Are you talking about "warm water ports," and does the whole "product of geography" thing being garbage also apply to the idea that Japan was destined to have a xenophobic society because they are an island, separated from the rest of Asia by seas and oceans, that wasn't conquered by different cultures? And that the whole idea of Japanese ethnic supremacism (which got to its worst in the 1930s and 40s) had been bolstered by the failed Mongol invasion? (which I'm guessing is why CalBear said that the Mongols had to succeed in their invasion in order for Japanese society to change)
(for example,
expressed here - I'm only showing where I've found this idea)
oh yeah, and then there's the idea that
Confucian influence and cultural inertia is the reason why
Japanese workplaces are behind on gender equality
Yes, this is a bit long so bear with me.
I would argue Japanese xenophobia was less about geography or not being conquered or even attacked, as the islands of Tsushima were attacked by the Koreans because of piracy, it was more a security measure for a deeply divided and unstable nation.
Come the fall of the Kamakura Shogunate in 1333, the first of 3 Shogunates, the Emperor Go-Daigo tried to regain power. This led to a period of division numerous clans backed either the Southern Court led by Go-Daigo and his line or the Ashikaga backed Jimyoin line from which all current emperors are descended from, we're going this far back because the Ashikaga sets the stage for Japan as we know it. The Ashikaga won out and made the emperor a figurehead, but in entrusting their strength to military governors the Shugo, but their ability to divide and rule them only lasted until the Onin War, left the Shogun a figurehead as well. What is important from this is the Ashikaga never had complete control over the country but always needed the Shugo to help them.
The later Ashikaga period saw the various lords as basically their own countries, and even these lords could be usurped or made into figureheads as well. However, there was a possibility for this to change, having a lord unite the country through military force. This could have happened with Oda Nobunaga or a successor provided Honoji did not happen. Instead, Hideyoshi had the power to rule, by not legitimacy to become Shogun, which saw him go on worthless adventures such as the invasions of Korea, while Tokugawa Ieyasu had the legitimacy, but like the Ashikaga needed the support of others. However, unlike the Ashikaga, the Tokugawa appealed to isolation and some xenophobia to maintain power, instead of what the Ashikaga did by strengthing the lords, by playing them off each other, the Tokugawa resorted to weakening them all if possible. There was also the need to keep "dissident" social movements in check, be it banning Christianity, and reducing the power of the monasteries, who depending on the school had fielded their own armies and even had local government. This failure to create a stable enough political structure that could really keep down the feudal lords is what led to the xenophobia as more of a side effect, then anything inherent in Japanese culture.
Later Japanese nationalism that led to what we saw in World War II was a reaction from that isolation, and possibly justified need to beat the West at its own game or risk becoming a puppet. Out of this, is where you saw plenty of mythologizing of past history to create a nationalist myth of what was a nation that had went several through sperate periods near-constant warfare and civil strife, as being more united and unique than it was. For example the Japanese were able to hold off the Mongol invasions twice as a roughly united nation, however, the Japanese island Tsushima was actually occupied by Korea at one point because Japan was divided. The idea of holding the emperor in reverence was a later invention considering, the current emperors can be technically seen as usurpers, who were installed not because they were revered but because they were weak. The Imperial Court of the period was so destitute Emperors had to sell their own paintings or ask for donations for their own coronations.
Trying to get an answer from "culture" is hard, because national or societal characters are often time made up or created from questionable interpretations, and usually as a sticking point for some kind superiority or inferiority for some reason.
