An exchange on DFS [Dead Fukuzawa Society list] recently was about American
automakers. A
Chrysanthemum Club type noted that GM was starting a big campaign in the US to
prevent its dealers from selling other cars, and wondered why it complained
about this practice in Japan. One of those
DFSers-who-used-to-be-known-as-bashers replied that it doesn't matter because
such strictures in the US don't work while in Japan they are very effective in
keeping foreign cars out.
The substance of this argument is more for DFS than this forum, I presume, but I
think there are questions about US-Japan negotiations that are interesting in a
social scientific way, beyond the usual issue of who is the good guy and who is
the bad guy.
Here, the CC type's remark did echo a common Japanese complaint, that the
Americans talk about general principles all the time (not having a situational
ethic etc). In this case, the idea that dealers should not be prevented from
selling other car lines by manufacturers was presented as a moral principle.
However, often enough it turns out there is no real principle that anybody
really believes on the American side, but just expediency. There are other such
cases.
Gee, this does sound like an "Americans are the bad guys" point, doesn't it? But
what I am wondering is whether this is a cultural difference that makes
negotiations difficult. Certainly the point is often made that Americans like to
negotiate from principles and Japanese like to build up from details. (The
principles for Japan are often just warm affirmations of cooperation and good
will--which of course Americans see as hypocritical. American principles usually
have more content.)