The Rashomon effect refers to the phenomenon where the same event is described or interpreted in vastly different but equally conceivable ways through various people who were involved.
The Rashomon Effect originated in the pen of Japanese author Rayumosuke Akutagava in a short story titled “In a Grove”. The term introduced the world to an enduring cultural metaphor that has altered our conception of truth, justice and human memory. In 1950 Akira Kurosawa adapted two of Akutagava’s stories into one film. By using their mediums, the director and the writer transformed each witness into an unreliable narrator.
Related: Ignorance is bliss? Or shall we take the red pill?
The movie’s plot is focused on a murder where the dead body of a samurai is found and stabbed to death by a woodcutter. With reference to this crime a bandit is captured but what puts the viewers into speculation is his testament in the court as well as those of the samurai’s wife and the woodcutter, who come across the samurai’s body, all unfold different versions of the truth.
The study has shown that when we form a memory, our interpretations of visual information are influenced by our previous experiences and internal biases. For example, egocentric bises elevate people to subconsciously reshape their memory. Even if we were able to encode an event or action accurately, then recalling it incorporates the new information that changes the memory. In such a way we narrate the embellished scene instead of the original experience.
The Rashomon Effect has left a mark on various fields. In biology, scientists starting from similar data and analytical methods, publish different results. Anthropologists regularly grapple with the fact that personal background can strongly influence an expert’s perception. In one famous case, two anthropologists visited the Mexican village of Tepozltan. By presenting their findings, one of them reported the lifestyle as happy and contended while the second declared the people disgusted and piqued.
In 2015, the security summit between the United States and the leaders of the Arab states was reported enormously. According to some journalists, it was smooth. But on the other side, many regarded the meeting as futile.
It’s tempting to fixate on that why we have competing points of view. Are there situations where the objective truth doesn’t exist? Is there any credibility of time, people, and place counted in an incident? What’s the truth anyway? Perhaps we should accept the ambiguity on a lighter side.
About The Author:
I did BS(Hons) in English Literature from a well-reputed University. I’m a certified Creative Writer and Freelancer from the Ministry of Information Technology of Pakistan. Previously I collaborated with Ilmkidunia.com (an educational website). Usually, I write short stories, articles and other literary or non-literary sorts. My thought is to present knowledge from the third eye.
