54
RICE UNIVERSITY STUDIES
scholars work together as true co-workers, rather than a Japanese scholar
playing basically the role of a “sophisticated informant” for his American
colleague, which unfortunately has often been the case.
Such a closer cooperation between American and Japanese scholars
can, and perhaps should, be combined with the second effort, namely,
the comparative study of Japan with other countries. The comparative
approach invites people with extensive knowledge of Japan and those with-
out it (the “area-oriented” and “problem-oriented” people, as Caudill
classifies them). In my review article (Wagatsuma 1969), I pointed out that
in studies made by Japanese scholars of socialization processes, person
perception or group dynamics, and mass communication, the variable
“Japan” is often totally lacking. I also noticed that some “comparative”
studies done by collaborating Japanese and American psychologists, in
which questionnaires and psychological tests were used, showed super-
ficiality and rather naive insensitivity to the difficulties often involved in
cross-cultural application of tests and questionnaires. Such “culture blind”
(or sometimes even “ethnocentric”) Japanese and Americans will be made
aware of “things Japanese” and “things American” by working closely with
colleagues from opposite countries who are more sophisticated in cross-
cultural approach. In any case, both “area-oriented” and “problem-
oriented” scholars should be invited as much as possible to work together.
The area-oriented people may contribute to a deeper understanding of
the problems, and the problem-oriented people may contribute wider
perspectives and theoretical sophistication.
Let me be more specific and concrete, and enumerate some of the sub-
jects that badly need to be studied.
1. Differences between East and IVest
The late Professor Ishida (1965) contrasted the world-view of Semitic
religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) with that of Oriental religions
(Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism). The world-view of the Semitic re-
ligions is characterized by the notion that the universe was created by a
monotheistic supernatural being, who is often seen as a harsh and punitive
father, or masculine principle, residing in Heaven. The universe is con-
ceived as basically finite and rational (because governed by the Creator’s
Providence). The Oriental religions conceive the universe as “given,”
occupied by polytheistic and animistic gods. Instead of the father in Heaven,
the Earth as the mother is important. The universe is seen as basically
infinite (e.g., the notion of Karma) and irrational. The Semitic universe
is characterized by intolerance and lack of compromise, while the Oriental
world is characterized by tolerance and adaptability. Professor Ishida ex-
plained the former as the world-view of militant nomadic people who
challenged the dry steppe that extended from the Eurasian continent to