Celebrating Protest

The following is a transcription of a presentation by Horio Teruhisa at the East Asia: Trans-regional Histories workshop of the University of Chicago. The following description was circulated in advance of the talk. Within eight months of this talk, the Fundamental Law of Education was indeed revised.

Horio Teruhisa, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, is a leading theorist of education as the human right upon which all others ultimately depend. The author of numerous books, he is also a tireless activist within the movement to contest the Japanese state's domination of the nation's public schools. He will be speaking about the school as the site of systematic censorship and the increasingly draconian imposition of the flag and anthem, part of the current assault on the Fundamental Law of Education, the Basic Law for a Gender-Equal Society, and Article 9 (the "no-war" clause) of the Constitution. Professor Horio is engaged in scholarly and legal struggles to defend these pillars of democratic society in postwar Japan.

Professor Horio's work was introduced in English in the volume Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan (1988).

Professor Horio spoke in Japanese; Norma Field, E. Asian Languages & Civilizations, translated; Steven Platzer, editor and translator of Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan and a scholar of Koyama Iwao and Kosaka Masaaki, philosophers of culture as the key component of total war with profound impact on postwar educational policy, provided an impromptu introduction.

The tape was transcribed by Makiko Arima and edited by Tiffany Kwak.

Steve Platzer: Teruhisa Horio's father was a veternarian. Veterinarians were much more important than actual doctors of human beings, because there's no shortage of human beings. A human being dies, no big deal, you can always get another one. Horses were important. So, Teruhisa Horio's father had a very important role in the army as a veterinarian. Unfortunately, his father died in China in 1939 when he was only 6 years old. So, he changes his concern with being opposed to war and supporting Article 9 of the Constitution. He came to it the real way. I mean, he grew up to face his reality.

After the war, in 1951, Teruhisa Horio entered the undergraduate Law School program of the University of Tokyo. I guess it was called the "seiji" course, the political course. He was the student of—I'm sure most of you know the name—Maruyama Masao. By the time he graduated from the undergraduate Law School program, it was decided amongst a number of top people there that he would be a very good person to move over into the education world, having had the legal background and understanding of the nature of these new democratic laws, and also knew what the intellectual background was. Teruhisa could make a valuable contribution in the education world. People who continue to try to realize, if you will, the new ideals that were brought into Japan—the new democratic ideals. So, he went to the Education Faculty and took a PhD there.

I guess he increasingly became kind of a notorious figure in Japan. Those of you who studied a little bit of Japanese history know the famous Ienaga textbook trials, where the government had censored the textbooks that had been used from the early postwar view. Professor Horio was very involved at both at the level of educational thinking involved and the struggle against the state's attempt to control the textbooks from the educational and the legal point of view. In one case that actually, really, decided the educational movement as one where people were against the state's authority, the one case that they won the famous decision called the Sugimoto decision. It was basically based upon his testimony. If you read his testimony in the court, and you read the judge's decision, pretty much the judge followed and was persuaded by Professor Horio. At this time, Professor Horio was over in France at the Sorbonne studying himself. He came back to Japan in 1969, and he was instantly a notorious figure. It was the only time that the Ministry of Education had ever gotten that had ever happened to them before. So, he was considered someone who had to be kept in line after the loss. He became very active in the teachers' movement, the teacher's union movement. I don't want to go into too much detail, but we can talk about that afterwards if any of you are interested.

I'll just conclude with one funny little story that kind of puts it all in perspective for me. I first went over to Japan in the late 1970s on an exchange program at Chicago with Waseda. Waseda was really terrible. They told me I had to meet with some professor there before I was allowed to do any work on education, which was what I wanted to study. It was kind of a… I had one meeting and he didn't show up. Second meeting, he didn't show up. Third meeting. Finally the fourth meeting, he showed up. He told me I couldn't study education, and I just had to waste my time studying Japanese, and I always thought I was already a little bit passed on. Through a couple of connections I had met some people at Tokyo University, and I started hanging out with people—graduate students—in the Education Department there. And most of my contacts asked me to go be a student there the next year. Well, during the course of my first year there, I had done some works for the Ministry of Education. They had groups of American schoolteachers or they had American big shots from the Department of Education come over to Japan, they used me as free labor—the only way to get out of paying for it—to show these people around. I got to go around and see schools, and I also got to see how these American educators and administrators were seeing Japanese education. It was interesting to me. But at the end of this year, I went to the person at the Ministry of Education who I had been doing this for. And I said, "Well, I've done my share for you guys." So, I'm going to be going into Tokyo University, you think that maybe you could cough up a Monbusho scholarship, so I could support all of this. So, they asked me who I was going to work with. And I had mentioned the name of the first professor who I had been introduced to who asked me to come to Tôdai. And they go, "hmm, he's a little dangerous, but he's all right." I told them the name of the second person who I wanted to work with. And they go, "hmm." Then the third person I said was Horio Sensei. And all of a sudden their faces went white, or whatever white means to you. But their faces went pale, let's just put it that way. And I was told that if I ever mentioned his name again, if I ever showed any connection with him whatsoever, I would not only never get any funding from the Japanese government, but I would have trouble getting…I mean they'd let me know—this was not the mood today. So after getting such a good recommendation from them, I decided he was the only person worth studying with. I think that kind of puts it in perspective.

Do any of you have any questions about him? Anything you want to know about him? Or say anything that you want to know? I'm too embarrassed to say. He's also the author of a book—here, Norma will maybe pass it around—it's called Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan, which I translated based upon—I went through this whole corpus of writing and put together a book that didn't really exist in Japanese. Taking from here and there, there's a whole history of education and a number of court reviews, which really aren’t terribly the most interesting. But he goes into the way the Supreme Court decided a number of decisions that would confirm the state's authority to control education even though the Constitution very clearly said they didn't have, which is really what his works are about, this contesting, this attempt to reinterpret the Constitution, to say things that are never said, giving the state the right to control what people learn, what they are not allowed to learn, what's allowed to be in textbooks, etcetera. Anyway, I guess it's a little past my…

Norma Field: Let me just add that books of Professor Horio's have been translated into Korean and Chinese, too, so for those of you who study those languages and those societies, you might want to look them up. I know the Regenstein library has the Korean translation.

Teruhisa Horio: Good afternoon, my name is Horio. I seem to be very notorious, but I think I am especially well known among good Japanese teachers. Anyhow, thank you very much. I was invited by both Norma and Steven here to talk to you about my work. I was just in Mexico and on my way to Japan. In Mexico, I had a conference and on the way to Japan, I just stopped here in Chicago to say hello. I didn't expect to be able to have a chance to speak. Anyhow, today I will talk about Japanese education a little bit. And after, have an actual discussion—communication—with you. I will speak in Japanese from now on, and Norma-san will translate.

いいですか。今日お話することは、日本の教育が今どうなっているか ということをまずお話して、その後、先ほど教科書裁判のことが紹介されましたけれども、今実は君が代裁判とういうのが大変大きなイシューになっていまし て、その裁判でも私、この２月の６日に東京の地方裁判所で証言をしてきたばかりですけれども、何が問題になっているのか、どういう証言をしたのかというこ とを後半お話ししながら、日本の教育全体が相当に問題だぞ、ということがお分かりいただければと思います。

Field: Today, I want to talk to you about the general situation of Japanese education. In the course of that, Steve Platzer referred to the textbook trials, but there's something that is going on called the "kimi ga yo trial"or, the trial concerning law suits about the national anthem. In fact, on February 6th of this year, he just served as expert witness in the Tokyo District Court, so he will talk about that in the latter part of his presentation. And through that, try to give you a sense of what's going on—what's at stake—in Japanese educational issues today.

Horio: その話で、そうですね、今日アジアの研究者が多いということですね。アジアに関心を持っている研究者、と言った方がいいのでしょうか。

Field: 人権と。

Horio: それと人権と。だからアメリカでの状況がどうなっているか、それのコンパリソンも私自信は関心があるんだけど、それは是非後で何とか教えていただければと思っております。

Field: I understand that many of you are interested in researching Asia today, and I added, human rights. Horio says, "I myself am interested in comparison with the U.S. and I'd like to learn from you." But I should tell you right now that he knows more than most of us about what's been going on in the U.S.

Horio: 日本の教育の状況を、例えば皆さんは一般的にどういう知識を持っておられるか、ということでもあるんですけれど、1980年代は日本の高度成長、そして経 済が非常に成長していた時期、「ジャパン・アズ・ナンバーワン」というようなことも言われ。そして、そういう日本の経済発展と教育がどう関係しているかと いうような形で、諸外国からも随分関心を持たれましたし、アメリカからもそういう意味での日本の教育への関心がかなり高かったと思います。しかし、今はそ うではないと思っています。

Field: I don't know what your general knowledge is here, but we could characterize the 1980s as a time of high growth economics. Think "Japan as number one." And in that sense, from the rubric of economic growth, there was considerable interest by other countries in the world, including the U.S., in Japanese education. I think the situation has changed at present.

Horio: 現在の問題は、むしろやはり世界史的な視点をどうしても入れて見る必要があるんですけれども、特に９・11以降、この21世紀はどうなるのかという、その 世界の未来をどう考えるかということと結びつけながら教育改革論が非常に盛んに行われています。これはアメリカでもそうでしょうが、日本でもそうなんで す。

Field: I'm assuming it's the case in the U.S. too, but since September 11, there has been a great deal of discussion about what is to happen to the world in the 21st century, and what sort of education is needed for that future, and it is something that we can only argue with by taking world history into account. But this is something that is going on very vigorously right now.

Horio: 日本でも教育改革論が非常に盛んです。で、その場合に、現在の日本の教育の基本的な枠組みというものは、実は1945年、敗戦、つまり過去を反省し、新しい日本をどう作るかということで、憲法が作られ、教育基本法が作られました。

Field: If we are to think about the context in which educational reform is discussed, of course the basic framework begins with 1945, defeat in the war, a critical self-reflection on Japanese history at that time. And in that context, the formulation, the establishment, of the new Consitution and, a very important document, the Fundamental Law of Education, which is also translated in the back of the book that's going around.

Horio: その時にできた新しい考え方と、教育のシステム、そして、その教育を支えている考え方、そういうものが問題だという指摘を改革論者はしきりにしているのです。

Field: The reformers are bent on insisting that it's the kind of thinking that took place then in the wake of a defeated WWII era. And the kind of educational system established on the basis of that kind of critical self-reflection that is the problem today and needs to be reformed.

Horio: その際、今の憲法ではなくて、古い方がいいんだ、というそういう発想で現在の憲法や教育基本法を批判する人がいます。

Field: And there are those who are saying, therefore, that it's not the current Constitution that is desirable, but that the basis of educational reform today ought to be the older, i.e., the imperial, constitution. And also, that another problem is the Fundamental Law of Education.

Horio: それは復古主義的な発想、改革論、というふうに呼んでいいと思います。

Field: Horio wants to call this a revivalist theory of educational reform—a return to the past.
{mospagebreak}
Horio: 今の改革論は、しかし、それだけではなくて、その復古主義的なイデオロギーをバックにしながら、しかし、もう戦後60年が経っていると。これまで多少は良 かったかもしれないけれども、新しい時代に相応しいコンスティトゥーション、そして新しい時代に相応しい教育の枠組みが必要だという、こういう議論が非常 に前面に出ています。

Field: So, there's that sort of purely revivalist form of theory of educational reform. There's one that accepts some of the premises of that, but nevertheless, a little over 60 years has passed since the end of the war. So, what we need is a new Constitution adapted to the present day, and a new educational framework. An educational framework adapted for the present.

Horio: 現在の教育だけではなくて、実は日本の社会全体の改革問題として、憲法改正論と教育基本法改正論がワンセットになって、異常に具体的に進められているというのが広い視点から見た日本の一番大きな問題だと思っています。

Field: From a broader perspective, the greatest issue facing Japan today is this notion that Japanese society needs to be reformed on the basis of constitutional revision and revision of the Fundamental Law of Education—that those two documents are brought together and targeted as that which has to be dealt with.

Horio: そういう、その、もう耐用年限が過ぎたと。新しいものを、という主張は庶民の耳障りもいいと言うか、それは当然ではないか、という形で改革論が支持されている面があります。

Field: The reformist theory is supported by using a clever phrase like, "The expiration date has come, the new Constitution has already reached its expiration date." That appeals to ordinary citizens' ears, and in that sense it's gained some amount of public support.

Horio: しかし、その改革論の中身を良く検討しますと、それから改革を主張している人たちの未来の展望を、そして何をどのように変えようとしているかを見た場合に、それは相当に問題だということが分かってきます。

Field: But once we look at the content of the reform that's being proposed and the thought values of those people proposing the reform, we can then come to see that there are considerable problems behind this reform wave.

Horio: もちろんその改革はもう古くなったということと、それから改革のアイディアとしては国際的にも、いわゆるネオリベラリズム的な発想が、その改革論の一つの 主軸になっているということがあるだけで、それだけに世界もそう動いているのではないのか、というふうに庶民が思っているというところもあるわけです。

Field: There's the axis that says that these documents have grown old. And second of all, the neoliberal agenda is thought to be global, international, and, therefore, able to gain more purchase on the citizenry—that is to say, this is an international tendency.

Horio: しかし、その改革論者の、いうなれば21世紀、未来展望としてどういうイメージを持っているかというと、実は９・11以後そうですけれども、テロと戦争の時代。未来は不透明である。そういうイメージをまず持っているわけですね。

Field: If we were to think about what kind of future these reformers envision, it's the future as a period of—first of all, a future that is murky, not transparent, but instead characterized as an age of terrorism and war.

Horio: そういう意味では、決してその未来展望が明るいものを持っているわけではないということと、それから世界の趨勢、ネオリベラリズムと、社会的なコンペティ ションにどう打ち勝って行くかという、それが日本の改革論の、いわば背景になっているわけです。政治家達の。

Field: It is not a bright future that the politicians are projecting. And it's one in accordance with the current tendency in the world, of arguinging what's going to work in order to compete successfully in the neoliberal world of competition.

Horio: その改革論のもう一つ非常に現実的な論拠というのが目の前の子供、そして学校と教師の状況です。

Field: A very practical basis on which they developed their reform agenda has to deal with the children and the teachers who populate the schools today.

Horio: 子供達は、学校では競争主義の元で人を蹴落とすという、友情を育てるというような環境の中で教育ができていないということがあります。それだけに多くの子供がフラストレイトしていて、学校に行きたくないと、不登校の子供も増えているという現実があります。

Field: As you probably know, there is the situation of "school refusal syndrome"—that is to say, in a schooling in which rather than the promotion or fostering of friendship amongst school children, what in encouraged is competition. This has led to an alienation of children from their schools.

Horio: お互いの人格を認め合うという関係ではなくて、強い者が弱い者をいじめるという、そういういじめの構造が広がっています。

Field: Rather than the promotion of mutual respect, the structure we have in Japan that is, in fact, spreading widely, is that in which the strong bully the weak.

Horio: それは子供の問題だけではなくて、実は日本の教師達は今非常に大きな悩みを抱えています。

Field: And, of course, it's not just a problem for the children, but the teachers as well.

Horio: 教師達も、一方では何を教えるかということでは、国が学習指導要領と教科書統制を通してコントロールを強めているということがあります。

Field: For the teachers, of course, in terms of what they are to teach - their curricular options, so to speak - they are under more and more stringent control by the state, the Ministry, through their curricular guidance and…学習指導要領ともう一つ何でしたっけ。

Horio: 学習指導要領と教科書検定。

Field: And censorship through thorough review of textbooks and course books.

Horio: そういう意味で教師は自由を失っているということがわかってきます。

Field: In that sense, we can certainly see that the teachers have lost their teaching freedom.

Horio: 同時に、新しい同胞として教師の中にも競争の原理が強調されて、競争と自己責任、正にネオリベラルの考え方が広がっているというか、行政的に広げられているということです。

Field: The teachers themselves, of course, are subject to the principle of competition. So, it's competition and the other key pillar is individual responsibility. These are the principles that are being fostered administratively amongst the teachers.

Horio: ですから、そういう競争主義が教師の間にも広がる中で、教師集団と言いますか、教師同士で子供を真ん中にして、子供のことを色々話し合いをする。そういう形で教育実践をお互いに検討しあうという、そういう機会が非常に少なくなってきているわけです。

Field: Once you introduce the principle of competition amongst teachers, that means there is very little opportunity for the teachers to see themselves as a group, who, with the child at their center, can share strategies and practices of education. That collaborative opportunity has been diminished drastically.

Horio: 同時に些末な文章をたくさん書かされるということが大変大きな問題になっています。どういう目標を立て、どれだけやったか、ということを書かせるということですね。

Field: At the same time, they're obligated to spend more and more of their time producing tedious documents outlining their goals and how much those goals have been met.

Horio: そういうわけで、教師は自由な時間を失い、そして自由な、学校は自由な雰囲気を失っていると。

Field: On the one hand, teachers have lost their free time, and the schools have lost an atmosphere of freedom.

Horio: それに重ねて、ですから、一方ではそういうネオリベラルな動きとコンペティションの問題があり、他方では国の統制の問題は依然として、その統制の権利を放 さないということで、具体的にその、日の丸、君が代、国旗国歌を強制するという、そういう仕方で統制が強められているというわけです。

Field: On the one hand, we have the neoliberal principle of competition, of deregulation. But on the other hand, the state is not at all relinquishing its ideological control, and it's in that context—the latter context—of ideological unification that the struggle over the flag and anthem is unfolding.

Horio: そういう現状の中で、子供も学校も大変だという思いは、ほぼ、ほとんどの市民も父母も感じているわけです。何とか日本の教育を変えなければいけないという思いは、ある意味、共有されているということはあります。

Field: Given the situation, probably everyone, citizens and parents, share the view that the schools are in a desperate situation, and that something has to be done about Japanese education.

Horio: その場合に、ですから、今の改革論は本当にそういう現実な改革を求めている、その求めに答える改革なのか、そうではないのかが問われているわけです。

Field: So then, the question becomes, is the set of reforms being proposed today really something answering this genuinely felt need or not?

Horio: 今改革を進めている人たちはいっそう今の方向、つまり一方で競争を強化し、他方でコントロールを強めると。そして、そのことをシンボリックにいうならば教育基本法を変えるという仕方で提議しているということになります。

Field: But, in fact, the proponents of reform want to simply push in the direction they are going. That is to say, intensifying neoliberal competition on the one hand and intensifying state control on the other. And symbolizing this is their proposition revising the Fundamental Law of Education.

Horio: そういう意味では教育基本法を変えるというのはある意味では、シンボリックな意味を持っているのですけれども、それを別の言い方をすると、今の教育がだめ なのは戦後改革によって作られた教育がだめなんだ。だから、改革しなければいけない、という論理になっているわけです。

Field: So there's a symbolic significance to arguing the need to revise the Fundamental Law of Education, but that rests on the idea that what's wrong with Japanese education today has to do with postwar reform. And that's why the task at hand is to undo postwar reform, as exemplified by the Fundamental Law.
{mospagebreak}
Horio: その憲法や教育基本法を変えようという問題になると、ネオリベラルな発想だけではなくて、むしろ復古主義的な発想がそこでよみがえって、連合しているという構造になっています。

Field: When it comes to revising the Constitution and the Fundamental Law, the neoliberal theories are no longer adequate, but rather, they have to invoke the revivalist—return to the past—worldview. So these work hand-in-hand.

Horio: そうであれば、私達も教育改革を実は求めているわけなのですけれども、それはどういう原理に立ち、そしてどういう方向を目指しているのかということがあるわけです。

Field: So then, the issue becomes, for those of us also seeking educational reform, what are the principles on which we rest? And what is the direction we are seeking?

Horio: 実は教育改革という言葉も、いうなれば民間側と言いますか、NGOに合う教育運動の側がずっと提議し続けてきたということにあるわけです。

Field: The very expression, "educational reform," is one that citizens groups, non-governmental groups have been using, and it's a phrase that educational activists have been proposing for a long time.

Horio: その流れの中では、むしろ戦後の改革の精神というものが十分に根付いていない。それを本当に生かす改革が大事なんだ。子供や学校を巡る様々な問題はその改 革の精神が中途で歪められ、そして生かそうとするその努力を政策は怠ってきた。むしろそれをねじ曲げる方向でやってきたことが問題なので、その精神を生か さなければいけない。それが改革なんだと。そして、その先に21世紀をどう展望するか、という問題がもっと積極的に描かれなければならないというのが、い うなれば、私もそうですけれども、そういう方向で教育改革を考えているということになります。

Field: Educational reform from this side takes the view that, in fact, the problem is not postwar educational reform per se, but rather that postwar educational reform and, certainly, its guiding spirit had not been sufficiently observed or put into practice. In fact, it had been truncated and distorted midway in application by administrative policy. That what we really need to do is to bring back and pursue to the fullest the spirit of postwar educational reform. Having done so, we can start to build our outlook for the 21st century.

Horio: その際、大事なポイントは戦後改革とは何であったか、ということになります。

Field: And in that process, we have to think about how to characterize postwar reforms.

Horio: ということは、戦前の政治と教育のシステムは何だったのか、ということになります。

Field: The next question is, what was the relationship between politics and education prewar?

Horio: 戦前の日本の政治と教育の基本的な枠組みというのは、帝国憲法。これは1889年ですが、その翌年に教育勅語が出されます。

Field: There we have to refer to two documents: the Imperial Constitution promulgated in 1889 and then the following year, 1890, the Imperial Rescript of Education.

Horio: その憲法と教育勅語を軸に日本の戦前の教育が作られて行ったということ。そこでは教育は、もちろん国民の権利などではなくて、国民の義務であり、国家に対する、そして、天皇に対する忠誠心を養うのが教育だ、というのが中心だったわけです。

Field: If education was constructed around these two documents and their principles, then, of course, there was no view of education as a right of the citizens, but rather that it was the duty of the citizens to the state and emperor to learn loyalty through the educational system.

Horio: 教科書はもちろん国定教科書になりますし、国が作ったということですね。そして、その教育の元では、実は、道徳教育が教育の全体の中心になる。その道徳教育の中軸は教育勅語の徳目ということになるわけです。

Field: Of course, textbooks were state-produced. And the center of education was moral education. And the principles of moral education were the principles of the imperial Rescript.

Horio: その真理や真実というものは、教育という観点から、国民道徳の形成という観点から真理、真実は歪まれても、これは当然なんだという、そういう教育観が戦前のものでした。

Field: The vision of prewar educational held that if truth or reality were distorted in the realization of moral education of the subjects of the empire, then that was to be understood—to be accepted.

Horio: その状況を簡単に言えば、戦前の日本にはこの精神の自由というものが存在しなかった、というふうに言っていいと思います。

Field: One could summarize that by saying, perhaps, that in prewar Japan there was no freedom of the spirit and conscious thought.

Horio: もちろん、細かく言えば、帝国憲法28条にも信条の自由ということが規定はされていたのだけれども、それは国体に反しない限りにおいて、という限定がついていたということですね。

Field: We could say that Article 28 of the Imperial Constitution guaranteed freedom of belief, but it came with the stipulation, the caveat, that this was so as long as it did not impinge on the kokutai, the national polity.

Horio: そういうわけですから、そういうその戦前の、いわば体制の元で精神の自由、学問の自由、教育の自由が大きく制約されていて、そして、その何がその軸になっ ていたかと言うと、国家への忠誠、天皇への忠誠、そして軍国主義的な道徳というか、モラルが、学校教育でも中心になっていったということになります。

Field: In effect, freedom of the conscience, of the spirit, of academic freedom, educational freedom were severely restricted and, in fact, spirit was being directed toward the militarized state headed by the emperor.

Horio: それで私の少年期はそういう時代の教育を受けた世代なんですけれども。

Field: Horio says that he belonged to the generation that received their early education in that system.

Horio: 戦後の改革は、その日本の、そういう枠組みが現実に侵略、アジアへの侵略国家になるわけですし、その多くの犠牲を払いながら敗戦になったということになるわけで、戦後の改革はその戦前への深い反省を元にして、その原理が提示されたということがあります。

Field: Of course, the war years meant that Japan became an aggressor state. And it's on the basis of that history and the huge sacrifices that it entailed—sacrifices and suffering—that that postwar reform is undertaken.

Horio: 今の憲法の原理は、これは学校でも皆習ってはいるのです。三つあるというふうに言われています。一つが、国民主権。これは天皇主権から国民主権へという転換です。

Field: There are three principles that undergird the Constitution today, which everyone theoretically learns in school. And the first one is that sovereignty resides with the people, whereas it had resided with the emperor.

Horio: 二つ目が、基本的人権の尊重。

Field: Second is respect for fundamental human rights.

Horio: 戦前はそういう観念自体が無かった。

Field: A concept that was completely missing in the prewar constitution.

Horio: 三つ目の原理が、平和主義です。

Field: And the third is pacifism.

Horio: 特にこの平和の問題は憲法９条の問題なのです。

Field: And that third principle of pacifism, of course, is an issue of Article 9 of the Constitution.

Horio: 日本は、戦争はしない、軍隊は持たない、というのが９条の原理です。

Field: And the two principle aspects of Article 9 are that Japan will not wage war and that it will not maintain an army.

Horio: その、いわば三つの原理の上で憲法はあるわけですけれども、教育基本法はその憲法と平行して作られて行くわけです。

Field: So with these three principles in the Constitution, we can turn now to the Fundamental Law of Education, which developed in tandem with the principles undergirding the Constitution.

Horio: 教育基本法の、ですから、前文の出だしのところには、「我らは先に日本国憲法を確定し」というところから始まるのです。

Field: Therefore, the Preamble of the Fundamental Law of Education states that, "First, we established the Constitution."

Horio: そして、その憲法の精神、民主的で文化的な文化を作る、そのための人間形成の課題を教師が引き受けるのだと、こういうことが書かれています。

Field: In order to actualize the democratic principles laid out in the Constitution, we will formulate our educational system so as to stipulate how we will actualize the democratic principles of the Constitution.

Platzer: May I just read the Preamble?

Field: Sure.

Platzer: "Having established the Constitution of Japan, we have shown our resolution to contribute to the peace of the world and the welfare of humanity by building a democratic and cultural state. The realization of this ideal shall depend fundamentally on the power of education. We shall esteem individual dignity and endeavor to bring up the people who love truth and peace, while education aimed to the creation of culture, general and rich individuality, shall be spread far and wide. We hereby enact this law in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution of Japan with the view of clarifying the aim of education establishing the foundation of education for a new Japan."
{mospagebreak}
Horio: Thank you. 今お聞きのように、教育基本法は憲法と一体だということが非常によく分かると思うんですね。

Field: You can see that the Fundamental Law and the Constitution are a pair.

Horio: 現在教育基本法を変えろと言っている人達は憲法を変えろという発想とまったく重なっているわけなのです。

Field: Those who want to change the Fundamental Law completely overlap with those who want to change the Constitution.

Horio: ついでにちょっとそっちの話をしますと、憲法を変えるのには手続き的に大変なのです。国会の三分の二の議席が必要だし、更にレフェレンダムが必要だということ。

Field: Now, the procedures for changing, revising, the Constitution are quite stringent. You need 2/3 vote in the Diet and in the Parliament. And then there needs to be a national referendum.

Horio: 憲法を変えたいと思っている人は、実は、まず基本法を変えて、そして国民意識を変えて、レフェレンダムに備える、とそういうストラテジーを持っているわけです。

Field: The reformers think that because it's so hard to revise the Constitution, the first line of defense that we should attack is the Fundamental Law of Education. And by revising the Fundamental Law, we can change the consciousness of the people. And then, we will be in a position to revise the Constitution.

Horio: そこでまた小さな注を付けますと、教育基本を変えるというそのストラテジーは、それなりの合理性があるんだけれども、実際に変えようとして案を考えると、今紹介された前文をどうするのか、ということが、ある意味で、一番大きなネックでもあるわけです。

Field: To qualify a little bit, again, one can imagine a rational process for revising the Fundamental Law of Education. But you heard the Preamble today, and if your goal is going to be to change the Constitution, what are you going to do about the Preamble of the Fundamental Law of Education?

Horio: 実際に今改正を準備しているのは、文科省の官僚が準備しているのだけれども、文科省の官僚になるためには憲法への忠誠を誓っているわけです。

Field: It's the bureaucrats of the Education, Technology, and Sports Ministry who are preparing the revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, but in order to have become bureaucrats of the same Ministry, they had to have pledged loyalty to that Constitution—the Constitution of Japan.

Horio: ですから、改憲論とセッティングさせれば、前文を全部削除する必要があるわけです。大胆に書き変える必要があるわけですけれども、それは、その官僚の合理的な精神からやり過ぎではないか、という心配を官僚も持っているということです。

Field: In terms of rational bureaucratic procedure, if the anticipated goal is to change the Constitution, that would require that either you do away with the Preamble or revise it drastically. Even some bureaucrats balk at such a step, as being excessive.

Horio: それでは、と言って、前文に手を付けない。他の条文も変えたいところがあるわけですから、それは後で言いますけれども、その前文に手を付けずに後のものを いじっても、「我は先に日本国憲法を確定し」から始まる前文ですから、この時点で憲法をアファームしたことになるわけですね。

Field: If they want to leave the Preamble alone, because it's too thorny, and change some of the articles, if you leave the Preamble in place, it says that you respect the Constitution, so there's that bottleneck, too.

Horio: 今、この国会で改正案を出そうと文部省は準備をしているんですけど、まだ案そのものは出されていないのですが、ただこの６月までに出すように政府は、小泉内閣は、それを求めているということがあるのですね。

Field: And they are trying to present a proposal for revision of the Fundamental Law in the current session of the Diet, therefore, by June. And the Koizumi cabinet, especially Koizumi himself, is pressuring for that revisional proposal.

Horio: もう一つ教育基本法で改正論の焦点は、基本法10条の問題です。

Field: There is the issue of Article 10. Maybe we should just read it?

Platzer: Article 10 says, with regard to school education, "Education shall not be subject to improper control, but shall be directly responsible to the whole people. School education administration shall, on the basis of this realization aim at the adjusting and establishment of the various conditions required for the pursuit of the aim of education." In other words, that there should be no interpreting, no centralized state control. The state would produce the conditions—would provide the money, whatever was needed for education—but that didn't give them the right to control. Improper control meant centralized state control based upon the prewar model.

Horio: 基本法10条というのは、そういう意味では、戦前、戦後の教育の、いうなれば、体質を変えた、非常に重要なんですね。で、その条点、10条の構造は、です から、エドゥケイショナル・アドミニストレーションなんだけれど、その第一項の主語は教育になっていて、そして弟二項の主語がアドミニストレーションに なっている。教育は、その教育基本法全体の精神を実現するという。で、その目的のためにアドミニストレーションはその条件を成立する、という構造になって いるわけですね。だから、教育行政の任務というものを非常に限定して、そして、何を成すべきか、何を成してはいけないか、ということが10条で書かれてい ることです。

Field: The key in Article 10 is that the first part is education, that's the subject. And in the second part, the subject is educational administration. But what educational administration is directed to do by Article 10 is to put forth the conditions for realizing those goals of education. So, what school administration should do and what it shouldn't do are set forth very clearly in that article.

Horio: 特に文部省、文部行政、それから教育委員会の成すべき任務というものが非常に限定的に書かれている。

Field: Therefore, what the Ministry and school boards can and cannot do are very strictly restricted.

Horio: そして、そのリミットを超える場合には、それが不当な支配になる、ということも条文から禁止されているわけです。

Field: Therefore, if the Ministry and boards exceed those limits, then they are engaging in unlawful activity. That's what we can tell from the Preamble.

Horio: と、その不当な支配と。ところが、今の改正案の中でその10条がどう変わろうとしているかと言うと、教育は、という弟一項が全然無くなって、そして教育行政は主語になり、教育行政は不当な支配に屈することなくという文章が出てきます。

Field: In the proposed revision, the section that begins, "Education is," is completely gone. And the section on educational administration has turned into a statement about how educational administration is not to be subject to unlawful control.

Horio: というわけで、何を変えようとしているか、非常にそこにはっきりと見えていますね。つまり、教育は教育行政に従わなければいけないんだということが、そういう精神で教育を捕らえようとしている。

Field: The guiding spirit of reform is that education is now made subservient to educational administration.

Horio: それから教育の理念や目的のところでは、愛国心を入れるのが一つの大きな課題にされているわけです。

Field: Another big issue is, in the section on goals and values of education, the principles of education, the desire to put in a clause about patriotism.

Horio: その改正の方向はそういうことなのですが、それが、今、にわかに出て来たということでは本当はないのですね。戦後のこの60年間を見た場合に、戦後改革の精神が作られてから、数年を経ずに、それに歯止めをかける、そういう動きが出て来るわけです。

Field: It's not as if this move appeared now, all of a sudden. If we look back over the 60 postwar years, we realize that within a few years of postwar reform people had begun to push back those reforms.

Horio: 戦後改革の精神、先ほど紹介したような、その人間の尊重、そして平和を大事にすると、主権者国民で、教育も国民の権利になるという、そういう大きな転換が あるわけですが、そういう改革の背景には、アメリカ、と言うか、連合軍の占領と言うことがあったことは間違いないわけです。

Field: Of course, undeniable that in the context of the postwar reforms—i.e., sovereignty residing with the people, pacifism, respect for humanity, for human rights, and education as a human right—that the presence of the Allied occupation was an important part of that context.

Horio: 今改正論者達は、あの憲法は占領軍によって押し付けられたものなのだと、だから自前の憲法を作らないといけないということも、これも繰り返して改正論を謳っているわけですね。

Field: It's a familiar argument that's been repeated over the postwar decades, that since the Constitution was pressed and pushed upon us by the occupation, we need to make our own constitution.

Horio: 教育の基本法に関してもそういう議論をしています。

Field: And a similar argument applies to the Fundamental Law of Education.

Horio: ですから、その改革、戦後改革をどう考えるのかということが、現在の改革論をどう考えるかという場合には、やはり一つの大きな試金石と言うか、どう考えるかが非常に大事になっているということですね。

Field: In thinking about how to assess educational reform today, we really do need to keep in mind postwar educational reform.
{mospagebreak}
Horio: 戦後改革ではアメリカから教育施設団と言うのが1946年の３月にやって来るんですけれど、そのアメリカの教育施設団が非常に大事なドキュメントを残しているわけです。

Field: Steve, what is this group called? Do you know?

Platzer: The United States education mission we sent to Japan was a group of 26 or 27 educators that the State Department organized in its interest to give advice. You see, occupation bureaucrats weren't really sure about how to go about recommending a new educational system. So, in fact, there were five professors from the University of Chicago and a number of other distinguished educators from around the country who went to Japan to make a series of recommendations. The question asked was, "How do we get this new educational system going on a democratic foundation?"

Field: And left a very important document.

Horio: That is my explanation.

Field: He knows it by heart.

Horio: As a record. その戦後改革は、それを占領軍が押し付けたというような言い方自体が間違えなのですね。非常に大事なアメリカの教育者達の、いうなれば、レコメンデーショ ンと言うか、そういうものも参考にしながら戦後日本の教育は改革されたということでもありますし、そのグループの思想を簡単に言えば、ニュー・ディール、 ニュー・ディーラーの人達ですし、そして教育で言えば、デゥーイなんかの思想の影響が非常に強いというふうに言っていいと思います。

Field: First of all, it's wrong to say that the Constitution and the principles of the Fundamental Law were imposed by the occupation forces. So, these were a group of educational professionals, educators, who came. And if we were to characterize these people, it's on the basis of their recommendations and discussions with Japanese people that postwar educational reform was undertaken. And one could characterize their thought, the members of the American mission, as, for one, New Deal thinking and also as being influenced by the work of John Dewey.

Horio: ニュー・エドゥケーションですね。

Field: New education; Dewey's new education.

Horio: 冒頭でそれを言おうと思っていて実は忘れたのですけれども、ここの建物はドゥーイがいた建物ですよね。

Field: He wants us to keep in mind that this building itself [Judd Hall from the former School of Education at the University of Chicago] is associated with Dewey.

Horio: そういう意味で私はとても、何て言うのですか、オナーというかね、そういう感じでここにいるんですけどね。私自身ドゥーイの思想を大変アプリーシエイトしていますのでね。

Field: Professor Horio says that he is a great appreciator of Dewey's thought.

Horio: いずれにしても、その戦後改革の精神というものが戦前の理念からも全然違ったものですし。そして、だから、戦前の復古的な人はそれでだめだというわけです し、しかも、プロセスに関しては占領軍に押し付けられたという言い方をし、そして戦後60年経っているんだから、もう古いのではないかという、こういう仕 方で改革論者は言っているということですね。

Field: First of all, those who are for reviving the past, of course, can't accept this. And secondly, they describe the process as one of imposition by the occupation. Thirdly, they say it's old and outdated. So, there are several twists in their logic, but they seem to work to reinforce each other.

Horio: で、その戦後の歩みは、しかし、その占領政策も数年の内に方向転換をするということがあります。それは国際政治の中で米ソの対立が激しくなる中で、日本を反共防波堤に打ち付けるという戦略的な構想です。

Field: Of course, postwar strategy changes in the context of geopolitics--the contestation between the United States and the Soviet Union intensifies, and therefore, occupation policy shifts direction with the priority of making Japan a bulwark in the struggle to contain communism.

Horio: 日本の戦後改革をむしろ最初エンカレッジしていた占領軍は、逆に、それにストップをかけるということになります。

Field: The occupation forces that had originally prompted educational reform now began to propose breaks to it.

Horio: 日本の復古主義的な政治家達もそれに呼応して、戦後民主主義の行き過ぎを是正するという、そういうスローガンを立てます。

Field: And the politicians who want to revive the past go along with this shift and then begin to proclaim that we need to turn back the excesses of postwar democracy.

Horio: ですから、その民主主義の行き過ぎを是正するという、そういう発想って何なんだろうか、ということになりますね。

Field: So what does it mean to talk about curbing the excesses of democracy?

Horio: 実際にその政策は1950年代に入ってから変化し始め、55年というのが、教育にとっては非常に大きなターニング・ポイントになって行くのです。

Field: These shifts come in the1950s, and 1955 turns out to be a threshold year for Japanese education.

Horio: その55年前後の教育行政の変化ということで言いますと、教育の地方行政のあり方が大きく変わってきて、教育委員会の委員の公選制が任命制に変わって行きます。

Field: One of the key shifts is that, whereas previously local school boards had been elective, they now are made appointive.

Horio: そういう任命制の教育委員会の機能が段々と大きくなって行くというその以後の動きですね。

Field: Their roles are expanded.

Horio: 教科書に関しても、58年に指導要領が変わるのですけれど、その時期から、実は、指導要領というものが、学習指導要領ですね、それが法的な拘束力を持つものとして扱われ始めるということになります。

Field: In 1958, curricular guidance is changed. And the other key point is that the curricular guidance issued by the Ministry is given the force of law, or, take on the force of law starting in 1958.

Platzer: The shidouyouryou of the course of study, up to that point, had been voluntary. It was stamped on the cover of the thing. It was just a series of recommendations, which teachers were free to use or not to use. Thereafter, the Ministry, distinctly, by virtue of the fact that it was printed in the national register, said they now had legally binding power. And everybody had to follow it. There was no question. This is not done through the law, through going through the Diet. It was strictly by bureaucratic means.

Horio: と、言うことです。そして、その教科書検定の基準にもなって行きます。教科書は指導要領に従って書かなければいけない。それを検定でチェックする。

Field: And, therefore, this becomes a key element of textbook review, i.e. censorship, too, because textbooks need to have been produced in accordance with the stipulation of the curricular directive.

Horio: それから、そうですね、54年に教育の中立性に関する法律と言うのが出来るのです。

Field: In 1954 there was a law called, "On the neutrality of education."

Horio: そのニュートラリティー、教育のニュートラリティー、とは何なのか、ということが基本問題なんですけど、その近代国家においては国家の作用はその精神の養 育には関与してはいけないというのは、これは近代国家原則ですね。そういう意味で、国家が価値からニュートラルでなければいけないというのが近代国家の原 則です。

Field: When we ask ourselves, what could the neutrality of education mean? The modern nation state is not meant to infringe on the education of the psyche of its citizens. It's that restriction that produces neutrality—the state has to be neutral with respect to values.

Horio: ところが、その中立性の法律が通ることによって、国家が、いうなれば、中性を保持している。何がそこから変更しているかを裁く主体に国家がなっている。

Field: What happens with this law in '54 is that, it says that it is the state that upholds the principle of neutrality. The state becomes the judge as to what deviates from neutrality.

Horio: その中立性の法律というのは、日本の教育の、いうならば、国家と教育の関係を大きく変える、それをシンボリックに表現した法律と言っていいと思います。

Field: This law symbolically expresses the enormous shift in the relationship between the state and education in Japan.

Horio: 私はその時期の教育の変化を教育における国家の復権というふうに呼んでいます。

Field: He calls the series of changes taking place the revival of the state in education.

Horio: もう一つ、そうですね、その筋の中で学力テストの全国一斉実施というのが60年の初めに起ります。

Field: It's within that context that educational testing is instated throughout the country.

Horio: それからもう一つ、、、

Platzer: The point of this thing called the gakuryoku tesuto was to see whether or not the teachers were following, precisely, the ideology of the Ministry. In other words, they were using the students to find out if the teachers were following the ideology that they were supposed to teach. If the students answered questions about society and whatnot in ways that weren't exactly the way the state wanted it, then ....

Horio: それから、その学力テストのもう一つの側面というのは、もう60年代ですから、高度成長の時期になるわけですね。その高度成長を支える人材を発見するとい うことがある。そして、競争主義を持ち込むというもう一つの学力テストの狙いが、実は、あったわけですね。

Field: By the time we get into the '60s, which is the period of high growth economics, the other function—besides the ideological one that Steve just laid out for us—was to identify the subjects or the people who are fit for fueling this growth. So educational testing serves to introduce the principle of competition.

Horio: その二つの機能というのは、今度また学力全国テスト一斉実施をやろうとしているんですけれども、その狙いと重なるところがあるわけです。

Field: The current move to revive testing throughout, standardized testing throughout the country, also seems to have both of these functions that were evident from the late 50s and early 60s.

Horio: そういう流れの中で、実は、教育基本法は変えるべきだという議論は、保守的な政治家達の中で繰り返し言われてきたわけです。

Field: Of course, conservative politicians have been saying, in this vein, that we need to change the Fundamental Law.

Horio: それから憲法に関してもそうですね。

Field: And the Constitution as well.

Horio: 憲法に関して、ちょっと補足しますと、1955年に自由民主党ができます。それは自由党と民主党が保守連合で一つのリベラル・デモクラティック・パーティーになるわけですけれど。

Field: Of course, '55 is the year that the two conservative parties come together and form what we know today as the LDP, the Liberal Democratic Party.

Horio: そのリベラル・デモクラティック・パーティーの結党の党是には、党の方針には、憲法を変えるというのは出ているのです。

Field: And that party had in its party platform, the goal of changing the Constitution.

Horio: ですから、自民党の歴史から見れば、もう戦後基本的には自民党が政権を握っているわけですけれども、そして憲法を変えるということも党是にした政党なんだけれども、50年経っても変えることができなかったとういうことでもある。

Field: We can also say that this party, which from its foundation, had as its goal changing the Constitution, revising the Constitution, had effectively been in power for 50 years. So we could also say that for 50 years it's been trying to change the Constitution without succeeding.

Horio: 2005年、昨年ですね、結党50年ということで本当に変えるのだ、ということで憲法改正論を出したということです。

Field: You know how anniversaries work on the human mind. So, last year being the 50-year anniversary, they said, "All right, we're really going to revise the Constitution."
{mospagebreak}
Horio: それだけに憲法も教育基本法も変える方はこのところ本気になっていることが間違い無いということですね。

Field: So I think we have to take seriously their commitment to revising the Constitution and the Fundamental Law.

Horio: もう一つ、その憲法９条に関する問題で話さなければならないと思います。その憲法の平和主義の原則を変えなければというのは、その民主主義の行き過ぎ是正 と重なりながら、９条は厄介な条文だということは、占領軍がまず考えるようになりますし、そして、日本の、サンフランシスコ条約の後ですけれど、1953 年に池田・ロバートソン会談というのがあります。

Field: After Article 9, of course, there's the general principle that we have to roll back the excesses of democracy. But the inconveniences of Article 9 were first and foremost noticed by the U.S. and by the Allied occupation. And we get the San Francisco Peace Treaty and in 1953 there's a meeting called the Ikeda-Robertson conference.

Horio: その池田・ロバートソン会談で９条を変えるためには日本の教育とその公報ですね、エドゥケーション・アンド・インフォメーションを通して、愛国心の教育を徹底する必要がある、ということが強調されます。

Field: The conclusion reached at the Ikeda-Robertson meeting was that in order to change Article 9, you needed to use education and public information to promote a spirit of patriotism in order to prepare the ground—the psychic ground—for revising Article 9.

Platzer: This is being pushed by the Americans.

Field: Right.

Horio: そういう、いわばプレッシャーを受けながら、９条を保守的な政治家達は再軍備をするということに、やはり、それなりの利益も感じているところがあって、で もそれは中々微妙ではあるんですね。つまり安保条約の中で軍備にはお金を使わずに日本の産業を復興させて行ったという現実がありますから。そこをどう解釈 するかと、それはまた厄介な問題になるのですが。

Field: It's a very complicated matter. Conservative politicians understood that profit would accrue from rearming Japan. But at the same time, they're aware that Japanese industry had been revived within the framework of the U.S.-Japan security arrangement, in which resouces didn't have to be diverted for defense.

Horio: そして、1960年に安保闘争というのがあるのですけれど、その日米安保条約の改正に対して学生、市民が強烈な反対運動をします。で、この日米安保条約が同時に９条を変えるということを含んだ発想ではあったのですが。

Field: In 1960, there was an enormous struggle mounted by students and citizens against the renewal of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. The agenda for renewal also implied revision of Article 9.

Horio: その安保問題の後、保守政党も９条を変えるというふうには言わずに、むしろ解釈を変える形でやってきたという経緯があります。

Field: After that great national struggle against the extension of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, the conservative political forces desisted from saying, "We're going to revise Article 9." In fact, it changed its tactics to interpretive maneuvers.

Horio: で、自衛隊の軍備はどんどん強化されるわけですけれども、それも憲法の枠内でという形で合理化して行きます。

Field: And the progressive and dramatic augmentation of the Self Defense Forces has taken place within the rubric, it is said, of the current pacifist Constitution.

Horio: ですから、その情報を変えるよりも現実を変え、そして現実に合わせて解釈を変えるという、解釈改憲という戦略を、実は、自民党は取ってきたわけです。

Field: The strategy that the LDP has adopted is, rather than changing the actual Article of the Constitution - to change reality, in other words - to generate interpretations of the Constitution to fit the transformed reality. Hence, the process is called interpretive revision of the Constitution, which has taken place over the last several decades.

Horio: 湾岸戦争の時には日本は軍隊は派遣しなかったわけで、お金を出したということになるのですけれども、血を流さずに金だけ出すのか、ということで不評を買ったと。誰の不評か知りませんけど。

Field: At the time of the Gulf War, Japan did not send troops, but sent a huge amount of money. But it is said to have incurred ill-will. Professor Horio says, "I don't know whose ill-will precisely," by not having shed blood but simply paid up.

Horio: 今度のイラク戦争では自衛隊を派遣するということになったわけです。

Field: Which is the background for sending Self Defense Forces in the current Iraq War.

Horio: イラク派兵も、その、安全地帯に自衛隊を派遣しているんだというのが政府の説明です。

Field: The explanation of the government of course, is that the Self Defense Forces are stationed in safe places.

Horio: そういう、つまり、矛盾を抱えているわけですね。それで、自衛隊の派遣も９条の中だ、ということを小泉政権は説明はするわけです。しかし、それは説明に なっていないことはもう皆分かっているわけですね。そこで９条を変えるというふうに今度はもうそれを押し出すようになってきているという、そういう関係で すね。

Field: Prime Minister Koizumi insists that deployment of the Self Defense Forces in Iraq is within the limits of Article 9, but now, that threadbare interpretation—the threadbareness is evident to everyone. And that's another impetus for the renewed pressure to actually change Article 9.

Horio: ９条を変えようという人達は、あの条文が占領軍に押し付けられたものであって、自前の軍隊を持つのが当然だというふうに言っているんだけれど、しかし、こ の間のプロセスを見れば、先ほどの池田・ロバートソン会談という一つの大きなプレッシャーがあり、今度の背景は、皆さんご存知だろうと思いますけれども、 ブッシュ政権で、とりわけアーミテージ・レポートなるものが強力に日本の、つまり憲法９条が邪魔だということを言っているわけですね。

Field: Of course, the conservatives who press for constitutional revision of Article 9 are saying we need our own constitution. But, of course, throughout this process, we can see pressure from the Ikeda-Robertson Conference that I referred to earlier. And there was intense pressure from the Bush administration for the current Iraq war, particularly the document called the Armitage Report.

Horio: 何か、概説で時間をとっていますけれども、もうすぐ終わります。はい。それでですね、９条問題でもう一つだけ、ちょっと、小さな注を付けますと、９条が占 領軍に、マッカーサーによって押し付けられたという俗論があるわけです。で、特に政府関係者はそれを繰り返し言うのですけれども、９条の成立過程を丹念に 見て行くと、実は、あのアイディア、９条のアイディア、つまりリナンシエイション・オブ・ウォ―、９条のアイディアは46年の１月24日にマッカーサーと 幣原、当時の首相ですね、幣原首相の二人だけの会談があったのです。その時にあのアイディアが出されたことは間違い無いのですけれど、どっちが言い出した かという問題があって、それは、幣原が言い出したというのが、私の研究の、私のビューなのですけれどね。それで、これはとにかく二人だけの会談ですから、 そして資料が残っているわけではない。それぞれの解答欄には、マッカーサーに関してはマッカーサーの、アメリカの、上院軍事外交合同委員会での証言があ り、その後日本の、憲法調査会というのが出来て、これは憲法改正のための資料を集めるんですけれど、その委員長だった高柳賢三がその仕事の総括の文章を書 いていて、その中で自分は、最初はマッカーサーが言い出したんだ、押し付けたんだと思っていたけれども、詳細に調べてみると、あれは、最初に言い出したの は幣原である、という文章を残しているんですよね。

Field: マッカーサーの証言もそれを裏付ける。

Horio: そうなんです。マッカーサーも裏付けているんです。

Field: There's a popular view that Article 9 was imposed on Japan by the U.S. occupation. There was a private conference between MacArthur and then Prime Minister Shidehara, on January 24th 1946, from which no written records remain. There's no question now that this was the occasion in which the idea for what became Article 9 was floated, but people have debated whether it was brought up by Shidehara or MacArthur. It's Professor Horio's view that the idea came from Shidehara, the Japanese Prime Minister. This is backed up by testimony MacArthur later gave in the Senate and later, in the report by the head of the Commission on the Constitution, a group established in Japan to gather documents in order to get the ball rolling for constitutional revision. Takayanagi Kenzo, the Commission head, wrote, "I initially believed that it was MacArthur who proposed the idea for Article 9 first. But having investigated carefully all the materials that I can gather, I have come to the conclusion that it was Shidehara who proposed the idea for Article 9."

Horio: ということで、僕もそのための色々な傍証を集めたりしているんですけれども、幣原が言い出したということは間違い無いと思っています。なぜか、という問題 があって、幣原は、実は、天皇制をなんとか残したいという思いがあって、その天皇制を守ることと、軍隊を持たないって、ワンセットで彼は考えたということ があるんです。

Field: Professor Horio's tried very hard to substantiate this interpretation, but the question arises, why would Shidehara propose such a move? Shidehara wanted to find some way to preserve the emperor system, and disavowing the maintenance of an armed forces went hand-in-hand with that desire. Those two principles were tied together in Shidehara's thinking.

Horio: それと同時に幣原は外交官で、実は1928年の不戦条約、ブリアン＝ケロッグの、あの会議に日本の、いわば代表として、関係している外交官でもあります。

Field: Shidehara was in the foreign service. He had attended the conference in 1928 that led to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which renounced war as national policy, so he had that in his background.

Horio: 彼は戦争の拡大を批判して、戦争中はいやになった外交官です。

Field: During the war years, as a diplomat who had criticed the expansion of the war, he was someone who felt alienated.

Horio: 小さな注を付けますと、不戦条約の背景には、実は、戦争を、アウトロー・オブ・ウォー、という動きがあって、主張があって、その中心の一人にジョン・ドゥーイがいたということもあるわけですけど。

Field: In the background of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 was a movement to outlaw war, a movment in which John Dewey was a key player.

Horio: 幣原は同時にそういう、いわば平和を求める外交官であったのですけれども、更に、広島、長崎を体験した後の日本の首相です。

Field: Not only had he been a diplomat who had sought to realize peace, but he became prime minister of a Japan that had experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Horio: 彼は、もうこれから戦争になったらどうにもならないんだと、軍隊を持たないのが一番懸命なんだという思想を持ったということです。

Field: Therefore, he had a firm view that war was henceforth untenable, and that in order to ensure against its recurrence, one could not maintain armies as a nation state.
{mospagebreak}
Horio: そういう彼の思想は、実は、46年の３月以降の発言に色々出て来ている。

Field: That thought is expressed in many of his statements from March of 1946 on.

Horio: その９条が今日本では危なくなっているということですね。で、大変なんで、それを守ろうとする市民の動きも非常に活発になっているということもお伝えしておきたいと思います。

Field: There's a great deal of citizen activism right now in the perceived threat to Article 9.

Horio: それでですね、そういう流れの中で、最初にご紹介がありましたけれど、私はこの２月の６日に東京地方裁判所で証言をしたわけですけれども、どういうケース かと言うと、君が代訴訟というふうに簡単に言えば言えるんですけれども。その君が代訴訟の中のいくつかのケースがあるんですけれど、直接僕が証言したその ケースは、実は、2003年の10月23日に東京都の教育委員会から指令が出て、そして、今度の卒業式、入学式には日の丸をこういうふうに立て、こういう ふうに君が代を歌わなければいけないという非常に細かな指示を出したのですね。そしてそれに従わないと処分する。そういう命令を校長は各教師に出すよう に、という指示を教育委員会が校長に出したのです。その指示に対して、東京都の高校の先生達、高校の先生は東京都の教育委員会の直轄なんですね、それか ら、あと養護学校も都の直轄。それで、それを批判する先生達が、もし今度来る入学式、卒業式に自分は歌わないと、歌いたくない、そしたら処分されるであろ うと。しかし、歌う義務は無いんではないかという、そういう訴訟を起こしました。つまり、国旗を掲げ、国歌を斉唱す義務不存在確認の訴訟というのですけれ ども。

Field: At the beginning, Professor Horio referred to having given expert testimony in February of this year. This can be thought of as a Kimi ga yo lawsuit. There are several Kimi ga yo lawsuits at hand, but they have come about in response to a directive by the school board of the Metropolitan government of Tokyo in October of 2003. A very detailed directive issued to principals of the Metropolitan government high schools and to those of special education schools making mandatory the raising of the rising sun flag in a particular way—all 4 corners have to be pinned up, you know, so that you don't have this flaccid flag hanging from a pole—and B, the way in which the national anthem has to be sung. The plaintiffs in several lawsuits, the teachers of Metropolitan high schools, teachers in the special education schools, are charging that they do not recognize a legal mandate to raise the flag or to sing the anthem. And this is, I suppose in English legal terms, what you would call an injunction or a stay of execution. They're saying, "We are going to do these things, we are not going to observe this mandate, and we expect not to be charged or disciplined if we do so." So, it's an attempt to contest the legality of the Metropolitan government's directive before they are disciplined, although, in fact, that has already happened. This is for entrance ceremonies and graduation ceremonies.

Horio: 今の説明の様な訴訟ですが、ある意味非常に珍しい訴訟なのです。処分されて、そして、原告が提起するというのと違うわけですから。処分されることを予想して、そして、それを歌う義務がないはずだ、という訴訟ですからね。

Field: It's unusual in that it was begun before any disciplinary action had been taken, but, rather, anticipating it—to establish that there is no right to be compelled to sing the national anthem.

Horio: その訴訟は原告が、最初ここの先生228名で裁判が起ります。で、次々に増えて、今400人を超える原告人なっています。

Field: The plaintiffs numbered 228 high school teachers to begin with. They now number 400.

Horio: その他にも障害児学校に対する干渉、といいますか、不当な介入が同じ時期に起ります。

Field: At the same time, there is unjust interference in the conduct of special education schools as well.

Horio: そのこともちょっと説明をした方がいいと思いますけれども、その障害児の教育で特に心と体の教育というのを非常に大事に考えながら、その中に性教育も非常に大事なものとして、入れて実践をしてきた養護学校があるわけです。

Field: Special education schools have paid a lot of attention to care of the psyche and the bodies of children with disabilities. Sex education has a very central role in that schooling.

Horio: それだけに先生は非常に丁寧に、注意深く、その、父母とも話しながら教材を開発し、そして父母に支えられた実践をやってきていたわけです。

Field: The teachers have put an enormous amount of effort in consultation with parents to develop good curricular material for this purpose.

Horio: 東京都も、実は、その実践を少し前までは評価していたのです。

Field: And the Metropolitan government had actually valorized these practices until recently.

Horio: ところが、2003年の夏ですけれども、その障害教育のやり方、性教育が怪しからん、というキャンペーンを張ることになります。

Field: But in the summer of 2003 they launched a campaign to say that the sex education in special education schools was unpardonable.

Horio: そして、右翼的な、と言っていいでしょうか、産經新聞という新聞があるんですけれど、それこそ現場に入って教材の写真を撮り、というようなことで、そうで すね、教育委員会が教室に入って、そして教材を没収していくのです。勝手に没収していくということになります。

Field: Members of the school board entered the special education schools and confiscated teaching materials.

Horio: そしてその性教育に使っていた人形さん、これはアメリカ何かでも普通に使われている教材を日本に持って来て使っていたわけですけれども、それを非常に変な 形で写真を撮って、その、酷い性教育をやっているというキャンペーンを産業経済新聞なるものがやるわけです。

Field: The curricular materials, there's a doll that's used, commonly used for sex education in the United States that was incorporated into these teachers' and schools' educational practice. The rightist paper, the Sankei Shinbun, takes this doll and takes distorting pictures of the doll to start a campaign against an allegedly disgusting kind of sex education being proffered to these disadvantaged children.

Horio: その校長先生初め、処分をされます。

Field: And the principal and teachers are disciplined, subject to discipline after this.

Horio: そこで先生達がまた、いうなれば訴訟を起こしているということになります。

Field: The teachers constitute themselves as plaintiffs, and there is an ongoing lawsuit.

Horio: 障害児教育に関して言えば、そういう性教育の批判と、それから日の丸、君が代をやれという、その両方が非常に大きなプレッシャーに今なっているのです。

Field: The two pressure points within special education in the Metropolitan region have to do with the imposition of the flag and anthem and the curtailment of sex education.

Horio: その障害者教育に関してもう少し言いますと、例えば車椅子を自分で操縦できるようにというのは、一つの、例えば、その身体障害の人の目標ですね。で、これ までは対面式で卒業を祝う会をやっていたんだけれども、東京都の指示はとにかく壇上で一人一人卒業証書を渡せというのが、その指示なのです。

Field: One of the directives from the Metropolitan government, the school board, has been that, whereas a form of graduation had been developed on level ground, so that everyone's on the same level, the Metropolitan government is now requiring that the diploma be handed on the stage above the others. And you can imagine what this immediately means for students in wheelchairs. That, if one of the goals of special education had been that children with disabilities be able to maneuver their own wheelchairs, this form of graduation effectively shuts them out of being subjects at their own—protagonists in their own graduation.

Horio: その教育委員会に従うにはスロープをわざわざ付けて、作って、そういう所にお金をかけて、卒業式をやったのです。

Field: In order to abide by this, the school spent money to build ramps.

Horio: 父母も、それから子供達も、せっかく自分で、自力で、車椅子が操縦できるということを表現する場でもあったはずなのです。それがスロープですから介助者に よって押されて卒業証書をもらうということで、それはもう子供にとっても、それから父母にとっても、非常に無惨な卒業式になったということになるのです。

Field: So whereas before the graduation had been an opportunity, a moment of pride, for parents and students because they could go on their own wheelchairs, you know, propel them and receive the diploma, they now have to be wheeled up the ramp by someone. And so, it's turned into an occasion for humiliation and disappointment.

Horio: ですから今の問題は、その障害者教育の問題も含めて、教育委員会の不当な教育介入という問題が、君が代問題でもあるし、障害者教育にもあるということになります。

Field: So you can see that these policies being mandated now by the school board are a matter of unlawful interference in education, both with respect to the anthem and with respect to special education.

Horio: 障害者教育での性教育批判が更に拡大して行き過ぎた性教育をやってはいけないという仕方で全国的に広がり、ジェンダー・フリーだけではなくて、ジェンダーという言葉も使ってはいけないという、そういうことに今なりつつあります。

Field: And the regulation, the curtailment of sex education within the rubric of special education has now expanded nationally and beyond the boundaries of special education to say that one shouldn't use not only this admittedlypeculiar phrase, "gender free," but one shouldn't use the term "gender" at all. This is the growing tendency in Japanese education right now.


Horio: そういう背景の中で、実は、君が代訴訟は、つまり裁判というのは特殊なケースの主張と、それから原告、被告のやり取りになるわけですから。私が証言をした のは、取りあえずは、高校の先生達の予報訴訟の証言。しかし、問題の本質は重なっていますから運動としては、その障害者教育の問題も含めて今の教育委員会 の教育行政のあり方、これは行政の常識を超えた、まあ、暴走である。そういう思いでそういうグループと言いますか、サポートする体制が作られつつあるとい うことです。

Field: The court case in which he testified is the one brought by the 400 high school teachers. But the fundamental issues at stake are in common between the special education issue and the high school teachers' issue—that it's the unlawful expansion of educational administration, of its purview. And, so, they are in the process of forming a support organization that addresses and supports all of these current, ongoing lawsuits.

Horio: 私の証言は、つまり、直接には教師が自分の思想良心に反して、君が代を歌うことを強制されるということは思想良心の自由を保証している憲法19条に反するのではないのか、というのが法的な一つの焦点であります。

Field: One of the legal focal points is that for teachers to be compelled to sing the national anthem against their thought and conscience, freedom of thought and conscience, is a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of thought and conscience to all citizens.
{mospagebreak}
Horio: その場合に政府も教育委員会も教師の内面の自由は当然保証されているのだと。しかし、それと歌うこととは別のことなんだという論理を立てています。内面と行為とは違うと言う。

Field: The state says, "Of course we understand that the conscience, the interiority, of teachers is to be respected and guaranteed. But there's a difference between interiority and action. And, so, to compel people to sing the anthem has nothing to do with violating their freedom of conscience."

Horio: もう一つは、そうは言っても関係があるわけですから、その場合の論理として、人間として、市民としての自由はあるんだけれども、教師だからそれは制約される。更には、教育公務員だから、という言い方をしています。教育公務員だからその自由は制約される。

Field: Having said that, they nevertheless see that there's a connection, so they say, "Yes, as citizens, freedom of thought and conscience are guaranteed by the Constitution. But primarily, they are teachers, and second, they are educational civil servants, so that restrictions are justified because of the official roles that they fulfill."

Horio: そこで私の証言のポイントは、教師とは何なのだ。教師にとって自由はどういう意味で必要なのか、ということですね。それを中心に証言しました。

Field: Professor Horio says, "The heart of my testimony concerns the question, what is a teacher? And what does freedom mean for a teacher?"

Horio: それからもう一つ、教育公務員だからというのは公務員の統制の論理があって、日本の公務員はストライキもできないし、という制約があるわけですよね。その 教育公務員は、という論理は成り立たないというのが、実は、教育基本法で言っている学校や教師の責任の問題というのは、別に公立の学校だけではないのです ね。つまり、私学を含んで今日本のシステムは公教育になっているのです。ですから、私立学校で自由なのがなぜ公立学校で許されないのか。公立学校の先生だ けですから、その統制しているのは。と、同時に、その公立学校の教師を統制する論理として公教育の教師は、という言い方をしている。だからそこでまた二重 の間違えを犯しているということがある。

Field: And secondly, there's the logic of the lawful restrictions on what civil servants can do. And he is saying that this notion of the educational civil servant does not hold. The Fundamental Law of Education applies to all schools, all educators. The state is trying to advance this notion and this theory of the lawful restriction of educational civil servants in Japan not having the right to strike. There are various restrictions in the U.S. and probably other countries as well on civil servants. The Japanese government is arguing that it's just the educators in the public system, not the private system, whose rights are properly restricted. So, here again, willful distortions in intent and interpretations of the Fundamental Law of Education, which makes no distinction between private and public education.

Horio: 何れにしても、その論理の本質は教育とは何か。そして、教師とは何なのか。そこで自由が制約されるのか、それとも自由が養成されるのか。そういう問題になります。

Field: However we put it, the heart of the problem is, what is education? And within education, is freedom something that should be restricted and regulated? Or is it something meant to be protected and promoted?

Horio: 統制の側は、今統制しているのは教師に歌えと言っているんであって、生徒に歌えと言っているんではないんだ、統制しているんではないんだという言い逃れをしています。

Field: The regulators are trying to take refuge in the notion that, "We are not imposing the obligation to sing the anthem on the students. We are just imposing that obligation on the teachers."

Horio: その論理が成り立たないということは、つまり指導要領に書かれていることを教師はやらなければいけないと言っているわけですけれど、指導要領に書かれていることというのは、子供達に学び、歌わせるように、と書いてあるわけです。

Field: The flimsiness of that argument is attested to by the fact that since teachers are obligated to abide by the curricular directive, the curricular directive says that teachers must teach students sing, to learn the words and sing the national anthem.

Horio: そして本来の目的は、教師を統制することを通して子供達を統制するということは明らかですよ。

Field: It is self evident that the purpose is to control and regulate the children by making this imposition on the teachers.

Horio: その教育とは何か、子供が学ぶとは何か、ということを軸に、実は、長い意見書を書きました。

Field: Professor Horio submitted a long document of testimony addressing the question, what is education? What does it mean for children to learn?

Horio: この意見書を出して、それを使いながら証言もまたしたということになります。

Field: 具体的に仰ってください。

Horio: 教育とは何かということで、実は、三つの視点から私の教育論を展開したということになってしまって。で、教育とは何かとその歴史的、社会的視点から教育を 考える。つまり、教育とはこうで、本来自由でなくてはいけないという唾棄な議論をしたんでは説得力ないでしょ。実際に歴史の中では自由は無かったではない か、ということはあるわけだしね。日本だけではなく、ヨーロッパの歴史も含めて。で、その歴史を通して、その人権としての教育、そして子供の権利という視 点が少しずつ定着して来ている。そして、その子供の権利を軸に子供が人間的に成長、発達する権利、学ぶ権利を保証する教育という仕方で現在の教育と考え方 が構築されつつある、というふうに私は思っています。

Field: The heart of his testimony was his theory of education. And he said he didn't want to simply assert that education has always been free, or has sought to guarantee freedom. That would not be persuasive, since in fact it hasn't been so. So, he did a historical and social survey of education, and within it, to show the emergence of the notion of human rights and of the rights of the child. And these have gained hold, the notion has grown that the child has the right to grow and develop as a human being, that education should guarantee the child's right to learn.

Horio: そのことを更に子供の発達の研究と言いますかね。発達教育学という分野を私自身、実は、講義もしてきたんですけれど、その発達の筋道に即して、そして学ぶ ということの意味を軸にしながら、教育のあり方を、教育とはこういうものでなければいけない、という議論をこの証言でも、意見書でもしています。

Field: Developmental education is one of the areas of Professor Horio's research, and so he used his research to show that the right of the child to learn has to be based on the theories and developed out of research on developmental education.

Horio: そういう考え方が日本の憲法や教育基本法を支えている教育観であると。しかも、それは私自身、例えば、基本法の考え方というものを未完のプロジェクトとい う言い方をしているんですけれど、そこに完成品があって、それに戻って考えていると言うんではなくて、その原理を更に豊かにさせる責任を我々は持ってい る、という仕方でこの憲法や教育基本法の理念についても考えてきているわけですね。

Field: Professor Horio says, "And this is the educational vision underpinning the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education. And I want to make clear that I don't think either the Constitution or the Fundamental Law of Education as entities that are already complete onto themselves." He thinks of these as incomplete projects that need to be developed, that he and others have the responsibility to enrich the principles of the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education.

Horio: 実際に、戦後の日本の教育実践は子供を人間的に育てるということを軸にしながら、実践を重ね、更に、それを子供の権利の思想として捉え直すということをやってきています。

Field: In fact, the practice of postwar Japanese education started out from the notion that one must nurture the child as a human being, and from there, to develop the concept of the Rights of the Child.

Horio: そういう考え方は同時に日本のだけではなくて、国際的な、例えば、この人権の思想の展開。この人権の宣言から、それが条約になり、という仕方で具体的な法則力を持ったものに人権は発展しているわけですね。

Field: Of course, this is not just a development within Japan, but part of an international effort. And, in fact, this movement finally culminated in an international convention in the Rights of the Child and was given the status of a legal agreement.
{mospagebreak}
Horio: これは女性の権利に関しても、あるいは障害者の権利に関しても、権利宣言から条約へという仕方で個別、具体的な権利が認められてきているわけですね。子供の権利も正にそういう動きの中で発展しているということがあります。

Field: This is similar to what has happened with notions of the rights of women, or the rights of the disabled: first you have a declaration, and then the attempt to elaborate, concretely, the rights that accrue to each group in the form of legal conventions.

Horio: 更に具体的な国際機関からのレコメンデーション等もあるわけですね。教育で言えば、例えば教師の地位に関するILO、ユネスコのレコメンデーションがある し、あるいは、子供の権利条約を調印した以降は、政府とNGOが報告書を出して、子供の権利委員会がそれを審査して、そして政府に勧告するという、そうい うシステムも今動いています。

Field: Then, there is advice conferred upon the signatory states from international organizations such as the ILO, the International Labor Organization, or UNESCO, in the case of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Signatory states and non-governmental organizations are obligated to submit reports to the Commission. And then, the Commission evaluates and responds, and this is in fact happening. And just to add, the two countries that are not signatory to the Rights of the Child are the United States and Somalia—great company!

Horio: そういうことで、私達の憲法や教育基本法を支えている思想というものが実践の中で豊かにさせて行き、同時に国際的な教育に関する条約の発展とも響き合っているんだというふうに私等は確信しています。

Field: I want to convey to you my conviction that the principles of the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education are being enriched through concrete practice, and that this is also happening in tandem with efforts going on internationally.

Horio: そういうことを証言でも話しながら、それでは、その学校というのはどうあるべきなのか、教師の責任と権限というのは何なのか、ということを軸にしながら教育の自由の必要性、必然性を訴えたということになります。

Field: This is the basis for my own arguments for what education should be: What is the school? What are the rights and responsibilities of teachers, and the necessity for freedom within education?

Horio: その教育の自由というコンセプトもそういうことを通して、豊かに、より構造的に捉え直すという、つまり国家と教育の関係だけではなくて、子供の発達を軸に し、教師の実践の自由を含んで、全体として教育の自由というコンセプトが成立するんで、教育の自由は決してフリーダム・オブ・ティーチングということでは ないという、それはほんの一部でしかない。そういう考え方も提議しているというわけです。

Field: This is how, structurally, the notion of freedom within education is enriched. It is not just about the relationship of the state to schools, but rather, it has as its axis the developmental principles of the child and the freedom of teachers to practice their profession. These are the multiple axes through which we can elaborate freedom of education. It is not just teachers proclaiming or asserting their right to do whatever they please.

Horio: そして、最後に、この君が代の教師に対する強制というものが、実は、子供の内面の自由、内面の豊かな発達を課題にしている人間にとって大きな制約になる と。で、子供の内面の自由は一層豊かな配慮、そしてフレキシブルな対応が必要なのであって、大人と同じように子供も内面の自由があるという、そういうレベ ルだけではなくて、その豊かな内面を育てる、その力を子供達が身に付けるというのが教育なのだから、それに権力的な枠組みを与えるということは、これは教 育を非教育のものにすると、マインド・コントロールを含めたインドクトリネーションの国になって行くのではないのか、という証言をしたのです。

Field: Therefore, the imposition of the singing of the anthem on the teachers is not just an imposition, an unlawful coercion on teachers, but rather on the interiority of children. Professor Horio is not saying that children have the same interiority as their adult teachers. Rather, that there is a vulnerability and an adaptability such that adults have a particular responsibility to foster and respond to flexibly, so that children will acquire the capacity to develop their interiority. And to impose, for the state to impose the singing of a particular song on the teachers and, through them, on children is, has to be, called an act of anti-education, rather than education. It's indoctrination, not education.

Horio: この証言のタイトルは、「強制に教育は馴染まない」というタイトルです。そう証言をしたということになります。

Field: The title of his testimony is, "There is no place for coercion within education."

Horio: これでとりあえず終わりにしましょう。

Platzer: I want to put it all back into perspective by finishing my introduction. First, I was mentioning how Professor Horio was a student of Maruyama Masao. And for those of you who have read Maruyama's work on the prewar state, you know how the state tended to do whatever it could in disrespect to the internal freedom of its citizens or other people in Japan. If any of you have been listening to what he's been talking about for the last 15, 20 minutes, you can really see that Maruyama knew they put him in the education world was a really, extremely good move, because he's taken that whole Maruyama emphasis upon, on the abuse of human beings in Japan. And firstly, there's also a whole form of critique and a whole form of scientific method. Secondly, it is really important to see how intellectual practice, scholarship, and political activism become completely the same thing. They're not two different things. One informs the other. In fact, they're indistinguishable. And third, the other important core element is that, I want you to understand that this voice as you've been hearing him speaking today, this isn't just simply—I was being silly before when I said he was notorious—but this is not a random voice in the woods, this is a man who is chosen by the educational world of Japan, three times by the Science Council of Japan, as the representative of the educational world. He is also the head of the Japan Society for Educational Research. This is a voice, a leader and the voice of the education movement in Japan.

Field: And let's not forget that this researcher's testimony starts with a lot of material on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Victor Hugo, and Condorcet, and the history of the universal development of the notion of the "child." And Professor Horio has a very careful reflection on how we should deal with the concept of universality in itself, not in the vein of a cheap postmodernist dismissal of it as Eurocentric. But, anyhow, he has worked consistently in tandem with schoolteachers on the ground, in the classroom—not just high school teachers, but he's also done a great deal with early childhood education. So, he's involved himself with the everyday practice of that much beleaguered person, the classroom teacher, at every level.