Why Is Harassment So Hard to Understand?
— The Roots of Confusion and Social Disorder
In recent years, a sense of profound confusion regarding the nature of “harassment” has permeated society.
Terms such as power harassment, customer harassment, and a proliferating list of “-hara” coinages (a Japanese shorthand derived from the English word) continue to emerge. Amidst this, many are left asking: “Where exactly does harassment begin?” As this widespread uncertainty suggests, few concepts have spread through the social fabric as rapidly—yet as vaguely—as harassment.
A striking example of this ambiguity is the phenomenon known in Japan as “white harassment.” This refers to environments where supervisors, paralyzed by the fear of being accused of harassment, refrain from providing even necessary guidance or essential management. This “white” (blank or sterile) atmosphere illustrates how the unintended consequences of conceptual ambiguity have reached a critical tipping point.
Long-Lasting Suffering and Invisible Psychological Restraints
As the term “harassment” has gained legal and social recognition, formally labeled cases have received increased attention.
At the same time, however, many forms of harm that should be recognized as harassment continue to be overlooked. This is especially evident in the domestic sphere, where subtle, difficult-to-verbalize forms of psychological intrusion occur in the privacy of everyday life. Because our definitions remain focused on overt behaviors rather than underlying structures, these situations often go unaddressed, leaving individuals to suffer for decades without a framework for resolution.
Drawing on my clinical experience in trauma care, this series of articles will explore why harassment has become so elusive, what its underlying structure actually is, and what new possibilities emerge once we grasp its essence.
Why Is There So Little Direct Discussion of This Confusion?
There is something deeply puzzling about the current discourse. Despite the many people struggling with this uncertainty, there is surprisingly little discussion addressing why this confusion exists in the first place.
Most commentary remains limited to reactive advice: “be more considerate” or “avoid overreacting.” Rarely do we see serious attempts to answer the more fundamental questions: Why did harassment become incomprehensible? And what would make it understandable again?
The Loss of Structural Thinking and Shared Narratives
In the past, social and psychological problems were often approached through a humanistic lens that sought to uncover their underlying structures.
A quintessential example is psychiatrist Takeo Doi’s “The Anatomy of Dependence.” Through the concept of Amae—a uniquely Japanese term for the desire to be cherished or to depend on another’s indulgence—Doi illuminated the unspoken emotional bonds and expectations that govern Japanese social life.
Psychiatry itself once aimed not merely to label symptoms, but to understand the cultural and structural contexts from which suffering arose. This tradition was exemplified by the late Hisao Nakai, a preeminent Japanese psychiatrist and polymath. Known for his profound clinical insights into schizophrenia and his vast contributions to the humanities, Nakai’s work positioned Japanese psychiatry as a field capable of deep phenomenological and structural inquiry on the global stage.
However, with the global adoption of diagnostic guidelines like the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), these holistic approaches gradually faded. Clinical practice shifted toward checklist-based diagnoses—a trend often criticized as “checklist psychiatry.”
The Limit of Evidence Without Frameworks
This shift coincided with the “end of grand narratives”—a decline in shared cultural frameworks and the humanistic knowledge that once supported them. In the counseling field, institutionalization and professional licensing led to an emphasis on standardized criteria and measurable outcomes.
At first glance, this evidence-based approach seems reasonable. For problems that fit within established categories, it is often sufficient. But what about new and emerging social phenomena?
New conceptual frameworks do not arise automatically from the accumulation of data. As any researcher knows, “evidence” does not exist in a vacuum; the way data is collected and categorized depends entirely on our prior conceptual assumptions. Without a guiding framework, we cannot even begin to gather usable evidence.
The rapid multiplication of “-hara” labels is a symptom of this conceptual void. When we lack the structural thinking to capture the essence of a problem, we are forced to pile up isolated cases and create ad-hoc labels for every new variation of conflict.
What Remains: Guidelines and Existential Silence
In response to real-world incidents, governments and organizations feel compelled to establish guidelines to address issues legally and administratively. However, because these guidelines are designed for compliance and labor management, they rarely engage with the psychological or existential dimensions of harassment.
Yet harassment arises within the intimacy of human interaction. It is fundamentally psychological and relational.
While these phenomena demand rigorous humanistic inquiry, the cultural space for such questions has largely vanished. What remains is a pervasive sense of anxiety: “I still don’t know what harassment really is, so it’s safer to say nothing at all.”
The incomprehensibility of harassment has deep roots. In the next article, I will move beyond this confusion to examine what harassment truly is, approaching it through a structural lens.
