concepts that did not exist before. Philosophy is, in that sense, technology for modern humans, or a technique for living.
─What is the philosophical meaning of giving?
'The meaning of giving that I've established is 'something that cannot be bought with money.' If it cannot be bought with money, the answer is 'something that someone gives.' (With the exception of 'taking'). In English, it’s 'GIFT.' The characteristic of my discussion about giving does not limit it to 'things' but refers to all 'actions' imbued with goodwill. For example, when the recipient (the receiver of the gift) expresses gratitude by saying, 'The word you said back then helped me immensely,' I become the sender of the gift. Even if the sender who caused the giving does not remember it, the gift of giving is established. In other words, even without intent, giving is established.'
─It is important to consider the recipient's perception, isn't it?
'That's right. The essence of giving lies in the recipient's realization. The realization that 'this is a gift (giving) that arrived for me.' Only when the recipient perceives 'I received it' does the sender of the giving emerge. Typically, discussions about giving revolve around 'the act of giving' or 'the giver.' However, I researched giving through 'the recipient's perception and realization.'
─Was there a special reason you became interested in giving?
'It was during the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. All sorts of infrastructure, transportation, logistics, etc., came to a halt. At that time, I realized that someone was subtly supporting this world, and that we collectively prevent disasters a little at a time. The eminent thinker Uchida Tatsuru (author of 'The Joy of Ignorance') said that giving is another name for 'love.'
─In Korea, giving is mostly used as a legal term for the transfer of property among family members. What about in Japan?
'In Japan, too, the term 'giving' is often used in legal contexts such as gift tax. The philosophical concept of 'giving' that I wrote about has also approached Japanese readers anew. Many have expressed, 'Oh, so that was giving.' 'All the care received from my parents was giving.'
─Japanese-humanists such as Ichiro Kishimi, who wrote 'The Courage to Be Disliked,' and Tsutomu Nishinaka of 'Reading Luck,' mentioned terms like contribution, moral philosophy, and 'value of luck.' Could this relate to Japan's cultural background?
'In Japan, while the term 'giving' is unfamiliar, there are several similar words. For instance, enjo (恩情), onkei (恩惠), giri (義理), njō (人情), care, help, support, undoku (隱德), and benevolence, etc. What matters is 'giving something without expecting a return.' Such 'gifts given for free' are deeply intertwined with Christianity, but in Japan, where Christians are few, giving has rooted itself through different pathways, much like the mutual aid spirit that supported rural societies.'
─You referred to a true story from Michael Sandel's 'What Money Can't Buy' as an example. The survey results from Swiss residents regarding the installation of a nuclear waste disposal site are mysterious. Originally, the approval rate to accept the facility was 51%, but when economists suggested offering high rewards, it dropped to 25%. This is hard to understand from the emotional state of Korean society, which tends to create conflicts over higher compensation.
'The local residents in Switzerland believed they had received the benefits of nuclear power and were willing to bear the burden of hosting the disposal site as repayment. However, when economists tried to buy that goodwill with money, they turned against it. Civic contribution cannot be bought with money.
Japanese people would react similarly. If such an experiment were to be conducted, residents would likely feel offended, like saying, 'Are you playing with people?' They would feel distrust towards the intent to lure public sentiment with compensation, in other words money. Ultimately, if the goal is to buy public sentiment with money, they will likely oppose the very need to place a waste disposal site in their town.
─On the other hand, traditional economists seem to dislike giving.
'First of all, economists do not participate in what is called a 'zero-sum game.' Above all, the fact that giving cannot be measured or quantified is the primary reason, I believe. In other words, giving does not align with the concept of a market economy at all.'
─What would a social environment focused solely on exchange, where no one inconveniences others, look like?
'Imagine a society where no one's existence is needed by anyone. A society where there is no person saying, 'Now, I really want to borrow your power.' In such a society, there would be no opportunity for me to step forward at all.
Such a society would be one that is pathologically anxious about risk burdens.
This is because if one cannot create monetary value due to illness or disability, their worth as a person disappears. In such a society, if one does not yield monetary value, that’s the end. Thus, people are left shaking in fear of risk burdens.
─Is a society that operates solely on exchange feasible? Can such a society be passed down to the next generation?
'A society that operates solely on exchange is one where only productive entities can survive. However, if you think about it, initially, human beings are completely non-productive as children. Therefore, a society where only productive entities survive is destined to perish.
In such a society, you cannot even conceive of the idea of raising the next generation. For this reason, a society that operates solely on exchange is an entirely fictional community. In fact, such a place cannot exist.
─You also explained the desire of parents to have grandchildren as a form of giving, based on the doubt over whether the love poured out on their children was sufficient. Nowadays, especially in Korea, young people are reluctant to have children. Could it be that societal giving has dried up?
'Japan's trends are similar to those of Korea. One could say that the logic of exchange is expanding its dominance over the sense of giving. Having children is not economically viable, there are significant risks, personal freedom is limited due to children, and there is no confidence in raising children (there's no evidence they can be raised), etc. One can see this merely from the reasons based on the logic of exchange.'
─Reflected from your perspective of giving, I have also reflected on my own life. Lacking a saga of giving from the love received from my parents, I rejected having children. After becoming a Christian past thirty, I found a saga in the belief that 'God has loved me since the moment of my creation,' and with a naive mindset of 'I want to receive my child's love,' I gave birth to a child. When the love of giving does not flow naturally from parents to children, various psychological dynamics seem to emerge. What are your thoughts?
'I think your experience is a very realistic and important episode. I believe there is nothing wrong with the saga you experienced or the motivation of wanting to receive 'a child's love.' This is because such intentions can quickly flip around.
'When you meet the gaze of a child who solely desires you, thoughts like 'I've achieved my goal with this' or 'I've recovered my profit' seem to vanish somewhere. And doesn’t the natural sense of duty to care for them blossom? Then, as a result, a reciprocal relationship of giving between parents and children, where parents give to children and receive again, can be established.
Of course, parenting presents numerous challenges, and each family has different circumstances, so generalizing is not feasible. However, the natural surge of a sense of duty when holding a child indicates that Homo sapiens possessed this instinct, allowing us not to perish or face extinction.
Giving is not a narrow cause-and-effect theory. Giving is a consequential notion and a narrative. Giving is retelling 'this was my life' and generating meaning through re-encounters. In other words, it is re-narrating the past from the future. Therefore, I think you do not need to be overly concerned about your motivations.
If love exists in this moment, what issues could there possibly be? It doesn't matter, right? If there's love right now.
─From a Christian perspective, giving is 'free grace.' Grace, favor. It is the division of goodwill received from God into human actions. It can also be interpreted that the first sender of giving is Jesus, as the origin of giving begins with sacrificial offerings.
'Yes, as you mentioned. I believe the protagonist Trevor in the film 'Pay It Forward' I introduced in the book is also inspired by Jesus. This movie is about 'sacrifice.' Trevor had a difficult growth period under bad parents and thought this world was the worst.
Innocently, he started a kindness movement to change society. However, ironically, Trevor, the starting point of giving, dies after being stabbed while trying to stop a fighting friend. Is it a futile ending? No. The origin of giving is 'sacrificial offerings.' Love without sacrifice cannot be transmitted.
─I'm suddenly curious. Are there any etiquettes that someone giving, whether love or objects, should observe?
'If you explicitly state, 'I will give this to you,' the recipient is obliged to reciprocate. If they cannot reciprocate, the power structure of giving dictates that the sender retains dominance. Therefore, when handing over a gift, a certain 'craftsmanship' is necessary. This might involve injecting humor or conveying the gift in a manner that does not burden the recipient.'
The most essential 'ethics' is the attitude of not boasting. The sender must forget about their gift. If not, they will end up expecting a return. The sender of giving must offer with the resolve of forgetting what they give.
Planned giving that expects a later return is not giving but merely an exchange where there’s a time gap between giving and receiving. A child raised under parents who control them for their own desires while disguising it as unconditional love will, psychologically, suffer from a lifelong 'imaginary debt.'
This is known as the curse of giving.
─It’s chilling to think there’s a curse even associated with giving.
'When showing off becomes excessive, it turns into a curse. The curse of giving often occurs in daily life. For example, saying, 'Why aren’t you studying? Do you know who’s paying for your tuition?' Such language implies a willingness to bear costs only when you make an effort, which reflects an equivalent exchange. Particularly, questions with predetermined answers are a typical rhetorical method of this curse.
Showing off in giving reveals its essence of 'exchange,' triggering an immediate obligation to reciprocate. When the recipient, lacking anything to give, is burdened with the consciousness of liability, they become cursed.
─Conversely, what does the recipient need?
'Intelligence. The social gifts that continually arrive at our doorstep are often invisible. To realize these invisible gifts, we need intelligence. Urban dwellers in modern society fail to see where and how the essentials needed for life come to them. As a result, those living in the city can easily adopt the mindset of being 'customers.'
However, there’s always the possibility that misfortunes or disasters could disrupt urban living. In such circumstances, one cannot maintain a customer-like attitude. A significant disaster can cause administrative functions to falter.
Looking at it from the other side, our ability to remain 'customers' suggests that our lives constantly avoid significant crises. When respect and gratitude towards essential workers vanish, our daily life will fail to function.
The realization that a seemingly uneventful daily life is fundamentally supported by immense, Sisyphean labor stunned me. Civilization is an unstable sphere perched on a hill, and it has existed through the anonymous 'givers' who prevent it from falling into disorder and chaos.
─I find it suddenly embarrassing to identify as a 'customer.' When recognizing that the democracy and urban infrastructures we enjoy are the accumulated contributions of others who took risks, I feel like I should do something.
'That's true. Even the elevators and escalators we use daily have individuals who check and repair them. There are many people ensuring that essential infrastructures are well managed. Although they work for monetary compensation, if those people do their jobs carelessly, it can lead to catastrophic consequences.
'I believe that care encompasses all preventative measures to avoid issues from arising. Furthermore, prevention, care, is often invisible to us. This is because we only see the problems. Only those who can consciously imagine, 'What if the person doing that work disappears? How would this society function?' can see 'maintenance workers.'
The intelligence required by the recipient is precisely that imagination.
─Your declaration regarding the fragility of this world and the randomness of civilization was also impressive. The awareness that 'there is someone underpinning this balance and creating a day just like yesterday' is crucial.
'That's right. It is essential for each of us to recognize that we are 'someone' who makes today possible. Recognizing unnamed heroes like 'the people who maintain things daily' allows one to be considered 'a mature adult' who perceives the world's fragility.
─What happens to someone who has built relationships only on exchange?
'If there are no giving individuals around, and the person themselves is not a giver, that person will become incredibly lonely.'
─Lastly, could you advise us on what practices we can implement in our daily lives to transition toward a warmer capitalism?
'By recognizing the physical frailty and mental vulnerabilities of the Homo sapiens species, one can realize the abundance of giving present in nature and the world. I feel incredibly grateful each time I receive treatment at the dentist for being born in an era where anesthesia was developed and made widely available.
'There are countless gifts received from those who lived prior to us in medicine, science, hygiene, and social welfare, which would not have been available had I been born in a different era or location. I believe that the seemingly simple act of imagining, 'What if I had been born in a different time or place?' is the starting point for everything.
Imagining the things received, praying for my giving to someday reach where it is needed... Understanding the world where exchange is disrupted through such prayers and imaginations is what constitutes culture. By living our best lives while not losing the sense of giving, we can unknowingly convey something to others. The world has been maintained this way from the beginning until now.
Adam Grant demonstrated in his book 'Give and Take' that while takers may take more in the short term, in the long run, givers ultimately win. Philosopher Yutaka Chikauchi has awakened the true nature of 'selfish takers.' The realization of the taker that 'I have received too much!' Thus, the world operates not on exchange but on invisible giving (the desire to repay debts to others).