One or two years ago I read an article about what was termed a newer branch of philosophy that examined not only what was real, but what took precedence in importance in certain areas depending on this 'realness'.
'Country', 'confidence', 'The Pope', 'President' and 'Kings' were examples of things that weren't real.
The grounds for this were complex but the basic rule of thumb was that if all human memory was wiped, including external written and cultural memory of any form and also 'internal' conceptual memory, then anything that didn't remain wasn't real.
It also classified different types of 'realnesses' e.g. if this scenario somehow occurred then it's arguable that things like 'Country' and 'King' etc. would re-emerge, so there is a certain psychological reality to these, whereas it's unlikely that 'Santa Claus' would return and therefore this was less classed as less'real'.
It also argued that it was morally(?) wrong for the requirements of anything less real to dictate to anything more real e.g. if a human (real) is being told to adopt the belief in a country (not real) by the state (not real) then it's wrong on the grounds that the human should take precedence. It also argued that for optimum mental health, given that the brain's function is to keep the organism alive and that the brain would conceivably most often tend toward presenting the observer (whatever that means) with an accurate representation of reality as possible, which would avoid delusions like 'Country', then anytime cultural indoctrination or brain-washing is attempted then it'd wrong on the grounds that it reverses the imperatives of reality.
This subject defined 'Country' as something along the lines of a political mechanism or convention that arises more or less organically to fulfill a need and if the belief has to be forced on the people then there'd be something wrong with the concept, not the people.
The crucial part of all of this was the precedence of importance and the article lambasted the theory even although I thought it was quite insightful.
So, in short, can anyone please tell me to which branch this belongs, or even better, do they know of the article and can therefore provide a link? I think that the theorist was Japanese, but can't be sure.