boundaries proved too threatening.

The same was true of a young man who

married a Japanese woman. H e fled from her family in Japan when he felt
&at his identity was dissolving, Similar exryeriences have been reported ro
me by Indians and Japanese who have lived several years in Europe or the
United States and then returned home.
O n e must contexmalize this generalization by citing that Indians and
Japanese make sharp distinctions between insider and outsider relation-
hips-that is, between on& own people and others in India, and between
~ c h and
i soto in Japan. The more pcrmcable outer ego boundaries occur
within the insider relationships characteristic of the extended family and of
closely knit groups such as the work group in Japan. In outsider relation-
ships in both cultures, such as different castes or comnlunities in India and
others ourside of one's family and group in Japan, outer ego boundaries are
usually kept very firm with considerable social distance and emotional re-
straint.
But counterbalancing this permeable outer boundary through semi-
merger experiences with others in insider relationships is an irlner boundary
of a highly private, secret self. More secretive in Japanese &an In Indians,
this self is a repository of individuality rarely found in Nonh Americans, for
whom individuality is characteristicalZy espresscd in the social wartd.l"he
innermost ego boundary varies even more between Indians and Japanese,
inasmuch as the fornler are usually far nlore in touch with their inner world
than the latter, and somewhat mbre in touch than North Americans. This
difirence is due to cultural norms. For instance, Japanese have a far more
perfectionistic ego-ideal and rigorous social etiquette than Indians and
Norsk Americans and so are liess in touch with fkemselves, By contrasr, In-
dians, although their culture insists on proper social etiq-ilel.te in family and
group hierarchical relationships, give considerable latitude to a wide variety
of personal ideas, feelings, and fantasies. Thus, North Americans, Indians,
and Japanese a11 have the univcrsat category of ego baundaries; but this care-
gory has to be recontextualized for Indians and Japanese from the usual
norms of psychoanalysis, addillg a new category of an inner boundary in-
volving a highly private self. These three cultures also specify difkrcnt con-
I-;gr~rationsfor outer and islner boundaries.
From the perspective of normality/psychopathoTogy, norms vary consid-
erably from one configuration of ego boundaries t o another, hiZerger or
semi-merger experiences that would be considered borderline if not severe
psychopa;hology for most North Americans usually fall within the neurotic
range for Japanese. In a group supervisory session in Hiroshima in 1982, Dr.
Totoro Ichimaru presented the case of Kiyoshi, a seventeen-year-old boy.
His transference to Dr. Ichimaru was such that the latter not only experi-
enced a suffacr?lling closeness and discomfort at the lack of boundaries be-
tween himself and Kiyoshi but also felt that he was being given absolutely