Otaku Culture Explained, or What I Mean by “Otaku”

It has come to my attention that I may need to define what I mean by “Otaku” when I use it to criticize those who are Otaku minded. I distinguish three types of people I might call Otaku. The first type refers to Otaku used in Western culture, the second refers to, though less commonly, those who are knowledgeable in the given subject, and lastly the word refers to those who are ‘sickly obsessed’ with anime, games or anything akin to it. Whenever I use the term Otaku, unless specified otherwise, I mean by the third meaning of Otaku, who are so obsessed with their objects of obsession that they live in their objects of obsession. Let me clarify each use of the term one by one, for in this way whatever subtleties involved in using this term may be easily explained without risk of ambiguity. (*Ambiguity differs from equivocation in that the former is used where a specific term has two or more meanings, whereas equivocation of a term occurs when a term is used without any specific content: an example of ambiguity may be when I use the term ‘Otaku’ without specifying what I mean by it, and an example of equivocation may be when I say ‘Otaku culture is bad,’ for we have no clear idea of what is meant by ‘Otaku culture.’)

1. Otaku as used in the Western culture: the use of this term in the West has been fairly common. In fact, at the university I go to, they have what is called ‘Otakuthon’ annually, meaning screening of animation, providing gaming centers, cosplay shows and manga library for a designated period of time. The word is so amiably used that it simply means someone who enjoys and has a high regard for anime as a hobby. This usage is most gentle, but its meaning is largely deviated from its original term in Japanese. It is as if saying that Avocado is used in sushi, which is a completely foreign concept for Japanese – though not anymore, since Avocado sushi has since been imported into Japan because it’s so good! Generally, Western Otaku are sociable and have a clear understanding of what is hobby and what is work. They are also able to communicate with people without ever referencing to anime or their hobby.

2. Otaku in the second sense, though rarely used, is an important addition to the definition, for I do think some Otaku carry no negative connotations and just are extremely knowledgeable about the subjects. (when I use ‘some’, I mean it in the same sense logicians use the word ‘some’; that is, ‘some’ can refer to i. one or more than one, ii. few, iii. several, iv. many, or v. most. So 1 person or 2 people out of 100 and 90 people out of 100 can both be referred to as ‘some’ – it just means ‘not all’.) The term used in this sense can be, however, restricted to the knowledge of a few specific subjects that are not mainstream interests – so a politician who always thinks about politics cannot be called Otaku nor can a professor whose interests are math and physics be called so. However, someone who is extremely knowledgeable in ancient Egyptian mysteries or in cats’ behaviors may properly be termed as Otaku. This type of Otaku is recently depicted in the Japanese animation called ‘The World God Only Knows‘ which I think is a superbly well-done description of what Otaku should be about in a positive sense. In fact, I have a very good friend in Japan whom I proudly call Otaku – he is well versed in anime, games and movies. He is a kind of person who stays up for 4 continuous days to finish an RPG, buys a game on the first day of its release and finishes it in less than half a day and sells it at a higher price somewhere else on the same day of its release. He draws, he reads comics incessantly and watches movies from one end of the shelf to the other in a video rental shop. However, he is not like an Otaku who loses grips on reality, and he is well aware of the objects of his obsession as simply objects of his obsession and nothing more. In this sense, I distinguish this kind of Otaku as transcendent Otaku from any others. The transcendent Otaku are not trapped by their objects of obsession and are in control of themselves, i.e. it is usually a characteristic of transcendent Otaku that they can understand and accept criticisms about obsessive interests while at the same time do not let anyone interfere with or influence on their own philosophy regarding their objects of obsession. For them, the world does not control them, but they are in control of their own worlds.

3. The object of criticism naturally falls onto this last of three definitions of Otaku. This term is used to describe those who are sickly obsessed with the objects of their love, usually the feeling is not mutual, as the objects of their obsession are most of the time non-humans. The difference between the transcendent Otaku and this pejorative use of Otaku lies precisely in i) their inability to take criticisms or understand how the the society as ours can see them as ‘somewhat different’, (Note that they do not have to agree with the society’s conventional beliefs about Otaku, but simply understand why they might be seen as such), ii) confusing the reality with the personal hobby, and iii) identifying themselves as the members of the objects of their obsession and believing that they are loved by the objects of their obsession.

Now, this third condition is complex – the identification and belief must be understood as conjuncts, as in ‘&’. Let the I stand for ‘the identification of themselves as members of the community of the objects of their obsession’ and let B stand for ‘the belief that they are loved and needed by the objects of their obsession.’ It will then look like this: I&B. If either of the conjuncts is absent, it does not qualify as Otaku in the third sense (the word ‘Otaku’ refers to this third sense of Otaku wherever it is used unless otherwise indicated when used alone without qualification, such as ‘transcendent’ or ‘Western’). So to be Otaku, one must identify themselves as equally important aspects with the objects of their obsession, nay, they must identify themselves as their own objects of obsession themselves, and the identification is such that it ties in with the love for themselves. For instance, Person A is Otaku about an object B. The person A consequently adores the object B. But because the person A identifies himself as the embodiment of the object B, the person A regards himself as essentially* identical with the object B, thereby at the same time directing his love for the object B towards himself. This is why Otaku cannot take criticisms because they feel as though they have themselves been criticized. And because they have chosen to love the objects of their obsessions, it is as though their choice itself has been denied as substantive, hence leading them to believe of the rejection of their own existence. This is also why Otaku cannot understand why any given society does not understand them, since the choice they have made makes sense to them – and they have made that choice because they think they understand the value of the objects of their obsession. So the society’s rejection of them is tantamount to the rejection of their own rationality. In this way, when they are denied both their existence and their rationality, their own worlds have become the only place they can escape into. The more they spend in their own worlds, the more involved they become. This, I believe, is the psychological standing of their situations in society. Consequently, they decide to live in the objects of their obsession, and the way they do is it by imitating in fashion and attitudes with the corresponding objects of their obsession.

This, I believe, concludes my definitions of Otaku whenever I use it. If there is any need for further clarification, please do let me know.

*essentially identical with the object: here I am using a philosophical jargon that distinguishes essence and attributes/properties. Essence is used as opposed to accidents. So a thing is essentially identical with something else even if its properties (shape, size, colour, etc) are different, i.e. that is, its accidentally qualities are different, as in the case with wooden chairs and books. They share the essential feature as ‘coming from trees’ though they look completely different from one another.