I have been reflecting on the concept of “opening.” Whether it is opening doors, opening one’s perspective, or opening up a writing style—these are all efforts toward greater inclusion. However, this does not seem to be the same as simply “enclosing” more within a boundary. Just as opening a door requires the existence of a closed space, perhaps we can only truly open something by first defining its closure.
When a brush with black ink strokes across white paper, the black stands out because of the white. Just as the negation of one side is the affirmation of the other, focusing on the issues of a minority brings the issues of the majority into sharp relief. Rather than trying to encompass everything, the act of “opening” seems to be about narrowing one’s focus to make something stand out.
From this perspective, the current trend of emphasizing various minority interests feels excessive or perhaps misdirected. There is an over-eagerness to open everything wide and include as much as possible, as if trying to fence it all in. In this light, the inward-looking, isolationist tendencies seen in many countries—centered around the United States—must be viewed as a perfectly natural progression.
For instance, when a group forms around a specific ideology and attracts sympathizers, power is born. In a democracy, this is the power of numbers—the most influential force. However, the more such a group clings to its own ideology, the more exclusive it becomes toward differing viewpoints. It is only natural, then, that the right and left wings engage in constant mutual criticism.
Yet, shouldn’t “criticism” inherently prioritize looking at things from an open perspective? At the very least, encouraging such openness should be its vital role. It is no surprise that debates held within closed circles fail to yield any real progress.
On the other hand, the attitude of seeing everything in black and white eventually leads to self-suffering. While being able to categorize everything clearly might seem efficient for making definitive judgments, it is actually exhausting. One must invest all their mental resources into maintaining that efficiency—a high-difficulty task for any human. Even if you remain unfazed, those around you will inevitably grow weary.
Regarding these definitive judgments: a clear judgment is the explicit manifestation of affirmation and negation. These two always contain their opposites. The affirmation of one side is the negation of the other, and vice versa. Thus, definitive judgments always give rise to a conflict of opinions. Simply put, this is the root of all strife.
If definitive judgments are the source of conflict, then perhaps the ambiguity inherent in the Japanese language, or the ambiguity found in postmodernism, can be seen as a way of appealing for the avoidance of such collisions.
