Mr. Lowell in effect says this in his closing chapter entitled “Imagination.”  His thesis seems to be that the universal mind, of which, each individual receives a fragment, becomes increasingly differentiated as the race mind evolves.  In proportion as the evolution has progressed does the individual realize his individuality—­his separateness; this individualization, this differentiation of the individual mind is, in his view, the measure as well as the cause of the higher civilization.  The lack of such individualization he calls “impersonality”; in such a mind the dominant thought is not of the separateness between, but of the unity that binds together, himself and the universal mind.

If the above is a correct statement of the conception of those who emphasize the “impersonality” of the Orient, then there are two things concerning it which may be said at once.  First, the idea is a perfectly clear and intelligible one, the proposition is definite and tangible.  But why do they not so express it?  The terms “personality” and “individuality” are used synonymously; while “impersonal” is considered the equivalent of the negative of individual, un-individual—­a word which has not yet been and probably never will be used.  But the negation of individual is universal; “impersonal,” therefore, according to the usage of these writers, becomes equivalent to universal.

But, secondly, even after the use of terms has become thus understood, and we are no longer confused over the words, having arrived at the idea they are intended to convey, the idea itself is fundamentally erroneous.  I freely admit that there is an interesting truth of which these writers have got a glimpse and to which they are striving to give expression, but apparently they have not understood the real nature of this truth and consequently they are fundamentally wrong in calling the Far East “impersonal,” even in their sense of the word.  They are furthermore in error, in ascribing this “impersonal” characteristic of the Japanese to their inherent race nature, If they are right, the problem is fundamentally one of biological evolution.

In contrast to this view, it is here contended, first, that the feature they are describing is not such as they describe it; second, that it is not properly called “impersonality”; third, that it is not a matter of inherent race nature, of brain structure, or of mind differentiation, but wholly a matter of social evolution; and, fourth, that if there is such a trait as they describe, it is not due to a deficiently developed but on the contrary to a superlatively developed personality, which might better be called super-personality.  To state the position here advocated in a nutshell, it is maintained that the asserted “impersonality” of the Japanese is the result of the communalistic nature of the social order which has prevailed down to the most recent times; it has put its stamp on every feature of the national and individual life, not omitting