misused and abused term of all. The first and natural signification of
the word is the mere negation of personality; as a stone, for
instance, is strictly "impersonal." This is the meaning given by the
dictionaries. But in this sense, of course, it is inapplicable to
human beings. What, then, is the meaning when applied to them? When
Mr. Lowell says, "If with us [of the West] the 'I' seems to be of the
very essence of the soul, then the soul of the Far East may be said to
be 'impersonal,'" what does he mean? He certainly does not mean that
the Chinese and Japanese and Hindus have no emotional or volitional
characteristics, that they are strictly "impersonal"; nor does he mean
that the Oriental has less development of powers of thinking, willing,
feeling, or of introspective meditation. The whole argument shows that
he means that _their sense of the individuality or separateness of the
Ego is so slight that it is practically ignored; and this not by their
civilization alone, but by each individual himself_. The supreme
consciousness of the individual is not of himself, but of his family
or race; or if he is an intensely religious man, his consciousness is
concerned with his essential identity with the Absolute and Ultimate
Being, rather than with his own separate self. In other words, the
term "impersonal" is made to do duty for the non-existent negative of
"individual." "Impersonal" is thus equivalent to "universal" and
personal to "individual." To change the phraseology, the term
"impersonal" is used to signify a state of mind in which the
separateness or individuality of the individual ego is not fully
recognized or appreciated even by the individual himself. The
prominent element of the individual's consciousness is the unity or
the universalism, rather than the multiplicity or individualism.
Mr. Lowell in effect says this in his closing chapter entitled
"Imagination." His thesis seems to be that the universal mind, of
which, each individual receives a fragment, becomes increasingly
differentiated as the race mind evolves. In proportion as the
evolution has progressed does the individual realize his
individuality--his separateness; this individualization, this
differentiation of the individual mind is, in his view, the measure as
well as the cause of the higher civilization. The lack of such
individualization he calls "impersonality"; in such a mind the
dominant thought is not of the separateness between, but of the unity
that binds together, himself and the universal mind.
If the above is a correct statement of the conception of those who
emphasize the "impersonality" of the Orient, then there are two things
concerning it which may be said at once. First, the idea is a
perfectly clear and intelligible one, the proposition is definite and
tangible. But why do they not so express it? The terms "personality"
and "individuality" are used synonymously; while "impersonal" is
considered the equivalent of the negative of individual,
un-individual--a word which has not yet been and probably never will
be used. But the negation of individual is universal; "impersonal,"
therefore, according to the usage of these writers, becomes equivalent
to universal.
But, secondly, even after the use of terms has become thus understood,
and we are no longer confused over the words, having arrived at the
idea they are intended to convey, the idea itself is fundamentally
erroneous. I freely admit that there is an interesting truth of which
these writers have got a glimpse and to which they are striving to
give expression, but apparently they have not understood the real
nature of this truth and consequently they are fundamentally wrong in
calling the Far East "impersonal," even in their sense of the word.
They are furthermore in error, in ascribing this "impersonal"
characteristic of the Japanese to their inherent race nature, If they
are right, the problem is fundamentally one of biological evolution.
In contrast to this view, it is here contended, first, that the
feature they are describing is not such as they describe it; second,
that it is not properly called "impersonality"; third, that it is not
a matter of inherent race nature, of brain structure, or of mind
differentiation, but wholly a matter of social evolution; and, fourth,
that if there is such a trait as they describe, it is not due to a
deficiently developed but on the contrary to a superlatively developed
personality, which might better be called super-personality. To state
the position here advocated in a nutshell, it is maintained that the
asserted "impersonality" of the Japanese is the result of the
communalistic nature of the social order which has prevailed down to
the most recent times; it has put its stamp on every feature of the
national and individual life, not omitting the language, the
philosophy, the religion, or even the inmost thoughts of the people.
This dominance of the communalistic type of social order has doubtless
had an effect on the physical and psychic, including the brain,
development of the people. These physical and psychical developments,
however, are not the cause, but the product, of the social order. They
are, furthermore, of no superlative import, since they offer no
insuperable obstacle to the introduction of a social order radically
different from that of past millenniums.
Before proceeding to elaborate and illustrate this general position,
it seems desirable to introduce two further definitions.
Communalism and individualism are the two terms used throughout this
work to describe two contrasted types of social order.
By communalism I mean that order of society, whether family, tribal,
or national, in which the idea and the importance of the community are
more or less clearly recognized, and in which this idea has become the
constructive principle of the social order, and where at the same time
the individual is practically ignored and crushed.
By individualism I mean that later order of society in which the worth
of the individual has been recognized and emphasized, to the extent of
radically modifying the communalism, securing a liberty for individual
act and thought and initiative, of which the old order had no
conception, and which it would have considered both dangerous and
immoral. Individualism is not that atomic social order in which the
idea of the communal unity has been rejected, and each separate human
being regarded as the only unit. Such a society could hardly be called
an order, even by courtesy. Individualism is that developed stage of
communalism, wherein the advantages of close communal unity have been
retained, and wherein, at the same time, the idea and practice of the
worth of the individual and the importance of giving him liberty of
thought and action have been added. Great changes in the internal
structure, of society follow, but the communial unity or idea is
neither lost nor injured. In taking up our various illustrations
regarding personality in Japan, three points demand our attention;
what are the facts? are they due to, and do they prove, the asserted
"impersonality" of the people? and are the facts sufficiently
accounted for by the communal theory of the Japanese social order?
Let us begin, then, with the illustration of which advocates of
"impersonality" make so much, Japanese politeness. As to the reality
of the fact, it is hardly necessary that I present extended proof.
Japanese politeness is proverbial. It is carried into the minutest
acts of daily life; the holding of the hands, the method of entering a
room, the sucking in of the breath on specific occasions, the
arrangement of the hair, the relative places of honor in a
sitting-room, the method of handing guests refreshments, the exchange
of friendly gifts--every detail of social life is rigidly dominated by
etiquette. Not only acts, but the language of personal address as
well, is governed by ideas of politeness which have fundamentally
affected the structure of the language, by preventing the development
of personal pronouns.
Now what is the cause of this characteristic of the Japanese? It is
commonly attributed by writers of the impersonal school to the
"impersonality" of the Oriental mind. "Impersonality" is not only the
occasion, it is the cause of the politeness of the Japanese people.
"Self is suppressed, and an ever-present regard for others is
substituted in its stead." "Impersonality, by lessening the interest
in one's self, induces one to take interest in others."[CO] Politeness
is, in these passages, attributed to the impersonal nature of the
Japanese mind. The following quotations show that this characteristic
is conceived of as inherent in race and mind structure, not in the
social order, as is here maintained. "The nation grew up to man's
estate, keeping the mind of its childhood."[CP] "In race
characteristics, he is yet essentially the same.... Of these traits
... perhaps the most important is the great quality of
impersonality."[CQ] "The peoples inhabiting it [the earth's temperate
zone] grow steadily more personal as we go West. So unmistakable is
this gradation that one is almost tempted to ascribe it to cosmical
rather than human causes.... The essence of the soul of the Far East
may be said to be impersonality."[CR]
In his chapter on "Imagination," Mr. Lowell seeks to explain the cause
of the "impersonality" of the Orient. He attributes it to their marked
lack of the faculty of "imagination"--the faculty of forming new and
original ideas. Lacking this faculty, there has been relatively little
stimulus to growth, and hence no possibility of differentiation and
thus of individualization.
If politeness were due to the "impersonal" nature of the race mind, it
would be impossible to account for the rise and decline of Japanese
etiquette, for it should have existed from the beginning, and
continued through all time, nor could we account for the gross
impoliteness that is often met with in recent years. The Japanese
themselves deplore the changes that have taken place. They testify
that the older forms of politeness were an integral element of the
feudal system and were too often a thin veneer of manner by no means
expressive of heart interest. None can be so absolutely rude as they
who are masters of the forms of politeness, but have not the kindly
heart. The theory of "impersonality" does not satisfactorily account
for the old-time politeness of Japan.
The explanation here offered for the development and decline of
politeness is that they are due to the nature of the social order.
Thoroughgoing feudalism long maintained, with its social ranks and
free use of the sword, of necessity develops minute unwritten rules of
etiquette; without the universal observance of these customs, life
would be unbearable and precarious, and society itself would be
impossible. Minute etiquette is the lubricant of a feudal social
order. The rise and fall of Japan's phenomenal system of feudal
etiquette is synchronous with that of her feudal system, to which it
is due rather than to the asserted "impersonality" of the race mind.
The impersonal theory is amazingly blind to adverse phenomena. Such a
one is the marked sensitiveness of the middle and upper classes to the
least slight or insult. The gradations of social rank are scrupulously
observed, not only on formal occasions, but also in the homes at
informal and social gatherings. Failure to show the proper attention,
or the use of language having an insufficient number of honorific
particles and forms, would be instantly interpreted as a personal
slight, if not an insult.[CS]
Now if profuse courtesy is a proof of "impersonality," as its
advocates argue, what does morbid sensitiveness prove but highly
developed personality? But then arises the difficulty of understanding
how the same individuals can be both profusely polite and morbidly
sensitive at one and the same time? Instead of inferring
"impersonality" from the fact of politeness, from the two facts of
sensitiveness and politeness we may more logically infer a
considerable degree of personality. Yet I would not lay much stress on
this argument, for oftentimes (or is it always true?) the weaker and
more insignificant the person, the greater the sensitiveness. Extreme
sensitiveness is as natural and necessary a product of a highly
developed feudalism as is politeness, and neither is particularly due
to the high or the low development of personality.
Similarly with respect to the question of altruism, which is
practically identified with politeness by expounders of Oriental
"impersonality." They make this term (altruism) the virtual
equivalent of "impersonality"--interest in others rather than in self,
an interest due, according to their view, to a lack of differentiation
of the individual minds; the individuals, though separate, still
retain the universalism of the original mind-stuff. This use of the
term altruism makes it a very different thing from the quality or
characteristic which in the West is described by this term.
But granting that this word is used with a legitimate meaning, we ask,
is altruism in this sense an inherent quality of the Japanese race?
Let the reader glance back to our discussion of the possession by the
Japanese of sympathy, and the humane feelings.[CT] We saw there marked
proofs of their lack. The cruelty of the old social order was such as
we can hardly realize. Altruism that expresses itself only in polite
forms, and does not strive to alleviate the suffering of fellow-men,
can have very little of that sense, which this theory requires. So
much as to the fact. Then as to the theory. If this alleged altruism
were inherent in the mental structure, it ought to be a universal
characteristic of the Japanese; it should be all-pervasive and
permanent. It should show itself toward the foreigner as well as
toward the native. But such is far from the case. Few foreigners have
received a hearty welcome from the people at large. They are suspected
and hated; as little room as possible is made for them. The less of
their presence and advice, the better. So far as there is any interest
in them, it is on the ground of utility, and not of inherent good will
because of a feeling of aboriginal unity. Of course there are many
exceptions to these statements, especially among the Christians. But
such is the attitude of the people as a whole, especially of the
middle and upper classes toward the foreigners.
If we turn our attention to the opposite phase of Japanese character,
namely their selfishness, their self-assertiveness, and their
aggressiveness, whether as a nation or as individuals, and consider at
the same time the recent rise of this spirit, we are again impressed
both with the narrow range of facts to which the advocates of
"impersonality" call our attention, and also with the utter
insufficiency of their theory to account for the facts they overlook.
According to the theory of altruism and "impersonality," these are
characteristics of undeveloped races and individuals, while the
reverse characteristics, those of selfishness and self-assertiveness,
are the products of a later and higher development, marks of strong
personality. But neither selfishness nor individual aggressiveness is
a necessary element of developed "personality." If it were, children
who have never been trained by cultivated mothers, but have been
allowed to have their own way regardless of the rights or desires of
others, are more highly developed in "personality" than the adult who
has, through a long life of self-discipline and religious devotion,
become regardless of his selfish interests and solicitous only for the
welfare of others. If the high development of altruism is equivalent
to the development of "impersonality," then those in the West who are
renowned for humanity and benevolence are "impersonal," while robbers
and murderers and all who are regardless of the welfare of others are
possessed of the most highly developed "personality." And it also
follows that highly developed altruistic benefactors of mankind are
such, after all, because they are _undeveloped_,--their minds are
relatively undifferentiated,--hence their fellow-feeling and kindly
acts. There is a story of some learned wit who met a half-drunken
boor; the latter plunged ahead, remarking, "I never get out of the way
of a fool"; to which the quick reply came, "I always do." According to
this argument based on self-assertive aggressiveness, the boor was the
man possessed of a strong personality, while the gentleman was
relatively "impersonal." If pure selfishness and aggressiveness are
the measure of personality, then are not many of the carnivorous
animals endowed with a very high degree of "personality"?
The truth is, a comprehensive and at the same time correct contrast
between the East and the West cannot be stated in terms of personality
and impersonality. They fail not only to take in all the facts, but
they fail to explain even the facts they take in. Such a contrast of
the East and the West can be stated only in the terms of communalism
and individualism. As we have already seen,[CU] every nation has to
pass through the communal stage, in order to become a nation at all.
The families and tribes of which it is composed need to become
consolidated in order to survive in the struggle for existence with
surrounding families, tribes, and nations. In this stage the
individual is of necessity sunk out of sight in the demands of the
community. This secures indeed a species of altruism, but of a
relatively low order. It is communal altruism which nature compels on
pain of extermination. This, however, is very different from the
altruism of a high religious experience and conscious ethical
devotion. This latter is volitional, the product of character. This
altruism can arise chiefly in a social order where individualism to a
large extent has gained sway. It is this variety of altruism that
characterizes the West, so far as the West is altruistic. But on the
other hand, in a social order in which individualism has full swing,
the extreme of egoistic selfishness can also find opportunity for
development. It is accordingly in the West that extreme selfishness,
the most odious of sins, is seen at its best, or rather its worst.
So again we see that selfish aggressiveness and an exalted
consciousness of one's individuality or separateness are not necessary
marks of developed personality, nor their opposite the marks of
undeveloped personality--so-called "impersonality." On the contrary,
the reverse statement would probably come nearer the truth. He who is
intensely conscious of the great unities of nature and of human
nature, of the oneness that unites individuals to the nation and to
the race, and who lives a corresponding life of goodness and kindness,
is by far the more developed personality. But the manifestations of
personality will vary much with the nature of the social order. This
may change with astonishing rapidity. Such a change has come over the
social order of the Japanese nation during the past thirty years,
radically modifying its so-called impersonal features. Their primitive
docility, their politeness, their marriage customs, their universal
adoption of Chinese thoughts, language, and literature, and now, in
recent times, their rejection of the Chinese philosophy and science,
their assertiveness in Korea and China and their aggressive attitude
toward the whole world--all these multitudinous changes and complete
reversals of ideals and customs, point to the fact that the former
characteristics of their civilization were not "impersonal," but
communal, and that they rested on social development rather than on
inherent nature or on deficient mental differentiation.
A common illustration of Japanese "impersonality," depending for its
force wholly on invention, is the deficiency of the Japanese language
in personal pronouns and its surplus of honorifics. At first thought
this argument strikes one as very strong, as absolutely invincible
indeed. Surely, if there is a real lack of personal pronouns, is not
that proof positive that the people using the language, nay, the
authors of the language, must of necessity be deficient in the sense
of personality? And if the verbs in large numbers are impersonal, does
not that clinch the matter? But further consideration of the argument
and its illustrations gradually shows its weakness. At present I must
confess that the argument seems to me utterly fallacious, and for the
sufficient reason that the personal element is introduced, if not
always explicitly yet at least implicitly, in almost every sentence
uttered. The method of its expression, it is true, is quite different
from that adopted by Western languages, but it is none the less there.
It is usually accomplished by means of the titles, "honorific"
particles, and honorific verbs and nouns. "Honorable shoes" can't by
any stretch of the imagination mean shoes that belong to me; every
Japanese would at once think "your shoes"; his attention is not
distracted by the term "honorable" as is that of the foreigner; the
honor is largely overlooked by the native in the personal element
implied. The greater the familiarity with the language the more clear
it becomes that the impressions of "impersonality" are due to the
ignorance of the foreigner rather than to the real "impersonal"
character of the Japanese thought or mind. In the Japanese methods of
linguistic expression, politeness and personality are indeed,
inextricably interwoven; but they are not at all confused. The
distinctions of person and the consciousness of self in the Japanese
_thought_ are as clear and distinct as they are in the English
thought. In the Japanese _sentence_, however, the politeness and the
personality cannot be clearly separated. On that account, however,
there is no more reason for denying one element than the other.
So far from the deficiency of personal pronouns being a proof of
Japanese "impersonality," _i.e._, of lack of consciousness of self,
this very deficiency may, with even more plausibility, be used to
establish the opposite view. Child psychology has established the fact
that an early phenomenon of child mental development is the emphasis
laid on "meum" and "tuum," mine and yours. The child is a
thoroughgoing individualist in feelings, conceptions, and language.
The first personal pronoun is ever on his lips and in his thought.
Only as culture arises and he is trained to see how disagreeable in
others is excessive emphasis on the first person, does he learn to
moderate his own excessive egoistic tendency. Is it not a fact that
the studied evasion of first personal pronouns by cultured people in
the West is due to their developed consciousness of self? Is it
possible for one who has no consciousness of self to conceive as
impolite the excessive use of egoistic forms of speech? From this
point of view we might argue that, because of the deficiency of her
personal pronouns, the Japanese nation has advanced far beyond any
other nation in the process of self-consciousness. But this too would
be an error. Nevertheless, so far from saying that the lack of
personal pronouns is a proof of the "impersonality" of the Japanese, I
think we may fairly use it as a disproof of the proposition.
The argument for the inherent impersonality of the Japanese mind
because of the relative lack of personal pronouns is still further
undermined by the discovery, not only of many substitutes, but also of
several words bearing the strong impress of the conception of self.
There are said to be three hundred words which may be used as personal
pronouns--"Boku," "servant," is a common term for "I," and "kimi,"
"Lord," for "you"; these words are freely used by the student class.
Officials often use "Konata," "here," and "Anata," "there," for the
first and second persons. "Omaye," "honorably in front," is used both
condescendingly and honorifically; "you whom I condescend to allow in
my presence," and "you who confer on me the honor of entering your
presence." The derivation of the most common word for I, "Watakushi,"
is unknown, but, in addition to its pronominal use, it has the meaning
of "private." It has become a true personal pronoun and is freely used
by all classes.