religious conceptions, and that many moral and social evils are
entering the land, who yet does not see that the wide acceptance of
some new religion by the people is important for the maintenance of
the nation. Some earnest Japanese thinkers are beginning to realize
that religion is, indeed, needful to steady the national life, but
they fail to see that Christianity alone fulfills the condition. Many
are saying that a religion scientifically constructed must be
manufactured especially for Japan.
The reason why individualistic religion takes such an important part
in the higher evolution of man is, in a word, because the religious
sanctions are so much more powerful than all others, either legal or
social. For the legal sanctions are chiefly negative; they are also
partial and uncertain, and easily evaded by the selfish individual.
The social sanctions, too, are often far from just or impartial or
wise. Furthermore, the rise of individualism in the social order
secures privacy for the individual, and so far forth removes him from
the restraints and stimuli of the social sanctions. It is the
religious sanctions alone that follow the man in every waking moment.
Not one of all his acts escapes the eye of the religious judgment. He
is his own judge, and he cannot escape bearing witness against
himself.
Now, it is manifest that where superior beings and man's relation to
these and the corresponding religious sanctions are defectively
conceived, as, for instance, quite apart either from the individual or
the communal life, they are valueless to the higher evolution of man
and have little interest for the student of social evolution. In
proportion, however, as man advances in intellectual grasp of
religious truths and in susceptibility to the moral ideas and
religious sanctions they provide, conceiving of morality and religion
as inseparable parts of the same system, the more powerfully does
religion enter into and promote man's higher evolution. An
individualistic social order demands the religious sanctions more
imperatively than a communal social order; for, in proportion as it is
individualistic, the social order is weak in compelling, through the
legal and social sanctions alone, the communal or altruistic activity
of the individual. Altruistic spirit and action, however, are
essential to the maintenance even of that individualistic order. The
more highly society develops, therefore, the more religious must each
member of the society become.
The same truth may be stated from another standpoint. The higher man
develops, the more impatient he becomes with illogical reasonings and
defective conceptions; he thus becomes increasingly skeptical in
regard to current traditional religions with their crude, primitive
ideas; he is accordingly increasingly freed from the restraints they
impose. But unless he finds some new religious sanctions for the
communal life, for social conduct, and for the individual
life,--ideals and sanctions that command his assent and direct his
life,--he will drop back into a thoroughgoing atomic, individualistic,
selfish life, which can be only a hindrance to the higher development
both of society and of the individual. In order that men advancing in
intellectual ability may remain useful members of society, they must
remain subject to those ideals and sanctions which will actually
secure social conduct. While disregarding the chaff of primitive
religious superstitions and ceremonials man must retain the wheat; he
must feel the force of the religious spirit in a deeper and
profounder, because more personal way than did his ancestors.
Increasing intellectual power and knowledge must be balanced by
increasing individual experience of the religious motives and spirit.
This is the reason why each advancing age should study afresh the
whole religious problem, and state in the terms of its own experience
the prominent and permanent religious truths of all the ages and the
sanctions that flow from them. Hence it is that a religion only
traditional and ceremonial is quite unfitted for a developing life.
Japan is no exception to the general laws of human evolution. As her
intellectual abilities increase, the forms of her old religious life
will become increasingly unacceptable to the people at large. If, in
rejecting the obsolete forms of religious thought, she rejects
religion and its sanctions altogether, atomistic individualism can be
the only result, and with it wide moral corruption will eat out the
vitality of the national life.
That Christianity alone, of all the religions of the world, fulfills
the conditions will not need many words to prove. As a matter of fact
Christianity alone has succeeded in surviving the criticism of the
nineteenth century. In Christendom, all religions but Christianity
have perished. This is a mere matter of fact. As for the reason,
Christianity alone gives complete intellectually satisfactory
sanctions for both the communal and the individualistic principles of
social progress. Christianity, as we have sufficiently shown, has both
principles not unrelated to each other, but vitally interrelated. For
these reasons it is safe to maintain not only that Japan needs to find
a new religion, but that the religion must be Christianity in
substance, whatever be the name given it.
The Japanese have been described as essentially irreligious in nature.
We have seen how defective such a description is. But have we not now
traced one root of this seeming characteristic of New Japan? The old
religious conceptions have been largely outgrown by the educated. They
have come to the conclusion that the old religious forms constitute
the whole of religion, and that consequently they are unworthy of
attention. The spirit of New Japan is indifferent to religion; but
this is not due to an inherently non-religious or irreligious nature,
but to the empty externalism and shallow puerilities of the only
religions they know. How can they be zealous for them or recognize any
authority in them? Those few Japanese who have come within the
influence of the larger conception of religion brought to Japan by
Christianity are showing a religious zeal and power supporting the
contention that the generally asserted lack of a religious nature is
only apparent and temporary. Preaching the right set of ideas, those
which appeal to the national sense of communal needs, by supplying the
demand for sanctions for the social order; ideas which appeal to
intellects molded by modern thought, by supplying such an intellectual
understanding of the universe as justifies the various supra-communal
sanctions; and ideas which appeal to the heart, by supplying the
personal demand of each individual for a larger life, for intercourse
with the Father of all Spirits and for strength for the prolonged
battle of life--preach these and kindred ideas, and the Japanese will
again become as conspicuously a religious people as they were when
Buddhism came to Japan a thousand years ago.[DG]
But if the real nature of a full and perfect religion is to save not
only the individual, providing sanctions for his conduct, but also to
justify the social order, and to provide sanctions that shall secure
its maintenance, any religion which fails to have both characteristics
can hardly claim the name universal. We have seen that Buddhism lacks
one of these elements. In my judgment it is not properly universal. So
long as it exists in or goes to a land already provided with other
religions securing the social order, it may continue to thrive. But,
on the one hand, it can never become the exclusive religion of any
land for it cannot do without and therefore it cannot depose the other
religions; and, on the other hand, it must give way before the
stronger religion which has both the individual and communal elements
combined. Buddhism, therefore, lacks a vital characteristic of a
universal religion. It may better be called a non-local, or an
international religion. We now see another reason why Buddhism,
although found in many Oriental lands, has never annihilated any of
the pre-existing religions, but has only added one more to the many
varieties already existing. It is so in Thibet, in China, in Burmah,
and in Japan. And in India, its home, it has utterly died out.
Many of the efforts made by students of comparative religion to
classify the various religions, seem to the writer defective through
lack of the perception that social and religious evolution are vitally
connected. From this point of view, the classification of religions as
communal, individual, and communo-individual, would seem to be the
best.
XXXVI
WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORIENT?
We have now passed in rather detailed review the emotional, æsthetic,
intellectual, moral, and religious characteristics of the Japanese
race. We have, furthermore, given considerable attention to the
problem of personality. We have tried to understand the relation of
each characteristic to the Japanese feudal system and social order.
The reader will perhaps feel some dissatisfaction with the results of
this study. "Are there, then," he may say, "no distinctive Japanese
psychical characteristics by which this Eastern race is radically
differentiated from those of the Occident?" "Are there no peculiar
features of an Oriental, mental and moral, which infallibly and always
distinguish him from an Occidental?" The reply to this question given
in the preceding chapters of this work is negative. For the sake,
however, of the reader who may not yet be thoroughly satisfied, it may
be well to examine this problem a little further, analyzing some of
the current characterizations of the Orient.
That Oriental and Occidental peoples are each possessed of certain
unique psychic characteristics, sharply and completely differentiating
them from each other, is the opinion of scientific sociologists as
well as of more popular writers. An Occidental entering the Orient is
well-nigh overwhelmed with amusement and surprise at the antipodal
characteristics of the two civilizations. Every visible expression of
Oriental civilization, every mode of thought, art, architecture;
conceptions of God, man, and nature; pronunciation and structure of
the language--all seem utterly different from their corresponding
elements in the West. Furthermore, as he visits one Oriental country
after another, although he discovers differences between Japanese,
Koreans, Chinese, and Hindus, yet he is impressed with a strange, a
baffling similarity.
The tourist naturally concludes that the unity characterizing the
Orient is fundamental; that Oriental civilization is due to Oriental
race brain, and Occidental civilization is due to Occidental race
brain.
This impression and this conclusion of the tourist are not, however,
limited to him. The "old resident" in the East becomes increasingly
convinced with every added year that an Oriental is a different kind
of human being from a Westerner. As he becomes accustomed to the
externals of the Oriental civilization, he forgets its comical
aspects, he even comes to appreciate many of its conveniences. But in
proportion as he becomes familiar with its languages, its modes of
thought and feeling, its business methods, its politics, its
literature, its amusements, does he increasingly realize the gulf set
between an Oriental and an Occidental. The inner life of the spirit of
an Oriental would be utterly inane, spiritless to the average
Occidental. The "old resident" accordingly knows from long experience
what the tourist only guesses from a hasty glance, that the
characteristic differences distinguishing the peoples of the East and
the West are racial and ineradicable. An Oriental is an Oriental, and
that is the ultimate, only thoroughgoing explanation of his nature.
The conception of the tourist and the "old resident" crops up in
nearly every article and book touching on Far Eastern peoples.
Whatever the point of remark or criticism, if it strikes the writer as
different from the custom of Occidentals, it is laid to the account of
Orientalism.
This conception, however, of distinguishing Oriental characteristics,
is not confined to popular writers and unscientific persons. Even
professed and eminent sociologists advocate it. Prof. Le Bon, in his
sophistic volume on the "Psychology of Peoples," advocates it
strenuously. A few quotations from this interesting work may not be
out of place.
"The object of this work is to describe the psychological
characteristics which constitute the soul of races, and to show how
the history of a people and its civilization is determined by these
characteristics."[DH] "The point that has remained most clearly fixed
in mind, after long journeys through the most varied countries, is
that each people possesses a mental constitution as unaltering as its
anatomical characteristics, a constitution which is the source of its
sentiments, thoughts, institutions, beliefs, and arts."[DI]
"The life of a people, its institutions, beliefs, and arts, are but
the visible expression of its invisible soul. For a people to
transform its institutions, beliefs, and arts it must first transform
its soul."[DJ]
"Each race possesses a constitution as unvarying as its anatomical
constitution. There seems to be no doubt that the former corresponds
to a certain special structure of the brain."[DK]
"A negro or a Japanese may easily take a university degree or become a
lawyer; the sort of varnish he thus acquires is, however, quite
superficial and has no influence on his mental constitution. What no
education can give him, because they are created by heredity alone,
are the forms of thought, the logic, and above all the character of
the Western man."[DL]
"Cross-breeding constitutes the only infallible means at our disposal
of transforming in a fundamental manner the character of a people,
heredity being the only force powerful enough to contend with
heredity. Cross-breeding allows of the creation of a new race,
possessing new physical and psychological characteristics."[DM]
Such, then, being the opinion of travelers, residents, and
professional sociologists, it is not to be lightly rejected. Nor has
it been lightly rejected by the writer. For years he agreed with this
view, but repeated study of the problem has convinced him of the
fallacy of both the conception and the argument, and has brought him
to the position maintained in this work.
The characteristics differentiating Occidental and
Oriental peoples and civilizations are undoubtedly great. But they
are differences of social evolution and rest on social, not on
biological heredity. Anatomical differences are natal, racial, and
necessary. Not so with social characteristics and differences. These
are acquired by each individual chiefly after birth, and depend on
social environment which determines the education from infancy upward.
Furthermore, an entire nation or race, if subjected to the right
social environment, may profoundly transform its institutions,
beliefs, and arts, which in turn transform what Prof. Le Bon and
kindred writers call the invisible "race soul." Racial activity
produces race character, for "Function produces organism." I cannot
agree with these writers in the view that the race soul is a given
fixed entity. Social psychogenesis is a present and a progressive
process. Japan is a capital illustration of it. In the development of
races and civilizations involution is as continuous a process as
evolution. Evolution is, indeed, only one-half of the process. Without
involution, evolution is incomprehensible. And involution is the more
interesting half, as it is the more significant. In modern discussion
much that passes by the name of evolution is, in reality, a discussion
of involution.
The attentive reader will have discovered that the real point of the
discussion of Japanese characteristics given in the preceding chapters
has been on the point of involution. How have these characteristics
arisen? has been our ever-recurring question. The answer has
invariably tried to show their relation to the social order. In this
way we have traversed a large number of leading characteristics of the
Japanese. We have seen how they arose, and also how they are now being
transformed by the new Occidentalized social order. We have seen that
not one of the characteristics examined is inherent, that is, due to
brain structure, to biological heredity. We have concluded, therefore,
that the psychical characteristics which differentiate races are all
but wholly social.
It is incumbent on advocates of the biological view to point out in
detail the distinguishing inherent traits of the Orient. Let them also
catalogue the essential psychic characteristics of Occidentals. Such
an attempt is seldom made. And when it is made it is singularly
unconvincing. Although Prof. Le Bon states that the mental
constitution of races is as distinctive and unaltering as their
anatomical characteristics, he fails to tell us what they are. This is
a vital omission. If the differences are as distinct as he asserts, it
would seem to be an easy matter to describe them. Whatever the
clothing adopted, it is an easy matter for one to distinguish a
European from an Asiatic, an Englishman from an Italian, a Japanese
from a Korean, a Chinaman from a Hindu. The anatomical characteristics
of races are clear and easily described. If the psychic
characteristics are equally distinct, why do not they who assert this
distinctness describe and catalogue these differences?
Occasionally a popular writer makes something of an attempt in this
direction, but with astonishingly slight results. A recent writer in
the London _Daily Mail_ has illustrated afresh the futility of all
attempts to catalogue the distinguishing characteristics of the
Oriental. He names the inferior position assigned to women, the
licentiousness of men, licensed prostitution, lack of the play
instinct among Oriental boys, scorn of Occidental civilization, and
the rude treatment of foreigners. Many of his statements of facts are
sadly at fault. But supposing them to be true, are they the
differentiating characteristics of the Orient? Consider for a moment
what was the position of woman in ancient times in the Occident, and
what was the moral character of Occidental men? Is not prostitution
licensed to-day in the leading cities of Europe? And is there not an
unblushing prostitution in the larger cities of England and America
which would put to shame the licensed prostitution of Japan? Are
Orientals and their civilization universally esteemed and
considerately treated in the Occident? Surely none of these are
uniquely Oriental characteristics, distinguishing them from Occidental
peoples as clearly as the anatomical characteristics of oblique eyes
and yellow skin.
Mr. Percival Lowell has made a careful philosophical effort to
discover the essential psychic nature of the Orient. He describes it,
as we have seen, as "Impersonality." The failure of his effort we
have sufficiently considered.
There remain a few other characterizations of the Orient that we may
well examine briefly.
It has been stated that the characteristic psychic trait
distinguishing the East from the West is that the former is intuitive,
while the latter is logical. In olden times Oriental instruction
relied on the intuitions of the student. No reliance was placed on the
logical process. Religion, so far as it was not ceremony and magic,
was intuitional, "Satori," "Enlightenment," was the keyword. Each man
attains enlightenment by himself--through a flash of intuition. Moral
instruction likewise was intuitional. Dogmatic statements were made
whose truth the learner was to discover for himself; no effort was
made to explain them. Teaching aimed to go direct to the point, not
stopping to explain the way thither.
That this was and is a characteristic of the Orient cannot be
disputed. The facts are abundant and clear. But the question is
whether this is a racial psychic characteristic, such that it
inevitably controls the entire thinking of an Oriental, whatever his
education, and also whether the Occident is conspicuously deficient in
this psychic characteristic. Thus stated, the question almost answers
itself.
Orientals educated in Western methods of thought acquire logical
methods of reasoning and teaching. The old educational methods of
Japan are now obsolete. On the other hand, intuitionalism is not
unknown in the West. Mystics in religion are all conspicuously
intuitional. So too are Christian scientists, faith-healers, and
spiritualists. Great preachers and poets are intuitionalists rather
than logicians.
Furthermore, if we look to ancient times, we shall see that even
Occidentals were dominated by intuitionalism. All primitive knowledge
was dominated by intuitions, and was as absurd as many still prevalent
Oriental conceptions of nature. The bane of ancient science and
philosophy was its reliance on a priori considerations; that is, on
intuition. Inductive, carefully logical methods of thought, of
science, of philosophy, and even of religion, are relatively modern
developments of the Occidental mind. We have learned to doubt
intuitions unverified by investigation and experimental evidence. The
wide adoption of the inductive method is a recent characteristic of
the West.
Modern progress has consisted in no slight degree in the development
of logical powers, and particularly in the power of doubting and
examining intuitions. To say that the East is conspicuously
intuitional and the West is conspicuously logical is fairly true, but
this misses the real difference. The West is intuitional plus logical.
It uses the intuitional method in every department of life, but it
does not stop with it. An intuition is not accepted as truth until it
has been subjected by the reason to the most thorough criticism
possible. The West distrusts the unverified and unguided intuitive
judgment. On the other hand, the East is not inherently deficient in
logical power. When brought into contact with Occidental life, and
especially when educated in Occidental methods of thought, the
Oriental is not conspicuously deficient in logical ability.
This line of thought leads to the conclusion that the psychic
characteristics distinguishing the East from the West, profound though
they are, are sociological rather than biological. They are the
characteristics of the civilization rather than of essential race
nature.
A fact remarked by many thoughtful Occidentals is the astonishing
difficulty--indeed the impossibility--of becoming genuinely and
intimately acquainted with the Japanese. Said a professor of Harvard
University to the writer some years ago: "Do you in Japan find it
difficult to become truly acquainted with the Japanese? We see many
students here, but we are unable to gain more than a superficial
acquaintance. They seem to be incrusted in a shell that we are unable
to pierce." The editor of the _Japan Mail_, speaking of the difficulty
of securing "genuinely intimate intercourse with the Japanese people,"
says: "The language also is needed. Yet even when the language is
added, something still remains to be achieved, and what that something
is we have never been able to discover, though we have been
considering the subject for thirty-three years. No foreigner has ever
yet succeeded in being admitted into the inner circle of Japanese
intercourse."
Is this a fact? If not, why is it so widespread a belief? If it is a
fact, what is the interpretation? Like most generalizations it
expresses both a truth and an error. As the statement of a general
experience, I believe it to be true. As an assertion of universal
application I believe it to be false. As a truth, how is it to be
explained? Is it due to difference of race soul, and thus to racial
antipathy, as some maintain? If so, it must be a universal fact. This,
however, is an error, as we shall see. The explanation is not so hard
to find as at first appears.