What the East is Thinking
[In this article an Indian explains what the East thinks about the West and why it does not want Western ideas thrust upon it.— En. Spectator.] THE East has revolted against the West. But why ? Is it merely to be politically and economically free ? No. It is for something deeper. The East desires to retain its own view of life. Prominent thinkers like Rabindranath Tagore, Gandhi, Ku Hung Ming, and the late Kakuzo Okakura have again and again insisted on this in their books. It is the purpose of this article to show in brief what it is in Western civilization that does not appeal to Orientals in general.
Western society is never at rest : nothing in it lasts for any length of time. What a difference there is between a Western woman's dress of the sixteenth century and of to-day ! How Western peoples' ideas of art have changed at different periods of their history ! Chartres Cathedral and St. Paul's, or Reynolds's portraits and those by a living post-impressionistic artist, have practically nothing in common. So, too, Western society changes from generation to generation and from century to century. At the end of the eighteenth century when the bourgeoisie declared war against the aristocracy of France, Labour, as a force, was not born. But to-day, Labour, as a force, is not only born, but it is so strong that it is trying to wrest power from the hands of the bourgeoisie. Such changes, I may add, are regarded as signs of " progress " by the West.
Though modern Orientals believe much more in progress than their ancestors did a thousand or even fifty years ago, they by no means make a fetish of it. They welcome it in certain spheres of life—as for example, in scientific research—but not in all spheres. " If a thing is good and beautiful, there is no reason why it should be changed," they say. Some three thousand years ago Indian women found the sari beautiful and so they adopted it and have retained it ever since. Orientals evolved their ideals of art over a thousand years ago and as they found those ideals satisfying they have remained faithful to them ever since. The difference between a Chinese painting of the Sung period and one of the Ming period, or between an Indian temple of the sixth century and one of the sixteenth century, after all inconsiderable. So, t00, priests, warriors, and merchants in Indian society have been content to do their allotted task in-life without wishing to usurp the functions of other castes.
Orientals have always preferred the co-operative to the competitive system of life, and so they do not look upon class warfare as any evidence of progress. They feel convinced that class warfare must always end in the same'old way—the class which has seized power to-day will be ousted from its place of power by the class below. We do not think for a moment that our caste system is perfect. Far from it. Bat we do think that, as it prevents disruption of society, it is better than class warfare, which causes it. " Nothing is perfect in this world, and therefore we should select the lesser of the two evils," we say with the experience of ages behind us.
It should not be supposed from this that Orientals are in favour of plutocracy. The overwhelming importance which the plutocrat has attained in Western society does not appeal to us at all. We think that a society which is dominated by business men lowers the national ideal of life ; for the type of man a nation admires has a great influence in moulding the thoughts and aspirations of the rising generation. In China the highest type of man has always been the scholar, whilst in India it has been the saint ; therefore, the people of those two countries aspire to be scholars or saints. In America, on the contrary, people wish to be millionaires and you have the apotheosis of the business man.
The question of sex equality, again, which is agitating the Western world to-day, is approached by us Orientals in our own way. Although we now give greater freedom to our women than in the past, we do not think that sex equality is either possible or desirable. When the two sexes are different physically, mentally, and psychically, how can they be equal ? We say that happiness is the ultimate end of marriage, and that this happiness cannot be obtained unless the two sexes do work of a comple- mentary and not of a similar nature. Your sex warfare is unnatural and anarchic in the extreme.
When an emancipated Western woman tells us that by asserting her rights against men she has extended her interests in life and widened her horizons, we feel inclined to ask her if she has found greater happiness by doing so. Orientals have a deep-rooted belief that perfection in life is possible only by remaining within definite limits—and as emancipated Western women have forgotten the existence of those limits or transgressed them, they must have lost their happiness. Who shall say that we are wrong ? Is life a circle in which to live and perfect oneself, or is it a straight line which can be extended
Previous page
