PALE Journal Online

"PALE" stands for "Professionalism, Administration, and Leadership in Education."

We are officially a Special Interest Group (SIG) in the Japan Association for Language Teaching. (JALT)

Since 1995, The PALE Journal has been documenting specific cases with long-term effects on the treatment of part- and full-time non-Japanese employees and educators. Previous topics have included the Korst, Gallagher, Van Dresser, Kansai University, and Prefectural University of Kumamoto cases, The Blacklist/Greenlist of Japanese Universities, Academic Apartheid in Japan's Universities, Privatization of National and Public Universities, and even Gregory Clark. We have become a major springboard for the maintenance of employment issues in Japan, ensuring that legal precedents and developments remain accessible and cumulative, not fading into mere anecdotery.

We need your support, particularly in terms of submitting material for publication, and in your continued interest in our work. Please contact Editor David Agnew at <editor@jaltpale.org> if you are interested in submitting, raising an issue, or in being involved.

In this issue, Michael J. Matuschka presents a critical analysis of the English language curriculum and teaching practices found within Japanese schools. His discussion paper tackles such topics as why Japanese need English and reasons for poor English language ability in Japan. Next, the Japanese condition is approached in a rather different way when Brent Poole examines the subject of "Nihonjinron" and how the concept of "Japaneseness" can be seen as an underlying theme in Japanese society.

Michael J. Matuschka MACE
BA(Hon), Grad Dip Ed, M Ed Admin
(ANU) (UC) (UNE)Member of the Australian College of Educators

This report is intended as a critical analysis of the English language curriculum and teaching practices found within Japanese schools. The report has been written from a reflective perspective, and is Western in its foundation and organization - this should not be interpreted as being hostile to Japanese culture though.

Japan is a nation that experiences both a superiority complex and an inferiority complex, often concurrently. Within education / school situations this can lead to the double error of dismissing knowledge, expertise and discourse from ‘outsiders’ while at the same time being fearful of open discourse, constructive critical evaluation, entrepreneurial endeavors and leadership – the foundations of Western education systems – from ‘foreign’ colleagues. The result being that an outdated and poorly designed English language curriculum dismally fails to achieve its stated objectives.

It is the hope of this report that a more mature and critical discourse of the problems that the Japanese face in their desire to adopt a foreign language such as English be fostered and developed. The stakes are now very high for the Japanese. English is the global standard, and Japanese citizen’s near universal inability to use it effectively will undoubtedly lead to broad negative consequences in a world that is becoming smaller and far more global in nature and form. A crossroad approaches infrequently for a nation. Japan faces a crossing point now of fundamental importance to its future strength, vitality and relevance in the age of post-industrialism.

Japan was (until the early 1990s) viewed by many in the Western world as a possible challenger to the long established economic leadership of the West. At one stage in 1989, the Tokyo Stock Exchange rose to the dazzling heights of 39000 points, and some commentators were suggesting that it might even reach 60000 (Kerr, 2001, p.79). Many in Japan at the time felt that their future looked bright and were proud of the considerable achievements that they had achieved following the destructive losses of the Pacific War. In the West too there was widespread admiration for the Japanese model of industrial modernity. In 1991 though, the Japanese and the indeed the world learned that the system that was haled widely as world leading was in fact fundamentally flawed and totally unsustainable. Since then, Japan’s leadership in all areas has diminished. Interestingly, instead of changing and redesigning her institutions, be they in the areas of education, government, finance, or business, the nation entered a period of collective denial and has wasted more than a decade now ‘spinning its wheels in the sand’ (The Sick Man of Asia, Project Syndicate, 15/10/2002).

The Japanese development model of modernity contrasts sharply with that of the Anglo-Saxon model. The foundation of the Anglo-Saxon model is a balance between three conflicting and equally important sections of society: the producers, consumers and politicians. Power is thus shared in a triangular paradigm between “producers and employers in one corner, consumers and shareholders in the second corner, and politicians radiating power from the third” (Ries, 1999, p. 84). This model is pointedly different from the Japanese model where a “centrally located allocation of resources (is managed) by government and bureaucrats (to be channeled) through a compliant banking system to favored corporations in designated sectors” (Ries, p 84). The point worth highlighting here is that the Japanese socialist model has lead to inadequate “corporate governance, transparency, accountability and promoted corruption” (Ries, p.84). Within the education sector, the same observations can be made. Put simply, the system has had extreme misgivings in relation to change because there is little open competition or entrepreneurial endeavors among stakeholders, thereby ensuring that change is initiated from the bureaucratic top and not within or from outside the system.

Many of the problems found in the education system can also be traced to a national policy of mercantile nationalism. The Japanese have for many decades held the belief that it is perfectly acceptable to externally trade with (either via export or direct foreign investment) the open markets of North America, Europe and Austral-Asia, while restricting inward foreign investment and trade in order to maintain ‘self-sufficiency’ at home (Mikuni & Murphy, 2002, p. 97). In fairness, this is not peculiar to Japan; the United States developed itself under such a regime during the 19th century. Today though, with a world engaged increasingly in international two-way trade, Japan’s single direction trade and investment model is ultimately doomed. It is unsustainable because it cannot possibly compete with the cheaper labor, younger populations and larger markets of other Asian nations. Furthermore, as a doctrine it has damaged the nation’s competitiveness because it has continued to foster a narrow focus and interaction with the outside world. (This is an aspect of Japanese culture that has a long tradition in the nation’s recorded history). The result being that the movement of ideas and knowledge (the most important aspects of post-industrial economies) have minimal effect inside Japan. Much of the poor English language competency of the Japanese can be explained by this fact.

In terms of Japan’s international rankings in education, the nation often grabs the attention of the world’s media. Japan has consistently ranked amongst the top five nations in international comparative test scores for 15 year old students in math, science and reading (see Reading for Change: Performance and Engagement Across Countries – PISA 2000, OECD 2002). Recent studies have indicated however, that while the children do well in these tests, “they also retain the information for the least amount of time” (School Dazed,TIME Asia 2003). Notwithstanding, tests in English proficiency clearly illustrate further shortcomings. Japan remains the lowest performing nation in the international Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), consistently performing at the bottom of all Asian region nations – even being outclassed by nations such as Afghanistan and of all places, North Korea (English teacher training and English education for children, IIEEC, 10/08/2002). This is in spite of the fact that all children study English for six years at school, and a great majority continue their studies in the language for four years at university. Generally, the type of English that the Japanese can produce can often appear strange and weird to other English speakers. Signs that display, ‘Go back towards your behind’ (Train Station), ‘Non Stop Flights’ (Travel Agent), ‘Grand Demise’ (Apartment Building Name), are but a few examples of a plethora on display in Japan. Person-to-person conversations are also highly limited, with the overwhelming majority of Japanese being unable to carry out even the most basic of discussions.

The fact of the matter is that the Japanese need to be able to use English now more than ever before in their history. It is widely recognized that Japan caught up to the developed West by the 1980s in one area, that being industrial modernity. The success has bred complacency though. According to Ed Lincoln of the Brookings Institution, “most people have higher living standards now than they did 10 years ago. The public is not ready for change” (Japan’s Economy Still Adrift, UPI, 11/06/2002). Many argue though, that while the Japanese are content with their success, they haven’t realized that “others have caught up and overtaken them” (IIEEC). The point being that those nations that have caught up all have large sections of their communities who have (or soon will have) a functional command of English – the international lingua franca. Ultimately, many fear that Japan’s lack of English ability will leave the nation isolated while the rest of the region becomes increasingly cosmopolitan.

Economically, there is every indication that those who aim to personally improve themselves, be that in any area of business, education or government now require a functional command of the English language. It is already the case that many employers in the region (some within Japan too – ex. Sumida Corporation) now require a high level of English competency. While Japanese is the functional language inside Japan, it is not spoken nor used outside the nation – English is the language of necessity. To date though, English continues to be seem by a vast majority of people inside Japan as of little consequence, often more akin to a fashion than a necessity. Interestingly, this is in contrast to many other nations that see English as a necessity for trade, development and competitiveness. Indeed, many multinational corporations are not only demanding a functional command of English, but also experience in critical thinking and debate, as is founded at the core of Western education systems. Alexa Chow, a Hong Kong based personnel consultant recently noted:

graduates of Asian schools are finding themselves beaten out for positions with multinational corporations by peers who were educated abroad (in nations such as Australia, USA, Canada, UK and New Zealand). Those educated overseas are more independent, more aggressive and more proactive when tackling problems (School Dazed, TIME Asia, 2003).

True, Japan’s post war economic success was founded on industrial production that did not require much of a command of English – indeed, ignorance of the language probably served the nation well. With the modernization of other nation’s in the Asian region (and indeed in other regions) however, Japan’s competitive edge in now in decline. In many ways it is not altogether dissimilar from earlier situations that the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, (and numerous European nations) found themselves in the 1980s (a period when Japan was at its peak). All of these nations have now successfully changed their economies, education and government models from an industrial to a post-industrial emphasis (Sacrifices for material gain, Japan Times, 11/02/2003). Post-industrialism demands a high level knowledge of English. Japan’s contemporary problems stem in part from a general ignorance of this paradigm shift in international trade and commerce (as well as science, diplomacy, management, education, government, and research and debate). Regrettably, it is in these areas where the Japanese, without a good command of English, are increasingly being seen as isolated and irrelevant. As one commentator recently wrote, “There’s a harsh rational world out there, one that likes to take a straight, predictable course. It is expecting Japan to follow suit by the adoption of more universal methods of decision-making and problem-solving” (Neither here nor there: recipe for mayhem, Japan Times, 26/09/2002).

In the recently published book, Japan’s Policy Trap an insightful observation is made:

The Japanese economy (and thus society) resembles a palimpsest continuously being written over – peering through the latest additions reveals layers of earlier writing. Still functioning beneath the turn-of-the-millennium economy of cellular phones and advanced materials is an early 1980s economy of commodity-type semiconductors and VCRs, a 1970s economy of automobiles and machine tools, a 1960s economy of shipbuilding and rolled steel, and a 1950s economy of textiles. In the countryside, one can go back farther still and find agricultural plots of a size suitable only for the eighteenth-century production techniques and cottage craft industries still operating the way they did in medieval times. Once an industry is established in Japan, once the network of suppliers and factories that sustain the industry is in place, it is never abandoned (Mikuni & Murphy, 2002, p.63).

Japanese teaching practices illustrate a similar layered tradition. The grammar translation method used universally (in language education in Japanese schools) is in fact a method of instruction which has its roots in the deep past of Japanese culture – perhaps as much as one thousand year’s ago (Hear No English, Speak No English, Hernan Poza). Working experience in Japanese schools simile highlights this reality - Japanese teachers are blissfully ignorant of different concepts and theories associated with student centered learning (pedagogy), multiple teaching techniques, and international trends in education. Ideas, methods and trends that have allowed other leading nations to improve and remodel their education systems so that student education is better suited to individual and national circumstances. In the face of this, Japanese language education practices are premised upon antique educational methods. Methods that are clumsy, of little benefit and which severely limit the learning of English to any acceptable and useful degree.

The principles of social coherence, shared goals and group conformity, which for decades provided strong economic growth for the Japanese, now prevent the people and the nation from moving forward. Psychiatrist Satoru Saito recently commented about this fact:

I fear that Japan, as a nation itself, is becoming hikikomori. It is a nation that does not like to communicate. It is a nation that does not like to take risks (Out of a conformist society, a nonsocial disease with a high suicide rate is born, Knight Ridder Tribune, 22/12/2002).

‘Hikikomori’ is a (widespread) disease peculiar to Japan whereby children and young adults shut themselves off from society (by locking themselves in the private rooms of their family homes) to escape confrontation with a uniform society.

Conformity is instilled to a large degree through school attendance in Japan, especially junior high school. Long term observations indicate that much of the personal freedom and individual creativity found in primary (elementary) school children is forcibly removed within the first year of junior high school. The group thinking mentality is apparent everywhere in Japanese middle and upper schools. (In junior [and to a lesser extent senior] high school) students dress the same way, eat the same food together, study together with a specific group, do club activities together for years on end, are punished collectively, and even make their way home along pre-planned routes so as not to come into contact with students from other schools. It is no secret that students who express even limited degrees of individuality (or look different) are ostracized and often bullied. It is a system of education not altogether different from the initial training a soldier receives when he / she first joins an Army – designed to break down individualism and gradually ‘rebuild’ group commitment and coordination. Well suited to a production based industrial economy, but not to a post-industrial society which has at its core the English language and entrepreneurial endeavors. Regrettably, this aspect of Japanese culture applies to the teaching profession too. Having worked with 18 teachers closely in three schools in two separate prefectures (in major urban areas), it is striking how similar teaching methods are amongst teachers. This exceptional emphasis upon conformity and uniformity limits the education of English in Japanese schools because it stifles the development and revision of methods that bring about change.

There exists a pervasive belief amongst education bureaucrats and educators that English education must be geared towards senior high school and university entrance examinations – examinations that are reading (translation) and grammar based, not context or skills (functional) based. (Simple critical thinking and problem solving are not developed at all – a hallmark of the English language). Interestingly, if you mention concepts such as ‘outcomes’, ‘key competencies’, ‘key learning’, ‘multiple learning’ and of all things, ‘equity’ to Japanese school staff, they are (almost universally) unable to give an opinion other than that students must be ‘prepared’ – many would say coached - for examinations. Those who manage and influence the language curriculums now openly confess that the ‘outcome’ of school based English education is less than desirable. After recognizing this for many years (if not decades) though, one would think that the system would have changed structurally. Nothing has changed however. The system remains full of structural inefficiencies and contradictions. Having worked within the system for four years, it has become apparent that much of this collective psychosis can be attributed to the centralized (command) bureaucratic structure of the education ministry and the limited education and training which teachers receive in Japan. One visiting principal on the Fulbright Fund Teacher Program recently noted this about Japanese education, “It was like 19th century schools in a 21st century culture” (US education stacks up well against Japan’s, Rutland Herald, 14/11/2002).

‘Outsiders’ are often perplexed by the school system’s inability to modernize itself. Much of the system’s inability to change though, has to do with university education in Japan. University education in Japan is sub standard for a rich industrialized nation. In 2001, a survey of 49 leading economies ranked Japan last in meeting the needs of the Japanese economy (Japan’s Universities and the Current Climate of Reform, ELTNews, 01/10/2002). It also seems that Japanese students study little at university too. After rote learning their way through junior and senior high school they tend to look upon university as a welcomed break from the pressures of childhood and later working life. A national daily noted, “on average, they spend the least time studying compared to students of primary, middle and high school” (University students study least, Yomiuri Shimbun, 08/10/2002). As a result of this, Japan lacks ‘global connectivity’. ‘Global connectivity’ requires three elements: “(1) entrepreneurial and energetic individuals, (2) the internet and (3) the English language….global connectivity serves not only to exchange information and ideas but also to create wealth” (Acute case of linguistic ‘disconnectivity’, Japan Times, 14/10/2002). Foundation skills which Japanese university staff and students lack (see Cartels of the Mind, Ivan Hall, 1998). Worth noting here to is a quote by Professor Jean-Pierre Lehmann of the Swiss based IMD:

Universities in Japan are among the country’s most sclerotic institutions. Institutions of tertiary education should more than any other practice meritocracy. Instead, Japanese universities for the most part promote people by seniority, which is absurd. Universities should also be, as they are in many parts of the world, models of globalism…not only in the number of foreign students but also in the internationalization of their facilities. Japanese universities, with some notable exceptions, are ‘models’ of parochialism. There is very little innovation in Japanese universities. In many cases, professors are not evaluated by their students; hence they can teach any old rubbish and get away with it. Students are not encouraged to dissent, which is equivalent to saying they are not encouraged to think! (Bleaker times may await the grandkids, Japan Times, 23/12/2002).

Thus, while Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs) may often be nice individuals, they overwhelmingly lack skill, training and knowledge needed to teach English. With the exception of two teachers, working experiences in Japanese schools have highlighted beyond doubt Japanese teachers’ misunderstanding of the broad objectives of English language education - most strikingly, its global context. Further, universally Japanese teachers lack serious education and training in pedagogy (most have only completed two weeks in schools – of which they led three lessons – before satisfying practicum and certification requirements); English as a Foreign Language (EFL) theories and methods; and later, post graduate education studies. The result is that JTEs are (from first hand experience) non-entrepreneurial and non-creative educators. Thus, most remain ignorant of major global trends, feel little pressure to alter teaching methods, and are happy to reject or sideline serious discourse from the few foreign trained teaching staff who are appointed to Boards of Education to advise on English language education.

It was mentioned towards the beginning of this paper that nationalism has had much to do with the problems that face contemporary education in Japan. From an Australian perspective, the Japanese are exclusive, if not racist. Almost without exception though, the Japanese have little conceptual understanding of this reality. Much of this has to do with the fact that Japan remains a homogeneous culture that has combined ethnicity, culture, race, history, education and politics together to formulate the concept of (being) ‘Japanese’. It is a ‘them’ and ‘us’ paradigm – it is primitive, visceral and atavistic. It places the Japanese at the center and ignores those of different backgrounds. In 1937, the Thought Bureau of the Ministry of Education declared, “(other races are) filthy and impure” (The Problems of Xenophobia and the Teaching of English at Japanese Universities, EESE, 07/2002). One might think that such (antique) racist ideas should no longer openly permeate throughout Japanese society, but they do. By way of an example, a politician (in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party) in Miyagi Prefecture said (in relation to foreigners attending the Korea / Japan World Cup), “we must also face the possibility of unwanted babies conceived by foreigners who rape our women” (Japan Braces for World Cup hooligans, The Christian Science Monitor, 30/05/2002). The most common form of racism is less direct though. It is “passive, intrinsic, underlying general social behavior” (Can Attitudes Change, Japan Times, 06/01/2003). Within the higher education context this means that (non-Japanese) foreign educated (and trained) academic and teaching staff are not given tenure or full time positions. Within the school system, foreigners are employed as ‘assistants’ because they cannot be employed either as (permanent) part time or full time staff under Japanese law. As a result of the ‘assistant’ status they are relegated to the lowest position within the system, given yearly contracts (up to maximum of three years with no incremental salary increases), paid less than most first year Japanese teachers (with bonus and pension included), irrespective of their qualifications, experience, background or knowledge of Japanese students. Furthermore, they are overwhelmingly under-utilized. It is the complete opposite of the working conditions that most foreign professionals in other developed (and indeed less developed nations) find themselves.

At present, the Japanese government employs approximately 6500 foreigners to teach in the nation’s junior and senior high schools. They are officially appointed as Assistant Language Teachers (ALT). The vast majority of ALTs, perhaps as high as 98%, have no qualifications in either education or teaching English as a foreign (or second) language. And, while most are graduates of respected international universities, they overwhelmingly have little previous experience in professional working situations. In fact, the Japanese central government markets recruitment for this position more like a year’s paid holiday in Japan than as a professional posting. For most people employed via the ALT system, one or two years passes quickly and the new experiences associated with living in Japan offer a pleasant change from the continuities of their native cultures. However, from the perspective of improving the quality of English education, ALTs affect Japanese education practices little – this may in fact be intentional on the part of the Japanese central government as it places emphasis upon experiencing Japanese culture rather than proactive language education.

Observational experiences indicate nevertheless that ALTs have limited effect upon the system because Japanese educators and bureaucrats do not feel any pressure from ALTs to initiate change; ALTs are (mostly) very young and lack experience, which conflicts with a seniority based culture; most ALTs are uninterested in teaching as a profession and thus have little knowledge of pedagogy and / or English language education; and there exists a belief amongst most JTEs, school management and bureaucrats that foreign language teaching staff, irrespective of background, knowledge, or position within the Japanese education system, are little more than servants. It seems like an incredible waste of scant (public) financial and human resources, not to mention a poor public relations (domestic and international) exercise in the longer run, while doing little to help Japan’s next generation learn English.

Noted Japanese philosopher and intellectual, Tsurumi Shunsuke had the following to say about Japanese English language education in 1998:

English language education has a 130-year history in Japan, and it’s been a complete disaster…(the Japanese are) utterly incapable of expressing themselves in English (Kenji Muro, Language that Crosses Cultural Barriers, 1998).

He went on to describe a situation in which he found himself in London some years ago where the Japan Foundation helped sponsor an international conference on Edo (1600-1867). In attendance where 100 scholars from around the world. At the conference’s opening banquet, the Japanese consul gave a speech in English. Typical of the overwhelming majority of (Japanese) English speakers (probably less than 1% of the Japanese population):

The consul was educated after the Second World War, so his English pronunciation was good, as was his intonation. But he had nothing to say. Because his English was so clear, the emptiness of his speech was all the more glaring. It was as if he’d studied solely for the purpose of passing his college exams, and hadn’t really learned anything of substance” (Muro).

This highlights one of the fundamental weaknesses of English language education (and the humanities in general) in Japan. For while the Japanese more than often ‘know’ the individual segments of the language, being able to pull it apart grammatically, (perhaps even being able) read in it for direct translation, they have very little ‘understanding’ of the ideas, concepts and situations found embedded within the language. Thus, the Japanese have difficulty connecting the pieces together because they have had no experience with rationalism, deduction and critical thinking. Without exception, this can be traced to the teaching of languages (and the humanities) in Japanese schools, where no emphasis is placed on the development of competing ideas and concepts, and where situational contexts are of very minor importance. So, in regards to English education, students continue to complain that English has no relevance to their lives, other than for passing an entrance examination. They learn about English, but never in English or through English.

This cycle of English language education has been repeating itself for over 100 years now. Surprising as it may seem (from a Western perspective), (very) few (if any) at the school or prefecture level have asked fundamental questions such as:

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current English curriculum?
Does the current curriculum meet the needs of Japanese students?
Why has English language proficiency not improved over the last 50 years?
Why haven’t teaching practices and the curriculum changed with the employment of trained foreign professional staff & incorporation of ALTs into schools over the last 15 years?
What approaches, practices and curriculum models have been successful in other non-English speaking nations?
What school based management approaches can be incorporated to improve the low level of English language education and proficiency?

Much of the reason for this widespread apathy towards improvement is a result of the centralized nature of education management and curriculum design – educators thus look to preserve the status quo, or at best improve the current system, ignoring the ‘bigger picture’. It is also related to the Japanese practice of maintaining ‘industries’ over long periods (sometimes hundreds of years) of time without market forces applying pressure to initiate change – experience suggests that market forces are alien to Japanese education. Pointedly too, the exclusive (if not racist) nature of Japanese institutions and the Japanese public in general also limits continued revision and development. The fact that Japanese educators do not ask questions also explains much. To quote Plutarch, “King Theopompus, when one said that Sparta held up so long because their king could command so well, replied, ‘Nay, rather because the people know so well how to obey’“ (Kerr, p, 282).

Japanese educators are often very good at process. Yet, experience also highlights the fundamental weaknesses of focusing entirely upon process. The most striking aspect of Japanese schools is the widespread underdevelopment of school leadership and management. As the system is exceptionally hierarchical, it rewards (mostly male) staff for time in service, as opposed to competency and skills. The result is that most schools and bureaucratic bodies lack the creative dynamics required to lead change throughout the system. Associated with this, foreign professional staff are (apparently) employed more for their aesthetic value than the professional knowledge they bring to workplaces. Thus, foreign professional staff have very limited effect upon the Japanese education environment, including the area of English language education.

Presently, Japan finds itself slowly having to adapt to the era of post-industrialism; however, the nation’s management and system practices remain industrial in nature. Schools are no exception.

Post-industrial (including education) structures need to be post-bureaucratic. They tend to adopt successful modes and thinking from the (global) private sector. They decentralize decision making and management, thus allowing the adoption of fluid, entrepreneurial organizational patterns, and rely on specialization with an emphasis on multi-skilled personnel. Here, hierarchical structures have little use in teamwork situations or in employment areas where sharing skills are required. Staff members become stakeholders, rather than employees (or an extension of property). Stakeholders are paid for doings jobs / projects, not for time spent at work, whereas, equipment is seen as a tool to achieve goals, not just as capital.

The success of the organization involves successfully linking units within the group to maximize performance and outcomes. The units should be premised upon collegiality. Finally, units are pro-active, rather than reactive. Experience suggests few of these ideas and practices have permeated throughout either Japan’s schools or the bureaucracy that administers them though.

The educational management practices found within Japanese schools remain warped in time (somewhere between the 1930s and 1960s if one compared Japanese and Western development models). Thus, the whole system remains on autopilot, being staffed by technicians rather than educators, with students schooled in types of thinking and learning, as opposed to being educated (which is reflective and critical in nature). This has contributed to poor English language education in Japanese schools. It is reasonable to conclude that as long as Japan’s education model remains ‘system’ based, as opposed to ‘outcomes’ based, Japanese students will never likely improve their English language abilities. The only hope at present for Japanese students interested in English (as a second or foreign language), and vast numbers of students do attend, is the (dual) private language education system that exists in contemporary Japan. After so many years of being schooled in a particular way of learning and thinking though, which is conformist in nature, form, and focus, English language proficiency improvements may be modest at best for this (and future) generations of Japanese students unless the school system changes. This of course means that a whole range of associated practices, training, attitudes and thinking will need to change. If history is any indication, the Japanese can change, but then they may not too. Action is required, not idle words, from educators and leaders within the system. To date though, nothing has changed.

A different scenario is possible: a reinvigorated, open, post-industrial, globally-oriented Japanese society can be established on liberal political foundations. Realizing such a scenario will require thorough institutional renewal, rejuvenation of leadership at all levels, a radical change in national ‘mindset’ and the opening up of Japan’s economy and society to foreign influences and participation. The potential is there; there is a young generation of Japanese who harbour such a vision. They need every encouragement, for today’s trends (within Japan) are frightening for Japan, for Asia and for the world (The sick man of Asia, PS, 15/10/2002).

In talking about golf in Japan, cultural commentator Richard Freeman proposed some convincing reasons for the lack of major international titles won by Japanese professionals:

Some have argued that the reason Japanese golfers have not succeeded on the world stage is because of their physique, which means they can’t compete with the big hitters. There may be some truth in this, but more important is the fact they are bought up playing on tight, narrow courses, and find it hard to adjust to courses overseas featuring quite different challenges and topography (Golf: a sport that mirrors the nation, Japan Times, 09/02/2003).

In so many ways this parallels English education in Japanese schools. If teachers and the system continue to do things the same old ways because they are comfortable and easy, Japanese students will never begin to master English and the educational establishment will not develop and learn. Japan has now stood still for more than a decade and, as business people know well, ‘if you are standing still, you are going backward.’ The education system has stood still for much longer. It is time Japan changed. Change that rewards stakeholders, not the system, change that is inclusive, as opposed to being exclusive, is necessary. Only then will there be a real improvement in the English proficiency of the Japanese population.

1. Reading for Change: Performance and Engagement across Countries – PISA 2000, OECD 2002

1. Consul General Daniel E. Harris, English as a Lingua Franca, US Diplomatic Corps – Germany: 30/09/1999

1. Y. Cheng (1997), School Re-engineering in the New Century: An Organizational Perspective, Education Research Journal , 12:1

2. Jenny Lewis (2001), Principalship of the Future, The Practicising Administrator, 23:3

3. Geoff Riordan & Michael Gaffney (2001), Teachers working together: meanings, factors and issues in teacher collaboration, The Practising Administrator, Vol. 1

4. Walker (1994), Teams in Schools: Looking Below the Surface, International Journal of education Management, Vol. 8, No. 7

5. J. Wallace & H. Wildy (1995), The Changing World of School Leadership, The Practising Administrator, Vol. 1

1. Herbert P. Bix (2000), Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, Harper Collins: New York

2. Ivan P. Hall (1998), Cartels of the Mind: Japan’s Intellectual Closed Shop, W.W. Norton & Company: New York

3. Alex Kerr (2001), Dogs and Demons: Tales From The Dark Side of Japan, Hill and Wang: New York

4. Akio Mikuni & Taggart Murphy (2002), Japan’s Policy Trap: Dollars, Deflation and the Crisis of Japanese Finance, Brookings Institution Press: Washington

5. Philippe Ries (2000), The Asian Storm: Asia’s Economic Crisis Examined, Editions Grasser & Fasquelle: Singapore

6. Stephen P. Robbins & Neil Barnwell (1998), Organisational Theory: Concepts and Cases, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall: Australia

7. James J. Shields (1995), Japanese Schooling: Patterns of Socialization, Equality and Political Control, 4th Edition, The Pennsylvania State University Press: USA

1. Christer P. Hood (10/2001), Is Japan’s Education System Meritocratic? (http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/01/0ct/hood.html)

2. Kenji Muro (09/1998), Language that Crosses Cultural Barriers, (http://www.honco.net/9809/in-tsurumi.html)

3. Luis Herman Poza, Hear No English, Speak No English: Past Failures and Future Recommendations for Communicative Language Teaching in Japan, San Francisco State University (http://poza.net/japan/speak.html)

4. Alex Shishin (7/2002), The Problems of Xenophobia and the Teaching of English at Japanese Universities, ESSE (http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic22/shishin/7_2002.html)

1. Geoff Botting, Neither here nor there: recipe for mayhem, Japan Times: 26/09/2002

2. Richard Freeman, Golf: a sport that mirrors the nation, Japan Times: 09/02/2003

3. Shihoko Goto, Analysis: Japan’s economy still adrift, United Press International:11/06/2002

4. Shane Green, Putting it into words hard for timid Japanese, Sydney Morning Herald: 11/01/2003

6. Seth Harkness, Principal: US education stacks up well against Japan’s, Rutland Herald: 14/11/2002

7. Charles Jannuzi & Bern Mulvey, Japan’s Universities and the Current Climate for Reform, ELT News : 2002/10/01 (http://www.eltnews.com/features/special/2002_10_1.shtml)

8. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, ‘Sick man’ of the intellectual community, Japan Times: 05/08/2002

9. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Revival depends on openness, immigration, Japan Times: 02/09/2002

10. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Foreign experts are part of the problem, Japan Times: 16/09/2002

11. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Acute case of linguistic ‘disconnectivity’, Japan Times: 14/10/2002

13. Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Bleaker times may await the grandkids, Japan Times: 23/12/2002

16. Isabel Reynolds, English Teacher Training and English Education for Children, IIEEC : 2002/08/10 (http://iieec.com/articles/20020810_en.shtml)

18. School Dazed, TIME Asia: 2003 (http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/asian_education/cover3.html)

19. Jonathan Watts, Japan braces for World Cup hooligans, The Christian Science Monitor: 30/05/2002

Michael Matuschka has lived and worked in Japan for four years as an English language teacher and advisor. He is currently employed by a government board of education in Yamagata Prefecture. Prior to this he worked for a board of education in Miyagi Prefecture in northern Japan. In Australia, Michael worked for the Commonwealth Government as a project education officer involved in education system design and implementation. Michael is a certified teacher and has taught English, history and geography in private and public high schools in the state of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Michael is a foundation director of a private investment company that specializes in property development / management and equities. He is a graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon (Canberra), having served as a commissioned officer in the Australian Army. He is an honour’s graduate of the Australian National University. He holds a teaching diploma from the University of Canberra and a Master of Educational Administration degree from University of New England. Recently, he has researched and compared system and management practices found in Australian and Japanese schools. Michael is married and presently lives with his wife and Japanese-in-laws in Yamagata City, Japan.

This paper will examine the phenomena of Nihonjinron. The first section discusses this notion within the parameters of nationalism and then it provides three formal definitions. The second section concerns itself with a historical perspective and within that section, the proliferation of Nihonjinron literature will be established. The third section addresses the problematic aspects of the literature that ranges from gross over generalizations, the authors, lack of evidence, and merry-go-round logic. The fourth section addresses the sources of support for Nihonjinron and the fifth section provides examples of how it has been used as an intellectual weapon. The last section examines how television is used to inflame the Nihonjinron fervor.

Befu (1993) argues that nationalism is best conceptualized on a continuum where at one end one finds the active form and at the other the passive. An example of the former may be pledging allegiance to the flag and individuals who voluntarily join the military to “protect” their country. An illustration of the latter might be the credo of Americans being rugged individualists which may not cause a lump in a persons throat but nonetheless should be considered an integral aspect of what defines America. Passive nationalism is no less important than the active forms because the passive is more prevalent in day-to-day life and it is through passive nationalism that citizens of a country may develop manifestations of more active forms. Nihonjinron is a discourse on nationalism that sits closer on the side of the passive rather than the active.

Mabuchi (1995) uses the term Japanology to refer to Nihonjinron and defines it as literature that is concerned with Japanese society, culture, and people. Smith (1998) contends that Nihonjinron can be defined as a “theory of Japanese” that sets out to ask and answer the question who are the Japanese? Van Wolfren (1989) argues that the theoretical underpinnings of Nihonjinron conflict with each other in their parts, but its main purpose is to contrast between Japanese and Western thinking and behavior.

In order to contextualize the most recent breed of this passive nationalism, a historical perspective will be offered. Nihonjinron grew out of the perceived threat of Confucian thought in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. This branch of scholarship was called Kokugaku and while it attempted to debunk Confucian thought it also praised Japanese culture. Specifically, it emphasized the spiritual qualities inborn to the Japanese language, native aesthetic values, and indigenous artifacts of Japanese culture including the imperial institution (Befu, 1993). The notion of this institution apparently came out of a prehistoric time where an emperor was placed on the archipelago by the Sun Goddess. The Kokugaku scholars were the first to introduce the idea that the Japanese race was pure, innocent, and superior. Motoori Norinaga (1730-1801), who was one of the fathers of Kokugaku, contended that one of the reasons why the Chinese and Japanese are different is because the latter possesses moral excellence. This was justified by explaining that the Chinese rulers fabricated the notion of Heaven to undermine uprisings from their people. On the other hand, the Japanese were born moral so there was no need to create an opiate to pacify the masses. Thus, Kokugaku attempted to demonstrate the superiority of Japanese culture over that of China’s (Van Wolfren K.,1989). In the 19th century, Japan had to contend with Western power and influence. The nature of this interaction lended itself to gunboat diplomacy which served to humiliate the Japanese political system. They realized that they were behind and had to play catch up. With this came adaptation and borrowing of Western ideas, technology, and institutions and with this Japan had to identity itself vis-à-vis West. During that time, many tangible items represented Western culture such as clothes, food, and furniture. Mori Arinori, who was minister of Education during the Meji period, even suggested that the Japanese language should be abolished and replaced with a European one (Befu, 1993).

From 1925 to 1945, positive Nihonjinron made a comeback through imperial messages to the public. This was primarily carried out by four organizations and they were used to unleash new policies “aimed at bringing the common people into a highly disciplined national community and a unified and totalizing culture (Fujitani, 1993, p.99).” The imperial Military Reserve Association which was established in 1910 went into the countryside to infiltrate local governments. Once established in the rural communities, the organization started the indoctrination process. The Greater Japan Youth Association was created in 1915. Then in 1926 military and education bureaucrats helped to establish military training centers for youth. This was followed up by national organizations for women’s defense. By 1935 these organizations had an enrollment of about 12 million people. As a result, the army had successfully set up a large scale indoctrination apparatus which by the start of the war with China had considerable influence on the population from age 6 to 40 (Van Wolfren K.,1989).

The mass media also played a significant role during those times. Most notable was a magazine called Nihon that helped to rekindle the Nihonjinron fervor. As one can imagine, this magazine and other branches of the media made claims of superiority of the Japanese against the Americans, Europeans, and Chinese. This cultural superiority they believed would bring the Japanese to victory during WW 2 (Befu, 1993).

From the time the Japanese were defeated until about the mid 1960s the country was in a state of soul searching. The mood centered around the question if Nihonjinron had any validity then why did they lose the war? During that time, Japanese institutions and virtues were being perceived as pre-modern and feudalistic. Even Mori Arinori’s idea to abolish the Japanese language was resurrected. The late 1960s saw a reversal of this trend in that the Japanese began to see themselves in a more positive light (Befu, 1993).

According to Miller (1982), this trend was in reaction to economic growth. For the first time in history, many Japanese were employed in international trade and this interaction required them to give explanations of who they were. The American auto industry for one was interested in who these people were, where they came from, and how they made a similar product that undercut their own prices? The last question could have been easily answered by the Japanese, but they probably preferred not to answer it. Regarding the more general questions, they had no idea. What was elusive about the Japanese mentality to foreigners was equally if not more so to the Japanese. In this context, the need to find some answers became pressing.

In the Tokuqawa period the creation of Kokugaku “proved” that the Japanese are morally superior to the Chinese. Now, The Nihonjinron literature can easily be construed as protecting the ideology of Japaneseness against the Western concepts (individualism, political self assertion, the perceived danger that Western logical consistency poses for Japan’s political culture). Both then and now there is a clear attempt to demonstrate Japanese superiority over the enemy (Van Wolfren, 1989).

Since the 1960s, a little more than a thousand books have been published that concern themselves with Nihonjinron and if magazine articles are taken into consideration the figure easily doubles. The popularity of this genre can also be gauged by the number of times a given book has been reprinted. The Anatomy of Dependence (1971) by Takeo Doi which has had a significant impact on this genre has gone through 67 reprints for the hard cover version and 147 for the soft cover version. Nakane Chie’s The Japanese Society has undergone 79 reprints.

The contents of Nihonjinron are expressed in a host of different ways from ecology, social structure, subsistence economy, language, and psychology. The general thrust of this ideology concerns itself with comparing Japan to another country and pointing out what is inherently unique to Japan. These comparisons are hardly objective; rather they fall into the category of value judgments.

One of the most prominent pillars of Nihonjinron is that Japan is culturally homogenous. Takao Suzuki, who is a well known writer on Nihonjinron, subscribes to this contention. For Suzuki, the Ainu population does not pose a threat to his theory nor do the Buraku or Okinawans. Koreans are linguistically and culturally indistinguishable from Japanese so they do not pose a problem. These “oversights” are not only specific to Suzuki but to most of the writers of Nihonjinron (Befu, 1993). On a much more symbolic level, the Japanese government even officially denied the existence of minorities in 1980 to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. Apparently, the Japanese government attempts to cover up the fact that there are minorities by encouraging non-natives to adopt Yamato (ethnic-majority) names. This is partially accomplished when a non-native goes through the naturalization process (Van Wolfren K.,1989).

Thus, ethnic and racial homogeneity are not objective facts rather they are constructed by those who are motivated to create “certain cultural conceptions of Japan”. Other facets of culture such as language, religion, and lifestyle are also deemed homogenous. What one needs to take into consideration here is that the assumption of homogeneity enables Nihonjin writers to apply gross generalizations to all Japanese. Demographic variables such as social class, gender, and regional origin do not undermine the notion that there is sameness that is applicable to all Japanese people. This does not mean that Japanese are not aware of regional differences such as people from Osaka are aggressive and residents of Kyoto are a bit egocentric. Thus, one can deduce that the writers of Nihonjinron are not starved for information about regional variation rather they concisely choose to overlook it because it would challenge their position (Befu, 1993).

Mabushi (1995) contends that another gross generalization that the authors of Nihonjinron make is that Japan is a group orientated society. In order to make an attempt at the possibility of replacing episodic Nihonjinron with a different approach, four examples are given to challenge this generalization. First, many of the traditional sports in Japan such as Kendo, Sumo, and Judo are individual sports. It was not until recent times that Japan has imported more team oriented sports such as rugby, baseball, and soccer. And even when these sports are played in Japan there is a different dynamic to them. For instance, it seems as though the psychological match up between the pitcher and batter is slightly more important in Japan. As an implication, Japanese take much longer intervals between pitches as compared to Americans.

The second example concerns itself with meals. Most people from English speaking countries would not say “This is my fork” or “This is Mom’s plate.” However, many Japanese have their own tableware. The third example concerns itself with personal space. For the most part, Japanese tend to have there own person space and are likely to have their own room. Also, Japanese students studying at American universities are apparently notorious for their disdain to share a room with another person. The final example given was that of communication. “Lacking the concept of a contract” or “tacit understanding” are familiar ways to describe Japanese forms of communication. However, there are many rigid written documents that are used in daily life in Japan. The ritual exchange of meishi would be a good example or taking a visit to your local ward office would be another example to counter that generalization.

The individuals who write Nihonjinron should be scrutinized. They come from various backgrounds such as: anthropology, history, psychology, philosophy, economics, law, natural science, linguistics, journalism, diplomacy, dramatics, etc. Many of them are by parachute expats who only spend a short time in the foreign community. Moreover, their experience is rather limited in scope to university faculty, staff in a hospital, or executives from international companies. Most of them do not write from their field of expertise rather they write from their own experiences. Most of them neglect previous studies in relevant areas to their writing and tend to make vague comparisons.

Some contend that because the authors of Nihonjinron do not produce academic material that it is irrelevant to apply the scientific paradigm to them. However, this reasoning is problematic for two reasons. First, Nihonjinron is extremely influential on a host of different fronts and the writers can not escape the responsibility of their own work. Second, and as mentioned before that most of the writers emphasize their own personal experience and this lends itself to sweeping generalizations. These generalizations should be scrutinized under a disciplined before they are turned into factual evidence.

Miller (1982) clearly agrees with the contention that Nihonjinron writers should provide factual evidence in their writing. He devotes a section of the book Japan’s Modern Myth to debunk Tsunoda’s contention that the Japanese brain is inherently unique because it is the Japanese language that shapes it. He also accuses Tsunoda for using “merry-go-round logic.

What makes the Japanese language, and the culture it operates within, so unique? The unique arrangement and functioning of the left hemisphere in the Japanese brain. Why is the Japanese brain unique in the functioning of its left hemisphere? Because of the unique nature of the language that it must process (p. 72).

The comparisons typically used by Nihonjinron authors tend to be problematic for two distinct reasons. First, the comparisons that are usually used are between Japan and Occidental countries. However, when Japanese culture is examined it is not usually contextualized with other countries in Asia. For instance, in the book The Anatomy of Dependence the psychiatrist Doi Takeo attempts to explain what is behind Japanese behavior. From his experience, he concludes that dependence to others (amae) is one of the key conspicuous characteristics of the Japanese people. In the book, he never mentions other Asian countries. Thus, he fails to take into consideration that amae can be found in other Asian countries. Second, most of the writings of Nihonjinron focus only on the United States and other countries in the Occident are rarely used for comparison (Mabushi, 1995)

Nihonjinron also serves as a moral imperative. Propositions made by the writers of Nihonjinron are often stated in universal terms in that all normal Japanese are said to do things or think as what is claimed by the writers. And since these claims are made by so called experts from universities the reading public is not inclined to questions the validity of their contentions. Not to accept these contentions or even more boldly trying to debunk them would make one feel un-Japanese and thus somehow unpatriotic (Befu, 1993). An example of such a proposition is given here from the December 24th, 1993 issue of The Japan Times. The title of the article was Artists of Communication Can Fill in the Blanks.

When we Japanese are able to get our message across without having to open our mouths, we are usually quite pleased that telepathic understanding has been achieved…such perceptive people tend to be successful no matter what they do. If they go into business they will have many clients. If they hope to get married, they will have many proposals. If they work as a shop attendant they will ring up a high volume of sales. It appears that in Japanese society, people that are quick to catch onto the unspoken message ---reading between the lines in written texts and appreciating the significance of ‘white space’ in ink paintings---are valued quite highly.

One point that should be taken into consideration here is that those who do not deem the above to be valued and/or valid are in danger of falling behind those who have this special power. The implication is that this form of communication is innately Japanese. The ramification of this kind of common form of Nihonjinron is that it should be accepted. The Japanese should not only believe but better believe, that they must be adept at a special quality of “telepathic understanding” because there might be consequences to disbelief (Cutts, 1997).

Nihonjinron is a hegemonic ideology that is supported and maintained by the state in many shapes and forms. The state gives medals every years based upon a given artistic ability and most of these rewards are given to individuals who follow the trade of traditional arts and crafts. The fact that the government recognizes these individuals and their activities is indicative that it supports the tenants of Nihonjinron. State run institutions such as The National Museum of Art which asserts a certain sense of cultural uniqueness to Japan leave visitors with the very feeling of Nihonjinron.

Nihonjinron has been exported and this has been important for the “internationalization” of Japan. This “internationalization” is important on two levels. First, is the process whereby Japan is becoming increasingly “internationalized” by adapting foreign cultures to Japanese soil. Second, by establishing Japanese investment overseas there comes an increasing need to define themselves within their culture. This need is fulfilled by Nihonjinron but this is only applicable when others are inclined to accept it. Thus, if others are validating their cultural definition for them then they have little choice than to accept the tenats of Nihonjinron.

This international propagation takes many forms such as the state funded financing of some Nihonjinron classics. Watsuji Tetsuro’s A Climate (1962) and Nakamura Hajime’s The Way of Thinking of Eastern Peoples (1960) are two good examples of such efforts. The state also printed a governmental version of Nakane Chie’s The Japanese Society and distributed it free of charge to thousands of people throughout the world. The most influential governmental organization that propogates the tenants of Nihonjinron is known as the Japan Foundation. From its inception in the early 1970s, it sponsored scholars to go abroad and educate the world as to what is unique to Japan including: calligraphy, bunraku, Noh, Noh and other such Japanese art forms.

The state funded International Research Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto is another organization and it serves the same function as The Japan Foundation. (Befu,1993). Research from this institution often gets publicized in the newspapers. A fairly recent example would be the June 23, 2001 edition of The Daily Yomiuri. The article East, West may share religious roots implies that Christianity is an offspring of Buddhism. This contention may not be so distant from the idea that Buddhists (the Japanese) are teachers of Christians and therefore superior to them. The article conveniently overlooks the fact that Buddhism was born out of a Hindu sect.

Van Wolferen (1989) contends that Nihonjinron has been strategically used by the elite to excuse themselves for not meeting agreements and responsibilities in the face of international trade agreements. When tensions mount in international negotiations, the culture card is often played. On the card’s face is a need for understanding for the unique aspects of Japanese culture such as: fragile domestic sensitivities, its long history as an isolated nation, or because of traditional harmonious relationships that are the cornerstone of Japanese culture. Cutts (1997) provides us with two well known cases of playing the culture card. During wartime, it was argued that the Japanese people had longer intestines and this enabled them to better digest cereals. Although this idea is absolutely foolish and nonfactual, a Japanese cabinet member told members of the U.S. Congress and other American officials that this was a reason why the liberalization on beef imports into Japan should not be put into motion. Another well known example was the contention that Japanese snow is different from other types of snow therefore it is only commonsensical to ban the importation of foreign skis. The last example comes from Sony who argues that reciprocity in trade would undermine current laws that may not suit Japanese culture (Van Wolferen, 1989).

The above examples are indicative of the facade used to protect Japanese businesses from unwelcomed competition from foreigners. This culture card was played repeatedly in the mid 1980s when the Americans were putting pressure on Japan to open their markets. Again, the arguments arose that America is trying to change Japanese culture and this was effective to an extent because the Americans did not want to be perceived as ethnocentric which may be thought of as one step away from being labeled a racist .

Rather than focusing on why the foreign criticism is invalid a common reaction is to re-explain the Japanese side of the position. As an implication of this position, a whole sub industry within the business world has developed to explain Japan to the rest of the world Van Wolferen (1989). These writings are derived from an interpretation of the academic ‘literature’ and the distribution of these ideas reaches a broad base of the population. Yoshino (1992) provides an example from an in house English conversation book from Nippon Steel.

Mr. J (American)…I don’t think I could ever learn to make the subtle distinctions you need in Japanese.

Mr. S (Japanese): It’s so tied in with the whole culture. It’s difficult to master for someone who grew up in another country…(p.177)

What is made explicit in the above example is that their is a common lack of success of Westerns to understand the Japanese and at the same time there is a failure on the part of the Japanese to explain their uniquely complex culture. The communicative and linguistic culture that is discussed in the literature are presented as an barrier to businessmen who are Japanese and non-Japanese. The remarkable aspect of this literature is that it stems from the business elite’s concern to break down the barriers that undermine communication between Japanese and non-Japanese.

Thus far, this paper has examined the academic form of Nihonjinron which has a fairly large distribution and it has also given an example from the business world which is derived from the academic form but influences more people. The last section of this thesis will take a look at how television serves to spread the Nihonjinron fervor.

It is hardly worth arguing that television is an immensely powerful agent of socialization, but it is noteworthy to mention that Japan has the highest per capita permeation of televisions in the world. Miller (1982) contends that most of the children in Japan are told that they must not play but study and that there home takes the form of some kind of classroom and it is there where they feel most at home. And when children finish their formal schooling they secretly feel guilty if they are not spending some of their time in some kind of formal education.

Television programming responds in two different ways to this psychological disorder. First, is by scheduling a great many hours devoted to cultural programs and formal education which viewers can watch without feeling guilty that they are wasting their time. Second, is by scheduling programs that are entertaining but by packaging them as education.(1) This pulls the audience in because it creates a false sense of relaxation and comfort. “It is all right , they say in effect, to enjoy the following program because it is not really entertainment, it is actually education. Relax and study hard! (p.14).”

Much of the cultural and educational formats of these types of programs have just a veneer of educational content to pacify the audience. Be that as it may, the content of the programs and the programs themselves are taken seriously and followed by a great number of people (Miller, 1982). As one would suspect, the tenants of Nihonjinron can be found in such programs and the example that will be used here is “Koko ga hen dayo Nihonjin” which would be roughly translated into “Here is your strange point Japanese”. This program which is produced by TBS has been running since 1998 and is immensely popular. Beat Takeshi, who is the host of the program, is a famous comedian and director. Other commentators include Konishiki, Ramos, and Terry Ito (brainchild behind The Mini Skirt Police).

One could argue that the content of the program is a Japanese version of Jerry Springer where viewers can participate by their emotional response. Every week they have a host of different foreigners come on the show and give their commentary on trivial matters that point out the strangeness of Japan. Not only that but Japanese who do not have much contact with foreigners can observe their behavior at a safe distance. “Japanese viewers love the chance to see all the big gestures, the angry tempers, and the strange accents of all the different foreigners” (Bland, p.1, 2002). Thus, latent function of the program may or may not connote superiority, but the point that is both explicitly and implicitly made is that the Japanese are unique. And it is this form of Nihonjinron that is most influential not only by the number of people it reaches but because people walk away from it with the re-entrenched idea that they are unique from others who are non Japanese.

This paper has defined Nihonjinron within the context of nationalism. It has given a historical point of view that has illustrated the function of the phenomena. Then it gave examples of the problematic aspects of the literature. After that, it discussed the funding for it and how it has been strategically used to weasel out of negotiations. The last section critiqued a Japanese television program that serves to further ingrain the tenants of Nihonjinron.

Befu H. (1993). Nationalism and Nihonjinron. In Cultural Nationalism in East Asia:Representation and Identity. Berkely: The Regents of the University of California.

Bland M. (2002). What’s the Show about? http://www.geocities.com/blandlij/tv/tv.htm Accessed on Jan.3rd.

Cutts R. (1997). An Empire of Schools: Japan’s Universities and the Molding of a National Power Elite. New York: M. E. Sharp, Inc.

Ethnography of the Nation State. In Cultural Nationalism in East Asia:Representation and Identity. Berkely: The Regents of the University of California.

Inoues S. (2001). East, West may share religious roots. In The Daily Yomiuri, June, 23.

Mabuchi H. (1995). The Problem of Japanology. In Cultures & Communication. Kyoto: Yamaguchi Shoten.

Miller R. (1982). Japan’s Modern Myth: The Language and Beyond. New York: Weather Hill.

Nakamura H. (1960). Ways of Thinking of Eastern People. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Nakane C. (1970). The Japanese Society. Berkley: University of California Press.

Tsunoda, T. (1985). The Japanese Brain: Uniqueness and Universality. Tokyo:Taishukan Publishing

Watsuji T. (1962). A Climate: A Philosophical Study. Tokyo: Government Printing Bureau.

Yoshino K. (1992). Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan: a Sociological inquiry. New York: Routtedge.

My interest in this subject stemmed from individuals who tried to coerce me to be on a television program that was not too dissimilar to “Koko ga hen dayo Nihonjin”. A few years ago a famous television talent came into our faculty room and asked if anyone wanted to be on television. He needed three individuals for the interview and that was the number that was in the room. I told him that I was reluctant to be on television but I would talk to him about it. It turned out that he wanted to conduct a mock interview on the street to discuss what I found strange about Japan. He offered me some topics such as what do you think about the temperature of Japanese baths, how many times I have bumped my head on the train, or what did I think of Japanese food. I told him that I had been living in Japan for the last four years and that I was not interested in those topics. I told him that I was willing to talk about teaching, research or anything else that would lend me a little bit of credibility. He was not to interested in that so I told him why don’t we change the topic of the interview to Buraku Discrimination, the homeless or sex discrimination. For some odd reason, he was not interested in interviewing foreigners about such issues so I told him that I was not interested in being interviewed at all. A few days later, the interviewer came into the faculty room and assumed that I would go through with it even after I told him that I was not interested. The office staff was very adamant that I do the interview because the person was so famous and again I explained why I was not interested. Finally, that man who was supposed to interview me came into the office and attempted to persuade me by pulling on my wrist. While doing this, the wristband for my watch broke and after that he profusely apologized and then started to try and persuade me again. Finally, after about 15 minutes later he left and for days on end I was chastised by the Japanese staff for not going through with the interview.

Brent Poole has lived in Japan for 8 years and has taught at various tertiary institutions. Most recently, he has been employed by Osaka Jo Gakuin Jr. College and Kansai Gaidai College. His research interests include sociolinguitics, pragmatics and intercultural communication. He received an MA in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin and an M.Ed. in TESOL from Temple University-Japan. From the fall of 2003, he will be pursuing a PhD in applied linguistics at George State University in Atlanta.

Table of Contents