Celebrating Protest

“Celebrating Protest” was the name given to a visitor series accompanying two courses taught at the University of Chicago in spring 2007: “Postwar Social Movements in Japan,” taught by Norma Field and Tomomi Yamaguchi and “Popular Culture In/Out of Japan” taught by Yamaguchi. We wanted to address ongoing concerns in Japan—the impact of the Iraq War, the expansion of nuclear power, the role of alternative media, sexuality and gender, labor and gender, textbooks and educational reorganization as social reorganization—not only through texts and images but through interaction with people engaged in acting upon these concerns.

It was important to have these visitors not only speak to us or perform for us in relatively conventional settings with moderately large audiences but to have classroom and informal time for extended give-and-take. We also took on ambitious translating projects of their writings to expand our understanding of their work. Wanting to preserve and make available records of their visits as well as these texts, and knowing that the issues they address each day continue to affect all society, we have launched this website, Celebrating Protest. We hope it will be a site of information and exchange about struggles to preserve and extend the hard-won understanding of the requirements for human beings to flourish together in Japan and the world in the decades since World War II.

広瀬浩二郎「バリアフリーからフリーバリアへ－近代日本を照射する視覚障害者たちの“見果てぬ夢”－」

July 28, 2008 – 3:50 pm

バリアフリーからフリーバリアへ
－近代日本を照射する視覚障害者たちの“見果てぬ夢”－

広　瀬　浩二郎

　本論文においては「介護」を障害者と健常者の関係と定義し、「介護の人類学」構築の可能性を探る。具体的には戦後60年間の視覚障害者と日本社会の関わりに注目し、「介護」概念の変遷を追う。『平家物語』の創造、伝播に象徴されるように、日本の宗教・芸能史の中で盲人たちは大きな役割を果たしてきた。江戸時代以後、彼らは主に按摩・鍼・灸、あるいは筝曲を生業とした。近代の盲教育にあっても、中世の当道（琵琶法師の座）以来の伝統的職業を死守していくことが最大の目標とされた。「決められた道」を持つことが他の障害者には見られない視覚障害者の特徴であり、その「決められた道」からの脱却が第二次大戦後の盲青年たちの“見果てぬ夢”となった。
　“見果てぬ夢”は視覚障害者の高等（大学）教育への進出という形で発現した。本論文では1950～60年代を「大学の門戸開放」期、70～80年代を「入学後の学習環境の整備」期、90年代以降を「卒業後の就労支援」期と位置付け、各時期の「介護」状況を示す団体として「日本盲人福祉研究会（文月会）」「関西ＳＬ（スチューデント・ライブラリー）」「視覚障害者文化を育てる会（4しょく会）」の活動を取り上げる。
　障害者＝「特殊」、健常者＝「普通」という図式は、少数者を差別、排除する近代化過程の必然の帰結だった。視覚障害者は「奮闘」「懇願」することから“見果てぬ夢”の実現をめざし、彼らの社会参加を求める運動は晴眼者の「同情」により受け入れられていった。70年代以後には「権利」を主張する障害者とそれを「支援」する健常者により、「特殊」を「普通」に変換する「バリアフリー」が進展した。本論文では「バリアフリー」の次なる課題、21世紀の「介護」を創出する新しい概念として「フリーバリア」を提唱したい。

キーワード: バリアフリー, 特殊, 普通, フリーバリア, 視覚障害者文化

　　　　　　　　目　　　次

序　「特殊」と「普通」の間
　１　近代的「介護」概念の再検討
　２　ある盲教育者の戦後60年
Ⅰ　日本盲人福祉研究会（文月会）の誕生
　１　日本盲大学生会の歴史的位置
　２　文月会と雑誌『新時代』
Ⅱ　「決められた道」への反発
　１　「盲人＝按摩」イメージからの脱却
　２　学習権保障を求める当事者運動
Ⅲ　有能なる社会人への創造
　１　雇用促進を阻むもの
　２　「なにか」をめざす新潮流
Ⅳ　「フリーバリア」の模索
　１　「視覚障害者文化」の行方
　２　介護の人類学－実践と研究が交差するフィールドから

序　「特殊」と「普通」の間

１　近代的「介護」概念の再検討
　盲人牧師として大正、昭和期に活躍した熊谷鉄太郎（1883～1979）は、その自伝の中で「得べくんばまたもめしいと生まれ来て　見果てぬ夢の後を追いなん」という短歌を残している［熊谷 1960］。めしい（盲目）であるがゆえに多くの苦労を味わった熊谷は、なぜ「またもめしいと生まれ来て」と力強く宣言することができたのだろうか。彼の言葉を借りれば、“見果てぬ夢”とは「『私も憚りながら人間よ』と大手を振って天下の大道を闊歩したい」ということだった。
　北海道の僻村に生まれ育ち、貧苦の中から東京の盲学校に進学した熊谷は、大正2（1913）年、関西学院の聴講生となる。彼は欧米の福祉思想の根底にあるキリスト教を知るため、また日本語の点字文献がほとんどなかったのに比して海外から英語の点訳書が多数入手できたため、神学と英語を勉強した。アメリカ留学、国際盲人奉仕者会議への出席なども経験した彼は、盲人が人間らしく生きられる社会の実現に向けて努力を続けた。
　熊谷の“見果てぬ夢”、障害者たちの「完全参加と平等」を願う熱い思いは、日本社会にとって現在進行形の課題であり、その“夢”の「後を追う」ことは、日本の近代化を問い直す作業にもつながるだろう。本稿の狙いは、1963年4月に創刊され、2005年1月に通巻200号を迎えた雑誌『視覚障害－その研究と情報』1)に掲載された記事を主な資料としつつ、第二次大戦後の日本社会と視覚障害者の関わり、「介護」（障害者と健常者の関係）概念の変遷をトレースすることである。英語の「nurse」（介護）が育む、培うなどの語意を持つのと同様に、本論文で用いる「介護」とは、障害者と健常者のよりよい関係を築くためになされる不断の営為、そこから生まれる相互作用をも含意した概念とする。
　一般に「介護」とは、健常者（強者）が身体障害者（弱者）の世話をする意味で使用されることが多い。そもそも、こういった「障害者＝少数派、特殊」「健常者＝多数派、普通」という意識、世話をする・されるの二分法的関係は、いつごろ形作られたものなのだろうか。
　日本の宗教・芸能史を振り返ってみると、盲人が大きな役割を果たしてきたことに気づく［広瀬 1997］。古代末から活動を活発化する盲目の琵琶法師たちは、各地でさまざまな語り物文芸を創造、伝播した。彼らは亡魂供養を得意とし、その語りの集大成が『平家物語』となった。14世紀には琵琶法師の座である「当道」が結成され、独自の神話、儀礼、芸能が師匠から弟子へと受け継がれていった。
　江戸時代に当道座は幕府の保護を得て発展し、琵琶に加え三味線、琴、鍼・灸・按摩などを新たな生業とする盲人も増えた。一方、盲女たちは中世において『曾我物語』の形成に関与したが、江戸時代には当道座の影響の下、同業者組合的な集団を作った。死霊の言葉を語る東北地方のイタコ（盲巫女）、三味線を持って北陸地方を旅した瞽女なども、近世以後、多くの文献に登場する。
　「特殊」という語のニュアンスは、前近代と近代では大きく異なる。前近代の盲人たちは文字を持たなかった。実際、「目に見えない世界」に依存する彼らは、文字を必要としなかった。『平家物語』とイタコの口寄せは、彼らの「特殊」な能力の証明である。当道座のように盲人のみによって構成される組織というのは、今日の我々からすると、排他的、あるいは時代錯誤と感じられるかもしれない。しかし、前近代の日本社会にあっては、琵琶法師やイタコが「特殊」な能力を持つ「別世界」の存在として、重要な役割と地位を与えられていた。すくなくともそこには、「介護」をする側、される側というある意味では単純かつ合理的な関係はなかった。
　近代化は、このような人間観を激変させた。「特殊」を尊ぶ多元的世界観は、一元的な能力主義に移行した。少数派（「特殊」）は疎外感を味わうようになり、障害者、「別世界」に対する評価も大きく変化した。近代日本において、イタコや琵琶法師の活動は迷信として軽視され、当道座が保持していた「別世界」「特殊」の意味は顧みられることがなくなった。
　いわゆる近代化とは、マイノリティ（少数派）をマジョリティ（多数派）に同化していくプロセスとしてとらえることができる。明治5（1872）年、新政府は学制を発布し、「一般の人民」に対する小学校教育の義務化を方針とした。しかし、この「一般の人民」に障害者は含まれず、彼らは「廃人」と規定された。「廃人」は必然的に健常者から差別、隔離され、自分たちの価値、有用性を示すために努力せざるをえなかった。
　明治4（1871）年の当道座廃止は、近代化政策の一環だったが、座の解体は、視覚障害者たちが職業選択の自由を獲得したことを意味しない。自己の権益を維持、拡大させるために盲人が主体的に作り上げた当道座は、いわば「of the blind」の団体だったが、これに代わって明治期には慈善事業、「for the blind」の施設として各地に盲学校が創立された。そんな近代盲教育において、鍼・灸・按摩は根幹となる科目であり、伝統的職業を死守していくことが盲人たちの最大の課題とされた。
　第二次大戦後、障害者に対する特殊教育は義務化されたものの、今日なお視覚障害者にとって、按摩・鍼・灸以外の職業的選択肢は限られている。特殊教育を受ける障害者は「普通」の人（健常者）に迷惑をかけるべきではないというのが暗黙の了解とされる一方、「普通」の人々は「特殊」な障害者に同情すべきだといわれる。こういった近代的「常識」の下で、「廃人」のレッテルを貼られた盲人たちは、健常者中心の社会に適合し「普通」となることをめざした。
　熊谷の“見果てぬ夢”は、このような歴史的文脈の上で理解されなければならない。熊谷たちの努力により、昨今の日本社会にあっては、多数の盲学生が「普通」の学校に進学し、少なからぬ視覚障害者が社会の第一線で活躍している。彼らを「廃人」と呼ぶことはできないだろう。「一般の人民」と「廃人」、世話をする者・される者という近代的な「介護」イメージは、戦後60年間で確実に変化した。
　視覚障害者に関する学問的アプローチとしては、民俗学、中・近世史の分野で文化の創造者、伝播者である琵琶法師、イタコに注目する論考が多い。江戸時代の当道座の構造を中心に各方面の史料を収集した加藤康昭の大著は、包括的な盲人史研究として今日でも高い評価を得ている［加藤 1974］。人類学においても、杉野昭博は東北地方の盲僧、盲巫女の始祖伝承を分析し、「不具ゆえにこそ有能だ」という主張、健常者文化に対する逆説的アイデンティティの表出として、盲人の座の意義を強調した［杉野 1990］。
　明治以後の障害者の動向については、近代化の矛盾を象徴する社会的弱者として彼らの歴史に焦点を当てる議論が主流だった。1980年代以降、自身が障害を持つ研究者の手による差別の告発も増えた［生瀬 1988］。近代の障害者（とくに視覚障害者）は、「特殊」から「普通」に向かう苦難の歴史、健常者への同化の道を歩んだため、人間社会におけるさまざまな「差異」に着目する人類学では取り上げられることが少なかった。
　障害者と健常者の新たな関係、世話をする・されるの二分法を越える脱近代的「介護」モデルが求められる今日、本論文においては従来の人類学で空白だった障害者の「近代」に注目する。障害者の中でも、とりわけ前近代からのユニークな歴史を持つ視覚障害者は、明治以後、「伝統的職業からの脱却＝高等（大学）教育への進出」という形で「特殊」から「普通」への進路を開拓した。近代化過程にあっては「特殊」の意義は忘れ去られてきたが、本論文では「特殊」の再解釈をすることにより、「介護の人類学」構築の可能性を探りたい。全盲学生、さらには研究者として自己の視覚障害と日々向き合ってきた筆者にとって、本稿は人類学における「当事者の視点」の重要性を明らかにするフィールドワークともなろう。

２　ある盲教育者の戦後60年
　さて、熊谷の“見果てぬ夢”を一言で要約すれば「バリアフリー」ということになろうか。健常者と障害者の間に横たわる多様な「バリア」を取り除くこと、日本社会にあって「特殊」な存在とされる盲人や盲学校の立場を「普通」のものにすることが彼の“夢”だった。その“夢”を追い求めたのが熊谷の人生であり、彼の熱情を端的に示すのが「またもめしいと生まれ来て」という言葉なのだ。第二次大戦後、熊谷の後輩である多くの「めしい」たちが大学に進学し、日本社会の「バリア」と格闘しながら視覚障害者の地位向上を訴えてきた。本論に入る前に、まず戦後の視覚障害者たちの歩みを知るためのケーススタディとして、筑波大学附属盲学校の数学科教諭となり先駆者の道を切り開いた尾関育三（全盲）の半生2)を紹介しよう。
　昭和4（1929）年生まれの尾関育三は幼いころの事故が原因で失明し、昭和16（1941）年、長野県の松本盲学校に入学する。盲学校が一般の学校として認められていなかった戦前の日本にあっては、官立東京盲学校（現在の筑波大学附属盲学校）の師範部（鍼按科、あるいは音楽科）を卒業して全国各地の盲学校教師となることが、全盲者にとって最高の「出世」であった。成績優秀だった尾関も1949年、東京盲学校の師範部（鍼按科）に進学する。
　1947年、教育基本法、学校教育法の制定により、盲学校などの特殊教育が義務化され、盲学校卒業者が一般大学に進学することが制度的に可能となった。1951年、尾関は「全盲の国立大学進学者第一号」として、東京教育大学に新設されたばかりの特殊教育学科に入学した。彼の言葉によれば「ＧＨＱの指導もあって視覚障害者が大学進学できるようになったものの、当時は戦後の混乱期で盲学校も大学も暗中模索の状態。入試問題の点訳ができない、入学後の学内での安全を保障しかねるなどを理由として、受験を認めないケースが多かった。国立大学で唯一受験できたのは、盲学校などの教師を養成する特殊教育学科だけだった」というのが実情らしい。
　数学の教員免許を取得した尾関は大学院に進学し、点字による数学教科書の編集方法、とくに空間図形をどのように点字で表現するかなどについて研究を進めた。1958年、彼は母校である東京教育大学附属盲学校の非常勤講師となり、61年に専任教員として採用された。盲学校着任後、尾関は普通科教育の充実に尽力した。彼にとって普通科とは、いわゆるリベラル・アーツ（職業や専門に直接結びつかない基礎的教養）だった。大学生活を体験した尾関は、リベラル・アーツの習得により、盲人が「大手を振って天下の大道を闊歩」できるようになると確信したのである。
　戦前からの流れもあって、当時の学習指導要領では、盲学校の職業（主に鍼・灸・按摩業）教育が重視されていた。これに対し尾関は、点字教科書を確保し、高等部に普通科を設置する運動に積極的に参加した（各盲学校高等部に普通科が置かれるのは1973年度からである）。
　数学教師として活躍する彼を見て、後輩である盲学校生徒の中から大学進学をめざす者も増えた。尾関は自己の経験を踏まえて、生徒への進路指導、各大学との受験交渉も担当することとなった。60～70年代には点字受験を拒否する大学も多く、「試験はするが合格はさせない」「入試問題の点訳者は受験生個人が探すべきだ」などと公然と主張するケースもあった。彼は粘り強い交渉を通じて、一つ一つ大学の門戸を開放していった3)。
　尾関は全盲者の高等教育への進出、普通科教員としての職域開拓という形で、熊谷が抱いた“見果てぬ夢”を自身の行動により継承、拡充した。そんな彼は一方、盲学校在職中も数学の研究を続け、京都大学から理学博士号を授与された。1990年に盲学校を退職した彼は現在、全国高等学校長協会の外郭団体として「入試点訳事業部」を組織し、各地のボランティア養成、大学に対する点字受験の交渉、入試問題の点訳作業に奔走している。後輩たちの進学希望をかなえることが、尾関にとって継続中の“見果てぬ夢”なのかもしれない。
　盲学校という「特殊」な学校から「普通」の大学に進んだ尾関は、「特殊」教育の現場に立ってからは、盲学校の「普通」科教育を推進した。「特殊」（少数者）を「普通」（多数者）に変換することが「バリアフリー」だとするならば、視覚障害者の社会参加を自ら具体化した尾関の歩みは、「バリアフリー」の実践そのものだった。盲大学生の存在が当たり前となり、特殊教育から特別支援教育への移行が提唱される現在、教育のノーマライゼーション、日本社会の「バリアフリー」化は進展した。しかし、尾関は「たしかに視覚障害者が大学に進学するという面で苦労はなくなった。だが卒業後の就職は、依然として大きな問題だ。厳しい雇用状況、就労環境を突破していくためにも、戦後の盲学校で培ってきた特殊教育の意義を忘れてはならない」と語る。
　以下では尾関の示唆にも導かれつつ、「特殊」と「普通」の間で揺れ動いた戦後60年の視覚障害者史（「介護」の過去）を振り返り、「バリアフリー」の次なる課題（「介護」の未来）を展望したい。

Ⅰ　日本盲人福祉研究会（文月会）の誕生

１　日本盲大学生会の歴史的位置
　第二次大戦前の日本社会にあっては、盲人の大学進学は制度的に認められていなかった。大正6（1917）年、鳥居篤治郎（1894～1970）が同志社大学に提出した「嘆願書」は、そのような社会状況を端的に示している。京都ライトハウスの創設者で京都市の名誉市民ともなった鳥居は、日本の盲人教育、障害者福祉の発展に寄与し、エスペランティストとしても著名だった。東京盲学校の師範部を卒業後、向学心に燃える鳥居青年は同志社の英文科への入学を切望した。彼が点字で下書きした「嘆願書」には、次のような文言が見える［鳥居篤治郎先生生誕百年記念事業委員会 1994:46-47］。
　「殊に教科書は成可く妻（小生は既に結婚して妻を有し候えば其の介を得て奮闘致す考え、妻として亦之を自覚至り居り候）に読ませて点字に致すべく……」「只小生が苦しむのみにて、他人に左したる手数は決して掛間敷く候」「然して本科生としては其の資格之無く候えば、専科生として入学許可相成り度く候。然れども御社に於ても亦小生に於ても初めての試みに候えば兎角聴講生として一学期試し其の結果に因て二学期依り専科研究を許されても満足に候」「兎角御同情下され幾重にも御援助日本盲人の為願い度く只管懇願仕り候」。
　けっきょく、この「嘆願書」は受け入れられず、「まずは聴講生として」という鳥居の懸命な進学希望は無視された。「嘆願書」にある「奮闘」「手数」「同情」「懇願」の四語は、戦前の日本社会の盲人観をよく表している。富国強兵政策の下では「全盲者＝何もできない厄介者」とされるのが、近代日本の「常識」だった。障害を持つ者が人一倍努力「奮闘」すること、他人に「手数」をかけないことを約束し、社会参加（大学進学）したいと「懇願」する。その「懇願」は、理解ある健常者の「同情」によりかなえられるという図式は、1950～60年代の視覚障害者たちの大学門戸開放運動にも「打ち破るべき常識」として受け継がれていった。
　1949年、新制大学の受験資格を得た盲学校出身者たちの大学入試挑戦が始まった。鳥居の「嘆願書」から30数年にして、大学の門戸が視覚障害者たちに開放されたのである。「全盲初の新制大学生」となった永井昌彦（元京都府立盲学校・英語科教諭）の進学先が同志社大学であったのは、歴史の必然というべきだろう。戦後民主主義の時流に呼応して、1949～55年の7年間で24大学に59人の視覚障害者（点字使用者）が入学した［谷合 1990］。しかし点字受験が認められた大学はまだわずかで、永井や尾関のように盲学校から大学に進学できる人は例外的な存在だった。「奮闘」「手数」「同情」「懇願」という盲青年を取り巻く「常識」は、基本的に鳥居以来、変化がなかった。
　1967年の「盲人の大学進学に関する調査報告」では、「設備がない」「教室間の移動が危険」などを理由に点字受験を許可しないケースが多く紹介されている。このアンケート結果の分析で池島玲爾（ＮＨＫプロデューサー）は、「盲人の実態をあまりに知らない」日本社会の現状を指摘し、「盲人の能力を大学当局に正しく認識させること」が門戸開放の第一歩だとしている［池島 1967］。制度面の改革はあったものの、健常者の誤解、偏見と闘い、精神面で盲人の大学進学を認めさせなければならない状況は、戦後も続いていた。
　1951年8月31日～9月2日、東京で第1回全国盲大学生大会が開かれ、毎日新聞社会事業団や日本ヘレンケラー協会の援助を受けて「日本盲大学生会」が組織された。日本ライトハウスの創設者・岩橋武夫（1898～1954）も新時代を切り開く盲青年を激励するため、積極的に盲大学生会を支援したが、卒業後の就職難による進学者の減少で、1958年に本会は自然消滅した。
　日本盲大学生会の結成に参加し、後に岡崎盲学校の教諭となった勝川武は、1951年の大会について「やはり話の中心は『すべての大学が門戸を開放すべきだ』『入学後の学習条件の整備』『卒業後の就職保障』だったように思いますね」と振り返っている。また勝川は、「……就職浪人中でしたか、最高裁の事務局長に会うことができ『司法試験を受けさせてほしい』と懇願したわけです。そうしますと、その人は『あなたの申し出はよく理解できる。しかし、あなた一人の訴えだけでは力が弱すぎる。盲人全体の声として働きかけていけば、実現は可能ではないか。』と言われました。それ以来、私は個人は全体のために、全体は個人のために問題と取り組まなければならないと思うようになりました」とも述べている［勝川 1991］。

２　文月会と雑誌『新時代』
　「大学は出たけれど……」という厳しい状況が続く中、1950年代に学生生活、就職活動の苦労を経験した視覚障害者たちが1961年7月、大阪に集まり、現役の盲大学生とＯＢの相互扶助、親睦をめざす団体として「文月会」を設立した。中心となったのは、1954年に日本大学に入学し、卒業後2年の就職浪人を経て毎日新聞社が発行する「点字毎日」の記者に採用された高橋実だった。高橋は「自分のような苦渋を少しでも解消し、若者が現実を直視するとともに将来に夢と希望を持って進学してほしい。その土壌作りに我々が汗しなくては先輩に申し訳ない」と、文月会発足当時の思いを語っている［日本盲人福祉研究会30周年記念誌刊行委員会 1992:18］。
　1963年には機関誌『新時代』が発刊され、文月会は「大学の門戸開放」「入学後の学習条件整備」「卒業後の職域拡大」をスローガンとする活動を活発化していった（1962年3月現在の会員数は97名。なお、本会は1964年に「日本盲人福祉研究会」を正式名称とし、以後「文月会」は愛称とされた）。
　『新時代』創刊号の巻頭言で勝川武は「二つの祈り」と題して、文月会の役割について記述している。二つの祈りとは、「盲人の大学における勉強のハンディキャップを取り除き、盲人が大学教育を受けやすくなるために文月会が役立ってくれること」、および「大学において学んだ世界的視野に立つ知識や理論を個人の生活のために用いるのみでなく、盲人社会の開発、福祉に貢献するような機能を文月会が持つこと」だった。そして勝川は、「それぞれの内なる要求と社会から寄せられる要求を静かに考え、会員自身の会であるとともに社会に役立つ会となるように、文月会のあり方を祈る」と巻頭言を結んでいる［勝川 1963］。
　また第2号の巻頭言「われらの使命」で竹内勝美（京都府立盲学校教諭、弱視）は、「われらは社会のゆがみの中に今なお喘ぐ多くの視覚障害者の中から大学の門を叩けた一人である。僥倖を噛み締めるとともに、その得た知識を最大限に活用して福祉推進の原動力とならなければならないと思う」と力強く主張している［竹内 1964］。『新時代』は、文月会が社会啓発のために展開する運動や研究の「看板」となる雑誌だったが、本誌に寄せる期待の大きさ、新団体を立ち上げる盲青年たちの情熱が二つの巻頭言に余すところなく表現されている。
　文月会の機関誌だった『新時代』が一般購読誌となった第19号（季刊発足号）において、本間一夫（文月会の初代会長、日本点字図書館の創設者）は、『新時代』の使命は「晴眼者と盲人の架け橋となること」と明言している［本間 1973］。パソコン点訳技術が進歩した昨今、墨字（普通文字）図書と点字図書の刊行時差は少なくなってきた。「バリアフリー出版」という形態で墨字版と点字版が同時発行されるケースも増えつつある。しかし、『新時代』が一般購読誌となった当時は、墨字原本の出版後、数ヶ月、あるいは数年してから点訳本ができあがるのが「常識」だった。
　雑誌『新時代』は第28号（1976年）から墨字、点字の同価格、同時発行を行ない、現在はカセットテープ版、フロッピー版、Ｅメール版も加え「バリアフリー出版」をリードしている。晴眼者と視覚障害者に対する平等な情報提供という面で、文月会は「奮闘」「手数」「同情」「懇願」の「常識」を打破し、「新時代」を開く先駆的な役割を果たしたわけである。

Ⅱ　「決められた道」への反発

１　「盲人＝按摩」イメージからの脱却
　1949年以後、教育の機会均等の実現を願って、視覚障害者のパイオニアたちが大学を受験した。高橋実（現在「視覚障害者支援総合センター」理事長）は、創刊号以来『新時代』『視覚障害』の編集に関わっているが、『日本盲人福祉研究会（文月会）30年の歩み』の中で、彼の父親の言葉を紹介している。「みんながみんな立派にやっている三療が嫌いだというのは、おまえのわがままでしかない。しかし、本人がやらんというのなら、どうしようもない。なにかで食べていくことを考えなくてはならない。残念ながら、それを教えることも手伝うこともできない。おまえにしてやれることは、おまえが一人前になるまで生活費を送ることだけだ」［日本盲人福祉研究会30周年記念誌刊行委員会 1992:18-19］。
　「盲人＝三療（按摩・鍼・灸）」というイメージは江戸時代に形成された職業観念であり［広瀬 1997］、明治以後も大多数の視覚障害者が三療を生業としてきた。第二次大戦後の盲教育界にあっても、「盲学生は理療科（三療を学習する専攻科）コースを終えてから大学進学すべきである」「大学に行くより理療で身を立てる方が確実だ」といった考えが支配的だった。三療は盲人が「食べていく」ための唯一の選択肢であり、盲学校は理療師養成の場とされていた4)。高橋を含め多くの若者が「三療しかない」という現実に疑問と不満を感じ、進路に対する自己決定権、可能性を求めて大学受験をめざした。
　1960年代に活動をスタートした文月会にとって、まず最初の課題は大学進学者数を増やすことだった。高橋の言葉を借りるなら、三療以外の道を選ぶことが「わがまま」といわれない環境作り、大学で晴眼学生とともに学ぶ中から生きるための「なにか」を得る大切さを、後輩たち、そして一般社会にアピールする必要があった。
　1965年には盲人の大学進学促進大会が東京で開かれ、翌年「全国視力障害者大学進学対策委員会」が文月会を中心に結成される。本委員会は、毎年「盲人の大学進学希望調査」を全国の盲学校を対象に実施し、受験交渉の資料とした。67年には盲学校生徒たちも交えて門戸開放の街頭署名運動が行なわれた。「奮闘」「手数」「同情」「懇願」の「常識」は、視覚障害者たちの「同じ人間として社会参加したい」という信念により、徐々に変化していった。
　筑波大学附属盲学校で進路指導を担当していた尾関育三は、1980年代の大学進学者の実態について、次のように分析している。「……就職と直結していないということだけは明らかなことで、だからそれを押してなおかつ進学するということについては、何らかのフィロソフィーを持ってやってくれなければいけないんだという指導はしているんです」「我々は、ある程度しっかりした考えを持って進学するか専攻科へ行くか選びなさいと言いますけれど、生徒の方はどちらかというと、モラトリアムで何年か先に考えればいいやということで、とにかく一度大学という所の空気を吸ってみたいという感じで行く人が大部分じゃないかと思いますね」［尾関 1987］。
　尾関たちを中心とする東京教育大学（筑波大学）附属盲学校の受験交渉や文月会の運動により、1970年以降、毎年10～20人の視覚障害者が大学に入学するようになった。「モラトリアム」の是非については意見が分かれるだろうが、すくなくとも健常者と同じように「一度大学という所の空気を吸ってみたいという感じ」を視覚障害者も持てるようになったのは、「バリアフリー」の成果といえよう。
　1979年にスタートした国公立大学の「共通一次試験」では、試行テストの段階から申請者に対し点字出題、点字解答、試験時間の延長（健常者の1.5倍）という「特別措置」が実施され5)、その後の各大学の入試や公的試験の模範となった。入学後の学習環境、卒業後の就職では課題が残るものの、70年代以後、視覚障害者の大学進学は、「懇願」するものでも「わがまま」でもなくなった6)。
　文月会の会員数は70年代には300人を超え、各種の文化講演会や啓発書の出版も精力的に行なった。雑誌『新時代』は、より広い読者層の開拓を狙って1976年10月（第31号）から誌名を『視覚障害－その研究と情報』に変更した7)。『視覚障害』には、盲人の教育・職業・福祉に関する特集や海外情報、ボランティア活動、コンピューター機器開発の紹介記事などが毎号掲載され、「新時代」を切り開く雑誌として各方面で高く評価された。文月会を母体として1987年には高橋実を所長とする「盲学生情報センター」が設立され、盲大学生に対するサポート体制も充実した（なお、本センターは94年に「視覚障害者支援総合センター」へと発展し、96年に社会福祉法人となった）。

２　学習権保障を求める当事者運動
　さて、多くの盲大学生にとって、入学後に直面するのが「いかにして点字による学習環境を整えていくか」という大問題である。点字受験は認めたものの、点字の辞書・タイプライター等の設備、教科書・試験問題の点訳、試験の解答・レポートの墨字訳など、盲学生の学習上必要な「特別措置」を講じる大学はほとんどなかった。入学後は盲大学生個人が努力「奮闘」し、勉学上の諸問題に対処すべきだとされ、当局に迷惑、「手数」をかけないという誓約書を提出させる大学もあった。門戸は開かれたが、盲学生たちは家族や友人などの人間関係に依存した形で、点字やテープの資料を自己責任で準備しなければならなかった。晴眼者に本を音読してもらい、それを盲大生自身が点字で書き写す地道な作業は、「家内制手工業」と揶揄された。
　1971年、学生のための教科書、参考書を点訳、朗読（音訳）することを主目的に、「関西ＳＬ（スチューデント・ライブラリー）」が創立された。現在「盲人弁護士」として京都で活躍する竹下義樹は、龍谷大学入学当初から司法試験の点字受験をめざしていた。彼は同時期に関西地区の大学に進学した盲学生とも協力して、各大学の点訳サークルに呼びかけＳＬを結成した。
　ＳＬとはイギリスのＲＮＩＢ（視覚障害者施設）をモデルとするもので、盲学生とボランティア学生が自主的に運営し、個人レベルではなく学生グループの力で組織的に教科書の点訳、音訳に取り組もうとする団体だった。ＳＬで作られた点訳書や録音テープは依頼者が使用した後、後輩たちが利用できるようにＳＬ事務局（京都ライトハウス）に保管された。文月会の運動などもあって1973年、司法試験の点字受験が認められるが、竹下はＳＬメンバーの支援の下、受験勉強を進めていった。
　従来の日本盲大学生会や文月会は外部からの援助、ＯＢの指導で生まれたのに比して、関西ＳＬはいわば「盲学生の盲学生による盲学生のための当事者団体」だった。当時の学生運動華やかなりし風潮にも刺激され、ＳＬは「盲大学生に対する学習権の公的保障」をスローガンとした。これまで少数の理解者の「同情」に訴え「どうにかして本を読みたい」と「懇願」してきた盲大生は、自分たちの劣悪な学習条件を「なんとかしてくれ」と、社会に対し要求できるようになった。視覚障害者たちの権利意識の芽生えは、日本社会の成熟、「新時代」の到来を示すものでもあった。
　ＳＬは盲学生が在籍する大学に「公的保障」を要望する一方、「肩代わりの公的保障」として点訳、音訳図書の確保に尽力した。1970年に東京で「視覚障害者読書権保障協議会」が誕生したが、ＳＬもその影響を受けて、関西地区の公共図書館に対して「対面朗読サービス」の実現を求め運動した。事前申し込みをすれば、図書館に登録しているボランティアが蔵書を音読する対面朗読は、今日でも視覚障害者の「古くて新しい読書法」として活用されている。
　学習条件の整備ということで活発に活動を展開してきた関西ＳＬだが、筆者が京都大学に入学した1987年前後には大きな過渡期を迎えていた。1987年、関西ＳＬの新入生歓迎会には筆者を含め8人の視覚障害学生が集まった。盲学校出身者が大半を占める盲大生にとって、晴眼者の同級生とどう付き合っていけばいいのか、教科書の点訳、音訳は授業に間に合うのかなど、入学当初の不安は多い。そんな時、ＳＬの先輩からのアドバイスは「ピアカウンセリング」的な役割を果たす。ところが入学後数ヶ月が過ぎると、8名の中でＳＬに積極的に関わる盲学生は数名となった。
　87年当時、盲学生たちは自分の学習環境について「なんとかなる」という言葉をよく口にした。「教科書の点訳は個人レベルでなんとかなる」「べつにＳＬの運動がなくても、大学生活は自力でなんとかなる」。たとえば京都大学の場合、学内に点字の辞書やパソコンを揃えた「自習室」を設置すると同時に、教科書や定期試験は原則として大学側が費用負担し、京都府立盲学校、京都ライトハウスに点訳依頼していた。外部委託という形ではあったが、学習権の「公的保障」の一例だろう。その他、複数の盲学生が在籍する私立大学などでも、点訳に精通した非常勤職員を雇用し、支援体制を整えるケースが登場した。ＳＬは、もはや盲大生にとって不可欠なものではなくなったのだ。
　「なんとかなる」の背景には、ＳＬや文月会、大学当局の努力により盲学生の学習権が認知されてきた事実もあるが、さらに大きな日本社会そのものの変化もあった。その第一は、社会全体が「豊か」になり、主婦層を中心とするボランティアが増加したこと。大学生が使用する専門書の点訳、音訳には高度な技術が必要だが、各地のボランティアたちは「より速く、より正確に」リクエストに応じるべく、熱心に勉強会を積み重ねている。盲学生にとって専門書をいかにして確保するかは現在でも重要な問題ではあるが、有能な点訳、音訳ボランティアの協力により、すくなくとも70年代以前の「家内制手工業」的な状況は脱した。
　第二の変化は、パソコンの普及である。パソコンを利用した点訳ソフトの開発で、点字と墨字の変換スピードは飛躍的に向上した。点字を使う視覚障害者にとって、墨字を自由に読み書きすることは不可能な「夢」とされていたが、パソコンによる技術革新でその「夢」は現実のものとなった。80年代後半以後、多くの盲学生がパソコン（音声ワープロ）を駆使して墨字文書を作成し始めた。筆者の場合も、専門課程に進学した89年以降、独力で墨字レポートを書き提出していた。昨今の若い視覚障害者は、インターネットを当たり前に使いこなし、点字を知らない晴眼者とメールのやり取りをしている。ＩＴが生み出す新たな「バリア」はあるものの、ここ20年間で「点字の本が少ない＝情報障害」といわれた視覚障害者のＱＯＬは激変した。
　ボランティアとパソコンの活用により、盲大生も「なんとか」晴眼学生と同じような時間的、精神的余裕を持ってキャンパスライフを楽しむことができるようになった。学習権の保障を掲げて運動してきた関西ＳＬの存在意義は薄れ、活動は停滞した。90年代には、各大学の点訳サークルが情報交換するためのネットワーク、晴眼学生と視障学生に交流の場を提供する親睦団体へと、ＳＬは方針転換していった。
　文月会、関西ＳＬの歴史を振り返ってみると、日本社会の「バリアフリー」化が確実に進展してきたことがわかる。戦後60年間で、視覚障害者の社会参加は「懇願」「同情」によって成り立つものではなく、「権利」として認識されるようになった。では残された課題、現在の視障学生にとって「なんとかならない」こととは何か。それは卒業後の就職問題、職域拡大であろう。「大学の門戸開放」「入学後の学習条件整備」においては“見果てぬ夢”を実現した文月会も、視覚障害者の雇用、就労支援という面では、「奮闘」と苦戦を余儀なくされてきた。それは文月会の運動形態の問題ではなく、視覚障害者の「職」をめぐるあまりに厳しい社会状況に由来している。以下では職業問題を手がかりとして、「バリアフリー」論の再検討を行ないたい。

Ⅲ　有能なる社会人への創造

１　雇用促進を阻むもの
　岩橋武夫が創設した日本ライトハウスは、日本の視覚障害者福祉をリードする総合施設として、戦前から今日に至るまで広範な影響力を持っている。その日本ライトハウス内に1965年、「職業・生活訓練センター」が設置された。リハビリテーションの最終ゴールは、職業的自立にあるという考えに基づき、本センターは欧米の事例にも学びながら、三療以外の「新職業」開拓に取り組んだ。具体的には66年に機械科、69年に電話交換科、71年にコンピューター・プログラマー科を開設し、視覚障害者の「働く場」を広げていった。
　本センターが訓練目標としたのが「有能なる社会人への創造」だった。ライトハウスが視覚障害者の職域拡大に果たした役割は大きいが、「有能」「社会人」の語が象徴するように、その「訓練」は障害者（マイノリティ）を健常者（マジョリティ）に近づけるという方向のものだった。健常者より「能力」の劣る障害者は、特別な「訓練」を受け「能力」を向上させ、健常者中心の「社会」に同化していく。だが、そのような「能力」を獲得できるのは、ごく一部のエリート障害者のみである。視覚障害者に「奮闘」と「懇願」を強いる職域拡大路線は、文月会結成当時の盲大生の学習環境に類似している。いささか厳しい見方をすれば、視覚障害者の就労状況は、60年代からほとんど進歩がないといえるのかもしれない。
　盲学生の学習条件が70年代以降、確実に改善されたのに対し、なぜ就職問題は「なんとかならない」ままなのだろうか。生産性、経済効率を優先させる資本主義社会にあっては、たしかに労働可能性が低い重度障害者は軽視されがちである。とくに視覚障害者の場合、パソコンによる事務処理「能力」を身につけたとしても、晴眼者が多数を占める職場では「手数」のかかる存在とみなされてしまう。「同情」で雇用は進まない。文月会も、基本的には「有能なる社会人」をめざし多様な雇用運動を推し進めたわけだが、その試行錯誤の足跡を簡単に振り返ってみよう。
　1974年7月、文月会の例会において「視覚障害者職業問題討論会」が開催され、「視覚障害者の職業開拓についてのアピール」を採択した。本アピールでは、「あらゆる職業を、視覚障害者が働く場として、開放すること」「あらゆる就職試験および資格試験、とくに、国および地方公務員の採用試験を開放し、点字による試験を行なうこと」などを中心に、職業選択の自由と生活の保障を訴えた。大阪府の教員採用試験（71年）、東京都の職員採用試験（74年）で点字受験が認められたことを嚆矢として、文月会は視覚障害者の労働権を公的機関に対し主張し続けた。この粘り強い運動は、1991年の点字による国家公務員試験実施という形で結実した。
　1977年の文月会例会において、「視覚障害者の雇用促進を国に求める請願署名」運動を企画、実行することが決議され、「全日本視力障害者協議会（全視協）」との共催で「視覚障害者の雇用を進める全国大会」も開かれた。同年8月、この全国大会の総括会議の後、文月会と全視協の合意により「全国視覚障害者雇用促進連絡会（雇用連）」が組織された。
　雇用連の初代会長に就任したのは、日本盲人職能開発センターの創始者・松井新二郎だった。傷痍軍人として戦後日本の激動を経験した松井は、カナタイプを利用した会議録作成などの「新職業」普及に努め、文月会の第二代会長ともなった人である。彼は雇用連結成の経緯について、「昭和51年に身体障害者雇用促進法が改正されましたが、視覚障害者には絵に描いた餅も同然でした。このままにしては盲人の職業問題は置き去りにされてしまうという危機感を抱きました。こうした背景で雇用連が作られたわけです。 （中略） 実態調査をもとに確かなデータを持って中央官庁に、あるいは企業に交渉に当たらなければならない」と語っている［松井 1980］。
　雇用連は1977、80、84年に国会請願署名運動を展開したが、104,000余人の署名を集めた第三回請願は、保留という形で不採択となった。「三療以外の新職業」「あらゆる職業の開放」といっても、雇用を取り巻く「壁」は厚く、実際に大卒の視覚障害者（とくに全盲者）が就職できるのは盲学校や点字図書館などに限られていた。大学を卒業後、就職先がなく、けっきょく三療の資格を取るために盲学校に再入学する学生は「出戻り」などと称された。1987年、関西ＳＬの新入生歓迎会に集った8人の視覚障害学生の中にも、自分の意思に反して「出戻り」とならざるをえなかった者が数名いた。
　もちろん、視覚障害者の伝統的な職種として三療を維持、発展させていくことは不可欠であり、その意味で大学教育を受けた「出戻り」三療師のレーゾンデートルは貴重だろう。しかし、そもそも三療からの脱却を願い熊谷や鳥居、尾関が追求した“見果てぬ夢”とは、視覚障害者に「多様な生き方の選択肢」を提示するものだった。多様性という面では、やはり「出戻り」は盲青年の可能性を阻む「不自由」である。1981年、国際障害者年のキャッチフレーズ「完全参加と平等」という理想が喧伝される中、雇用連関係者の「不自由」に対する苛立ちは募った。
　こういった「不自由」な時代の中で、堀利和が念願の参議院議員となったことは朗報だった。堀は1975年に発足した「視覚障害者労働問題協議会」の中心メンバーで、1989年に参議院議員に初当選した。視覚障害者議員の立場から、堀は国会審議でも障害者問題をしばしば取り上げた（所属は社会党、後に民主党）。彼は「視覚障害者の雇用はどうすれば広げられるか」という座談会において、「たしかに、最近若干雇用され始めたという事実はありますが、公務員の場合、みんな福祉の関係の職種なんですね。それも視覚障害者に対するサービスといった仕事で、けっきょく自分たちの殻の中だけに閉じこもっているだけにすぎないと思います。この殻を破らないかぎり、夜明けなんていえないんじゃないですか」と述べている。
　さらに続けて「私たちは見える人とは同じことはできないんだ、ということを大胆に主張すべきで、できないことはできないんだ、ということを承知の上で雇ってくれというぐらいの強さが必要じゃないかと思います」と持論を披瀝している［堀 1980］。この発言から、「門戸開放」「学習条件の整備」、すなわち「バリアフリー」とは異なる「就職問題」の本質を知ることができよう。
　1980年には『わが国における視覚障害者の職業－その現状と事例』（文月会）が出版され、雇用連運動の基礎資料となった。その後、雇用連は堀流にいうなら「殻を破る」狙いを持って、1982年に盲学校の高等部普通科生徒への職業意識調査を、翌年には各地方自治体を対象とする「重度視覚障害者採用についてのアンケート調査」を実施した。
　また、視覚障害に起因する職務遂行上の困難を解決し、民間企業への視覚障害者の雇用を進めるため、制度面での充実に向けても運動した。雇用連の要望により1988年、「職場介助者（ヒューマン・アシスタント）制度」が施行される。本制度は、障害者雇用促進法で定められた法定雇用率未達成の企業から集めた納付金を財源に、職場介助者の賃金の一部を助成するものである。視覚障害者の就労にとって、パソコンなどの支援機器の存在も重要だが、それ以上に晴眼者の「目」と「手」によるサポート（ヒューマン・アシスタント）は必須だろう。

２　「なにか」をめざす新潮流
　雇用促進と職域拡大を標榜する雇用連の運動によって、教育、福祉、コンピューター関係を中心に、視覚障害者の「働く場」は少しずつ開拓されてきた。普通中学・高校の教壇に立つ全盲教師、公共図書館の司書、大企業のＳＥ、あるいは大学等に勤務する研究者も珍しくなくなった。牛歩のごとき歩みではあるが、雇用の機会は確実に増えている。その意味で「有能なる社会人への創造」は、一定の歴史的意義を持っていたのだろう。点字による教員採用、公務員試験の実現は雇用連運動の眼目であったが、機会均等の保障という意味では門戸開放、学習条件整備の延長線上にある「バリアフリー」の実践例だった。
　ところが、苦労して狭き就職のチャンスを勝ち取った「有能」な視覚障害者も、職場において円滑な人間関係を築けるかどうかは別問題だ。大学での友人関係とは異なり、「仕事」を媒介とする「社会人」の人付き合いは複雑である。1980年2月の『週刊新潮』に「全盲職員採用『美談』3年目の現場」という記事が掲載された。パーソナルな問題なので、雇用後の人間関係が表に出ることは少ないが、中途失明者の解雇、一般企業から視覚障害分野への転職などは枚挙に暇がない。視覚障害者にとって「職」を得ること自体が困難なハードルだが、さらに生き甲斐を持って働き続けるためには「能力」とは違う「なにか」が必要なのかもしれない。
　「なにか」を当事者の見地から探る試みは、若い視覚障害者の間で近年盛んである。それは聴覚障害者たちの「ろう文化」の自覚、「障害学」（ディスアビリティ・スタディーズ）という新しい学問分野の勃興などとも共通する「新時代」の潮流なのだろう。この「新時代」、文月会の「次」を担う志の萌芽は、「視覚障害者文化を育てる会（4しょく会）」の設立趣意に見ることができる。
　2005年6月4日、「視覚障害者文化を育てる会」は「職」に関するイベントを行なった。会場となった大阪の日本ライトハウス盲人情報文化センターには、さまざまなバックグラウンドを持つ80余人の参加者が集まった。イベントのテーマは「『食わざるもの働くべからず』の時代を考える」。80人それぞれが「なにか」を自分なりに探究する一日だった。以下は、イベント案内文からの抜粋である。
視覚障害者の“働く”場を確保し増やしていくことは、古くて新しい課題です。職域拡大、新職業開拓などといわれて数十年。でも現在、僕たちの周りでも就職できない、あるいは職場での人間関係に悩む視障者がたくさんいます。「4しょく会」も会発足以来、就労問題について考察しようとしてきましたが、何をどのように取り上げればいいのか暗中模索の状態でした。
今回のイベントでは、さまざまなジャンルで活躍しておられる方々をお招きし、僕たちなりに職業に取り組むためのヒントを得たいと思っています。就職、就労支援のためには、“食”（「見える」「見えない」に関係なく「普通に」生活できるというアピール）、“色”（パソコンなどにより「見えない」ことを補い、晴眼者と同じ「仕事」をこなす努力）、“触”（「見えないからこそできる」分野の開拓）を、ＴＰＯに応じて使い分けることが必要でしょう。“働く”とは「はたを楽にすること」といわれますが、僕たち自身が、そしてだれでもが「楽」に生きられる社会をめざし、「4しょく会」流に職業について、もりもり、がつがつと楽しく考えましょう！
　「食わざるもの働くべからず」とは、けっきょく「奮闘」し「能力」を獲得した少数の視覚障害者たちが、なんとか就職の機会を得ることができる現状をアイロニカルに表現した言葉だろう。「4しょく会」が提示する「食」は門戸開放に、「色」は学習環境の整備になぞらえることができるかもしれない。従来の「バリアフリー」的な発想に根ざした職域拡大論は、晴眼者中心の社会にあって「視覚障害者でもできる仕事」を見つけ、その「職」に適応できるような「訓練」をするものだった。繰り返しいうように、この能力主義的なスタンスには限界があるし、視覚障害者の就労問題を抜本的に解決することは難しい。
　文月会、雇用連の実績が評価される一方、「バリアフリー」的な運動の閉塞が表面化してきたのが21世紀となった現在である。「視覚障害者文化を育てる会」は、「バリアフリー」の次なる課題として「フリーバリア」を提唱している。以下、機関誌に即して本会の趣旨を紹介し、「フリーバリア」の意味するところを確認してみたい。

Ⅳ　「フリーバリア」の模索

１　「視覚障害者文化」の行方
　創立40周年を迎えた2001年3月、文月会は解散した。会務停滞の直接の原因は、中心メンバーの高齢化と後継者不足だった。また、文月会の運動から生まれた「視覚障害者支援総合センター」が1996年に社会福祉法人として独立した事実は、文月会史の集大成、ひいてはその役割の終焉を意味するものでもあった。本センターは、盲大学生のためのテキスト点訳、公務員試験用の点字問題集出版などをメインに、文字どおり幅広い観点から視覚障害者（とくに盲学生）への「支援」を推進している。「バリアフリー」に対する視覚障害者たちのニーズが文月会を誕生、発展させた。逆説的にいうなら、時代のニーズが充足されたため、「バリアフリー」がある程度達成したため、文月会は解散したのだともとらえることができよう。
　文月会の解散をめぐっては、2000年7月の総会で激論が交わされた。会の存続を望む会員も多く、「雇用問題、就労支援など、これから取り組むべき課題が残っている」といった意見も聞かれた。しかし、高橋実会長の辞意は固く、後継会長に立候補する者もいなかったため、文月会は「常識」を改変するために闘った40年の歴史に幕を閉じることとなった。
　2001年11月、文月会の解散に反対していた関西の若手会員を中心として、「視覚障害者文化を育てる会（4しょく会）」が結成された8)。機関誌『ＳＨＯＫＵ』創刊号に掲載された「『視覚障害者文化を育てる会』の主旨および計画」によれば、本会の目標は、視障者にとっての「健康で文化的な生活」のあり方、独自の価値を持つライフスタイルの追求とある。さらに筆者（広瀬）の執筆になる「『視覚障害者文化』を支える四つの『しょく』」において、「4しょく会」の基本理念が以下のように定義されている［視覚障害者文化を育てる会 2001:2-3］。
①食：　世の中には目が見える、見えないに関係なく、晴眼者と視障者が共に楽しめることがたくさんある。おいしい物を「食べる」ことは、その代表例だろう。本会では、各イベントや会議の後は必ず交流の意味をも含め、おいしい物を食べに行くことにしている。「食」を足がかりとして、「共に楽しむ」世界を広げていきたい。
②色：　色の観念は、一般には視覚障害者、とくに全盲者には無縁だと考えられがちである。しかし、視障者の中にもおしゃれな人は多くいるし、ちょっとした工夫をすれば我々も「色」を楽しむことができる。本会が発会イベントに予定している盲人サッカーなども、少しのルール変更、発想の転換で視障者が晴眼者と対等に参加できるスポーツである。「ちょっとした工夫」をキーワードに、我々は新しい分野に積極的に挑戦していきたい。
③触：　上記の二つの「しょく」が共生、バリアフリーなどを意識したベクトルだとすれば、「触」は視障者のオリジナリティを追求するベクトルだ。視覚「障害者」は健常者よりも劣った（あるいは不自由な）存在とされるのが常識だが、「4しょく会」では視障者の独自性、障害がプラスに働く逆説を提唱していきたい。具体的には触覚を駆使した芸術鑑賞などを通じて、晴眼者とは異なる立場からの発見や非「常識」的な体験をアピールしたい。
④職：　これら三つの「しょく」が「視覚障害者文化」を規定する方向性である。それぞれの「しょく」について、多くの方々からの意見や要望を集め、本会として「視覚障害者文化」を提案、育成していきたいものだ。だが、文化を云々する大前提として、生きること、すなわち働くことが必須である。視覚障害者の就労問題は、古くて新しい課題である。三つの「しょく」を充実させていくためには、我々自身が職業を持ち安定した生活を送ることが不可欠だろう。本会は文月会の運動、研究の成果にも学びながら、微力ではあるが「職」について粘り強く考えていきたい。
　「4しょく会」は春と秋に1回ずつイベントを実施し、年に1度機関誌を発行することで、「視覚障害者文化」を創造、普及している。発会以来、これまでのイベントでは、視覚障害者サッカーの紹介、「ユニバーサル・ミュージアム」（だれでもが楽しめる博物館）作りに向けた見学会と意見交換、晴眼者と視覚障害者が「共食」する食事会などに取り組んできた。「権利」や「支援」という言葉に象徴される文月会の運動スタイルとは明らかに異なる内容である。
　晴眼会員として文月会、関西ＳＬの活動に積極的に加わり、現在は京都ライトハウス情報ステーションの所長職にある加藤俊和は、「日本の視覚障害者の文化を初めて語る会へ」という一文で、「4しょく会」にエールを送っている。加藤は視覚障害者が晴眼者と対等に社会参加できるように努力してきたこれまでの運動を振り返りながら、「その中で、『文化』を標榜する団体が現れたことは、まさに画期的なことだと思う。視覚障害者も、ようやくここまで来た、というのが、古臭く重要な過去の運動に少しは関わってきた私の気持ちである。 （中略） 視覚障害を意識せずに文化を語り合う、すばらしいことである。権利を守るための運動に参加することしかしてこなかった私にとって、新鮮である」と述べている［視覚障害者文化を育てる会 2001:5-6］。
　そんな「4しょく会」が掲げる「視覚障害者文化」の特徴は二つある。第一に日本の中・近世に活躍した琵琶法師、イタコ、瞽女など盲目の宗教者、芸能者に「文化」の原点を置くこと。前近代の日本社会にあっては、盲目、つまり「別世界」の存在であることに価値が付与され、盲人たちは文字を媒介としない語り物の伝承、あるいは目に見えぬ死霊の宇宙に自己の生業を見出していた。「違い」が尊重される柔軟かつ多元的な発想がベースとなって、「目が見えないからこそできる」琵琶法師、盲巫女業は生まれた。やや乱暴に総括すれば、このような「別世界」観念が差別（「奮闘」「手数」「同情」「懇願」）に転換していく過程が近代化ということになろう［広瀬 2004］。
　「めくら蛇に怖じず」は近代以降、差別語とされたが、じつはこの言葉には蛇をも恐れぬ盲人たちのバイタリティ、目が見えないからこそできる生業に対する誇りが潜んでいた。「4しょく会」は、目が見えないことの可能性を異文化という切り口でポジティブにとらえなおすこと、「めくら蛇に怖じず」精神を再評価することを強調している。
　第二の特徴は、「視覚障害者文化」という括りで晴眼者との「違い」を宣揚する一方、異文化間コミュニケーションに力点を置くこと。「バリアフリー」とは、「門戸開放」「有能なる社会人への創造」などの形で、障害者（「特殊」）が健常者（「普通」）に歩み寄る一方向的な平等論だった。これに対し「4しょく会」では、晴眼者にアイマスクを着け聴覚と第六感でサッカーをプレーしてもらったり、触覚による美術鑑賞会を開いたりしている。「見えない」世界と「見える」世界の相違、その「違い」を対話により交換する双方向性から新しい「文化」が育つという考えである。
　比喩的にいうなら、「バリアフリー」は視覚の「使えない」障害者をどうにかして視覚の「使える」健常者に変換しようとする。「4しょく会」は、視覚を「使わない」ことから五感（人間）の潜在能力を引き出そうとするのである。「違い」を認め合いながら、障害者と健常者がお互いの「文化」の間を自由に行き来するダイナミズムを、「4しょく会」では「フリーバリア」と名づけた［広瀬 2004］。

２　介護の人類学－実践と研究が交差するフィールドから
　ロバート・マーフィーは、自身の身体麻痺経験に基づいて生の意味を問い直し、『ボディ・サイレント－病と障害の人類学』という著作を残した。一般にフィールドワークとは自己発見の旅でもある。多くの優れた人類学者が異文化と出会い接触する中から自分自身の学問、そして人生を再構築してきた。マーフィーの場合、中途障害者として後半生を歩まざるをえない状況下、自己の体験、障害者の社会生活を異文化という観点から研究した。障害を持って生きることの意味が「当事者の視点」で真摯に語られるのが本書の特徴だが、それは障害、すなわち損なわれた身体、社会の理想とはかけ離れた個性から、生の肯定性、創造性を見出そうとするフィールドワークの試みでもあった。彼は次のように語る［マーフィー 1997:285］。
　「社会における個人のあり方の最も崇高な形が、傷ついた生による果敢な闘いの中に凝縮されているということを。それは孤立、依存、侮蔑、エントロピー、その他内なる自己へと、そしてしまいには自己の全否定へと身障者を引きこもうとするすべての力に対する闘いであった。この闘いこそ、生への狂おしいほどの情熱を表現する最高の形式であり、そしてその情熱こそ我が人類の存在の究極の目的である」。
　多数者が「普通」で少数者が「特殊」とされる近代化プロセスにあって、「特殊」のレッテルを貼られた障害者たちは生の各場面で「不利益」を被ってきた。マーフィーは人類学者の視座から、さらには一人の身体障害者の立場から、自身の生そのもの、「介護」の現場をフィールドとして、「不利益」の意味を探究した。障害と社会の関わりについて考察し、生の力の謎を解明しようとする彼の研究は、視覚障害者たちの“見果てぬ夢”を分析対象とした本論文の主題にも通じるだろう。
　本稿の序論でも触れたように、従来の人類学研究において、近代化に翻弄される障害者の生が論述されることは少なかった。マーフィーが身体障害者として生きた米国の1970～80年代は、いわゆる公民権運動の延長線上にある障害者たちの自立生活運動が進展した時期だった。自己決定権と機会均等を求める大きな流れは、1990年のＡＤＡ（アメリカ障害者法）制定に結実する。このような時代思潮にも支えられて、マーフィーは障害者のライフスタイルを人類学（フィールドワーク）の素材として取り上げることができた。
　不十分な面もあるものの、本稿は「当事者の視点」から日本における障害者の「近代」に人類学的分析を加えた最初の論稿といえる。本稿のような研究が可能となった背景には、「視障者の社会参加と地位向上」を意図した文月会の40年に及ぶ運動があったことを忘れてはならない。「4しょく会」（あるいは「4しょく会」を通じてフィールドワークを実践する筆者自身）は、「バリアフリー」に対するアンチテーゼとして「フリーバリア」「視覚障害者文化」を主張している。こういった「特殊」と「普通」の二分法を越える「脱近代」への胎動は、紛れもなく近代の「バリアフリー」から生まれたものなのである。
　「4しょく会」が「視覚障害者でもできること」ではなく、「視覚障害者だからこそできること」をどこまで具体的に「文化」として明示していけるのか。そして、その「文化」が視覚障害者の職域拡大、晴眼者との新たな連帯にどうつながるのか。スタートしてわずか4年の「4しょく会」について客観的な評価をすることはできないが、今後の活動に対する期待は大きい。
　世話をする・されるという多数派の視点、あるいは研究をする・されるという強者の論理で「介護」をとらえていては、社会や文化の複雑さ、多様性を理解することは困難である。マーフィーの著作は、障害を持つ人間が働くことの意味、不自由を抱える研究者にとってのオリジナルな研究手法とは何かを問いかけるものである。その問いに即答することはできないが、筆者は「4しょく会」でのフィールドワークに立脚し、「フリーバリア」「視覚障害者文化」という新知見をさらに探究、応用していきたい。それは「当事者の視点」から「介護の人類学」を創出、拡充しようとする筆者の“見果てぬ夢”ともなるだろう。
　最後にマーフィーの発言をも念頭に置いた上で、戦後60年の日本の視覚障害者史、「介護＝晴眼者と視覚障害者の関係」をめぐる社会状況をあらためて整理してみよう。以下三つの課題とキーワードは、常に並存し相互に重なり合いつつ、「時代」を特徴付けてきた。
　1950～60年代の課題は「大学の門戸開放」。キーワードは視障者の「奮闘」と晴眼者の「同情」。
　1970～80年代の課題は「学習環境の整備」。キーワードは視障者の「権利」意識と晴眼者の「支援」。
　90年代以降の課題は「就労問題」。キーワードは視障者の「文化」宣言と晴眼者の「連帯感」。
　熊谷の“見果てぬ夢”は文月会に継承され、時代の変化とともに形を変えながら、日本社会のあり方を照射し続けてきた。「4しょく会」がこの“見果てぬ夢”をどのように発展、実現させていくのか。視覚障害者たちが生き甲斐を持って働き、「またもめしいと生まれ来て」と胸を張って言えるようになった時、“見果てぬ夢”は完結するのかもしれない。脱近代的な「介護」モデルを模索する研究と実践は、今始まったばかりなのである。

注

1)　雑誌『視覚障害』のルーツは、日本盲人福祉研究会（文月会）の機関誌『新時代』にある。雑誌の歴史を以下に記す。
『新時代』（機関誌）　創刊号～№18（1963年4月～1973年2月）
『新時代』（一般購読誌）　№19～№30（1973年10月～1976年7月）
『視覚障害－その研究と情報』（季刊誌）　№31～№40（1976年10月～1979年1月）
『視覚障害－その研究と情報』（隔月刊誌）　№41～№190（1979年5月～2004年3月）
『視覚障害－その研究と情報』（月刊誌）　№191～（2004年4月～）
本稿において『新時代』『視覚障害』からの引用は、号数と出版年のみを記す。筆者が参照したのは点字版なので、引用記事のページ数は省略する。
2)　以下、尾関育三のライフヒストリーは、主に本人からのインタビュー（2005年5月27日）による。
3)　ちなみに、筆者自身も筑波大学附属盲学校において尾関の指導を受け、1987年に大学に進学した。当時、点字受験を実施する大学は100校を超え、全盲者を「門前払い」する例はほとんどなかった。しかし、筆者が慶應義塾大学の受験を希望した際には「前例がない」の一言で出願は拒否された（現在、同大学は視覚障害者に理解を示し、数名の点字使用者が在籍している）。
4)　2004年度の「衛生行政業務報告」（厚生労働省）によると、三療師の数は増加傾向にあるものの、視覚障害者の割合は年々減少している。按摩師の総数は98,148人、そのうち視覚障害者は25,799人（26.3％）。鍼師の総数は76,643人、視覚障害者は15,201人（19.8％）。灸師の総数は75,100人、視覚障害者は14,473人（19.3％）。晴眼者を対象とする三療師養成学校が新増設される現在、もはや三療は「盲人の専業」とはいえない時代になっている。
5)　「共通一次試験」の開始に伴い、大学入試センター内に「特別問題作成部会」が設置され、視覚障害者にとっての「公正な試験のあり方」について調査、研究している。具体的には試験問題の点訳作業、代替問題の検討（触読できない複雑な図を文章化するなど）が部会の主な業務である。
6)　文部科学省の「平成17年度学校基本調査速報」（2005年5月1日現在）によると、盲学校（全国に71校）の在学者数は3809人。昨年度の高等部卒業生は305人、そのうち大学・短大への進学者が34人、専攻科への進学者が77人、就職者が52人となっている。大学進学率は年々上昇しているが、入試問題の点訳作業は盲学校の教員、点字図書館の職員、点訳ボランティアが大学の依頼に応じて行なうのが現状である。一人の受験生に対し複数の点訳者が必要とされるため、現役生が出願できるのは3校までという制限が残っている。また理科系の学部や日本史学科など「目」を多く使う分野では、「指導困難」を理由として視覚障害者の受け入れを拒むケースも存在する。
7)　本論の内容とは直接関係ないが、『新時代』『視覚障害』の「総目次」（1963～2005年）を通読していると、70年代に「盲人」という語に代わって「視覚障害者」がよく用いられるようになったことに気づく。無論、この二語の使い分けについては個人的な好みもあるし、とくにこだわりがない場合も多い。ただし「人」ではなく「者」の字を使用することで、社会への統合を意識する面が強まったことは確かだろう。本論文では論旨を明確にするために「視覚障害者＝点字使用者」として叙述しているが、実際には視覚障害者の中に多数の弱視者が含まれることも忘れてはならない。なお「総目次」の提供は、視覚障害者支援総合センターの橋本京子氏によるものである。ここに記して感謝したい。
8)　筆者は1987年、大学入学とほぼ同時に文月会に入会し、時には「西部地区委員」となって会活動に参加してきた。2000年の総会では文月会の解散に反対し、解散決定後は「どうせやるなら新しい会を」ということで、新団体立ち上げをめざした。現在、筆者は「4しょく会」の副会長として機関誌の編集、イベントの企画などを行なっている。筆者にとって「4しょく会」とは、自己の歴史、人類学研究で得た理論を実践する場、「介護」の未来像を構想するためのフィールドである。

参照文献

池島　玲爾
　1967　「盲人の大学進学に関する調査報告」『新時代』第6号。
尾関　育三
　1987　「大学進学をめぐる諸問題」『視覚障害』第89号。
勝川　武
　1963　「二つの祈り」『新時代』創刊号。
　1991　「文月会の過去・現在・未来」『視覚障害』第114号。
加藤　康昭
　1974　『日本盲人社会史研究』未来社。
熊谷　鉄太郎
　1960　『薄明の記憶－盲人牧師の半生』平凡社。
視覚障害者文化を育てる会（4しょく会）（編）
　2001　『ＳＨＯＫＵ』創刊号　視覚障害者文化を育てる会。
杉野　昭博
　1990　「障害の文化分析」『民族学研究』54（4）: 439-463。
竹内　勝美
　1964　「われらの使命」『新時代』第2号。
谷合　侑（編）
　1990　『視覚障害者と大学① 門戸開放40年の歩み』盲学生情報センター。
鳥居篤治郎先生生誕百年記念事業委員会（編）
　1994　『無限を見 可能性を信じた人間鳥居の生涯』同事業委員会。
生瀬　克己
　1988　『障害者だから不幸なのか』三一書房。
日本盲人福祉研究会（文月会）30周年記念誌刊行委員会（編）
　1992　『日本盲人福祉研究会（文月会）30年の歩み』日本盲人福祉研究会。
広瀬　浩二郎
　1997　『障害者の宗教民俗学』明石書店。
　2004　『触る門には福来たる－座頭市流フィールドワーカーが行く！』岩波書店。
堀　利和
　1980　「視覚障害者の雇用はどうすれば広げられるか」『視覚障害』第49号。
本間　一夫
　1973　「『新時代』の使命」『新時代』第19号。
松井　新二郎
　1980　「視覚障害者の雇用」『視覚障害』第49号。
マーフィー、ロバート
　1997（1987）　『ボディ・サイレント－病と障害の人類学』辻信一訳、新宿書房。

　1872年、明治政府は学制を発布した。それは「一般の人民」に義務教育を与えるものだった。しかし、この「一般の人民」に障害者は含まれなかった。学制において障害者は「廃人」と規定された。日本の近代化は、さまざまなマイノリティ（少数派）をマジョリティ（多数派）に同化していくプロセスとしてとらえることができる。近代日本の富国強兵政策の下、障害者は差別、排除された。「廃人」は必然的に健常者から隔離され、自分たちの価値、有用性を示すために奮闘せざるをえなかった。
　本論文では上記のような理解に基づき、戦後日本の障害者史を取り上げる。具体的には「バリアフリー」という概念を用いて、視覚障害者と日本社会の関わりについて人類学的考察を行なう。視覚障害者たちの地位向上を願う長年の熱い思いは、彼らの“見果てぬ夢”だった。
　江戸時代中期以後、日本の大多数の視覚障害者は按摩・鍼・灸業に従事してきた。近代盲教育においても、伝統的な東洋医学は、もっとも重要な科目だった。第二次大戦後、障害者に対する特殊教育は、教育基本法の中に位置付けられ義務化された。しかし今日なお、視覚障害者にとって、三療以外の職業的選択肢は限られている。
　では、なぜ多くの視覚障害者が三療を生業としてきたのだろうか。別の言い方をするならば、なぜ視覚障害者は三療という専業を持ちえたのだろうか。近代の盲学校設立以前には、当道座という盲人の座が存在していた。14世紀に古代からの伝統を継承する盲目の琵琶法師たちによって当道座は形成された。日本の音楽、芸能史にあって、視覚障害者たちは大きな役割を果たしてきた。琵琶法師は宗教的な儀礼のみならず、民俗芸能の領域でも広く活躍した。
　『平家物語』は、日本文学を代表する作品の一つである。この物語は琵琶法師によって創造、伝播された。琵琶法師は亡魂供養を得意とした。彼らは死霊と交信できると信じられていた。彼らは琵琶を用いて、各地で平家に対する鎮魂を行なった。『平家物語』は、こういった琵琶法師たちの語りの集大成である。この一大叙事詩は、琵琶法師たちの口承文芸として語り継がれてきた。
　中世社会において、盲人が生きる道は琵琶法師になる以外にはなかった。それゆえ、琵琶法師たちは自己の権益を守るために当道座を組織した。江戸時代に当道座は幕府の保護を受け、独自の座制度が確立した。盲人たちは琵琶以外に琴や三味線、按摩・鍼・灸を新職業として獲得した。
　次に盲女の状況についても紹介したい。東北地方には盲目の霊媒が存在する。彼女たちはイタコ（盲巫女）と呼ばれ、死者の口寄せを行なっている。中世に盲女たちは『曾我物語』の創造に関与したが、この物語も怨霊供養的な性格を持つものだった。当道座の影響を受け、盲女も江戸時代には座を結成した。イタコは村落共同体にとってカウンセラーであり、治療師、芸能者でもあった。彼女たちは村民から「特殊」な役割と地位を与えられ、その生業に誇りを持っていた。
　盲人のみによって構成される座というのは、今日の我々からすると、排他的、あるいは時代錯誤と感じられるかもしれない。日本の琵琶法師、イタコたちの文化は、「完全参加と平等」や統合教育の理念とは相容れないことは確かだ。そうだとしても、晴眼者にはできないことが盲人にはできるという考えは、現代の社会生活にも応用可能だろう。
　1871年、明治政府は当道座を廃止した。明治以後の視覚障害者関係の団体では、「ｏｆ」的なものが力を失い、「ｆｏｒ」的なものが多く作られた。「ｏｆ」の代表は当道座であり、「ｆｏｒ」の代表は盲学校をも含んだ慈善事業だった。当道座の解体は、視覚障害者たちが職業選択の自由を得たことを意味しない。すべての盲学校は職業教育に力を注いだが、当道座が保持していた「別世界」「特殊」の意味が顧みられることはなかった。
　「特殊」という語のニュアンスは、前近代と近代では大きく異なる。前近代の盲人たちは文字を持たなかった。実際、彼らは文字を必要としなかった。盲人たちは自己の記憶に依存していた。『平家物語』とイタコの口寄せは、彼らの「特殊」な能力の証明である。前近代において、視覚障害者たちは健常者とは「別世界」の存在だった。つまり、盲人と晴眼者は、それぞれ異なる世界を持っていた。盲目は時に有能であるととらえられ、「別世界」の存在であることに積極的価値が付与されていた。
　近代化は、このような価値観を激変させた。「特殊」を尊ぶ多元的世界観は、一元的な能力主義に移行した。少数派（「特殊」）は疎外感を味わうようになった。障害者、「別世界」に対する評価も大きく変化した。近代日本において、イタコや琵琶法師の活動は迷信として軽視された。
　今日でも、特殊教育を受ける障害者は「普通」の人（健常者）に迷惑をかけるべきではないというのが暗黙の了解とされている。一方、「普通」の人々は「特殊」な障害者に同情すべきだといわれる。「廃人」のレッテルを貼られた盲人たちは、健常者中心の社会に適合し「普通」となることを願い奮闘し続けた。
　そのような先人たちの奮闘により、昨今の日本社会にあっては、多数の盲学生が一般の学校に進学し、少なからぬ視覚障害者が社会の第一線で活躍している。彼らを「廃人」と呼ぶことはできないだろう。戦後日本の視覚障害者たちの「バリアフリー」をめざす運動の課題は、「大学の門戸開放」（1950～60年代）、「盲学生の学習環境の整備」（1970～80年代）、「三療以外の職域拡大」（90年代以降）だった。
　本論文において私は「特殊」の意味を再考し、21世紀を生きる視覚障害者たちの“見果てぬ夢”を実現するための新概念として「フリーバリア」を提唱したい。

By admin | Posted in Guest Lecturers, Hirose Kojiro | Comments (0)

Hirose Kojiro, “The Richness of Touch: the paradoxical meaning of disability in Japanese culture”

July 28, 2008 – 3:34 pm

In 1872, the Meiji Government established a new educational system. It provided compulsory education for the Japanese. The system, however, did not include the handicapped. They were called “worthless, useless people.” Japanese modernization is defined as a process which assimilates various minority groups into the majority. The disabled became neglected and shunned under the policy for enhancing the affluence and military strength of Modern Japan. They were inevitably separated and were obliged to work very hard to show their worth and usefulness.

In this article, my argument will be based on the history of the disabled in postwar Japan (from 1945 to the present). I would like to make an anthropological study of the relationship between the welfare of our society and the visually handicapped by using the concept of “barrier-free.” Long- cherished desires to improve the status of blind people are their unfulfilled dreams.

From the middle of the Edo Period, a large number of Japanese blind people have been engaged in massage and acupuncture. Traditional Asian medicine has been the most important subject in the field of Modern education for the blind. After World War II, special education was authorized under the Fundamental Law of Education. Yet even today, vocational choices other than acupuncturist are still limited for blind people.

Why are most of the blind in Japan engaged in acupuncture and massage? In other words, why have they acquired their own occupations? Before schools for the blind, we had a blind guild called Todoza. In the 14th century, Todoza was formed by biwa-hoshi (lute players or minstrels) who were all
blind and had a long tradition dating from the Ancient Period. In the history of Japanese music and performing arts, blind people have been playing important roles for many years. Biwa-hoshi were good at not only religious rituals but also folk entertainment.
“The Tale of Heike” (Heike Monogatari) is one of the greatest Japanese literary works. It was created and spread by biwa-hoshi. Biwa-hoshi prayed for the souls of fallen soldiers. It was believed that they could communicate with the spirit of a dead person. Using biwa, they held memorial services for the Heike in various parts of Japan. “The Tale of Heike,” a long epic poem, is the compilation of all the stories narrated by biwa-hoshi. It has been passed down orally from generation to generation.

In the Medieval Period, there were no choices to make a living other than biwa-hoshi for blind men. Therefore, biwa-hoshi formed a guild named Todoza to maintain their interests. In the Edo Period, Todoza was supported by the Tokugawa shogunate and its own hierarchy system was established. Besides biwa, blind people acquired koto, samisen and the technical skills of massage and acupuncture as new occupations.

Now, let me introduce the living conditions of blind women. In the Tohoku district, we can see psychic mediums who are blind. They are called itako, or blind shamans, and they can speak in the voice of a dead person. In the Medieval Period, blind women participated in the creation of “the Tale of Soga” (Soga Monogatari), which also had a relationship with departed souls.

Under the influence of Todoza, itako (blind women) organized their guild in the Edo Period. Itako were something like counselors, healers and entertainers for village communities. They were given special roles or positions by villagers, and itako were very proud of their vocation.

A guild which is built up by the blind alone seems to be exclusive or anachronistic for us today. There is no doubt that Japanese blind culture goes against the aim of equalitarianism or mainstreaming. Even so, the idea that blind people can do what sighted people cannot is applicable to present-day life.

In 1871, Todoza was abolished by the Meiji Government. After the Meiji Era, the groups “of” the blind lost their power, and the groups “for” the blind were founded. A typical example of the former was Todoza, and of the latter was charitable work including schools for the blind. The dissolution of a blind guild did not mean that the blind were given a free hand to choose their occupations. Every school for the blind has put a
great deal of effort into vocational training, but they have never reflected on the meaning of another, or the special world.

There is a big difference in the nuance of the word “special” between Modern and Premodern Japan. In premodern times, the blind could not use characters. Actually they did not need characters. The blind were dependent on their memories. “The Tale of Heike” and itako’s spiritualism were the fruits of their special abilities. They were living in another world. The blind and the sighted had two different worlds. Blind people were abler than the sighted in some cases, and their unique, or special world was highly
regarded.

Then Japanese modernization came. Pluralistic views on the world shifted to unitary criteria. Minorities began to feel alienated from the majority. A value judgment on the disabled, or the special world changed radically. Itako and biwa-hoshi were considered to be superstitious and made light of in Modern Japan.

Even today, there is a tacit rule that the handicapped who receive special education should not do anything that will be a nuisance to normal people. On the other hand, normal people should show mercy on these special beings. The blind who were regarded as “worthless, useless people” tried hard to fit into, or be normalized in the general public world.

Thanks to the efforts of our predecessors, nowadays a good number of blind students can go to ordinary schools and not a few visually handicapped people play active roles in Japan. We cannot call them “worthless, useless people.” The aims of “barrier-free” movements by the visually handicapped in postwar Japan were: to raise university-going rates (from the 1950’s to the 60’s), to secure study conditions for blind students (from the 70’s to the 80’s), and to get jobs other than acupuncturist (from the 90’s onward).
In this article, I would like to reconsider the meaning of “special” and propose the new concept of “free-barrier” to realize the unfulfilled dreams of the blind in the 21st century.
———————-

The Richness of Touch:
The Paradoxical Meanings of Disability in Japanese Culture
Kojiro Hirose

Introduction

I am very grateful that my thematic exhibition, “Touch And Grow Rich: You Can Touch Our Museum!” held at the National Museum of Ethnology from March through September 2006, met a favorable reception. The mass media’s attention to this exhibition helped introduce it widely. The best possible reason of such action is that it was intended for visually handicapped people, who had rarely have chances to visit museums.

There are two blind men who taught me the importance of the sense of touch, or blind culture. One is Louis Braille and the other is Kuzuhara Koto. I will tell you their short biographies.

Louis Braille is the inventor of braille. He was born in 1809 in rural French town of Curpvray, and died in 1852. His eyes were injured in an accident when he was three years old and gradually he lost his eyesight. In 1819, he entered the Paris School for the Blind and left home to live in the dormitory. He stayed there as a student and then as a teacher until his death.

The Paris School for the Blind, built in 1784, was the first school for the blind in the world. In the beginning of education for the blind, students lacked braille, and instead learned to read and write normal letters. You can find some examples of raised letters, or embossed lettering for the blind, in my exhibition.

These letters are very beautiful and soft to the touch. We can know the possibility of our sense of touch from these letters. These are, however, difficult to read and write for the blind. If you want to make a book by embossed lettering, you need a lot of time and the book will be very thick.

Louis Braille was interested in efficient communication and self-expression for the blind. He saw sonographie, the letters readable at night and used as a cipher in the French army. Sonographie was composed of twelve dots, so people could read a cipher in the dark. From sonographie, Louis got the idea for the new lettering system which blind people could read and write easily. By using only six dots, he invented braille in 1825.

At the Paris School for the Blind, every blind student was fascinated by braille. They were fond of the communication and self-expression made possible by braille. On the other hand, braille met with strong opposition from sighted teachers. They persisted in embossed letters because they could read raised letters by their eyes. They insisted that the blind should use normal letters and that braille was not universal. This begs the question, what is the meaning of “normal”? The sighted hold a majority in this world. So blind people or the disabled are regarded as a special group or in the minority.

Even with the new invention, the school authorities prohibited students from using braille. Louis Braille strove to improve and spread his braille system. He died of tuberculosis at the age of forty three, and two years after his death, the French government finally adopted braille as officially recognized letters in 1854.

Louis Braille, I think, put greater importance to dissimilation than to assimilation. In other words, he thought that the blind had to maintain their identity or originality. Braille was introduced to the United States in the 1860s, and in 1890 Japanese braille was adapted from Louis’s system. Braille has been the simplest and easiest method for the blind to read and write since its birth. By the invention of braille, Louis showed the uniqueness of blind people or blind culture.

Let me give you another example of blind culture from Japan. Kuzuhara Koto was born in 1812 and died in 1882. In his lifetime, he experienced the Meiji Restoration but he lived life quietly and stayed in the rural part of Hiroshima as a koto musician. His achievements in koto music were great. We are told that he invented Yakumogoto, a two-stringed bamboo koto. In addition to this, he is famous for his diary, Kuzuhara Koto Nikki.

Because of smallpox, Kuzuhara lost his eyesight at the age of three. He continued on to study the Ikuta-style koto and shamisen in Kyoto and entered Todoza, a guild composed of blind musicians and acupuncturists. In the 14th century, Todoza was formed by blind biwa-hoshi (lute players or minstrels), drawn from a long tradition dating from the Ancient Period. Kuzuhara Koto’s first name, Koto, means the third highest rank in the hierarchy of Todoza.

In 1827, Kuzuhara started writing his diary. At first the diary was written by his pupils. From 1837 to his death, over forty years, he then kept his diary by himself. How could he write a diary before the invention of braille? I think Kuzuhara Koto Nikki is the first written self-expression by a blind man in Japanese history.

In premodern times, the blind could not use and did not particularly need characters. Again, Japanese braille was contrived in 1890. Before that, the blind were dependent on their memories. The Tale of Heike (Heike Monogatari) by biwa-hoshi is one example of their special abilities.

I think that Kuzuhara Koto tried to communicate with sighted people. For coming generations, he wanted to have positive proof of his life. The appearance of Kuzuhara Koto Nikki indicates the shift from premodern times to modern times. Modernization forced the blind to have characters. In other words, the blind or minorities should be “normal” in Modern Japan.

In the diary, however, Kuzuhara showed the uniqueness of blind culture. His printing types are called gmoku-katsuji, wooden types. Each type is marked with a line, so he could recognize it by the sense of touch. He put a wooden type in a frame one by one and then began a new line. His wooden types include the Japanese alphabet giroha, numerals and a small number of Chinese characters. When Helen Keller came to Japan and learned of Kuzuhara’s gmoku-katsuji she was impressed and said, “The Oriental typewriter was invented by a blind man.”

A famous Japanese novelist, Osamu Dazai called Kuzuhara’s diary “The blind man’s chuckle.” With useful wooden types and his diary, Kuzuhara chuckled at his interesting life compared with the sighted world or normal people.

In my analysis, braille is suitable for self-expression for the blind, while Kuzuhara’s wooden types are good for communication with sighted people. It is by chance that Louis Braille and Kuzuhara Koto lived in the same period of the 19th century. As an inevitable consequence of the crisis for blind culture, both of them were enthusiastic about new lettering systems for the blind.

Today we have computer technology. Aided by our technological revolution, the blind can read and write normal letters easily. The sighted can put a document into braille even if they do not know the rules of braille. The days when Louis Braille and Kuzuhara Koto repeated trial and error seem to belong to a different age. From a viewpoint of normalization and equal opportunities, the blind or the disabled today must be happy.

But what is the present situation of blind culture? Biwa-hoshi will disappear sooner or later. The number of people who can read braille is now decreasing. Through my exhibition, I introduce the possibilities of blind culture. By making full use of the sense of touch, Louis Braille and Kuzuhara Koto opened up another type of modernization. Here again, with Louis Braille and Kuzuhara Koto, I would like to say to you, “Touch and Grow Rich!”

The Exhibit

1. To pay attention to people farthest from museums

As a point of reference, I am going to talk to you about the results of the exhibition from two points of view, which are barrier-free and free-barrier.

This thematic exhibition had two aims. Firstly it strove to be a friendly exhibition for the visually handicapped. I think it can be summarized as a barrier-free-like element.

In planning a universal museum everyone can enjoy, there are many things put into consideration. When we use the word “disabled,” we should understand that there is not a single kind of disability but various kinds: hearing impaired, mentally handicapped, physically impaired, and so on. In addition, care for the aged, consideration for people from other countries, and so forth are to be included in thinking of the words “universal” and “everyone.”

Sad to say, only my ability or a single thematic exhibition cannot cover all aspects of “universal” or “everyone.” Museums mainly expect that their exhibits are visually appreciated. Therefore, those who cannot see may be, in a sense, alienated from museums. So the theme of this exhibition was to be the first step to realize the idea “universal” or “everyone.”

Fortunately, beginning with groups involved with visually handicapped people, lots of people visited the exhibition. Ordinary people have probably experienced interacting with a person with a white cane, or asked the way. However, so many visually handicapped people in a museum at once was a rare sight. Ordinary people had not expected them to be there. It was beyond their expectations, indeed.

The fact that so many visually handicapped people beyond expectation actually visited the museum had a great influence on many fields of our society. Since visually handicapped people mostly came accompanied by their family or volunteers, the number of visitors naturally became very large. I, a person in charge, was pleased with the largeness of the number, but felt a little sad, for it hinted at the difficult circumstances of those people, who had trouble visiting the museum.

Anyways, people involved with the visually handicapped kept visiting throughout the whole period. I realized the information of the exhibition spread widely by word of mouth as well as by the mass media. It was really a greater result than I had expected that so many visually handicapped people from far away districts appreciated the exhibits. I am disappointed, however, for this phenomenon shows that they have rare chances to appreciate exhibits that they can freely touch.

2. Cheerfulness to accept and courage to go out

I observed, while totally blind, what was going on inside and outside of the museum building before this exhibit - sometimes as a person concerned, and other times as an outsider. The staff at the information desk and the ticket counter had not learned how to accept the rare visitor with a white cane. I suppose they had regarded it as common sense that visually handicapped people were not able to enjoy themselves in the museum. But when they came to accept this large number of visually handicapped visitors, they found out that their common sense had been wrong. They were aware that there are many visually handicapped people in our world, and quite naturally, they wanted to come to the museum just as ordinary people did. Thus the staff members acquired a new common sense.

Throughout the six-month Thematic Exhibition period, the staff gradually got accustomed to the feeling that visually handicapped people could not see but they could recognize the exhibits with the sense of touch. The museum has to accept various people and offer various means of enjoying exhibits. This encouraged a new consciousness on the side of the museum, a new attitude to accept the visually handicapped cheerfully. I named it “cheerfulness to accept,” which is actually barrier-free in the aspect of consciousness, which is more important than efforts at facility.

Next is consciousness innovation on the side of museum visitors. I stress the need to go out. Visually handicapped people inevitably have a bias that a museum is a facility where people see exhibits, therefore, it is not interesting for them to visit. In addition, there are a lot of barriers to get to the museum. They had a sense of resignation about not having to take the trouble to go to such an inconvenient place.

Through this exhibition, however, they found their potential as people with acute sense of touch. Some felt the museum is unexpectedly interesting. Thinking it may be worth visiting, they invited their friends one by one, and came to visit my exhibition.

Some of the visually handicapped visitors’ remarks, such as, “The permanent exhibition was more enjoyable than the thematic one,” pleased me, but with a bit of mixed feelings, for it was me that did my best to organize this thematic exhibition. Thinking calmly, however, it was objectively good that some blind people were satisfied by touching various exhibits, for there are far more materials in the permanent exhibition. This seems to be an exaggerated remark, but I hope that this “Touching is believing” experience will trigger to spread the move of “courage to go out.”

Consciousness was innovated on both sides of the visually handicapped visitors and the staff of the museum. “Courage to go out” and “Cheerfulness to accept” will become keywords to promote barrier-free policies at the museum. When we comprehend people not by the concept “the disabled vs. the ordinary,” but “those who recognize by touching vs. those who recognize by seeing,” the possibility of the universal museum will expand. In order for this high-minded idea to develop and museums to be enjoyable for everyone, and not become simply a “pie in the sky” idea, it is indispensable for the two key ideas to continue influencing each other.

3. To get over the preoccupation “service for the minority”

As substantial practices of barrier-free, various kinds of so-called services for the disabled are being tried out in many fields. Here I am going to hold up this thematic exhibition as an example, and provide topics for thinking on the ways to support the visually handicapped.

First, I’ll discuss translating the pamphlet and explanation into braille. Since I use braille and was in charge of this exhibition, I made all the braille captions by hand. Lately more and more museums, especially new museums, hand out braille pamphlets, or translate captions into braille. Braille users are thankful for this consideration.

Thinking more deeply, however, braille pamphlet users are unmistakably in the minority. So usually, the museum staff works on revising the braille pamphlet, only after improving the pamphlet most sighted people use. As a result, while the ordinary pamphlet is improved quickly, the braille one, in some cases, remains old, often the same version used from when the museum opened. Even though the museum is a place where ancient materials are displayed, I am very sorry to say, information there is sometimes left ancient only in braille.

I think it may be unfair to decide things based on the distinction of majority and minority, but the service maintenance for the minority, such as braille pamphlets, is often neglected. Honestly speaking, a museum in difficult financial circumstances may not be able to pay much money for braille pamphlets used by only a few people. I understand they cannot help considering the balance between supply and demand.

In my exhibition, we made beautiful pamphlets with transparent resin by using UV printing technique. They were printed in both braille and normal letters. They are pamphlets both the sighted and the blind can use together. Their finish is beautiful to see and mild to touch.

This pamphlet is innovative in two ways. Firstly, this is intended for both the visually handicapped and the sighted. We decided to hand out the same pamphlet to all the visitors. The same pamphlet everyone gets is printed not only in normal letters but also in braille. Making these pamphlets surely cost more than I had expected. The probable reason I was able to do this experiment was that the period of this exhibition was limited. Judging from the answers in the questionnaire of the visitors, this experimental pamphlet seems to have been favorably accepted by the sighted as well as the visually handicapped.

It is not wrong to make materials corresponding to individual need, and the idea “everyone is the same” cannot always be called “universal,” either. This time, however, our experimental braille pamphlet was to play a big role in getting rid of the common sense “service for the minority.” If more and more museums make pamphlets printed in both braille and normal letters, and hand out to all visitors, the preoccupation that braille is something peculiar will fade away and, I hope, the high cost of braille printing will get lower.

4. Mediated by the pamphlets, dialogue starts

Next, I want you to know the second feature of this pamphlet. Most sighted people cannot read braille. How do they feel when they put their hands on the pamphlet, so to speak, with code consisting of lots of raised dots? Some may feel it is bothersome, and others may be interested in the unfamiliar code. I hoped this pamphlet would be a trigger to notice again that there are actually braille users in our world.

Totally blind, I am not able to read normal printing matter at all. In spite of that, I am surrounded by paper documents day by day, which I cannot read without the help of PC or cooperators. When I was to make the pamphlet, I thought reversing the position of the sighted and the visually handicapped may be occasionally enjoyable.

Although I told you before that the pamphlet is printed both in braille and normal letters, actually, what is written there differs slightly. In other words, what is written in braille and what is written in normal letters are not, strictly speaking, one-to-one correspondent.

That is just what I intended. I wanted dialogue to be born mediated by the pamphlet. This pamphlet functioned as a tool to start dialogue with one another, and as a device of communication among different cultures.

5. Turning my own bitter experience to advantage

Another typical barrier-free service for the visually handicapped is the audio guide. To be sure, it is a very convenient tool, and new experiments are going on in every area. The cell-phone type audio guide is most popular. You are to push a given number in front of an exhibit, and then you can hear its explanation on the cell-phone. Recently, a new type of tool, which sends messages and images automatically through a sensor, has been developed. It will be effective in providing service for people from other countries.

I intentionally used very few audio guides in my exhibition. Since I had expected complaints from some visually handicapped visitors, I had only one audio guide machine installed at the entrance of the exhibition area. I did not furnish any audio guides or cell-phone type devices inside the area. Shortage of money was one reason, but I had more positive reason not to furnish any vocal guide tools.

Most museum visitors basically prefer a self-guided tour, which allows them to make a tour at their own pace. Some of the museums in the United States have recommended the self-guided tour to visually handicapped people. Each visually handicapped person visits a museum alone, following the guided course and enjoys the exhibits in his/her own style. On such an occasion, an audio guide that enables him/her to listen to explanation by pushing the button will be very helpful. In my opinion, the audio guide will become an actually comfortable service for the first time when the visually handicapped acquire circumstances where they can come to a museum alone and learn by touching exhibits.

As a matter of fact, I have had several bitter experiences with audio guides. I will give you one example. The Kyoto National Museum held a picture scroll exhibition on a large scale in 2006. It had a great reputation, since very precious scrolls would be exhibited. Full of curiosity, I visited the museum with one of my friends.

Naturally, there were many picture scrolls laid in the glass cases. I was reminded that picture scrolls were something to be enjoyed visually. I borrowed an audio guide. At first, my warmhearted friend supported me by explaining the picture scrolls. I listened to the voice from the audio guide with my right ear, while my friend’s voice was heard through my left ear. I sometimes ought to have responded to him for his friendly support. But because different information came into my brain from right and left at the same time, I gradually became disturbed and tired.

Meanwhile, probably noticing my embarrassment, my friend came to speak less. Then another problem came about. My friend’s pace of enjoying scrolls and the pace of the explanation by the audio guide differed slightly. My friend wanted to stop in front of the exhibits he was interested in, appreciating them closely. The explanation by the audio guide was short, though. Having nothing to do, I was obliged to listen to the explanation of the next exhibit. As a result, even though both of us were in front of the same exhibit, dialogue between us got more and more difficult.

I have occasionally had such inconvenient experiences that interrupt dialogue. The visually handicapped, who live relying on the surrounding sounds, want to keep their ears open. If they want to enjoy exhibits talking to each other, they do not have to use audio guides, and often they would rather not use them. It may be an ideal barrier-free example for a visually handicapped person to be able to make a self-guided tour with an audio guide in his or her hand. In the case of my exhibition, however, I decided to offer guides by human beings.

As I said before, handicapped people come across big barriers on the way to our museum. It is very difficult for those visiting for the first time to get to the National Museum of Ethnology, which is nicknamed “the desert island on land.” After they get to the museum, they will find the large exhibition hall itself is a maze. It would be practically impossible for the blind to make a tour alone, even if we equipped audio guides and guided course. Therefore, it is more practical to presume that they come with their family or volunteers. I did my best to let them enjoy themselves to the fullest, since they encountered so much trouble to come.

My target was a thematic exhibition that the visually handicapped and the sighted visited together and enjoyed together. What is alike and what is different between the impressions through the sense of sight and those through the sense of touch? This question triggers dialogue between the people of different cultures. I thought they would enjoy the exhibition much more when they made a tour conversing with each other rather than relying on machinery. This was the reason I dared not have audio guides equipped in the exhibition area.

6. Why is the human guide preferable?

When we tested various devices to attract visually handicapped people to our museum, we found out the best and the most feasible one was a “guide by a human being.” In visiting museums in the United States, I am always impressed how well they make use of volunteers. More and more Japanese museums have recently appealed to the public to work as volunteers to offer many kinds of services. Our museum has just started various activities by a volunteer group named “Minpaku Museum Partners,” (MMP; Minpaku stands for the National Museum of Ethnology).

On the other hand, not only its museums, but also American society itself is built by making good use of the power of volunteers. Frankly speaking, what we should learn from the United States is not facilities for barrier-free and equipment, but in the aspect organizing volunteers.

Then why do I think a human guide is preferable? For example, our museum was built in the 1970s, when there were no modern ideas such as universal design or barrier-free. Working towards a policy to improve its facilities and equipment for barrier-free, committee members in the museum sometimes ask for my opinion. Thankful for being asked, I am at a loss where to begin the reformation. Of course, we are obliged to start at what is considerably easy to reform, but the reformation is inevitably limited in the case of a building once completed.

If we built a museum totally anew, we could make it perfectly universal and barrier-free, setting all necessary facilities. On the other hand, reforming a once finished museum into one accessible to the handicapped is very difficult. Moreover it will cost a large amount of money. Then I thought the guided tour system by trained volunteer staff might be difficult, but practically useful.

Another reason is a human guide can guide flexibly in accordance with the situation. For example, when the volunteer notices that the visitor seems not to be interested, he/she will ask, “Shall we go ahead to the next exhibit?” or when the visitor seems to be attracted to some exhibits, the guide will give detailed explanation. Such resourceful guidance is impossible for an audio guide.

7. “Create”: work to extend image

Next, I will talk about the second target of this exhibition, free-barrier. Needless to say, this exhibition focused on the visually handicapped. To tell the truth, most of the visitors were the sighted. Information acquired visually is (as the phrase “clear at a glance” shows) very convenient. Therefore, the sighted do not use their five senses to the fullest, except the sense of vision. Particularly the sense of touch tends to be neglected.

In our world, however, there are things that cannot be identified without touching, or things that we become interested in through touching. I want the world to notice the profound culture of touching. My exhibition is a chance to realize the potential of the five senses and especially the possibility of the sense of touch. This is my message to sighted people.

Here, I will explain the words “create” and “open,” the keywords of my exhibition. I had always been conscious of these words myself through the period of the exhibition. Although I sometimes admire a women’s voice, saying jokingly that I “fall in love at a hearing,” the widely-used phrase is “fall in love at a glance.” The ability to get many information in a moment is the characteristic of the sense of vision.

On the other hand, the sense of touch is inconvenient. When comparing the amount of information, we realize that while the sense of vision can catch information as an image, the sense of touch gets information only by the points that hands touch. From a little twisted point of view, though, getting large amount of images and information without a freedom of choice is not always pleasant. Just think of the often-blamed unfavorable influence of video games on children, possibly caused by sight’s convenience.

Information by the sense of touch is a point at first, but as you move your hand to-and-fro, the information expands from a point to a surface, and to a three-dimensional space. It is a very intelligent work and the world of creation and imagination that is possible only for human beings. So I recommended to sighted visitors to recieve a fresh impression of the exhibits by touching sensitively with your eyes closed. You can create an image of an exhibit in your mind gradually with your hands and brain working actively.

Since information of material and temperature are acquired only through the sense of touch, sighted people who noticed the impression by vision and that by touch could enjoy my exhibition twice.

I call the work to expand an image by the power of the sense of touch “creation.” I put a large model of a shrine at the entrance of the exhibition area, so as to have the visitors understand the charm of creating. Since this model was the symbol of the exhibition, it was a magnificent shrine at a glance seen from a distance. If you touched it, you would feel the rough touch of its roof, and the fine, intricate timbering.

Through gathering such pieces of information, you will grasp the whole image by activating your hands and brain little by little. It is certainly difficult to identify the shrine only by information of the sense of touch, but what is important is not the conclusion but the process to create the image by activating imagination and creativity. In my exhibition, I imbued the work with so much creative power that the visitors may realize again the value of the imagination and creativity lacking in the convenient sense of vision, and the latent ability of the sense of touch that the sighted tend to forget.

I will give another example. More and more museums have recently started projects to allow visitors to touch their exhibits. Sculpture is beautiful at sight, but you will have a different impression by touching. My former art teacher, now a professor at Tsukuba University, and one of the best sculptors in Japan, has carved statues of nude women. There were a lot of such statues made of wood or plaster in the art room in my junior high school days.

As a junior high schoolboy, I was greatly excited, eager to hold them tight, but was touching them diffidently, afraid of being seen by someone. Then the art teacher encouraged me, saying, “You must not touch that way. Touch it with your whole body, so as to feel the energy of the sculpture.” Taking my hands, he himself had me touch the breast of the sculpture. Since then, I have made it a rule to touch sculpture bravely for fun and profit at the same time.

Since I have practiced martial arts for many years, I am occasionally conscious of qi in my daily life. The energy of the sculpture, my former teacher once said to me, will be the energy that he put into his sculpture, and that of the sculpture itself, which rises from the earth to the sky up above the world as well. Energy is also given off from the hands that hold the sculpture tight. It is the creating energy of the sense of touch that starts with a point and extends to a surface, and to a three-dimensional body. Unparalleled qi is born where those three kinds of energy mingle. I suppose it is perhaps the world of art different from the world recognized visually.

8. “Open”: work to develop a closed sense

Someone working to “create” is extend an image with his or her hands moving dynamically. On the contrary, working to “open” is a delicate finger movement. For example, you cannot read braille if you touch strongly with your both hands as you do when you touch a sculpture. In reading braille, you have to touch it softly, concentrating your nerves at the tips of your fingers. In short, touching with all your might is “create,” and touching extremely delicately is “open.”

Why is touching precise parts delicately “open?” During my exhibition, I received several delightful comments from some of my friends. One of my sighted friends said, “I tried touching an exhibited picture with raised lines with my eyes closed. Sorry to say, I could not recognize anything at all at first. After the first tour, I tried again but in vain. Before leaving the museum, after appreciating the permanent exhibition, I tried for the third time. I’m not sure, but I felt the impression was different each time.” “He is really tough,” I said to myself, still I was most grateful to him for his favorable interest in my exhibition.

You touch something. You may have no idea what it is the first time, but while you keep touching, soon you will vaguely know what it is. That is just what I aim. I learned braille in my junior high school days. At first I was not able to understand braille letters. I felt as if they were a kind of code with a lot of raised points. While I kept reading them again and again every day, I came to know the number of the points and their arrangement by touching them. Soon I began to use braille as a very convenient system. Needless to say, braille can be read quite smoothly even in the dark. I have got so familiar with braille letters that I read them in bed before falling asleep almost every day now.

Just like the case of learning braille, there is a moment the closed sense, the sense of touch that remained asleep, suddenly “opens” while you touch repeatedly. I wished as many visitors as possible to feel that deep emotion of “open” through my exhibition. In order to materialize my wish, we had monthly braille experience workshops with a cooperation of MMP members during the period of the thematic exhibition.

Observing reactions of participants, I found out children participants learned the fastest, as their way of thinking was very flexible. Even though they could not read at the first touch, they wrote some braille letters themselves and tried to read them. Human beings will instinctively try to touch something they are interested in, and I realized children have the suppleness to “open,” especially compared with adults whose sense of touch is getting dull.

“Mind to open” will be fostered through experiences for the senses to “open.” Lately, schools where the braille experience is adopted in class are increasing in number. I think such learning is meaningful in both ways: the closed sense of touch is open, and the cooperation with braille users is open.

One day, when the closing of the exhibition was just around the corner, I had the honor of being visited by the Dr. Tadao Umesao, who came to see, or rather, touch the exhibits. He is the founder of the National Museum of Ethnology, and a well-known scholar of comparative civilization study. He lost his sight some twenty years ago, yet even now, at over eighty years old, he continues his writing activity.

In the thematic exhibition, we displayed various kinds of letters to touch used in many areas in the world before the invention of braille. “Letters to touch,” consisted of uneven dots and lines, are expressed on a wax-board, or with folded-paper strings, wood-carving, and others. They were really beautiful to look at.

Feeling those letters, Dr. Umesao commented, “I cannot read them at all. It is hopeless.” Since he lost his sight after the age of sixty, the great Dr. Umesao has probably had much difficulty in switching from a sighted person to a visually handicapped one.

Certainly it is desperately hopeless for a daily user of braille like me to read the raised letters used by the blind in the 19th century. The point is, however, to be aware through practice of the existence of people who really read these letters in those days, and to notice that there is a moment for the closed potential sense of touch to “open.” What is important is not the result that you can read or not, but the process to move your fingers seeking the expanding world of touching.

Many visually handicapped people, including me, are challenged to read braille and overcome the hopeless situation of not using the sense of vision. From a different viewpoint, the visually handicapped may be lucky people who can open their latent power of the sense of touch and experience a unique use of the five senses, because they lost their sight. In order to overcome the hopeless situation of the modern civilization, I suppose, we need a “mind to open,” which is acquired by recovering our innate five senses.

9. The historical significance of the touch culture exhibition

Following Dr. Umesao, I am going to talk from a larger perspective as a cultural anthropologist. The act to create and the work to open link to my lifework in reconsidering what a modern civilization that gives priority to the sense of vision should be.

In the history of Japanese religion and entertainment, blind people have played an important role. Blind lute-playing minstrels, biwa-hoshi, creators and popularizers of The Tale of Heike, had their unique performing arts succeeded from masters to pupils by mouth. Their incomparable art has been handed down until today.

Blind medium women, or itako, living in small numbers in the Tohoku district are shaman who, through severe training, acquired the art of seeing the unseen world of the spirits of the dead. In the Edo period, the blind acquired the skills of massage and acupuncture as their occupation. Hand-therapy, in which they infer the inward condition of their patients with their fingertips and palm, was also one of their ways to make a living.

Outside of these examples, when we think of the life of the Ainu or people in the Jomon era, we notice natural human beings freely exercised the power of the five senses. On the process of modernization, however, visual communication of information became the mainstream, and what was not visually recognized - such as the world of the spirits of the dead - was abandoned as superstition. With the introduction of Western medicine, inward condition came to be observed. Blind people working in the area where the sense of vision was not necessary began to be discriminated against as those who could not use the sense of vision.

It was probably the appearance of the museum that characterized modern times depending on the convenience of visual sense and the amount of information. The museum, which collects and exhibits valuable historical materials, is a cultural system that displays the authority and power of the nation and the founder to the inside and outside of the country. While common knowledge that the museum was a place where the exhibits were visually appreciated spread, the sense of touch was given only subordinate role. It was put in a marginalized position where visitors could touch only a part of the exhibits. Those who could not see, minority visually handicapped people, diffidently enjoyed exhibits that they could touch in only a few museums. Those were the actual circumstances from the 19th through the 20th century.

Based on such large scale of recognition of history, the significance of opening the touch culture exhibition in the 21st century at last will become clear. Absolutely not “the exhibition allowed to touch,” which considers the sense of touch an alternative of the sense of vision, but “the exhibition to touch,” which explores the identity of the sense of touch, is the trigger to open up the possibility of museums. The words conveying the uniqueness of “the exhibition to touch” are “create” and “open.”

In contrast, the permanent exhibition of the National Museum of Ethnology is, partially following Dr. Umesao’s idea since the foundation of this museum, basically bare display that you can touch with your hands extended. Objectively speaking, this is the only museum in Japan having so many touchable exhibits. It is great, but its basic stance is “the exhibition allowed to touch” to supplement its main way. The main way is still to appreciate exhibits visually. Though my exhibition was a small-scale personal project, it was an exhibition different from traditional ones in offering a universal display to touch.

The five senses are equivalent and each of them has a different character. Conventional museums are too much in favor of the visual sense. I focused on enjoyment by the sense of touch this time, but in the future I want to concentrate on hearing and smell.

10. To extend the free-barrier idea from the museum to society

Now I am going to sum up my talk. Barrier-free is useful to museums because it turns their attention to the handicapped that have been left forgotten. Barrier-free, which seeks the idea of human equality, hereafter will be a target of museums as public institutions. In order that the visually handicapped, the minority, enjoy museums just as the sighted do, special support services are indispensable. As a lead to barrier-free, consideration for the disabled is important and a budget will have to be ensured.

On the other hand, a museum is a place where people turn their attention to the differences among them, and produce meetings with different cultures as well. “Different cultures” is a phrase with diverse meanings, but as I understand it, bringing out the potential of the five senses is intercultural experience. The visually handicapped are not weak people who cannot use the sense of sight, but unique people, who do not use it. My first and last challenge is to offer an active image of the blind as people who know the way to enjoy a museum by finding fun in touching, which is different from the common sense.

Each individual person recognizes the difference of each other, respecting each other’s life style as a different culture. In addition, coming and going freely, each interchanges among different cultures. I call such a new cultural framework to overcome the conventional image of the disabled “free-barrier.” In my exhibition, I introduced the touch culture comparing it with the visual culture. It was a space that embodied free-barrier between the sighted and the visually handicapped.

Different from barrier-free, (seen clearly in the increase of handicapped visitors in number) it is difficult to get ordinary visitors to understand free-barrier. How we can have many ordinary people notice touch culture, and how we can get many ordinary people to stop to look at the exhibits, were big themes of my exhibition.

Here again we are to pay attention to the guides by human beings. In my exhibition, human guides by MMP members functioned not only as the guide for the visually handicapped but also as the leader of free-barrier to bring out various creativity and imagination of the five senses. The museum is the best field to exercise free-barrier, however, it is the human guide that can indicate many ways to enjoy the exhibits. With a human guide, visitors will notice the different ways of living which they cannot when they just look at exhibits vaguely.

In order to realize universal museums, of course, the latest technology will be important. However, looking at the activities of MMP members accompanying the groups of visitors, I deepened my self-confidence in the effect of the human guide. From both aspects of barrier-free and free-barrier, the human guide will “create” and “open” a universal society.

Through the experience of the touch culture exhibition, I am convinced that a great current toward the post-modern civilization is about to start in the museum of the 21st century. This current will develop and extend the potential of all human beings!

By admin | Posted in Hirose Kojiro, Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Kamanaka Hitomi, “Producing Alternative Media: My Work as a Freelance Filmmaker”

July 18, 2008 – 3:44 am

Producing Alternative Media: My Work As a Freelance Filmmaker
By Kamanaka Hitomi[1]

1. My first encounter with ‘alternative media’

The word ‘alternative’ in the English term alternative media is difficult to translate directly into Japanese; but broadly speaking, it suggests that which replaces, substitutes, or adds to something. It ng alternative media is similar to sowing seeds in the wilderness. My own early work with an independsuggests an approach that is different from the mainstream approach, one that puts forth the existence of a different kind of value system. This need not mean that alternative methods must stand in opposition to the mainstream; rather, they can be said to supplement what is missing in the mainstream.

An alternative media, then, would be a media that makes possible what is ordinarily not doable in the mass media. Rejecting the idea that one method is absolute and all-encompassing, alternative media is grounded in the acceptance and actualization of multiplicity. In the context of the multiplicity of our present society, there is a great need for such an alternative media.

The reality of free media
There are, however, a variety of obstacles that stand in the way of sustaining an alternative media. Filmmaking is a costly endeavor that requires extraordinary amounts of capital. In the mass media, returns on the incurred production costs are guaranteed by the mechanisms of the commercial marketplace; whereas in the case of alternative media, the process must first begin with procuring the funds for production. While using high quality equipment will ensure high quality images, this is impossible for makers of alternative media, leaving creators of alternative media to seek other means of producing a good product. The most crucial factor in making an alternative media, even while being saddled with this extra handicap, is the author’s determination to portray a truth invisible in mass media, that is, the author’s own truth. Taking a broad look at the history of documentary film in Japan, one can see that the profit motive has not been the only driving force in the production of films. In this history, we can see that makers of alternative media have always existed, like an underground current flowing just under the surface.

Take, for example, the 1967 government project to construct Narita International Airport, in which land was forcibly seized from local farmers at Sanrizuka, in Chiba Prefecture. When local farmers and student sympathizers rose up in protest against the expropriation of their land, the government mobilized a riot police force of 30,000 to contain them. The ensuing struggle lasted for days. Ogawa Shinsuke, leader of Ogawa Productions, went on location with his cameras during the early stages of the struggle and in 1968, completed and released the film, Summer in Narita. (“Nihon kaiho sensen—Sanrizuka no natsu,” 1968). This groundbreaking documentary, as Ogawa himself described it, was “shot entirely from within the farmer’s protest lines, from their perspective. And when I was filming the authorities on the other side, I shot straight on, in direct confrontation with them, staking the camera’s raison d’être on this stance.”[2]

Ogawa’s manner of filming was not found anywhere else in the mainstream media. His Ogawa Productions subsequently organized independent screenings of the film by supporters of the protest movement across the nation, transporting the film by caravan throughout the country. The film was not channeled through the established screening venues; rather, the screenings became part of the larger collaborative work between the filmmaker and its viewers. Just at this period, the citizen’s movements that would become the foundational base of an alternative media were on the rise. Also during this time, the practice of independently screening films within grassroots movements was spreading. After filming the Sanrizuka series,[3] however, Ogawa Productions was left with a massive debt. Such was the cost of independence from commercial capital.

Another example is director Tsuchimoto Noriaki, who went on location in 1965 to the fishing village of Minamata[4] to report on the situation there for television coverage. But, reflecting on his own problematic reporting approach as an outside observer, he decided to move and live in Minamata starting in 1970, from which he produced a feature-length documentary film, two hours and fifty-one minutes long, called Minamata:The Patients and Their World. (“Minamata: kanja-san to sono sekai,” 1972). The film, made in support of the patients with Minamata disease, was praised as “capturing the soul of each and every patient,” and for its ability to “show the dignity of human beings who live in the most desperate of conditions, while at the same time showing the extent to which not just one company, the Chisso Corporation, but the entire Japanese capitalist system destroys human beings and the environment for profit motive.”[5] Abandoning his television assignment, Tsuchimoto immersed himself in the movement to support patients with Minamata disease. He was consistently at the forefront of the protests against the Health and Welfare Ministry, experiencing arrest and detention. But while being at the center of the movement, he never ceased the work of making films; the movement and the filmmaking had become one and the same.

Experiences in independent production
It was in this manner that beginning in the latter half of the 1960s, films were made by independent productions backed neither by television nor by large studios. The period’s big social issues were the themes that the makers of these films took up, such as the then-widespread campus protests and the Anpo protests,[6] yielding original and vibrant new films. These people were precisely the alternative media makers of their time.

But the work of constructient film production company involved screening a particular film produced by an independent production. The film, entitled What lies at the foundation of education [7] (“Kyoiku no kontei ni aru mono,” 1984) was a three-and-a-half-hour, feature-length documentary. The production company, established by a community of like-minded people for the purpose of making films about issues in education, brought attention to the dynamism of the late Hayashi Takeji’s lectures, and documented the lectures he gave on his nation-wide tours.

What lies at the foundation of education was a film centered on documenting Hayashi Takeji’s lectures. With such unspectacular subject matter, how were we going to bring in an audience? We had to pool together all our wits and do a lot of legwork. Unlike television programs, which are automatically broadcast in an established set-up, we had to see the film through with our own hands all the way to its screening. But it was also for that reason that we could feel the immediate response of the viewers. Tangible audience response is always what forces us, as makers of film, to keep in mind who the media is for, and why the subject matter has to be conveyed. Along the way, there are many obstacles to be overcome, such as getting the funding, doing cost-effective reporting, and overcoming the criticism from the establishment. But it was, of course, precisely the presence of these obstacles that made us an alternative media.

This was my first experience of filmmaking, and through this early encounter with alternative media, the direction I would take in my own filmmaking would take shape.

My Encounter with Paper Tiger Television
Since then, I have done freelance work in film production without being affiliated with any television studios or production companies. For the two years from 1993-1995, I lived in New York and was active with a group called Paper Tiger Television. Paper Tiger is a video production collective whose aim is to create what cannot be done in mainstream media through producing an alternative media. In this organization, media activists critique the state of the present media and cooperate with various citizens’ groups in order to produce programming that the mass media will not produce.[8]

Paper Tiger programs are made primarily through the work of volunteers. During the time that I was there, there were about ten people who were regular participants in making the programs aside from the organization’s full-time staff. In weekly meetings, the program’s content, focus, and style were discussed and decided upon. People from various positions and ethnicities and backgrounds submitted their ideas, and all opinions were treated equally. Most importantly, it was the existence of the differences in opinions that was seen to make it worthwhile to listen to one another’s ideas. Decisions were made by a majority vote. Those who were not present at the meeting gave up their right to object to the decisions made in their absence.

Of the organization’s members, I was the only one at the time who had professional filmmaking experience. Paper Tiger’s main focus was on making programs that the citizens felt were necessary, rather than on generating profit. It was through these meetings at Paper Tiger that it became more and more clear to me that this was the fundamental value of public access, that is, a media built by citizens. No professional credentials were necessary; in fact, such credentials were viewed as getting in the way of their goals. The inadequacies of the mainstream media became more and more visible, as I learned about the citizens’ frustrations when it came to the mass media broadcasts. First, there was the tendency to prioritize the eye-catching image over the topic or content. A second point of contention was the prioritization of the viewpoint of the powerful or of intellectuals, and the low value placed on the perspective of the weak. Third, there was a lack of thorough coverage of the debated issues, and a strong tendency to simplify things as black and white. And finally, they took issue with the stereotyping and caricaturing of subject matter.

Dispelling the fog from the mass media
In 1993, the U.S. was the only developed country in the world not to have health insurance for all its citizens. Private health insurance companies competed amongst each other in an open marketplace. For that reason, 38% of Americans at the time were not covered by any health insurance whatsoever. Although the Clinton administration took on the challenge of revamping the national health care system, when the amendments to the national health insurance system were finally announced, the insurance companies banded together in a campaign against the amendments in order to protect their interests.

Specifically, there were two suggested amendments, and it was around these two proposals that the debate ensued. The first was the so-called ‘managed competition’ system, and the other was a ‘single payer’ system. The former protected the free market with some government oversight, while in the latter proposal, the government would administer health care and the entire nation would get equal access to basic medical services. Naturally, the health insurance industry backed ‘managed competition.’ They backed the system that was better for the industry, not better for the American public.

The private sector insurance industry spent nearly five and a half million dollars developing a clever commercial campaign.[9] In it, a husband and wife read about the news of the national health insurance reform in the newspaper and express concern and disappointment over the reduction in choices available to them. The punch line for these ads was: “If they choose, we lose.” The negative image whipped up by the insurance industry portrayed the government initiative as effectively limiting people’s options, and built this message with great skill and intensity. Ironically, the phrase was also a perfect reflection of the position of the country’s insurance industry.

The program that Paper Tiger Television produced in response to this ad campaign was called Media Blocks Out on Healthcare Reform, and was composed of two parts. Part one, entitled “Proposals for Universal Healthcare Reform,” introduced members of citizen’s groups concerned with health care issues who support the ‘single payer’ system, and the reasons why they supported the reform. Many of the interviewees were women, and especially minority women, and the program made it clear that they were affiliated with organizations that support low-income groups. The voices of these normally subordinated and invisible women, who never appear in the mass media, appealed directly to their audience in an unadorned yet powerful style. Part two of the program, called “How the Mainstream Media Covers the Universal Healthcare Reform Issue,” was an analysis of how the mainstream media represented the issue. In collaboration with an NGO that had been seeking universal health care reform in the U.S. for over ten years, Paper Tiger provided information about the health care systems adopted in other countries, allowing the public to consider what the ideal healthcare system would be. Such information was completely lacking in the mass media.

This NGO banded together with citizens groups closely involved with other health insurance issues and, with Paper Tiger’s advice, produced and aired a commercial with a message completely different from that of the corporate insurance groups. In their counter ad, a couple describes how effectively the ‘single-payer’ system would reduce wasteful tax spending and increase the number of people covered. Meanwhile, they also covered the way in which the mass media criticized the single-payer system such as, for example, the ABC network’s contention that the ‘data was inconclusive’ and CBS’s allegation that the [single-payer system] was at once “too broad and particular” a reform. Comparing ads from both sides of the issue, and armed with the information presented in Paper Tiger’s program, the viewers were given a chance to see just how off-target the mass media’s criticism of the single-payer system was and to understand just how unbalanced the media coverage itself was.

The show was produced in a studio provided for free by Manhattan’s public access television, Manhattan Neighborhood Network. Since all the workers were volunteers, there were no labor costs, making the total production cost just under $50. The creative handmade touches such as the humorous hand-drawn backdrop gave all the Paper Tiger programs the distinctive feel of New York. Proof that lots of funding does not necessarily guarantee a good product, Paper Tiger embodied the notion of freedom from commercialism through its practice.

Mass media, therefore, is not almighty. As long as capital is what supports it, it will, of necessity, have its structural limits. And that is precisely why the work of community organizations like Paper Tiger are so important, for they perform the role of filling in the holes and evening out the imbalances. In the present chaotic media landscape, the need for citizens to protect and ensure the public’s right to know and inform will only grow. In my work as part of the production staff, I was deeply struck by the group’s grassroots democratic stance that the public’s right to know had to be ensured by the public themselves. At the same time, I saw how necessary this was in not just media, but in many other aspects, and I came to understand the power of everyday people who are driven by a vision to make different kinds of programs. My work with Paper Tiger became a crucial experience through which I gained the vantage point of viewing different media in relation relative to one another.

2. Making the NHK Special Program: “Children facing a war zone”

It was the Persian Gulf War that made Paper Tiger Television known to the world. In 1990, Paper Tiger brought together anti-war groups from all over the nation through its airwaves. Although ultimately, the war was not averted, Paper Tiger’s presence when the war began played an important role as a corrective to the pro-war bias that overwhelmed the American mass media of the time.[10]

But what happened after the Persian Gulf War? The American media portrayed an image of Iraq as ‘evil’ in all its coverage of the Persian Gulf issues, and the Japanese media dutifully followed the U.S. lead. There seemed to be no media transmitting the feelings of the Iraqi people. The media’s inability to step outside the given framework of “America equals good, Iraq equals bad” was disturbing.

In 1997, through the invitation of a producer with whom I worked, I had the opportunity to listen to a lecture by a woman belonging to an NGO that helps Iraqi children. This woman, Itō Masako, had been single-handedly organizing the transfer of relief supplies to Iraq for the seven years since the end of the Persian Gulf War. According to her report, because of the effects of the depleted uranium munitions used by the coalition forces during the Gulf War, children were being born with deformities and high rates of leukemia. But because of continued economic sanctions since the beginning of the war, there were extreme shortages in medicines. Including deaths caused by lack of medicine and malnutrition, over one million children are said to have died in the last seven years [of sanctions] alone. If we could make a film that showed how Iraqi children have lived in the years after the Persian Gulf War, it seemed possible to break through, if only a little, the stereotypes about Iraq in the mainstream media. And I thought it would be meaningful to broadcast it on NHK, a major mainstream network, for that would allow us to bring in something different into the mass media.

Roughly 40% of the programs that are broadcast on NHK are jointly produced with outside production companies. After a decision is reached about which programs will be handed over to external productions and how many co-produced shows there will be, calls for show ideas are publicly solicited. For a single program slot, therefore, there are times when almost 500 show ideas are submitted by external sources. These proposals are then evaluated by NHK affiliate groups such as NHK Enterprise and the selected proposals submitted to headquarters. Whether a given proposal comes to fruition depends on whether or not the NHK producer in charge actively pushes his recommendation. Other factors are also considered, such as the suitability of the content for the program slot, the value of the information for public broadcast, and the reputation of the production company.

The gist of the proposal that I submitted to the NHK network was as follows: “Eight years after the Persian Gulf War, how have postwar children been living under severe economic sanctions? And was this war, touted to have reduced the number of victims by using technologically accurate weapons, really a ‘clean’ war? This program tries to look at the underreported everyday life of Iraqi people, and treat it from the perspective of the weakest in society: the children.” When I submitted the proposal, I strongly stressed that I would not refer to the long-standing political standoff between the U.S. and Iraq.

My proposal was easily approved, with the help of two factors: first, the fact that the life of the everyday Iraqi had not been covered in the media, and second, the fact that the opportunity for such interviews was so rare, and would have been impossible, save for the arrangements of Itō Masako. The producer in charge was particularly supportive, saying that it was proposals such as these that were really worth doing. Rather than discuss the issues of right or wrong concerning the Persian Gulf War, this producer felt there was value in just showing the daily lives of Iraqi children. In November of 1998, Itō Masako and I entered Iraq with our camera crew.

The Iraq that the mass media did not cover
The children in the leukemia ward at Baghdad’s largest hospital were in a dire situation; not only did they have no access to medicines for treatment of their leukemia, but they hardly had enough to eat. Over the nine years of continued economic sanctions, Iraqi society had been falling apart at the seams. Utterly powerless, the people of Iraq have had nothing to be hopeful about, except to cling to the singular hope for the economic sanctions to be lifted so that their lives could return to what they used to be. In this situation, there is no more tragic existence than that of the parent of a sick child. The U.S., with its vaunted democracy, has consistently justified the seemingly unfair imposition of inhumane economic sanctions by referring to Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. Yet if the weapons of mass destruction are truly the issue, why shouldn’t all the countries that have the nuclear bomb be targeted? And what should be said of the massive amounts of chemical weaponry used in the Persian Gulf War, or the one million children dead thanks to U.S. economic sanctions?

With lingering questions in my mind, on December 16, 1998, I returned to Baghdad from collecting materials at the Kuwaiti border, the former site of warfare during the Persian Gulf War. But things were not right around me. The NGO worker from Italy whom I had been planning to interview left the country in a panic. I then recalled that the following day was the very day I had proposed one month earlier when I contacted UN workers to secure interview appointments, and they had unanimously said “No.” When I called one of the UN workers, I was told that he had long ago been evacuated from the country. Hailing a taxi in the silent streets of Baghdad, I went over to the Press Center, and was told that there was a possibility of bomb attacks. Then I knew intuitively that this had been planned for over a month. It was December 16th that day, and the Gulf War began on January 17th [1991]. When the date changes at midnight to the 17th, they might begin the bombing, the Iraqi translator warned me. At this point, however, there was no way of exiting the country.

That night, on December 17th, 1998, early in the morning of 12:30 am, the bombing began. Flashes of light and the sound of bomb blasts tore through the streets of Baghdad, as the bombs continued to explode. The hypocrisy of bombing in order to preserve peace became painfully clear to me as never before. While the NGO workers and the UN workers had the option of leaving the country, the Iraqi people had nowhere to escape.

I visited the home of a young girl with leukemia on the day following the air strikes. Everything was the same as before at the little girl’s home. Life continues despite air strikes. Her mother’s words—“I am so tired. We just want our quiet life back”—left a stinging pain in my heart. At the hospital where I had been earlier, civilians wounded by the bombs were being brought in. From one family, a still nursing infant, a five-year-old girl, and their mother were all on the brink of death from their injuries. The conflict between the U.S. government and Hussein were matters of an impossibly remote world for the Iraqi people. Yet, the reality of warfare was closing in on them. It is always the weak that take the heaviest toll in war.

Bringing in an alternative viewpoint into the mass media
I stayed in Iraq for forty days, and brought home a total of eighty tapes of thirty-minute footage. What I consciously tried to do in the editing process was not to emphasize the desperate conditions of the Iraqi people, and to maintain objectivity. In covering any aspect of the Iraqi situation, especially the heart-wrenching scenes taking place in hospitals, there was the risk of falling into media stereotyping with one false step. For the majority of the world that watches media coverage characterizing Iraq as evil, such reporting could give the false impression that it was being used for pro-Hussein propaganda. In the end, the program we produced was a report on the everyday lives of Iraqi people, which avoided the emotional probing of international politics. I had hoped that the images of everyday life for the Iraqis inserted into NHK news sequences would naturally convey Iraq’s deadlocked situation and the people’s desperation.

At the NHK network, producers previewed both externally and internally made productions, in order to thoroughly check the program’s quality, to see if it fit in with NHK’s style, and to verify that the content was appropriate for public broadcast. The first preview of our program was screened only to the producers directly involved. At the end of the screening, the first comment was that the tone was entirely “too anti-American.” Because it was argued that a visible anti-American bias would get in the way of my real intention being conveyed, I was directed to rewrite the narration. Although I had attempted to be as objective as I could, my strong feelings of sympathy with the Iraqi people and my anger towards the U.S. for commencing air strikes had evidently come out unconsciously in the narration.

For the second screening, the executive level producers were present. While the producers directly involved felt that the second version was significantly reduced in anti-American tone, the overseeing producers who saw it for the first time said that they “could not broadcast such an overtly anti-American program.” My footage of Iraq showed the poverty in that country so vividly that any one who saw it would be unable to deny the inhumanity of the U.S. military in executing air strikes against such a country.

But reality is reality. The problem at hand was that NHK could not air something so contrary to U.S. public statements. This was a line that NHK, as a public mass media broadcaster, could not cross. What I feared the most was that the program would be shelved, so I was prepared to make some compromises to get it aired, as long as I could get across my most crucial message: the extent of the suffering experienced by the politically innocent Iraqi people and children with leukemia, and the inhumane reality of the sanctions.

Ultimately, the solution proposed by both groups of producers was to combine objective narration with my voice-over comments as director. By doing the presentation in such a way that made it clear that the comments did not reflect NHK’s official views, but rather, were a direct report of what the director found on location, the program was cleared for broadcast.

The Japanese media is sorely lacking in diversity of viewpoints. It is only through the development of various ideas and angles, that the media can achieve some balance. But how do we actualize this kind of diversity in the media? For one, as film producers, we can produce programs with an alternative viewpoint. Not everything has to be done from an alternative viewpoint, however. Even if the program deals with mainstream content, as long as a small message is put into the program, that is enough. Another point to consider is that the mainstream media will not air any and all alternative media content; inevitably, there are limits. But if one puts forth a well-supported proposal and negotiates persistently, getting aired in the mainstream media is not impossible. Although it is a large system, the mass media world accords a degree of discretion to the individual who is there, on location. Even within the mass media, there are people with alternative viewpoints, and in the present environment of diversification of channels, the possibilities are sure to grow. There are some producers who say that if they make ten programs, they want one of them to be a little different. Personally, I believe that the possibilities are out there.

3. On the possibilities for public access in Japan

The 1990s was a period when the high quality documentary programs enjoyed in the 1980s were disappearing one after another, as television programming headed down the road of entertainment and variety shows. This had the effect of producing viewers who were dissatisfied with the depiction of conventional morals and popular entertainment. In this period of changing social values, television became unable to respond to the varied needs that people had. At the same time, with the diversification of channels through the entry of foreign capital and the rise of the internet, subscribers to cable television increased.

In the U.S. during the latter half of the 1970s into the 1980s, a movement towards public access developed, allowing citizens to gain more access to the media. In Japan, however, where cable television was not so widespread, public access television like that of the U.S. did not emerge even in the 1990s. But as public access became more well-known, things began to change.

The “People’s Media” Experiment
First, there was a wave of alternative media production in the 1990s, which was distributed through means other than the channels provided by cable television. For example, there was the “People’s Media” experiment. In 1992, a network of independent film producers and local activists in Japan was established through a meeting of the “People’s Media Network.” This organization was intended to bring people together through casual meetings, for the purpose of sharing and exchanging information. Instead of a media that “opposes mass media,” their central purpose was to return the media to the hands of the people. Members of this organization ranged from individuals were active in citizen’s movements, the average white collar worker, or people who worked freelance in the media business. The organization’s administrative structure was supported through the voluntary efforts of its members.

Tsuchiya Yutaka, who works under the group name Without Television, felt that video art had gotten trapped inside the artist and had become uninteresting. Asking whether video art could exist in a form that was more outward-looking, he used images as a means of communication in his video production. In 1995, Tsuchiya produced a film called What do you think about the question of the emperor’s war responsibility? (Anata wa tennō no sensō sekinin ni tsuite dō omoimasuka? (Shinjuku edition)). He distributed this film in video format, with the film being sold at the low price of 500 yen [about 5 USD] per videotape. A label on the packaging read: “This videotape is part of free access media. Everyone has the potential to make a statement through these images. Reproduce freely.”

Not only did the film treat a topic that was taboo in the mainstream media, (namely, the issue of the emperor system in Japan) but the statement on its packaging clearly revealed the intention to do away with established media orthodoxies. Its method of distribution through the video form without relying on cable television also proved well suited to the contemporary media landscape of Japan. Video could be screened and discussed within gatherings of like-minded people. This use of video during the 1990s was a new phase of independent screenings, different from the 1970s and 80s.

In “People’s Media,” there is no need to imitate or follow the professional craft techniques of media production. It sends the message that anyone with a camera can express and convey a message. At the same time, by bringing together myriad grassroots citizen groups with video artists, it furthers the movement’s goals through using images as a tool for citizen’s movements.

There are other success stories from serendipitous use of methods similar to “People’s Media.” The series called Very Ordinary People (dir. Shinomiya Tetsuo, 1995-2001) portrayed the steps towards independence taken by mentally disabled patients in the Hokkaido town of Urakawa. Local psychiatrists were forming a movement in which mentally handicapped patients were provided with opportunities to talk to each other and in so doing, begin to gain some independence in the community. An individual who took an interest in and sympathized with this movement sponsored volunteer staff to film the video footage. This video was initially provided free of charge, and later made available at cost to those who requested it. Quickly spreading through the country, it became the “talked about” video of the time. In the film, the mentally handicapped patients appeared using their real names, and spoke about their handicaps. With warmth and humor, the film showed how the patients interacted with people in the community who supported them as they worked toward making a life for themselves.

This modest example of an alternative media video was so well received that the mainstream news program News 23 on TBS went to the local area and covered it live in a special broadcast. This health care movement eventually became a source of revitalization for the town itself. This thrilling instance of the mass media following in the footsteps of alternative media reveals the great promise that lies in the work of organizations such as “People’s Media.” It is evidence that the type of media is not an issue; as long as it covers content which the public seeks, the makers of these images should theoretically be able to move freely back and forth between mainstream and alternative medias.

I hope by now to have shown that the inheritors of alternative media, or so-called ‘other media,’ have shifted from being professional filmmakers to the average citizen. Unlike in the past, filmmaking can be done without expensive equipment and high technical skills. Nevertheless, professional films by professional filmmaking groups will no doubt continue to be made. And from within these groups, a filmmaker who brings to light social issues ignored in the mass media will be sure to emerge. Take, for example, Mori Tatsuya, who tried to depict average Aum Cult[11] believers as real people, but ended up having no choice but to leave his post at the TBS network. By completing his independent production entitled A, he was able to depict an Aum sect member as a young man struggling to find his way, instead of merely as an ‘evil’ individual, which was the mass media’s typical portrayal.[12]

Tasks for a public access in Japan
Public access channels broadcasting alternative programs created by collectives like New York’s Paper Tiger also exist in Japan. In 1989, Chukai Cable Television Company based in Chukai in Tottori Prefecture established a channel devoted to public access, and has since been offering it to its citizens. But the biggest problem here has been “the lack of programs being brought in…[E]ven in the most active period, a program a week is about the most that gets brought in. So the programs go through rushed editing, or filming continues alongside the editing process. The quality therefore leaves much to be desired.”[13]

In the case of the U.S., the movement for public access brought about a transformation in the way media was viewed: from something made only by professionals, to something that could be made by ordinary citizens and broadcast on a public channel. But it was this transformation in how media was viewed that was crucial. Although one of the reasons that public access has not become widespread in Japan is because of infrastructure problems, another reason is the lack of belief among the public that it is one’s right as a citizen to make one’s voice heard through the media. In addition, the public access movement in the U.S. is supported by the existence of a solid citizen’s support base, but in Japan, such a support base is minimal.

This lack is deeply connected to the state of grassroots democracy, which must be the starting point of any public access media. So the task that Japanese public access must confront is two-sided: on the one hand, there is the issue of infrastructure, and on the other hand, there is the issue of public awareness. For example, American public access works together with cable television companies, not only in providing the hardware equipment, but also providing training on how to use the equipment. Through these routes, ordinary citizens can learn directly from experts in communication and media education. But in Japan, while opportunities for broadcasting one’s own programs are made available, training in media literacy is miniscule. Becoming media literate so that people may look critically at the media is fundamental to the production of public access programs, but unfortunately, *this is absent in Japan. For a public that has never been educated to look critically at the media, giving them the equipment and the opportunity for producing programs is not enough; there must be a real understanding of the significance of public access as well as the ability to seek out suitable topics.

Yet, through the involvement of citizens who take cameras into their own hands, a new brand of alternative media is being born. In 2000 in the cities of Mitaka and Musashino, the Musashino Mitaka Cable Television established a public access channel. When calls for participants in the Musashino Mitaka Citizen’s Network went out, over a hundred applicants of various ages responded, ranging from students, white collar workers, housewives, and retired persons. The person who became the head of the preparatory committee was a man who had been involved for over ten years in volunteer activities with the disabled community and had some experience making programs during his years working for his company. The preparatory committee began making its plans in July of 2000, and by January 1st of 2001, aired its first program, entitled Our Town (Watashitachi no machi, 2001), an hour-long program. Housewives and company workers with no professional experience took part in producing the program, driven by their own motivations and feelings. Introducing a store in the local Kichijoji area and portraying the feelings of the people who maintain the local Inokashira Park, they filmed nature as it came to life in their locale. Since then, programs have continued to be made at the rate of about one a month. There have been programs such as The Children next door (Tonari no kodomo tachi) produced by young mothers, A day in the life of a City Council Member (Shigi kaigiin’tte donna hito?) and Getting familiar with parliament (Gikai o mijika ni), which asks fundamental civics questions of its audience. With the 300,000 yen (about 3,000 USD) in support that they receive from the Musashino Mitaka Cable television, they pay the office rent and production costs, while all the rest is done with volunteer labor.

After one year, the number of members has increased to sixty, with about thirty of them active regularly. Mizuno Hiroyuki, who has been de facto leader of the group since they opened a prep room, says that while the sharing of information amongst members is the most crucial task, members can also learn how to work the camera and editing equipment, and learn the skills of how to put together a program. Furthermore, members learn about their own community by way of making these programs. After one year, a handbook was issued for members. The charter contained in it states the group’s goal of supporting and performing projects in community building, which will make life in the town more livable and animated, as well as its stated aims “to learn about, tell others about, and reflect on our town,” “to understand, meet, and share with people,” and “to support citizen’s exchange of information and the expression of their opinions.” The language of this charter came directly from the members themselves. The last statement, in particular, regarding the goal “to support citizen’s exchange of information and the expression of their thoughts,” reflects the wish to have ordinary citizens bring in their own programs. Mizuno is hopeful that the people who have come together in order to make their own television programs will build upon their experiences and ultimately, help raise issues which confront the larger community. The citizens have in public access a space in which to experiment through a process of trial and error. A Japanese form of public access has the potential to grow from this kind of place.

[1] This is the third chapter from Kamanaka Hitomi’s Hibakusha, dokyumentarii eiga no genba kara (Kage shobo, 2006). It first appeared in Media riterashii no genzai to mirai, ed. Suzuki Midori (Sekai shisosha, 2001).

[2] Ogawa Shinsuke: shineasuto wa kataru 5. Ogawa Shinsuke, commentary by Hasumi Shigehiko. (Shinemate-ku, Furindo,1993)

[3] The Sanrizuka series was comprised of a total of seven films made over ten years, all documenting the farmer’s struggle against the government take over of their land. “Summer in Narita” (1968) was the first in the series.

[4] The fishing village of Minamata was the site of severe mercury poisoning, caused by contamination from the industrial wastewaters of the Chisso Corporation. Minamata disease, a neurological disease cased by mercury poisoning in the local ecosystem, was first discovered in 1956. A second outbreak of Minamata disease had broken out in 1965.

[5] Koza: Nihon eiga 5. Sengo eiga no tenkai. Sato Tadao ed. (Iwanami Shoten, 1987).

[6] Massive protests against renewal of the ANPO (US Japan Security Treaty) took place in 1960.

[7] Directed by Shinomiya Tetsuo, Gurûpu Gendai, 1984.

[8] See part 3, ch.1 of Media riterashii wo manabu hito no tame ni. Suzuki Midori ed. (Sekai shisosha, 1997).

[9] Known as the “Harry and Louise Campaign,” this ad campaign was funded by the Health Insurance Association of America, a health insurance industry lobbying group.

[10] Media riterashii, p. 212.

[11] The Aum Shinrikyo Sect was a religious sect made most famous for its responsibility in the sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway system in March of 1995.

[12] Mori Tatsuya, “A” satsuei nisshi – oumu shisetsu de sugoshita 13 kagetsu (Gendai Shokan, 2000).

[13] Tsuda Masao, Hiratsuka Chihiro ed. Paburikku akusesu: shimin ga tsukuru media. (Riberaru Shuppan, 1998).

Translated by Mika Endo with the kind permission of the author and the publisher.

By admin | Posted in Guest Lecturers, Kamanaka Hitomi, Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Tawara Yoshifumi, “Problems with the Abe Cabinet’s Education Policy and Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education”

July 18, 2008 – 3:43 am

Chapter 4 Problems with the Abe Cabinet’s Education Policy and Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education

1. Fundamentally changing the Fundamental Law

At the top of the first pillar of his “Administration’s Plans,” Abe Shinzō put “ establishing a Constitution suitable for a Japan that will open up a new era.” At the top of his second pillar, “A Country of Freedom and Discipline,” he put “sweeping education reforms.” And he made “revision” of the Fundamental Law of Education the most important issue in the “sweeping education reforms.”
At his very first press conference after being installed as the LDP chairman on September 20, 2006, Abe said, “The revision of the Fundamental Law of Education is the most important bill. I will put everything I have into it.” At a special session of the Diet, he stressed his aim to pass this “most important” education bill. Then, together with “revision” of the Fundamental Law of Education, or perhaps simply preoccupied with “revision,” he tackled the “sweeping education reforms.” On September 28, Abe stated the following about “education rebirth” in a speech declaring his convictions to the Lower House:

In order to realize my aims for ‘the beautiful country of Japan,’ the cultivation of children and youths who will shoulder the responsibilities of the next generation is indispensable. Recently, however, children’s morals and desire to learn have declined, and it has been pointed out that this indicates a decline in the educational capabilities of families and communities as well. The purpose of education is to raise citizens dedicated to their aspirations and to create a dignified nation and society…. Aiming towards the cultivation of human beings who cherish family, region, country, and life, who possess humanity, creativity, and discipline, I will grapple with the rebirth of education at once …. First, I expect the early drafting of a Fundamental Law of Education bill …. In order to advance such a policy, I will immediately have the cabinet set up an Education Rebirth Coucil, which will gather together the wisdom of our land.

The purpose of education as set forth in the current Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education is premised on the unique value of each individual’s existence (“respect for the individual’s dignity”), and for such individuals (human beings), it aims for “achievement of character.” Abe’s purpose of education, however, as made clear in this declaration of his convictions, is “the creation of nation and society,” “the cultivation of talent for the nation and national interest,” and “the creation of human beings who follow national policy.” Further, in Towards a Beautiful Country[1], Abe writes, “The purpose of education is to raise motivated citizens, to create a dignified nation.” Abe’s view of education prioritizes the nation over individuals, and, as with the government’s education bill, it fundamentally changes the purpose of education.

Britain as a model for “revision” of Japan’s Fundamental Law of Education

What are these “sweeping education reforms” Abe aims for, and how will they change Japanese education? We will examine these matters here.
The model for Abe’s education reform initiative is the education reform initiative of the former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. In Towards a Beautiful Country, Abe praises Thatcher’s actions as “magnificent education reforms.” He says, “Thatcher…carried out two things in the 1988 Education Reform Law. One was to correct a masochistic, biased education, and the other was to raise education standards …. Both are challenges facing Japanese education” (Towards a Beautiful Country). He asserts that the British example provides the model for Japan in promoting education reform. “The Thatcher reforms caused great friction in British society, but they were aimed at a better future. It was a creative destruction, so to speak,” he writes. “These reforms received fierce opposition from teachers in the field, and a teachers’ strike continued for half a year. However, Thatcher did not compromise at all. So, in the end, she pulled off the reforms.” It seems Abe is superimposing his own image as a “fighting politician” on top of Thatcher’s. Learning from Thatcher, he established the “Education Rebirth Council” under his direct control in the prime minister’s office, and he is forcing top-down “sweeping education reforms.”
First, here is how Abe explains the way in which Thatcher carried out the “correction of textbooks with masochistic views of history”:

In the history textbooks in use in England at the time, there were issues such as ‘how racial discrimination came to England.’ There was even an illustration showing England as a fat farm animal exploiting Africa. These were not high school textbooks, mind you–they were used in elementary education. They are textbooks that greatly wound self-esteem. Using these kinds of textbooks to educate their children, the British people could not foster self-esteem, Thatcher thought. So, in the 1988 reforms, the standpoint that textbooks should have balanced accounts was adopted. For example, if they wrote about the ‘negative’ aspect of slave labor in the colonies, they would have to mention that England was a forerunner in abolishing the slave trade (Towards a Beautiful Country).

Abe attacked textbooks that wrote about Japan’s role as aggressor and perpetrator, saying they had “biased,” masochistic historical perspectives. As I have already mentioned, Abe has cooperated with the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform (Tsukurukai). He says, “Present-day education has problems both in structure and content. In terms of content, there is first of all the problem of biased history education and textbooks replete with masochistic views of history…. I think this is gradually being corrected, but at the present time it has not been solved…. Despite the fact that the trade editions of Fusōsha’s textbooks sell millions and are supported by the public, their adoption rate in the schools has been abysmal” (Nakanishi Terumasa, ed., The Path to Correcting Our Education Based on the Thatcher Reforms). As I have pointed out, when Shimomura Hirobumi, a former Education ministry official, became vice-chief cabinet secretary and joined Abe’s inner circle, he said, “I will make sure that history textbooks based on a masochistic view of history will be corrected through instructions from the prime minister’s office.”
Abe follows up with this account of the Thatcher reforms’ program to “raise education standards”:

In England after the war, the state did not monitor educational content, so it was left up to individuals in the field. Because of that, there were more and more children who could not even count. To address this, the government created a National Curriculum and implemented standardized national scholastic achievement tests. Then, the Ministry of Education created an independent school inspection agency under direct control of the queen, dispatched over 5,000 inspectors throughout the country, and checked thoroughly to see whether instruction was being carried out in accordance with the National Curriculum. As a result, those schools that were found not to be meeting standards were ruthlessly closed. The number of these schools reached over one hundred. Even the education departments of universities that provided teachers to these schools were abolished. (ibid.)

These Thatcher policies were inherited by Tony Blair’s administration. As Abe points out, “Concretely, for example, teachers’ authority to discipline pupils causing problems was formalized, and households thought to be a potentially bad influence in their district were placed under 24-hour surveillance. By clearly distinguishing good from bad, the policies emphasized nipping crime in the bud” (ibid.).
Taking this as a model, Abe asserts the following about his intended “education reforms”:
“In the structural reform of compulsory education, the state first sets the goals and establishes the legal foundations. Then, it expands the authority and responsibility of municipalities and schools, making the initiatives practicable. When there are mechanisms in place to verify the results, the reform is complete” (ibid.).
Specifically, these are the sorts of things he wants to do:

Review the ‘educational goals’ of the Fundamental Law of Education…clarify the role of compulsory education…increase the number of classroom hours…fix the content-poor, comic-book-like textbooks…and reconsider the official Course of Study…. We will implement and announce the results of nationwide scholastic achievement tests….We will take steps to aid those schools that have poor test results, and if there continues to be no improvement, we will enforce measures such as replacing their faculty….We will provide parents and guardians with school choice. We will introduce a system of renewing teachers’ licenses…review the system of promotion based on seniority, give preference to enthusiastic and capable teachers…and have the no-good ones resign…. I fervently hope to introduce a school evaluation system like the one implemented in the Thatcher reforms. It will be a tool that the national inspection office can use to evaluate not just academic ability, but school administration, guidance of students, and so forth. In the case of problem schools, the Ministry of Education will be able to order the replacement of faculty members and the privatization of schools (ibid.).

In this manner, “the revival of academic ability can be effected in a relatively short time period, but the problem is the decline of morals.” In order to revive morals, “ by having young people engage in volunteer activity, we will have them learn the importance of the connections between people…for example, by making a certain amount of volunteer activity compulsory as a prerequisite for entering university…. By changing the time when they enter university to September, they will then have three months for this kind of activity” (ibid.).
Abe, who made this proposal during the race for party chairmanship, and who is now prime minister, established in the cabinet secretariat an “Education Rebirth Council” reporting directly to him and including civilian members. He has decided to promote education reforms such as the introduction of a school voucher system, a teacher’s license renewal system, a school evaluation system, university terms that begin in September to allow half a year of mandatory volunteer activities, correction of masochistic history education, and correction of radical sex education and “gender-free” education.
The school voucher system is one in which parents have the freedom to submit vouchers to the schools of their choosing, and the education budget is distributed to schools according to the number of vouchers they receive. Tied in with nationwide scholastic achievement tests and publication of their results, the school evaluation system, and the freedom to choose schools, the intention here is to encourage even more competition in education. With the school voucher system, income disparity is directly linked to educational disparity, disparity among regions and disparity among schools will be consolidated, and the already increasing disparity in education will be further exacerbated. This is the denial of equal educational opportunity.
Because of this neo-liberal educational policy, children, teachers, schools, and families will be thrown into the tumult of intense competition. Already, Japanese education has incorporated the principles of competition, and baneful effects have manifested themselves. In 1998 the U.N. Committee on Children’s Rights admonished Japan to remedy the “stress of its highly competitive education system” and the “exposure of children to developmental obstacles.” Since the Japanese government and the Ministry of Education ignored this admonition, in 2004 the U.N. Committee on Children’s Rights judged that “there was not adequate follow-up,” and once again admonished Japan to remedy the situation. The Abe administration’s “education reforms” pay no attention to the U.N.’s advice, and instead are based on even more competition in education than before. This is not the “reform” of education but its destruction.
The “revival of morals,” which Abe’s education reforms stress the most, represents the introduction of patriotism into education. Abe says, “I think fostering a love of country and the desire to improve it is something that should definitely be included [in the bill to revise the Fundamental Law of Education]…. When the nation is threatened with crisis, if there are none ready to sacrifice their lives, the nation will not stand ” (public symposium sponsored by the Reverence for Yasukuni Conference). To make the goal of education the creation of human beings who will offer their lives for the nation is the same as the Imperial Rescript on Education’s [1890] prewar and wartime foundation for education: “In a crisis, offer yourself up for the public good with loyalty and courage” (i.e., in a state of emergency or war, die for the emperor). The goal of Abe’s “sweeping education reforms” is the creation of people befitting a “country that wages war.” That kind of education now appears possible, as the government strives to repeal the current Fundamental Law of Education and actualize the government’s proposed fundamental law of education at any cost.[2]
As stated above, Abe praises the Thatcher administration’s education reforms in Britain, and he wants to make them the model for his own education reforms.
The Central Education Council’s (Chūkyōshin) president Torii Yasuhiko and successive education ministers have applauded this. Former Education Minister Kawamura Takeo said that thanks to the Thatcher education reforms, England’s textbooks with masochistic views of history had been revised. In his Five Proposals for Revising the Fundamental Law of Education, former Education Minister Nakayama Nariaki also praised the Thatcher reforms. Groups intent on reforming-for-the worse[3] the Fundamental Law of Education and attacking current textbooks such as the Japan Congress, the Tsukurukai, and the Citizens’ Education Watchdog Group have all taken the Thatcher reforms as their model.
In October 2004, with LDP Lower House member Hiranuma Takeo as chief representative, Lower House members Furuya Keiji and Shimomura Hirobumi, Upper House members Kamei Ikuo and Yamatani Eriko, and the Democratic Party’s Lower House members Matsubara Jin and Ryū Hirofumi formed the “British Education Research Group,” and they investigated the Thatcher education reforms. Abe writes, “In the fall of 2004, when I was chief secretary of the party, the LDP dispatched the Education Research Group to England. It was thought that the British experience would surely be useful to Japan’s education reforms” (Towards a Beautiful Country). This research group sent Abe’s comrades to England at Abe’s own suggestion.
The research group submitted a report to the LDP general meeting in December, and Abe, Furuya, Shimomura, and Yamatani published in the magazine Seiron (Jan. 2005) a round-table discussion about its contents entitled “Education with masochistic views of history, declining academic ability, truancy…to overcome ‘left-wing educationitis’ we must learn from the Thatcher’s reforms! The duty to revive education lies with the state.” Serving as moderator was Kabashima Yūzō, secretary-general of the Japan Congress. Furthermore, in April 1995, Abe’s confidant Nakanishi Terumasa oversaw the publication of The Way to Straighten Out Education Based on the Thatcher Reforms, compiled by the British Education Research Group.
It is speculated that Kabashima served in the “master role” in advocating for Abe’s claims. In April 2004, the Japan Congress published a book entitled England’s Education Reforms Beginning with Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education. The author, Kabashima, is secretary-general of the Japan Congress, and since his college days he has participated in right-wing movements with Abe’s adviser Itō Tetsuo, Saitama Education Committee member Takahashi Shirō, and former Lower House member Etō Seiichi, an ally of Abe who had fought privatization of the postal service and who was unseated in 2005. Kabashima accompanied the aforementioned British Education Research Group as a guide. Now, let us look at what happened to British education and textbooks after Thatcher’s education reform law according to this book (quotations without references are from this book).
The British education law enacted in 1944 was not “revised” for over 40 years, until the Thatcher administration revised it in 1988. More accurately, the Thatcher administration left the 44-year-old education law as it was and passed an Education Reform Act . Kabashima introduces the core of the reform act as follows:

It fixes the principle of the [1944] education law, that is, the view of entrusting educational content to the independent judgment of teachers…. The state should establish educational content. The basis of this content is the transmission of traditional values…. Schools maintained by public funding (public schools, as well as private schools that receive financial support from the government) are under the authority of the Minister of Education….It is believed that these fundamental principles will solve the problem of bias in education.

How British textbooks changed

Kabashima states that as a result of the 1988 Education Reform Act, British education “was dramatically improved….The most dramatic change can be seen in history textbooks.” He claims that content criticizing or reflecting on colonial rule and the slave trade was changed to justification, and textbooks thus shifted from depicting “England’s dark history” to “England’s prosperous history,” “from a masochistic to an emancipatory view of history.”

The way of describing colonial rule was changed from ‘the British Empire fattened on colonies’ to ‘England was not the only country with colonial possessions,’ and ‘England the murderous nation’ was changed to ‘colonial rule brought benefits to India.’ For the slave trade, ‘black slaves forcibly dragged away’ was changed to ‘England was not the only country to engage in the slave trade,’ and ‘black slaves sacrificed for England’s development’ was changed to ‘England abolished the slave trade before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.’ Pertaining to monarchy, ‘Queen Victoria, who ordered the exploitation of Asia and Africa,’ and ‘a class society with a queen who defends racial discrimination at the top’ became ‘the Victorian reign which built the foundations of the modern nation of England.’

At a round-table discussion for the journal Seiron (Jan. 2005), it was stressed that the focus of Hiranuma’s British Education Research Group was history textbooks.
Quite unlike Japan’s system of examining and accepting textbooks, British textbooks are independently published, and teachers choose them of their own accord. Moreover, there is no obligation to use textbooks. Given this situation, the 1988 Education Reform Act established a National Curriculum and stipulated that for the years of compulsory education, “nationwide tests would be administered at ages 7, 11, 14, and 16 …Teachers and schools with pupils who fail to meet academic standards would be investigated.” Textbooks were created based on the National Curriculum, and since “teachers’ responsibility would be pursued ” as a result of the nationwide tests, “teachers began to request textbooks whose content was based on the National Curriculum.” Thus, as Kabashima puts it, since they could not sell biased textbooks, textbook publishers “inevitably had to create textbooks consistent with the National Curriculum.”
“The results of graduation exams in English, mathematics, and science for elementary schools (age 11) and middle schools (age 16) were published in the Catalogue of Nationwide School Results…and every major newspaper published School Rankings, which became references by which parents and students chose schools.” Since these nationwide exams are linked to the freedom of school choice implemented by the Thatcher reforms, schools with low rankings “have difficulty attracting students, their budgets decrease, and this leads in the end to school closures.” In this manner, the neo-liberal reforms have plunged schools into fierce competition.
It is not just children and schools that are forced to compete, but teachers as well. The scores of students and schools are deemed to be the teachers’ responsibility. “As rewards and punishment, the following measures were introduced one after another: (1) monetary prizes for superior teachers (starting in 1999), (2) knighthood for superior teachers (starting in 2000), (3) the establishment of Guidance in Dealing with Unqualified Teachers such that teachers who are judged unqualified after two months of auditing would be dismissed (starting in 2000), and (4) bonuses for promotions and talent (starting in 2000).” In Japan these initiatives are already being implemented, beginning with Tokyo and Kyoto (monetary prizes), ahead of the reform-for-the-worse of the Fundamental Law of Education.
Moreover, in 1997, Blair’s ruling Labor Party passed legislation providing for “parenting orders”[4] based on the Education Reform Act .
“This law stated that protecting children from crimes and misdemeanors was up to parents, not the state, society, or schools. The law says the following about parents’ duties and responsibilities to their children:
(1) Parents of children who have committed crimes must accompany their children to and from school, and they must oversee them at home.
(2) The fine for violating this law is 1,000 pounds (about 200,000 yen), and non-payment will be punished by imprisonment.
(3) So that children not commit further crimes and that they attend school regularly, they are required to participate in [weekly] counseling and guidance sessions for a period of [from three] up to twelve months.”
‘Parental orders’ apply to truancy cases as well. In May 2000, a court ruled that the parents of fifteen-year-old girl who habitually did not attend school ‘are not fulfilling their duty to make their daughter go to school.’ It fined the forty-six-year-old father 250 pounds (45,000 yen) and the mother 150 pounds (27,000 yen). In England, the responsibility for making truant children go to school is seen to lie with the parents.”
Truant children have any number of problems, but to have the state ordering parents to make their children go to school is intolerable. How can we say that Kabashima and his colleagues, who find this marvelous, are qualified to talk about education?
In the above-mentioned round-table discussion held by Seiron, Yamatani showed her high regard for the British “ parental orders” when she said, “I most certainly want to include provisions in the revised Fundamental Law of Education that make clear respect for traditional culture, the importance of education in the home, cultivation of moral and religious sentiments, and the nation’s responsibility for education.”
Kabashima and Abe sum up the points above as follows:
“One focus of the argument over revising Japan’s Fundamental Law of Education is whether to include the word ‘patriotism,’ but in England they have begun to introduce education pledging ‘loyalty to the state’…. The 1988 Education Reform Act, which contained the Establishment of the State’s Rights and Responsibilities Regarding Education, and which sprang from the plan for a national curriculum devoted to history education that would foster a sense of belonging to the country and religious education centered on Christianity, was a kind of ‘education revolution.’ And based on this principle, history textbooks have changed, the home has changed, young people’s consciousness has changed, citizens’ consciousness has changed, and the Labor Party has also changed greatly. It makes one realize how great was the influence of revising the fundamental law of education.”
If England has indeed become what this book describes, then the consequences of changing the Fundamental Law of Education in Japan on children, teachers, schools, homes, and society are chillingly clear.
In the LDP organ, LDP Monthly (Dec. 2004), Abe’s close adviser Yagi Hidetsugu writes about the Imperial Rescript on Education in this way: “The original intent of the phrase, ‘in a crisis, offer yourself to the public good with loyalty and courage,’ was to express the duty of citizens to be loyal and to defend their nation based on the principle that ‘every citizen is a soldier.’” Printing the entire Rescript and paraphrasing it in the vernacular, he goes on to assert the following:

Both England and the United States carried out audacious education reforms in the 1980’s, with an eye towards improving the quality of their citizens. The prosperity of these two countries today must be seen in the context of those reforms. Scholars have since remarked that what the Thatcher administration did was to create ‘a nation of guaranteed quality’…. Our country should also guarantee the quality of its citizens, review its educational philosophy, and, specifically, make bold revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education.

What Yagi wants to say is that precisely because the U.S. and Britain proceeded boldly with education reforms, they became “powerful countries” able to carry out the invasion of Iraq despite international criticism, ignoring international law and the U.N. in the process. Japan should learn from this, he says, and revise its Fundamental Law of Education, and train the people as citizens of “a powerful country,” “a country that wages war.”
Thatcher’s education reforms, which Abe takes to be a model, have already been criticized from every corner. The Weekly Diamond (Sept. 2) wrote the following:

It is characteristic of Mr. Abe to add centralized power and principles of competition to patriotic education. He is mistaken, however. Thatcher’s reforms did not improve fundamental academic ability, but they did widen the disparity in educational opportunity, leading to a crop of expulsions and drop-outs, and increased crime …. Abe does not write about these facts. Is he lazy or does he distort? His shallowness is regrettable.

Why Abe does not write about these facts could be due first, to the fact that Kabashima wrote only about what was convenient for his group , and secondly, to the fact that the British Education Research Group only investigated those things that were convenient to them, particularly what would be useful for “revising” the Fundamental Law of Education. For instance, they failed to investigate publishers’ freedom to publish and teachers’ freedom to adopt textbooks, the variety of textbooks being published today, and how those “textbooks with masochistic views of history,” which they criticize, are still being published and how they continue to be used. All they had done when they visited publishing companies was to repeat questions about “textbooks with masochistic views of history.”
Regarding what Diamond points out as a lack of academic improvement, the Red Flag (Sept. 17, 2006) says, “The International Academic Proficiency Survey’s results for England (2003) show a large decline since the previous test (2000). (In science, it fell from fourth to eleventh place; in reading comprehension, from seventh to eleventh place; and in mathematics, from eighth to eighteenth place.) The Daily Telegraph reported that ‘England is slipping out of the world’s education league.’”
Also criticized were Abe’s claims about history education and textbooks that had been “liberated from masochistic views of history” by the Thatcher reforms:

Professor Tsuchiya Takeshi of Aichi Teachers’ College, who is familiar with history education in England, points out that ‘the Thatcher reforms started the idea of “recapturing the pride of Britons.” In the field of history education, we do not see the teaching of a single historical perspective with this goal in mind. Rather, beginning with the premise that there are many ways of thinking, the emphasis has been on having children read various materials and develop their own perspectives on history.’ As a concrete example, Mr. Abe mentions the history textbook with the ‘illustration showing England as a fat farm animal exploiting Africa,’ criticizing it as ‘wounding the self-esteem’ of children. Thatcher corrected that, he says. According to a different researcher, however, ‘The reality is that the textbooks at issue were used in elementary schools in districts with high immigrant populations, like London, but it is a mistake to say they were used throughout the country’ (ibid.).

Furthermore, in regard to the form of school administration, British education policy expert Ōta Naoko, associate professor at Shuto (Metropolitan) University, Tokyo, explains that “in Britain, parent representatives are chosen in elections, and they hold a great deal of authority in school administration. It is different from Japan, where school involvement is merely formal, and where teachers are transferred frequently. If we really are going to look to Britain, it would be unfair not to bring up this aspect, as well” (ibid.).
In addition, movements to reconsider these changes have already begun in Britain. “In Wales, which enacted nationwide academic testing just as in England, the Welsh assembly abolished testing at age 11. They had already done away with testing at age 7, and they have stopped publishing the results” (ibid.).
As Tokyo University associate professor Katsuno Masaaki, who has research experience in Britain, points out, “Even in Britain, the ‘home’ of these reforms, new language about ‘a child’s joy in learning’ has been added to government documents. For teachers, too, the practice of reviving specialties is being reconsidered. In Japan, however, they are implementing education reforms that make the goals of the state a categorical imperative. I fear that the work of education will be damaged” (ibid.).
Thatcher’s Education Reform Act does not repeal the 1944 education law with provisions that the state will not interfere in teachers’ autonomy to select educational content; rather, it is dedicated to maintaining educational requirements. This point is fundamentally different from the Abe administration’s plan to revise the Fundamental Law of Education. The Abe administration only brings up the parts that are convenient for them, and they exploit them in order to revise Japan’s Fundamental Law of Education. Abe praises Thatcher’s reforms as “constructive destruction,” but what Abe aims for is simply “destruction of education.”

2. Problems with the willfully promoted revision of the Fundamental Law of Education

Prime Minister Abe has presented the education reform bill to the special session of the Diet as the most important bill, aiming to pass it during the session at any cost.
Abe says the current Fundamental Law of Education, like the Constitution, is “a remnant of the postwar order,” and in order to be released from its “spell,” the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education that were imposed by the occupation forces must be revised. The current Fundamental Law of Education, Abe says, “is extremely inorganic, a sort of ‘global citizen’s’ writing. So, it does not smell like Japan … Children are granted rights, but there is no mention whatsoever of how to incorporate concepts like duty and the public. I feel that many of the problems arising today are the result of this” (Nov. 27, 2004, opening symposium, Reverence for Yasukuni Meeting). He regards the Fundamental Law of Education with hostility, as if it were the root of all evils.
To say “It does not smell like Japan” is a way of paraphrasing former Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro’s statement, “It does not taste like Japanese water.” Abe asserts that the Fundamental Law of Education is the cause of “many of the problems arising today” such as the “educational crisis” and the “decline of the labor force,” but not a single scientific, verifiable argument about the cause-effect relationship has been made. Nor can there be such an argument. There is no scientific, verifiable, or logical cause-effect relationship linking “many of the problems arising today” to the Fundamental Law of Education, and it cannot be demonstrated.
Now I will present the biggest problem with the government’s education reform bill sought by the Abe cabinet, the LDP, and the Clean Government Party (Komeito), and discuss actions for blocking the Diet passage of the bill. In addition, for problems pertaining to each article of the bill, please refer to the Booklet published by the Weekly Friday (Shukan Kin’yobi), This is What’s Wrong with Revising the Fundamental Law of Education (Kyoiku kihon ho “kaisei” no koko ga mondai).

Overall problems with the government’s Fundamental Law of Education bill

It must be pointed out that there are serious problems with the government’s proposal to reform-for-the-worse the Fundamental Law of Education, even if we bracket the content.
First is the process of drafting the bill.
At meetings of the ruling party’s Analysis Group, all materials distributed and notes taken were collected after the meetings were over, and even committee members did not accurately grasp the substance of the meetings, so that reports within the party were dependent on memory. Deliberations were conducted completely behind closed doors, with lookouts posted at the entrance to the conference room in the Diet where the meetings were held. Such secret deliberations have drawn criticism from within the ruling party itself, notably from the Japan Conference members of the LDP’s pro-constitutional amendment, hawkish side. In an opinion piece in the Sankei Shimbun, the Japan Congress and the Citizens’ Education Special Investigation Group took issue with these “closed conferences.” The drafting of the bill by the ruling party’s Analysis Group could be called a “hijacking” of education by a cadre of politicians.
Next, no legislative rationale has been provided as to why the Fundamental Law of Education needs sweeping “revisions” now. The government’s reason for submitting the bill is this: “In light of the changing circumstances confronting education in our country, and in order to establish a foundation for our country’s education that will answer the needs of the age, we must revise the entire Fundamental Law of Education.” What sorts of education problems these are and how they would be solved have not been clearly explained. The government could not clearly explain the reasons for the “revisions” even to a special committee dealing with the Fundamental Law of Education meeting during a regular Diet session.
The Fundamental Law of Education is a doctrinal law that lays the foundation for education, and it has the same character as the Constitution, which is why it is referred to as the “Education Constitution.” Such fundamental laws and regulations cannot be changed for such reasons as “changing circumstances ” or the “needs of the age.” Nambara Shigeru, then president of Tokyo University and vice-chairman of the Education Reform Committee, a central figure in establishing the current Fundamental Law of Education, stated, “There is not the slightest error in the newly established law of education. No matter what reactionary tempests the age may bring henceforth, it is unlikely that any one will be able to rewrite the spirit of the Fundamental Law of Education, for it is the truth, and to deny it would be akin to trying to dam the flow of history” (The Writings of Nambara Shigeru, Vol. 8, Iwanami Shoten).
The Abe administration maintains that the Fundamental Law of Education was imposed on Japan by the occupation forces, but that is not the case. It is the work of Japan’s finest scholars researchers and intellectuals who, upon reflecting on Japan’s war of aggression, directed their passion into producing a basic law (quasi-constitutional) that would establish an education contrary to preparation for war, in which each individual may flourish as a full human being. At his testimony in the first lawsuit of the Ienaga textbook case in Tokyo district court, Nambara Shigeru responded to the state’s attorney’s question, “Wasn’t [the Fundamental Law of Education] imposed?” by barking back, “It wasn’t such a shabby committee. Take a look at the members!” (Ienaga Textbook Case: Japan’s History on Trial, Part II, Evidence Vol. 1)
That Prime Minister Abe and former LDP chief secretary Takebe Tsutomu blame the Fundamental Law of Education for the Horiemon incident (the Live Door internet and software company’s illegal trading incident) and “fake earthquake-proofing” is beneath contempt, but neither are the many “educational crises,” such as bullying, truancy, and breakdown of classroom order, attributable to the Fundamental Law of Education. Among those who speak as though these are the result of the education law, virtually none has offered a concrete, rational account showing which provisions of the law have led to these “educational crises.” Rather, the greatest cause of today’s “educational crises” is precisely the successive government administrations that have promoted policies that go against the Fundamental Law of Education.

Severing the link to the Constitution, opposing the spirit of the Constitution

The administration’s bill severs the original unity of the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education. The bill leaves the words, “capturing the spirit of the Constitution of Japan,” but nowhere in the preamble or in any of the articles does it capture the spirit of the Constitution.
The administration’s bill deletes the words, “Having established the Constitution of Japan,” and “The realization of this ideal shall depend fundamentally on the power of education,” and it denies that education realizes the ideals set out in the Constitution (sovereignty residing in the people, pacifism, respect for basic human rights, etc.). Furthermore, having altered “we demand truth and peace” to “we demand truth and justice,” it severs the connection to Article 9 of the Constitution (“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order”).
The administration’s bill changes education for the sake of human beings (individuals), as provided in the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education, into education for the sake of the state, and it changes the law securing educational freedom and autonomy into a law justifying education regulated by the state, which is nothing less than a 180-degree shift.
In the current Fundamental Law of Education, the statement that “We shall esteem individual dignity ” (Preamble ) and “esteem individual value ” (Article 1, “The Aims of Education”) are based on Article 13 of the Constitution (”All of the people shall be respected as individuals”). The administration bill deletes “esteem individual value ,” but leaves in “esteem individual dignity.” Even though this phrase remains, however, its meaning has been altered. In other words, where the current education law emphasizes the state’s providing an education that will “esteem individual dignity,” the bill puts forth “the cultivation of human beings” that will “esteem the dignity of the individual.” “Dignity of the individual” is placed on a par with such virtues as “public-mindedness,” and in doing so, norms to be observed by the state are shifted and transformed into norms/virtues to be observed by individuals. Here, too, the link to the Constitution has been severed.
The administration’s bill deletes the phrase “with a view …to establish the foundation of education for a new Japan.” The “education for a new Japan” signaled a fundamental change from the prewar Imperial Rescript on Education system that cultivated human capability for the sake of waging war. Deleting these words erases the historical significance of the Fundamental Law of Education as an “education proclamation” that repented the war of aggression.

Arbitrary picking at the Constitution and current regulations, and other clever tricks

The administration’s bill is criticized as a “patchwork” product of political compromise. That it surely is. Yet, the bill employs extremely clever tricks. As stated above, even where it retains important provisions of the current law such as “ in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution of Japan,” “esteem[ing] individual dignity,” and “education shall not be subject to improper control” (Article 10), etc., the meanings are completely changed. Even though “education shall not be subject to improper control,” retained from Article 10’s prohibition of state intervention in or control of education, the succeeding clause, “but it shall be directly responsible to the whole people,” has been deleted. The article has been transformed such that the state has free and unlimited authority to intervene in and control education as long as it is lawful. Even the meaning of “improper control” has been transformed. The Ministry of Education explains that it is not “improper control” by the state and administrative authorities, but “improper control by partisan forces.” Its assertion is that “improper control” has been exercised by teachers’ unions and certain “left-wing” teachers. In fact, this is the same meaning intended by the June 2004 ruling party conference’s Interim Report stating that “educational administration shall not be subject to improper control.”

The structure of controlling citizens achieved by “Article 2: Educational Objectives”

The administration’s bill is a “state morality enforcement law,” which makes moral norms established by the state the chief priority of educational objectives.
The bill changes “Article 2: Educational Principle” in the current law to “Article 2: Educational Objectives.” It calls for the state to establish educational content and goals, placing the obligation for achieving those goals upon the citizens. Education is transformed from being “a right of the citizens” to “a right of the state.”
The content and order of clauses 2 through 5 of the “educational objectives” are the same as those in the morals section of the official Course of Study and Notes from the Heart (Kokoro no Nōto). As it imposes the state’s particular view of morality, it is thus a state (-imposed) morality enforcement law. State-imposed morality takes precedence over all other academic subjects, giving it the same status and role as the prewar Imperial Rescript on Education’s “moral training.” In giving the Fundamental Law of Education the same practical role as the prewar “moral training,” 99% of children will be taught only to have “simple hearts” (Miura Shumon[5]) and educated to be obedient to the state.
In addition, the bill prescribes “cultivation of citizens… who will have the necessary qualities” in Article 1, “The Aims of Education.” In Article 5, “Compulsory Education,” it calls for “fostering those fundamental qualities that are necessary for constituting state and society.” These “necessary qualities” are “qualities that the state deems necessary,” and at the heart is “state-imposed morality” as established by the state in Article 2.
Listed in the “aims of education” are the obligations of “loving our country and homeland,” along with “moral fiber,” “public-mindedness,” and “respect for traditions and culture.” With goals comes evaluation, meaning that the degree of achievement of the virtues enumerated will be subject to assessment. Since the heart is not visible to the eye, evaluating its externalized expression will implicate the state and the education bureaucracy in people’s hearts, infringing on freedom of their innermost being (spirit). The “attitudes” the state deems desirable will be forcibly “nurtured” as “necessary qualities” that citizens must adopt. This is precisely a preemptive move with respect to the reforming-for-the-worse of the Constitution.
“Esteeming individual value” has been moved from Article 1, “The Aims of Education,” of the current law to [Article 2’s] “Educational Objectives,” where it is written as “respecting the value of the individual,” but this “value of the individual” that the state must respect is changed 180 degrees into a norm to which each individual must conform.
The patriotism promoted is not patriotism based on the sovereign people’s freedom and independence, but patriotism towards “our country” created historically (by tradition and culture). State-imposed patriotic attitudes influence mental processes throughout the country, so the government’s bill may be called the “law of citizens’ mental unification.”
If “loving one’s country” becomes an “aim of education,” textbooks will also begin to incorporate “patriotic education.” This will have the effect of turning all textbooks into those currently promoted by the Tsukuru kai (Japanese society for history textbook reform). Schools and teachers will be evaluated for their patriotism, and “patriotism report cards” will be legimitated. This, in turn, will become the basis for enforcing ritual observation of the flag (Hinomaru) and the national anthem (Kimigayo).
What makes this all the more grave is that the “aims of education” are not just for school-based education, but for all education (as confirmed by the Ministry of Education ). The administration’s bill makes the fulfillment of the state’s “aims” compulsory for everything classified as education, as in Article 3, “Lifetime Learning,” Article 7, “Universities,” Article 8, “Private schools,” Article 10, “Home Education,” Article 11, “Toddler Education,” and Article 12, “Education in Society.” Therefore, it is not just children, schools, and teachers, but all people who live in Japan who are obligated to achieve these “aims of education.” In pursuit of these aims, proper character is legally codified as state standards, and individuals are made to conform.
Then, based on Article 2’s link to Article 13, which says, “Schools, homes, local residents, and other relevant individuals should become conscious of their respective roles and responsibilities with regard to education, and as they do so, they will endeavor to establish mutual solidarity and cooperation,” the state’s authority and enforcement power is extended over all the people.
The terms of Article 13 require all the people to be “conscious of their roles and responsibilities” within the framework of the state-imposed “educational objectives” (Article 2). All citizens are directed towards achieving the state-imposed “educational objectives” (almost all of which are state-imposed standards of morality). In addition, educational activities that contradict the state educational objectives will be monitored, with the possibility that they will be forbidden.
Article 13’s “other relevant individuals” is so vague as to be inappropriate for a law. At the special committee meeting mentioned above, then Vice-Minister of Education Hase Hiroshi[6] said, “Relevant individuals include the police and NGO’s.” It is highly likely that these relevant individuals will include not only police and citizens’ groups, but labor unions, research groups, and the mass media. In other words, according to this provision, the police will be able to freely intervene in education under the Fundamental Law of Education.
Additionally, reporting that goes against the state’s educational objectives may come under the scrutiny and direction of the education authorities for being obstructive to education. Furthermore, in connection with Article 12, there is the danger of the regulation and exclusion of citizens’ movements by education authorities. For instance, the subject matter of study groups held at public facilities may be restricted by the state’s educational objectives in Article 2, and it is anticipated that groups that oppose “cultivating patriotic attitudes,” such as those that oppose the Iraq war or the compulsory honoring of the flag and the anthem, will be excluded and unable to use meeting halls. Article 13 connects with Articles 10, 11, and 12, subjecting all home education, toddler education, and education in society to the state’s educational objectives.

How to stop the special session of the Diet from passing the education bill

In order to prevent passage of the government’s bill at the special session of the Diet, the following kinds of actions are deemed important.

I. We must raise our voices from all regions, saying that rather than revising-for-the-worse the Fundamental Law of Education, now is the time to truly make it come to life. Concretely, the following actions are necessary:
A. The administration bill and the Democratic Party’s proposal will not just fail to improve education in Japan, they will increase educational disparity, and they will transform the educational system into one that prioritizes national interest and national policy, in which humans are trained as material for a “country that wages war.” In order to realize class sizes of 30 students and a quality education for each child, rather than revise-for-the-worse the Fundamental Law of Education, we should strive to actualize its possibilities. These sentiments should be spread more widely and loudly.
B. From holding conversations with a few people, to organizing study groups and assemblies, we must inform as many people as possible about the advantages of the current Fundamental Law of Education and the problems with the administration bill. The success of large-scale meetings at the prefectural and regional levels is important, but locally there should be at least one meeting in each elementary school district, as well as small meetings of neighborhood associations. In particular, the small study group, as a form that anyone can organize, deserves special attention. They should end up with everyone writing postcards and faxing their Diet members. We should invite acquaintances and actively participate in local meetings.
C. People should send letters, postcards, and e-mail messages to acquaintances, informing them of the problems and aims of the administration bill, and the danger of reforming-for-the-worse the Fundamental Law of Education.
D. Actively write letters to newspapers (both national and regional). Also, cooperate with the efforts of the Anti-Education Bill Revision: Multiple Perspectives Society, or the Stop the Revision-for-the-Worse of the Fundamental Law of Education! National Network to place advocacy ads in newspapers. Help local citizens’ groups and teachers’ unions place advocacy ads in local newspapers.
E. Actively join local citizens’ groups, teachers’ unions, and labor unions in distributing leaflets and making street corner speeches.
F. In each region, make appeals to local public figures.
G. Reach out to support local groups and unions that work for peace, human rights, and democracy, such as the Article 9 Association, and spread collective action like a net.

II. At the same time as spreading and raising voices of opposition to reforming-for-the-worse the Fundamental Law of Education, it is important to appeal to members of the Diet. We should strengthen appeals to politicians such as Diet members and regional legislators.
A. Appeal to locally elected Diet members, especially those of the Democratic Party, Clean Government Party, and LDP. In appeals to Diet members, it is said that handwritten letters are most effective. There is a list of Diet members’ contact information at the Stop the Revision-for-the-Worse of the Fundamental Law of Education! National Network homepage (http://www.kyokiren.net/_action/giin_yosei). Those who do not use the internet can contact the Children and Textbooks National Network 21 office (telephone: 03-3265-7606, fax: 03-3239-8590).
B. Actively participate in lobbying at internal and preliminary Diet meetings and lobbying Diet members. Various citizens’ organizations and teachers’ unions lobby at these meetings. It is an important way to show the Diet members that a majority of citizens oppose their plans. These actions take place frequently, giving many opportunities for participation.
C. Appeal to regional legislators, and use them to get your message to national Diet members. Tell your regional legislator you want to save the Fundamental Law of Education and actualize its possibilities, not to reform-it-for-the-worse according to the administration’s and the Democratic Party’s plans.

III. Attend the Diet’s special committee hearings regarding the Fundamental Law of Education.
A. We have created a system of attending the Diet’s special committee hearings, and have “observed” them as citizens. Take advantage of these experiences, establish an attendance system and sit in, in order to prevent the Japan Congress from hijacking Diet debates as they did with the regular Diet assembly. Keep an eye on Diet deliberations, check to see which members are making what statements, and post them on your homepage.
B. The procedure for attending meetings is as follows:
1. This is mainly people in the Tokyo metropolitan area, but register as an attendee with Children and Textbooks National Network 21.
2. Registered attendees send e-mails or faxes every Friday specifying which day of the following week, morning or afternoon, they would like to attend a meeting.
3. Special committee meetings are held based on decisions made the previous evening by the committee leadership. When these decisions are made, the executive office submits requests to the Diet members’ secretaries to issue attendance tickets to people who wish to attend that day.
4. On the specified day, attendees go to the Lower House meeting place 20 minutes before the start of the meeting. There, a Children and Textbooks National Network 21 worker will distribute the tickets.
5. As a special committee hearing rule, only people who submitted requests for tickets the previous evening may attend. For these requests they require the attendee’s name and occupation (“unemployed” or “housewife” is acceptable). So, when registering according to (1) above, give them your name, occupation, and contact information (e-mail address, fax number, or telephone number for those without faxes).

Public opinion opposed to revision-for-the-worse of the Fundamental Law of Education is rising and spreading. Throughout the country, large conventions opposing the move are doing well, and meetings on various scales supporting them are also being held. In a survey conducted by the Tokyo University Academic Fundamentals Research Development Center, 66% of elementary school principals oppose the administration’s bill (the Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 3, 2006).
As I have already stated, Abe is aiming for “education reform” based on a “grassroots conservative movement.” The main organization behind this is the Japan Education Rebirth organization, headed by Abe’s close adviser Yagi Hidetsugu. That same organization cooperates with the administration’s Education Rebirth Conference, and it holds “Education Rebirth Town Meetings” throughout the country as a “grassroots movement.”
We will not lose to Abe and Yagi’s “grassroots conservative movement.” If we put our all into spreading a genuine locally based grassroots movement, raising public awareness, and if we combine this with renewed appeals to the Diet, we definitely have the chance to send the administration’s bill down in defeat.
I sincerely hope to serve that goal.

[1] Currently scheduled for release in the US in August, 2007, as Towards a Beautiful Country: My Vision for Japan. All notes by the translator.
[2] The Fundamental Law of Education was revised and went into effect in December of 2006.
[3] This awkward translation attempts to capture the spirit of the compact term routinely used in Japanese to contest the assumption that every use of the word “reform” signals improvement by changing the second character in Sinojapanese “kaisei” (改正) to “kaiaku” (改悪). In English, systems are “reformed” and laws “revised,” but “kaisei” is used for both in Japanese, and “reform” will be used here to preserve the irony.
[4]_ It is unclear what single act this passage refers to, but the Labor government has expanded the purview of “parental orders” and “antisocial behavior orders” through education and youth justice legislation. To gain a sense of their effect, see http://www.directgov.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/Schools/YourChildsWelfareAtSchool/DG_066966
[5] Former chair of the Curriculum Council of the education ministry.
[6] Professional wrestler and LDP-affiliated member of the Lower House.

Tawara Yoshifumi
From The True Nature of Abe Shinzo (Abe Shinzo no honsho, Kin’yobi, 2006), translated by Nicholas Albertson, with the kind permission of the author and the publisher.

By admin | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Tawara Yoshifumi, “The Lineage of a Far-Right Politician”

July 18, 2008 – 3:42 am

Chapter 3 The Lineage of a Far-Right Politician

1. Tracking Abe Shinzō

How was it that, scarcely thirteen years after he was first elected to the Diet, Abe Shinzō was able to rise to become chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and prime minister?
Abe Shinzō’s father was Abe Shintarō, who had held posts as Chief Secretary of the LDP, Chief Cabinet Secretary, Minister of Commerce and Industry, and Foreign Minister, and who was heading towards party chairman when he died in 1991. His mother was the daughter of former prime minister Kishi Nobusuke, who had been a class-A war criminal suspect.
Born in 1954, Abe Shinzō is 52 years old. After graduating from Seikei University and spending time in America as an exchange student, he was employed by Kobe Copper Manufacturing Company. Abe, who liked to point out that his grandfather Kishi Nobusuke was the most venerated politician, and who claimed to be the carrier of Kishi’s DNA, resigned from Kobe Copper Manufacturing in 1982 to enter the political world as secretary to his father Shintarō, who was then foreign minister. After his father Shintarō’s death, , he was first elected from his father’s district in Yamaguchi Prefecture in the general election of 1993.

Arming himself with historically distorted theories from the moment of his first election
The newly elected Abe Shinzō was appointed to the History/Investigation Committee, started by the LDP in August 1993. The History/Investigation Committee was the committee in which the LDP and others armed themselves with historically distorted theories: that the Asia-Pacific War was not a war of aggression , but rather, a sacred war, and that the Nanjing Massacre and “military comfort women” issue were fabrications. Among 105 committee members, fifteen (including Etō Seiichi, Nakagawa Shōichi, Nagase Jin’en, Kawamura Takeo, etc.) were members of a group formed in February 1997 called the Association of Young Parliamentarians Considering Japan’s Future and History Education (hereafter, the Parliamentarians for History Education). As far as a distorted sense of history goes, the History/Investigation Committee took over the role of passing on the diehard “senior” LDP members’ thinking and historical consciousness to the “junior” members.
On August 15, 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of defeat, , there was scheduled to be a Diet resolution to reflect on the war of aggression and to present plans for addressing postwar issues with a view toward achieving reconciliation with Asia. In opposition to this was the LDP’s Fiftieth Anniversary of War’s End Diet Members’ Alliance, formed in December 1994 (with Okuno Seisuke as president, Itagaki Masa as secretary-general, and Hashimoto Ryūtarō as adviser, in all 161 members from both houses). Abe Shinzō was chosen as its alternate secretary-general. The efforts of this alliance along with other right-wing forces “succeeded,” and the resolution on the fiftieth anniversary of defeat departed greatly from its original intent, and its content showed absolutely no reflection on the war of aggression .
The Fiftieth Anniversary of War’s End Diet Members’ Alliance was changed to the “Bright Japan” Diet Members’ Alliance (with Okuno Seisuke as president and Itagaki Masa as secretary-general) in June 1996. Abe was appointed alternate secretary-general. The alliance took over the History/Investigation Committee’s “research findings” and “results” denying aggression and harm, and in 1996 it concentrated its attacks on textbook “bias.” The alliance carried out a campaign saying “‘military comfort women’ were prostitutes,” and from July 1997 on it attacked textbooks’ accounts of military comfort women and the Nanjing Massacre, demanding they be deleted. After February 1997, the activities of this alliance were carried on by the Parliamentarians for History Education.
His activities up to this point having been much appreciated, Abe developed into a far-right politician who fulfilled central roles in the Parliamentarians for History Education and the Japan Conference Discussion Society of Parliamentarians (hereafter, Japan Conference).
On February 27, 1997, a month after the Association for the Creation of New Textbooks was established, the Parliamentarians for History Education, focusing on LDP members elected to fewer than five terms, was formed. The representative was Nakagawa Shōichi, and the chief secretary was Etō Seiichi, but Abe served as secretary-general here as well.
The National Conference to Protect Japan joined with the religious Association to Protect Japan, and on May 30, 1997, the Japan Congress, an organization of right-wing groups trying to amend the Constitution, was set up. On the day before, May 29, with the aim of backing the Japan Conference, the LDP’s Obuchi Keizō and Mori Yoshirō, and then New Progress Party member Ozawa Tatsuo, were organized as the Japan Conference(with Shimamura Yoshinobu as president).
The Japan Conference consulted with the Japan Conference on the following three projects: “History, Education, and the Home”; “Defense, Diplomacy, and Territory”; and “The Constitution, the Imperial House, and Yasukuni Shrine.” They brought their demands and policies to the national government. Now the frightening fact is that right-wing organizations’ policies and demands are increasingly making their way into national policy. As chairman, Abe is active on the Defense, Diplomacy, and Territory project, and according to current information from July 2005, he holds the post of vice-chief secretary.
Cooperating with the political association called the Shinto Political Alliance, whose aim is “a country of the gods centered on the emperor,” is the Shinto Political Alliance Diet Members’ Discussion Group. This Diet member alliance became famous in 2001 because of then prime minister Mori Yoshirō’s words “country of the gods,” but Abe also serves as secretary-general of the Shinto Alliance (as of July 6, 2006, according to the Shinto Political Alliance homepage). Thus, for more than thirteen years, Abe has made a name for himself holding important posts in almost every LDP and non-party right-wing Diet member alliance.

Pedigree, far-right connections, blue ribbons, and unrivaled money-raising power
That Abe was able to become chairman of the LDP, and Japan’s prime minister, in just thirteen years can be attributed tothe following five causes.
First, there is the advantage of his being connected by blood to Kishi and Abe Shintarō. In addition, there is his uncle, former prime minister Satō Eisaku. The Satō family is distantly related to former prime minister Yoshida Shigeru. This is the very family line that has so colored postwar history. For two or three generations, this family line has been unrivaled even in its presence at the heart of the LDP, filled as it is with second and third-generation politicians.
Second, Abe was nurtured as a far-right, history-distorting politician within the LDP, and his activities within that contextwere highly appreciated.
Third, politicians who shared his political beliefs came to dominate the LDP. In his recent work, Towards a Beautiful Country, he writes that since becoming a member of the Diet, “I have met outstanding colleagues, and I have received guidance from esteemed superiors.” These “outstanding colleagues” include members of the Parliamentarians for History Education and the Japan Conference, such as Political Research Committee chairman Nakagawa Shōichi, former Commerce and Industry minister Hiranuma Takeo, former Lower House representative Etō Seiichi, prime minister’s aide Yamatani Eriko, and vice-chief cabinet secretary Shimomura Hirobumi. The “superiors” were hawks and far-right politicians like Okuno Seisuke, Fujio Masayuki, and Mori Yoshirō. These Diet members occupy the core of the Abe cabinet, and they have held central posts in the party.
Fourth, following the September 2002 Japan-Korea conference, there was a spike in Japanese public opinion critical of North Korea over the “kidnapping issue.” The Nationwide Association for Rescuing Japanese Abducted by North Korea (hereafter, Rescue Association) flooded the streets with blue ribbons, and the rhetoric of the Rescue Association’s Nishioka Riki and Shimada Yōichi, who operated as Abe’s brains, quickly escalated. Under these circumstances, Abe repeated his strong statements against North Korea, and he successfully planted the impression of a “fighting politician” (Utsukushii kuni e) in citizens’ minds.
Fifth, there was his unrivaled money-raising power among junior LDP Diet members. With regard to Abe’s money-raising prowess, the Sunday Akahata reports the following: “The new party chairman Abe Shinzō’s fundraising total was approximately 380 million yen in 2005. This puts him in the top ten in politics. As a five-term junior Diet member, his fundraising power is exceptional” (Sept. 24, 2006).

3. The historically remarkable far-right administration of Abe Shinzō’s cabinet

Abe Shinzō’s cabinet is a “Japan Conference cabinet,” a far-right administration characterized as a “‘country of the gods’ cabinet.” This becomes evident from the appended Chart.Among Abe’s eighteen ministers, eleven belong to the pro-constitutional amendment right-wing organization, the Japan Conference, and its ally, the Japan Conference Diet Members’ Discussion Group (a.k.a. Japan Conference, chaired by former Minister of Commerce and Industry Hiranuma Takeo). Furthermore, thirteen of them are members of the Shinto Political Alliance and its ally, the Shinto Political Alliance Diet Members’ Discussion Group (a.k.a. Shinto Alliance, Lower House member Watanuki Tamisuke, chairman), which are political groups aiming to reform-for-the-worse the Constitution and change Japan into an emperor-centered “country of the gods.”
Twelve ministers belong to the Let’s All Worship at Yasukuni Shrine Association (a.k.a. Yasukuni Alliance, former Defense minister Kawara Tsutomu, chairman); they worship at the shrine at the key spring and fall festivals, as well as on the anniversary of the end of the war. Eleven ministers belong to the Constitution Research Diet Members’ Alliance (a.k.a. Constitution Reform Alliance, Lower House Constitutional Research chairman Nakayama Tarō, chairman). There are also seven ministers who belong to the Association of Parliamentarians Considering Japan’s Future and History Education (a.k.a. Parliamentarians for History Education, Lower House member Furuya Keiji, chairman), which is allied with the Association for the Creation of New Textbooks.
Almost all of the ministers belong to these right-wing, hawkish alliances. The only ministers with no such connections are the Clean Government Party [Komeito]’s Fuyushiba Tetsuzō, Minister of Land and Transportation; nongovernmental appointee Ōta Hiroko, Minister of Economics and Finance; and Mizote Kensei, chairman of the National Public Safety Commission. In other words, among LDP cabinet ministers, there is only one whose name does not appear in the chart.

[Chart of Abe’s cabinet ministers’ affiliations]

Of course, Prime Minister Abe’s name is on all the rosters, and he holds the post of secretary-general, or at least of executive officer, in almost all of the alliances to which he belongs. Aligned with him in almost every right-wing alliance is Abe’s brother-in-arms since his election, LDP Political Research Committee chairman Nakagawa Shōichi.
The percentage of cabinet ministers who belong to the Japan Conference is 61%, or, if you leave out non-LDP members Fuyushiba and Ōta, 69%. Among all LDP Diet members, 51% are affiliated with the Japan Conference (this is also a grave problem), but to have seven in ten ministers as members of this alliance is an abnormal situation. The Mori and Koizumi cabinets also had a certain number of members in the alliance, but not this many. This is why I call the Abe cabinet the Japan Conference cabinet, why I characterize it as a “country of the gods” cabinet, and why I say that it is a historically unusual far-right administration.
Moreover, with respect to the five aideswhom Prime Minister Abe emphasizes are “functionally ministerial,” apart from Nakayama Kyōko (who is in charge of the “abduction issue” but is not a Diet member), the other four (Oike, Nemoto, Yamatani, and Sekō) belong to the Japan Conference; and with the exception of Oike, the other three aides are also in the Shinto Alliance. Also, the two vice-chief cabinet secretaries who are Diet members (the other is an administrator), Shimomura and Suzuki, are members of both alliances. Since Chief Cabinet Secretary Shiozaki Yasuhisa is also a member of both alliances, it’s possible to say that the prime minister’s residence is packed with members of these two far-right alliances. On top of that, prime minister’s aide Nakayama is married to former Education minister Nakayama Nariaki, who was chairman of the History Education Alliance.
Those in charge of the supremely important “education rebirth” policy, Education minister Ibuki Bunmei, prime minister’s aide Yamatani, vice-chief cabinet secretary Shimomura, Education vice-minister Endō, and education ministry officials Obuchi and Mizuochi, are members of the Japan Conference, the Parliamentarians for History Education, and the Shinto Alliance. Notable among them are Yamatani, viewed as Abe’s right arm, who joined with Abe in his attacks on “gender-free” education and sex education; and Shimomura, who is in Abe’s inner circle and has frequent contact with Abe’s brain trust. This is a line-up worthy of effecting the “destruction of education” in the guise of “Education Rebirth.”
It is not only ministers, for among twenty-two vice-ministers, three Clean Government Party members are the only ones who do not belong to the Diet member alliances provided in the Chart. Also, among twenty-six ministry officials, there are only three Clean Government Party [Komeito] members and three LDP members who do not belong to these alliances. Furthermore, the three important LDP posts of chief secretary, general manager, and Political Research Committee chairman all belong to these alliances, along with the alternate chief secretary, Diet Strategy Committee chairman, and Diet Administration Committee chairman. Former LDP chief secretary Katō Kōichi calls it a “cabinet of friends,” but they are extremely dangerous “friends,” and it would be no exaggeration to call it a hi-jacking of the cabinet by the Japan Conference.
There is no one in the Abe cabinet whose role is to put on the brakes. Without brakes, the cabinet is free to run recklessly to the right.
Since more than half of the LDP Diet members belong to the Japan Conference, it is even possible to say that the LDP itself has been taken over by the Japan Conference. The Japan Conference had 189 members at the time of its inception in May 1997, but now it has 235 (as of July 2006). It is easy to imagine how these conditions came togetherto boost Abe to the party presidency.
Abe’s cabinet will reform-for-the-worse the Fundamental Law of Education; it advocates the same for the Constitution; it will elevate the Defense Agency to ministerial rank, while assimilating the Self-Defense Forces into the American armed forces, asserting the right of collective self-defense, thus leading toparticipation in America’s pre-emptive wars of invasion at any time and place. It is a cabinet that will change Japan into a “country that wages war.”
It is a cabinet that enacts conspiracy laws in order to suppress individuals and groups that oppose war, sets up CIA-like spy agencies, puts citizens under the watch of the government, and opposes freedom, peace, human rights, and democracy. Moreover, it isthe worst possible rightist administration that does America’s bidding in effecting “structural reform”; enforces policies of “neo-liberalism” that sell out not only citizens’ property but the Japanese nation itself to America; and further corrupts the health care and social security systems, expanding social inequality.
In the fairy tale “Little Red Riding Hood,” the wolf does not always appear as a wolf. It is said that Abe’s gentle, soft expression and mood are important factors in his popularity. As we have seen, however, under that soft expression of Abe and the cabinet he heads is the brutal face of a wolf. No, not a wolf. Hidden under Abe’s and the administration’s unmade-up face and his Beautiful Country is the brutal and wily form of a “country that wages war,” that would even arm itself with nuclear weapons, the form of an ugly country that would demand of citizens that they throw away their lives for the sake of the nation. We must inform the country and the world as quickly as possible of the dangerous nature of Abe and the true nature of his administration.

Tawara Yoshifumi
Translated by Nicholas Albertson with the kind permission of the author and publisher.

By admin | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Tawara Yoshifumi, “An Historical Consciousness That Rejects Aggression and Wrongdoing”

July 18, 2008 – 3:40 am

Chapter 2: An Historical Consciousness That Rejects Aggression and Wrongdoing
by Tawara Yoshifumi[1]

The Tsukurukai History Textbooks as “Yasukuni Revisionist Historiography”

The foundation of Abe Shinzô’s conception of history, as he himself put it in Towards a Beautiful Country (Utsukushii kuni e), is “to try and impartially reconsider history from the points of view of the people living at the time.” This is the same historical worldview espoused in the history textbooks produced by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform [Atarashii Rekishi Kyôkasho o Tsukurukai; abbr., Tsukurukai], which declares that “studying history [does not imply] that one will discover the historical reality of the past,” but rather it suggests “learning how people in the past conceived [their realities].”
The “viewpoints of people living at the time” posited by Abe (b. 1954)[2] denotes the perspectives of the then emperor and statesmen who carried out wars of aggression and colonial rule. In his Declaration of a ‘Conservative Revolution’ (‘Hoshu kakumei’ sengen), Abe justifies Japanese wars of aggression in Asia by stating, “At the time there were arguments and assertions distinctive to our country in that age. If so, then should we not lend our thoughts to what contemporary figures were thinking?”
The “contemporary Japanese arguments” of which Abe speaks are those that justified the war as the rightful punishment of a despotic Shina (a term of derision applied to China) as encapsulated by the slogan “Chastise Tyrannical Rule” (bôshi yôchô), popularized by the Japanese government at the beginning of the second Sino-Japanese War.[3] They are the claims made by the then government and war leaders that rationalized the war of aggression as a “holy war,” laying the foundations of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere in the liberation of Asia while concealing the intention to plunder resources from southeast Asian countries. Included among these war leaders is Abe’s own grandfather, Kishi Nobusuke (1896-1987). Thus, just as the Tsukurukai, by their manner of viewing history, denies the reality of the injury inflicted upon Asian countries through wars of aggression and colonial rule, so too does Abe adopt a standpoint from a similar sense of history that justifies Japan’s wars and disregards acts of aggression and wrongdoing perpetrated by Japan.
Abe asserts that Japanese history is emperor-centered history. He states, for example, that “the Japanese nation spun the threads of their history and nature together with the emperor”; “[its history] came into being together with the emperor”; and “this is precisely the distinguishing characteristic of Japan.” “If we consider Japanese history to be a single tapestry, then the common thread running through its center is undoubtedly the emperor. We Japanese have spun our history with this thread at its center” (Tairon shû). Abe’s understanding of the role of the emperor in history is also then similar to that represented in the Tsukurukai history textbook.
He moreover insists, with respect to those who oppose the obligatory observance of the Japanese national flag [i.e., Hi no maru] and anthem [i.e., Kimi ga yo], that “there are those yet in schools who disapprove of them saying that ‘the flag of the rising sun’ is a former symbol of militarism and Kimi ga yo points to the imperial reign, but I can’t be bothered to refute this. Kimi ga yo is Japanese to be sure, and for this reason I love it. The importance of being in harmony with nature, of living together in symbiosis, and the continuousness of history are condensed in the words of this song.” He further claims, “There are those who say that Kimi ga yo puts one in mind of the emperor system, but the kimi [lord] here connotes the emperor as a symbol of Japan. In Japan, it is a fact that the long and massive tapestry of history was woven with the emperor as its warp. What meaning did it hold then in this one particular period? When read honestly, where in the lyrics is the idea of militarism felt?” (Utsukushii kuni e).
Does Abe say as much because he does not understand the history of the Kimi ga yo, which was sung as an anthem in praise of the emperor who was the absolute authority and supreme military commander both before and during the war? With respect to the rising-sun flag as well, does Abe not comprehend the history of the flag, whereby it was used as a symbol of wars of aggression? If we assume that Abe is not ignorant of this history, then his arguments must be seen as intentional and conscious. This “one particular period” of which he speaks is the sixty year period since the Meiji era, in which roughly every ten years Japan carried out wars of aggression in Asia and finally culminated with the catastrophic blow of Japan’s defeat on August 15, 1945. Through critical reflection on these sixty years, post-war Japan is meant to have started off in a new direction, and so problematizing these issues further is a “thoroughly meaningful” task.
Regarding a preventative lawsuit filed in opposition to the Tokyo Board of Education’s “Hi no maru/Kimi ga yo” mandate – a lawsuit demanding confirmation of the non-existence of a legal obligation to sing the national anthem – the Tokyo District Court determined that the municipal Board of Education’s mandate was unconstitutional and illegal. The District Court’s judgment (September 21, 2006) acknowledged that with respect to the flag and anthem, “It is an historical fact difficult to deny that from the Meiji period up until the end of World War II they had come to be used as the spiritual props of imperial and militarist ideology.” The judgment furthermore indicated, as regards the domestic situation following the passage of legislation concerning the national flag and anthem, that “among the Japanese people the Hi no maru and Kimi ga yo have yet to be recognized as value-neutral from either a religious or political perspective.” This is a recognition of historical fact, a matter of national commonsense. Abe’s argument is a fabrication of history.
Abe mentioned the Olympics with respect to the Hi no maru and Kimi ga yo problem, explaining, “Spectators from countries the world over represent their homelands with their national symbols, and when competitors from our own country climb to the victor’s stand and the national flag is hoisted while the national anthem plays, a feeling of solemnity quite naturally comes over them” (Utsukushii kuni e). The flags and songs used in the Olympics, however, are not considered national flags or national anthems. Rather, they are the competing teams’ flags, their songs. This is international common knowledge specified in the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) regulations. I am surely not the only one who wonders whether a politician who does not happen to have access to even such basic commonsense as this is suitable as prime minister of the country.
While repeating arguments like those mentioned above in justification of wars of aggression, Abe on the other hand is unwilling to concede that Japan’s war was one of aggression as “left to the judgment of historians” regarding whether it should be thus viewed. In an editorial appearing in The Mainichi (October 2, 2006), Abe expanded upon this argument, commenting, “This expression slightly misses the point. Saying that it is left up to historians implies that it is their decision that will determine whether or not politicians’ perceptions of history are correct, but politicians cannot leave their understanding of history in the hands of others.”
Abe disregards the fact that it is the accepted opinion of historians both at home and abroad that Japan’s war was a war of aggression. As to the statement made by Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi (1995) expressing, though inadequately, “keen remorse and heartfelt apology for [Japanese] aggression and colonial rule,” Abe has not promised to take over this position, writing it off as an “historical document.”[4]
Supporting the visits to Yasukuni Shrine made by Koizumi, Abe states,“If there are not people willing to protect the nation even at the cost of their own lives, the nation cannot exist. When the nation ceases to extol the path taken by those individuals, who will shed their sweat and blood for the sake of the country?” (Kono kuni o mamoru ketsui). He asserts that the next prime minister must also pay respects to the shrine: “A country’s leaders express their sense of veneration, bringing their hands together in prayer to wish for the repose of those souls who sacrificed themselves for the nation” (Tairon shû). During the annual springtime grand festival on April 15, 2006, Abe “secretly” visited Yasukuni Shrine in formal morning dress and signed his name to the registry as “Chief Cabinet Secretary, Abe Shinzô.” He further declared at a public symposium sponsored by the Yasukuni Shrine Reverence Association on November 27, 2004, that “it is important that the next leader, and the one after that as well, continue to carry out Prime Minister Koizumi’s intention [to visit the shrine].” At a press conference on August 4, he declared that even upon succeeding to the office of prime minister, “I wish to continue to hold on to my own feelings [regarding this issue]” ( The Asahi, August 4, 2006, evening edition).
Even in his general-policy address delivered at the first Diet session following his election, Abe persists in assuming an ambivalent attitude regarding “whether to visit or not to visit” Yasukuni Shrine. This, too, follows the plans decided in consultation with his five-man brain trust, as we saw in section two of Chapter One.[5]
The enshrinement of Class A war criminals together there is not the only reason visits to Yasukuni Shrine are problematic. Yasukuni Shrine, being a war shrine that deifies fallen soldiers who died for the emperor as spirits of the war dead, was a spiritual fulcrum for wars of aggression. Even now Yasukuni Shrine asserts, according to its peculiar form of revisionist historiography, that the Greater East Asian War (i.e., the Pacific War) was not a war of aggression; that the war of liberation in Asia to ensure the country’s survival and self-defense was a “holy war”; and that the claims of injuries incurred through the Nanjing Massacre and “comfort women” system are not true. Visits to Yasukuni Shrine by the prime minister and other important persons in government thus imply a positive affirmation and justification of wars of aggression and colonial rule.
Abe, in declaring that “Class A war criminals are not seen at home as criminals,” argues the following: “There is also a misunderstanding regarding Class A war criminals. Class A war criminals are those persons who were tried in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, or Tokyo Trials (1946-8), according to the concepts of ‘crimes against peace’ and ‘crimes against humanity,’ developed after the war had ended.” However, “among the individuals who received the judgment of ‘Class A war crimes’ there are those who were later pardoned and even became Diet members.” “That they not be dealt with as criminals under domestic law was determined by the collective will of the nation. The Minister of Justice in 1951 explained that ‘it is in no sense appropriate to treat them as criminals in applying domestic law.’” Thus, Abe finally asserts, “War criminals are not criminals under domestic law” (Utsukushii kuni e).
That they are not criminals under domestic law is merely a consequence of how, unlike the German case, the Japanese people did not take it upon themselves to cast judgment on war responsibility and war crimes. This is one of the causes of present-day distortions of history and also the reason why such “thoughtless remarks” made by politicians will never cease. There is no way to erase the historical fact that Class A war criminals are precisely that, war criminals.
Abe further states, “That China raised the issue of Class A war criminals is surely owing to their having Germany in mind. To reason that because in Germany, Nazi criminals were distinguished from national criminals, so too in Japan, Class A war criminals should necessarily be distinguished from others, misses the mark. The genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany, being a national crime unrelated to the war, is different from Japanese war crimes in scale, objective, and character” (Tairon shû). The Nazi Holocaust was certainly a war crime carried out in the European war of aggression by Hitler and the Nazis; however, in emphasizing the discrepancies between Germany and Japan, one ends up defending Japanese war crimes. For what reason, then, does Abe protect Class A war criminals, while not recognizing Japan’s war as one of aggression?
Abe gives an indication of the answer to this question by saying, “I am not a ‘liberal.’ My standpoint is that of conservatism or to put it differently, ‘open-minded conservatism.’” “From the time I was small, I knew that my grandfather had been called ‘the conservative reactionary incarnate’ and ‘the behind-the-scenes mastermind of the political world,’ and I was also asked ‘Hey, wasn’t your grandfather a suspected Class A war criminal?’ Thus, I may have felt a sense of affinity with the term ‘conservative’ in reaction” (Utsukushii kuni e). He then suggests his own brand of “conservatism” is owing to his “grandfather’s influence,” and goes on to commend his grandfather’s time as that “glorious age in which Japan achieved even greater progress” (‘Hoshu kakumei’ sengen).
The man whom Abe calls “grandfather” is former prime minister Kishi Nobusuke[6], who played a leading role as the General-Director in the State Council of the Japanese puppet-state “Manchukuo,” which was established through invasion and trickery. He then served as Minister of Commerce and Industry in Tôjô Hideki’s cabinet at the outset of the Pacific War in Asia. After the war, he was incarcerated in Sugamo Prison for three years as a suspected Class A war criminal. As a direct result of changes in American foreign policy that shifted emphasis to creating anti-communist measures and the subsequent policies aimed at turning Japan into a “seawall against the communist tide,” the case against Kishi Nobusuke was dropped, and he was summarily released in 1948, once again to return to the political world. Does Abe not likely feel that protecting his grandfather without pursuing the question of the latter’s war responsibility or criminality as one of the primary Japanese leaders both before and during the war is a matter bound up with preserving the DNA he inherited from his own grandfather? In this connection, the perception of history that has it that the “glorious age” attributed to his grandfather’s era, in which “Japan achieved even greater progress,” was constructed upon the victims of Japan’s invasion of Asia, seemingly means nothing whatsoever to Abe.
One of the representative co-authors of the Tsukurukai’s civics textbook, Nishibe Susumu, criticized Kishi Nobusuke, saying: “He was a leading figure in Manchukuo during the war. Irrespective of whether he committed war crimes, he did participate in the subsequent war. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Asian peoples died in that war. When we consider this, such a person should not return to politics unless there is some exceptional reason for it, for we cannot help but feel doubts as to their character” (The Tokyo, September 15, 2006). Political critic Morita Minoru moreover states that “freely making use of the massive resources and personal connections he had acquired in Manchuria, he was treated particularly well by the General Headquarters of the Allied Powers (GHQ).” Morita continues, saying, “Kishi was a man who did not fear defying the gods themselves. The grandson (i.e., Shinzô), too, placing his grandfather on a pedestal to be worshipped, is surely imitating Kishi’s unmitigated audacity.” Both of these men are conservatives, and yet even though the same term “conservative” is applied, there is a great gulf between them and Abe.
At a debate on September 11 regarding the election of a third LDP presidential candidate, sponsored by the Japan Journalist Club, Tanigaki Sadakazu[7] asked Abe what he thought about Sino-Japanese relations with respect to the problem of war culpability: “When Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations were restored, China gave a detailed explanation to the Chinese people, drawing a distinction between war leaders and average Japanese citizens. Ordinary Japanese citizens were not the enemy. Rather, diplomatic relations were resumed on the basis that a handful of persons responsible for the war (must be accountable for their actions).” Asked what he thought, Abe responded, “ I believe that understanding is no longer in the records. When diplomatic relations are normalized or peace treaties concluded between countries, I believe the written documents they exchange are everything. That the Japanese people are divided into two classes may be the understanding on the China side, but that is not how everybody understands it on the Japanese side. Does this not have something of the air of class-based history about it?” (The Mainichi, September 12, 2006). Immediately following this, Undersecretary Yachi Shôtarô of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a great effort to deny Abe’s statement, saying, “China normalized diplomatic relations with Japan on the presumption of there being such an understanding. It is not then appropriate to argue at length that past (Chinese) perceptions are mistaken” (The Akahata, Sunday edition, September 22, 2006).
Abe asserts that a “shared understanding of history is not possible.” With respect to collaborative research on Korean and Japanese history, he declares the following: “Is not a nation’s sense of purpose rooted in its history? Without a proper sense of history, there cannot be a proper sense of the nation.” Thus, in accordance with Yagi Hidetsugu’s[8] views on the subject, namely, that “how a nation grasps its history is distinctive to each nation, and this is something that Korea is evidently unwilling to recognize with respect to Japan.” Abe then further claims, “Because the origins and course of history of a people as a country are different, a shared conception of history, completely identical between the two peoples, is impossible to begin with. Since this is the character of historical awareness, it is perfectly natural that each country should have its own perceptions of history” (Tairon shû). This, too, is a stance shared by the Tsukurukai.
A shared historical sense is, however, a prerequisite for a future reconciliation with Korea, China and the peoples of various other Asian countries, and for making reparations for our past. Germany has engaged in dialogue with Poland and France and sustained collaborative research, and these countries have created common textbooks. Such efforts on the part of Germany have helped in achieving reconciliation and overcoming their past, so that in winning the trust of the peoples of various European nations, the country has come to play a leading role in the EU. If these efforts are given up from the outset on the assumption that a shared historical sense is impossible, as Abe would have it, then we will be unable to effect reconciliation with various neighboring Asian countries and atone for our past.
Abe’s Perception of History and the Textbook Debate
Abe requested that descriptions of the Japanese military’s “comfort women” be deleted from textbooks, denying that such a system existed on the basis of insufficient proof that “transportation for forced labor” was carried out. He moreover led a campaign insisting on the revision of history textbooks and history education, claiming that accounts of Japan’s wars of aggression and the injury sustained by them as well as descriptions of colonial rule were biased by a masochistic view of history, the historiography born out of the Tokyo Trials. Abe’s perception of history is a form of “Yasukuni historicism,” a particularly dangerous historical outlook.
A month after the Tsukurukai was started, a new study group was organized under the leadership of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Diet members who had been elected fewer than five times – namely, the Association of Young Parliamentarians Considering Japan’s Future and History Education (Nihon no Zento to Rekishi Kyôiku o Kangaeru Wakate Giin no Kai). (In February 2004, “young” was erased from the title of the group and was simply abbreviated as Parliamentarians for History Education, or Rekishi Kyôiku Giren). Nakagawa Shôichi[9], Abe Shinzô, and Etô Seiichi[10] served as delegate representative, secretary-general, and chief secretary, respectively. The Parliamentarians for History Education, working in close cooperation with the Tsukurukai, fully backed the activities undertaken by the latter group.
In 1997, the Parliamentarians for History Education, calling in officials in the textbook division of the Ministry of Education, textbook publishing company presidents and textbook authors, conducted an intense questioning and examination as to textbook descriptions regarding the issues of wars of aggression, “comfort women,” and so on. Furthermore, in reaction to a statement made by Chief Cabinet Secretary Kôno Yôhei in 1993, in which the latter acknowledged the Japanese government’s participation in the “comfort women” issue with the former Japanese military, the Association called him to task, urging him to retract his previous statement on the charge that he had “caved in to pressure to admit to the use of ‘coercive measures’ even though there was no definite proof.” Kôno dismissed the demand, responding to the effect that it was unreasonable to expect that the Japanese military would have sent out written orders explicitly commanding transportation of forced labor to which, in turn, there would be reports from the field clearly stating that the order for transportation had been complied with.
On his personal webpage Abe Shinzô, who assumed the post of first secretary-general of the Association, states that “through a total of ten study sessions” conducted by the Parliamentarians for History Education “a number of facts had become clear, such as the ways in which serious problems remain in our country’s history education; how the so-called ‘comfort women’ problem has been disseminated in distorted fashion; and how Japanese diplomatic policy up until now – namely, the ‘apologetic mentality’ – has led to today’s problem.” He claims that the society is “energetically and dynamically developing a people’s movement [to correct these problems].” This “people’s movement,” being none other than the campaign waged against textbooks in cooperation with the Tsukurukai, actively supports the adoption of the Tsukurukai’s textbook.
On June 14, 2004, at a joint symposium of Diet members and local assemblymen sponsored by the Parliamentarians for History Education and titled “On Correct History Education for Children,” Abe – then Chief Secretary of the LDP – related the following in his guest speaker’s address:

There was no historically factual system called “military comfort women.” When the textbook was approved last time, pressure was brought to bear on the Tsukurukai under leftist influence, and they attempted to rob us of our freedom of speech. We will take the initiative to work on the Ministry of Education and Science to move toward textbook reform.

Abe, in his capacity as Chief Secretary of the LDP, then issued a circular notice to LDP prefectural groups in reference to this symposium:
Concerning history education, the LDP maintains the following three points: 1) history education is an important issue which fundamentally affects the nation’s future; 2) regarding the official approval and selection of history textbooks to be used in history education, it is essential that they be firmly sanctioned and impartially chosen after careful examination; and 3) the history education issue is a crucial problem very closely connected to the questions of constitutional reform and revision of the Fundamental Law of Education. It is necessary that the state and local levels work in unison to tackle important national issues. [Accordingly,] the three representatives chosen by prefectural branch associations to participate in the meeting will be allowed money for travel expenses […] by party headquarters.

This document issued instructions that the LDP as a whole would back up the adoption of the 2005 Tsukurukai textbook. The Tsukurukai noted their high valuation of the circular in their bimonthly bulletin History (Shi) stating, “This would have been inconceivable in 2001 when Nonaka Hiromu was Chief Secretary, but under Abe’s administration it has become a reality.” In response to the notice, the LDP at its party convention in January 2005 decided on “revision” of the Fundamental Law of Education and the “correction of biased textbooks” as key issues in the 2005 campaign agenda. In this way, historical distortions aligned with a non-state, popular movement (i.e., the Tsukurukai) were publicly promoted even at the level of national government through the concerted efforts of Abe Shinzô and other extreme right-wing politicians.
On March 27, 2005, Abe gave a talk as Deputy Secretary of the LDP at the Great Study Conference of Japan held in Tokyo for LDP local assembly members. This meeting was intended as a general rally which would affect a unity of purpose among the local assemblymen to have the Tsukurukai textbook adopted throughout the entire country. The meeting itself was sponsored by the executive committee of the nation-wide local assembly members’ Study Conference and the cable station, Japan Cultural Channel Sakura, and it was attended by 1,000 people, including 300 local assemblymen.
In his lecture at this meeting, Abe made the following points as noted by one of the participants:
In January, there was an instance of political terrorism in The Asahi. This act of political terrorism was a completely cooked up story intended to bury Nakagawa (Shôichi) and me.[11] Nagai (Satoru) of NHK (Japan Broadcasting Network) held a tearful press conference, but he did not demonstrate the grounds of his argument regarding the content of his accusations. These are acts provoked in collusion with a force clandestinely connected to the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chôsen Sôren).[12] The Japanese people, however, sense that their tactics were strange. The other day, a Korean reporter asked whether official examination of a history textbook shouldn’t be halted because of allegations that Fusôsha publishing house had unveiled a plain cover edition of their history textbook while it was still in the process of being examined. Official approval of Japanese textbooks is not done by the central government, but rather it is decided upon by regional boards of education. What the government should do, however, is to have schools adopt textbooks in a non-controversial atmosphere. The creation of such an environment, then, is a top priority. The last time [i.e., adoption of the ’01 ed.] we were not equal to the task, but this time [i.e., adoption of the ’05 ed.] we must fulfill our responsibility.[13]
The question of education is an important one. The “thing which was lacking, which fell short [of expectations], in Koizumi’s reforms” were the parts related to education. Reform of the Fundamental Law of Education, which has not come to pass in sixty years, will be pursued henceforth. In 1988, British Prime Minister Thatcher carried out great reform measures in the area of education. At that time, the standard of education in England was below that of developing countries. Even in the victorious country of England, then, children were given a “masochistic history education.” Owing to the resolute execution of educational reform, however, these masochistic textbooks have been eliminated. Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education is necessary. I would like to cultivate in children a love of country. The important thing is the act of “loving.” Simply “considering it important” is of no use. We cannot regard our country in the same light as we do an eraser or pencil.

The above is only one instance among many where Abe has made such remarks. He casts himself as a politician who bears the leading role in banishing the issue of “comfort women” from the stage of history as a form of sexual slavery perpetrated by the former Japanese army, saying it is a fabrication and not historical fact, and in so doing he throws himself into the frontlines of the battle being waged on textbooks fully supporting the Tsukurukai.
A True Account of the Intervention to Alter the NHK Program
Abe Shinzô and Nakagawa Shôichi brought political pressure and interference to bear on the NHK and had a program altered. Entitled “Confronting Wartime Sexual Violence,” the second episode of the special ETV 2001 series, “How Do We Judge War?” aired by NHK Educational on January 30, 2001, dealt with coverage of the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery.[14] Because of interference by right-wing figures and political powerbrokers, the episode was broadcast in a completely different format with the studio run-time altered. The altered broadcast is strongly tied to the positions taken by the leading members of hard-line diet member associations such as the Japan Conference Discussion Society of Parliamentarians (Nihon Kaigi Kokkai Giin Kondan Kai; abbr., Nihon Kaigi Giren) and Association of Young Parliamentarians Considering Japan’s Future and History Education (see above). There exists important material that sheds light on the circumstances leading to Abe and Nakagawa’s interference. The following article appeared in the March 2001 issue of the Japan Conference bulletin, Breath of Japan (Nihon no ibuki):
The planning of the (program) itself was too politically biased, strikingly deviating from the fundamental rule of public broadcasting, namely, impartiality. Even with respect to the content, the centrally featured coverage of the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal was unfair in the way it was edited, giving the impression that sexual violence directed at women truly did take place at the hands of the Japanese military. It was injurious to our country’s reputation. Having suspected as much in advance, this society [i.e., the Japan Congress (Nihon Kaigi)] deployed a plan to protest [its airing]. Given that NHK is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan Conference officials from Vice President Odamura (Shirô) on down called on the Internal Affairs Minister, Katayama Toranosuke, requesting that the NHK, as a public broadcasting network, make a proper and impartial report [on the subject].

The statement that the Japan Congress had gotten wind of this program in advance and thus deployed a strategy by which to protest its airing intimates the circumstances by which Abe and Nakagawa were able to interfere with the broadcast. While it is left ambiguous in the text when exactly “in advance” they were informed of the program’s content, it is clear that it was sometime before they made their request to Internal Affairs Minister Katayama on January 26. At the time, right-wing groups such as the New Wind Restoration Party (Ishin Seitô Shinpû), the Association of Japanese Public Opinion (Nihon Yoron no Kai), and the Great Japan Patriot Party (Dai Nippon Aikoku Tô) had descended upon NHK, demanding that the program be cancelled, and so the Japan Congress likewise “took measures” against the NHK. The Japan Congress took action by bringing the report to the attention of the Japan Conference Discussion Society (mentioned above), which is aligned with the former.
Parliamentarians for History Education, which works in concert with the Tsukurukai, is a sister organization of the Japan Conference Discussion Society, and nearly all the members of the former group are affiliated with the latter as well. In 2001, Nakagawa was serving as the president of the Japan Conference Discussion Society and the representative delegate of the Parliamentarians for History Education, and Abe filled the posts of vice-chief secretary and secretary-general for the two groups, respectively. Then Internal Affairs Minister Katayama was also, moreover, a member of the Japan Conference Discussion Society. These two associations, both then and now, have advocated that accounts of “comfort women” be stricken from the pages of textbooks and have continued to make negative comments to the effect that the “comfort women” issue represents a perversion of history.
At a press conference held on January 19, 2005, NHK Managing Director Miyashita Nobuhiro explained the reason why Abe and Nakagawa were briefed about the contents of the program. As Miyashita put it, given that they were both leading members of “textbook parliamentarians,” “it was known [by Nojima Naoki, then Deputy Director-General of the Corporate Planning Bureau] that the program’s theme was the subject of discussion among these groups” ( The Tokyo, January 20, 2005).
The Japan Congress and Japan Conference Discussion Society are one in their aims, ideas and attitudes. As a result, having received the information and intentions of the Japan Congress prior to January 26, 2001, these two societies along with Abe and Nakagawa, both on the executive committee of the Parliamentarians for History Education, interfered with the originally edited program. Thus, the truth of the matter is that in their intervention they brought political pressure to bear on the NHK and had the program altered.
As stated previously, through his work in the study group Parliamentarians for History Education, Abe has tenaciously devoted himself to wiping out the memory and record of Japan’s military “comfort women,” saying they lack factual basis.
From the above, it is apparent that the question of Abe and Nakagawa having had the program altered by taking recourse to political interference and pressure is a representative instance of the ways in which members of these two groups, Parliamentarians of the Japan Conference Discussion Society and Parliamentarians for History Education, worked within these organizational structures, and, as their representatives, Abe and Nakagawa – leading members of both societies – brought pressure directly to bear on NHK.

Translated by H. Findley with the kind permission of the author and publisher.

[1] The present selection is from The True Character of Abe Shinzô (Abe Shinzô no honshô), ed., Shûkan Kinyôbi Shuzaihan (Tokyo: Kinyôbi, 2006). Translated with the permission of the author and publisher.

[2] Assumed office on September 26, 2006, becoming the 90th Prime Minister of Japan.

[3] The Marco Polo Bridge Incident of 1937 marks the beginning of full scale war between the Republic of China and the Japanese empire. The second Sino-Japanese War later converged with the Pacific War, or World War II, which ended with Japan’s defeat in August 1945.

[4] Also known as the “Murayama Cabinet Statement,” delivered on August 15, 1995 (the 50th anniversary of the war’s end). For a summary of the televised address, see: The Asahi, August 15, 1995. On the events leading up to the cabinet decision upon which the statement was based, see: Ryuji Mukae, “Japan’s Diet Resolution on World War Two: Keeping History at Bay,” in Asian Survey 36:10 (Oct. 1996): 1011-1030.

[5] They are Nakanishi Terumasa (professor, Kyoto University), Yagi Hidetsugu (professor, Takasaki Economics University), Shimada Yoichi (professor, Fukui Prefectural University), Ito Tetsuo (director, Japan Policy Institute), and Nishioka Riki (professor, Tokyo Christian University).

[6] Served as prime minister from 1957 to 1960, at which time he was forced to resign following popular unrest (i.e., 1960 Anpo Riots) resulting from the signing of the US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty.

[7] LDP member (b. 1945) who served as Minister of Finance in the Koizumi cabinet. He came in third to Abe in the 2006 LDP presidential election.

[8] b. 1962; professor of law at Takasaki City University of Economics and former chair of the Tsukurukai, as well as a member of Abe’s “brain trust.” For more on the latter, see: 30-50 of the present work.

[9] b. 1953; Nakagawa served as the Minister of Commerce and Industry and later as Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Koizumi cabinet. Upon Abe’s succession in 2006, he was appointed by the latter to head the LDP’s Policy Research Council.

[10] b. 1947; Former Senior Vice Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare was purged in 2005 by the LDP for opposing Koizumi’s postal privatization scheme. Etô is currently seeking permission to rejoin the party with Abe’s support.

[11] The article referred to here appeared in the morning edition of the The Asahi, January 15, 2005. In it Nakagawa and Abe were accused of interfering with a broadcast set to air on NHK; see below.

[12] Founded in 1955, this organization serves ethnic Koreans living in Japan through privately run schools, business concerns (e.g., pachinko) and other community facilities. More importantly, the group serves as the de facto embassy of North Korea in Japan, and given its close ties with the Pyongyang government, its activities and members are often subject to suspicion and concern on the part of Japanese nationals.

[13] Tawara’s note: The “responsibility” mentioned here means “playing an active role in forcing the adoption of the Tsukurukai textbook.”

[14] Held in Tokyo in December 2000 through the joint efforts of members of the Violence-against-Women- in-War Japan Network (VAWW-Net Japan) and an international consortium of academic scholars, legal experts and survivors, the Women’s Tribunal posited itself as part of the continuing legacy of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (mentioned above). For more on this, see: Norma Field, “The Courts, Japan’s ‘Military Comfort Women,’ and the Conscience of Humanity: The Ruling in VAWW-Net Japan v. NHK,” Japan Focus (2007): http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2352

Works Cited

Abe Shinzô. Abe Shinzô tairon shû: Nihon o kataru. Tokyo: PHP Kenkyûjo, 2006.

——– and Kurimoto Shin’ichirô. ‘Hoshu kakumei’ sengen: anchi riberaru e no sentaku.
Tokyo: Gendai Shorin, 1996.

——– and Okazaki Hisahiko. Kono kuni o mamoru ketsui. Tokyo: Fusôsha, 2004.

——–. Utsukushii kuni e. Tokyo: Bungei Shunjû, 2006.

By admin | Posted in Guest Lecturers, Tawara Yoshifumi | Comments (0)

Horio Teruhisa “From the Front Lines of the Human Rights Battle in Japan: Constitution, Flag, and Anthem in the Schools”

July 14, 2008 – 5:15 am

From the Front Lines of the Human Rights Battle in Japan: Constitution, Flag, and Anthem in the Schools

HORIO Teruhisa
Emeritus Dean, School of Education, University of Tokyo
31 March 2006

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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、デュ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、ここの建物はデュ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。私自身デュ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.”

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・デュ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.

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.

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.

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.

By admin | Posted in Horio Teruhisa | Comments (0)

Kamanaka Hitomi with Dave Kraft

July 14, 2008 – 4:38 am

KAMANAKA HITOMI with DAVE KRAFT
University of Chicago
18 April 2007

Independent filmmaker Kamanaka Hitomi visited the University of Chicago in April 2007 for the US premiere of her documentary, Rokkasho Rhapsody, screened as part of the Celebrating Protest in Japan series. She took part in Tomomi Yamaguchi’s and Norma Field’s class, Postwar Japanese Social Movements, joined by Dave Kraft of the Nuclear Energy Information Service.
Rokkasho Rhapsody follows the people of a small fishing village in northern Japan as they confront the arrival of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, which the state claims will not only be crucial to assuring energy security for Japan but will bring prosperity to the shrinking village. Director Kamanaka listens patiently to people variously positioned on the issue; she takes her camera as well to Sellafield, England, where a similar plant, now shut down, is located.
The class had also watched her 2003 documentary, Hibakusha at the End of the World, in which Kamanaka brought together hibakusha (radiation victims) from not only Hiroshima and Nagasaki but Iraq (the victims there thought to be suffering from the effects of depleted uranium (DU) from the Gulf War) and Hanford, Washington, the site of the plutonium plant where the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was produced.
Kamanaka belongs to a generation for which the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not have the immediacy they once had. She came to her own relationship to the bombings and their survivors through Iraq—from her work filming children devastated by the Gulf War, leading to growing knowledge about the impact of DU. In the course of the class transcribed below, she described how she herself was exposed to DU in 1998 and contracted cancer. That makes her a hibakusha, a designation about which she still hesitates. She nevertheless gave permission to have this account posted in hopes that it might reach US soldiers in Iraq and help them to be attentive to any symptoms they might experience. (NF)

A podcast of Kamanaka’s discussion with documentarian Judy Hoffman and film scholar Michael Raine following the screening of Rokkasho Rhapsody is available at
http://chiasmos.uchicago.edu/events/kamanaka.shtml

The 2003 film on Hibakusha can be purchased in a 90-minute English-language version titled Radiation, A Slow Death: A New Generation of Hibakusha at
http://www.choices.web.aplus.net/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CV&Product_Code=CH7024DVD&Category_Code=

Information about the Celebrating Protest may be accessed at
http://ceas.uchicago.edu/celebratingprotest/

Dave Kraft’s website below contains a wealth of information on nuclear energy and related activism.
http://www.neis.org

KAMANAKA Hitomi with Dave KRAFT

[This recording began in the middle of class,after we had finished viewing Kamanaka's 2003 documentary, Hibakusha at the End of the World. A student asked Kamanaka what she meant by the "end of the world."]

KAMANAKA: There’s a famous Japanese animator, Tezuka Osamu. He made a story about a firebird. A firebird is a symbol of energy in the universe.

TOMOMI YAMAGUCHI: It’s called Phoenix in English.

KAMANAKA: There’s one scene I remember when the firebird was leaving earth and watching earth from the universe, and then a nuclear war started on earth. And you see such beautiful fragments of our earth. At this moment, the firebird thinks that human beings are stupid creatures for finally starting a nuclear war, and then the firebird flies away. The image of the end of the world was like that for me, ending up in smoke. And the image of the end of the world was caused by nuclear war. But when I went to Iraq, I met children who were dying of cancer and leukemia. I thought my image was wrong when I met Rasha. When I met Rasha in Iraq, I reversed how I saw the end of the world for all of us. For example, you see the sky is blue and you feel warm. You drink hot coffee and you can taste it. So, if you live you can feel the world and the world exists for you. But when I sensed that Rasha was dying, the sense of Rasha was going away. For Rasha, the world was going away, too. Then I found out that each individual person’s death was the end of the world. In Iraq, so many children were dying, and it’s going on still—an invisible and unknown death. For each of them, it’s the end of the world. That’s what I meant but I never explained it. But I also let the audience feel as they do and as they like, so I get various images of the end of the world while I hold onto my image and my meaning of the end of the world

FIELD: So, there’re many ends of the of world.

KAMANAKA: If you think about what it means to lose your life–to lose every kind of sensation–you think about it, not objectively, but you try to feel it as the person this is happening to. I tried to imagine what it was like to die. That’s how I found my image.

STUDENT 1: Hi, there’s a part in the beginning when you are in Iraq and you were with a team looking at the remnants of tank rubble in what seemed like the ‘highway of death’ near Basra. I was wondering if that was very dangerous being so close to the highway of death where there were 310 tons of depleted uranium used?

FIELD: I always get nervous when I watch that scene, too. I think, ‘What is she doing?’

KAMANAKA: But at that time I was so ignorant about it.

STUDENT 1: Because Doug Rokke, he went to Iraq to investigate, and I believe he suffered radiation poisoning.

KAMANAKA: Yes, he is sick. Did you get any news from Doug Rokke?

DAVE KRAFT: Not recently. He lives here in Illinois, down in Champaign-Urbana.

KAMANAKA: I think it’s very strange that if 100 people are exposed to the same level of radiation, not all of them will get sick. There is a certain percentage of the 100 people that becomes ill. I was one who got sick - I got really ill after I got back from Iraq because of my exposure to radiation. By walking around polluted tanks, I encountered depleted uranium from Operation Desert Storm. So when I was shooting tanks in the south of Iraq, then I went back to Baghdad…

FIELD: It’s not Desert Storm, Desert Storm was the Gulf War. Oh, I see. You were exposed to DU from Desert Storm tanks still lying around and then in Operation Desert Fox in1998.

KAMANAKA: It started the night of December 16, just after midnight, when the date changed to the 17th. I went to the United Nations office during the day because I had an appointment to interview United Nations people. Then I realized that three weeks before, when I asked them for an interview, many UN workers said “I can’t do it that day.” I asked for the 16th of December, so only one employee agreed to an interview. I went to the United Nations office but nobody was around. And then I heard them say, “You didn’t know that the bombings are starting tonight? You should escape.” I replied, “How?” It was so shocking because you need to get a special card to escape, to go over the border. You need to get a specific driver and card, and you need to get a stamp from the Ministry of Information. It was too late for me to organize a departure, so having no choice, I stayed in Baghdad. My hotel stood beside the Tigris River and in front of the river was Saddam Hussein’s palace. They really hit this palace. Everybody went into a shelter as the first missile landed in the center of Baghdad. It was huge. For four nights, I stayed in a shooting war zone. From what I recall, I did inhale a lot of smoke. It was everywhere. After I did some research, I had the image that they used depleted uranium missiles at that time. There is a research institute in London, it is famous now, Cheney bought it recently. This is a really good institute that researches air pollution. They have data on many kinds of particles and you can see videos. When the Gulf War started, the levels of uranium-238 were really high in the atmosphere in England. During the Gulf War and also when I was staying, and when the US started hitting Afghanistan, you could see this happen. On the same date, there are already particles in the air. So it really goes around the world.

STUDENT 1: Right, I heard it’s just 4 days from Iraq to America through the air.

FIELD: What did you do when you realized you were exposed?

KAMANAKA: Just after I went back to Japan, I felt my immune system was really down. I started with diarrhea and my joints became powerless. I really was sick. I tried many things to detox, to wash out the heavy metals from my body. But it became cancer, so I was diagnosed with cancer while I was editing this film [Hibakusha] . So my doctor suggested I get an operation. I asked him to wait—I’m making a film. After I finish my film, I’ll do it. Then I finished. An operation was scheduled for six days later. I went to the hospital and I felt I shouldn’t do it. So I said no. There were many doctors and nurses who came to me and said I should do it.

FIELD: This was 2003?

KAMANAKA: Yes, and they were so angry with me. And I didn’t change my mind. So, then I started taking alternative medication. I took many different types of drugs and it all really worked out. I am feeling close to cured. Maybe my next film is going to be about medication issues because I feel like I’m sending chemotherapy drugs to Iraq for children, but I also feel like chemotherapy drug treatment is increasing cancer.

STUDENT 2: How did you cure yourself?

KAMANAKA: Acupuncture, Chinese medicine, and also qigong. Cayce Rood [at Hanford, in Hibakusha] was doing Qigong. I was looking for him because I had information that he was working for the site as an inspector. I called him and he had been a whistleblower for the second time, and was fired again.

FIELD: Oh, he was fired twice.

KAMANAKA: And when I called him, his girlfriend said he wasn’t there anymore, but I left my cell phone number and said if you get in touch with him please let him know that I am looking for him. He was attending a conference in Chernobyl and found that survivors, long-term survivors of radiation, were doing yoga or qigong. It’s true. And he came back to Hanford and he got the idea to teach qigong to workers who had symptoms of radiation exposure. So, qigong is really effective. I also received chemotherapy.

STUDENT 3: So, why did you kind of refuse an operation before trying?

KAMANAKA: I was planning to get it because I wanted to live. So it’s strange that after I finished my film, I started having the same dream telling me not to get an operation. I believed in it. In the beginning I was dreaming that I saw a well, black. I was kind of pulled into this bottomless black well, and I thought that if I went into the well I would die. I was so scared and I kept dreaming of this image. One day, so many people who I didn’t know sent me tea, medicine, and food because I was losing weight. I lost maybe ten kilograms of weight. I was becoming slimmer by the minute.

FIELD: Ten kilograms is about twenty-two pounds.

KAMANAKA: So, people were getting worried and they sent me medicine, including brown rice and ginger tea. I really felt love from them, love from so many people. Then this bottomless well started to form a bottom. Suddenly, I could see the bottom, and it wasn’t so deep. I could stand. The water drained and I could stand there and something like wheat was growing in the water. On the last day, I could see violets blossoming and I felt I fine and that I didn’t need to get an operation. It was right. I think I made the right choice. I didn’t lose anything.

FIELD: You gained. Do you know if the Hanford workers are taking qigong lessons?

KAMANAKA: I don’t know. Cayce Rood–maybe I should call him. In China and in Japan, specific qigong is created for each cancer. For breast cancer patients, do this qigong, for lung cancer patients, do that qigong. So, it’s really effective. This is a digression. When I met Iraqi children, I was really angry about what’s going on in Iraq and I was thinking about who was responsible for what was happening in Iraq. I thought maybe the United States, and Great Britain, and the international world were so cold. Especially about the child I mentioned before, Rasha. She left a message.

FIELD: You still remember her?

KAMANAKA: I have felt responsible, but it was too heavy to carry by myself. I thought that if I could make this film, I could release my responsibility to many people. So I could make this film, and many people have seen it. If the film goes on to get an audience, then my responsibility and pressure to change something about this issue can be a little lighter. I could share it with so many people. People who saw this film could feel some responsibility.

FIELD: Oh, I see.

STUDENT 1: You were just mentioning earlier today that the phrase, “the end of the world” means each person’s experiencing by themselves in their own way, but would you also speak about the film making community in people giving you rice and tea? Is this a way of making people not experiencing it by themselves? Is this a counteracting force?

KAMANAKA: Yes, sort of. I didn’t get any sympathy from media people. They just ignore me. They’re not interested in what I’m doing. It’s the same thing in Japan and maybe all around the world: people in society belong to companies and corporations, so they became slaves. They are not liberated. They cannot blow a whistle. They cannot be a whistleblower because they really respect hanging on to their livelihood. You know, they have the mantra, “I have children, I have a wife, I have old parents to feed, so I want to keep this job. So you can’t say this is wrong, my company is doing wrong.” So, these kinds of people are losing their freedom. I say the same thing about media people. In Japan, so many people get such a small salary, and they’re so busy, and then their boss just says do this and do that, and they stop thinking about whether it is wrong or right, they just do it. They stop thinking. The same thing happens in the business world. They don’t know what they’re doing. The same thing with scientists, and I know many scientists in Japan.

FIELD: I had forgotten that Rokkasho already shows up in this Hibakusha film. Your next project was already anticipated towards the end.

KAMANAKA: So, I asked to interview many scientists, particularly, nuclear scientists, in Japan to make this film. But almost all of them except for two said no. If they believed it was essential, they should have accepted my interview. But they said no. And one of them said “Oh, if I accept to be interviewed by you, I will lose my job.” Please say that to my camera! The issue is, why do you become a scientist? What do you research for? This essential question is forgotten, I think. I saw a film maybe one month ago in Hiroshima and then people who organized the screening invited the ABCC [the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, established in 1947 to study the long-term effects of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki], in Japan. I had a dialogue with this guy.

FIELD: Wait. ABCC still exists?

Student: Yes, except the name changed.

KAMANAKA: Yes. The United States Government provides money. It’s kind of combined with the Japanese government.

FIELD: Oh, right.

KAMANAKA: So, while I was talking with him, I had gotten so mad. Just two days before we had the conversation, they announced that they had been doing research about second-generation hibakusha. Their research found nothing. And they said that second-generation hibakusha are the same as other people - nothing different, no effects of radiation. So the organizers of the screening were a second-generation group. They were so mad. What the scientist announced was so humiliating. I was talking with him and he was just doing basic research on radiation and just explaining what radiation does. And I was wondering, “You know you are living in Hiroshima and you show up at meetings of survivors and they are suffering and you can see it. What is your research for?” I really talked tough to him, and he couldn’t answer so many questions from me. Then I found out that scientists were also businessmen in a corporation. They are missing a connection between society and themselves; between what they are doing in the corporation and what they’re doing in society. But society exists, and you have to have a feeling for the connection between you and society.

STUDENT 1: I was just wondering, who funded that study, the one that in which the scientist said there was no effect?

KAMANAKA: Partly the United States government and partly the Japanese government.

FIELD: Remember, the ABCC is the institution that had doctors that were not treating the victims after the bombing but just inspecting, examining them for data.

STUDENT 1: I am just kind of interested in the scientists. My first question is, what is their emotional state when they talk to you? They are basically working for that research - they might have some particular interest in this program. So, to me, if they can’t find anything, they might feel like they must be very certain.

KAMANAKA: No, no. The conclusion is always already decided.

STUDENT 1: So, they may not say, for instance, “If I use this data it’s wrong, or if I use this data it’s okay.” I mean, they provide only just one conclusion. They try to show their efforts.

KAMANAKA: I’m not a scientist but it’s very strange. All the basic data are taken from survivors in Hiroshima. So it’s called the Hiroshima model. The old data, I think, is here in the United States but it’s not really open to the public. So, they hold their own data. And then they announce, “We’ve been doing 2000 million dollars’ research to reach this conclusion.” And ordinary people cannot say anything.

FIELD: But it’s not open to any scientist either, right? Because the data produced in the Hiroshima model is not available for every scientist to examine and try to reverify or contest.

KAMANAKA: So after 60 years, we don’t know anything.

STUDENT 1: Even when they know that they are scientists?

KAMANAKA: This guy is Japanese and really has no sympathy for second-generation survivors. When I meet people of the second generation, they are really worried about their health and they say things like, “I have a million problems with my system that I can’t get past easily. I have low blood pressure.” Each symptom seems minor and then it goes undetected - you are unaware of your exact diagnosis. But you’re susceptible to many viruses, so it’s kind of difficult. The symptom is ignored and if it’s ignored that means it’s nonexistent. It’s a very difficult side of radiation, right, David? Don’t you think?

STUDENT 1: Because usually the statistics, I think, prove one way is more effective. For example they might say we cannot prove this is effective, so they say there is nothing, or they say we cannot prove this is effective.

FIELD: Hypothesis. Hypothesize.

KAMANAKA: Hypothesize that the damage is there. They don’t see the real people in front of them, so their hypothesis is something else.

YAMAGUCHI: Should we ask Dave to talk a little about the situation in Illinois?

FIELD: Yes, let’s get to that since he’s here.

KRAFT: KAMANAKA-san and I actually met several years ago in Hamburg and I was surprised to see her again at a conference about the depleted uranium weapons that were used in the Iraq and Balkan wars. Before I say a word about Illinois, I just wanted to mention something about what you were saying a moment ago about statistics in your experience. This sort of attitude is not just happening in Japan - it’s happening everywhere the nuclear industry is on the planet. Last year, I attended a conference in Kiev, which was the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. There, the attitudes of the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency were identical. In fact, the whole purpose of their conference last year was to tell all of us that it wasn’t that bad. They argued that only 4,000 to 8,000 people will die, and I’m sure that makes all of you feel better. The conference I was at had all of the doctors from the countryside - from the surrounding areas, not the major urban centers where the doctors get money for their institutes and professional services. But the people who were being affected tell a different story. So, there’s always this tension between the reality of real people and the reality of constructs—statistics, epidemiology—they have their usefulness but they’re tools, and tools have their limits. You don’t hammer nails with coffee cups. There are limits to this kind of knowing. And we constantly find this with radiation, whether it’s with civilians in Iraq or the veterans in Iraq, which I’m sure you will tell the students later. The connection for my being here was also an accident. I hope you will all see the movie [Rokkasho Rhapsody] on Friday night. It’s very important. I did not know how bad things were in terms of the process in Japan. But I want you to know that the George Bush administration is also attempting to resurrect reprocessing in the United States. We have had a prohibition on this for almost 35 years. The only trained nuclear engineer we ever had as a president was the one who stopped reprocessing - that was Jimmy Carter. Now our grade C student, a business major from Yale, wants to start reprocessing and it’s going by a program called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and one of the pieces of this partnership is to reprocess the fuel that comes out of the nuclear reactors, separate the materials and, so they say, use the materials again to provide more electricity, more energy. And the trouble is you end up with plutonium, which is exactly what was used in Nagasaki. So, our organization and hundreds of others around the United States are opposing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership generally, but there are two sites in Illinois that are actually candidates for nuclear processing. That will tie into what you will see on Friday night when you see the film. I did bring a background sheet on the GNEP program, and if you have any questions we have our contact information on here. The reason I will not be here on Friday night is because I’m presenting at one of the sites here in Illinois against the GNEP program, at a very different location out in Naperville. We also had a presentation about a week or so ago in a community called Morris, Illinois in southwest of Chicago, where they already have three nuclear power plants and 750 tons of reactor fuel sitting their in a swimming pool. That’s the site they want for the next reprocessing facility.

I want you to know that there is an active anti-nuclear organization throughout the United States. Despite what you may hear about countries that “love” nuclear power like France, opposition is growing everywhere. The other day I saw that either in the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times an article about the French and their love of nuclear power. What you did not see is that two weeks ago in five major French cities, 20,000 French got off their butts, got on the streets and said, “No more nuclear power!”

KAMANAKA: The mass media never talks about it.

FIELD: Never.

KRAFT: 20,000 French!

KAMANAKA: Wow.

KRAFT: And, the French Anti-Nuclear Movement claims to have 700,000 members. I don’t know if this is true or not, we’ll leave it up to the statisticians to figure it out. But that’s the point. What is reality? It’s not just what we see in the papers. You are going to be seeing another reality.

KAMANAKA: So, the Rokkasho Village Reprocessing Facility is the newest and the biggest in reprocessing nuclear waste in the world. It’s going to start working this year and it’s going to produce 8 tons of plutonium each year. So, why was I shooting this film? It took me two years to complete the movie - I started in March 2004 and ended in March 2006. The opposition people said that if the plant starts operating, the emissions will be the equivalent of 300 nuclear plants. It means you are going to see levels of nuclides released equivalent to what you might get from 300 nuclear power plants in Rokkasho Village. So the population of Rokkasho village is 5,000. I was thinking that, isn’t this too much? Maybe it’s not true. It could be exaggeration by the opposition. Now, they’ve begun what they call active testing, the last test before full operation. They aren’t processing as much as they would in full-scale operation, but they are doing the same procedure. Then a candidate for office in Aomori Prefecture, last year, in December, asked the company to give them a real figure. What was the level of nuclides being released into the environment now? So they gave information on how much they released in November 2006, in one month. It’s 1,300 times more –

FIELD: –than a single nuclear power plant in a month?

Kamanka: In a year. The amount produced by this single nuclear power plant is 1,300 times more.

FIELD: But in one month?

KAMANAKA: In one month. Right.

FIELD: So it’s not just 1,300 times, because over a year ….

KRAFT: Times twelve.

KAMANAKA: And then recently, in the last procedure in testing, you cut a lot of nuclear fuel and put it into a liquid chemical and melt it, and then you separate the plutonium and the uranium and other highly radioactive wastes. So then you have a liquid containing plutonium in a bowl, and then you microwave it, and it becomes powder. It’s the last stage of the process. And then suddenly an alarm bell rang, and the process was stopped. And then this was done by human operation. So then this guy forgets to empty the bowl. Then the powder was not removed, and they poured in more liquid containing plutonium. So then, what happened … .

FIELD: Sub-critical.

KAMANAKA: Sub-critical, almost.

FIELD: This happened in Rokkasho.

KAMANKA: So then a 36-year-old guy and a 19-year-old boy inhaled plutonium. The 36- year-old- guy, he really got internal radiation exposure. And then I met someone whose company operates this facility. I asked what insurance there is for the workers. Do they get compensation? And he said no. Why? Because the levels of exposure are too low to cause illness. But how can you tell? After 5 or 10 years, they might get cancer. And they don’t get compensation? He said it could be owing to other causes. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol. Not because of exposure in the plant. We don’t give them compensation. In England, in Sellafield, where there’s the same sort of facility, employees need to sign a contract that says they understand that there is a 25% chance of getting cancer. That is a high incidence. So if you accept it, you sign, and the workers get compensation when they get a particular kind of cancer. Only the employees.

FIELD: But not people who live near them. Dave, maybe you could say, because we’re almost out of time, you could say the three plus one big reason why GNEP is backed, is haunting us now. I was wondering is this in order to just do something with the nuclear waste or what.

DAVE: We were having lunch and discussing this. I think this GNEP program like many American programs is a Trojan horse. It looks great on the outside, it seems to be a gift, but when you go inside, that’s where all the problems are. I saw three major problems and then the one persistent problem I’ll save for the end. What they’re attempting to do with this program, first of all, is re-launch an industry that by every standard should have been closed down decades ago. It’s financially incapable of being on its own, the economics are poor, the environmental problems are huge. This industry should have been gone long ago but the government keeps it going. They call this the nuclear renaissance. They’re trying to build more nuclear reactors and you’ve probably heard that they want to do it because they’re going to save us from global warming, which is another fiction, and we have some literature on that if you’d like to see. So that was the first thing, is the government is promoting this nuclear renaissance and this is one of the ways to do it. The second is, after 50-plus years of commercial nuclear power, we still don’t have any environmentally responsible solution for the high-level radioactive waste that has been produced, over 55,000 tons so far. And this reprocessing is supposedly one way to begin a process that will reduce that amount. They don’t tell you it will take 200 years, and they don’t tell you that you have to build many more reactors of a different type to achieve this at a cost of maybe $200 billion dollars. It’s always in the details. The second so-called reason is to get rid of the high-level radioactive waste we’ve accumulated. The third one is a little closer to the truth, I believe, and that is the very good explanation of what happens in re-processing is, you’re able to separate out these radioactive materials and take the ones you want to use. Well, there’re only two uses for plutonium on the planet

KAMANAKA: 1%. So all the waste, and only 1% is plutonium.

KRAFT: And you can only do two things with it. You can either make electricity if you get the right kind of reactors, which in many cases we haven’t even built yet. And the second thing is, we can make nuclear weapons. And the way they’re promoting this new reactor and this radioactive waste package is, you have to buy them together, which gives any government on the earth the ability to produce plutonium and keep it. Now, have we ever had this problem before where our government used peaceful nuclear power to obtain materials and then suddenly there were some bombs lying around? Well it happened in India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, and North Korea. Everywhere the peaceful atom goes, nuclear weapons will always follow because that’s the real purpose. And the final one is, in the meantime, there’s lots of money to be made. General Electric Corporation wants to do GNEP because they know there will be $100 billions dollars worth of possible contracts from the government–guaranteed from your taxes and mine—that they will get. So that’s the bottom line. If they were making ashtrays, I wouldn’t have a problem. But we’re talking about making bombs and accidents of all kinds. So, this is why many of us oppose GNEP because it’s a nuclear proliferation nightmare. It undoes even the incomplete work that many of us have worked on for 50 years to try and quickly get the genie back in the bottle. So if Rokkasho goes forward, quite literally we’re cooked.

KAMANAKA: Yes, but what Dave said is not really well-known by people because then… I didn’t say anything bad about re-processing in this film, but you see, and people see, and you have the ability to just think and draw the conclusion that it’s just useless and just pollutes the environment for nothing. And then there’s the thinking, why do you need to do this? Because we don’t have the new type of reactors and the government says maybe we can get them in 50 or 100 years later, maybe. Then why do you need to produce plutonium now?

KRAFT: It lasts.

KAMANAKA: And nobody can answer, so it’s so strange. I call it the mystery of the nuclear business.

YAMAGUCHI: We need to wrap up. Thank you so much.

FIELD: But I also want to say, you know, really thank you to Yuki and her colleagues at DePaul for deciding to invite Kamanaka-san, which fitted in really nicely with Tomomi’s and my class, our class. So we get to be screening both her films in Chicago in one week. So I think that’s really magnificent. Kamanaka-san was telling us over lunch that her producers don’t think Rokkasho Rhapsody is of any interest to people outside Japan because it’s a very local thing. But as it turns out it’s urgently relevant to us.

KAMANAKA: Because you know they say, the pollution goes around the world.

FIELD: That too.

KAMANAKA: It’s going to be one of the biggest polluters in the world once it starts full-scale operations.

YAMAGUCHI: Thank you so much.

***
Transcribed by Patrick Lau and edited by Tiffany Kwak.
Thanks go to Kamanaka Hitomi and Dave Kraft for their participation and assistance.

By admin | Posted in Guest Lecturers, Kamanaka Hitomi, Uncategorized | Comments (1)

a response to Nori’s talk and visit

May 16, 2008 – 1:10 am

I agree with many who have already posted that Nori was quite an admirable individual, especially considering that is “just” a university student. (The fact that activism is somewhat unusual in university students is even seen in the fact that many of us have pointed out the fact that he is one, even). But what I find personally “inspiring” is that while he too has some unresolved issues (not being able to talk about or think about DU for a couple years), that he was able to come back to it and try to resolve them.

I was also struck (as Soton and Jadine were) by the fact that Nori made such efforts to communicate with those that sent hate mail to him, and agree completely that it is essential to have dialogue with the other side in order to understand them, thus be able to see problems in one’s view or be able to persuade the other side. Often times, both sides might have logically sound arguments but their different assumptions lead to a completely different result, exemplified in the logic of children (something I was made aware of in a rerun of This American Life’s episode Kid Logic, where you are presented with a number of stories where children make completely logical conclusions based on what they know, but also happen to be completely “wrong” when compared to reality). Though I am also aware that all the conclusions might not be “logical”, but rather emotionally based (although, I think that perhaps emotion plays an important role in conclusion-making sometimes.)

Though I am rather ashamed to admit this (and hopefully this tangent isn’t too off topic), I am one of the “politically apathetic youth” group that Nori was trying to influence, and I think understanding Nori’s story has made me think about things in a different light. Previous to this, I think it was a combination of lack of knowledge, and a sense of the overwhelming amount of things that I didn’t know about everything that made me somewhat apathetic to even start looking into these kinds of issues (and, I admit, a large degree of laziness and lack of connection). So what Professor Choi said at the talk, that she often found that a large number of people became politically active through family or friends, makes a lot more sense now, because starting with one issue isn’t as overwhelming, and then one can go from there. In addition to that, once an issue is presented to you, there is often a sense of “there is nothing that I can do” (perhaps some youth are not apathetic, but rather in this category, though they seem apathetic. Though I suppose that the response is a sort of apathy…) which can also be helped by family or friends who can create a group in which one can discuss and plan with, as Nori had in Japan which enabled him to eventually decide to go Iraq. Now I guess it will be seen how I will decide to act on this new (perhaps still cowardly) view…

There’s more, but I suppose I’ll just cap it off here.

By Charlotte | Posted in Guest Lecturers, Imai Noriaki, Pop Culture In/Out of Japan | Comments (0)

Whose Culture? ACEN ethnography

May 16, 2008 – 1:10 am

Lauren Kocher
23 May, 2007

Whose Culture?

My ethnography will focus on the alienation many of us from the class, at ACEN as participants, expressed and reported. Although we had seen manga, watched anime, read analysis, seen documentaries, and learned the history of manga and anime, the subculture of the American otaku was still something many of us had trouble accessing. One thing that really struck me was the reactions of our class to the convention. Because voyaging to ACEN in order to write ethnographies, rather than do cosplay or consume, made us the minority, we all clung together fiercely. Since my phone number became a contact, I received many calls and text messages to the effect of “Where are you?!!”. I think, as a class, we now have everyone’s phone numbers, borne out of the desire to stick together at the convention.
Our cohesion was evident as soon as about eight of us arrived at the convention and picked up a schedule. Someone noticed a panel presentation on Takashi Murakami, and almost immediately we headed in a large group towards the talk, muttering, “Oh, Tomomi will be proud.” This is interesting, firstly, because the Takashi Murakami “Superflat: Art is Explosion!” panel is arguably the single most academic event at the convention. Secondly, in this unknown environment full of costumed adults yelling and moving in strange ways in a subculture we didn’t have access to, we clung to our identity as “University of Chicago students in a Japanese Pop Culture class who have read a manifesto of Superflat.” In a way, by following the topic with which we were most familiar, we avoided feeling like outsiders for a little while longer.
The other panel I attended with a large group of students was the Yuri (Girls-Love manga and anime) panel. This panel had four experts sitting at a table while images of girl-girl couples embracing were flashed onto a white screen. One woman, Erica, was particularly strident on her evaluations and recommendations. She had judgmental views on anime and a dismissive attitude toward other’s opinions. She argued for a more “realistic” yuri, one that wasn’t young schoolgirls or didn’t feature incest. Instead, she sought agreement that many Yuri fans were yearning for a “lonely housewife and a lesbian truck-driver.” Not only was she the only panelist to offer this sort of vision, but I felt that the audience was perfectly satisfied without such comics. The fans in the room seemed to have an intense fandom about the comics already existing, such as Utena or Sailor Moon. When any one of the four panelists would name an author, in fast, Anglo-icized Japanese, the entire audience would immediately swoon or sigh or gasp or clap. Following this, the six or seven of us from class would look questioningly at each other. We were confused. This look, of “Are you as confused as I am?”, was repeated too often to count. The assumption was the commonality we all developed, and that our confusion would be comfortingly echoed back at us.

Once those of us from the class left the panel, we immediately started discussing and analyzing. We all agreed that it was strange. Because of the previous exposure to gender-bending and ambiguous same-sex desires in the James Welker reading, Jennifer Robertson’s Takarazuka study, and others, I think that we were all very critical towards the panel. The loud woman, Erica, was especially fond of reading Yuri as “lesbian” manga, and wanted more realism. However, glancing around the room, most of the attendants were male, and there was no recognizable lesbian contingent in the crowd.
Although these were my own opinions and reactions, I felt as if the six or seven of us who stuck together had the same interpretation and emotions by the end of the day. We began to feel like outsiders more and more, and realized the gap that existed in our modes of interpretation and the subcultural reality. This reality had a base knowledge, their own vocabulary and humor, and their own norms for activities like taking pictures of other’s cosplay costumes (one person poses, everyone surrounds them and takes pictures). I felt that we were operating on a different with different references for the same activities and objects.
Part of this gap between our frame of references and that of the other people at the convention was our lens of anthropological research. However, I don’t believe that this, coupled with our overall lack of fandom, accounts for the distance we felt.

We’ve been reading about Japanese pop culture, in a Japanese context, such as the way Japanese people use the internet or watch TV. We’ve compared it to American pop culture, usage, or adoption. But with so many discussions focused on authenticity, we’ve kept “Japan” as an authentic place. Japan has been the place and people to which we reference.

However, at the convention, I noticed was the lack of “Japan” as a referent. Almost all materials were translated into English, with ethnically non-Japanese people dominating at the booths and the entire convention. “Japan” was absent. I didn’t hear any Japanese. The food options were nachos, hot dogs, fries, and soda. Other than the scattered self-start entrepreneurs selling Pocky for $2 a box and the lone Japanese-language Sasuga Bookstore, imports seemed heavily mediated through interpretation and language. This American subculture seemed completely divorced from its historical and cultural context. It taught us as a class that although we had read and learned about this subculture, without understanding the group experiences, in the specific setting of American otaku, we couldn’t access it in the same way.

The most stunning example of the cohesiveness at ACEN was the cosplay masquerade. At the masquerade, the festivities started with a video “Sephiroth: The Comeback Special” featuring “Sephi,” a graying Elvis/anime figure. The crowd around us appreciatively clapped and yelled, laughing in unison. The place was huge and it roared as the movie was projected onto a white screen. In contrast, none of us from class had any idea what was going on. The crowd around us was roaring with laughter, and several times jumping to their feet to applaud. We simply stared at each other, wishing for an explanation. At the end of the film, the words, “And apologies to anyone in the audience who hasn’t run screaming yet,” scrolled down the screen. The convention organizers clearly acknowledged that some people have no idea what’s going on.
Then the masquerade began. At one point, the homoerotic/homophobic banter of the two MCs was too much. One MC (”Sehpi” feature in the video) continuously apologized to his wife – for staring at cute cosplayers, for touching the other MC, for almost anything. After every apology, the audience laughed, while we sat silently. Even more incredibly, “Yaoi” was referenced several times. One girl directly behind us could be heard saying “giggle giggle giggle yaoi giggle.” At one of the most unbelievable moments, everyone in the audience started chanting “ya-oi! ya-oi! ya-oi!” evidently wanting these two incongruous MCs to be partnered. After everyone chanted, one MC answered, “No, we are not going to perform a live-action yaoi for you.”

Even though all of us have read and discussed yaoi, for the people at ACEN, yaoi was a real frame with which to view people and behavior. ACEN taught me what it is to really live a subculture, as opposed to studying it.

By laurenkocher | Posted in Anime Central Convention, Pop Culture In/Out of Japan | Comments (2)