These facts prove conclusively that the Japanese individual is still a gregarious being, and this fact throws light on the moral life of the people.  It follows of necessity that the individual will conform somewhat more closely to the moral standards of the community, than a man living in a strong segregarious community.

The converse of this principle is that in a community whose individuals are largely segregarious, enjoying privacy, and thus liberty of action, variations from the moral standards will be frequent and positive transgressions not uncommon.  In the one case, where “communalism” reigns, moral action is, so to speak, automatic; it requires no particular assertion of the individual will to do right; conformity to the standard is spontaneous.  In the latter case, however, where “individualism” is the leading characteristic of the community, the acceptance of the moral standards usually requires a definite act of the individual will.

The history of Japan is a capital illustration of this principle.  The recent increase of immorality and crime is universally admitted.  The usual explanation is that in olden times every slight offense was punished with death; the criminal class was thus continuously exterminated.  Nowadays a robber can ply his trade continuously, though interrupted by frequent intervals of imprisonment.  In former times, once caught, he never could steal again, except in the land of the shades.  While this explanation has some force, it does not cover the ground.  A better explanation for the modern increase of lawlessness is the change in the social order itself.  The new order gives each man wider liberty of individual action.  He is free to choose his trade and his home.  Formerly these were determined for him by the accident of his birth.  His freedom is greater and so, too, are his temptations.

Furthermore, the standards of conduct themselves have been changing.  Certain acts which would have brought praise and honor if committed fifty years ago, such, for instance, as “kataki uchi,” revenge, would to-day soon land one behind prison doors.  In a word, “individualism” is beginning to work powerfully on conduct; it has not yet gained the ascendancy attained in the West; it is nevertheless abroad in the land.  The young are especially influenced by it.  Taking advantage of the liberty it grants, many forms of immorality seem to be on the increase.  So far as I can gather by inquiry, there has been a great collapse not only in honesty, but also in the matter of sexual morality.  It will hardly do to say dogmatically that the national standards of morality have been lowered, but it is beyond question that the power of the community to enforce those standards has suddenly come to naught by reason of the changing social order.  Western thought and practice as to the structure of society and the freedom of the individual have been emphasized; Spencer and Mill and Huxley have been widely read by the educated classes.[BR]