@article{oai:nichibun.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000355,
 author = {KENT, Pauline},
 journal = {Nichibunken Japan review : bulletin of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies},
 month = {Jan},
 note = {Ruth Benedict has been the subject of a number of studies in both Japan and America.  However, these studies have, up until now, maintained their international borders and avoided any cross-fertilization of knowledge.  In America, three full length biographies, along with numerous other articles, have been devoted to the work and life of Benedict.  In contrast, Japanese attention has mainly focused on Benedict's famous study of the Japanese, the Chrysanthemum and the Sword.  Thus, on the Japanese side few have pursued the motivations of the author behind this book, whereas in America, Benedict the cultural anthropologist tends to figures large, leaving little room for discussion of Chrysanthemum.
Douglas Lummis, however, has attempted to straddle both sides of the fence with his piece A New Look at the Chrysanthemum and the Sword.  Unfortunately, for his background knowledge on Benedict, he turns to Margaret Mead but fails to realise that the intricate relationship between Mead and Benedict has greatly influenced the portrait painted by her.  The result is a rather heavy-handed attempt to prove that Chrysanthemum is merely a piece of "political literature" penned by a poet inhabiting the facade of a cultural anthropologist.  Nevertheless, this image created by Lummis has managed to colour a large number of subsequent comments on both the book and author in Japan.
This paper will identify some of Lummis' major arguments against the background of the material he has used to formulate his arguments.  Lummis' ideas derive from Mead's biography of Benedict, but by re-examining this biography and comparing it with other biographies on Benedict--and Mead--it becomes obvious that Mead's interpretation of Benedict's complex life was but one side of story.  Thus, Lummis' use of Mead must also be considered when assessing the validity of his interpretation of Benedict.},
 pages = {33--60},
 title = {Misconceived Configurations of Ruth Benedict},
 volume = {7},
 year = {1996}
}