I read this literature as Darwin says he read when he was working out his theories on the origin of species，noting what I had not the means to understand。What would I need to know to understand the juxtaposition of ideas in a speech in the Diet？What could lie back of their violent condemnation of some act that seemed venial and their easy acceptance of one that seemed outrageous？I read，asking the ever-present ques-tion：What is“wrong with this picture？”What would I need to know to understand it？
I went to movies，too，which had been written and produced in Japan-propaganda movies，historical movies，movies of contemporary life in Tokyo and in the farm villa-ges。I went over them afterward with Japanese who had seen some of these same movies in Japan and who in any case saw the hero and the heroine and the villain as Japanese see them，not as I saw them。When I was at sea，it was clear that they were not。The plots，the motivations were not as I saw them，but they made sense in terms of the way the movie was constructed。As with the novels，there was much more difference than met the eye between what they meant to me and what they meant to the Japanese-reared。Some of these Japanese were quick to come to the defense of Japanese conventions and some hated everything Japanese。It is hard to say from which group I learned most。In the intimate picture they gave of how one regulates one's life in Japan they agreed，whether they accepted it gladly or rejected it with bitterness。
In so far as the anthropologist goes for his material and his insights directly to the people of the culture he is studying，he is doing what all the ablest Western observers have done who have lived in Japan。If this were all an anthropologist had to offer，he could not hope to add to the valuable studies which foreign residents have made of the Japanese。The cultural anthropologist，however，has certain qualifications as a result of his training which appeared to make it worth his while to try to add his own contribution in a field rich in students and observers。
The anthropologist knows many cultures of Asia and the Pacific。There are many social arrangements and habits of life in Japan which have close parallels even in the primitive tribes of the Pacific islands。Some of these parallels are in Malaysia，some in New Guinea，some in Polynesia。It is interesting，of course，to speculate on whether these show some ancient migrations or contacts，but this problem of possible historical relationship was not the reason why knowledge of these cultural similarities was valuable to me。It was rather that I knew in these simpler cultures how these institutions worked and could get clues to Japanese life from the likeness or the difference I found。I knew，too，something about Siam and Burma and China on the mainland of Asia，and I could therefore compare Japan with other nations which are a part of its great cultural heritage。Anthropologists had shown over and over in their studies of primitive people how valua-ble such cultural comparisons can be。A tribe may share ninety per cent of its formal ob-servances with its neighbors and yet it may have revamped them to fit a way of life and a set of values which it does not share with any surrounding peoples。In the process it may have had to reject some fundamental arrangements which，however small in proportion to the whole，turn its future course of development in a unique direction。Nothing is more helpful to an anthropologist than to study contrasts he finds between peoples who on the whole share many traits。
Anthropologists also have had to accustom themselves to maximum differences be-tween their own culture and another and their techniques have to be sharpened for this particular problem。They know from experience that there are great differences in the situations which men in different cultures have to meet and in the way in which different tribes and nations define the meanings of these situations。In some Arctic village or trop-ical desert they were faced with tribal arrangements of kinship responsibility or financial exchange which in their moments of most unleashed imagination they could not have in-vented。They have had to investigate，not only the details of kinship or exchange，but what the consequences of these arrangements were in the tribe's behavior and how each generation was conditioned from childhood to carry on as their ancestors had done before them。
This professional concern with differences and their conditioning and their conse-quences could well be used in the study of Japan。No one is unaware of the deep-rooted cultural differences between the United States and Japan。We have even a folklore about the Japanese which says that whatever we do they do the opposite。Such a conviction of difference is dangerous only if a student rests content with saying simply that these differences are so fantastic that it is impossible to understand such people。The anthro-pologist has good proof in his experience that even bizarre behavior does not prevent one's understanding it。More than any other social scientist he has professionally used differences as an asset rather than a liability。There is nothing that has made him pay such sharp attention to institutions and peoples as the fact that they were phenomenally strange。There was nothing he could take for granted in his tribe's way of living and it made him look not just at a few selected facts，but at everything。In studies of compara-tive cultures overlooks whole areas of behavior。He takes so much for granted that he does not explore the range of trivial habits in daily living and all those accepted verdicts on homely matters，which，thrown large on the national screen，have more to do with that nation's future than treaties signed by diplomats。
The anthropologist has had to develop techniques for studying the commonplace be-cause those things that are commonplaces in the tribe he was studying were so different from their counterparts in his own home country。When he tried to understand the ex-treme maliciousness of some tribe or the extreme timidity of another，when he tried to plot out the way they would act and feel in a given situation，he found he had to draw heavily on observations and details that are not often noted about civilized nations。He had good reason to believe they were essential and he knew the kind of research that would unearth them。
It was worth trying in the case of Japan。For it is only when one has noted the in-tensely human commonplaces of any people's existence that one appreciates at its full importance the anthropologist's premise that human behavior in any primitive tribe or in any nation in the forefront of civilization is learned in daily living。No matter how bizarre his act or his opinion，the way a man feels and thinks has some relation to his experi-ence。The more baffled I was at some bit of behavior，the more I therefore assumed that there existed somewhere in Japanese life some ordinary conditioning of such strangeness。If the search took me into trivial details of daily intercourse，so much the better。That was where people learned。
As a cultural anthropologist also I started from the premise that the most isolated bits of behavior have some systematic relation to each other。I took seriously the way hundreds of details fall into over-all patterns。A human society must make for itself some design for living。It approves certain ways of meeting situations，certain ways of sizing them up。People in that society regard these solutions as foundations of the universe。They integrate them，no matter what the difficulties。Men who have accepted a system of values by which to live cannot without courting inefficiency and chaos keep for long a fenced-off portion of their lives where they think and behave according to a contrary set of values。They try to bring about more conformity。They provide themselves with some common rationale and some common motivations。Some degree of consistency is necessa-ry or the whole scheme falls to pieces。
Economic behavior，family arrangements，religious rites and political objectives therefore become geared into one another。Changes in one area may occur more rapidly than in others and subject these other areas to great stress，but the stress itself arises from the need for consistency。In preliterate societies committed to the pursuit of power over others，the will to power is expressed in their religious practices no less than in their economic transactions and in their relations with other tribes。In civilized nations which have old written scriptures，the Church necessarily retains the phrases of past centuries，as tribes without written language do not，but it abdicates authority in those fields which would interfere with increasing public approval of economic and political power。The words remain but the meaning is altered。Religious dogmas，economic prac-tices and politics do not stay dammed up in neat separate little ponds but they overflow their supposed boundaries and their waters mingle inextricably one with the other。Be-cause this is always true，the more a student has seemingly scattered his investigation a-mong facts of economics and sex and religion and the care of the baby，the better he can follow what is happening in the society he studies。He can draw up his hypotheses and get his data in any area of life with profit。He can learn to see the demands any nation makes，whether they are phrased in political，economic，or moral terms，as expressions of habits and ways of thinking which are learned in their social experience。This volume therefore is not a book specifically about Japanese religion or economic life or politics or the family。It examines Japanese assumptions about the conduct of life。It describes these assumptions as they have manifested themselves whatever the activity in hand。It is about what makes Japan a nation of Japanese。
One of the handicaps of the twentieth century is that we still have the vaguest and most biased notions，not only of what makes Japan a nation of Japanese，but of what makes the United States a nation of Americans，France a nation of Frenchmen，and Russia a nation of Russians。Lacking this knowledge，each country misunderstands the other。We fear irreconcilable differences when the trouble is only between Tweedledum and Tweedledee，and we talk about common purposes when one nation by virtue of its whole experience and system of values has in mind a quite different course of action from the one we meant。We do not give ourselves a chance to find out what their habits and values are。If we did，we might discover that a course of action is not necessarily vicious because it is not the one we know。