Japanese psychotherapeutic systems: On acceptance and responsibility

Summary Pelzel (1977: 299) pointed out in a previous issue of this journal how most psychiatric care in Japan is heavily oriented towards pharmacological intervention and takes place in mental hospitals. Moreover, there has been an increase in the number of beds set aside for psychiatric care (Ikegami 1980). The quiet therapies and traditional EastAsian medicine, though flourishing, are not representative of health care for the majority of the population of Japan today.I believe that a preference for pharmacological intervention in psychiatric care is not surprising in light of the above discussion on somatopsychics and the primacy of group harmony. What is badly wanted now are contemporary anthropological studies on the application of biomedicine in Japan (Long 1980, has made an excellent beginning) to give some perspective to the more esoteric studies already undertaken, to demonstrate cross-cultural differences in the application of biomedicine, and to look for continuities of thinking and behavior across all therapeutic systems in Japan. Only then can we extrapolate from these studies to statements about the relationship of therapeutics to Japanese society at large, and about the recurrent question of pluralistic forms of health care in industrial societies.