The Study & Practice of Anthropology at Manchester 9482506

Review: Ruth Benedict (1946) ‘The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture’

Following her commission from the US State Department and Office of War Information, Ruth
Benedict drew her analyses of Japanese culture during World War II eventually producing adequate
research for Western nations to develop greater understanding of how to cope with and render the
military durability of the Japanese. Thus far “conventions of war which Western nations had come
to accept as facts of human nature obviously did not exist for the Japanese” (Benedict, 1946, p.1) -
we needed to learn more about the Japanese with the aim of predicting future responses. The
influential research was published in 1946 post-World War II, despite not observing many of the
more traditional, participant-observationist methods established by the Malinowskian school of
anthropology. And although never having stepped foot in the country or speaking a word of
Japanese, surprisingly perhaps, it is said Benedict’s (1946) writings went on to sell over “2.3 million
copies of the Japanese version of Chrysanthemum” in Japan (Kent, 1999, pp. 73; Ryang, 2004, 32)
influencing and shaping both Japanese self-perceptions, and Western thinking of Japanese culture
and personality (Kuwayama, 2004, p.87).

Born and educated across 19th and 20th century in America, Benedict learned a pioneering style of
anthropological thought which applied a more comparative approach to the discipline - viewing each
culture relatively and on its own individual terms. It was during this scholarly period under Franz
Boas where Benedict took on a more modern-interpretivist approach to the study of peoples and
culture, underpinned by much psychological theory. Here she applied her Boasian theory of
individuals’ behaviours as not being bio-determined but rather more a socially constructed
phenomenon. To Benedict the psychological nature of culture is what socially constructs and
cultivates it: by acts of individuals under it and interpretations of those outside of it (Kroeber, 1935,
pp.689).

Drawing on her previous (1936) writings in Patterns of Culture Benedict seeks to discover the
concepts of Japanese culture, exploring concepts occurring as a pattern. She argues in her earlier
writings one may only “know the significance of the selected detail of behaviour…against the
background of the motives and emotions and values that are institutionalized in that culture"
(Benedict, 1934, pp. 49). Writing later in The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946) in a narrative for
intellectuals and non-anthropologists she discusses comparatively the behaviours and contradictions
of the Japanese. Here she draws out differences between Japanese and their Asian counterparts as
well as cultural contrasts to Americans – all the time searching for the patterns within their culture.

1 Words: 1060 (including bibliography)

 The Study & Practice of Anthropology at Manchester 9482506

Due to the political vulnerability between the US and Japanese states during her period of
commissioned writing, Benedict opted to interview Japanese ex-patriots, peruse vast literary
research and filmed documentary both of and by the Japanese themselves; her method is
undoubtedly controversial particularly in anthropological circles, and yet produced quite open-
minded results for the time. Many of the contradictions in behaviour she encountered in her
research and found to be played out in both war and family rearing such as the ability to be “insolent
and polite, rigid and adaptable, submissive and resentful…loyal and treacherous, brave and timid,
conservative and hospitable…” (Benedict, 1946, pp.2) were centred upon “Occidental assumptions”
(Benedict, 1946, pp. 19) of the Japanese. It was only through further exploration and systematic
study that she truly began to understand and value the virtues of the Japanese; that “[t]heir view is
embodied in their folkways, in their comments on successful men, in their myth of their national
history…” (Benedict, 1946, pp.18) and came to realise these contradictions were not so opposing
after all.

Many critics within anthropology circles have asked ‘is this book propaganda?’ (Kroeber, 1935;
Geertz, 1988; Kuwayama, 2004; Ryang, 2004) - taking into account Benedict’s commission by the
Office of War Information to conduct this research in the first place it is easy to see why this has
been argued. Furthermore, punitive counter critiques by Geertz (1988) remind us of the equivalents
this book parallels from the armchair anthropologist eras of “us” and “them”; the anthropologist,
the colonialist, and “the exotic” (Kuwayama, 2004, p.87) and on some occasions placing traits of the
Americans (intentionally or not) above those of the Japanese (Ryang, 2004, 32). Could we apply
these same findings today? – Perhaps not.

Needless to say, during the time of publishing this book was indeed hugely successful both in the
Western hemisphere and in Japan. For me, despite all the heavy criticism to her writings and my
initial scepticism to her approach, I found the book to be an enjoyable read both as anthropology
scholar and non-scholar. In contemporary anthropology it is easy to fault Benedict for her somewhat
superior approach and orientalism portrayed this book still, given the task at hand, and the historical
context she produced some prodigious and influential writings which were able to reach a wide
audience, and continue to do so today (Kent, 1999; Ryang, 2004; Kuwayama, 2004). Writing at a
time of intense conflict, Benedict could not have predicted Japan would have recovered from the
losses of the Second World War. She could not have foreseen their society changes; that their
culture would have reversed what was deemed as the degeneration of Japan. Today, Japan is
completely regenerated, and 50 years later we see a repaired Japan, evolved into the resilient

2 Words: 1060 (including bibliography)

 The Study & Practice of Anthropology at Manchester 9482506

economic and democratic state that it is today (BBC, 2015) – or perhaps in her unpacking of cultural
contradictions we may now consider this to be the way the Japanese had always intended it to be.

Bibliography

Benedict, R. (1934) ‘Patterns of Culture’. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. New York

Benedict, R. (1946) ‘The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture’. Boston.
Houghton Mifflin Company

Kent, P. (1999) ‘Japanese Perceptions of “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword”’. Dialectical
Anthropology, Vol. 24, No.2. pp.181-192

Kroeber, A. L. (1935) ‘GENERAL: Patterns of Culture. RUTH BENEDICT’. American Anthropologist, Vol.
37. pp. 689–690 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1935.37.4.02a00190/pdf

Kuwayama, T. (2004) ‘Native Anthropology: The Japanese Challenge to Western Academic

Hegemony’. Melbourne, Trans Pacific Press

Ryang, S (2004) ‘Chrysanthemum’s Strange Life: Ruth Benedict in Postwar Japan’ . Japanese Policy
Research institute. Accessed: http://www.jpri.org/publications/occasionalpapers/op32.html

Additional sources:

BBC World News (2015) ‘Japan and US Unveil Defense deal’ Online:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32484868 Accessed: 12 May 2015

Steiner, J. F. (1947) ‘Review of Ruth Benedict 'The chrysanthemum and the sword'. The Journal of
Asian Studies, Vol. 6. pp 433-433

3 Words: 1060 (including bibliography)