View source for Amae

{{Italic title}}
{{Short description|Concept in Nihonjinron}}
'''''Amae''''' (甘え, ''amae'') is a Japanese concept referring to a form of emotional dependence or indulgent reliance on others, often characterized by a desire to be loved, cared for, or indulged by someone perceived as an authority figure or caregiver. The term originates from the verb '''''amaeru''''' (甘える), meaning "to depend on another's benevolence" or "to act in a way that presumes indulgence." It was introduced as a psychological and cultural framework by Japanese psychoanalyst [[Takeo Doi]] in his 1971 book ''[[The Anatomy of Dependence]]'' (甘えの構造, ''Amae no Kōzō''),<ref name="Doi19736">{{Cite book |last=Doi |first=Takeo |title=The Anatomy of Dependence |publisher=Kodansha International |year=1973 |isbn=978-0-87011-181-5}}</ref> where he explored ''amae'' as a key to understanding interpersonal relationships and social behavior in Japanese culture. Its universality and interpretation remain subjects of debate among scholars.

== Etymology and definition ==
The noun ''amae'' derives from the intransitive verb ''amaeru'', itself rooted in the adjective ''amai'' (甘い), meaning "sweet" or "indulgent." In everyday use, ''amaeru'' describes behaviors such as a child seeking parental affection or an adult playfully relying on a spouse or superior’s goodwill. Doi redefined ''amae'' as a noun to encapsulate a broader psychological need: the desire for passive love and acceptance, often without explicit reciprocation. He described it as "helplessness and the desire to be loved," distinguishing it from Western notions of independence by emphasizing its role in fostering closeness.<ref name="Doi19736" />

In Doi’s view, ''amae'' is not merely childish dependence but a culturally sanctioned dynamic that persists into adulthood, shaping relationships across familial, social, and professional spheres. For example, a person exhibiting ''amae'' might act vulnerably, expecting indulgence from a caregiver—be it a parent, partner, or boss—without resentment.<ref name="Doi19736" />

== Psychological and cultural significance ==
Doi argued that ''amae'' originates in the infant-mother relationship, emerging when a child realizes its mother is a separate entity yet indispensable.<ref name="Doi19736" /> This "craving for close contact" becomes a prototype for Japanese social bonds, where dependency is nurtured rather than suppressed, unlike what Doi saw in Western child-rearing.<ref name="Doi19736" /> He linked ''amae'' to Japan’s group-oriented society, evident in practices like nonverbal empathy (''sasshi'', 察し), restraint in self-assertion (''enryo'', 遠慮), and the interplay of private feelings (''honne'', 本音) and public facade (''tatemae'', 建前).<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Keio Communication Review |volume=25 |pages=93–115 |year=2003 |url=https://koara.lib.keio.ac.jp/xoonips/modules/xoonips/detail.php?koara_id=AA00266091-20030300-0093 |title=Japanese ''Enryo–Sasshi'' Communication and the Psychology of ''Amae'': Reconsideration and Reconceptualization |author=Miike, Yoshitaka}}</ref>

Unlike Western ideals of autonomy, ''amae'' blends intimacy with a subtle power dynamic: the "dependent" seeks indulgence, and the "caregiver" provides it willingly. Doi suggested this extends beyond family to hierarchical relationships, such as between employees and employers, reflecting collectivist values.<ref name="Doi19736" /> While ''amae'' may imply immaturity, it is also valued as a cornerstone of affectionate, trusting bonds in Japan.

Doi posited that while dependency needs are universal, Japan’s explicit vocabulary and cultural acceptance of ''amae'' set it apart.<ref name="Doi19736" /> He contrasted this with Western cultures, where independence is often prioritized, and overt reliance might be stigmatized in adulthood. Yet, he noted ''amae''-like behaviors exist globally—such as a spouse expecting care after a long day—suggesting it’s the formal recognition of ''amae'' that distinguishes Japan.<ref name="Doi19736" />

== Criticism and debate ==
This view has faced critique. Scholars of ''[[nihonjinron]]'' (theories of Japanese uniqueness) argue Doi overstated ''amae'' as uniquely Japanese, overlooking similar dynamics elsewhere.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mouer |first=Ross |title=Images of Japanese Society: A Study in the Social Construction of Reality |author2=Yoshio Sugimoto |publisher=Kegan Paul International |year=1986 |isbn=978-0-7103-0379-0 |pages=217–219}}</ref> Cross-cultural psychologists have compared ''amae'' to attachment theory, noting parallels with secure dependence, though without Japan’s cultural framing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Behrens |first=Kazuko Y. |year=2004 |title=A Multifaceted View of the Concept of Amae: Reconsidering the Indigenous Japanese Concept of Relatedness |journal=Human Development |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=1–27 |doi=10.1159/000075366}}</ref>

Critics also question whether ''amae'' is as central to Japanese identity as Doi claimed. Some argue it reflects middle-class, urban norms rather than a universal trait, with rural or indigenous groups like the [[Ainu people|Ainu]] and [[Ryukyuan people]] potentially showing different relational patterns. Others contend Doi’s Freudian lens exaggerated ''amae''’s psychological depth, reducing complex social behaviors to a single motive.<ref name="Mouer19865">{{Cite book |last=Mouer |first=Ross |title=Images of Japanese Society: A Study in the Social Construction of Reality |author2=Yoshio Sugimoto |publisher=Kegan Paul International |year=1986 |isbn=978-0-7103-0379-0 |pages=217–219}}</ref>

== Influence and legacy ==
''The Anatomy of Dependence'' popularized ''amae'' beyond Japan, influencing anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It has been applied to analyses of Japanese literature, management styles, and even international relations, where Japan’s "dependent" postwar stance toward the U.S. is sometimes framed as ''amae''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Yamaguchi |first=Susumu |year=2001 |editor-last=Matsumoto |editor-first=David |title=Culture and Control Orientations |journal=The Handbook of Culture and Psychology |publisher=Oxford University Press |pages=223–243 |isbn=978-0-19-513181-9}}</ref> The concept continues to spark discussion about dependency, intimacy, and cultural identity in a globalized world.

== See also ==
* [[Attachment theory]]
* [[Collectivism]]
* ''[[Nihonjinron]]''
* [[Takeo Doi]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}
*

{{Japanese social terms}}

[[Category:Japanese family structure]]
[[Category:Japanese values]]