The Japanese were the most alien enemy the United States had ever fought in an all-out struggle。In no other war with a major foe had it been necessary to take into ac-count such exceedingly different habits of acting and thinking。Like Czarist Russia be-fore us in 1905，we were fighting a nation fully armed and trained which did not belong to the Western cultural tradition。Conventions of war which Western nations had come to accept as facts of human nature obviously did not exist for the Japanese。It made the war in the Pacific more than a series of landings on island beaches，more than an unsur-passed problem of logistics。It made it a major problem in the nature of the enemy。We had to understand their behavior in order to cope with it。
The difficulties were great。During the past seventy-five years since Japan's closed doors were opened，the Japanese have been described in the most fantastic series of“but also”s ever used for any nation of the world。When a serious observer is writing a-bout peoples other than the Japanese and says they are unprecedentedly polite，he is not likely to add，“But also insolent and overbearing。”When he says people of some nation are incomparably rigid in their behavior，he does not add，“But also they adapt them-selves readily to extreme innovations。”When he says a people are submissive，he does not explain too that are not easily amenable to control from above。When he says they are loyal and generous，he does not declare，“But also treacherous and spiteful。”When he says they are genuinely brave，he does not expatiate on their timidity。When he says they act out of concern for others'opinions，he does not then go on to tell that they have a truly terrifying conscience。When he describes robot-like discipline in their Army，he does not continue by describing the way the soldiers in that Army take the bit in their own teeth even to the point of insubordination。When he describes a people who devote themselves with passion to Western learning，he does not also enlarge on their fervid conservatism。When he writes a book on a nation with a popular cult of aestheticism which gives high honor to actors and to artists and lavishes art upon the cultivation of chrysanthemums，that book does not ordinarily have to be supplemented by another which is devoted to the cult of the sword and the top prestige of the warrior。
All these contradictions，however，are the warp and woof of books on Japan。They are true。Both the sword and the chrysanthemum are a part of the picture。The Japanese are，to the highest degree，both aggressive and unaggressive，both militaristic and aes-thetic，both insolent and polite，rigid and adaptable，submissive and resentful of being pushed around，loyal and treacherous，brave and timid，conservative and hospitable to new ways。They are terribly concerned about what other people will think of their behav-ior，and they are also overcome by guilt when other people know nothing of their mis-step。Their soldiers are disciplined to the hilt but are also insubordinate。
When it became so important for America to understand Japan，these contradictions and many others equally blatant could not be waved aside。Crises were facing us in quick succession。What would the Japanese do？Was capitulation possible without invasion？Should we bomb the Emperor's palace？What could we say in our propaganda to Japa-nese troops and to the Japanese homeland which could save the lives of Americans and lessen Japanese determination to fight to the last man？There were violent disagreements among those who knew the Japanese best。When peace came，were the Japanese a peo-ple who would require perpetual martial law to keep them in order？Would our army have to prepare to fight desperate bitter-enders in every mountain fastness of Japan？Would there have to be a revolution in Japan after the order of the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution before international peace was possible？Who would lead it？Was the alternative the eradication of the Japanese？It made a great deal of difference what our judgments were。
In June，1944，I was assigned to the study of Japan。I was asked to use all the techniques I could as a cultural anthropologist to spell out what the Japanese were like。During that early summer our great offensive against Japan had just begun to show itself in its true magnitude。People in the United States were still saying that the war with Ja-pan would last three years，perhaps ten years，more。In Japan they talked of its lasting one hundred years。Americans，they said，had had local victories，but New Guinea and the Solomons were thousands of miles away from their home islands。Their official communiqués had hardly admitted naval defeats and the Japanese people still regarded themselves as victors。
In June，however，the situation began to change。The second front was opened in Europe and the military priority which the High Command had for two years and a half given to the European theater paid off。The end of the war against Germany was in sight。And in the Pacific our forces landed on Saipan，a great operation forecasting e-ventual Japanese defeat。From then on our soldiers were to face the Japanese army at constantly closer quarters。And we knew well，from the fighting in New Guinea，on Guadalcanal，in Attu and Tarawa and Biak，that we were pitted against a formidable foe。
In June，1944，therefore，it was important to answer a multitude of question about our enemy，Japan。Whether the issue was military or diplomatic，whether it was raised by questions of high policy or of leaflets to be dropped behind the Japanese front lines，every insight was important。In the all-out war Japan was fighting we had to know，not just the aims and motives of those in power in Tokyo，not just the long history of Japan，not just economic and military statistics；we had to know what their government could count on from the people。We had to try to understand Japanese habits of thought and e-motion and the patterns into which these habits fell。We had to know the sanctions be-hind these actions and opinions。We had to put aside for the moment the premises on which we act as Americans and to keep ourselves as far as possible from leaping to the easy conclusion that what we would do in a given situation was what they would do。
My assignment was difficult。America and Japan were at war and it is easy in war-time to condemn wholesale，but far harder to try to see how your enemy looks at life through his own eyes。Yet it had to be done。The question was how the Japanese would behave，not how we would behave if we were in their place。I had to try to use Japanese behavior in war as an asset in understanding them，not as a liability。I had to look at the way they conducted the war itself and see it not for the moment as a military problem but as a cultural problem。In warfare as well as in peace，the Japanese acted in character。What special indications of their way of life and thinking did they give in the way they handled warfare？Their leaders'ways of whipping up war spirit，of reassuring the bewil-dered，of utilizing their soldiers in the field-all these things showed what they them-selves regarded as the strengths on which they could capitalize。I had to follow the de-tails of the war to see how the Japanese revealed themselves in it step by step。
The fact that our two nations were at war inevitably meant，however，a serious dis-advantage。It meant that I had to forego the most important technique of the cultural an-thropologist：a field trip。I could not go to Japan and live in their homes and watch the strains and stresses of daily life，see with my own eyes which were crucial and which were not。I could not watch them in the complicated business of arriving at a decision。I could not see their children being brought up。The one anthropologist's field study of a Japanese village，John Embree's Suye Mura，was invaluable，but many of the questions about Japan with which we were faced in 1944 were not raised when that study was writ-ten。
As a cultural anthropologist，in spite of these major difficulties，I had confidence in certain techniques and postulates which could be used。At least I did not have to forego the anthropologist's great reliance upon face-to-face contact with the people he is stud-ying。There were plenty of Japanese in this country who had been reared in Japan and I could ask them about the concrete facts of their own experiences，find out how they judged them，fill in from their descriptions I believed were essential in understanding any culture。Other social scientists who were studying Japan were using libraries，analy-zing past events or statistics，following developments in the written or spoken word of Japanese propaganda。I had confidence that many of these answers they sought were em-bedded in the rules and values of Japanese culture and could be found more satisfactorily by exploring that culture with people who had really lived it。
This did not mean that I did not read and that I was not constantly indebted to Westerners who had lived in Japan。The vast literature on the Japanese and the great number of good Occidental observers who have lived in Japan gave me an advantage which no anthropologist has when he goes to the Amazon headwaters or the New Guinea highlands to study a non-literate tribe。Having no written language such tribes have com-mitted no self-revelations to paper。Comments by Westerners are few and superficial。Nobody knows their past history。The field worker must discover without any help from previous students the way their economic life works，how stratified their society is，what is uppermost in their religious life。In studying Japan，I was the heir of many students。Descriptions of small details of life were tucked away in antiquarian papers。Men and women from Europe and America had set down their vivid experiences，and the Japa-nese themselves had written really extraordinary self-revelations。Unlike many Oriental people they have a great impulse to write themselves out。They wrote about the trivia of their lives as well as about their programs of world expansion。They were amazingly frank。Of course they did not present the whole picture。No people does。A Japanese who writes about Japan passes over really crucial things which are as familiar to him and as invisible as the air he breathes。So do Americans when they write about America。But just the same the Japanese loved self-revelation。