The Chrysanthemum And The Sword

The Chrysanthemum and the Sword is a seminal study of Japanese culture by Ruth Benedict who was commissioned by the US government to study Japanese culture in order to understand how to govern it after WWII. It turns out that she was a colleague of the infamous Margaret Mead, and like Mead I’m not sure her legacy is completely positive. She is most famous for her analysis of Japan as a culture of shame in relations to western cultures, which are cultures of guilt. However, many of her observations about the Japanese no longer hold true, since Japanese culture has changed so much since WWII. In particular he analysis of societal obligations is no longer valid in my opinion, although I think there are traces of this legacy even today, but not to the extent that Benedict writes about. I am assuming that this study also suffers from the fact that Benedict never had the opportunity to live among the Japanese to make observations on the culture firsthand, which seems to me to be a huge limitation. However, I did find her chapter on “The Meiji Reform” interesting and well written. I had been meaning to read this book for a long time, but was recently reminded of it by a colleague at a meeting where we were reviewing the English entrance examination questions. One of my Japanese colleagues felt that a particular question was reinforcing Japanese stereotypes and said, “That sentence looks like it was written by Ruth Benedict!” So I’m not sure how the book has been received by the Japanese themselves, but I have seen references to it by other Japanese anthropologists and observers. (Sawa Kurotani, who writes the Behind The Paper Screen column for The Daily Yomiuri, and Takeo Doi, author of Anatomy of Self)

Comments

[phatrick]

Though also probably a bit dated, Benedict's "Patterns of Culture" is defenitely worth a read.

[Arie C van der Hoeven]

I have felt that many of the observations of traditional Japanese culture ring truer the farther you are away from the epicenter, being Tokyo. For me there have always been two Japans, the traditional areas of Hokkaido, Shizuoka and outskirts of Kanagawa versus the hustle and modernity of metropolitan Tokyo, Kawasaki, Osaka and Yokohama. I am energized by the city, especially on visits, but have more affection for the people in more rural or outlying areas.

I'm not one who can compare, but there may be places that may be much as Japan was 50 years ago in terms of culture and social interactions.

[MC]

Arie, I think you need to read the book to see what I mean. For example "face" is very important, but not to the extent that it is scrutinzed in this book. Generally, I think the more impoverished the soceity the more important face and pride become, because they have little else. But other observations like the tolerance for drunken behavior and attitudes to sleep still ring true today.

[Arie C van der Hoeven]

I'm sure you're right, the difference in more rural areas is likely only a small degree. Unfortunately I'll likely not get to the book - the downside of my current situation with work and side projects. (Though I did finally finish the Lincoln tome "Team of Rivals".)

In another way, Japan may have changed incrementally since my days there in the early 90's. I'm more surprised at how Taipei has changed in 10 years. Last year when I was there it felt more and more like urban Japan from the 90's - especially in fashion.

Damn we're getting old - and bald :)