Hello everyone,
Have you ever wondered how we perceive the world or communicate with others in diverse ways? Today, I’d like to introduce the concept of the ‘Four Worldviews and Two Styles,’ which has profoundly influenced my thinking and insights.
This framework provides depth to my reflections and will play a central role in my future discussions. To give you a clear understanding, I’ll start by presenting an overview of the concept.
While the content is logical in nature, I’ve prepared an illustration to make it easier to visualise. Please feel free to refer to it alongside the text.
The Four Worldviews
I believe that the worldviews people build can be categorised into four distinct types: Individual, Coexistence, Competition, and Victory.
By applying these perspectives, we can gain insight into the underlying awareness, emotions, and behaviours that drive people’s thoughts and statements. It also allows us to explain how these are perceived by others.
Here is an illustration to represent these concepts:
Below is an explanation of each worldview.
The Worldview of the Individual
Each of us harbours a unique inner world.
This inner realm, which I call the Worldview of the Individual, encompasses personal interests, beliefs, values, and thoughts.
While it can be influenced by others, it remains untouched by external interference, and concepts like superiority or inferiority have no place within it.
As the Japanese saying “ten people, ten colours” illustrates, this inner world is as diverse as the number of people who exist. Each person’s worldview is one of a kind, forming the foundation upon which all other perspectives are built.
The Worldview of Coexistence
Beyond our inner world lies the Worldview of Coexistence.
In this realm, we engage with others and their diverse values, fostering mutual respect and a spirit of support.
As members of society, we are inherently connected to one another, and we must cooperate and help each other in order to thrive collectively.
However, the timing and manner in which we express our individual worldview (the Worldview of the Individual) must be carefully considered. Misjudging these aspects can lead to disruptions in the harmony we share with those around us.
Notably, this worldview does not include concepts like competition or winning and losing.
While differences in abilities and perspectives exist, they are not seen as markers of superiority or inferiority. Instead, they are positively embraced as unique qualities that contribute to the richness of coexistence. This acceptance is what defines the Worldview of Coexistence.
The Worldview of Competition
When we step into the Worldview of Competition, our perspectives and ways of thinking shift dramatically from those rooted in the Worldviews of the Individual and Coexistence.
A familiar example of this worldview can be found in sports.
The true essence of competition, in contrast to Coexistence, lies in intentionally creating disparities based on ability and results, establishing clear hierarchies. In an environment where everything is equal and no rankings exist, the motivation to strive for improvement diminishes.
In the world of competition, one cannot progress while adhering to the belief that everyone must remain equal. Rivals advance to the next stage through their own efforts, ingenuity, and determination.
Fairness in rules and conditions is crucial to competition, though exceptions exist in cases such as handicap-based events. If the starting point is inherently unfair, the contest not only ceases to be a fair competition but also becomes fundamentally unjust.
Within this framework of fairness, achieving superiority requires transcending the baseline of equality and actively creating what I call “positive disparities.” These disparities are not negative but rather deliberate advantages cultivated through effort and strategy.
Those who succeed in the competitive world understand this principle and embrace it as a matter of course. They do not harbor negative feelings about surpassing equality; instead, they continually generate positive disparities to push themselves further.
Furthermore, in the Worldviews of the Individual and Coexistence, the diversity of values, perspectives, and methods—celebrated as “ten people, ten colours”—is perceived differently in the context of competition.
Here, such differences are evaluated based on their contribution to results and outcomes. Depending on their effectiveness, they may not always be viewed positively.
When results fall short, it is only natural for those thoughts or methods to be subject to critique and calls for improvement or change. This starkly contrasts with the more accommodating and inclusive nature of Coexistence.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “results are everything,” this worldview fundamentally revolves around results and outcomes, shaping every action and decision through a process of reverse engineering.
In this context, the values and perspectives of the Individual or Coexistence often find little resonance.
In my view, business undeniably belongs to the realm of competition, where challenges, rivalries, and results are the driving forces.
The Worldview of Victory
While the Worldview of Victory shares similarities with the Worldview of Competition, it fundamentally differs in its essence.
Competition focuses on striving for a higher rank, but victory is about achieving a singular goal: becoming number one. It emphasizes winning itself, rather than rankings or hierarchy.
You may have heard the famous phrase that encapsulates this worldview: “Second place is the first of the losers.”
For example, consider a sport where only the first-place athlete secures a spot in the Olympics. In competition, second place may be an impressive achievement. But in the pursuit of victory—where only the first place secures a spot in the Olympics—second place is meaningless.
The essence of victory lies in the unyielding mindset and the resolute determination to cross the definitive line that irrevocably separates winners from losers.
Elections also exemplify the Worldview of Victory. Let’s take the Tokyo gubernatorial election as a timely example. With a record number of candidates this year, only one can claim the ultimate victory. No matter how many votes the others secure, only the first-place candidate will become the Governor of Tokyo.
In this way, elections exemplify the stark divide between winners and losers that defines the Worldview of Victory.
In the business world, there are critical moments when competition transforms into an all-or-nothing challenge, requiring not just effort but an unyielding will to claim the ultimate victory.
In such instances, what matters most is an unwavering commitment to triumph and the mental fortitude to confront one’s limits.
True success lies in mastering the ability to navigate between the Worldview of Competition, where rankings drive progress, and the Worldview of Victory, where only the ultimate winner claims the prize.
The Four Worldviews (Summary)
Here is a summary of the key characteristics of the four worldviews we’ve discussed so far:
The Worldview of the Individual
- Represents an internal realm encompassing personal values, beliefs, and interests.
- A unique, interference-free space where individuality is freely formed.
- Respects diversity and lacks the concept of superiority or inferiority.
- Embodied by the phrase “ten people, ten colours”, highlighting the uniqueness of each individual.
- Forms the foundational layer upon which all other worldviews are constructed, shaping how individuals engage with the broader world.
The Worldview of Coexistence
- A cooperative worldview centred on mutual respect and support through interaction with others.
- Essential for fostering connections within a society and contributing meaningfully as a member of a harmonious community.
- While differences in ability exist, they are positively embraced as individuality rather than viewed negatively.
- Does not include concepts like competition or winning and losing.
- If the worldview of the individual is not appropriately expressed, harmony within coexistence may be disrupted.
The Worldview of Competition
- Shifts away from the perspectives of Individual and Coexistence, focusing on creating disparities and hierarchies based on ability and results.
- Relies on fairness in rules and conditions, while requiring individuals to achieve superiority within that framework.
- Success requires transcending the established framework of equality to actively cultivate positive disparities that drive individual achievement.
- Effort is essential, but so is the pursuit of results and an unwavering focus on achievement.
- When results fall short, improvement and adaptation are naturally expected.
The Worldview of Victory
- Focuses on the goal of being number one, placing emphasis on victory itself rather than rankings.
- Characterized by an uncompromising division that unequivocally separates winners from losers.
- Exemplified by the phrase “Second place is the first of the losers”, reflecting its uncompromising nature.
- Found in scenarios such as elections or Olympic qualifications, where outcomes are decisively binary.
- Requires an unrelenting will to win and a mindset of intense self-discipline and self-improvement.
In the next section, we will delve deeper into the concept of the Two Styles.
The Two Styles
After becoming more aware of the Four Worldviews and integrating them into my thinking, I discovered a transformative concept that not only reshaped my understanding but also expanded the way I perceive the world.
This concept is known as context.
In addition to my main profession, I am involved in supporting foreigners living in Japan with their Japanese language studies. During my exploration of Japanese teaching methods, I encountered the idea of context.
Originally a term used to describe communication styles, I realized that its meaning could be broadened to better understand and explain diverse phenomena. I was immediately struck by its versatility, as it offered a framework to analyse and interpret various situations. This realization prompted me to incorporate it into my approach to analysis and reflection.
While it’s likely that more precise terms exist to describe this concept, I have not yet encountered a term that adequately captures the breadth and flexibility I wish to convey. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the term context to refer to a general concept rooted in communication styles, applied flexibly to interpret and explain specific situations.
Low-Context
Let’s begin with the low-context style.
This style places strong emphasis on conveying information in a straightforward and unambiguous manner.
As a result, the content communicated is typically interpreted exactly as expressed, based on the literal meanings of the words or text.
A defining characteristic of low-context communication is that it avoids relying on assumptions or implicit understanding, focusing solely on the explicit content provided.
While this reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings, it also requires the communicator to ensure that every detail and nuance of their message is explicitly and thoroughly conveyed.
In everyday life, low-context communication is commonly observed in contexts such as academic writing, legal documents, regulations, contracts, news reporting, and structured debates.
High-Context
On the other hand, the high-context style relies heavily on subtlety, intuition, and shared understanding. This is a style in which Japanese people are often said to excel, as it involves interpreting unstated elements and grasping unspoken intentions.
In high-context communication, the listener’s ability to understand, interpret, and infer plays a more significant role than the explicit information provided by the speaker.
Japanese language and culture are widely recognised as high-context. By skilfully employing intuition and reading between the lines, people extract the underlying intentions and context behind the words, enabling smooth communication.
In everyday life, high-context elements are often seen in novels, art, creative works, humour, romantic interactions, and variety shows.
The Two Styles (Summary)
The two styles clearly highlight differences in the way information is communicated and interpreted.
By understanding the characteristics of each style and incorporating them into analysis, we can explain the Four Worldviews in a more multidimensional manner.
Low-Context Style
- A style that prioritises direct and explicit communication of information.
- Messages are interpreted literally, based on the exact meaning of the words.
- Assumptions or inferences are avoided; the information is received as presented.
- Misunderstandings are minimised, but the communicator must provide all necessary details explicitly.
- Examples include academic papers, laws, contracts, news, and debates.
High-Context Style
- A style that relies on intuition and inference to fill in unstated information.
- The listener’s ability to understand, interpret, and infer is crucial.
- It requires reading beyond the speaker’s words to grasp their intentions and context.
- In high-context cultures and communication, emphasis is placed on understanding the underlying meaning and background of words.
- Examples include novels, art, humour, romantic interactions, and variety shows.
In Conclusion
With this, I conclude my discussion.
I would like to sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read through this rather lengthy article.
In the next post, I plan to explore how the Four Worldviews and Two Styles come to life in everyday conversations and expressions, using relatable real-world examples to illustrate these concepts.
Note : This article is based on my own thoughts and has been refined with the support of ChatGPT.
