“Make Japan Great Again” #5_Data Analysis❶

A Philanthropic Scholarship Program and Transnational Youths’ Yaritaikoto for “Social Good”

16 min readMay 30, 2022

This is an excerpt from my 81-page anthropology thesis titled “‘Make Japan Great Again’: An Emerging Class of Transnational Youths and Their Yaritaikoto for ‘Social Good’.”

<Table of Contents>

5. The Extremely Vague Approach to “Social Good”

When I began collecting data, I had multiple questions regarding what the Yanai Foundation means by the “development of Japanese society.” For whom does the Foundation aim to make society better? With what criteria does it determine which applicant is worthy of its $380,000 aid to pursue their yaritaikoto? What is the desirable degree of contribution each scholar should make to society? And finally, within what timeframe should Yanai scholars make a difference?

To these questions, I could not find any satisfactory answer from the scholarship’s website nor Yanai’s autobiographies. On the official website, for example, the “About the Foundation” page mentions that “Yanai Tadashi Foundation approaches social issues in its unique ways and contributes to creating a society where people can independently lead fulfilling lives in mutually respectful manners” (Yanai Tadashi Foundation n.d., emphasis added). On the same page, Yanai himself articulates the vast array of problems and possible solutions:

As we enter a time of unprecedented global challenges and growing anxiety, our future is growing harder to discern and there is no single approach to address these challenges. How do you see and think about the world and our challenges? The perspectives and solutions are countless, but all begin with individual insights and thinking. [emphasis added]

Yanai’s message illustrates the Foundation’s approach to keep its definition of “social good” extremely broad. Therefore, I centered my interviews with program administrators around how they understand the Yanai Foundation’s approach to achieving “social good.” Soon after those conversations, however, I realized that the Foundation actively maintains its vague definition of “social good.” The more I read my interview transcripts, the more lost I felt about the lack of information for my analysis. Eventually, however, I shifted my analytical attention toward the lack of specificity itself.

Examining the meaning of the Foundation’s seemingly meaningless definition of “social good” enabled me to logically make sense of the scholarship’s current structures as well as scholars’ struggles to balance the tension between their yaritaikoto and “social good.” In this chapter, I will elaborate on the extreme ambiguity in both the Foundation’s and scholars’ approaches to “social good” and then make three major claims about the impacts of this ambiguity. First, the vagueness, which does not require scholars to address any specific problem, allows the Foundation to view its international scholarship program primarily as a strategy to revitalize Japan’s declining reputation. Second, because this study-abroad-as-national-reputation-
revitalization model does not seek any tangible change, the Foundation avoids offering any institutional interventions — such as mandatory programs and transparent reports about the use of $15,000 stipends — to facilitate “social good.” Instead, the administrators’ advice focuses on individual efforts, without recognizing societal challenges which most scholars cannot overcome. Finally, despite Yanai scholars’ persisting struggles to find and pursue yaritaikoto that is not purely selfish, the Foundation deflects any critique about the program by emphasizing the lack of a temporal bound for “social good” and analogizing the scholarship program to a long-term investment.

5–1. “Social Good” as Following Yaritaikoto (That Is Not Selfish)

Since the Foundation prioritizes the ability to “help develop Japanese society” as the primary requirement for its admission eligibility, I asked each administrator what they mean by such an ability. Prior to the interviews, I expected those administrators to specify the Foundation’s definition of “social good.” Surprisingly, however, all of them confirmed the ambiguity and further explained their logic behind the Foundation’s approach to “social good.” For instance, Mr. Jackson, an administrator for the program, explicitly stressed that the Foundation does not aim to help specific groups of people:

The development of Japanese society is not about helping a specific group of people. It is about each person pursuing their yaritaikoto. But it is important that you don’t do it for yourself. You should pursue your yaritaikoto not just because you want to do it but also because you can make someone else happy. I guess the bigger the scale [of “social good”] the better, but what’s considered big also depends on each person’s field and topic.

According to his description, the only requirement for “social good” is that scholars do not make a decision based on selfish desires. Additionally, the scale of “social good” remains undefined, because conditions necessary for meaningful change vary from field to field. In other words, as long as one does something for someone (other than oneself) to some degree at some point in one’s life, the Foundation considers that a “social good.”

Another prevalent pattern in the administrators’ narratives around “social good” was the pursuit of one’s own happiness. When asked what the development of Japanese society means, Mr. Sato, another administrator, answered that making oneself happy is the most significant form of “social good.” Immediately after this comment, he specified that his definition of happiness refers to “contributing to others rather than seeking “material wealth or fame.” Put simply, Mr. Sato emphasized that the ideal condition for “social good” is a complete merger between one’s subjective yaritaikoto and objective contribution to others (i.e. anyone besides oneself). Throughout the current and following chapters, I will call this complete successful “altruistic yaritaikoto.” As the Foundation defines social contribution as doing anything for anyone, my use of “altruistic yaritaikoto” does not necessarily indicate what progressive individuals might consider social justice (e.g. centering systematically marginalized people who are most affected by a given issue).

In a similar vein, most of the Yanai scholars I interviewed shared the same idea of “social good” as simply pursuing one’s yaritaikoto. Devin, a graduate from a state university whom I will discuss more in depth later, especially emphasized the idea that “it is impossible to help someone else unless you are already loving what you do.” He further elaborated:

Without enjoying the process of doing something, you couldn’t become competent enough to accomplish anything significant. Even if you are working on an objectively altruistic thing, like volunteering at a homeless shelter, but you are suffering because of it: That’s putting the cart before the horse (本末転倒). So, instead of logically planning in advance to contribute to society, you should just follow your yaritaikoto. If you keep working hard, eventually you will acquire enough capacity to improve society.

Like Devin, many of my interviewees stressed that one must be highly competent to make a difference, which requires an enduring process of trial and error that few people actually enjoy. In other words, following one’s yaritaikoto is an absolute prerequisite for even considering “social good,” let alone achieving it. Consistent with the administrators, several Yanai scholars encouraged their peers to deeply invest in their yaritaikoto first and foremost, without thinking too much about the grand idea of “social good.”

While for whom Yanai scholars make society better can be anyone, socioeconomic demographics of those who achieve “social change” remain vague. As mentioned in the project background section, the cap household income for the Yanai Scholarship is $210,000 per year, which makes over 99% of Japanese people eligible. Moreover, the admission process does not consider any socioeconomic factors that might enable some students to build stronger applications than others. As a result, a notable portion of Yanai scholars, if not all, come from upper-middle class, well-educated, and/or urban backgrounds. Several scholars, including myself, consider the Scholarship’s admission process as fostering the reproduction of an elite class. When I asked for his opinion on this phenomenon, Mr. Sato explained that the Foundation is not intentionally supporting the privileged; instead, it is purely interested in those who want to do “social good”:

If we tightened the annual income cap, would that mean we are discriminating against well-off people? They didn’t choose to be privileged, you know. The Foundation is not intended to support those who work hard in underprivileged circumstances, but those who can do their best to make a better society. Out of necessity to support such individuals, we drew a line at that income level [emphasis mine].

While emphasizing the Foundation’s mission for “social good,” Mr. Sato explicitly denied its intention to mitigate class inequality. The phrase “out of necessity” also implies that a significant portion of those who are capable of making a better society come from economically privileged backgrounds. His quote highlights yet another example of Foundation’s vague approach to “social good.” In the following section, I will discuss how the Yanai Foundation defines “contribution to Japanese society,” especially through transnational elite education.

5–2. Transnational Education to Revitalize National Reputation

Building on to their vague description of “social good,” all of the administrators stressed that they never expect scholars to physically return to Japan upon graduation. Furthermore, they do not actively encourage scholars to work on issues regarding Japan. For example, Mr. Nara, who has been working for the Foundation since its beginning, described the Foundation’s target audience of “social good” as anyone in the world:

By contribution to Japanese society, we mean being a person who does something with the people from around the world. When Yanai says contribution to society, we (administrators) don’t think he wants you to do something strictly for the Japanese people, but he wants you to work for the benefit of people around the world, as a Japanese person [emphasis added].

His comment made me ask: If anyone in the world can benefit from Yanai scholars’ work, how do scholars ever contribute to Japanese society specifically? Would my engagement with on-campus activism that has nothing to do with Japan ever benefit people in Japan? In Mr. Nara’s quote, the key phrase is that Yanai wants scholars to work “with people from around the world … as Japanese [people].” This line indicates that Yanai scholars’ identity as a Japanese citizen plays a significant role in indirectly contributing to Japan’s national reputation. Indeed, my confusion became clear when Mr. Jackson explained how Tadashi Yanai understands the development of Japanese society:

Chancellor Yanai wants more Japanese youths to play a leading role as Japanese citizens. I don’t mean contributing to Japan, but I mean being successful with the Japanese nationality. That, in his opinion, supports the declining Japanese society and I think he wants to make the world think that Japanese people are wonderful. [emphasis added]

As the italicized lines show, Yanai does not care about what scholars accomplish, but about the fact that they accomplish something positive with their Japanese identity. In other words, he views their achievements abroad as symbolic representations of Japan’s success.

Before this research, I was familiar with the idea that Yanai scholars’ successes abroad as Japanese individuals count as contributions to Japan. In theory, if a scholar who has spent their entire life outside of Japan wins a Nobel Prize for their research that is completely unrelated to Japan, the Foundation would still consider it as a contribution to “the development of Japanese society.” The logic follows like this: 1) this Nobel Prize winner has significantly contributed to their research field; 2) they identify themselves as Japanese; 3) media positively portray this Japanese person all over the world; 4) therefore, it creates a positive impression about Japan as a whole. To sum up, the Foundation’s definition of “social good” does not necessarily benefit Japanese people’s lives. Ironically, one of the attendees of my thesis presentation texted me afterwards that my attempt to speak up about the Foundation also “makes Japan great again” and that each one of our successes “encourages other Japanese people.”

Interestingly, this text message about my presentation speaks to why Yanai believes Japanese people need general encouragement in the first place. During the interview, most administrators mentioned Yanai’s deep concern about Japan’s declining presence in the world. When I asked why Yanai started this scholarship program, Mr. Jackson attributed it to his “strong desire to make Japan better” as well as “a sense of crisis about Japan”:

When I read his books before joining the company, I felt his strong sense of crisis regarding Japan’s prolonged stagnation, population decline, and nationwide aging. At the same time, he seems to have a strong feeling for Japanese culture and nationhood and wants to do something about it. [emphasis added]

Cited in this quote, Yanai’s autobiographies contain his pessimistic opinions about Japan as well as Japanese people. His book Face the Reality (2013) extensively critiques Japanese people’s lack of self-awareness about their stagnating economy. To demonstrate his frustrations, Yanai compares Japan’s stagnation particularly with the rapid economic growth in other Asian countries. He explains that those neighboring countries have undergone astonishing transformations “while the Japanese have been idly taking a nap” (Yanai 2013). His anxious comparison between Japan and other Asian countries confirms Mr. Jackson’s comment about Yanai’s desire to support “the declining Japanese society.” Furthermore, Yanai argues that “Japan is no longer worthy of foreign investments” because of the country’s “over-protection of domestic industry, costly social structures, and limited individuals who can succeed beyond Japan” (Yanai 2013). Once again, his comment speaks to Mr. Jackson’s quote: “[Yanai] wants to make the world think that Japanese people are wonderful.” Across his autobiographies, Yanai repeatedly mentions how much he loves his country and wishes to recover his national pride. Therefore, both Yanai’s own words and the scholarship administrators’ comments demonstrate his desire to revitalize Japan’s national reputation through the scholarship program for elite transnational students.

Similar to how Yanai views education as a critical means for national revitalization, many social scientists have studied education as a means for economic mobility and cultural modernization (Guo 1998; Chen & Barnett 2000; Altbach & Teichler 2001; Bai 2008; Bok 2010; Sriprakash 2012). Cultural anthropologist Vanessa Fong (2011), for example, examined how urban Chinese singletons pursued transnational higher education in order to access “flexible citizenship in the developed world.” Instead of earning an elite status from a prestigious domestic degree, those Chinese students in the early 2000s studied abroad, seeking greater happiness and freedom brought by transnational mobility. In contrast with Fong’s research on Chinese students going away from their home country, Arjun Shankar investigates a Bangalore-based education NGO led by diasporic Indian American technocrats coming into India. Through his research project titled How Development Feels: Value in India’s Global-Digital Age (forthcoming), Shankar argues that India’s current development projects view a new class of transnational, upper-middle-class “natives” as the key driver for social change. In his study, Shankar focuses on transnationally-educated elites’ migration into India, as opposed to outward mobility in Fong’s ethnography.

While both Fong and Shankar examine discourses around transnational education as a means for personal and societal development, the Yanai Tadashi Foundation treats study abroad as a means for revitalizing national reputation. Thus, my research on Japan’s study-abroad boom contributes another layer to anthropological discussions of education. Most existing ethnographies emphasized education’s role in upward mobility for citizens of relatively underdeveloped nations. On one hand, Japanese elites’ promotion of study abroad in an effort to revitalize their nation seems to reflect such previous scholarship. On the other hand, the Yanai Foundation does not aim to facilitate upward mobility or fix specific social issues to “develop Japanese society.” This study-abroad-as-national-reputation-revitalization project exemplifies an under-researched aspect of the transnational elite class in Japanese society grappling with its decades-long stagnation. In the next section, I will discuss ways in which the Foundation and Yanai scholars navigate this particular model of transnational education.

5–3. Refusal to Make Institutional Intervention for “Social Good”

Given its definition of “social good” as any action for someone else, the Foundation seeks no tangible outcome for its scholarship program; thus, the vagueness enables the Foundation to avoid making institutional effort to facilitate scholars’ contribution to society. When I shared the purpose of my research as learning how the Yanai Foundation and its scholars understand the idea of “social good,” Mr. Nara attempted to correct my assumption about “social good”:

If you are always thinking about contributing to society, your brain will get all bogged down, so you don’t need to be so concerned about it in the first place. Also, if you become obsessed with it, that will become a pitfall in and of itself. When communicating with scholars, I consciously show that the foundation is not asking for anything. It is up to scholars to figure out what to do, and we trust them. So don’t even worry about the Yanai Foundation. It’s fine as long as you do what is good for society. [emphasis added]

As he continuously emphasized, the Foundation not only refuses to provide institutional interventions, such as required surveys or workshops, but also encourages its scholars not to think about “social good.”

Similarly, Mr. Jackson claimed that the Foundation does not intend to push scholars to make society better. Responding to my question about what he wishes to change about the current program structure, he shared his desire to communicate more frequently with graduated scholars. At the same time, he acknowledged their career and personal conditions that might make such interactions difficult. Mr. Jackson attributed this dilemma to the nature of his relationship with Yanai scholars:

Ideally, we would like to communicate more with foundation students, but if we force all individuals to that ideal, it will result in pressuring them. Since we are only a foundation that gives scholarships, there is no employee-employer relationship. Upset scholars might say “Why do you comment so much about our lives?” So I think it’s important to find someone who can empathize with us. [emphasis added]

He explained that because the Foundation does not impose a corporate hierarchy onto its scholars, administrators cannot — or should not — intervene with how scholars spend their scholarship resources.

Compared to his colleagues, Mr. Sato actively wished Yanai scholars to develop altruistic mindsets during college, yet he still refused to provide any program-wide initiatives to realize his wish. When I asked him what he hopes scholars experience in order to improve society, he responded without hesitation: “I want them to see the world outside of their college, learn different cultures, and realize that the social layer they belong to is among the top of the top 0.1%.” In response, I told him that a few scholars I had interviewed also wished for a required program to reform Yanai scholars’ unawareness about their own privilege. Mr. Sato rejected such an idea, however, arguing that each scholar must face vivid, first-hand experiences in order to understand their privilege. According to him, second-hand information from educational materials would be merely ineffective. Once again, Mr. Sato’s comment highlights Yanai Foundation’s unwillingness to take institutional action to facilitate scholars’ commitment to “social good.” Put another way, the lack of specific goals disables the Foundation to meaningfully assess its commitment to “social good,” which in return allows the administrators to make no organizational efforts for their alleged mission.

5–4. Emotional / Financial Wiggle Room as a Prerequisite for “Social Good”

Instead of institutional interventions, the administrators emphasized the importance of individual mindsets that foster “social-good” practices on the ground. As I asked what kind of experiences the administration wants for Yanai scholars to better contribute to society, all three of them mentioned “deepening self-understanding with a relaxed mindset” (心の余裕を持って自己理解を深めること). While repeating that the Foundation does not expect any specific activity for “social good,” Mr. Nara hoped that scholars would become able to “tackle various things with liberal arts background and a relaxed mind.” Without mental wiggle room, he argued, “it is challenging to objectively reflect on oneself and realize one’s own imperfection.” Likewise, Mr. Jackson advised Yanai scholars to remember the original motivations they had shared during the admission process. He sympathetically assumed that while all scholars articulate their yaritaikoto (i.e. aspirations) before college, their determination may blur as they face personal and environmental ups and downs during college. To counter such negative change, he encourages Yanai scholars to regularly reflect on reasons behind their personal choices.

Similarly, Mr. Sato alluded some scholars’ “success” in pursuing their “altruistic yaritaikoto” to their confidence and a relaxed mind:

I think those who’ve got their yaritaikoto to help people were able to utilize fortunate opportunities because they have continuously taken action, which resulted in formative encounters. … Perhaps, those who can’t take action avoid interacting with people because of their insecurity about themselves? Students who were once successful in Japanese high school might get beaten up in overseas colleges. … I think Yanai scholars who often help out with the Foundation’s events are very chill about their lives. While such scholars have an emotional leeway, many refuse to help us out by saying they are too busy. I don’t know if action-taking students are necessarily competent, but they can spare time thanks to their mental wiggle room. [emphasis added]

As he suspected, some scholars I interviewed did share their sense of insecurity that discouraged them from taking an initiative beyond their comfort zone. While Mr. Sato is remotely aware of their struggles, the administrators never attempt to mitigate their situations whether through making a public statement or modifying the contents of the first-year orientation to address such an issue. The Foundation assumes not only scholars’ individual agency to control their surrounding environment but also a certain degree of privilege that grants them “a relaxed mind” without having to worry about day-to-day survival.

The administrators’ narratives about “deepening self-understanding with mental wiggle room” aligns with Yanai’s comments in his autoethnography. By stating that “[Japan] is on the verge of eradication as a nation-state,” Yanai (2013) refutes a rising claim that “Japan no longer needs to seek economic growth.” He criticizes such an argument as “irresponsible” because:

Nothing comes out of poverty. For their desire to be wealthier, people make innovative, resilient efforts to grow. The idea that it is okay to be poor with a rich heart is nonsense unless you already have material wealth. Could you really lead a purposeful and fulfilling life if you were living from paycheck to paycheck? Poverty inevitably robs people of their dreams and hopes.

Throughout this passage, Yanai promotes economic capital as a prerequisite for “dreams and hopes” to seek a better life. Even though his example seems more extreme than the administrators’ opinions about “mental wiggle room,” they share a similar comparable speculation that one’s motivation as well as ability to achieve a better society relies on one’s financial and/or emotional wiggle room.

Perhaps such a hypothesis contributed to the addition of a $15,000 annual stipend, which most scholars do not even know how to utilize. At least based on my own experiences, this stipend has certainly given me the privilege to pursue my yaritaikoto — from working for an unpaid internship to engaging with on-campus activism — without considering any financial hardships. While the Foundation does not actively intervene with Yanai scholars’ efforts for “social good” (or lack thereof), it does offer fairly complete financial aid and avoid pressuring them to act in certain ways. In doing so, the Foundation hopes to cultivate a “mental wiggle room” (心の余裕), which it deems crucial for realizing “social good.”

Next >> 6. The Disparity between the Foundation and Scholars (Data Analysis #2)