I’m not versed in gender studies, nor, as JPmeyer noted, Adrienne Rich’s concept of the lesbian continuum (not past what that article details).

Lolikit was perhaps right to point out that Aria isn’t yuri, but the important thing to observe is the title – How Aria Ruined Subtext – which brings under the spotlight the issue of authorial intent that’s always plaguing me.

Section 1: The objectivity of subjectivity – the subjectivity of objectivity

The word “subtext” is significant because that brings to the fore the way we analyze, how we read, why we read, and, consequently, how we judge. There does seem to prevail that trend of emotion riddled into the nooks and crannies of “objective” “review”. Both words merit separate quotation marks since besides them being two separate words, the phrase (is that a noun phrase?) “objective review” doesn’t divorce the two words and their meanings, thus we are forced to comprehend the review as inherently objective – we question, due to the ambiguity of the quotation marks, only whether or not the thing in question is tainted with subjectivity.

But therein lies the problem – objectivity is subjective, the only objectivity, ever, is subjectivity. Here is also the significance of subjectivity, of emotions, of slightly unmerited thoughts, be it fanpersonism or otherwise; of righteous beliefs. Objectivity relative, thus it is subjective because everything is subject to interpretation, to coding and decoding, to variation in meaning, to the rigors of communication. I don’t think there can ever truly be a monolithic Objectivity. One interesting case is translation. The Japanese hai can be taken as the English yes, but we’re not translating the word, we’re translating the universally understood notion for affirmation. Given, affirmation in itself is an English-constructed meaning (something the Japanese can never insert into their cognitive, cultural systems), we Westerners can perhaps never understand the meaning of hai unless we go live in Japan and start speaking the language. What we do in translation is not move the word itself complete with its cultural baggage (and that is a lot), but the pragmatic usage of the word in relation to a corresponding usage in our culture that is verbalized, concretized and semiotized through a symbol – a word. Herein lies my support for “weeaboos”, but that’s a topic for another day.

Saying that subjectivity is objective may be an incorrigibly bad case of sophistry, regardless of where our arguments take us, but I think (or it’s of my opinion [irony]) that because some meaning is inherently subjective and open to interpretation, we can only think of that ambiguity as the be all end all of the decisive stamp of objectivity – of uncertainty. Being uncertain is the only definitive case of a sense of certainty we have (I’m perhaps avoiding the question “what is certainty?”). Can we be certain of our certainty? Certainty is open to interpretation, but if we say “I’m uncertain”, then, regardless of our being either certain or uncertain about this uncertainty, these two notions will always be objective: you can’t have a “second-order” uncertainty because that’s repetitive and useless. “I’m uncertain” is the same thing as saying “I’m not sure of my uncertainty” because they both imply that sense of probability – “I’m not sure” doesn’t add on at all to the argument of “my uncertainty”.

Section 2: Presentation versus investigation

When we analyze anime, what do we look for? We see what the anime presents, perhaps represents, although we also dig deeper for the subtle connotations brought up by these presentations. Two examples, if not the best ones in my book, are Kashimashi and Asatte no Houkou. I have a tendency to refer to these two anime because I was reading them, not watching them, thus the cause of my massive disappointment. Both had extremely high potential to investigate – directly, through presentation – the issues of gender and age, respectively, yet “failed” (or perhaps directed the presentation in a different, fan pandering, way) to do so and thus focused on love triangles and related issues.

When we judge, does that passing merit an item of critique as bad or good? The thing here in question is “presentation”. Kashimashi presents to the viewer issues of gender, yet does not investigate them directly – gender is not the focus of the story (love would be the primary aspect). Is gender then a subtext? The same can be said for Asatte no Houkou: age was touched upon only subtly, albeit through the entire series, but, again, love and relationships were the primary concern and driving force of the story. Presentation versus investigation would be the debate here. These two anime throw out these huge issues without investigating them, but the story isn’t contingent upon these themes as, say, Eureka 7 was contingent upon wildly presented like Evangelion-ridden Trees of Life and Limits of Life. [They were essential to its conclusion, not its style, atmosphere, feeling, "swing", etc.]

In one way, this can be boiled down to ludicrous premise versus “I just wanted to have fun!” Thus I think it was the intent of the author to use these gigantic issues of gender and age and more a basis for a generic story. They sometimes served as comic relief (which was pretty funny, I’ll admit) or fanservice, but trying to judge the author on what they intended to do versus what they wanted to avoid sounds pretty unfair, stupid even.

Section 3: “It can’t be anything else” [in argument to section 2]

Lolikit said that Aria wasn’t yuri, but then I read this article (and mentally referred back to this one) and then slightly changed my thoughts. Aria doesn’t present relationships as homosexual. Moe, cute, pandering, perhaps, but not in the vagrant vein of the lipstick lesbian or related depictions. But, in accordance with the Lesbian Continuum, Aria can’t be anything but constitutive of sexuality. This is tricky because sexuality is a culturally relative thing, it’s historical visage differs from America, from the West (although, perhaps, that’s changing and has changed). In essence, Aria is inherently sexual because depicting women – insofar as the concept of “women” has a quasi-universal (and this isn’t 100% true) status (a metonymic connotation) of being submissive, etc. – can’t be anything but the historical precedents its ancestors have established: it cannot escape its discourse, it cannot escape its parental psychology of influence.

“The concept of ‘women’”, however, is riddled with holes, as I pointed out in the first section, that concepts can be cultural, and that cultures are not universal. “Women” is a construct of the West. However the Japanese equivalent of “women” aligns itself with our familiar idiosyncrasies is what will substantiate this rambling, and that I don’t know, nor can ever know. However, simply assigning Aria a monolithic cultural value of “Japanese” does not do justice to the global influences that have shaped its being.[1]

That said, Japan is an intriguing case East/West identity crisis. We cannot by any means disregard the interconnectivity inherent within issues revolving around femininity since the colonial era. To say that Aria isn’t sexual is indicative of the focus on the presentation of the anime, not the historical framework of any cultural medium, artwork, or thought, as human productions of knowledge cannot be without a discourse, cannot be outside an ideology, cannot be without a greater meaning. That is the difference between subtext and metatext – the difference between what something has regardless of presentation or investigation and what something indirectly hints at (much to the chagrin of the analyst).

Likewise, deeming Aria as yuri does it a grave injustice because we have yet to take into consideration the transnational transformation of the cultural concept of “yuri”. Likewise, much confusion has taken place in our Western otakusphere of that very kinetic word – the otaku (this being a prime example of the problem with cultural translation of meaning). There will be, with reasonable doubt, difference in a Japanese’s understanding of yuri in contrast to a Westerner’s interpretation and understanding of the word.

These two issues, the international context on which Aria is constructed, and the reconstitution of the meaning of symbols/words via transnational mediums, must inevitably come across the question “what is it, then?” That is not something easily answered. Global cultural products are mazes and mirror houses in themselves, built upon endless “pings” and “pongs” of the influence of cultural artifacts. Japan may be Japan, but it is not without the large influence of the West – thus, how Western is Japan? Is there such a quantitative degree we can come to through historical research (not that I’d ever want to attempt such a thing)?

Section 4: The plight of the analyst, for we must analyze: take it as you may

What justice does analysis do in the first place? What justice do analytical tangents do? In trying to decipher whether or not Aria is yuri, be it overanalysis or not, are we, ethically, performing a disservice to the authors of the manga and anime? Are we supposed to be good little boys and consume our media with no complains? That may be a harsh analogy, since anyone would plead a resound “no” to hegemonic advertising: but, then, does not analyzing do an injustice to pertinent issues like sexuality and gender (pertinent for those who care)?

I come across the ethical question of dissection as a recent pinnacle in the means of analysis. If I am not to analyze anything, to abide by the wishes of the author and blindly agree with them, should I sit quietly and not say anything at all? Am I then doing a disservice to knowledge – to the human advancement of knowing things purely for fun? Does knowing things for fun even take into consideration the “pros and cons” of knowledge? Are we to be apathetic in our studies? For a bit of self-satire, are we to overthink our overthinking? Even the trump card response: “who cares if Aria is anything, what matters is how things influence us” has neglected how the content of the issue is paramount to our influencing. Missing the stake at hand is just as hegemonic as mass-consumption of propaganda.

I have come to the conclusion that I have no idea how to react these questions – and not reacting simply continues the ravaging cycle of ethical questioning, yet firm, if not blind resolution must be taken with caution. I’m at a loss.

Afterward

This was a rather discordant essay comprised of slightly unrelated thoughts (mostly the first section) divided by sections; the first section was in response to this post, while I had been drafting the second part for quite some time in response to the Lolikit on Friedman post. If you’ve read to the bottom of this wall of text, I thank you – it was fun writing it. Also, I guess I apologize for the ensuing tsunami of trackbacks.

---

[1] I will continue to post-whore Afro Samurai until time immemorial.