In Toward Theorizing Japanese Interpersonal Communication Competence from a Non-Western Perspective, Akira Miyahara discusses some of the fundamental differences between Japanese and Western communication. The most important difference seems to be the fact that while the West values individualism, Japan prefers collectivism, and this has had a profound impact on the way we have studied Japanese rhetoric. 

In the west, since we value individualism, we consider a good paper one that clearly asserts the author’s opinion with a strong argument that critically evaluates multiple sources. We teach this to our students as the way to write, and even though we try to “consider the audience,” we do so for the purpose of getting them to listen to and agree with the author. The west’s version of “considering the audience” is a subtle rhetorical tactic, no less assertive and combative than the rest of our rhetoric; in the west, considering the audience is much like building a literary Trojan Horse.

Japan’s collectivist way of thinking, however, has a much different way of considering the audience that permeates into all aspects of society. In Japan, it is considered rude to say anything before first considering how it will impact those around you; they do not even permit talking on cell phones on trains or buses out of consideration for the other passengers. Firmly asserting an opinion and critically evaluating the opinions of others would be considered rude and childish in this culture. Thus, since the Japanese always carefully consider their social position before speaking, it should be assumed that their rhetoric would take a similar form. Instead of expecting a direct assertion from the author, I would expect a piece that seeks to understand certain views that are held by society at large.

So, perhaps the reason why Japanese rhetoric has been historically misunderstood is because they are talking about something totally different. The west likes to talk about I; Japan likes to talk about We.