Ask John: Do Americans Use Japanese Jargon Correctly?

Question:
Over the past year, I’ve noticed a trend on English anime message boards, for example, 4chan, Anime on DVD, Anime News Network, and others, that users are using the word “lolita” or “loli” to refer to any underage or pre-pubescent anime/manga character. For example, I have read things like, “Zero no Tsukaima is about a loli mage and her servant,” and, “Some of the inukami in Ikukami are women, but there’re also a few lolis.” To a lesser degree, I have seen “shota” being used like, “I don’t like Mamoru-kun ni Megami no Shufuku wo! because I’m not into shotas.” What do you think about this, John? Is this misuse of terminology or it is valid usage?

Answer:
I may be misinterpreting, but I get the impression that the thrust of this question is about the motivation behind the use of descriptive terms “Lolita” and “shota” rather than the accuracy of their application. So that’s how I’ll address my reply. I’ll answer in generalizations. It’s not my intent to place accusations against any individual fan.

Indeed within relatively recent time, I’d say within the past two to three years, the Japanese genre classifications “Lolita” and “shota” have come into wide recognition and use in the English speaking fan community. I honestly don’t know the degree to which these terms carry stigmatic connotations in Japan, but in English use they have definitely developed negative connotations. More accurately, I think that members of the English speaking fan community have been diligently trying to associate negative implications with these terms. I don’t object to any individual having and expressing personal preferences, but I am perturbed by so called anime fans who seek to impose their personal morality onto foreign art and culture.

Strictly speaking, a Lolita character is a young female focus of sexual tension – the character may be the object of sexual fetishization, or, as in Nabokov’s original novel, may be sexually aggressive beyond her years. Likewise, my impression is that a shota character is a young male sexual object. Lolita and shota anime are therefore titles which not only include pre-adolescent characters, but also encourage fetishization of these characters. In effect, a character’s status as a loli or shota character depends upon presentation and perspective. For example, I don’t think that Chiyo Mihama is a “loli” character within the context of the Azumanga Daioh manga and anime because the manga and anime don’t sexually fetishize her. But in countless lecherous fan created depictions of her, she is unquestionably a Lolita character. My point is that not every small, young anime girl is a Lolita character, nor every young anime boy a shota character. So using the terms “Lolita” and “shota” as synonyms for young characters is, I think, inaccurate and misleading.

Using blanket accusations of “Lolicon” and “Shotacon” seems to be a defensive reaction from English speaking fans who are self-conscious about the appearance of impropriety. I fully support every viewer’s right to dislike certain anime and certain types of anime. But I am bothered by off-handed dismissal of anime titles based entirely on appearances and superficial labels. Individuals have a right to choose what anime, and what types of anime they wish to watch, but I’m bothered by fans who create arbitrary justifications for their choices, or worse, cite uninformed critiques to camouflage narrow-mindedness.

A statement such as, “Some of the girls in Inukami are Lolis” seems inappropriate and uninformed. Tomohane is indeed a small girl that can be perceived as a Lolita character by individual viewers, but the anime itself does not illustrate her as a Lolita character. Similarly, cute male characters like Mamoru-kun from Mamoru-kun ni Megami no Shukufuku wo! and Nino-kun of Haunted Junction are created as shota characters, but a steadfast refusal to sample these shows seems like conscious anti-intellectualism. It seems contrary for a self-avowed anime fan to arbitrarily ignore or dismiss certain anime, and certain types of anime, without even giving them a chance. However, the statement, “Zero no Tsukaima is about a loli mage and her servant” is accurate because the Zero no Tsukaima anime does overtly encourage a sexual/sensual affection for Louise.

I’m not going to propose that adopted Japanese terms like “Lolicon” and “shota” should be excluded from use in English discussion of anime. The adoption and use of imported terms serves to assist concise and informative discussion. But I do believe that English speaking anime fans should always be mindful of how they use borrowed terms, as improper use obscures clear and concise expression, and has the potential to obscure rational judgment. The terms “Lolita” and “shota” have proper meanings – they refer to the fetishization of children or childlike characters. These terms are not synonymous with “female child” and “male child,” nor do these terms contain any implication of quality. In summation, I think that anime fans should employ borrowed Japanese terms cautiously. Appropriate and accurate use of terms like “loli” and “shota” can express a great deal of information very concisely. Thoughtless or misapplied use of these terms creates an equal amount of misperception or obfuscation.