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

At the end of 2022, a book titled "Easing the Hardship of 'Ability'" appeared in bookstores nationwide. It was written by an unknown author—myself, Mai Teshigawara—and published by a small press. Turning the cover, the text reads: "This is a slightly mysterious story about 'ability,' given by a deceased mother to her child." Set 15 years in the future, the premise involves a mother who has become a ghost (the author) and her grown children considering how they should live in a "meritocratic" society. The subsequent response has been mysterious as well, and I can hardly believe my eyes. The book was reviewed in three national newspapers and other media outlets, and multiple talk events were held. In addition to reading groups organized by volunteers in various locations, reader cards and letters continue to arrive at the publisher. While I cannot correspond with everyone and have not been able to reply, I gratefully read them all. This article itself was prompted by a call 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 is lacking in themselves and others—and have continued to struggle. In schools, things like "academic ability" and "human power" are measured, compared with others, and career paths are decided "according to ability." Extending from that, many people get jobs where evaluations of abilities such as "initiative" and "leadership" greatly influence their treatment. Fierce competition can sometimes lead to poor health, but then they are told things like "your mental health is weaker than the average of your peers" and are recommended "EQ training." If they hang their heads and look into a bookstore on the way home from work, books like "Why the World's Elites Train Their XX Power" are piled high... peace of mind is hard to find.

On the other hand, some may think this has little to do with them. But what if one's own sense of life satisfaction is actually built upon 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 forcing constant "competition"? I chose the phrase "hardship of 'ability'" because as long as people live by helping each other, it is a personal matter for everyone; everyone is a party to it. How can we promote "mutual aid"—to use a cliché—rather than "competition" that ranks people? 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, my specialty, and the practical knowledge of organizational development.

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

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

That is why, 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 preaching "ability development," and perhaps it also serves as a cover to escape the political responsibility of overhauling social structures. I am a bit worried about being ambushed in the dark, but as someone who was coincidentally blessed in my upbringing, I cannot leave alone a society tyrannized by the randomness of the "parental lottery."

There is a reason for this intensity. At age 38, breast cancer was found at Stage IIIC, and I am still fighting advanced cancer while raising young children. I do not want to leave behind a society that forces infinite effort on individuals for the era when my children will be adults—an era I likely will not witness.

So, how to live? I keep a close eye on the distortions of the socio-economy. And while a leap to a solution is difficult, I build up efforts that can be done at my feet with the recognition that it is not just an individual problem. One example I cited is a case of organizational development. Instead of demanding more "abilities" from individuals, we bring together the "functions (characteristics)" that each person can easily demonstrate as a team to get things done. To that end, we adjust the combinations of people and people, and people and duties.

In the real world, "success" and "achievement" are rarely the credit of just one person. It may be that the contribution of a subordinate who managed to get things done while skillfully ignoring a boss's sarcasm was significant. Or, it is said that even Adam Smith was diligently cared for by his mother. The Wealth of Nations was thanks to his mother, indeed. Beyond just pursuing ways to run fast alone, how can we bring out each other's special talents and multiply them to go far together? I want to concentrate our wisdom on this point.

Easier said than done. Even if I say to bring together "functions" instead of "abilities," it is not that simple. Looking back on my experience, I think there are two major points that determine the success or failure of this effort. One is the importance of continuing to deal with "conflict." The work of considering the combination of people and people, and people and duties—that is, "compatibility"—involves many variables. Therefore, it is always in a state of flux, and trying to respond to it is gritty, endless, and not even easy to put into words. However, even if we preach "well-being" while avoiding this "conflict" or so-called haziness, it will not lead to mutual aid. When in trouble, we re-examine the haziness by looking at the "structure" in which it is occurring. In my 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 wrongness in that structure, I want to firmly say NO.

There is another tip for shifting the focus from "competition" to "relationships." It largely depends on how we define ourselves as human beings. We are "independent individuals," and such 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 recently enacted "Basic Act on Children" also states, "all children... equally as independent individuals..." Furthermore, Article 1 of the Basic Act on Education (The Aim of Education) states, "Education shall aim at the full development of personality." They say "full development of personality" and "independence" so casually, but what a tremendous goal to set while the content remains vague. Now is the time for the "premise" of our existence—our "view of humanity"—to be refreshed in light of reality. What exactly is a human being? What does it mean for a person's "personality" to be "fully developed"? What is the state of a person standing on their own two feet? I think this: everyone (unlike the Basic Act on Education) is eternally incomplete and weak. That is why we help each other. Embarrassingly, I only realized this after falling seriously ill. Not a single person is "complete" or "independent." The "view of humanity" is the very root of all social systems. I urge that we reconsider it from the premise now.

"Someday..." is not good enough. With the highest number of child suicides ever and 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 struggle more than now will only lead to short-sighted "winning and losing" and "checking answers" dominating society. "Refutation" and the "time-performance society" are clear 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 should end conversations where people test one another. "That's just your opinion, isn't it?"—So what? Unorganized thoughts, feelings that cannot be put into words. We listen to each other without interrupting these. It doesn't always have to be interesting. You don't have to talk only about moving stories. You don't need to be sharp, and it's okay if you're not concise or even if you're off the mark. You are alive, and you and I are here talking. This is supremely joyful and precious. At the risk of sounding like a meddling old woman, such dialogue might be difficult for people who watch movies and dramas at double speed. It is necessary to savor the value of the process rather than the result from a young age. It is tough if homes and educational settings are frantic about 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 today so that the exploration of identifying individual "functions" and "strengths" that are easy to demonstrate, and how to combine them, rather than human "ability," may progress. "Reskilling" and "human capital management" are in the spotlight, but has only the wording changed, while the substance has become a new version of "ability" theory? I urge you to check once again whether the focus is on the relationships between people rather than being closed off to the individual. 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.