3. DIFFUSE INDIGENOUS POSTULATES: AMOEBA-LIKE WAY OF THINKING
The above inferred postulates are further generalized into a less specific two. Four of them, ie (idea), buraku (spirit), dozoku (principle), and mibun (order), function among the people of limited circles and assign certain behaviour patterns to them relativistically as circumstances require.
They are accordingly included in “emphasis on group affiliation” and “particularlistic relations” formulated by Edwin O. Reischauer (1977: 127, 142) or “social relativism” characterized by “social preoccupation and interactional relation” by Takie Sugiyama Lebra (1976: 9). They may form a relativistic postulate to have people adapt flexibly to changing circumstances. The other two postulates, Tenno adoration and kami conception, share a common character of a superior authority with their own individualities. They are an embodiment in idea of “a very strong self-identity” stressed along with “the group orientation and relativistic ethics” by Reischauer (ibid.: 146). They may form a limiting postulate to have people maintain their individuality, however flexibly they may adapt themselves to circumstances.The six specific postulates have their own significance. But in reality they function in concert. Thus a general diffuse postulate is assumed as supporting the above-mentioned postulates: a postulate to enable people to behave as flexibly as possible, to adapt themselves to changing circumstances, as well as to maintain their individuality. Such a postulate is tentatively called the “amoeba-like way of thinking” for its similarity to the flexible movement of an amoeba with its individuality maintained. It has of course operated for the indigenous laws that are supported by the six specific postulates. It has supported, too, the other indigenous laws in varying ways: supporting some indigenous laws adopted in the official law as in adjoining relations, right of common, fixed collateral, mortgage, seals, and goodwill; allowing the substantiate of some others to more or less permeate the official law, as in National Holidays, gengo, de facto marriage, divorce by consent, kazoedoshi, shakkan-ho, groom foster-son, sole-heir inheritance and conciliation; validating still others out of the realm of official law, as in the procedure of a marriage, giri relations, order of the seats, murahachibu and lunar calendar; or leaving a few others, once adopted into official law, to decline, as in perpetual land-lease and vouching for a person.
When the amoeba-like way of thinking operates to allow very flexible movements, the resultant behaviour may be seen at a glance as “unlimited inclusiveness” without definite criteria, as a Japanese leading political scientist criticized (Maruyama, 1961), which might induce the loss of identity. It is still possible to survive with innate individuality maintained. Such a postulate is assumed as diffusely operating for the indigenous laws.66