Mai Teshigawara: Leaving Something Other Than "Competition" Behind — End-of-Life Planning from Age 40

At the end of 2022, a book titled "Easing the Pain of Living with 'Ability'" appeared in bookstores across Japan. It was written by an unknown author—myself, Mai Teshigawara—and published by a small press. Turning the cover, the text reads: "This is a slightly mysterious story about 'ability,' given by a deceased mother to her child." Set 15 years in the future, the premise involves a mother who has become a ghost (the author) and her grown children thinking about how to live in a "meritocratic" society... The subsequent response has been so mysterious that I can hardly believe my eyes. The book was reviewed in three national newspapers and other media outlets, and I have held multiple talk events. In addition to reading groups organized by volunteers in various locations, readers continue to send postcards and letters to the publisher. While I cannot correspond with everyone and have not been able to reply, I gratefully read every single one. This article itself was made possible by an invitation from a Keio University alumni who read my book, and I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude.

I feel once again that the "pain of living with 'ability'" in the title is a desperate cry from people. After all, individuals have long been forced to focus on "deficiency"—what is lacking in themselves and others—and have continued to push themselves. In schools, things like "academic ability" and "human power" are measured, compared with others, and career paths are decided "according to ability." Extending from that, many people take jobs where performance evaluations based on abilities like "initiative" and "leadership" significantly influence their treatment. Intense competition can sometimes lead to poor health, but then they are told things like "your mental health is weaker than the average of your peers" and are recommended "EQ training"... If they look into a bookstore on the way home from work with their heads hanging low, they see books like "Why the World's Elites Train Their XX Power" piled high... Peace of mind is hard to come by.

On the other hand, some may think this has little to do with them. But what if one's own sense of satisfaction in life is actually built upon someone else's "pain of living"? Furthermore, what if that person's "pain" is not because they are lazy or have low "ability," but is destined by the capital of the family they were born into? Even so, is it really okay to treat it as a matter of "ability," attacking or pushing them, and forcing them into constant "competition"? I chose the phrase "the pain of living with 'ability'" because I believe that as long as people live by supporting one another, it is a personal matter for everyone; everyone is a stakeholder. How can we promote "mutual aid"—to use a cliché—rather than "competition" that ranks people as superior or inferior? What can be done to prevent "Diversity & Inclusion" and "Well-being" from becoming just the latest fairy tales? I have unraveled these questions through the perspective of my specialty, the sociology of education, and the practical knowledge of organizational development.

Incidentally, I gained the perspective and methods for questioning social principles like "meritocracy" after graduating from the Faculty of Environment and Information Studies in 2005 and completing a master's degree in the sociology of education at the University of Tokyo Graduate School. After completion, I described my career as "reconnaissance in enemy territory" and deliberately worked in the "ability development" (human resource development) industry, which turns the measurement and development of "ability" into a "product." However, at some point, I began to feel that what should be developed is not an individual's "ability," but the "relationships" within an organization, such as how work is conducted and how people speak to one another. This led me to my current role as an "organizational development" consultant.

I apologize if this is like preaching to the choir for those reading this, but disparities in the economy, education, and other areas have long been decried in Japan. However, no "unprecedented" measures to address this are in sight. Behind the shadow of equality of opportunity, inequality of outcome is abandoned as "self-responsibility," making it difficult to notice the fundamental fraying of the socio-economy.

That is why, precisely because I have seen the industry, I have stepped in with a sense of self-reflection—is it not the industry claiming "ability development" that prospers by pushing problems onto individuals? And is it not also serving as a cover to escape the political responsibility of overhauling social structures? I am somewhat worried about being ambushed in the dark, but as someone who was fortunately blessed in my upbringing, I cannot leave alone a society dominated by the randomness of the "parental gacha."

There is a reason why I am so fired up. At age 38, I was diagnosed with Stage IIIC breast cancer, and while raising a young child, I am still undergoing treatment for advanced cancer. I do not want to leave behind a society that forces infinite effort on individuals for the era when my children reach adulthood—an era I likely will not be there to see.

So, how shall I live? I keep a close eye on the distortions of the socio-economy. And while a leap to a solution is difficult, I will build up the efforts I can make right where I am, with the recognition that it is not just an individual problem. One example I cited is a case of organizational development. Instead of demanding more "abilities" from individuals, we bring together the "functions (characteristics)" that each person can easily demonstrate as a team to get things done. To that end, we adjust the combinations of people and the combinations of people and tasks.

In the real world, "success" and "achievement" are rarely the credit of a single person. It may be that the contribution of a subordinate who managed to get things done while skillfully ignoring a boss's sarcasm was significant. Or, it is said that even Adam Smith was diligently cared for by his mother. The Wealth of Nations was thanks to his mother, indeed. Beyond just pursuing ways for one person to run fast, how can we bring out each other's special talents and combine them to go far together? I want to concentrate our wisdom on this point.

Easier said than done. Even if I say we should bring together "functions" rather than "abilities," it is not that simple. Looking back on my experience, I think there are two major points that determine the success or failure of this effort. One is the importance of continuing to engage with "conflict." The work of considering the combination of people and tasks—that is, "compatibility"—involves many variables. Therefore, it is always in a state of flux, and trying to respond to that is unglamorous, endless, and not even easy to put into words. However, even if we chant "well-being" while avoiding this "conflict" or vague unease, it will not lead to mutual aid. When in trouble, we re-examine the unease by looking at the "structure" in which it is occurring. In my book, I wrote, "When in trouble, have an out-of-body experience." Furthermore, if I feel even a little bit of someone's arbitrariness or a sense of wrongness in that structure, I want to firmly say NO.

There is another tip for shifting the focus from "competition" to "relationships." It largely depends on how we define ourselves as human beings. We are "independent individuals," and those individuals "compete" for survival—we have been told this so repeatedly for so long that we seem to believe it completely. But how realistic is this?

The recently enacted "Basic Act on Children" also states, "all children... equally as independent individuals..." Furthermore, Article 1 of the Basic Act on Education (The Aim of Education) states, "Education shall aim at the full development of personality." They speak lightly of the "completion of personality" and "independence," but it is amazing how such tremendous goals were set while the content remains vague. Now is the time for the "premise" of our existence—our "view of humanity"—to be refreshed in light of reality. What exactly is a human being? What does it mean for a person's "character" to be "complete"? What is the state of a person standing on their own two feet? I think this: everyone (unlike the Basic Act on Education) is eternally incomplete and weak. That is why we help each other. Embarrassingly, I only realized this after falling seriously ill. Not a single person is "complete" or "independent." The "view of humanity" is the very root of all social systems. I hope the premise will be reconsidered now.

"Someday" is not good enough. With the highest number of child suicides in history and survey results showing that many young people do not want to have children in the future... it is clear that we are failing to show them a bright future. I cannot help but feel that continuing to work hard and "compete" more than we already do will only lead to short-sighted "winning and losing" and "checking for the right answer" dominating society. "Refutation" and the "time-performance society" are clear examples.

Even if we cannot move politics immediately, we can change the way we converse from this very moment. Since we help each other because we are weak, we should end conversations where people test one another. "That's just your opinion, isn't it?"—So what? Unorganized thoughts, feelings that cannot be put into words. We listen to each other without interrupting these. It doesn't always have to be interesting. You don't have to only tell moving stories. You don't need to be sharp, and it's okay if you're not concise or even if you're off the mark. You are alive, and you and I are here talking. This is supremely joyful and precious. At the risk of sounding like a meddling old woman, this kind of dialogue might be difficult for people who watch movies and dramas at double speed. It is necessary to appreciate the value of the process, not the result, from a young age. It is tough if homes and educational settings are frantic about the next "ability" development for "success." The practice of savoring the "here and now" and rejoicing in being here itself, rather than what one can do (= "ability"). Filling a "deficiency" is no longer "growth."

I would like to express my deep gratitude for your company this far. The ghost mother continues her journey today so that the exploration of identifying individual "functions" and "strengths" that are easy to demonstrate—rather than human "ability"—and how to combine them may progress. While terms like "reskilling" and "human capital management" are in the spotlight, has anything changed besides the terminology? Has the inner reality not become a new version of "ability" theory? I hope you will check once more whether the focus is on the relationships between people rather than being confined to the individual. The giant known as "meritocracy" is also a monster created by our own values. Since it is something we all created together, I want us all to settle it and leave hope for the next generation. At that dawn, the ghost mother will finally find peace.