The Enemy (Pearl S. Buck) — Practice

Question 1

What dilemma does Dr. Sadao face when he finds the American soldier? How does he resolve it?

Accepted Answer

Dr. Sadao finds an American soldier (Tom) washed up on his beach — gravely wounded. Japan is at war with America. Sadao faces a DUAL OBLIGATION: as a JAPANESE CITIZEN, his duty is to hand over an enemy soldier to the military. As a DOCTOR, his training absolutely forbids him to let a patient die when he can save them — regardless of nationality. He cannot let Tom die (medical ethics), but sheltering an enemy is dangerous. RESOLUTION: Sadao decides to save Tom, treats him in his house, and reports him to the General (his powerful patient), hoping the General will handle Tom's removal discretely. When the General fails to act, Sadao arranges Tom's secret escape — a rowboat, food, a flashlight — to a nearby uninhabited island, from which Tom signals a submarine and escapes.

Question 2

Why do the servants leave Dr. Sadao's house? What does their departure reveal about the story's themes?

Accepted Answer

REASON FOR DEPARTURE: The servants cannot accept having an American enemy soldier in the house. They believe it is wrong — even treasonous — to shelter and nurse the enemy of Japan. They are disturbed by the situation and by their own moral confusion: they respect Sadao and Hana, but they cannot override their national identity and wartime indoctrination. They choose to leave rather than participate. WHAT THEIR DEPARTURE REVEALS: (1) ORDINARINESS OF NATIONAL IDENTITY: The servants represent ordinary Japanese people who could not separate their national identity from their human response. For them, an American soldier was THE ENEMY — not a wounded human being. Their departure shows that Sadao's decision was EXCEPTIONAL, not representative. (2) THE COST OF MORAL CHOICE: Sadao and Hana's decision to save Tom has a real cost — they lose their household staff. Moral choices in wartime are not free; they require sacrifice. (3) THE LIMITS OF AUTHORITY: Even Dr. Sadao's social position (a respected surgeon, the General's personal doctor) cannot compel his servants to act against their national identity. (4) BY CONTRAST — SADAO AND HANA'S EXCEPTIONALISM: The servants' departure makes Sadao and Hana's choice more remarkable. They could have sent Tom away like the servants would have wanted. They didn't. Their American education, their exposure to a wider world, allowed them to see Tom as a human patient, not an enemy. This is the story's central argument: education, exposure, and human empathy can transcend the enmity that nationalism creates.

Question 3

Is Dr. Sadao a patriot or a traitor? What does the story say about the conflict between national duty and universal humanistic values?

Accepted Answer

THE QUESTION — PATRIOT OR TRAITOR?: Dr. Sadao treats and shelters an American enemy soldier during wartime. By the laws of Japan and the logic of war, this is treason — he harboured and ultimately helped escape a POW. Yet the story never presents him as a villain or even a morally compromised man. Why? THE CASE FOR TRAITOR: Sadao broke Japanese law. He sheltered an enemy. He arranged his escape rather than turning him in. His country is at war; his actions potentially helped the enemy (Tom could report back, engage in further combat). By the strict calculus of wartime nationalism, Sadao betrayed Japan. THE CASE FOR PATRIOT: Sadao reported Tom to the General — he DID attempt to fulfil his national duty. His medical ethics (not personal disloyalty) prevented him from turning Tom in immediately. He saved Tom not from anti-Japanese sentiment but from a deeper commitment: a doctor does not let patients die, regardless of who they are. He is not acting against Japan; he is acting for a principle that transcends Japan (and America). THE DEEPER QUESTION — WHAT DEFINES DUTY?: The story argues that 'duty' has more than one source: national identity is one source; but medical ethics, training, and human empathy are also sources of duty. Sadao's two duties conflict. He does not choose to be a traitor; he chooses WHICH duty takes precedence when they cannot both be honoured. His American training — the years in San Francisco, the teachers who shaped him as a surgeon — gave him a different community of obligation alongside his national one. THE GENERAL'S TACIT APPROVAL: The General knows Sadao sheltered an American. He promises to send assassins, then forgets. The 'forgetting' can be read as a tacit acknowledgment: the General needs Sadao alive, healthy, and practising. A doctor who saves every life — including enemy lives — is exactly the kind of doctor a general needs. The General's pragmatism and Sadao's humanism arrive at the same conclusion by different routes. THE STORY'S ANSWER: Pearl S. Buck does not resolve the patriot/traitor question directly — she leaves it open. She argues, through the story's outcome (Sadao is not punished, Tom escapes, Japan is not measurably harmed), that universal human values and national duty CAN coexist, but the coexistence requires exceptional individuals — the education, exposure, and moral clarity that Dr. Sadao possesses — and a great deal of luck. The story is a plea for the possibility of humanity in inhuman circumstances.

Practice — The Enemy (Pearl S. Buck)

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities