Thoughts on Harmony

Sorry I don't have additional thoughts to provide. However, I've compiled a summary of my lingering thoughts on the last video of UD, which can be seen here:

 Given the things I say in this last video, I’m anticipating major criticisms. They are likely, mostly, legitimate. In hopes of addressing some of them, I have expanded on some points. Not well, but still expanded.

I will update this post as time goes on if criticisms and concerns arise that I think I can answer overall.

Why is it unfocused?

This is closer to a wide analysis. UD 1-3 were closer to deep analysis. In those, I take one major text and look at it as it relates to an idea. This isn’t in the case in UD 4. Here, I look at several ideas and two texts.

It’s mainly because there is no clear breakdown of lineage. There’s a lot more literature on sekai-kei and where it goes, but it moves away from the apocalypse. Tanaka herself ends at sekai-kei before going to Fukushima. I am trying to capture what ‘remains’. Therefore, this work isn’t meant to repeat what’s already said. Rather, it’s an attempt to fill in the gaps in apocalyptic literature.

Is YKK good or bad?

There is no causality. YKK was published before the Aum attack and the Earthquake, so its social capture is abstract. Ashitano himself in an interview on one of the OVA DVDs states that he is aiming to capture moments instead.

As such, don’t take my comments on YKK as indicative of it in any singular lens. I’m looking at it from an apocalyptic perspective. There’s a large amount of work we can use to understand YKK: subjectivity, more Heidegger, and mono no aware.

I’m not saying YKK is bad, but rather it is touching upon ideas that are arguably problematic. The idea of ‘harmony’ – something far outside my expertise – is very much present in YKK. If we understand the apocalypse as a system, then we can see how that harmony exists and what it does to people. Whether that is good or bad is up to you, but I wanted to stress that it wasn’t just something platitudinal.

The Nichijokei and Endless Everyday aren’t the same thing!

Sure they aren’t. Hell, nichijokei / kuuki-kei aren’t even considered that much in apocalyptic discourse. Not once does Tanaka mention them in her book. Looking at Chialistic studies, there’s no mention of them at all as well.

But Endless Everyday is. I link the two because while they are different, they capture some similar ideas. In the 80s leading to the early 90s, Endless Everyday was a real idea (even if not explicitly labelled). People might expand this to be a malaise or anomie from the ‘loss of a grand narrative’. Things felt a little directionless.

When we go into nichijokei, that endlessness is powerful. The continuousness. Meaning is no longer granted. Let the system decide.

Why no sabaibukei?

Enh, just watch Sent’s video on it. He got the main gist of it. Only thing is missing is Tsunehiro’s outline of the role of the game in social equalization.

That train of thought is where we run into problems.

Of course, this assumes I understood the nichijokei and Endless Everyday. Odds are I didn’t. That happens a lot.

Are you implying iyashikei are apocalyptic?

No. Neither are nichijokei. Neither are necessarily Endless Everyday. I chose YKK and SnW because they are both pretty unique texts.

How do they relate to EVA, Akira, etc.?

I’m not entirely sure. I think that’s why Tanaka never focused on them. Motoko Tanaka wants to build a clear lineage of apocalyptic texts; I didn’t. I just wanted to understand them however I could. And there’s such sparse academic literature on YKK (Hairston’s 2008 is the only piece I can find focusing on it specifically) and SnW. Usually that’s normal, but to me they play with so many ideas that Tanaka herself brings forward that I thought to look at them.

Why no Kimi no na wa?

I haven’t watched it yet. I’m reading some comments coming out of Japan and in the west, but I just haven’t watched it yet. For that reason, I didn’t pursue sekaikei any further.

Why does your video end inconclusively?

Because the effects and topics revolving around Fukushima and the apocalypse are inconclusive. As of this post, it has only been five years since Fukushima. That is still a short period of time. The bomb remains a fixture today. Fukushima will be around for a while. I don’t want to put a bookend when I don’t believe this topic deserves one.