I knew she was raised in a rural area (and has like three sisters? four?) and that was the basis for the in-jokes about milk & cows, but I didn't realize it was northern.
The analogy of Jefferson series wasn't because it's allegory, but as an example of a piece of mythic-history that a lot of people don't like having questioned, because for them that questioning raises other questions. In the US, a big question has always been (and will probably be for a long time) anything related to race, so the Jefferson history hits a lot of buttons/racial issues that many people would rather not face.
The only analogy there is in the sense that every culture (in this case, Japan, post-war) has something it'd rather not poke at, or has some kind of mythos that on some level everyone knows ain't necessarily so, but the myth of what-was plays such a huge role in how we understand what-is that deconstructing the myth is tantamount (for those who believe in the myth) to taking out the current socio-cultural self-definition at the knees. A lot of the Southern mythos (in the US) seems to get the same unquestioning romance as the Japanese big-war-makes-big-peace; at the same time, books/movies that put the lie to, say, MLK being a loving and faithful family man who'd never evah cheat on his wife... those mythic deconstructions fare no better, and are no more welcomed than Jefferson+black-slave had been welcomed in the previous generations. That's what I meant, not that it's analogy, only that each culture has its mythos and woe be to those who try to question, let alone topple, those myths directly.
Which is why stories like FMA can be incredibly powerful, if done right (but rarely backfire if wrong, because then they're just dismissed as grade-D stories of no consequence). They provide just enough distance for people to not feel as though their precious socio-cultural myths are being whacked with a large stick, but just enough closeness (usually by dint of sympathizing with the characters and being caught up in an otherwise damn good storyline) that there's the hope (intentional or not) that the viewer might start to say, "y'know, that's awfully similar..."
Actually, the first Star Trek did the same sort of thing, a number of times, by using aliens as analogues for various groups: people of color, women, immigrants, military-vs-government, science-versus-religion, and so on. The later series weren't quite so ground-breaking (or maybe it's just the metaphor had been done to death by then), but even ST:TNG had its episodes where it played a similar game (one that sticks in my head is the two-parter that debates what is sentience, whether a machine can be sentient -- and how would we know? -- and what divides human from animal from machine, all to determine whether Data, a machine, can "own" himself). In that sense, not really allegory, but definitely taking a familiar myth or assumption and cloaking it just enough different to make us parallax like crazy to a good storyteller's tune.
My understanding of allegory is that it's mapping a one-to-one with a purpose of a moral, and Arakawa makes no moralizing. For that matter, she very clearly outlines at the end that there are scapegoats, but that the truth of what went on -- the intended sacrifice, the Fuhrer being one of the destructive powers, etc -- is kept almost entirely from the general population. It's simply all swept under the rug, a few bad eggs plucked out as scapegoats, and the people get to believe their Fuhrer was a good man who died in defense of his beloved country, blah blah blah. That's the impression I got from the final-chapter-tag; there's no major war crimes tribunal on a level with, say, the Hague in WWII, there's no prying back the covers on every secret and forcing anyone to apologize, let alone make amends. The ones who take over do exactly that, as though the transfer of power was both intentional and seamless, and this seems to be a good thing.
In that sense, FMA would fail utterly in terms of how allegory most often uses its symbolism to present a moralistic interpretation because the lesson is, well, non-apology, some-scapegoating, and otherwise-seamless-transfer is the proper ending: that if this maps to Japan's behavior before/during war (at least insofar as the military) then its conclusion is that Japan's hush-up at the end was the proper thing to do. The tone in the manga/anime seems entirely unironic, delivered straight-up, so I don't think it's meant as a criticism of the new administration's choices, but as a rather Japanese presentation (as I understand the socio-cultural motivations/psychology) that just letting bygones be bygones is the best and fastest method to return to harmony, which is more important than truth.
Or perhaps that's my own Western overlay, which does not believe that truth can be sacrificed for the sake of harmony without the sole result being a false harmony. In that sense, I would look for an allegorical/ironic reading to the final pages of the manga, but I suspect to a Japanese reader, perhaps there would be none, and the value of harmony over truth-revealing is more important.
Either way, no, Arakawa's story isn't really allegory per se, because she doesn't rely on rehashed symbols from this world (outside the historical alchemical symbols); she does actually write multi-faceted and complexly-motivated characters who are not simply cardboard symbols. Allegory fits better in the realm of true myth, where you don't need motivation or conflict so much as just to know "what things mean" (or "what things represent") and her story definitely has a life far beyond any simplistic symbolism.
That doesn't mean it can't map to actual history, but that's only because a good artist/storyteller takes the stories of our time and makes them unique all over again, and that's precisely what Arakawa seems to have achieved.
Incidentally, related to the sub-thread on your post, I realized this afternoon: it wasn't FMA that made me realize the parallel, but Gundam 00, with its emphasis on the Middle East as the origins of the story's main conflicts. In reading about 00's backstory development, that was when I was exposed to contemporary reports about Japan's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict, in Japan's support role, and the internal debates that sprang up among the Diet et al about whether Japan was violating its pacifist position to be support (in any way) to military action, or if it should go a step further and argue that military action can be justified when done in conjunction... there were a lot of questions being raised, and a lot of Japanese soldiers coming back with PTSD from Afghanistan, as well, even if they weren't front lines per se.
That entire situation, in the year or so after 9/11, seems to have had a major, if unexpected, impact on Japan's cultural self-assumptions, and I guess reading about its impact on the pop culture made me more sensitive to seeing those questions raised, if subtly, in other pop-culture stories, as well.
no subject
Date: 30 Jul 2010 03:10 am (UTC)The analogy of Jefferson series wasn't because it's allegory, but as an example of a piece of mythic-history that a lot of people don't like having questioned, because for them that questioning raises other questions. In the US, a big question has always been (and will probably be for a long time) anything related to race, so the Jefferson history hits a lot of buttons/racial issues that many people would rather not face.
The only analogy there is in the sense that every culture (in this case, Japan, post-war) has something it'd rather not poke at, or has some kind of mythos that on some level everyone knows ain't necessarily so, but the myth of what-was plays such a huge role in how we understand what-is that deconstructing the myth is tantamount (for those who believe in the myth) to taking out the current socio-cultural self-definition at the knees. A lot of the Southern mythos (in the US) seems to get the same unquestioning romance as the Japanese big-war-makes-big-peace; at the same time, books/movies that put the lie to, say, MLK being a loving and faithful family man who'd never evah cheat on his wife... those mythic deconstructions fare no better, and are no more welcomed than Jefferson+black-slave had been welcomed in the previous generations. That's what I meant, not that it's analogy, only that each culture has its mythos and woe be to those who try to question, let alone topple, those myths directly.
Which is why stories like FMA can be incredibly powerful, if done right (but rarely backfire if wrong, because then they're just dismissed as grade-D stories of no consequence). They provide just enough distance for people to not feel as though their precious socio-cultural myths are being whacked with a large stick, but just enough closeness (usually by dint of sympathizing with the characters and being caught up in an otherwise damn good storyline) that there's the hope (intentional or not) that the viewer might start to say, "y'know, that's awfully similar..."
Actually, the first Star Trek did the same sort of thing, a number of times, by using aliens as analogues for various groups: people of color, women, immigrants, military-vs-government, science-versus-religion, and so on. The later series weren't quite so ground-breaking (or maybe it's just the metaphor had been done to death by then), but even ST:TNG had its episodes where it played a similar game (one that sticks in my head is the two-parter that debates what is sentience, whether a machine can be sentient -- and how would we know? -- and what divides human from animal from machine, all to determine whether Data, a machine, can "own" himself). In that sense, not really allegory, but definitely taking a familiar myth or assumption and cloaking it just enough different to make us parallax like crazy to a good storyteller's tune.
My understanding of allegory is that it's mapping a one-to-one with a purpose of a moral, and Arakawa makes no moralizing. For that matter, she very clearly outlines at the end that there are scapegoats, but that the truth of what went on -- the intended sacrifice, the Fuhrer being one of the destructive powers, etc -- is kept almost entirely from the general population. It's simply all swept under the rug, a few bad eggs plucked out as scapegoats, and the people get to believe their Fuhrer was a good man who died in defense of his beloved country, blah blah blah. That's the impression I got from the final-chapter-tag; there's no major war crimes tribunal on a level with, say, the Hague in WWII, there's no prying back the covers on every secret and forcing anyone to apologize, let alone make amends. The ones who take over do exactly that, as though the transfer of power was both intentional and seamless, and this seems to be a good thing.
In that sense, FMA would fail utterly in terms of how allegory most often uses its symbolism to present a moralistic interpretation because the lesson is, well, non-apology, some-scapegoating, and otherwise-seamless-transfer is the proper ending: that if this maps to Japan's behavior before/during war (at least insofar as the military) then its conclusion is that Japan's hush-up at the end was the proper thing to do. The tone in the manga/anime seems entirely unironic, delivered straight-up, so I don't think it's meant as a criticism of the new administration's choices, but as a rather Japanese presentation (as I understand the socio-cultural motivations/psychology) that just letting bygones be bygones is the best and fastest method to return to harmony, which is more important than truth.
Or perhaps that's my own Western overlay, which does not believe that truth can be sacrificed for the sake of harmony without the sole result being a false harmony. In that sense, I would look for an allegorical/ironic reading to the final pages of the manga, but I suspect to a Japanese reader, perhaps there would be none, and the value of harmony over truth-revealing is more important.
Either way, no, Arakawa's story isn't really allegory per se, because she doesn't rely on rehashed symbols from this world (outside the historical alchemical symbols); she does actually write multi-faceted and complexly-motivated characters who are not simply cardboard symbols. Allegory fits better in the realm of true myth, where you don't need motivation or conflict so much as just to know "what things mean" (or "what things represent") and her story definitely has a life far beyond any simplistic symbolism.
That doesn't mean it can't map to actual history, but that's only because a good artist/storyteller takes the stories of our time and makes them unique all over again, and that's precisely what Arakawa seems to have achieved.
Incidentally, related to the sub-thread on your post, I realized this afternoon: it wasn't FMA that made me realize the parallel, but Gundam 00, with its emphasis on the Middle East as the origins of the story's main conflicts. In reading about 00's backstory development, that was when I was exposed to contemporary reports about Japan's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict, in Japan's support role, and the internal debates that sprang up among the Diet et al about whether Japan was violating its pacifist position to be support (in any way) to military action, or if it should go a step further and argue that military action can be justified when done in conjunction... there were a lot of questions being raised, and a lot of Japanese soldiers coming back with PTSD from Afghanistan, as well, even if they weren't front lines per se.
That entire situation, in the year or so after 9/11, seems to have had a major, if unexpected, impact on Japan's cultural self-assumptions, and I guess reading about its impact on the pop culture made me more sensitive to seeing those questions raised, if subtly, in other pop-culture stories, as well.