Pathway to Japanese Literature

Having read the article titled "Western Family Life That Does Not Conform to Japanese Ideals" published in a recent issue of Kōdō, I became aware of various thoughts welling up within me.

As the overarching conclusion of the entire work, there was likely no one who would raise objections to its central thesis: that Japan should not blindly imitate foreign customs in pursuing ideals for improving the currently debated family system and home life, but rather commence these efforts from the unique perspective of the Japanese people through discernment.

In the customs of all nations, merits and defects invariably run parallel.
Just as humans may sometimes err through their own innate gifts, so too may even a nation often find that the very traditional customs it should uphold instead create ruptures in authentic human living.
Therefore, vying for mere novelty and imitating the hollow forms of life conducted by foreigners becomes truly something both laughable and lamentable.

However, when observing a nation's culture and social conditions, is focusing solely on their darker aspects and negative dimensions truly a valid approach?

If one listens to others' stories, meets with others, and seeks only to expose flaws in their words and actions from within, wouldn't one end up merely confirming oneself as one currently exists without gaining any new advantages?
I believe the same applies to foreign travelers.

Moreover, when daily life differed completely from Japan's—to the extent that even language contained nuances diverging from the sensibilities we share—it was only natural that strange and peculiar aspects stood out more conspicuously than the plain foundations of ordinary social life.
At first glance, someone with a large blemish on their cheek drew more attention than one possessing a face with perfect features.
However, there would be no one who claims that this represents the typical face given to humanity.

From the perspective of rhetorical effect, it may indeed be an astute method to emphasize contrasting elements in order to highlight the aspects one seeks to assert and affirm.

However, when introducing and critiquing a nation’s social conditions to provide material for contemplation even to those who have never directly experienced them, is not the perspective that lecturers and authors choose to emphasize truly crucial?

Above all, one must be fair.
Should we not observe both the beautiful and blameworthy aspects alike, and study the reasons underlying their beauty and blameworthiness that lie between them?

For example, let us consider cases where foreign authors frequently cite examples from the Orient—often Shina and Japan—as research material for studies on the women’s movement in Europe and America or the evolution of women’s position in society.

They depicted Japanese women as utterly resigned to slave-like circumstances, where even when husbands engaged in debauchery or threatened them with divorce, they simply resolved to serve with self-sacrifice.
And let us assume they claimed that Japanese women did not even use their husbands’ actual names when addressing them, instead calling them “Our master”.

Upon seeing this, Japanese people would likely feel compelled to add a remark.

Of course, Japan was not without such heartless husbands.
However, this could by no means be said to represent the general state of Japanese women.
Rather than being the norm, such cases were a minority of exceptions; in most instances, one might say husbands supported their wives and wives supported their husbands as they lived together cooperatively.
If literally translated into English, it might sound somehow distant and servile, but when Japanese women referred to their husbands as "master of the house," they certainly did not harbor the same feelings as servants referring to their employers.
They would likely have protested that this shared the same psychological basis as when a woman from an English-speaking country referred to her husband as "Mr. So-and-so" when speaking about him to a third party.

When language and customs differ markedly, such errors are prone to occur. And as a result, both parties end up losing those various good discoveries—both large and small—that they ought to have made. Being dominated first by antipathy toward superficial phenomena, thereby losing sight of life's deeper inner aspects or better facts—I cannot help but think this should not be our attitude toward anything.

After reading "Western Family Life That Does Not Conform to Japanese Ideals," what arose in my mind was astonishment at how differently the world appears depending on one's perspective! Such was my astonishment. There certainly exist people and cases that could be cited as examples. Moreover, since my limited knowledge and experience may accurately be said to be confined to America's intellectual class near New York City, I shall humbly refrain from commenting on France, let alone other countries. However, this is not meant to defend American customs on their behalf, but rather because we keenly feel compelled to reflect upon how our common understanding of a society's way of life tends to be limited to such one-sided perspectives. The fact that American society exists as it does and maintains direct and indirect interactions with us is by no means something that ends as a ridiculous notion. As an instance of how "perspectives differ from person to person," I wish to present synthesized observations from matters I have seen and heard around me, while also stating facts observed from different angles.

When we observed various social conditions and phenomena of life, I believed the preliminary knowledge we had to first keep in mind was understanding what kind of individuals formed that society.

What kind of collective temperament defined them as a group? Upon what national character did each individual fundamentally exist?

Phenomena do not appear without internal causes.
Someone performs a good deed.
A man commits a shameless crime.
Just as everyone seeks to find the predisposing factors for their good or evil deeds in their inner thoughts, I believe that when we observe the life of a nation, we must understand its national character in a way that, even if vaguely, grasps the essence.

Then, what temperament and character do Americans possess?

First of all, that they led individualistic lives was something everyone would remark upon.
Furthermore, when it came to their abounding independent spirit, being a nation with advanced public morals, and finally their remarkable materialism, everyone would likely have agreed.
I did indeed think Americans were an individualistic people.
Independent while simultaneously possessing such unity—astonishing even to themselves since joining the recent European Great War—with each individual keenly aware of their interests, they steadily acquired what should be gained in both spiritual and material aspects.

However, what we must consider there is that Americans neither consciously constructed their lives upon an ideology called individualism, nor did today’s ethos emerge after moral training in how one ought to be independent.

Long before the ideological term “individualism” was conceived, American life had already been fundamentally grounded in individual character.
From its colonial era onward, an independent spirit burned within each American’s heart.
This was because all those who resolved long ago to leave their European homelands—lands embroiled in political and ideological strife—to pioneer lives in undeveloped new territories were already endowed with strong individual self-awareness and an unyielding spirit of independence.

When we speak of America, its state in antiquity was by no means the America we know today.
The American Indians, now diminished and oppressed, were living everywhere.
There was not a single proper field nor any true city.
France, Spain, and other various nations were each striving to develop the land.

If we were suddenly transplanted to the heart of Africa—constantly threatened with mortal danger and forced to fulfill all needs of food, clothing, and shelter through our own hands alone—could people have afforded timidity? Could they have clung to others?

For those living in a place like Japan—surrounded by gentle nature where seas teemed with fish and shellfish, mountains bore ripe nuts, and land lay suited for sowing and reaping—the existence within those vast grassy wildernesses battered by endless storms, boundless forests, and southern deserts scorched under half a year of relentless sunshine would have seemed unimaginable even in dreams.
While resisting fearsomely violent nature, valiantly supporting husbands, protecting homes, and raising children at nearly the cost of their lives—what man could have dared utter words of contempt toward such women?

If they encountered barbarian attacks, they had to rely solely on their unity to repel the enemy.
When determining a city’s political and commercial issues with the home country, they had to elect someone—a person they trusted—as a representative of every tongue and every heart.
Did not the republican government already hold the embryo of its form even before the United States declared independence?

Enduring hardship upon hardship, yet as long as they had skill, they could reap such bountiful harvests!
Gazing upon the wheat ears piled like small hills across acres of cultivated land, they must have involuntarily pounded their chests with pride—one can well imagine that feeling.
Could it not be said that the materialism, vitalism, and pragmatism said to dominate their society today represent one aspect of development stemming from their ancestors’ instinctive response to untamed nature—nature whose productive capacities knew no bounds?

The source traced back to a distant past—a deep and genuine human life emerging from environmental circumstances—and therefore we, with our fundamentally different historical background and national character shaped since Japan's opening, could not lightly criticize these matters.
Both their truly commendable aspects and flaws had permeated the very marrow of their existence more intimately than external observers might suppose.
When viewed by third parties, one marveled at how naturally certain inherent traits seemed effectively utilized—yet simultaneously witnessed contradictions that should have provoked disbelief being accepted as commonplace.
It was here, I believed, that we found reason to first anchor our observations in the standpoint of proper, expansive human idealism when examining a people's way of life.

Given that contemporary American life was conducted upon the background outlined above, was it not a self-evident fact that all relationships—from the broadest between President and citizens down to the most intimate of parent-child, husband-wife, and employer-employee—ultimately reverted through some form or other to these fundamental characteristics?

First, I focused on two young men and women who had reached mature age.
And I sought to investigate their attitudes toward life, their views on love and marriage, along with parent-child affections and living conditions.

If we were to call Eastern women's condition of being unjustly oppressed and confined to regressive states "male supremacy and female subservience," then it could indeed be said that Western people practice "female supremacy and male subservience."
Moreover, I believe this characteristic has been particularly accentuated in how Americans are portrayed.

Building upon their inheritance of medieval chivalric traditions, when they ventured into adventurous new lives, they were compelled to feel even deeper respect toward the women who accompanied them through all dangers without hesitation.
Relying solely on faith and hope, even their valiant resolve alone to boldly venture into new frontiers was sufficient to inspire men. Yet once life in the wilderness began, they fulfilled their duties as courageous individuals, neither depending on others nor voicing complaints.
In all their hardships, toward the women who protected men’s lives as steadfast assistants, friends, and warm lovers, their ancestors could not help but perceive the eternal essence of Nostra Mater (Our Mother).
Moreover, in that era, the number of women who migrated was undoubtedly far smaller than that of men.

Therefore, what might be called the true meaning of primordial respect for women in America was not only the factual conclusion of recognizing women’s capabilities and conceding not an inch to men in terms of personal value but also something enhanced by their own brand of radiant romanticism.

Such social conditions over many years brought about a level of free development in women unseen in other countries.
If one had talent, ability, and will, they could develop themselves as far as they desired—whether engaging in academic research or entering practical work.
The fact that they could strive endlessly, unconstrained by anyone as completely free and independent individuals guided by a self-aware sense of vocation cultivated a gratifying drive and spirit of independence in the hearts of ordinary women.

Daughters were compelled to consider how to live as human beings before first being instilled with the concept that they should become wives and mothers as in the East. School education, which focused on cultivating the innate talents of every individual, taught her appropriate means and directions to express her hopes. From a purely religious perspective—though there may have been criticisms to voice—the church preached viewing life through the heart of humanity, rising above merely narrow class-based and tribal existences. Meanwhile, boys who became friends associated with her from childhood with an attitude anticipating something worthy of respect within her.

However, even setting aside womanly charms like grace and maidenly modesty, there were in fact not a few women in that land who possessed both the insight and capability to command men's sincere respect as individuals and as women.

If tens of millions of American women had been such perfect beings as described above, then naturally, the respect men showed would have been justified and proper.
Yet this could hardly be said to hold true in all cases.
Rather, under present conditions, I believe it has become an actual conflict between those who have reduced respect for women to an extreme vulgarity—practicing it as a hollow custom stripped of all sincerity—and those who reflect upon this newly habitual practice and recognize the need to impose appropriate limitations.

Even expressions of emotion that initially arose from sincerity ended up becoming hollow customs when time passed and genuine feeling was lost. Maggots bred upon them. Even in present-day America, young men and women of the educated class were by no means proud of ladies first—that almost comical custom of putting women first.

They had discerned the repugnance of women who, lacking even a speck of worthiness to be respected as human beings, exploited the opposite sex’s weakness—that men who mistreated women would not be treated as gentlemen—to become licentious, extravagant parasites.

Moreover, they knew how shameful it was as women to be enshrined by men who—while inwardly sticking out their tongues—acted courteously merely to gain favor, observed conventional etiquette, and affected the airs of proper gentlemen.
Sincere young people understood that being respected and favored beyond proper measure—excessively—became rather a form of humiliation.

That was to say—some among female factory workers or apprentices might deliberately make others tie their shoelaces in public through mutual playful moods as ostentatious displays.
Yet what were those endowed with perfect limbs to do if they could not even manage their own feet?
Where indeed lay the need to bind one's chest with high, stiff corsets that made bending impossible?
Young healthy chests remained beautiful just as they were.
I believed their words likely matched what I wrote.

Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that among young men and women studying from high school up through university—at the very least—their relationships were bound by an ideal of fairness and openness.

Through classrooms, student clubs, and banquets, various members of the opposite sex were introduced.
Talking, playing games, dancing together—interactions first began among the many.
If one compared oneself with others among people of various tendencies and types, he or she could vaguely predict what kind of personality or tendencies they possessed.

In a society like theirs where gatherings—unless exceptionally specialized—inevitably brought together both men and women, acquaintances could be formed in abundance between both sexes with the same ease with which, in our country, women might become friends with women and men with men.
However, things like inviting each other to their homes, attending banquets together as a group, or going on outings to the suburbs were by no means done with just anyone; precisely because cross-gender interaction was free and commonplace, strong mutual preferences and selections took place.

The question then became: by what standards was that selection carried out?

What distinguishes liked friends from disliked friends? Of course, it would depend on each individual’s interests and fields of expertise. While the foundation lies in personality, there remained a consistent common condition: for men, above all else, never engaging in base words or actions toward women served as a requirement.

As women, they had to possess chastity, a dignified bearing, and cheerful composure.

A girl who lacked both the discernment to see through people’s character and the intellect to do so—who flitted about without dignity, content to be fawned over—would find herself unable to gain even a single true friend, while those who behaved irresponsibly or shamelessly toward women would swiftly be ostracized from their circle of friends.

Among members of the opposite sex who maintained respectable standing, chastity was most highly valued above all else.
Friends were, ultimately, friends.
Moreover, when such friendship existed between members of the opposite sex, there naturally arose a more delicate sense of propriety than that found among same-sex relationships.
It is never something with the strange shadows, emotionalism, and precariousness seen in what is currently called “socializing” between young men and women in Japan.

For a daughter of proper upbringing to go on outings or attend evening parties alone with a mere male acquaintance—without including a third party—was something she would never think of doing.
Even among friends, until a certain age, there had to be at least three people present.
If people saw a man and woman repeatedly spending time together alone, they would assume the two were lovers, and it became a courtesy for the many other friends of the opposite sex to show a degree of restraint.

If such unwritten rules did not exist, one could scarcely imagine how much danger seventeen- or eighteen-year-old girls just entering society would face.
What manner of men might approach with what intentions—these dangers, far more numerous than in Japan—are kept at bay through women’s own sense of dignity.

Through such social interactions, it becomes natural that among the many members of the opposite sex, one discovers both those who develop a particular interest in oneself—harboring genuine feelings—and those for whom one comes to harbor such feelings in turn.
Within a group of ten or fifteen people, first those four or five would converse in true harmony with one and share aligned sentiments.
Yes, among those four or five—time gradually determines whom to select.
Then before they realize it, they find themselves meeting more frequently, growing closer through mutual affection and respect, often becoming lovers in the end.

When a person truly loves one member of the opposite sex, I believe marriage naturally follows as the next step.
With someone one loves this deeply, one wants by all means to live a life united in both heart and body—a truly shared existence.
When the desperate wish to live together with one's beloved arises, as long as humans remain human, marriage seems the only path.
When his own love has deepened and he has come to know the woman’s affection in return, it is only then that a man will propose marriage.
Moreover, granting consent or refusal remains the woman’s inalienable final right.
In many cases, she will offer her hand while shining with equal happiness.
However, in many cases too, various problems may arise.
Marriage is a matter of supreme importance for one's entire life.
Precisely because both parties expect the greatest hopes and future radiance from each other, various points demanding consideration emerge as practical issues.
As a result, while some first undergo engagements lasting several years or end in disappointment at the final step due to incompatible essential conditions between both parties, others face marriages conducted as casually as mailing a small parcel on one side—and on the other, painful, grave scenes unfold.

As an example, let us consider a certain pair of young people.
They were in love with each other.
Though they understood that marriage would let them live more joyfully with greater smiles, the man lacked sufficient income to securely support their marital life.
Or perhaps he was still a student.
Were they to become parents and find themselves unable to fully support their child, what impressed one about their social training was that even in such circumstances—however young they might be—they would never resort to thoughtless actions.

First, until the man attained a suitable position or secured employment, they maintained a firm engagement and waited for each other. Meanwhile, the woman became a school teacher, worked at an office, or did something of the sort to accumulate savings commensurate with her abilities. And after two or three years, they began their life on a secure foundation. In Japanese customs, in such cases, questions might arise—why did the parents or siblings of the daughter or son not help? And why could they not stay at the husband’s parents’ house even briefly?

Their refusal to help did not stem from cold-heartedness.
Both parents and young people could not endure the shame of sustaining their lives through others' assistance.
Since we were getting married, it was because we were convinced we would live by ourselves.
Among the extremely wealthy and certain social circles—the so-called showy set—there were indeed men who received property from their parents and entered into doll-like marriages at twenty-one.

However, when the issue of marriage arose, the majority of middle-class young men and women could not help but consider whether they could truly become self-sufficient and manage a household.
If, fortunately, the woman had some occupation and their combined income would sufficiently secure their life together, matters might proceed smoothly; but if the woman lacked such means and clung to the view that holding a job outside the home after marriage was improper, then the man might find himself forced to withdraw with painful reluctance.

In a country like America, where life remains intensely demanding, economic circumstances such as those described above often become young people's greatest obstacle.
Yet different complications may arise.
This occurs when a woman engaged in research or professional work finds herself both loved by and loving a member of the opposite sex.
Regarding her premarital career—does this become entirely secondary upon marriage?
If she plans to dismiss it as inconsequential, no difficulty exists.
Unlike Japanese life with its numerous social obligations and tasks—yet thanks to architectural layouts and daily customs allowing at least several hours of afternoon leisure each day—their lifestyle there permits extensive pursuit of avocational studies for those so inclined.
For those content to simply continue their work during this time, matters prove straightforward.
But when someone considers their vocation an absolute calling—when they refuse any alteration to this work regardless of love or happiness gained, believing peace impossible without its primacy—earnest consultations inevitably emerge between them.

They would discuss plans for their domestic life with a composure and thoroughness unexpected of young lovers.

First: sufficient time.
Second: prudent management of energy essential for conducting research or work.
When these became matters of detailed implementation, they branched into various components and methods.
These issues bore no consequence while their lives remained separate; however, regarding every potential source of practical difficulty and emotional friction that might emerge upon establishing a household, they engaged in meticulous deliberations.
Had the man worked in the same field, there would have been no issue.
But when this was not so—when he had regarded his partner’s work merely as a hobby to some degree—he now found himself at a crossroads where he must either summon utmost resolve to refuse the woman’s demands or embrace them through profound and expansive love.
In such situations, the woman too endured anguish.
Yet rather than have a man acquiesce through fleeting pity or excitement—thereby inviting future misfortune—there were even instances where one could only calmly reflect and recommend sustaining an amicable friendship rather than proceeding with marriage.

In this way, once people marry through their own choices and will alone, it was only natural that their marital relationship became truly strong and steadfast. He was the one man, and she the one woman, who had mutually found each other as lovers and friends. If it had not been mistaken from the beginning, they would never lose the pure friendship deep in their hearts until old age and death.

However, what we must consider here was that because the friendship—which remained sorely lacking among contemporary Japanese couples—served as the emotional foundation for their relationships, one heard criticisms from certain quarters about women’s devotion being insufficient or husbands being too indulgent.

Of course, if we speak of a base-minded, reckless woman, it could not be said that she would never lie abed and berate her husband. Moreover, there might indeed be men who put on a false front in public, maintaining with feigned kindness the wife's arm they would ordinarily cast aside.

However, among those of substantial character, I believed marital affection settled a step further, transforming into an enlightened friendship that deeply permeated their lives. The wife's knowledge being perpetually inferior to the husband's remained the norm, and in a state where she constantly depended on the consideration and care—in short, the human compassion—showered down from her husband's superior position, one could hardly imagine that in reality, either wife or husband truly understood what it meant to stand shoulder to shoulder as equals.

Both the wife’s demands and the husband’s demands carried equal weight.
If fulfilling the wife’s demand proved more immediately feasible, they would first prioritize that before addressing the husband’s.
Moreover, depending on circumstances, this order might be reversed.
When guests arrived just as the wife became engrossed in conversation, the appointed time for serving tea arrived.
The husband rose and fetched the implements his wife had prepared beforehand, pouring hot water into them.
Noticing this movement, Mrs. R would continue conversing while distributing cakes and other refreshments.

In all matters, I observed such peaceful cooperation existing.
In households of two without hired maidservants, they never assumed wives must invariably prepare meals alone.
Together they acted after considering every arrangement for their mutual convenience.
Thus in certain situations both might endure minor inconveniences to secure favorable broader outcomes.
This constituted an obligation and responsibility borne by both—never something requiring apology through phrases like “we cannot fulfill.”
Their ideal lay in clearly discerning respective duties and steering life forward wisely; they could only dismiss as ignorant folly any work delays from needless hesitation or mental turmoil from emotional excess.

As a living example, let me here depict the daily life of a certain couple.
They were the university professor couple whose home I stayed at for a time.
The husband taught botany at Columbia University, and the wife was also in charge of a branch of botany at the same university.
They had no children and lived in a six-room apartment.

Mr. R typically went to the university from around nine or ten in the morning until about four in the afternoon.
In his own laboratory, he devoted his time outside of teaching to research and writing.
However, Mrs. R did not have free time every day.
During the week, only on Mondays, Thursdays, and Fridays was she at school from morning until afternoon; the remaining days were all free time.

On days when she went to school, she naturally woke up together with her husband, had a light breakfast, locked the door, and headed out.
At the apartment entrance, there was always a doorman who would ask any visitors for their name and purpose, writing it down.
He handed this over when they returned, but there, visiting someone without prior arrangement was deemed equivalent to finding them out—to such an extent that no one idled away time at home on days not designated for receiving guests.
Even if they were at home, they were surely engrossed in some work without regard to appearances.
Unless one was particularly close or a relative, it was customary to simply handle matters over the phone and leave without meeting; thus, even if the house stood empty, we did not experience the kinds of inconveniences and difficulties we would have in Japan.

When both were at school, they of course had lunch out.
Within the school, a convenient and healthy cafeteria had been established for students and teachers, where one could obtain an inexpensive yet nutritious lunch.
After lunch, they took a short walk around the campus grounds, then continued their research for three or four hours until it was time to head home together.

On days when both had work, the focus of dinner was to eat quietly and calmly; they never thoughtlessly prepared multiple elaborate dishes.
In most middle-class and above American households, there was meat broth and a plate of meat with vegetables.
Salad was the main dish, followed by sweets, fruit, and coffee.
The kitchen, where gas was freely available and hot water flowed instantly from the faucet, was neither a place where working dirties one’s clothes nor an unpleasant environment.
A pleasant dinner could be prepared in just an hour.

They finished this amidst conversation and laughter; with the husband assisting in washing dishes and other tasks afterward, by around seven-thirty they could entirely free up their time until going out, studying, or sleeping.

As Mr. R’s house was located near the long, narrow Morningside Park bordering the city, they would take a leisurely thirty-minute to hour-long stroll after dinner, returning when both stomach and mind felt refreshed, whereupon he would read aloud the draft he had written during the day to Mrs. R and revise the phrasing based on her counsel.
Mrs. R, under the same lamp, would prepare for tomorrow’s work, write letters, or sometimes idly engage in knitting.

――

However, on the other three days of the week—Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays—Mrs. R too was quite busy and had to manage a great deal of housework.

First, Tuesday was laundry day for the underwear changed on Sunday morning of last week, bed linens, undergarments, and other items; from afternoon onward, it was scheduled as visiting day.
The larger items were all bundled into a bag and handed to the laundry service that came in the morning, while smaller items such as handkerchiefs, women’s collars, and silk blouses were all washed at home. Then, while these dried, she visited the necessary places.
She returned home around four o’clock and spent an hour and a half before dinner preparations applying the electric iron, after which she could put away the neatly pressed items. After dinner, it seemed there was no fixed routine—she might leisurely read a book or do a bit of needlework.

The next day, after nine o’clock, the part-time maid came and helped begin the careful cleaning of each room.
They arranged fresh flowers, changed where chairs were placed, and altered the appearance of each room as much as possible to make them pleasant; then from afternoon onward, they received guests.

She changed into fresh clothes; prepared tea and snacks in the parlor; and awaited those with appointments as well as visitors who had been anticipating that day.
Within a week, those who needed to meet finished all their conversations in one go in order—as long as there was no mutual conflict—and arranged the schedule for the following week.

Saturday was the week’s shopping day.
Over there, Sunday was generally a complete day of rest, with shops from greengrocers to butchers and stationery stores closing up entirely.
Therefore, they would consolidate all shopping possible on this day—not only items needed for Sunday and the following Monday—and attempt to purchase them at reputable stores in the downtown area that had each made their name through quality.

A housewife rich in economic acumen and possessing sound judgment strove never to make foolish purchases.
She did not merely purchase inexpensive items but strove to obtain products that were properly balanced in both price and quality.
Therefore, the competition among stores also targeted that point.
If one consolidated purchases on a fixed general shopping day, it followed that in many cases, depending on the location, one could obtain good-quality items with less markup.

At night, sometimes extending into Sunday, they would go out to some quiet suburb for an overnight stay.
In any case, Saturday night was set aside as a time to unreservedly enjoy themselves at leisure amidst their busy weekdays.
On Sundays, they went to church starting around eleven o'clock, had lunch at a restaurant, then headed to a suburban park to play golf or spent the evening strolling leisurely along country paths collecting plants as a couple.

They returned home, enjoyed a delicious dinner to satisfy their hunger, bathed, slept soundly, and thus welcomed a fresh Monday anew.

Of course, the aforementioned represented the general outline of their life; exceptions occurred, and there were situations beyond mere unexpected upheavals.
However, not only in the case of Mr. and Mrs. R but wherever a harmonious balance was maintained between a clear sense of responsibility toward each one’s respective duties and one’s conscience as members of a household, there appeared to be this same proper order and healthy activity.

Of course, it cannot be said that human life becomes complete merely through empty orderliness, nor is it that only well-organized lives are good.
However, in our lives, when our minds and hearts are in some state of confusion, is it not impossible to maintain an orderly and productive daily routine even if we desire to?

They are clearly two independent wheels.
Neither is some defective component that cannot survive on its own.
Without losing any of their respective characteristics, yet bound by friendship's resilient ties, they ultimately work collaboratively toward their shared objectives.

There, inevitably, in many cases, a clear consciousness came to be applied to the matter of children’s birth.
They did not approve of lifestyles—as seen in Japan—where newlyweds, before their parents' minds had even settled after the marriage, spent their days solely being overwhelmed by childcare.
Rather than for their children’s sake first, there were many parents who demanded fulfilled strength and activity as two individuals for themselves.
Therefore, I believed that the attitudes of countless married individuals toward their children could, in practice, be broadly divided into the following three categories.

First, those who—from the position that married life only fulfills its mission when becoming parents—wholeheartedly welcome however many children may be born.
Even among those sharing this fundamental stance, there are others who—considering economic circumstances and health conditions—hope to have two or three children of the highest quality.

The second category consists of those who emphasize married life solely as a personal union between the parties involved, entirely refraining from expecting children either to complete their mutual undertakings or to avoid passing down their mental and physical shortcomings to future generations.

Finally, a group consisting of those from the utterly impoverished lower class—completely ignorant of life's functions and human dignity—who surrendered themselves to fierce instinct, living like beggars while producing countless children.
On the other hand, completely opposite to this were those who had more than enough money and possessed sufficient health and intelligence to take responsibility for educating children, yet because they could not taste so-called freedom and out of fear that their looks would fade—I believe these constituted a group that recklessly misused scientific advancements.

To begin with, could issues such as birth control ever be conclusively determined as right or wrong in broad terms within a single day? There are those who endorse it considering current social conditions, and others who fiercely reject it as national ruin theory out of patriotic or militaristic conviction. Furthermore, when individuals' moral awareness regarding it lacks depth and integrity, numerous misapplications will inevitably arise in practice. I have no desire here to expound at length on these general theories. Let us advance instead, leaving such matters as personal assignments—problems each individual must resolve through their own profound examination of life's values.

As a matter of fact, their mothers love with considerable seriousness the children born under deep consciousness and earnest expectations.
I often heard it said that foreign women do not cherish their children as much as we do.
However, when I saw them thinking, researching, and making orderly plans for their children, I could not help but feel that one cannot make such a sweeping statement.
Of course, they neither hold their infants on their laps whenever they have a spare moment like young Japanese mothers nor carry them on their backs while walking.
In Japan, are we not generally overemphasizing—without logical basis—the notion of “being bound by children” as a kind of beautiful human sentiment?

When a child is born, and time from morning till night becomes consumed with no opportunity to read books—are we not overestimating this as the busyness of a devoted mother?

In this regard,I believe mothers there had a rather different approach.They first created schedules for essential childcare activities—nursing walks,bathing,and changing clothes—based on specialized knowledge.Even when developmental changes occurred，they generally organized their own work around these infant timetables.Households employing nannies afforded housewives ample free time，but ordinary homes without maids left mothers little leisure.Skillfully coordinating tasks，they combined strolls through quiet park paths—pushing baby carriages—with their own walking time.During intervals between feedings，they slipped out discreetly for personal errands.In America，infants not yet standing were typically laid in small cradles.Mothers pulled chairs nearby，soothing while keeping their bodies free for tasks.No custom existed of perpetual lap-carrying.Such practices would naturally harm children’s health while leaving mothers unable to manage household affairs—let alone personal needs.

Even during the infant stage when they were always lying still on the floor, mothers still seemed to have some time.
They started walking; they soon wanted to venture outside even alone.
When that time came, mothers with deep affection appeared compelled to spend nearly the entire daytime centered around their children.
Even so, in large cities like New York, since children were generally made to play outdoors at parks' playgrounds scattered throughout the city, mothers could freely release them into safe sandpits and grassy fields—whether they rolled or slid—and immerse themselves in their own tasks thanks to these facilities.

When passing through the sunlit, pleasant square of a park from around eleven in the morning until about three in the afternoon, we often encountered a group of children playing joyfully with cheering voices, alongside nannies and mothers sitting on nearby benches—reading, knitting, doing small sewing tasks, or even bending uncomfortably to write letters while keeping watch.

From outdoors, they brought them back while it was still warm, washed their bodies, had them eat an early dinner before the adults, and put them to bed.
At least during the night, it became the mother’s time—a period when only the parents could organize their day’s work or leisurely enjoy some rest.
When children reached five or six years old and began attending kindergarten, they were gradually trained to handle matters independently.
They were permitted to act independently among their peers.
If there was no danger on the path and it was near a park, children were allowed to play alone until a set time.
Washing morning glories, greeting others, taking care of their own clothes to the best of their ability—they were taught to have a sense of responsibility toward their toys, shoes, hats, and other belongings.
Though small, they were treated as young gentlemen or ladies appropriate to their age, and their parents’ education gradually incorporated rational and practical tendencies.

Even if their children were adorable, they did not dress them in extravagant clothes or spoil them. Even when they fell and cried, they made them get up on their own. If they broke their toys, they had them repair them themselves or devise ways to use them skillfully. One could not fathom how deeply rooted in those parents’ hearts was the consciousness of making their children live through self-reliance in all things.

Instead of arbitrarily restricting freedom, they kept children as far away as possible from environments that exerted harmful influences. There was a house downtown that was very convenient for when Father commuted to his office or went out to see a play, but because there were many physiological and psychological dangers for the children, they economized on one set of clothes each and moved to a quiet area near an uptown park with expensive rent. They bought good toys for birthdays, naming days, and Christmas celebrations, but in summer took them to healthy rural areas for summer retreats to experience simple, natural country life.

Regarding educational policies as well, it was not that pedantic notion which claimed one must proceed from elementary school through university in orderly fashion with excellent grades to avoid being deemed a low-value member of society; rather, so-called academic pursuits might extend as far as one’s hopes and abilities allowed.
In any case, they proceeded from the practical perspective that as long as one possessed sufficient capability to live properly as an independent citizen, that was enough.
In this lay both the truly admirable freedom of Americans and their utterly unbearable vulgarity, but I believed the way parents raised their children with the ideal of recognizing them as fully capable individuals at a certain age was commendable.

From early childhood, parents gradually bestowed upon their children, through the utmost love, effort, and study they could muster, the foundation of being an individual.
School suggested broad common sense and specialized tendencies based on individual personalities.
And some established the first period of their new independent life when reaching adulthood, while others did so upon completing specialized education; from that point onward, they let life policies be entirely governed by the children’s own will.
The impression that their children, having grown up, now stood as individuals differed markedly in intensity from that in our country, I felt.

When they reached a certain age，parents and children became completely equal.
Through endless love and trust toward those who had loved and raised one since the womb，they formed a lateral bond bound by peerless，profound friendship.
No matter how old they became，the parent-child relationship did not constitute a somewhat hierarchical tier.
Parents were to live by their own beliefs，children by theirs；as a result of this mutual friendship that bound them together，each individual bore full responsibility while taking care not to cause suffering or create stumbling blocks for one another.
It was entirely spent through cheerful human interactions.

Rather than clinging to one another to form a unified whole, they aspired—as independent individuals—to make life warmly vibrant through the hope, trust, and vitality radiating between them.
I thought this tendency existed not only between married couples but also among siblings.
Rather than idealizing a life where one clung to the strength of an individual—be it a father, husband, or eldest brother—and relied on that person’s protection, assistance, and support to live harmoniously as a family without rich or poor members, I believed we should take one more step toward being proactive in life.
First came the confidence to affirm oneself, then to calmly affirm one’s current position—this was what provided good self-esteem.
Even when one’s eldest brother was wealthy and they themselves worked as a university assistant living on meager pay, they maintained enough self-reliance to feel no inferiority.
Therefore, no matter how much money a father might accumulate, daughters and sons considered it natural to make their living through work commensurate with their own capabilities.
In contrast to Japan’s traditional practice where after a father’s death the eldest son had to become household head and take charge of everything from business to social obligations, in places where several siblings existed and each conducted matters according to their own choices, there was no particular need for the eldest son to inherit most of the estate.

It was neither living for their children nor living for their parents; their sincere wish seemed to be to live together correctly and happily as human beings.

Of course, all these matters had another aspect and another negative dimension. Some might demand: Why do couples bound by such warm friendship so frequently file for divorce in court? Why does mention of a wealthy heiress draw swarms of young men? Why do blood-feud inheritance disputes erupt so often?

Indeed, these facts permeated the greater part of society. Yet the aspect I had delineated also constituted an irrefutable reality. We who had begun living as global citizens while retaining our respective national characteristics as individual distinctions wished to consider all emerging forms of life consciousness and social systems developed worldwide through extending them to the horizon of human values and ideals.

Therefore, when a certain people are provoked by a particular concept, they may exhibit behavior far more base as human beings compared to other peoples who neither know nor possess that concept.
However, it must be said that even those who do not know [something] can generate admirable actions from the same concept through methods of application and depth of understanding.

We could not help but desire to make all experiences of human life—as broadly and deeply as possible—materials for our own development.

[March 1922]