A wise sage once spoke, “Always stay a tourist” — for no one is more adept at analysis and explanation than the occasional and casual traveler. Just recently, I spent a half-fortnight in the Atlantic nation of Portugal, and this brief experience has given me an unquestionable authority on the subject. I find it almost comical to believe that my total lack of Portuguese language ability, ignorance about Portuguese history, and stubborn refusal to read academic works on Portuguese society somehow put me at a disadvantage in serving up sharp commentary upon this wonderful land. Conversely, all that knowledge and understanding would only cloud my general perceptions. Who needs to know what someone is saying, when you can feel out their motives and orientations through the power of imagination!

My travels took me first to the capitol of Lisbon — an adorable “big city” overflowing with ancient neighborhoods and beautiful tile work. I would almost go as far to say that Lisbon feels safer than Tokyo: Besides the occasional hash dealer in Rossio, there were few people who even looked suspicious.

No matter how urban the area, communality takes a central position in daily lives. The Portuguese possess something I call superintimacy (short-lived Wikipedia entry coming soon): Despite Portugal’s rapid economic progress in recent years, its citizens have managed to keep their traditional social networks firmly intact. Whether they walk around the block or take the #33 bus up to the castle, they greet and chat with their neighbors both known and unknown, as if nothing has changed in 1000 years.

How is this possible in the 21st century? The Portuguese are guided by an ancient religious tradition called Catholicism, which dates all the way back to directly after the death of Christ. Unlike the ideological bickering of Protestantism, Catholics value stability, family, order, and ritual. And now with their growing economy standing firmly upon this spiritual base, the Portuguese enjoy something like a socialist capitalism where everyone instinctively helps out everyone else. Furthermore, inter-generational conflict is relatively marginal, thanks to the Catholic rituals of “baptism” and “confirmation” that turn young people into valid members of the community at a relatively early age. And in the spirit of the Eucharist tradition, large families dine together every night — something unthinkable in economically-obsessed nations like Japan.

As we traveled from Lisbon to the walled village of Marvão to the stunningly-preserved Évora, we couldn’t help but think that Portugal has handled modernity far better than its neighbors: McDonalds are rare, and other chain restaurants barely exist. The Portuguese have limited the existence of crass global commercialism to the Algarve beach area — outlet mall hells brought forth by the pasty-white Brits and Krauts living there in retirement. Portugal shames the U.S. and Japan through its careful protection of local culture and traditional architecture. Only the occasional earthquake is allowed to erase the past.

Portugal does not just provide an alternate take on the process of modernization — a brisk stroll into the future while maintaining the “slow life” of the past — but the one-and-only correct take on modernism. With a history of pacifism and a monolinguistic multi-racial harmony, Portugal may just be the most progressive country on the planet.

We Protestant individuals may scorn the communalist Catholic way of life, but Portugal’s existence shames all of us from the Post-Industrial countries. As the inheritors of the Earth, we are failures, and we must embrace the progressive Catholic post-modernism before it is too late.

I just finished reading a short book called Hegemony of Homogeneity by esteemed anthropologist Harumi Befu, and I’d like to stop the usual Japan bickering to approach this idea of “Japan” from a different angle.

Befu’s book looks at how Nihonjinron — the Japanese theory of self-uniqueness — became a civil religion in Japan and eventually came to dominate the domestic and international discourse on Japanese culture. He never explicitly judges the contents or statements of Nihonjinron — for example, the beliefs that Japanese societal structure was formed through monsoon weather/rice cultivation or that the language is linked to pure, homogeneous blood — but instead analyzes the function/role of these beliefs within modern Japanese society. For a moment, I would like to take the same approach.

There are plenty of Western books that debunk the myths of Japanese uniqueness through scholarly analysis, but they are missing the point: You can’t argue facts against religion. The Nihonjinron canon takes on an important structural role within the Japanese national-consciousness. If these beliefs are indeed a civil religion, all the facts in the world cannot remove the grand myth from its supporting role in society. Try arguing the science of evolution with a Fundamentalist Christian — it will get you nowhere.

I can understand the right of this Nihonjinron myth to exist within Japan as a source of culture nationalism, but the conflict starts when objective foreign parties also end up believing the myths. The Japanese government has worked to propagate the positive Nihonjinron theories of Japanese uniqueness to “explain” Japan to the world, which is an understandable PR move. But that does not mean we should take the arguments at face value.

Academic scholarship continuously aims to uncover and explain reality, and therefore, much work in the field of Japanese Studies has been focused on repudiating the more mythic parts of Japanese cultural beliefs. Many Western scholars see Nihonjinron’s implications of Japanese superiority as a new form of ethnocentricism — a natural critical position of anyone foreign who has no structural need for those particular myths themselves.

I find it odd that Momus has essentially taken on Nihonjinron as his own civil religious belief, but this would at least explain why we have reached such an impasse in arguing. He stands behind the Nihonjinron writers’ monolithic Japan as a more morally correct alternative to Western Rationalism and Christianity. His argument is basically, “The Japanese all believe in Groupism, and Groupism is better than Individualism. The Japanese all avoid conflict, and this is better than Protestant bickering.” Momus sees this holistic “Japanese system” as a complete set of beliefs that naturally exist and rule Japan, and therefore, any arguing to the contrary would not be “debunking” as much as an affront to his personal spirituality.

There are a few common approaches to challenging the grand Nihonjinron explanation of Japan. We could challenge the scientific validity of the claims. Or, we could prove that Japan has too much heterogeneity to be defined by monolithic theories. And if that fails, we can attempt to show that the system fails on a moral level against human rights.

Forget all that for a moment. For the sake of arguing, I would like to take the Nihonjinron theory at face value — as a factual body of work that explains Japanese uniqueness. And in the next installment, I will attempt to explain modern Japanese society through the interaction of this monolithic and unique Japanese system with the Western hegemonic Globalizing juggernaut.

From the posts on my blog and views elsewhere, I’ve created my own Right-to-Left continuum for views on Japan:

Far Right – The Colonialists: “Japan is dumb. The West is better. J-birds are easy. The Japanese are bad at English. Nova, where’s my paycheck?”

Moderate Right – The Collaborationists: “Japan’s shining moment was the Dainippon Teikoku. Japan should stand up to North Korea more. Don’t criticize Japanese culture when its Asian market success proves it to be right. Ishihara is correct to try to keep out all the riff-raff.”

Neutral – The Casual Fans: “I like Japanese things.”

Moderate Left – The Sociologists: “Japan is a modern society, and thus, should be judged on the same standards as other post-Industrial nations. Somethings work, but others could be improved. The remaining illiberal political culture should be eradicated for democracy’s sake.”

Hard Left – The Anthropologists: “Japan is a unique nation and cannot be judged by Western ethnocentric criteria. Let Japan be Japan. Stop trying to interfere.”