project-blog-for-college

[project-blog-for-college]

Here are some more examples of 70s/80s style and clothing:

“Kawaii” Culture: The Omnipresence and Power of Cuteness

What is Kawaii?: Origin and history

When you hear the word “kawaii”, what do you think it means? Do you think of its common translation “cute”? Do you think of “sweetness” or “youth"? Does it matter what it means? Is “kawaii” as a concept worthy of more consideration?

The Japanese word “kawaii” is hard to describe in simple terms or synonyms. Kawaii first originated as the word “kawayushi” in the Taisho period, lasting until 1945 where it then became “kawayui"(Kinsella 221). The latter lasted until 1970 where it finally transitioned into the kawaii we know today(Kinsella 221-222). These words had two essential meanings: one being shy or embarrassed and two being pathetic, vulnerable, small, and lovable (Kinsella 221-222). Today’s concept of “kawaii” may seem more simplistic. To be kawaii is to be“cute”. A kind of childishness, innocence, and a rejection of adulthood. All of which is true, but as we continue further, kawaii may have more depth than at first glance. 

The Kawaii we know today got its start in the 70s with an underground youth movement that began with “cute handwriting craze and childish fashion” (Kinsella 222). This cute handwriting, while seemingly innocuous, was actually a form of handwriting that drove teachers crazy. Cute handwriting tended to be rounded with thin lines, laterally written, with cute doodles and English sprinkled in (Kinsella 222). This cute handwriting was in opposition to the more traditional and solemn style that was taught and expected, becoming one piece of the growing rebellion against tradition and conformity wrapped up in a cute package.

However, the rebellion was not to last underground as businesses quickly caught onto the potential market of youth. It was here in the 70s that consumer culture truly set the stage for kawaii as cute products began to saturate the market. One of the biggest corporate success stories is probably Sanrio, who started out selling cute stationery before branching out into a wide variety of merchandise (Kinsella 226). This eventually led to the staple of Sanrio: their mascots. While they have many, Hello Kitty and Tuxedo Sam are the most well known, the former of which has probably become nearly synonymous with “kawaii”. Most women as a child, regardless of whether they were into cute things or not, remember having or knowing someone who had at least one outfit or accessory with the image of Hello Kitty.

Aside from stationery, plushies, and personal items tied to mascots however, “kawaii” is also very much a kind of fashion style. In the 70s, it was all about pastels and light colors, frills, fluff, and lace (Kinsella 229). The late 80s saw a shift to a more androgynous style, a kind of “tomboy sweetness” that saw a rise in more male participation (Kinsella 229-230, 243).

Today’s kawaii fashion has developed several “subcultures” of kawaii. For example:

Lolita

And Yami Kawaii. Can you think of any more?

Kawaii came into being spontaneously through the rebellious hearts of late 1960s and 1970s Japan’s youth before being capitalized by businesses eager for a new market. However, the late 80s and early 90s actually saw a decline of interest (Sato 40). While there did seem to be more inclusivity and there was interest, it seemed to have fallen out of favor with the trends and the industry started to stagnate (Sato 40). It wasn’t until the economic bubble burst of the 90s that companies made a mad scramble to return to “kawaii” merchandise hoping to save their profits both nationally and abroad (Sato 40). The fervor for cute things hasn’t died out since.

Contemporary Kawaii

The Marketability of Kawaii

When you hear the word “kawaii”, what do you think of? Is the first thing that pops into your head a general concept? Is it a particular array of colors? Or is it more tangible such as a piece of clothing? A stationery item? Maybe a fictional character or mascot? For example, the aforementioned Hello Kitty and Tuxedo Sam? Even Pokemon could be considered “kawaii”!

Whatever you think of, I guarantee you can buy it. Kawaii comes in every consumer product available whether that is paraphernalia, stationery, fashion, household appliances, or even houses and apartments (Kinsella 226-228). The increasing disposable income of youth and women meant that the market was ripe with potential customers (Kinsella 245). Furthermore, “kawaii” seemed to encourage the pursuit of pleasure, and due to societal constraints, it was impossible to be cute all the time which often meant that “kawaii” often took the form of products (Kinsella 245). Kawaii, far from discouraging like other contemporary youth movements, actively condoned materialism and displays of wealth and made cute accessible almost exclusively through consumption (Kinsella 245-246). 

And consume they did. Take a look at the economic power of Hello Kitty’s cuteness for example. In 1990, Sanrio sold around 200 billion yen worth of products and an estimated 10 trillion yen turnover nationwide (Kinsella 226). And in 2002, Sanrio recorded a $96 million profit for North and South America (Sato 38). The power of Hello Kitty is so powerful that in 2008, Sanrio opened a luxury store in New York City that replaced their original line of plushies and stationery with “designer fashions, diamond-encrusted watches, and finely crafted luggage —with prices to match— all bearing the characteristic Hello Kitty logo… Many items… [sold] out quickly to Japanese, American, and European buyers, in spite of the global recession” (Yano 682). 

There’s plenty more examples too.  In 2012, a news story remarked that the licensed character industry, or mascots, was worth 30 billions dollars a year (AFP). And a “kawaii” baking goods website called Cotta recorded a record profit of $81 million in revenue as of 2021 (Forbes). Clearly, there is plenty of money to be made in the industry, at home and abroad. Christine R. Yano calls this “widespread distribution and consumption of Japanese cute goods and aesthetics to other parts of the industrial world” “pink-globalization” (Yano 682). A global industry of kawaii. 

But what makes something “kawaii”, and why is it such a honey trap for people’s wallets?

Let’s turn once again to Hello Kitty, this celebrity veteran of kawaii culture. What is it about this character that appeals to us? According to Sharon Kinsella, the key to a successful “kawaii” mascot was to be “small, soft, infantile… round, [without appendages or orifices], non-sexual, mute, insecure, helpless, or bewildered” (Kinsella 226). Take a look at this image of 1970s Hello Kitty. How well do you think she fits this concept? 

Amy T. Y Lai notes that “the round, hence childlike features of Hello Kitty make her a symbol of cuteness. In fact, save her ribbon that indicates that she is a ‘female,' there is not a single sign that betrays her real 'biological sex’ —this also makes her 'asexual.' Overall, her immaculate whiteness connotes an aura of incorruptible innocence” (Lai 244). To be cute was to be naturally childish, naive, and innocent (K 237). Something that’s still in all of us, though suppressed in adulthood, which is why we look to kawaii products and characters for relief (Kinsella 241). It allows us to take a “sentimental journey back into an idealized childhood” (Kinsella 241). 

According to Kinsella, however, kawaii wasn’t just childishness and innocence. What makes this character cute is also their disability and helplessness. “Cute things can’t talk, can’t walk, can’t in fact do anything at all for themselves… Cute fashion was all about becoming cute by infantilizing oneself, denying maturity and wisdom; people became popular in cute culture by their weakness, dependence, and inability rather than strengths and wisdom” (Kinsella 236-237). 

The popularity of kawaii mascots was thus relevant to one’s sense of power over the object, putting themselves in the position to pity the other and project their own feelings and desires onto them. Hello Kitty’s mouthless face for example, means that you can impart whatever feeling you want onto her. Lai notes that “Hello Kitty… has no essential meaning. Its meaning(s) ultimately depends on whatever its consumers are willing to bestow on it in the process of consumption” (Lai 249). 

However, this appearance of powerlessness didn’t necessarily translate to an actual lack of power. In fact, as we will learn, there can be power found in the performance of innocence.

The Political Power of Kawaii

Kawaii culture did not start out as something to be consumed, although its identity is now largely tied up with consumption. Kawaii did, however, start off as something political. Remember that “kawaii” originally started as a youth rebellion, a way for youth to defy expectations to “grow-up” and contribute to a strict and conforming society. While it may be tempting to brush off an ultimately harmless act of civil disobedience, it is still a political act, especially when the original core of kawaii was to question and critique Japanese social norms and order. A critique of the country and its values itself. 

No better can you see this than by looking at how men and women utilized kawaii for exploring their own masculinity and femininity. According to Kinsella, cute culture has mainly been for women, and while men were also there, they were usually relegated to the background (Kinsella 243). It wasn’t until the 80s when the style became more androgynous and “asexually infantile” that men became more noticeable (Kinsella 243). Apparently there is a greater freedom for young, unmarried women because their oppression and exclusion has precluded them from active social roles, circumstances the men didn’t have (Kinsella 244). Cute culture was thus a way for men to escape social pressures and expectations (Kinsella 244). Meanwhile, women used cuteness to try and remain young and unmarried as married adult life presented a reality more oppressive than that of a male office worker (Kinsella 244). 

For women, this is best exemplified in 1980s burikko idols, burikko meaning those who acted almost unbearably cutesy, denying social responsibility and maturity (Sato 39). “The popular term shōjo, [or] “females between puberty and marriage”” also reflects this refusal to join adulthood” (Sato 39). For men though, Sato remarks that: 

“Contemporary youth in an economic recession [seemed] more skeptical about the concept of masculinity measured against work and marriage. Popular culture closely mirrors men’s reluctance to “become a man” through the growing popularity of effeminate men in the mass media… contemporary men seem to be reinventing the alternative culture that was once vigorously explored by the most “unproductive” population, i.e., women and children. Cuteness also has become a key for men who are exploring unconventional gender models that exist across paradigms of masculinity and femininity” (Sato 40-41). 

In summary, kawaii culture was a way for both men and women to deny and revolt against social pressures and expectations. For men, it had the added bonus of allowing them to explore their own gender and sexuality. Unlike more confrontational groups, kawaii made any backlashes the equivalent to punching cotton. People used its passive and “inferior” position to strategically create space in society for themselves to breathe. I think Sato states it best when they say that “the current trend, seen in the symbiosis of cuteness and aggressiveness, further complicates kawaii as an icon of defiance and resistance of the oppressed groups to traditional gender norms and procreative roles. Cuteness today is a means for expressing identity from the margin of society where powerlessness can lead into subversion” (Sato 41). 

But just as companies were quick to spot the potential market and profits and jumped on board, so were businesses and governments to jump in when they saw the potential persuasive and diplomatic power. 

Popularized by Joseph Nye, “soft power” is “the ability to indirectly influence behavior or interests through cultural or ideological means” (Yano 683). This can mean a government at any level using soft power to persuade their citizens to comply with certain guidelines or encourage them to take part in a campaign. Abroad, this can mean changing the image other nations have of your own and influencing the decisions they make based on this assumption. 

Luigi Zeni writes an interesting article about the use of the popular and kawaii Pokemon “Slowpoke” for a publicity stunt for the prefecture. On April 1st, Slowpoke (also known as Yandon), was named the new governor and statements were made that the Kagawa prefecture would be renamed after the cute mascot (Zeni). Although this was obviously a prank, there’s much to be said about the political use of mascots. For slowpoke, the prefecture used him as an advertisement for the commercial sector, encouraging tourists to try out specialties and discover unique manhole coverings (Zeni). On the political side, Slowpoke was often used in political campaigns and events as a disarming tool to create a pleasant and pliant atmosphere (Zeni). Looking at it through a more critical lens, the use of kawaii in politics can be incredibly manipulative, two-faced, and even almost dystopian. Zeni summarizes this with the quote:

“It is, thus, part of the political strategy of the prefecture to appear as a cute, harmless government in the eyes of its citizens and to soften the serious and resolute approach usually taken when dealing with political matters. In this regard, the presence of kawaii is strategically enacted by political and commercial bodies in order to reduce the distance between corporations and clients and to present politicians as non-threatening and likable. Instead of confronting and arguing, the instrumental and profitable presence of such cute mascots in a political environment transforms political authority into a fetish of consumption while entertaining the masses and dispelling negative associations” (Zeni).

Mascots for politicians and political groups were bad enough. But it can get even worse – there’s even mascots for police stations and even prisons! Pipo-kun is a well-known mascot for the Tokyo police department, one of 47 other mascots, one for each prefecture department. Each has their own unique design although they remain cute in every instance. The same goes for mascots that represent Japan’s prisons and juvenile detention centers. The Katakkuri-chan mascot, a warden with a giant purple flower for hair, represents the Ashikawa prison in the hopes of softening the grim image of the facility (and perhaps have you look the other way from their rep of treating their inmates inhumanely).

Clearly, the Japanese government has found much use in softening their image for their citizens. But what about abroad? “Soft power” utilizes the phenomenon of “cultural diffusion”, which is the dissemination of one culture’s practices, beliefs, and items to another, incidentally or deliberately. We already discussed the power of pink globalization to reach audiences across the globe, so it’s not hard to imagine how much of the ideology of kawaii culture has influenced its patrons. 

But regardless of how kawaii has reached individuals, how much power can it actually wield at an international level? The answer is quite a lot actually. The image of Japan globally after World War Ⅱ was unpleasant to put it lightly. The image of greedy, dishonorable, cruel war-mongers  made for bad business and bad diplomacy. It’s hard to recover an economy or establish beneficial relations with other countries when the other is constantly on guard, showing reluctance to trust or even interact with you. That’s why the use of kawaii as a form of soft power was a fairly genius stroke of luck.

That’s not to say that the Japanese government was trying to cover anything up. They didn’t really need to. Just look at the case where the United States forgave Japan for their war crimes against U.S pow in return for getting the results of their horrific experiments. Kawaii wasn’t used for some cover-up and some people might theorize. That’s just a conspiracy theory. However, the political application of kawaii is real. 

Kawaii allows Japan to appear disarming and harmless. There’s less resistance to be had if there doesn’t appear to be a threat. “In this regard, Japanese cute—including its tease of youth and femininity—has become part of official policy in creating a new face that beckons the overseas customer” (Yano 685). Tran also writes, 

“Japan has… managed to rebrand itself as a different kind of global power through the rigorous export of kawaii goods from the 1960s onward. Koichi Iwabuchi identifies “cultural deodorization” as Japan’s self-conscious attempt to evacuate any overt markers of racial otherness/foreignness from cultural products in order to gain entry into desirable consumer markets. The culturally deodorized product serves as the embodiment of the country of origin in its best, least offensive form, and for Japan that form is kawaii—the antithesis of its World War II image as an imperial aggressor” (Tran 21). 

This concept of selling an image goes not just for the packaging of goods to foreign countries, however, but also for the selling of ideas and diplomacy in political settings. Japan sells not just products but a persona. The prevalent impression of Japan as a land of high-tech and cuteness is reproduced again and again through photos of young women in cute clothes wearing cute accessories with cute stationery in cute rooms filled with posters and figurines of cute mascots and anime girls. With this kind of image, people tend to grow more positive opinions and are more likely to be persuaded. In much the same way as mascots are used to soften images of government and civil workers, and influence their citizens, similar tactics are used on diplomats and world news. 

In summary, kawaii in politics uses soft power, specifically their “brand image”, to negotiate their place on the global hierarchy and in the global markets. While using kawaii as a political tactic ensures that Japan will be inherently subordinate to some, it’s a trade off for better allies and trade agreements that wouldn’t exist had their reputation not been improved. 

Nevertheless, while kawaii in politics has its benefits, there are still many who critique this kind of political strategy. There are also many who critique it as a culture in itself. What do you think? Can you think of any critiques people may have about “kawaii” as either a culture or as a political tool?

Critiques of “Kawaii”

We’ll start with critiques of  Japan's use of “soft power” and kawaii as a political tool. I already let it slip a bit in the earlier section, but I believe other people may agree that the use of kawaii as a way to let people’s guard down for persuasion or to belatedly boost a positive image of a prison that has been criticized for cruelty is not only deceptive but a bit dystopian. It’s something you would expect to see in a horror-action game as some kind of social commentary. It’s like putting a cute mascot band-aid on a cracked wall about to fall apart. It’s a mask. 

Other people have problems with Japan’s image as kawaii as something that is infantilizing and ruins respect for the country. “There [was] concern that the new cultural capital in youth-oriented, feminized cuteness trivializes Japan as infantile and superficial” (Yano 684). While kawaii politics may have given Japan a leg up in certain circumstances, it had the downside of making it hard for other countries to take them seriously. Tran’s article is actually something of a critique of kawaii culture, noting that: 

“The success of kawaii goods in the United States and elsewhere hinges on the way kawaii packages racial otherness/foreignness in a nonthreatening manner. In taking seriously the soft power of kawaii, this essay does not endorse cute consumerism but rather calls attention to how kawaii renders visible radically uneven power relations and invites the productive reimagining of power within and through conditions of heightened constraint, dependency, and vulnerability” (Tran 21-22). 

Remember Japan’s position after World War Ⅱ. They had suffered heavy losses in the war, and had been occupied by American forces. They were stripped of their right to keep an army and the fate of their country’s future rested largely on the decisions of foreigners. It was emasculating. To Tran “The rapid, unprecedented expansion of kawaii cultural industries in Japan after World War II points to kawaii’s consolidation as an aesthetic-affective response to the nation’s unconditional surrender. As an aesthetic of smallness, weakness, and helplessness, kawaii registers the trauma of the atomic bombing and Japan’s diminished sense of itself as a military power” (Tran 21).

In this argument, kawaii isn’t some master strategy, but a manifestation of their loss of status and position. Of them becoming subordinate to the whims and favors of others.

Aside from global politics however, critics also had something to say about the effects of kawaii culture on Japan’s society. Some of these critiques are from genuine concern, while others seem to be looking for a scapegoat. Nevertheless, they all point to a general discomfort and unease about the position of Japan as a passive and feminized identity.

In the 70s and 80s, critiques were a bit different than what they are today. This was a time of relative passivity from the youth, quite different from the revolts and student protests of the 60s (Kinsella 246). However, this passive stance was what angered them, believing they were shirking responsibility and duties to society and their traditional roles of company man and housewife (Kinsella 246-247). They were afraid of the youth seeking pleasure through consumption than of moral satisfaction from fulfilling their social obligations. Furthermore, they considered “cuties” to be “infantile”, “effeminate”, and “tasteless”, often considering “infantile” interchangeable with “feminine” (Kinsella 248). This was part of a trend of blaming women for the feminization of society, making them scapegoats for economic, political, and personal problems (Kinsella 249). 

Men were encouraged to see (manipulative, choosy, cute) women at fault for their woes as they were responsible for their humiliation by making unreasonable demands and using them for money and favors (Kinsella 249). Of course this was just a perception. The first half of the 80s saw more women in the workplace than ever before but this was also seen as selfish as it was taking away jobs from men and denying them marriage partners (Kinsella 249). Cute was thus inherently selfish as it rejected social obligations.

Today’s critics are a little less misogynistic (although these complaints haven’t disappeared). Many of them, I actually agree with. There’s been more concern with materialism and consumption, and there’s also been a concern about the infantilization of women. The latter specifically is concerned with women being taken less seriously even in professional situations as they are placed on the same level as children. There are also legitimate concerns about lolicons and the fetishization of youth. While kawaii is about being child-like and innocent, it isn’t devoid of sexuality. And while this isn’t necessarily bad in itself, there are those who have taken advantage of kawaii culture to justify their desires for actual children. 

Suffice to say, there is a mixture of genuine worry about the effects of kawaii culture and of barely-masked prejudice and discrimination. But how are we to deal with these concerns? How do you think these fears should be abated?

Conclusion

Now that you’ve come to the end, what do you think kawaii looks like? Is it a dream of childlike innocence, or is it a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Does kawaii deserve any of its reputations? Does it have any power? And do you think any of it matters?

Although we’ve covered how kawaii came to be, what kind of ideologies it has, and the appearances it takes in economics and politics, there are still two questions that I want you to think about.

Does “kawaii” have any meaning? And does it have a future?

Sources

Kinsella, Sharon. “Cuties in Japan.” In Women, Media and Consumption in Japan, edited by Lise Skov and Brian Moeran, 220-254. London: Routledge, 1995. PDF.

Lai, Amy T.Y. “CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Consuming ‘Hello Kitty’: Tween Icon, Sexy Cute, and the Changing Meaning of ‘Girlhood.’” Counterpoints 245 (2005): 242–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978703.

Tran, Sharon. “Kawaii Asian Girls Save the Day! Animating a Minor Politics of Care.” MELUS 43, no. 3 (2018): 19–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26566151.

Sato, Kumiko. “From Hello Kitty To Cod Roe Kewpie: A Postwar Cultural History of Cuteness in Japan.” Education About Asia 14, no. 2 (2009): 38-42. https://www.asianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/from-hello-kitty-to-cod-roe-kewpie-a-postwar-cultural-history-of-cuteness-in-japanA.pdf

Yano, Christine R. “Wink on Pink: Interpreting Japanese Cute as It Grabs the Global Headlines.” The Journal of Asian Studies 68, no. 3 (2009): 681–88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619791.

Zeni, Luigi. “Social and Political Use of ‘Kawaii’: The Case of Yadon and the Kagawa Prefecture.” Wasshoi!. Wasshoi! Magazine. Accessed May 1, 2023. https://www.wasshoimagazine.org/blog/curiosities-of-the-japanese-culture/social-and-political-use-of-kawaii-the-case-of-yadon-and-the-kagawa-prefecture.

[project-blog-for-college]

“Kawaii” Culture: The Omnipresence and Power of Cuteness

What is Kawaii?: Origin and history

When you hear the word “kawaii”, what do you think it means? Do you think of its common translation “cute”? Do you think of “sweetness” or “youth"? Does it matter what it means? Is “kawaii” as a concept worthy of more consideration?

The Japanese word “kawaii” is hard to describe in simple terms or synonyms. Kawaii first originated as the word “kawayushi” in the Taisho period, lasting until 1945 where it then became “kawayui"(Kinsella 221). The latter lasted until 1970 where it finally transitioned into the kawaii we know today(Kinsella 221-222). These words had two essential meanings: one being shy or embarrassed and two being pathetic, vulnerable, small, and lovable (Kinsella 221-222). Today’s concept of “kawaii” may seem more simplistic. To be kawaii is to be“cute”. A kind of childishness, innocence, and a rejection of adulthood. All of which is true, but as we continue further, kawaii may have more depth than at first glance. 

The Kawaii we know today got its start in the 70s with an underground youth movement that began with “cute handwriting craze and childish fashion” (Kinsella 222). This cute handwriting, while seemingly innocuous, was actually a form of handwriting that drove teachers crazy. Cute handwriting tended to be rounded with thin lines, laterally written, with cute doodles and English sprinkled in (Kinsella 222). This cute handwriting was in opposition to the more traditional and solemn style that was taught and expected, becoming one piece of the growing rebellion against tradition and conformity wrapped up in a cute package.

However, the rebellion was not to last underground as businesses quickly caught onto the potential market of youth. It was here in the 70s that consumer culture truly set the stage for kawaii as cute products began to saturate the market. One of the biggest corporate success stories is probably Sanrio, who started out selling cute stationery before branching out into a wide variety of merchandise (Kinsella 226). This eventually led to the staple of Sanrio: their mascots. While they have many, Hello Kitty and Tuxedo Sam are the most well known, the former of which has probably become nearly synonymous with “kawaii”. Most women as a child, regardless of whether they were into cute things or not, remember having or knowing someone who had at least one outfit or accessory with the image of Hello Kitty.

Aside from stationery, plushies, and personal items tied to mascots however, “kawaii” is also very much a kind of fashion style. In the 70s, it was all about pastels and light colors, frills, fluff, and lace (Kinsella 229). The late 80s saw a shift to a more androgynous style, a kind of “tomboy sweetness” that saw a rise in more male participation (Kinsella 229-230, 243).

Today’s kawaii fashion has developed several “subcultures” of kawaii. For example:

Lolita

And Yami Kawaii. Can you think of any more?

Kawaii came into being spontaneously through the rebellious hearts of late 1960s and 1970s Japan’s youth before being capitalized by businesses eager for a new market. However, the late 80s and early 90s actually saw a decline of interest (Sato 40). While there did seem to be more inclusivity and there was interest, it seemed to have fallen out of favor with the trends and the industry started to stagnate (Sato 40). It wasn’t until the economic bubble burst of the 90s that companies made a mad scramble to return to “kawaii” merchandise hoping to save their profits both nationally and abroad (Sato 40). The fervor for cute things hasn’t died out since.

Contemporary Kawaii

The Marketability of Kawaii

When you hear the word “kawaii”, what do you think of? Is the first thing that pops into your head a general concept? Is it a particular array of colors? Or is it more tangible such as a piece of clothing? A stationery item? Maybe a fictional character or mascot? For example, the aforementioned Hello Kitty and Tuxedo Sam? Even Pokemon could be considered “kawaii”!

Whatever you think of, I guarantee you can buy it. Kawaii comes in every consumer product available whether that is paraphernalia, stationery, fashion, household appliances, or even houses and apartments (Kinsella 226-228). The increasing disposable income of youth and women meant that the market was ripe with potential customers (Kinsella 245). Furthermore, “kawaii” seemed to encourage the pursuit of pleasure, and due to societal constraints, it was impossible to be cute all the time which often meant that “kawaii” often took the form of products (Kinsella 245). Kawaii, far from discouraging like other contemporary youth movements, actively condoned materialism and displays of wealth and made cute accessible almost exclusively through consumption (Kinsella 245-246). 

And consume they did. Take a look at the economic power of Hello Kitty’s cuteness for example. In 1990, Sanrio sold around 200 billion yen worth of products and an estimated 10 trillion yen turnover nationwide (Kinsella 226). And in 2002, Sanrio recorded a $96 million profit for North and South America (Sato 38). The power of Hello Kitty is so powerful that in 2008, Sanrio opened a luxury store in New York City that replaced their original line of plushies and stationery with “designer fashions, diamond-encrusted watches, and finely crafted luggage —with prices to match— all bearing the characteristic Hello Kitty logo… Many items… [sold] out quickly to Japanese, American, and European buyers, in spite of the global recession” (Yano 682). 

There’s plenty more examples too.  In 2012, a news story remarked that the licensed character industry, or mascots, was worth 30 billions dollars a year (AFP). And a “kawaii” baking goods website called Cotta recorded a record profit of $81 million in revenue as of 2021 (Forbes). Clearly, there is plenty of money to be made in the industry, at home and abroad. Christine R. Yano calls this “widespread distribution and consumption of Japanese cute goods and aesthetics to other parts of the industrial world” “pink-globalization” (Yano 682). A global industry of kawaii. 

But what makes something “kawaii”, and why is it such a honey trap for people’s wallets?

Let’s turn once again to Hello Kitty, this celebrity veteran of kawaii culture. What is it about this character that appeals to us? According to Sharon Kinsella, the key to a successful “kawaii” mascot was to be “small, soft, infantile… round, [without appendages or orifices], non-sexual, mute, insecure, helpless, or bewildered” (Kinsella 226). Take a look at this image of 1970s Hello Kitty. How well do you think she fits this concept? 

Amy T. Y Lai notes that “the round, hence childlike features of Hello Kitty make her a symbol of cuteness. In fact, save her ribbon that indicates that she is a ‘female,' there is not a single sign that betrays her real 'biological sex’ —this also makes her 'asexual.' Overall, her immaculate whiteness connotes an aura of incorruptible innocence” (Lai 244). To be cute was to be naturally childish, naive, and innocent (K 237). Something that’s still in all of us, though suppressed in adulthood, which is why we look to kawaii products and characters for relief (Kinsella 241). It allows us to take a “sentimental journey back into an idealized childhood” (Kinsella 241). 

According to Kinsella, however, kawaii wasn’t just childishness and innocence. What makes this character cute is also their disability and helplessness. “Cute things can’t talk, can’t walk, can’t in fact do anything at all for themselves… Cute fashion was all about becoming cute by infantilizing oneself, denying maturity and wisdom; people became popular in cute culture by their weakness, dependence, and inability rather than strengths and wisdom” (Kinsella 236-237). 

The popularity of kawaii mascots was thus relevant to one’s sense of power over the object, putting themselves in the position to pity the other and project their own feelings and desires onto them. Hello Kitty’s mouthless face for example, means that you can impart whatever feeling you want onto her. Lai notes that “Hello Kitty… has no essential meaning. Its meaning(s) ultimately depends on whatever its consumers are willing to bestow on it in the process of consumption” (Lai 249). 

However, this appearance of powerlessness didn’t necessarily translate to an actual lack of power. In fact, as we will learn, there can be power found in the performance of innocence.

The Political Power of Kawaii

Kawaii culture did not start out as something to be consumed, although its identity is now largely tied up with consumption. Kawaii did, however, start off as something political. Remember that “kawaii” originally started as a youth rebellion, a way for youth to defy expectations to “grow-up” and contribute to a strict and conforming society. While it may be tempting to brush off an ultimately harmless act of civil disobedience, it is still a political act, especially when the original core of kawaii was to question and critique Japanese social norms and order. A critique of the country and its values itself. 

No better can you see this than by looking at how men and women utilized kawaii for exploring their own masculinity and femininity. According to Kinsella, cute culture has mainly been for women, and while men were also there, they were usually relegated to the background (Kinsella 243). It wasn’t until the 80s when the style became more androgynous and “asexually infantile” that men became more noticeable (Kinsella 243). Apparently there is a greater freedom for young, unmarried women because their oppression and exclusion has precluded them from active social roles, circumstances the men didn’t have (Kinsella 244). Cute culture was thus a way for men to escape social pressures and expectations (Kinsella 244). Meanwhile, women used cuteness to try and remain young and unmarried as married adult life presented a reality more oppressive than that of a male office worker (Kinsella 244). 

For women, this is best exemplified in 1980s burikko idols, burikko meaning those who acted almost unbearably cutesy, denying social responsibility and maturity (Sato 39). “The popular term shōjo, [or] “females between puberty and marriage”” also reflects this refusal to join adulthood” (Sato 39). For men though, Sato remarks that: 

“Contemporary youth in an economic recession [seemed] more skeptical about the concept of masculinity measured against work and marriage. Popular culture closely mirrors men’s reluctance to “become a man” through the growing popularity of effeminate men in the mass media… contemporary men seem to be reinventing the alternative culture that was once vigorously explored by the most “unproductive” population, i.e., women and children. Cuteness also has become a key for men who are exploring unconventional gender models that exist across paradigms of masculinity and femininity” (Sato 40-41). 

In summary, kawaii culture was a way for both men and women to deny and revolt against social pressures and expectations. For men, it had the added bonus of allowing them to explore their own gender and sexuality. Unlike more confrontational groups, kawaii made any backlashes the equivalent to punching cotton. People used its passive and “inferior” position to strategically create space in society for themselves to breathe. I think Sato states it best when they say that “the current trend, seen in the symbiosis of cuteness and aggressiveness, further complicates kawaii as an icon of defiance and resistance of the oppressed groups to traditional gender norms and procreative roles. Cuteness today is a means for expressing identity from the margin of society where powerlessness can lead into subversion” (Sato 41). 

But just as companies were quick to spot the potential market and profits and jumped on board, so were businesses and governments to jump in when they saw the potential persuasive and diplomatic power. 

Popularized by Joseph Nye, “soft power” is “the ability to indirectly influence behavior or interests through cultural or ideological means” (Yano 683). This can mean a government at any level using soft power to persuade their citizens to comply with certain guidelines or encourage them to take part in a campaign. Abroad, this can mean changing the image other nations have of your own and influencing the decisions they make based on this assumption. 

Luigi Zeni writes an interesting article about the use of the popular and kawaii Pokemon “Slowpoke” for a publicity stunt for the prefecture. On April 1st, Slowpoke (also known as Yandon), was named the new governor and statements were made that the Kagawa prefecture would be renamed after the cute mascot (Zeni). Although this was obviously a prank, there’s much to be said about the political use of mascots. For slowpoke, the prefecture used him as an advertisement for the commercial sector, encouraging tourists to try out specialties and discover unique manhole coverings (Zeni). On the political side, Slowpoke was often used in political campaigns and events as a disarming tool to create a pleasant and pliant atmosphere (Zeni). Looking at it through a more critical lens, the use of kawaii in politics can be incredibly manipulative, two-faced, and even almost dystopian. Zeni summarizes this with the quote:

“It is, thus, part of the political strategy of the prefecture to appear as a cute, harmless government in the eyes of its citizens and to soften the serious and resolute approach usually taken when dealing with political matters. In this regard, the presence of kawaii is strategically enacted by political and commercial bodies in order to reduce the distance between corporations and clients and to present politicians as non-threatening and likable. Instead of confronting and arguing, the instrumental and profitable presence of such cute mascots in a political environment transforms political authority into a fetish of consumption while entertaining the masses and dispelling negative associations” (Zeni).

Mascots for politicians and political groups were bad enough. But it can get even worse – there’s even mascots for police stations and even prisons! Pipo-kun is a well-known mascot for the Tokyo police department, one of 47 other mascots, one for each prefecture department. Each has their own unique design although they remain cute in every instance. The same goes for mascots that represent Japan’s prisons and juvenile detention centers. The Katakkuri-chan mascot, a warden with a giant purple flower for hair, represents the Ashikawa prison in the hopes of softening the grim image of the facility (and perhaps have you look the other way from their rep of treating their inmates inhumanely).

Clearly, the Japanese government has found much use in softening their image for their citizens. But what about abroad? “Soft power” utilizes the phenomenon of “cultural diffusion”, which is the dissemination of one culture’s practices, beliefs, and items to another, incidentally or deliberately. We already discussed the power of pink globalization to reach audiences across the globe, so it’s not hard to imagine how much of the ideology of kawaii culture has influenced its patrons. 

But regardless of how kawaii has reached individuals, how much power can it actually wield at an international level? The answer is quite a lot actually. The image of Japan globally after World War Ⅱ was unpleasant to put it lightly. The image of greedy, dishonorable, cruel war-mongers  made for bad business and bad diplomacy. It’s hard to recover an economy or establish beneficial relations with other countries when the other is constantly on guard, showing reluctance to trust or even interact with you. That’s why the use of kawaii as a form of soft power was a fairly genius stroke of luck.

That’s not to say that the Japanese government was trying to cover anything up. They didn’t really need to. Just look at the case where the United States forgave Japan for their war crimes against U.S pow in return for getting the results of their horrific experiments. Kawaii wasn’t used for some cover-up and some people might theorize. That’s just a conspiracy theory. However, the political application of kawaii is real. 

Kawaii allows Japan to appear disarming and harmless. There’s less resistance to be had if there doesn’t appear to be a threat. “In this regard, Japanese cute—including its tease of youth and femininity—has become part of official policy in creating a new face that beckons the overseas customer” (Yano 685). Tran also writes, 

“Japan has… managed to rebrand itself as a different kind of global power through the rigorous export of kawaii goods from the 1960s onward. Koichi Iwabuchi identifies “cultural deodorization” as Japan’s self-conscious attempt to evacuate any overt markers of racial otherness/foreignness from cultural products in order to gain entry into desirable consumer markets. The culturally deodorized product serves as the embodiment of the country of origin in its best, least offensive form, and for Japan that form is kawaii—the antithesis of its World War II image as an imperial aggressor” (Tran 21). 

This concept of selling an image goes not just for the packaging of goods to foreign countries, however, but also for the selling of ideas and diplomacy in political settings. Japan sells not just products but a persona. The prevalent impression of Japan as a land of high-tech and cuteness is reproduced again and again through photos of young women in cute clothes wearing cute accessories with cute stationery in cute rooms filled with posters and figurines of cute mascots and anime girls. With this kind of image, people tend to grow more positive opinions and are more likely to be persuaded. In much the same way as mascots are used to soften images of government and civil workers, and influence their citizens, similar tactics are used on diplomats and world news. 

In summary, kawaii in politics uses soft power, specifically their “brand image”, to negotiate their place on the global hierarchy and in the global markets. While using kawaii as a political tactic ensures that Japan will be inherently subordinate to some, it’s a trade off for better allies and trade agreements that wouldn’t exist had their reputation not been improved. 

Nevertheless, while kawaii in politics has its benefits, there are still many who critique this kind of political strategy. There are also many who critique it as a culture in itself. What do you think? Can you think of any critiques people may have about “kawaii” as either a culture or as a political tool?

Critiques of “Kawaii”

We’ll start with critiques of  Japan's use of “soft power” and kawaii as a political tool. I already let it slip a bit in the earlier section, but I believe other people may agree that the use of kawaii as a way to let people’s guard down for persuasion or to belatedly boost a positive image of a prison that has been criticized for cruelty is not only deceptive but a bit dystopian. It’s something you would expect to see in a horror-action game as some kind of social commentary. It’s like putting a cute mascot band-aid on a cracked wall about to fall apart. It’s a mask. 

Other people have problems with Japan’s image as kawaii as something that is infantilizing and ruins respect for the country. “There [was] concern that the new cultural capital in youth-oriented, feminized cuteness trivializes Japan as infantile and superficial” (Yano 684). While kawaii politics may have given Japan a leg up in certain circumstances, it had the downside of making it hard for other countries to take them seriously. Tran’s article is actually something of a critique of kawaii culture, noting that: 

“The success of kawaii goods in the United States and elsewhere hinges on the way kawaii packages racial otherness/foreignness in a nonthreatening manner. In taking seriously the soft power of kawaii, this essay does not endorse cute consumerism but rather calls attention to how kawaii renders visible radically uneven power relations and invites the productive reimagining of power within and through conditions of heightened constraint, dependency, and vulnerability” (Tran 21-22). 

Remember Japan’s position after World War Ⅱ. They had suffered heavy losses in the war, and had been occupied by American forces. They were stripped of their right to keep an army and the fate of their country’s future rested largely on the decisions of foreigners. It was emasculating. To Tran “The rapid, unprecedented expansion of kawaii cultural industries in Japan after World War II points to kawaii’s consolidation as an aesthetic-affective response to the nation’s unconditional surrender. As an aesthetic of smallness, weakness, and helplessness, kawaii registers the trauma of the atomic bombing and Japan’s diminished sense of itself as a military power” (Tran 21).

In this argument, kawaii isn’t some master strategy, but a manifestation of their loss of status and position. Of them becoming subordinate to the whims and favors of others.

Aside from global politics however, critics also had something to say about the effects of kawaii culture on Japan’s society. Some of these critiques are from genuine concern, while others seem to be looking for a scapegoat. Nevertheless, they all point to a general discomfort and unease about the position of Japan as a passive and feminized identity.

In the 70s and 80s, critiques were a bit different than what they are today. This was a time of relative passivity from the youth, quite different from the revolts and student protests of the 60s (Kinsella 246). However, this passive stance was what angered them, believing they were shirking responsibility and duties to society and their traditional roles of company man and housewife (Kinsella 246-247). They were afraid of the youth seeking pleasure through consumption than of moral satisfaction from fulfilling their social obligations. Furthermore, they considered “cuties” to be “infantile”, “effeminate”, and “tasteless”, often considering “infantile” interchangeable with “feminine” (Kinsella 248). This was part of a trend of blaming women for the feminization of society, making them scapegoats for economic, political, and personal problems (Kinsella 249). 

Men were encouraged to see (manipulative, choosy, cute) women at fault for their woes as they were responsible for their humiliation by making unreasonable demands and using them for money and favors (Kinsella 249). Of course this was just a perception. The first half of the 80s saw more women in the workplace than ever before but this was also seen as selfish as it was taking away jobs from men and denying them marriage partners (Kinsella 249). Cute was thus inherently selfish as it rejected social obligations.

Today’s critics are a little less misogynistic (although these complaints haven’t disappeared). Many of them, I actually agree with. There’s been more concern with materialism and consumption, and there’s also been a concern about the infantilization of women. The latter specifically is concerned with women being taken less seriously even in professional situations as they are placed on the same level as children. There are also legitimate concerns about lolicons and the fetishization of youth. While kawaii is about being child-like and innocent, it isn’t devoid of sexuality. And while this isn’t necessarily bad in itself, there are those who have taken advantage of kawaii culture to justify their desires for actual children. 

Suffice to say, there is a mixture of genuine worry about the effects of kawaii culture and of barely-masked prejudice and discrimination. But how are we to deal with these concerns? How do you think these fears should be abated?

Conclusion

Now that you’ve come to the end, what do you think kawaii looks like? Is it a dream of childlike innocence, or is it a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Does kawaii deserve any of its reputations? Does it have any power? And do you think any of it matters?

Although we’ve covered how kawaii came to be, what kind of ideologies it has, and the appearances it takes in economics and politics, there are still two questions that I want you to think about.

Does “kawaii” have any meaning? And does it have a future?

Sources

AFP English. “Japan's pursuit of cute spawns $30 billion industry.” AFP Video, 1:39.

Katayama, Akiko. “‘Kawaii’ Cuteness Made Niche Baking Goods Website An $81 Million Business.” Last modified January 28, 2022.

Kinsella, Sharon. “Cuties in Japan.” In Women, Media and Consumption in Japan, edited by Lise Skov and Brian Moeran, 220-254. London: Routledge, 1995. PDF.

Lai, Amy T.Y. “CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Consuming ‘Hello Kitty’: Tween Icon, Sexy Cute, and the Changing Meaning of ‘Girlhood.’” Counterpoints 245 (2005): 242–56. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978703.

Tran, Sharon. “Kawaii Asian Girls Save the Day! Animating a Minor Politics of Care.” MELUS 43, no. 3 (2018): 19–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26566151.

Sato, Kumiko. “From Hello Kitty To Cod Roe Kewpie: A Postwar Cultural History of Cuteness in Japan.” Education About Asia 14, no. 2 (2009): 38-42. https://www.asianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/from-hello-kitty-to-cod-roe-kewpie-a-postwar-cultural-history-of-cuteness-in-japanA.pdf

Yano, Christine R. “Wink on Pink: Interpreting Japanese Cute as It Grabs the Global Headlines.” The Journal of Asian Studies 68, no. 3 (2009): 681–88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619791.

Zeni, Luigi. “Social and Political Use of ‘Kawaii’: The Case of Yadon and the Kagawa Prefecture.” Wasshoi!. Wasshoi! Magazine. Accessed May 1, 2023. https://www.wasshoimagazine.org/blog/curiosities-of-the-japanese-culture/social-and-political-use-of-kawaii-the-case-of-yadon-and-the-kagawa-prefecture.