With reference to the following articles, the author Thiam Huat Kam issues the following clarification for readers, and apologizes for any confusion caused.
The common sense that makes the ‘otaku’: rules for consuming popular culture in contemporary Japan
Thiam Huat Kam
Journal: Japan Forum Volume 25, Issue 2, June 2013, pages 151–173
Published online: 20 May 2013 DOI:10.1080/09555803.2012.743481
The Anxieties that Make the ‘Otaku’: Capital and the Common Sense of Consumption in Contemporary Japan
Thiam Huat Kam
Journal: Japanese Studies Volume 33, Issue 1, May 2013, pages 39–61
Published online: 29 May 2013 DOI:10.1080/10371397.2013.768336
The articles cover different aspects of my research on ‘otaku’ labeling. The Japan Forum article explores the rules that are invoked in the labeling of individuals as ‘otaku’. The Japanese Studies article argues that ‘otaku’ labeling is indicative of the anxieties over certain capacities in advanced capitalist Japan. Please allow me to explain the seeming similarities: In both papers, the study of ‘otaku’ as a label is the theoretical position I begin from, based on the application of Howard S. Becker's argument (on deviance) on the ‘otaku’ phenomenon. Beyond this theoretical stance, however, the two articles diverge on the issues and questions discussed, and draw upon different observations.
I offered Kôjien's definition as a dictionary definition of the subject in question (and also for the benefits of readers who are unfamiliar with the term). However, this definition serves a different purpose in each paper. In the Japanese Studies article, I want to point to the similar reference to the commonsensical by both the dictionary and the students I interviewed, and how this indicates that the perception of 'otaku' is far from positive. In the Japan Forum article, I was interrogating the terms of the definition.
I referred to Densha Otoko in both articles, as it is an important marker in the ‘otaku’ phenomenon in Japan. However, each reference was meant to illustrate a different context. In the Japan Forum article, I discussed Densha Otoko as a phenomenon that sparked a renewed interest in ‘otaku’, and the proliferation and diversification of discourses. On the other hand, in the Japanese Studies article, I pointed to the popularity of Densha Otoko as an example on how ‘otaku’ became regarded as contributors to Japan.
While drawing on the same data set, the analysis of a concern over the deployment of imagination and other capacities, and the supporting observation that the label is applied to individuals whose consumption does not lead to monetary rewards, are aspects of my research that are discussed only in the Japanese Studies article.
I thank the editors of Japanese Studies and Japan Forum and the publishers, Routledge, for giving this opportunity to clarify the situation.
Thiam Huat Kam [email protected]