I cannot
agree with these writers in the view that the race soul is a given
fixed entity. Social psychogenesis is a present and a progressive
process. Japan is a capital illustration of it. In the development of
races and civilizations involution is as continuous a process as
evolution. Evolution is, indeed, only one-half of the process. Without
involution, evolution is incomprehensible. And involution is the more
interesting half, as it is the more significant. In modern discussion
much that passes by the name of evolution is, in reality, a discussion
of involution.

The attentive reader will have discovered that the real point of the
discussion of Japanese characteristics given in the preceding chapters
has been on the point of involution. How have these characteristics
arisen? has been our ever-recurring question. The answer has
invariably tried to show their relation to the social order. In this
way we have traversed a large number of leading characteristics of the
Japanese. We have seen how they arose, and also how they are now being
transformed by the new Occidentalized social order. We have seen that
not one of the characteristics examined is inherent, that is, due to
brain structure, to biological heredity. We have concluded, therefore,
that the psychical characteristics which differentiate races are all
but wholly social.

It is incumbent on advocates of the biological view to point out in
detail the distinguishing inherent traits of the Orient. Let them also
catalogue the essential psychic characteristics of Occidentals. Such
an attempt is seldom made. And when it is made it is singularly
unconvincing. Although Prof. Le Bon states that the mental
constitution of races is as distinctive and unaltering as their
anatomical characteristics, he fails to tell us what they are. This is
a vital omission. If the differences are as distinct as he asserts, it
would seem to be an easy matter to describe them. Whatever the
clothing adopted, it is an easy matter for one to distinguish a
European from an Asiatic, an Englishman from an Italian, a Japanese
from a Korean, a Chinaman from a Hindu. The anatomical characteristics
of races are clear and easily described. If the psychic
characteristics are equally distinct, why do not they who assert this
distinctness describe and catalogue these differences?

Occasionally a popular writer makes something of an attempt in this
direction, but with astonishingly slight results. A