Education minister calls America an artificial country
Posted by Matt Dioguardi on March 9th, 2007
Here’s something interesting. When discussing revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education in the Diet last November, Furumoto Shinichiro had a chance to question Bunmei Ibuki about his policies.
As I understand it, Furumoto is pushing Ibuki for specifics on what he wants changed in the schools as far as morals. In this context, Ibuki takes some time to explain what he means by kihan-ishiki or “normative” consciousness (規範意識).
Ibuki states:
この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。各国共通のものがあります。各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。
しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。日本はやはりそうじゃない。そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。
ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。
Now let me take this apart, sentence by sentence and paraphrase what is being stated, note this is not an exact translation where I try to capture the style and organization of the words. I am trying as neutrally as possible merely to give a clear statement of their content. Corrections and help here would be very welcome, but here’s a translation as best I can do it:
1. この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。
Okay, as far as normative consciousness, let me explain about it. We can all debate about education. Further, we can get caught up on the issue of of just what is needed for people to live in society in terms of values. Certainly what a person thinks is needed will be a reflection of their life’s viewpoint, and their own value system. Each person will be different. However, there is a lot we all have in common, isn’t there?
2. 各国共通のものがあります。
There are values (moralities) which each and every country share.
3. 各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。
As far as those values, I think they have been very well written into the Fundamental Law of Education as it is now.
4. しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。
However, let me tell you, Japan has it’s own special characteristics (in terms of morals/values) as well.
5. 日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。
Japan has what we can call a Japanese normative consciousness.
6. これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。
What is it (normative consciousness)? Japan throughout Japan’s long history has naturally engendered, like a wine of great vintage, a special characteristic culture that has crystalized.
7. アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。
Let’s take America as an example, it is a created, artificial country made up of migrants each carrying their own “normative consciousness” from their respective countries. That’s why it’s so very hard to find a single, clear-cut, norm for that country. This is why the societal system in America is based on law.
[In other words, because America is made up of migrants, there can’t be a kihan-ishiki, so it is a society focused on law (rights and so on). ]
8. 日本はやはりそうじゃない。
But just as you and I know it, that’s not Japan.
9. そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。
That’s why I say, for this revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, we’ve got to write in the morality (values) that represent Japan.
10. ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。
[This is a long, run-on sentence and hard to follow, basically I think he is saying something like: ] Therefore, as a matter of course, I want the Diet to approve this bill (the revision). It includes guidance for teachers concerning what morals need to be taught in school.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Hello Matthew,
It’s been years, literally. I was reading a post on Arudou Debito’s site and saw your name. I’m pleased to see that you are so fully engaged with the Japanese language. Many years ago, you gave me a Japanese-English dictionary for my computer. Believe it or not, I still have the computer and still use the dictionary. (Which reminds me: There is a handy online dictionary with lots of sample phrases and sentences at ) Unfortunately, it seems like foreigners here who invest time and energy into understanding Japanese are more the exception than the rule.
These days, I play with a trio (sometimes it’s a quartet) once a month at Bumphy’s Irish pub in Kakuozan. Our regular night is the second Saturday of the month. Please join us sometime.
All the best,
William Matheny
March 13th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Thank you for this message! It’s great to hear from you. If I can ever make it out to Kakuozan on the second Saturday of the month, you can be sure I will go.
Great to hear from you!
Best,
Matt Dioguardi
March 14th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
[…] Education minister calls America an artificial country […]
March 19th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I think the problem is the Japanese define their country simply as the place where the Japanese live, and where “Japanese” is exclusively defined by ethnicity. The idea that common values or shared consciousness could constitute a country is not present in Japan. Elsewhere, it is — for example, if you were to ask a Frenchman what defines France, I would guess he might point to an appreciation for cuisine and the arts, or cite “liberty, fraternity, equality.” Similarly an American might answer “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; while a Canadian could be expected to say something about multiculturalism and tolerance, “strengthen diversity.” If, however, you asked a Japanese to define their national attributes, I doubt you could get anything more than “We are Japanese.” This reflective identity paradigm might have suited the nation that closed its borders for almost 300 years, but in the modern era it seems quaint or even retarded, certainly counterproductive.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:24 am
I’ve blogged more on this topic at the above link.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Do you have a beef with what the Education Minister said? Or do you agree with him? My guess is the former, but I am not sure.
Kihan ishiki (規範意) You translate this as “normative consciousness”, which seems to suggest that the kihan(規範) modifies the consciousness, since you are using an adjective, normative for “kihan”. Is that indeed your interpretation?
I was under the impression that the kihan “規範” is the object of the consciousness. It seems to me that it is used in as the object of the consciousness at least one psychology paper on the “kihan ishiki” of juvenile delinquents, to mean “awareness or consciousness of standards.” As such it is not so far from “moral awareness” except, perhaps it suggests something globular. That is to say an awareness of right ways to be have in all sort of situations. Perhaps “an awareness of standards” with a nuance of “a sense of proprietary” and a touch of “ettiquette”?
As you know, X-ishiki (X意識) is often used with X meaning the object of ishiki/ consciouness in “美意識” or aesthetic/sense of beauty, Jiko ishiki (自己意識) self consciousness.
So what he is saying is that in some countries people have a sense of what it is right and wrong to do in various situations based perhaps upon a tradition. But that in other countries due to the interaction and conflict between a number of different etiquettes a more analytic approach has been taken, attempting to boil the etiquettes down to a smaller number of “human rights” which are perhaps the common denominators of the various etiquettes. Presumably this analytical process has advantages and drawbacks.
The final step that in Japan’s case since there is this sense of standards, why it needs to be put into expression, is not entirely clear to me but perhaps:
1) To counter the shift towards an analytical human rights approach to morality
2) To continue the tradition and the sense of etiquette
If that is his intent I think that he is quite likely to be unsuccessful, and the verbalisation of the 規範意識 is likely in fact to result in a more boiled down to the common denominator approach. But perhaps on the other hand he will simple create classroom time for students and teachers to discuss, enact, and recount moral issues that will indeed result in the transmission of Japanese moral sentiment.
Your choice of title seems to suggest that the education minister is somehow mistaken in some way. But there does not seem to be anything striking about the assertions he is making here.
I think that to an extent the same sort of thing might have been made in Britian, where there is also a more convergent sense of tradition and etiquette.
Can a comparison be made between law and education? Until Britain joined a federation, the EU, it had no constitution nor bill of rights. AFAIK/IANAL British common law was based more upon precedent. Legal precedent is of course very important in the US, but courts have also a constitution and bill of rights to turn to. This has advantages and disadvantages and implicates a somewhat different procedure for carrying out the law. I guess that in US courts bills of rights will be used. I think also perhaps that in British courts more time will have to be allotted to *discussion of precedent*.
So in the case of education, more time might be allotted for “discussion of precedent,” where precedent in this case is not legal precedent, but the bundle of experiences, maxims, soothes, examples that make up a tradition or “sense of standards/etiquette.”
“Artificial country” was perhaps an unfortunate expression. But its unfortunate-ness lies also perhaps in the translation. 人工 (jin kou, human and work, or even human and engineering) is also
http://tinyurl.com/28ms35
“man-made.” I think that he is trying to capture the sense of the USA having been created deliberately, as the product of human deliberation, rather than as a result of a more random, natural, evolutionary tradition. This sentiment it seems to me is often aired by those from the USA (we could do a survey of the use of ‘this country was founded…’ ‘this country was forged…’) and is indeed perhaps embodied in the “declaration of independence”
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Yeah. A man made nation, a nation that was founded, conceived and dedicated.
I am not saying that in Japan and Britain too there was not also a lot of founding and deliberation going on, but the process by which the creation too place, and the way in which it is recorded is different.
I do not understand the problem you *seem* to be having with what the education minister had to say.
I am British by the way
Tim
March 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Tim,
Thank you for your comments which were long and thoughtful. That is appreciated.
First –
1. The term “artificial country” is often used towards Iraq in the western press. In the Japanese press, the term “jinkou-teki kuni” is often used towards Iraq. This was one of the reasons I translated the term “jinkou-teki” as artificial in this instance. Another influencing factor was Ibuki seems to be using the term with a negative nuance, which I thought would better come across using artificial. Man-made can have a positive nuance, depending on the context.
2. As far as kihan-ishiki, I felt this was a really hard term to translate. I looked around and saw others were translating it as “normative consciousness” and decided to go with that. You’re comments on this were very interesting.
I just came across the following link today, you might want to have a look at it:
Ibuki Bunmei’s romantic racialism
It’s very helpful, giving one an idea of what Ibuki is saying.
As you specifically asked, I don’t agree with Bunmei Ibuki’s statements.
I think education should be as decentralized as possible putting the burden on what is considered moral on the local community or directly upon the parents (through school choice or home schooling). Ibuki wants to place the burden on centralized authorities is Tokyo.
He thinks he *knows* what the real Japanese values are, but I would argue there is no such animal. Japan has always been diverse and the drive since Meiji has been to reduce this diversity. This is a sad tragedy.
An interesting author to check out in this regards might be Alex Kerr. I don’t agree with everything he says, but was impressed with both of his books, in particular his first one Lost Japan.
My children, perhaps yours as well — if you have some and reside in Japan, will be attending school in Japan. I want more control over what they will learn in school, especially when it comes to morals. I don’t want this determined by a central authority in Tokyo that has nationalistic leanings. That is my main problem with Ibuki.
According to Ibuki, my children aren’t even *really* Japanese. This is racism pure and simple.
Best regards,
Matt
April 11th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Dear Matt
I appreciate what you are saying about the decentralisation of education. I myself have a similar preference.
I hear that the French system too did, at least at some stages in the past aim towards centralisation.
It doesn’t sound all that nice, but at the same time I can see reasons why one might want to have more of it. There is a balance, which I will come back to.
I think that perhaps the education ministers “artificial country” statements may find their origin in the nihonjinron, the “American civilisation theorey (and thus Japanese civilisation theory)” of Ryoutaru Shiba. He argued that American society is codified, whereas Japanese society is more experiential. This maybe the book in which he wrote about it. To be honest I have only read the theory second hand but I have heard it bandied about and I think that there is some truth in it.
http://tinyurl.com/3d3pdr
While I think that perhaps you are right, that the “artificial country” expression may be used with a negative nuance, I think that the theory in its origin was ostensibly value neutral. The theory meant to say that both ways of transmitting culture/civilisation/morality — that is to say through codification/contracts/manuals/constitutions and through experience/example/apprenticeship — are equally valid.
As a Japanese I guess that Ibuki probably wants to say at least “our way is just as good” or even “our way is best for our society,” and this entails a degree of relativism, and hence non-out-and-out-positivity, and therefore ‘negativity’ towards ‘the other system.’
Speaing of our children, I think that my child is not in a sense ‘really’ Japanese. He is a mixture of Japanese and British. That is okay by me. I am not sure, but I don’t think it is racist of me to think so. I don’t want him to be really Japanese, or really British. Hopefully he will be a good hybrid.
Similarly, I would like to see my country learn things from Japan and Japan learn things from the West. I am into ‘wayousecchuu,’ into hybridisation.
At the same time I think it is very difficult. Good things do not always mix all that well. At the very least, I think, that one has to be aware that hybridisatioin is going on, and aim to hybridise well and not aim to simply import other ways of doing things wholesale.
In a climate where “oubeika” Westernisation is very popular and positively valued, in a climate where people have a tendency to have a bit of a cultural “Michael Jackson complex,” I can see why an education minister might want to at least temper that tendency, by a degree of central administration.
Perhaps one of the reasons why France too does, or did, exert more central control over education and other means of cultural transmission, is also to combat the prevalance, power, in-vogue-ish-ness of anglo, USA culture.
And now I have contradicted myself. Above, I compared anglo culture with Japanese culture and then pitted it against that of the USA. OOps.
My own view is that ‘artificial’ is not the right word. Personally, I see the ‘dichotomy’ as more to do with language vs. visuality. Language allows for and gives rise to ‘codification,’ visuality (valuing visual media of expression) allows for and gives rise to a preference for experience/example/apprenticeship. In fact the latter is just as artificial in my view. Boy de Menthe talks of “kata.” I like that idea. I think that Japanese have a tendency to transmit their culture through “kata”…which are a bit like bills of rights except they can’t be written down, so easily, so statementially, except in a narrative voice.
I like to think that Ibuki may be attempting to give the Japanese some space to excercise the narritive voice, to recount to each other instances of behaviours that are models/kata for what is a good way to behave.
I have written too much.
Tim