Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros52-1Dossier“Doing family” on a global stage

Dossier

“Doing family” on a global stage

German expatriates in southern Tokyo
Nora Kottmann
p. 149-169

Résumé

The purpose of this study is to further explore the relationship between “doing family”, mobilities and space through a focus on expatriate families, a group not having received discrete attention so far. Drawing on theoretical concepts of subject-oriented family sociology and human geography as well as data from long-term fieldwork in a German community in an exclusive suburb in southern Tokyo, this paper asks: how and where do these highly mobile, elite individuals do family? What significance do specific places and spaces have for these individuals and their doing family? Are practices and/or notions of family changing, and, if so, how? How can doing family be mapped and situated? The findings reveal the emergence of key practices, including “displays” of family, that are highly structured by gender. They further show the emergence of transnational spaces that are accompanied by the production of embodied, conceptual and geographical fixities on three levels. This paper therefore argues that it is important to situate this group’s doing family in both the specific context of the German community in a global city in Japan and in the broader context of the global stage. These findings show the need for place-, space- and context-sensitive analyses even among a group of highly mobile families.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

I. Introduction

  • 1 https://en.sekaiproperty.com/article/2249/living-in-denenchofu [accessed April 10, 2021].
  • 2 https://www.realestate-tokyo.com/area-guide/denenchofu-jiyugaoka/ [accessed April 10, 2021].

1«The new family is here!» shouted a small, blond girl in German when my younger son and I approached the stop for the German school bus on one of our first days in Tokyo. The bus stop is located on one side of the neighbourhood’s central and spacious mixed-use plaza in front of the train station: a semi circular pool with benches, surrounded by a traffic circle and a few shops such as a hip coffee shop, a Kentucky Fried Chicken and a high-end hair salon. Arterial streets with ginkgo trees and large houses radiate off the plaza, connecting the «concentric, curved residential streets» (Oshima, 1996:147). The tranquillity and spaciousness of the plaza and the quarter stand in sharp contrast to the vast majority of Tokyo’s bustling, loud and chaotic train station surroundings with their shopping streets, eateries and game arcades with blinking neon-signs. The neighbourhood is known as “Tokyo’s Beverly Hills” (Sorenson/Watanabe, 2019), as an area that «many well-known politicians, sports stars, celebrities, and business leaders have made their home» (Sekai property: Internet1) and as «Japan’s best-known high-class residential town [… and one] highly recommended to German families» (Plaza Holmes: Internet2). My son and I arrived at the bus stop and were welcomed by six German-speaking mothers with pre-school children. I was given tips on daily life practicalities and immediately receiv­ed an offer, for example, of visiting a nearby supermarket together on an upcoming morning. I started to wonder: how does one join in these and other “motherly” activities when working full-time? How should I “reveal” that I am the dispatched person and that my male partner intends to stay home with the kids? How do all the other mothers (and fathers and children) “do” family in this German neighbourhood far from Germany?

2Previous empirical research has pointed to a diversification of family forms and shown how individuals “do” family (Morgan, 2013; discussed below) across distance and through space. Two main research strands’ foci can be identified: one focuses on dispersed or transnational families with an emphasis on key family practices like “care” and “mothering” (Baldassar/Merla, 2014; Baldassar et al., 2018; Bryceson, 2019; Bryceson/Vuorela, 2002; Kilkey/Palenga-Möllenbeck, 2016). The other focuses on multi-local families and includes research on divorced families, patchwork families or families that live apart together for employment-related or other reasons (Hilti, 2016; Holmes, 2010; Merla/Nobels, 2019; Schier, 2016). These two research strands reveal three main findings: first, they show the significance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) – Madianou and Miller speak of a “polymedia environment” (Madianou/Miller, 2012; Madianou, 2016) – for doing family across distance and, as recent research indicates, to convey emotions and circulate affect in this context (Baldassar et al., 2016; Neves/Casimiro, 2018; Wilding, 2020). Second, they highlight inequalities and global asymmetries in access to and affordability of ICT as well as in “digital literacy” (Wilding, 2020). Finally, they show that familial ties as well as a sense of belonging and identity remain relevant despite multi-locality and mobility (Bryceson/Vuorela, 2002; Yeoh et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2019; Walsh, 2018).

3Building on these findings, my paper sets out to further explore the relationship between “doing” family, mobilities and space (Massey, 2005) through an empirical focus on expatriate families. This group has not been addressed explicitly so far (the largest relevant body of literature focuses on poor and labour migrants; Baldassar, 2016:24), yet it is of specific interest because of its de-territorialized features and the inherent contradictions between mobility and immobility: the families are (highly) mobile in practice, but rather immobile (or stable) on a conceptual level. Drawing on on-going, long-term fieldwork among expatriate families in a German community in an exclusive suburb in southern Tokyo, my paper addresses the following questions: how and where do these highly mobile individuals “do” family? What significance do specific places and spaces have for these individuals and their “doing” family? Are practices and/or notions of family changing, and, if so, how? How can “doing” family be mapped and situated?

4The paper is structured as follows: in section II (“setting the context”) I outline my theoretical perspective (section II.A) and review the literature on expatriate families, including a critical discussion of the term “expatriate (family)” (section II.B). I then elaborate on my methodological approach (section III). In section IV, I introduce the research field and my empirical data in three sub-sections that address mundane practices and gendered spa­ces (section IV.A), familial displays and (re)negotiations (section IV.B) as well as (un)changing conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic (section IV.C). Finally, I present my findings and discuss the expatriates’ family practices as “doing family on a global stage”: I show that the expatriates constantly (re)negotiate their family practices in relation to and in distinction from their country of origin, the local German community, and the surrounding Japanese host country and, in so doing, produce conceptual, embodied and physical fixities on three levels.

II. Setting the context: mobile families and familial mobilities

A. Doing family’ in and through space

5“Doing family” derives from the concept of family practices (Morgan, 1996, 2011, 2013). It is based upon the assumptions that neither are families fixed structures, «sets of positions and statuses» centred around a physical place like a common household, nor does “the” family exist (Morgan, 2013: 3, 6). Rather, it acknowledges the diversity and fluidity of families and emphasizes the need to “do” them (Morgan, 2011). Families are therefore understood as a set of practices and social activities. This approach to “family” has been further developed and extended: Janet Finch, for example, argues that «families need to be “displayed” as well as “done”» (Finch, 2007:66). Through the concept of “display” she stresses «that the meaning of one’s actions has to be both conveyed to and understood by relevant others if those actions are to be effective as constituting “family practices”» (Ibid.).

6Against the backdrop of globalization and transnationalism and based upon the spatial turn and the (new) mobilities paradigm, new interdisciplinary approaches to “family” stress the temporal and spatial dimensions of families, while also pointing to a dependency on spatial and temporal con­texts (Morgan, 2013:61; Murray, 2019; Massey, 2005; Elliot/Urry, 2010). A central argument of these conceptual frameworks is that families are “always in motion”, both conceptually and in practice. Families are ebbing and «flowing through space and time», as Murray et al. (2019:2) advance. Transformations in family relations, including, for example, the imprisonment of members, divorce, re-marriage or migration are therefore not regarded as fragmentations or breaks, but rather as «rhythm, [as] process of change, adjustment and re-routing» (Ibid., 2019:2). At the same time, this research strand points to the intensifying necessity for families and individual family members to constantly (re)adjust to new and changing circumstances in the context of globalization and transnationalism. Finally, this research shows how «people’s mobilities often intersect with […] intimate issues such as family and [at the same time, how] transnational spaces and movements shape individuals’ intimacies» (Groes/Fernandes, 2018:1; Beck/Beck-Gernsheim, 2013; Elliot/Urry, 2010:85-111; Holmes, 2010; Murray et al., 2019; Walsh, 2018; Wilding, 2014). With regard to families, Wilding (2014) coins the term “floating ties” to describe the adaptation processes of families in this context; she uses the term as an allusion to «networks and connections that are flexible, adaptable and negotiable across national, cultural and social borders» and to highlight the fact that «ideas about family and family role are circulating across borders and space» (Ibid:17). It is noteworthy that this research strand (parallel to corresponding research in mobilities studies; McMorran, 2015:83-84; Meier/Frank, 2016:363) stresses fluidity and flow(s) on various levels, but, at the same time, points to its interrelation with immobility: not only the necessity for moorings, such as key family sites, is emphasized, but also the anchoring of family practices by «various institutional [and] cultural […] factors» (Wilding, 2014:168). In this context, the concept of family practices proves to be particularly insightful to capture mobile, (supposedly) de-territorialized families and their time-space dimension as Morgan (2013:74-89) outlines in Rethinking family practices.

B. Expatriate families

  • 3 Alternative terms include “ex-patriates” (Redfield P., 2012), “migrant professionals” (Meier L., 20 (...)

7Expatriate families – transnational, highly mobile elites (Bryceson/Vuorela, 2002:8) or temporary, privileged migrants (Baldassar, 2016:24; Farrer, 2018:197) – «exemplify the […] theorization of families as “sets of practices”» (Madianou, 216:185) and are exposed as well as characterized by the above mentioned circumstances in a particular way. It must be noted, however, that the term “expatriate (family)”3 is often vaguely defined and remains highly contested: while some authors consciously avoid the term due to its connotations of a «privileged white male executive working abroad» (Meier, 2014:5), others choose to use it but highlight a diversification of notions and lived realities. In accordance with the latter, I speak of “expatriate (families)” but follow an emic approach that takes expatriates as a category of practice (Farrer, 2018:197). This decision is also based on the self-identification of my interlocutors as “expatriates” or “expats” and on the prevalent reference to them by others: they are called “expatriates” by (German) individuals and families who decided or happened to settle in Japan (mostly due to marriage to a Japanese national) or are employed under local conditions «without the whole expat-package», as some of my interlocutors would describe it. They are also labelled as “expatriates” by real estate agents and other organizations that cater to them and their families’ needs (Mais Co., 2020; confer InterNations, 2019).

8There has been considerable research on expatriates starting with the «first boom in international management studies in the 1990s» (Farrer, 2018:197). Recent social science research since the turn of the century has taken a more critical, partly post-colonial perspective (Fechter/Walsh, 2010, 2012), increasingly focusing on the broader social context of expatriate migration and showing how factors like gender, race and economic and social privileges shape the lives, identities and experiences of expatriates (confer Farrer, 2010, 2018; Fechter, 2008; Nukaga, 2012; Trembath, 2018; Walsh, 2006/2007). These “critical expatriate studies” (Farrer, 2018) point to an increasing diversification of expatriate experiences and communities, elaborate on the interrelation of expatriate migration with other forms of migration, such as lifestyle- or marriage-migration (Igarashi, 2015), and discuss the relation of expatriates (and their communities) to the host country and vice versa. In this context, one research strand focuses on the global connectivity of a “placeless global or transnational class” (Trembath, 2018), another stresses the relevance of emplacement and locality for expatriate belonging, identities and practices (Meier, 2016; Farrer, 2010; Walsh, 2006, 2007, 2018); only a few works point to a «state of in-between-ness» and «multi-stranded ties» due to the fact that expatriates are «destined to return to their home country from the outset» (Nukaga, 2012:66-67).

9The body of literature also includes research on relationship and family issues. This includes research on heterosexual intimacy and gender roles (Coles/Fechter, 2008b; Walsh, 2007, 2018), educational strategies for the accompanying children (Moore, 2008; Igarashi, 2015; Nukaga, 2012), husbands’ involvement in family life and relationships abroad (Yasuike, 2011), the homemaking of trailing spouses (Kurotani, 2005; Hindmann, 2008) and social networks of diplomatic families (Coles, 2008). This research highlights that expatriate experiences are clearly structured by gender, especial­ly when dispatched with one’s partner and/or a family: expatriate families «both assume […] and reproduce […] the nuclear family» (Wilding, 2014:45) and can be described as an embodiment of a nuclear heterosexual family with a male breadwinner and a female homemaker, a circumstance I describe here as “immobile on a conceptual level”.

  • 4 This is assessed through the four categories of “availability/cost of childcare and education”, “qu (...)

10Despite this growing body of work and despite the common understanding that a “good family life”4 is an inevitable precondition for a successful expatriate experience (InterNations, 2019:4, 45-50), a multi-perspective focus on (mundane) family practices of expatriates is still lacking. Moreover, expatriate families – and, more generally, elite families – are a still under-studied category in the body of work on mobile family lives and/or transnational families (Fechter/Walsh, 2010:1198; Redfield, 2012:358). However, their features and their heightened exposure to conditions of globalization and transnationalism make them especially suitable for further investigating the relationship between “doing family”, mobilities and space, in particular with regard to the possible interwovenness and tension of mobility and immobility, of placeless-ness and rootedness as well as the emergence of transnational spaces versus the importance of locality.

III. Methods and data: the German community in southern Tokyo

11There has been a long and on-going discussion in social science research on how to examine mobile families; several research projects call for and/or use innovative, “mobile” or “multi-sited” methodological approaches (Elliott, 2014; Meier/Frank, 2016:368; Schier, 2016). In contrast, this research project is based on a classic long-term and on-going ethnographic study at a nodal point of a highly mobile demographic: the German community in southern Tokyo. Overall, the methodology that I employed can best be described as «“whole-hearted” research methodology» (Walsh, 2017:512) or, inspired by Günel, Varma and Watanabe (2020), as “multi method patchwork ethnography” with a focus on daily practices as recounted in narrati­ves and as seen in actions. I relied on a variety of qualitative methods like informal group discussions, daily encounters and conversations with members of the community, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with peers and external “experts” like real estate agents, participant observations (overt and covert) at a variety of private and formal (school) events and joint mobilities like commuting and travelling. Furthermore, the data includes autoethnographic accounts (see below). In order to contextualize my findings, I also used statistical data provided by the local district administration office (ba­sed on statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication; Jū­min kihon daichō genkyō hōkokusho) as well as the global survey Expats Insider (InterNations, 2019). In terms of analysis, I followed an inductive, theory-generating approach: based on my interest in spatial and mobile di­mensions of “family” (see section II), I employed several basic and partly intertwined steps of initial, focused and theoretical coding (Meagher, 2020) to elicit relevant codes and key themes inherent in my data. While Morgan (2009, 2013), Finch (2007) and, for example, Walsh (2006) discuss various concrete family practices and displays, I intentionally approached my data as openly as possible, but based on my theoretical perspective and inspired by previous work. Key practices, as discussed in sections IV and V, include a variety of mundane practices (of belonging), (performative) familial displays, homemaking and maintaining as well as travel and visits.

12This research is part of a larger research project on lifestyles abroad and originated in some initial puzzles my family and I encountered upon moving to southern Tokyo in September 2018. After I made the conscious decision to systematize my experiences and write about them, I started to talk openly about my academic interest in the community and expatriate life. However, the boundaries between academic interest and private life were and are blurring. This is not unusual for research on expatriates and expatriate communities; quite a few researchers have been personally involved in different forms of privileged migration (Coles, 2008:127-128; Co­les/Fechter, 2008a:4). While the respective research is clearly influenced by personal experiences or an “inside” perspective, none of them are classic autoethnographies in the sense of «highly personalized accounts that draw upon the experience of the author/researcher for the purpose of extending sociological understanding» (Sparkes in Wall, 2008:39). The same is true of my research: I am conducting this research not only as a researcher, but also as a kind of expatriate and acquaintance or friend to some interlocutors myself. While living in the neighbourhood clearly gives me an “insider” status, this status is contested by various factors like, for example, our family’s “reversed” gender roles and our economic background. This specific position is inextricably linked with my experiences, perceptions and perspectives, my access to certain field sites and my exclusion from others. Furthermore, being a kind of expatriate and living in the neighbourhood clearly changed my own experiences, embodied performances and familial practices (Walsh, 2007:512). This specific but changing position in a rather small field raises various ethical questions (Ellis et al., 2011:6, 7), particularly with regard to the production and usage of “data” (especially in the context of (un)consciously covert participation) and protection of the interlocutors’ privacy and safety. In awareness of these problems, I applied different strategies like talking as openly as possible/necessary about my research (interests) and altering as many identifying circumstances as possible. This sometimes also included avoiding direct quotations, modifying specific situations or amalgamating narrations.

  • 5 Then Prime Minister Abe Shinzō declared the first state of emergency for seven prefectures on April (...)

13With regard to my methodological approach, two more points are noteworthy: the COVID-19 pandemic and the implications of focusing on the German “community” in southern Tokyo. First, it is certainly no exaggeration to state that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on every researcher and every research project (Kidd, 2020). In my case, data collection could not be carried out as planned: the closure of the German school from March 2020 on, the first state of emergency5 and subsequent policies like calls for physical distancing and staying at home all impacted planned and intended participant observations, group discussions and interviews. This led to delays in my fieldwork as well as methodological adaptations. Second, and irrespective of the pandemic, focusing on the German community in southern Tokyo implies a conscious neglect of other groups of Germans in the greater Tokyo area. That includes German-Japanese families, some of whom have lived in Japan for a longer period or permanently, German or mixed families living around the German school, long-term residents with local employment contracts as well as individuals and families living in the «cosmopolitan canopies» (Farrer, 2018:199) known as «popular expat areas» (Mais Co., 2020:17) in central areas like Roppongi, Hirō or Azabu. Since the family practices and living circumstances of these groups most likely differ significantly, the scope of this research is clearly limited. It nonetheless gives insights into the practices of one highly mobile demographic in a specific transnational setting.

IV. Doing family on a global stage: empirical findings

  • 6 Unfortunately, there is no differentiation by nationality and it has to be assumed that the number (...)

14The German community in southern Tokyo is a classic rotational community with most families staying between two to five years. For some families it is the first and probably their only post abroad; others have a long history of postings abroad and have moved, for example, from India, Australia or Oman to Japan. The community is widely perceived as a “German community” by outsiders and portrayed as such in insiders’ narratives. Nevertheless, it is a rather heterogeneous community whose members are integrated into different German or (trans)national networks. It is also noteworthy that some are transnational families where wife and husband (and sometimes the children) have different, non-German nationalities. While the so-called German community in this neighbourhood is well-established, it is not a diasporic community (Brubaker, 2005) with specialized organizations and businesses for everyday needs as is the case, for example, of the Japanese community in Düsseldorf, Germany (Kottmann, 2020). Yet, there are a few exceptions and the two supermarkets in walking distance provide upscale European goods. The community is situated in an affluent and residential neighbourhood that was planned as the first garden city of Japan by the famous developer Shibusawa Eiichi (1840-1931) during the Taishō-period (1912-1926) (Oshima, 1996). While he initially targeted the middle class, the neighbourhood «was slowly transformed into a suburb exclusive­ly for the wealthy» from the 1930s onwards (Oshima, 1996:149). Although the origins of the German community are difficult to trace, the area, as a real estate agent specialized in expatriate families told me, «was already popular among German families when I started to work there 37 years ago». According to him, that popularity significantly increased after the German school moved from central Tokyo to the northern outskirts of Yokohama in 1991. This placed southern Tokyo exactly between the school and the city centre where many expatriates work. Furthermore, a school bus – with several stops in the neighbourhood – provides ideal access to the school. These reasons have certainly contributed to the area’s popularity among Germans, along with the growth of respective real estate offers. Almost all Germans left the country because of the triple disaster in 2011, but the community has grown again in recent years, and in August 2020 there were 473 “foreign households” (in Japanese: gaikokujin nomi no setai) in the immediate neighbourhood (MIC, 2020)6. Nowadays, the German community is itself a reason for its growth, as many female interviewees told me: «I insisted on moving here. I was afraid of being lonely in such an exotic country as Japan and hoped to get to know other German mothers and families».

A. Mundane practices and gendered spaces

15The wish to connect with other like-minded families in a foreign country was – alongside the availability of real estate offers and the school bus route – the most commonly cited reason why families choose to live in the neighbourhood. «It’s so easy to make first contacts. You meet other women at the bus stop, at the international kindergarten or in your compound. Contacts then multiply quickly», many women told me. Men also named this reason, although in a different way: «I thought about my wife and my kids; I want them to feel comfortable». Or, as another husband put it laughingly: «you know: happy wife, happy life!» Moving to the neighbourhood itself may therefore be described as a family practice: it is highly probable that schoolmates of the children live in the area or that women find like-minded people – often wives of the husbands’ colleagues – to socialize with (on weekends with “accompanying husbands”) and to get assistance in various realms like shopping, doctor recommendations, education or cultural activities. Women who have been living in the area for a longer time offer their help and advice to new arrivals. Women (and a few men) also constantly exchange tips and ideas through a constantly growing WhatsApp group that is also used in times of emergency. Offline, there are various distinctive but partly overlapping groups and circles as well as singular events like break­fast parties or Japanese cooking and art classes that women socialize in depending on personal preferences, interests, children’s age, the husbands’ work, the family’s history, the nationality or current activities like working part-time or not. Although some of the women, most of whom have a good education and some of whom have been professionally successful themsel­ves, work part-time (and very seldom full-time), most of them are full-time housewives, just «like many Japanese women as well». Although «enjoying one’s time abroad» was a common thread in women’s narrations, most women distanced themselves actively from «the common prejudice that we don’t do anything here, that we just play around and are busy with hair and cosmetic appointments», as one woman put it rather angrily. This topic, however, also leads to inter-familial misunderstandings:

Wife: I always worked full-time in Germany, and I was afraid to stop. But it was no problem, it’s not boring at all. I’m really busy here…

Husband: … bleep, bleep, bleep… All that has to be deleted [from the audio file] (laughingly)

Son: … laughing … They always fight about that.

16With respect to the responsibility for caring for the children and the husband, as well as to the “homemaking” (Baxter/Brickel, 2014) – in most ca­ses together with one of the Philippine housekeepers who are recommended and passed on by the families over the years – another woman, told me: «The best moment of the week is Monday morning when I finally sit down on our terrace with a cup of coffee. Weekends are so terribly busy, exhausting with the children and the husband around. That’s when we really work». The subsequent emergence of gendered spheres, mobilities and temporalities is clearly noticed by many: «it’s sometimes hard to keep the other person in the loop …», «life-worlds are so different» and «sometimes I have the feeling I’m in Germany [due to the German community] while my husband’s in Japan [due to working with Japanese colleagues] and in the world [due to frequent travel]».

B. Displaying family and (re)negotiating family practices

17(Mundane) family practices varied significantly between the families and ranged from phone calls, a regular exchange of messages, baking German bread or joint meals on certain days of the week to travelling together, often to locations that are well known and regularly frequented by members of the German or the transnational community. Although there were gender segregated activities on weekends and holidays as well – sailing with colleagues in the case of men or travelling to a resort with the children in the case of women – most families reported on joint activities and openly shar­ed pictures depicting the children, the couple or beautiful landscapes. Such and similar “displays” (Finch, 2007) seemed to be essential for the families themselves but also for maintaining bonds with the grandparents and friends abroad as well as positioning oneself and one’s family in the community. The wish and need to position oneself in the constantly changing community was also expressed by children, as one boy (11) explained:

Usually my family does not do the same things during holidays as the other families here; more like things we did back in Germany. But finally, we went to the same place as all my friends. Look [he shows pictures of a resort hotel on his smartphone]!

18“Displaying family” also took place through belongings and fixed resources, like accessories, cars or houses (Walsh, 2006). Which family mo­ved into which house and drove what kind of car were certainly not unimportant in an area that is famous for generous estates and expensive, impor­ted cars – among the expat community as well as the Japanese neighbours. One man stated: «We love our house, but actually, my wife was ashamed of it for quite a while. Other families have far more prestigious houses … so it took some time until she started inviting other families over». Overall, not only “homemaking” but also “home-maintaining” can be identified as a key family practice: almost all families owned and maintained a fully furnished apartment or house that was overseen by a paid housekeeper (for insurance reasons) in Germany or, though rarely, in a third country. Others, who didn’t already own a second home, intended to do so. Having a place in Germany was associated with (mental) security, linked with having “roots”, imagined as a future anchoring point or referred to as a second or holiday “home” (sometimes as “the real home”). It not only provided wives and children the possibility of avoiding humid Japanese summers, but also of spending up to two months in Germany to (re)connect with family and friends; husbands usually only joined them for short summer vacations.

19The need to adapt and (re)negotiate family practices is already inherent in the statements above. This was, however, also explicitly formulated. When asked «what has changed the most for you and your family in moving abroad?», the majority answered: «we have got much closer», «we are a better team» or «we have all grown individually». Interestingly, this increase in emotional closeness was often contrasted with a decrease in actual time spent together: in most cases, the families reported an increase in working hours «due to the Japanese working culture» and husbands were mostly absent during the week (Walsh, 2018). Familial (dis)connections were also described with regard to kin abroad. Depending on the relationship, some interlocutors referred to a state of “ubiquitous connectivity” (Baldassar et al., 2016). Others, however, discussed several problems despite unlimited access to the latest ICT, mostly concerning the time difference: «my daughter [18 years] studies in Germany. We stay in close contact. But it’s difficult. I might be sleeping when she really needs me …». A boy (12), in turn, told me: «we gave my grandmother an iPad to keep in touch. But I often have to talk to her nostrils; she just doesn’t understand how to use it (laughs)».

C. (Un)changing conditions and future perspectives

20The on-going COVID-19 pandemic that has disrupted human lives in myriad ways across the globe has had a fundamental impact on the above-mentioned family practices, too. The German school closing, husbands working from home and severe travel restrictions made it impossible to do family as they used to. Forced renegotiations of family practices “at home” in Japan led to ambivalent reactions: many families enjoyed the opportunity to spend more time together and reported on significant changes and new arrangements in the domestic division of labour. However, being together full time and unmet expectations also led to frictions, as one woman reported:

I thought that he’d get more engaged in our family life and help me with the home schooling. But he’s sitting in his room all day, taking phone calls. I really feel exhausted with the two small kids around me all the time.

21Marital problems or difficulties with children that were often overplayed or hidden before the pandemic became accentuated and more obvious. Similar ambivalences and frictions may be seen with regard to the community and the host-country: many families heavily relied on the community during the pandemic, kept on meeting with select families and let their children continue playing in the nearby parks with their peers. Others, however, refrained from leaving the house at all. These different ways of handling the situation and an overall insecurity led to obvious frictions (that had pre-COVID origins) within the community and, especially, between certain families. Ambiguities were also formulated with regard to the host-country: being in Japan during the pandemic was primarily seen positively due to high hygiene standards, a feeling of safety and a lax state of emergency: «Overall, we are still able to leave the house», «the kids can play outside [and] I can go for a walk when my husband starts driving me crazy». However, children playing outside led to frictions with Japanese neighbours who collectively expressed their concerns at a local police station, a common way of handling such situations in Japan. A policeman then approached one of the few fathers who speaks Japanese and «kindly asked to stop the children from cycling in the park and other wild activities», as the father communicated to the respective parents via WhatsApp. Such frictions, perceiv­ed resentment towards foreigners and the re-entry ban to Japan for all foreigners regardless of their visa status were severely criticized, as one man summarized: «Japan’s shown its ugly face». Even though connections with kin in Germany could be maintained via ICT, key family practices like frequent travel and mutual long-term visits became impossible, depriving the group of some of their central attributes and privileges. Minor, but nevertheless noteworthy problems arose due to postal service interruption over several months and the impossibility of receiving packages from grandparents with schoolbooks, satchels, stationery or food.

22The COVID-19 pandemic also led to future anxieties and changes of plans: some families had to move back to Germany earlier than expected, others had to stay in Japan instead of moving to a third country as previously planned. Generally speaking, the decision to (not) move as well as the decision for the next destination was usually based on spousal or, depending on the age of the child(ren), interfamilial discussions and considerations like the age of the (grand)parents or the child(ren)’s education. Nevertheless, regardless of the pandemic, «ultimately, it’s always work that deci­des», as many men summed up the situation. Sudden global relocations, the termination of contracts, or returns to Germany due to job offers were already standard before the pandemic and sometimes led to temporary transnational, multi-local living arrangements for families. Not only did the pandemic thwart many plans, it also increased the harsh competition for prestigious and well-paid jobs on a global level. «The air is getting thinner and thinner, now more than ever, of course», as one man explained. A woman, in turn, admitted during a small farewell party:

Obviously, nobody talks about it, but companies have to lower costs and employees are asked to “voluntarily” give up a part of their wages. We are all privileged, but still, all families are affected in one way or another.

23Privileges and the process of «learning to be an expatriate» (Farrer, 2018:197) might be the main reasons many families tried to extend their stay in Tokyo or applied for a position in another country instead of returning to the home country as originally planned: «The hardest part [of being an expatriate] is returning home; for the whole family», as one woman explained, referring to the “stickiness” of the expatriate lifestyle.

V. Discussion: Producing fixities in a highly mobile family life

24In this paper, I have focused on the family practices of highly mobile, privileged families in a transnational but nevertheless local setting in order to contribute a new perspective to the literature on the interrelation of doing family, mobility and space. I addressed the following questions: how and where do these highly mobile individuals “do” family? What significance do specific (non-)places and spaces have for these individuals and their “doing” family? Are practices and/or notions of family changing and if so, how? How can “doing” family be mapped and situated?

25It’s become obvious that approaches to doing family as well as the ensuing practices are diverse and dependent on various factors such as the family’s history of living abroad, the family structure and personal interests. Nevertheless, two key practices became evident: “making and maintaining two houses/homes” and “travel and visits”. These practices connecting the families’ lives in Japan with their lives in Germany clearly differentiate expatriate families from other, less privileged transnational families (although variations can be seen there as well); mobilities – in the sense of “elite mobilities” (Birtchnell/Caletrío, 2014) – are a precondition and privilege at the same time. As has been shown above, not only doing but also “displaying family” turned out to be essential in the context of this research. In the case of the German expatriate families, this display addresses at least three groups – namely, the host country, the community and friends and kin in the country of origin – albeit in different ways and with varying intensity. Because of these factors it seems more adequate to speak of “displays” or “layers of displays”. These displays not only have the purpose of conveying and confirming familial practices (Finch, 2007:73; see section II), rather, I argue, they also have a performative character (both face-to-face and virtual/hybrid) for their various audiences. Dependent on the audience and the “stage”, families seek to display (and do – through concrete practices) the “happy”, the “caring”, the “successful”, “the perfect”, the “global” or the “German” family; this obviously includes an “over-performance” to conceal friction, or even fissures, in the perfect picture – as has been highlighted by the pandemic.

  • 7 As to my knowledge and excluding double earner couples.

26The family practices and displays are highly structured by gender and lead to the emergence of gendered spaces with distinctive gendered mobilities and temporalities, as has been shown above. The heterosexual nuclear family is not only performed or reproduced, as Wilding (2014:45) argued earlier, but also naturalized in and through the community and narrated in relation to and in distinction from Germany and the host country: A woman who had been living abroad for many years with her family reported: «I didn’t work for years, it’s just normal for this expat lifestyle. But I wonder how it will be when we go back to Germany [next month]. All my female friends there work…» This “naturalization” of the male breadwinner-female homemaker is also shown in the following example: in a scene in a theatre play during the enrolment ceremony for primary school pupils at the German school, two small blond princesses were asked about their future dreams: «We want to find a prince!» They were then convinced to go to school (the main topic of the play) by one of the main characters in order to be able to read a cookbook and serve their future princes their favourite food. Surprised and deeply shocked by this narration, I asked another mo­ther who had already been living in Tokyo for five years about her opinion. She replied: «Well, you know. It’s the German community … that’s how it is here. And it’s the same in Japan». The son (9) of a female lead migrant, in turn, said: «It’s just an old story, a fairy tale». And indeed, some changes were visible, although they were still small. For instance, the number of families with female lead expatriates in the specific community has risen from one to four in two years7. These families, however, seem to encounter specific problems, like the reluctance of the husbands to socialize in motherly activities (and vice versa), self-doubts of some men, (perceived) prejudices or institutional hurdles like the impossibility of applying for a Japanese credit card as an accompanying man (only women can choose the option “housewife”). In addition, some men continued to work in their German jobs, with significant implications for the family as a teenager (16) told me: «with the time difference, mum works days and dad works nights». This and further examples indicate that “deviations” from the classical (or simply reversed) division of labour are difficult to realize and come with high costs; a topic that will have to be investigated in further detail.

27In sum, in the process of expatriates (and other mobile, elite individuals) doing family, transnational spaces – spaces in-between home and host country – are emerging and being created. However, as spaces always «constitute the sphere of the possibility of the existence of multiplicity» (emphasis in original; Hubbard, 2018:1297), these spaces comprise ambivalences and ambiguities: they are, among others, spaces of togetherness and distinction, of belonging and longing as well as of mobilities and fixities. Mobilities and fixities are, however, not opposites, as this study confirms. Rather, they «collapse on one another and become inseparable», as McMorran (2015:97), elaborates on. Inextricably interwoven with various mobilities, the expatriate families produce embodied, conceptual and geographical fixities and (re)negotiate their family practices in relation to and in distinction from their country of origin, the local German community, and the surrounding Japanese host country. Therefore, this paper argues, it is important to contextualize and situate the doing family of these individuals both in the specific context of the German community in a global city in Japan and the broader context of the global stage with its stickiness. These findings show the need for place-, space- and context-sensitive analyses even among a group of highly mobile families.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Baldassar L., 2016 “Mobilities and Communication Technologies: Transforming Care in Family Life”, in Kilkey M., Palenga Möllenbeck E. Eds, Family Life in an Age of Migration and Mobility. Global Perspectives through the Life Course, London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.19-42.

Baldassar L., Kilkey M., Merla L., Wilding R., 2018 “Transnational families in the era of global mobility”, in Triandafyllidou A. Ed., Handbook of migration and globalization, London, Routledge, pp.431-443.

Baldassar L., Merla L. Eds, 2014 Transnational families, migration and the circulation of care: Understanding mobility and absence in family life, London, Routledge.

Baldassar L., Nedelcu M., Merla L., Wilding R., 2016 “ICT-based co-presence in transnational families and communities: challenging the premise of face-to-face proximity in sustaining relationships”, Global Networks, n°16, (2), pp.133-144.

Baxter R., Brickell K., 2014 “For Home UnMaking”, Home Cultures, n°11, (2), pp.133-143.

Beck U., Beck-Gernsheim E., 2013 Distant love, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Birtchnell T., Calterío J., 2104 “Introduction. The Movement of the few”, in Birtchnell T., Calterío J. Eds, Elite Mobilities, London, Routledge, pp.1-20.

Brubaker R., 2005 “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, n°28, (1), pp.1-19.

Bryceson D. F., 2019 “Transnational families negotiating migration and care life cycles across nation-state borders”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, n°45, (16), pp.3042-3064.

Bryceson D., Vuorela U., 2002 “Transnational families in the 21st century”, in Bryceson D., Vuorela U. Eds, The transnational family. New European frontiers and global networks, London, Bloomsbury, pp.3-30.

Coles A., 2008 “Making multiple migrations: The life of British diplomatic families overseas”, in Coles A., Fechter A.-M. Eds, Gender and family among transnational professionals, London, Routledge, pp.125-148.

Coles A., Fechter A.-M., 2008a “Introduction”, in Coles A., Fechter A.-M. Eds, Gender and family among transnational professionals, London, Routledge, pp.1-20.

Coles A., Fechter A.-M. Eds, 2008b Gender and family among transnational professionals, London, Routledge.

Elliot A., 2014 “Elsewhere. Tracking the mobile lives of globals”, in Birtchnell T., Calterío J. Eds, Elite Mobilities, London, Routledge, pp.21-39.

Elliot A., Urry J., 2010 Mobile Lives, London, Routledge.

Ellis C., Adams T. E., Bochner A. P., 2011 “Autoethnography: An overview [40 paragraphs]”, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, n°12, (1), article 10.

Farrer J., 2010 “ ‘New Shanghailanders’ or ‘new Shanghainese’: Western expatriates’ narratives of emplacement in Shanghai”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, n°36, (8), pp.1211-1228.

Farrer J., 2018 “Critical expatriate studies. Changing expatriate communities in Asia and the blurring boundaries of expatriate identity”, in Liu-Farrer G., Yeoh B. Eds, Routledge handbook of Asian migrations, London, Routledge, pp.196-209.

Fechter A.-M., Walsh K., 2010 “Examining ‘Expatriate’ Continuities: Postcolonial Approaches to Mobile Professionals”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, n°36, (8), pp.1197-1210.

Fechter A.-M., Walsh K. Eds, 2012 The new expatriates. Postcolonial approaches to mobile professionals, London, Routledge.

Finch J., 2007 “Displaying families”, Sociology, n°41, (1), pp.65-81.

Groes C., Fernandes N. T., 2018 “Introduction. Intimate mobilities and mobile intimities”, in Groes C., Fernandes N. T. Eds, Intimate mobilities: Sexual economies, marriage and migration in a disparate world, New York, Berghahn, pp.1-27.

Günel G., Varma S., Watanabe C., 2020 “A manifesto for patchwork ethnography”, Member Voices, Fieldsights, June 9, published online, https://culanth.org/fieldsights/a-manifesto-for-patchwork-ethnography.

Holmes M., 2010 “Intimacy, Distance Relationships and Emotional Care”, Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques, n°41, (1), pp.105-123.

Hubbard P., 2018 “Geography and sexuality: Why space (still) matters”, Sexualities, n°2, (18), pp.1295-1299.

Igarashi H., 2015 “Privileged Japanese transnational families in Hawaii as lifestyle migrants”, Global networks. A journal of transnational affairs, n°15, (1), pp.99-117.

InterNations, 2019 Expat Insider 2019. The world through expat eyes, published online, https://www.internations.org/expat-insider/.

Kidd N., 2020 “Special issue. Sociologists and sociology during COVID-19”, ASA footnotes, n°48, (3), p.1.

Kilkey M., Palenga-Möllenbeck E. Eds, 2016 Family life in an age of migration and mobility. Global perspectives through the life course, London, Palgrave Macmillan.

Kottmann N., 2020 “Japanese women on the move: Working in and (not) belonging to Düsseldorf’s Japanese (food) community”, in Matta R., de Suremain C.-É., Crenn C. Eds, Food identities at home and on the move: Explorations at the intersection of food, belonging and dwelling, London, Routledge, pp.293-318.

Kurotani S., 2005 Home away from home: Japanese corporate wives in the United States, Durham, Duke University Press.

Madianou M., Miller D., 2012 Migration and the new media: Transnational families and polymedia, London, Routledge.

Mais Co. Ed., 2020 The expats guide to Japan, Tokyo, Mais Co, Ltd.

Massey D., 2005 For space, London, Sage.

McMorran C., 2015 “Mobilities amid the production of fixities: Labor in a Japanese inn, Mobilities, n°10, (1), pp.83-99.

Meagher C., 2020 “How to make sense of data: Coding and theorizing”, in Kottmann N., Reiher C. Eds, Studying Japan: Handbook of research designs, fieldwork and methods, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp.323-334.

Meier L., 2014 “Introduction. Local lives, work and social identities of migrant professionals in the city”, in Meier L. Ed., Migrant professionals in the city. Local encounters, identities and inequalities, London, Routledge, pp.1-17.

Meier L., 2016 “Dwelling in different localities: Identity performances of a white transnational professional elite in the City of London and the Central Business District of Singapore”, Cultural Studies, n°30, (3), pp.483-505.

Meier L., Frank S., 2016 “Dwelling in mobile times: places, practices and contestations”, Cultural Studies, n°30, (3), pp.362-375.

Merla L., Nobels B., 2019 “Children negotiating their place through space in multi-local, joint physical custody arrangements”, in Murray L., McDonnell L., Hinton-Smith T., Ferreira N., Walsh K. Eds, Families in motion: Ebbing and flowing through space and time, Bingley, Emerald Publishing, pp.79-95.

Moore F., 2008 “The German school in London, UK: Fostering the next generation of national cosmopolitans”, in Coles A., Fechter A.-M. Eds, Gender and family among transnational professionals, London, Routledge, pp.85-102.

Morgan D., 1996 Family connections. An introduction to family studies, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Morgan D., 2011 “Locating ‘family practices’ ”, Sociological Research Online, n°16, (4), pp.1-9.

Morgan D., 2013 Rethinking family practices, London, Palgrave Macmillan.

Murray L., McDonnell L., Hinton-Smith T., Ferreira N., Walsh K., 2019 “Introduction: Family and families in motion”, in Murray L., McDonnell L., Hinton-Smith T., Ferreira N., Walsh K. Eds, Families in motion: Ebbing and flowing through space and time, Bingley, Emerald Publishing, pp.1-18.

Neves B. B., Casimiro C., 2018 “Connecting families? An introduction”, in Neves B. B., Casimiro C. Eds, Connecting families. Information & communication technologies, generations, and the life course, Bristol, Polity Press, pp.1-17.

Oshima K. T., 1996 “Building the Garden City in Japan”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, n°55, (2), pp.140-151.

Redfield P., 2012 “The unbearable lightness of expats: Double binds of humanitarian mobility”, Cultural Anthropology, n°27, (2), pp.358-382.

Schier M., 2016 “Everyday practices of living in multiple places and mobilities: Transnational, transregional, and intra-communal multi-local families”, in Kilkey M., Palenga Möllenbeck E. Eds, Family life in an age of migration and mobility. Global perspectives through the life course, London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.43-69.

Sorensen A., Watanabe S.-I., 2019 “Den-en chofu: The first Japanese ‘garden city’ ”, in Sies M., Gournay I., Freestone R. Eds, Iconic planned communities and the challenge of change, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.156-175.

Trembath J.-L., 2018 “Expats, tourists and ‘matter out of place’ ”, The Familiar Strange, May 10, published online, https://thefamiliarstrange.com/2018/05/10/expats-tourists-matter-out-of-place/.

Wall S., 2008 “Easier said than done: Writing an Autoethnography”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, n°7, (1), pp.38-52.

Walsh K., 2006 “British expatriate belongings: Mobile homes and transnational homing”, Home Cultures, n°3, (2), pp.123-144.

Walsh K., 2007 “ ‘It got very debauched, very Dubai!’ Heterosexual intimacy amongst single British expatriates”, Social & Cultural Geography, n°8, (4), pp.507-533.

Walsh K., 2018 Transnational geographies of the heart. Intimate subjectivities in a globalizing city, London, Wiley-Blackwell.

Wilding R., 2014 Families, intimacy and globalization: Floating ties, London, Red Globe Press.

Wilding R., Baldassar L., Gamage S., Worrell S., Mohamed S., 2020 “Digital media and the affective economies of transnational families”, International Journal of Cultural Studies, n°23, (5), pp.639-655.

Yeoh B., Huang S., Lam T., 2018, “Transnational family dynamics in Asia”, in Triandafyllidou A. Ed, Handbook of Migration and Gobalisation, London, Elgar Publishing, pp.413-430.

Haut de page

Annexe

Structured summary

Presentation: The purpose of this study is to further explore the relationship between “doing family”, mobilities and space through a focus on expatriate families, a group not having received discrete attention so far. Drawing on theoretical concepts of subject-oriented family sociology and human geography as well as data from long-term fieldwork in a German community in an exclusive suburb in southern Tokyo, this paper asks: how and where do these highly mobile, elite individuals do family? What significance do specific places and spaces have for these individuals and their doing family? Are practices and/or notions of family changing, and, if so, how? How can doing family be mapped and situated? The findings reveal the emergence of key practices, including “displays” of family, that are highly structured by gender. They further show the emergence of transnational spaces that are accompanied by the production of embodied, conceptual and geographical fixities on three levels. This paper therefore argues that it is important to situate this group’s doing family in both the specific context of the German community in a global city in Japan and in the broader context of the global stage. These findings show the need for place-, space- and context-sensitive analyses even among a group of highly mobile families.

Theory: My theoretical perspective is based on concepts of subject-oriented family sociology and human geography. In particular, I utilize the concept of “doing family” – deriving from the concept of family practices (Morgan, 1996, 2011, 2013) – and the concept of “displaying family” (Finch, 2007). My paper combines these concepts with new interdisciplinary approaches to “family”, which stress the temporal and spatial dimensions of families (Morgan, 2013; Murray, 2019; Massey, 2005; Elliot/Urry, 2010). This research strand highlights the intensifying necessity for families to constantly (re)adjust to new and changing circumstances in the context of globalization and transnationalism. It further shows the intersections of individual’s mobilities with intimate issues and vice versa and, at the same time, stresses the interrelation of fluidity and flow(s) with immobilities and moorings (Groes/Fernandes, 2018; Beck/Beck-Gernsheim, 2013; Holmes, 2010; Walsh, 2018; Wilding, 2014).

Method: This paper is based on a classic long-term and on-going ethnographic study at a nodal point of a highly mobile demographic: the German community in Southern Tokyo. Overall, the methodology that I employed can best be described as “‘whole-hear­ted’ research methodology” (Walsh, 2017:512) or, inspired by Günel, Varma and Wata­nabe (2020), as “multi method patchwork ethnography” with a focus on daily practices as recounted in narrations and as seen in actions. I relied on a variety of qualitative me­thods like informal group discussions, daily encounters and conversations with members of the community, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with peers and external “experts” like real estate agents, participant observations (overt and covert) at a variety of private and formal (school) events and joint mobilities like commuting and travelling. Furthermore, the data includes autoethnographic accounts. In terms of analysis, I followed an inductive, theory-generating approach and employed several basic and partly intertwined steps of initial, focused and theoretical coding to elicit relevant codes and key themes inherent in my data. I intentionally approached my data as openly as possible, but based on my theoretical perspective and inspired by previous work.

Results: My analysis shows that approaches to doing family as well as the ensuing practices are diverse and dependent on various factors such as the family’s history of living abroad, the family structure and personal interests. Yet, several key practices emerge. These key practices include a variety of mundane practices (of belonging), “homemaking and maintaining”, “travel and visits” as well as (performative) familial displays addressing at least three different audiences, namely the community, the country of origin and the host country. The family practices and displays, which are adapted and (re)negotiated while being abroad, are highly structured by gender and lead to the emergence of gendered spaces with distinctive gendered mobilities and temporalities. The heterosexual nuclear family is not only performed or reproduced, as Wilding (2014:45) argued earlier, but also naturalized in and through the community and narrated in relation to and in distinction from the home and the host country. Overall, the findings show the emergence of transnational spaces that are, however, accompanied by the production of embodied, conceptual and geographical fixities on three levels.

Discussion: In the process of expatriates (and other mobile, elite individuals) doing family, transnational spaces – spaces in-between home and host country – are emerging and being created. However, as spaces always «constitute the sphere of the possibility of the existence of multiplicity» (Hubbard, 2018:1297), these spaces comprise ambivalences and ambiguities: they are, among others, spaces of togetherness and distinction, of belonging and longing as well as of mobilities and fixities. Mobilities and fixities are, however, not opposites, as this study confirms. Rather, they «collapse on one another and become inseparable», as McMorran (2015:97), elaborates on. Inextricably interwoven with various mobilities, the expatriate families produce embodied, conceptual and geographical fixities and (re)negotiate their family practices in relation to and in distinction from their country of origin, the local German community, and the surrounding Japanese host country. Therefore, I argue, it is important to contextualize and situate the doing family of these individuals both in the specific context of the German community in a global city in Japan and the broader context of the global stage with its stickiness. My findings show the need for place-, space- and context-sensitive analyses even among a group of highly mobile families.

Haut de page

Notes

1 https://en.sekaiproperty.com/article/2249/living-in-denenchofu [accessed April 10, 2021].

2 https://www.realestate-tokyo.com/area-guide/denenchofu-jiyugaoka/ [accessed April 10, 2021].

3 Alternative terms include “ex-patriates” (Redfield P., 2012), “migrant professionals” (Meier L., 2014), “transnational professionals” (Coles A., Fechter A.-M., 2008a, 2008b), “mobile professionals” or “privileged migrants” (Fechter A.-M., Walsh K., 2010, 2012), “global elite” (Elliott A., Urry J., 2010), “highly skilled migrants”, “skilled (international) migrants”, “transnational elite”, “transnational capital class” or “developed world migrants” (Meier L., 2014, p.4).

4 This is assessed through the four categories of “availability/cost of childcare and education”, “quality of education”, “family well-being” and “childcare and education options”.

5 Then Prime Minister Abe Shinzō declared the first state of emergency for seven prefectures on April 7, 2020; this was expanded to the entire nation on April 16. A successive lifting of the state of emergency started on May 14 and ended on May 25.

6 Unfortunately, there is no differentiation by nationality and it has to be assumed that the number of households with German nationals is significantly lower (email correspondence; August 28, 2020).

7 As to my knowledge and excluding double earner couples.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Nora Kottmann, « “Doing family” on a global stage »Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques, 52-1 | 2021, 149-169.

Référence électronique

Nora Kottmann, « “Doing family” on a global stage »Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques [En ligne], 52-1 | 2021, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2022, consulté le 29 mars 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rsa/4791 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.4791

Haut de page

Auteur

Nora Kottmann

Principal Researcher, German Institute for Japanese Studies, Tokyo.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search