of the Buddhas and other religious imagery? Are
there not here the most powerful representations possible of human
emotions, both active and passive? But even so, is not the gaze of the
artist still _outward_ on others, _i.e._, is he not altruistic; and,
therefore, "impersonal," according to this method of thought and use
of terms? Are European artists who revel in landscape and animal
scenes deficient in "personal" development, and are those who devote
their lives to painting nude women particularly developed in
"personality"? Truly, a defective terminology and a distorted
conception of what "personality" is, land one in most contradictory
positions.

Those who urge the "impersonality" of the Orient make much of the
Japanese idea of the "family," with the attendant customs. The fact
that marriage is arranged for by the parents, and that the two
individuals most concerned have practically no voice in the matter,
proves conclusively, they argue, that the latter have little
"personality." Here again all turns on the definition of this
important word. If by "personality" is meant consciousness of one's
self as an independent individual, then I do not see what relation the
two subjects have. If, however, it means the willingness of the
subjects of marriage to forego their own desires and choices; because
indeed they do not have any of their own, then the facts will not bear
out the argument. These writers skillfully choose certain facts out of
the family customs whereby to illustrate and enforce this theory, but
they entirely omit others having a significant bearing upon it. Take,
for instance, the fact that one-third of the marriages end in divorce.
What does this show? It shows that one-third of the individuals in
each marriage are so dissatisfied with the arrangements made by the
parents that they reject them and assert their own choice and
decision. According to the argument for "impersonality" in marriage,
these recalcitrant, unsubmissive individuals have a great amount of
"personality," that is, consciousness of self; and this consciousness
of self produces a great effect on the other party to the marriage;
and the effect on the other party (in the vast majority of the cases
women), that is to say, the effect of the divorce on the consciousness
of the women, constitutes the personality of the men! The marriage
customs cited, therefore, do not prove the point, for no account is
taken of the multitudinous cases in whi