Mai Teshigawara: Leaving Behind Something Other Than "Competition" — End-of-Life Planning from Age 40

2023/07/12

At the end of 2022, a book titled "Unraveling the Hardship of 'Ability'" appeared in bookstores nationwide. It was by an unknown author—Mai Teshigawara—from a small publisher. Turning the cover, it says, "This is a slightly mysterious story about 'ability' given by a deceased mother to her child." Set 15 years in the future, a mother who has become a ghost (the author) and her grown-up children think about how to live in a "meritocratic" society... that is the premise. The subsequent response has been mysterious as well, and I can hardly believe my eyes. I have been interviewed for book reviews in three national newspapers and various other media, and held multiple talk events. In addition to reading groups held by volunteer readers in various places, there is no end to the readers' cards and letters sent to the publisher. I haven't been able to reply as I can't carry on a correspondence, but I am gratefully reading all of them. This article itself is the result of an invitation from a Keio University alumni who read my book, and I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude.

I feel once again that the "hardship of 'ability'" in the title is a desperate cry from people. After all, individuals have long been forced to focus on "deficiency"—what they or others lack—and have continued to work hard. In schools, "academic ability," "human power," and so on are measured, compared with others, and career paths are decided "according to ability." Extending from that, many people get jobs, and even at work, evaluations of abilities such as "initiative" and "leadership" greatly influence treatment. Intense competition can sometimes lead to poor health, but then people are told things like "your mental health is weaker than the average of your peers" and are recommended "EQ training"... If you hang your head and look into a bookstore on your way home from work, books like "Why the World's Elite Train Their XX Power" are piled up... Peace of mind is hard to come by.

On the other hand, some may think this has little to do with them. But what if the satisfaction of one's own life is actually built on the "hardship" of someone else? Furthermore, what if that person's "hardship" is not because they are lazy or have low "ability," but is destined by the capital of the family they were born into? Even so, is it really okay to treat it as a matter of "ability," hitting or stretching it, and making people "compete" incessantly? — I chose the phrase "hardship of 'ability'" because I believe that as long as people live by helping each other, it is a personal matter for everyone, and everyone is a stakeholder. Instead of "competition" that ranks people, how can we promote "mutual aid," to use a cliché? What can be done to prevent "Diversity & Inclusion" and "Well-being" from becoming the latest fairy tales? I have unraveled this from the perspective of educational sociology, which is my specialty, and the practical knowledge of organizational development.

Incidentally, I gained the perspective and methods for questioning social principles like "meritocracy" after graduating from the Faculty of Environment and Information Studies in 2005 and completing a master's in educational sociology at the University of Tokyo Graduate School. After completion, I deliberately worked in the "ability development" (human resource development) industry, which turns the measurement, development, and cultivation of "ability" into a "product," calling it "employment for enemy territory inspection." However, at some point, I began to think that what should be developed is not the "ability" of individuals, but the "relationships," such as how work is conducted in an organization and how people speak to each other, leading to my current role as an "organizational development" consultant.

I apologize if I am preaching to the choir, but disparities in the economy, education, and other areas have long been decried in Japan. However, "extraordinary" measures against this point are not in sight. In the shadow of equality of opportunity, inequality of outcome is left as "self-responsibility," making it difficult to notice the original flaws in the socio-economy.

Therefore, precisely because I have seen the industry, I have stepped in with self-reflection—the industry that profits from pushing problems onto individuals is the one that advocates "ability development," and it also serves as a cover for escaping the political responsibility of leveraging social structures. ...I am somewhat worried about being attacked in the dark, but as someone who was fortunately raised with blessings, I cannot leave alone a society dominated by randomness such as "parent gacha."

...There is a reason why I am so fired up. At age 38, breast cancer was found at Stage IIIC, and I am still fighting progressive cancer while raising a young child. I do not want to leave behind a society that forces infinite effort on individuals for the era in which my children, who will be adults I likely won't be able to see, will live.

So, how to live? Keep a close eye on the distortions of the socio-economy. And, while a quick solution is difficult, build up efforts that can be done at one's feet with the recognition that it is not just an individual problem. One example I gave is a case of organizational development. Instead of asking for more "abilities" from individuals, we bring together "functions (characteristics)" that are easy for each person to demonstrate as a team to get things done. To that end, we adjust the combination of people and people, and people and duties.

"Success" and "active participation" are probably rarely the credit of a single person in the real world. It may be that the contribution of a subordinate who managed to get things done while skillfully ignoring the boss's sarcasm is significant. Or, even Adam Smith is said to have had his mother take care of his daily needs. The Wealth of Nations was thanks to his mother, indeed. Instead of just pursuing ways to run fast alone, how can we bring out each other's special talents and go far together by combining them? I want to concentrate wisdom on this point.

Easier said than done. Even if I say bring together "functions" instead of "abilities," it is not that simple. Looking back on my experience so far, I think there are two main points that determine the success or failure of this effort. One is the importance of continuing to deal with "conflict." The work of thinking about the combination of people and people, and people and duties—that is, "compatibility"—has many variables to handle. Therefore, it is always in a state of flux, and trying to respond to it is unrefined, endless, and not even easy to verbalize. However, even if we chant "well-being" while avoiding this "conflict," or so-called "fuzziness," it will not be of help. When in trouble, re-examine the fuzziness by looking at the "structure" in which it is occurring. In the book, I wrote, "When in trouble, have an out-of-body experience." Furthermore, if I feel even a little bit of someone's arbitrariness or a sense of discomfort in that structure, I want to resolutely say NO.

Also, there is another trick to shifting the focus from "competition" to "relationships." It largely depends on how we define ourselves as human beings. We are "independent individuals," and those individuals "compete" for survival—we have been told this so repeatedly for so long that we seem to believe it completely. But how realistic is this?

The "Basic Act on Children" that was passed just the other day also says, "all children... equally as independent individuals..." More specifically, Article 1 of the Fundamental Law of Education (Purpose of Education) says, "Education shall aim for the full development of personality." They say "full development of personality" and "independence" casually, but what an enormous goal has been set while the content remains vague. Now is the time for the "premise" of our existence, that is, our "view of humanity," to be refreshed in light of reality. What on earth is a human being? What does it mean for a person's "personality" to be "complete"? What is the state of a person standing on their own feet? I think like this—everyone (unlike the Fundamental Law of Education) is eternally incomplete and weak. That's why we help each other. Embarrassingly, I only realized this after I became seriously ill. Not a single person is "complete" or "independent." The "view of humanity" is the very root of all social systems. Now is the time to reconsider it from the premise.

"Someday..." is not enough. The highest number of child suicides ever, survey results showing that many young people do not want to have children in the future... It is clear that we are not showing them a bright future. I cannot help but feel that continuing to "compete" and work hard more than now will cause short-sighted "winning and losing" and "checking answers" to sweep society even more. "Ronpa" (refuting someone) and "taipa society" (time-performance society) are easy-to-understand examples.

Even if we cannot move politics immediately, we can change the way we converse from this very moment. Since we help each other because we are weak, we will end conversations where people test each other. "That's just your opinion, isn't it?" is just "So what?" Unorganized thoughts, feelings that cannot be put into words. We listen to each other without interrupting these. It doesn't have to be interesting all the time. You don't have to talk only about moving stories. You don't need to be sharp, and it's okay to be off the mark even if you're not concise. Living, you and I being there and talking. This is supremely happy and precious. It's just my meddling, but such dialogue might be difficult for people who watch movies and dramas at double speed. It is necessary to taste the value of the process, not the result, from a young age. It is tough if homes and educational settings are eager for the next "ability" development for "success." The practice of savoring the "here and now" and rejoicing in being here itself, rather than what one can do (= "ability"). Filling a "deficiency" is no longer "growth."

I would like to express my deep gratitude for staying with me this far. The ghost mother continues her journey so that the exploration of identifying individual "functions" and "strengths" that are easy to demonstrate, and how to combine them, rather than human "ability," will progress. "Reskilling" and "human capital management" are in the spotlight, but has only the wording changed, and has the inner reality become a new type of "ability" theory? Please check once again whether it is focused on the relationships between people, not closed off to individuals. The giant known as "meritocracy" is also a monster created by our own values. Since it is something we all created, I want us all to settle it and leave hope for the next generation. At that dawn, the ghost mother will likely find peace.