Both guilt and shame are understood as the feelings, which internally control one's behavior. We would not like to conduct~'~ehavior, which is socially unacceptable and makes us to feel guilty or ashamed. We internalize cultural norms and values to acquire such feelings though socialization process. We learn what we ought to do or ought not to do, and when they are violated, these feelings serve as a means of informal sanctions, which are placed upon undesirable behaviors in society. In this regard, these feelings are culturally universal although variations exist among different societies.

In Japanese society, the feeling of shame is more prevalent than that of guilt in inhibiting socially undesirable behaviors. The word, "shame" in Japanese would have more negati connotation and powerful or strong impact on one's behavior than in English. When one is said, "Shame on you he or she would feel worse than an American does. On the other hand, the word, "guilty," in English would be viewed more negatively than that in Japanese.

Cultural differences in such feelings are seen, for example, in the case of the impeachment process of President Bill Clinton. In the United States, by looking at what media reports, the primal public concerns of the issue seem the morality and justice regarding his conducts. In contrast, if this would be the case in Japan, whether or not his actions are guilty and morally wrong would not be so much concerned as it is in the United State. By looking at the events surrounding current President scandals, Japanese people would wonder why he is able to serve as President after the exposure of his shameflil scandals? Doesn't he feel ashamed? If he feels ashamed at all, how can he still be President?

As a matter of fact, a similar scandal broke out to Prime Minister in Japan not too long ago. However, this event produced quite different consequences. A woman revealed to the media the past affairs between Prime Minister and herself; and this scandal was exposed soon alter he became Prime Minister of Japan. As it is in the United States, this was reported in every single TV station, newspapers, and public magazines, and all the public attention was paid to this affair at that time. However, unlike President Clinton, Prime Minister announced his resignation immediately after the exposure of this embarrassing scandal. To lead him to resignation, formal process was not required. Nor was his resignation so much about the issue of morality as about the feeling of shame and immediacy to save face.

Then, how can we explain such differences in such experiences between the two societies? To answer this question, I will like to look at the differences in terms of formations of social relationships between the two cultures.

In describing social relationships, Japanese collectivism or gourpism and American individualism are commonly acknowledged as cultural distinctiveness. This is true in a way; however, the notion of collectivism is misleading if we merely emphasize ideological terms, such as "Japanese place higher value on groups than on individuals," and "the Japanese prefer staying and conforming groups." It is true that group orientation is very significant in Japanese society in defining our social relationships. For example, the company you work for, the school you go to, and the household you belong to as a group and institution, are primal indicator in defining one's identity, social roles, and ones relationship with others. However in regard to the issue of collectivism, one researcher found that to a question whether they would like to stay in a group if they are given a choice to leave, Americans prefer staying in a group, while the Japanese are more likely to answer to leave.

This American preference to stay in a group and Japanese to leave a group with a choice given, indicates the fact that stronger orientation toward one's group in Japanese society is not so much based on individual desires. The strong group orientation in Japan versus American individualism suggests that there is a social constraint that exists in Japan, which doesn't allow them to leave. In other words, group affiliation in the US is voluntarily and involuntarily in Japan.

In understanding the cultural differences in the meanings, which attached to the feeling of shame, this group orientation is significant. That is, in the United States, where individuals can more freely enter or exit a group and where social relationships are based upon individual attributes rather than the flame of a group, ~ is less effective as a means of informal social control to impose group cQnformity. In the United States, the feeling of "guilt" rather than "shame" is reinforced within individuals depending on their interpretion of their actions, their self-identity, and compared to social norms. Also, guilt is made formal when determined in court of law, serving as a formal social control. Whereas, in Japan, where a group structure is more strongly imposed upon each aspect of individual lives, informal social controls are more prevailing, which serves to maintain group boundary, one's identity, and social relationships. This also produces stronger social constraint in terms of individual choices. Saving face becomes an important aspect in a group life in order to protect the other members of the group. So, in such a social context, the feeling of "shame" serves as a form of informal sanctions, which imposes conformity within a group.

<(4