Behavior and Personality in Japan: A Critique of Three Studies of Japanese Personality

IN THE past decade, there have been a number of studies of Japanese personality which have tried to point out motivating sources of Japanese behavior. The most influential of these have been written in the United States by persons who have never been to Japan. The main difficulty with most of the studies, it is believed, has been the application of specifically Western psychological concepts and frames of reference to a personality structure which does not fit into such a framework. Another serious difficulty is that there has never been any careful scientific field study of Japanese behavior for the specific purpose of determining what constitutes Japanese personality and what factors in Japanese culture contribute to that personality.' There are scholars who would say that it is impossible to study Japanese personality, that there is no such thing as a national personality. While this viewpoint has some validity, it is both urgently necessary and clearly possible for such study to be done.2 Of course, work of this type will always be inadequate for an accurate analysis of any particular individual in a national structure, but it is possible to abstract common traits and to form a generalized personality structure which, while it may not accurately fit any one individual, will offer convenient guideposts for better understanding of a nation and the individuals in it.3 At present it is impossible to describe Japanese personality traits with any scientific surety. Western writers have described Japanese behavior and tried to analyze its motivation. Most of them, however, have been unsystematic and have inferred a "Japanese character" or "Japanese personality" from more or less scattered examples of behavior. A few recent writers, notably Benedict, Gorer, and LaBarre, have been more systematic and analytical, and have attempted interpretations on the basis of Western psychological approaches. But none of the analyses has been the product of logical inference on the basis of scientifically gathered data in the field. Accuracy achieved, for the most part, has been due to intuitive and inferential perspicacity rather than to inference on the basis of observed fact in Japan. Among the studies that have been made, the three to be considered in this paper-Gorer's, LaBarre's, and Meadow's4 -are particularly unfortunate in I A small start in the right direction has been made by the Center for Japanese Studies Field Station in Okayama Prefecture. Results of field work pertinent to this paper will be cited later. 2 Cf. Otto Klineberg, "A Science of National Character," Journal of Social Psychology, XIX (1944), 145-194. Also see Kurt Lewin, Resolving Social Conflicts (New York: Harper & Bros., 1948), pp. 3-33. Krech and Crutchfield say, however, "On the basis of the meager data now available, it does not seem possible to conclude with assurance that there are genuine and important differences in national character." They do say, on the other hand, that there is urgent need for comprehensive research on national character. David Krech and Richard S. Crutchfield, Theory and Problems of Social Psychiology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1948), pp. 591-593. Another important plea for national personality study is Bateson's. See Gregory Bateson, "Morale and National Character," in Goodwin Watson (ed.), Civilian Morale (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1942), pp. 71-91. Throughout this paper the term "personality" is used rather than the term used by the writers discussed, "character." This is because "personality" has more precise and accurate connotations than "character" in modern social science. 3 Cf. Gordon W. Allport, Personality, A Psychological Interpretation (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1937), pp. 297-303. See also Clyde Kluckhohn, Mirror for Man (New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1949), pp. 196-227. The theoretical position of the writer in relation to personality study is more or less expressed in A. L. Kroeber, Anthropology (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1948),rev. ed., pp. 572-621, and in Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Murray, Personality in Nature, Society and Cultutre (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), pp. 3-48 and pp. 164-174. In short, it is accepted that the psychoanalytical approach is a fruitful one-as supplementary to a more general anthropological-psychological approach and with appropriate restrictions when applied to cultures other than Euro-American. 4 Geoffrey Gorer, 'Japanese Character Structure and Propaganda" (New York: Institute for Intercultural Studies, 1943), mimeographed. This article, in abridged form, is found as "Themes in Japanese Culture," Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, V (1943), 106-124. Weston LaBarre, "Some Observa-