Conclusion

It is difficult to escape from collective myopia because it is induced by the invisible, implicit, and spellbinding power of normative control. This characteristic draws the razor thin line between positive and negative outcomes that collective myopia might produce. Collective myopia is hardly visible in normal conditions that maintain the smooth, routinized, and concerted actions in social interactions, especially within offices. We call these flows “efficiency.” In a general image held by foreigners, Japanese workers are efficient. Such an image comes from these flows. In this sense, Japanese organizations seemingly “function.” However, the stories I told in the previous chapters imply all the negative aspects of being collectively myopic. Because of collective myopia, Japanese workers have been exhausted and suffering from unproductive conventions that might have led to the glorified period of the labor-intensive and developmental economy up to the 1990s. They may have not been able to adapt to changing environments or “trends,” as many futurists predicted. When I retried my previous readings, I found that many, especially foreign futurists, warned Japan. Alvin and Heidi Toffler’s future scenarios of Japanese society was painfully valid upon the disaster of Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 (Toffler and Toffler 2006). They could see Japan outside the collective myopia of Japan. That is why they could predict the dismal future of Japan. However, many authorities and scholars in Japan could not do that. What we fundamentally need is a circumspective mentality and attitude for what practitioners are actually doing in their praxis (Heidegger 1962). At least, the people who are good at questioning should not be ostracized in their workplaces and societies. Questioning is not a disturbance but a tool to improve practices. I do not think that circumspective mentality and questioning go against the progress of societies, especially in contemporary era.