The Chrysanthemum and the Sword
The Chrysanthemum and the Sword by Ruth Benedict (1946), is one of the most referenced works with regards to Japanese culture. Largely written during WWII, it paints a picture of Japanese ‘culture’ in general. It popularised the idea of Japan being a ‘shame’ culture, as opposed to Western ‘guilt’ cultures, and is widely credited with both influence of American occupational policy, and the postwar rise of Japanese ‘Nihonjinron’ discourse on its own uniqueness.
The essential narrative is a ‘them’ and ‘us’ comparison, between Japanese ‘culture’, and sometimes Occidental, sometimes Western, sometimes American ‘culture’. It is therefore through comparison and analysis, a search for an essential core of ‘culture’. It ask ‘who are the Japanese’, and how do they differ fundamentally from ‘Us the Americans’. It takes a simplistic perspective that takes as fact two reductionist fictions: an unchanging and homogenous view on culture, that massively distorts Japanese reality by ignoring various patterns of historical change, outside influence, and ethnic and cultural variations; in addition it confuses the nationalist ideologies presented by both Japan, America, and European countries for a notion of real culture. Thus both Japan and Western countries are presented as having singular cultures equal to their nationalist pretensions.
The impression I got when reading Chrysanthemum and the Sword, was similar to that from various late 19th century, early 20th century, European book-length interpretive efforts, in particular those by Lafcadio Hearn, Percival Lowell, and Sidney Gulick. However perhaps because of the timing and a more relativistic perspective than previous works, it was wildly successful in the Japanese market. While sales in the US have been few, in Japan it has sold over 2 million copies.
This brings out an interesting disparity. While scholarship and debate on the book has understandably focussed on the presentation of Japanese culture, given the distribution of readership, the presentation of American culture to the Japanese would have been arguably more impactful. It may have been read for its purported explanations of ‘the Japanese’, but most of the readers would have had their own ideas of what Japanese culture entailed. In the post-war climate it is easy to imagine Japanese readers believing the nationalistic portrayal of America, due to its American authorship, due to restrictions on information on America during the war and due to the fact that most of the criticism would have been levelled at the portrayal of Japan. On top of this, there would have been a deep incentive to learn about America, as they were occupying Japan when the book was released.
So how is the US presented specifically? I will briefly present the portrayal, putting aside European and overarching Western ideas except where they are conflated, as US nationalist ideology is somewhat clearer, and takes a more prominent place here.
America is presented as ‘equality loving’. The land of ‘free America’, is dominated by a ‘trust in equality and free enterprise’. The American people are self-critical, as they ‘are accustomed to exempt no human man from skeptical scrutiny and criticism.’ The American faith in ‘equal and inviolable rights’, is never questioned with regards to its internal racial dynamics.
The American dream is visible in the ‘equality before the law and the right to better one’s condition in life’. Indeed we are told that Americans are universally economic liberals, that ‘rely strongly on competition as a ‘good thing’.’ Even to the point that they ‘accept differences in income and justify them…The person who has got rich buys better dolls for his children’.
The irony of saying ‘fixed sumptuary laws are a denial of the very basis of our society’, only 13 years after the end of prohibition seems lost on Benedict.
But it is in its foreign policy that the ideological factors are most pronounced and perhaps most important. We are told that Americans believe in ‘inviolability of sovereignty and of territorial integrity ; non-intervention in other nations’ internal affairs ; reliance on international co-operation and conciliation’. These ideals are seen as a reflection of the oft repeated mantra of equality, as ‘the highest, most moral American basis for hopes for a better world.’ This leads Benedict to characterise the countries of Europe, and America, as ‘peaceful nations’. This was needless to say a laughable statement in 1946.
The ideological narratives are there, and we have already seen how the circumstances would have engendered its success. However a further study is needed to determine whether the Chrysanthemum and the Sword really influenced Japanese perspectives of America in combination with other American propaganda, and censorship of the post-war period. In particular Japanese sources that reviewed the book and whether they notice the portrayal of America, as well as whether the book itself was presented as solely about Japan in factual terms, or rather as an American narrative on Japan, would be relevant.
