John F. Embree

Standardized Error and Japanese Character: A Note on Political Interpretation

Back in 1927 Vilhjalmur Stefansson wrote a little book entitled The Standardization of Error . In this essay he shows first of all that errors which fill social needs become standardized and, he suggests, it might be construed as antisocial to try to destroy them by raising points of fact. To this end, there is an advantage to knowledge by definition in contrast to knowledge by observation. This, as the writer points out, gives to arithmetic its finality. Two and two is by definition four. In the social sciences also, we have many ‘facts’ that are so by definition and so become immutable.

Raymond Kennedy, 1906-50

After graduation from Yale College in 1928 Raymond Kennedy began, almost fortuitously, a career in Far Eastern affairs by teaching for a year at the Brent School in the Philippines, Then, a year later, he became a field representative for General Motors in what was then called the Netherlands East Indies. As the peripatetic automobile salesman discovered the cultural riches of the fabulous Indies, he became progressively less interested in American machines and more fascinated by Indonesian people. This led him to give up his commercial job and return to his alma mater in New Haven for graduate study in anthropology and sociology. He knew well that “he who would bring home the wealth of the Indies must carry the wealth of the Indies with him. ” Thus began the academic career of one of Americans pioneer scholars in the field of Southeast Asian studies.

Dr. Embree's Rejoinder

It is with some trepidation that I venture to differ in any way on matters concerning Indian affairs with so great an authority as John Collier, a man for whom I have great admiration not only because of his accomplishments in liberalizing the Indian Bureau in the thirties but also because of his broad humanistic endeavors on behalf of ethnic minority groups wherever they may exist in this sad post-war world. Indeed, I had thought that we were in substantial agreement on most major points. I still think that this is so. Some of the disagreement comes from argumentation at cross-purposes, each of us using the same examples to prove different things. Semantics again?