Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeIssues8Eugenics and Education in Post-wa...

Eugenics and Education in Post-war Japan

Eugénisme et éducation dans le Japon d’après-guerre
Christian Galan
Translated by Karen Grimwade

Abstracts

The growth and dissemination of eugenic thought and practice in post-war Japan had a considerable impact on education in general, and teaching methodology in particular, both directly and indirectly. Whether consciously or not, Japanese teachers and educationalists were obliged to position themselves with regards the eugenic regime of the day. At the same time, eugenic policies and the view of the child they promoted influenced not only educational practices but also the attitudes of parents, teachers, scholars and politicians towards children-pupils.
This paper examines Japanese literature on the subject, which generally focuses on children with disabilities and the education system’s role in disseminating eugenic thought. It also explores how eugenic ideology influenced the implicit and explicit tenets guiding the educational practices adopted for “normal” children, notably nōryokushugi (“ability-ism”). As well as being a key principle in the Japanese workplace, nōryokushugi dominated Japanese educational thought from the late 1950s onwards. The article concludes by exploring how eugenics influenced the post-war principle of educational equality and how it shaped the behaviour of all those involved in education provision.

Top of page

Full text

1The growth and dissemination of eugenic thought and practice in post-war Japan had a considerable impact on education in general, and teaching methodology in particular, both directly and indirectly. Whether consciously or not, Japanese teachers and educationalists were obliged to position themselves with regards the eugenic regime of the day. At the same time, eugenic policies and the view of the child they promoted influenced not only educational practices but also the attitudes of parents, teachers, scholars and politicians towards children-pupils.

2While the connection between eugenics (yūseigaku 優生学) and pedagogy (kyōikugaku 教育学) seems obvious when it comes to special education, in reality the issue is not quite so clear-cut. Paradoxically, whether by nature or definition, any links between the two appear to be extremely limited, as pointed out by specialists like Fujikawa Nobuo 藤川信夫:

  • 1 Fujikawa, 2008, p. 7.

Whereas educational activities concern humans after their birth, eugenic practices focus on marriage, procreation and reproductive cells before birth. In other words, education and eugenics operate in different spheres. Accordingly, the only point of contact between the two is in the dissemination and promotion of eugenic knowledge such as sex education and marital guidance for the parental generation of a given period.1

3The view of the child implicit in eugenic practices is also paradoxical since, as Fujikawa points out:

  • 2 Ibid. p. 10–11.

From the eugenic point of view, children cannot be seen. Quite simply because eugenics cannot place itself in the child’s shoes. Such is the fate of a discipline that from the outset presented itself as the “eugenic science of good births” [yoi umare ni tsuite no gakumon eugenics 良い生まれについての学問eugenics]. Eugenics is a science that focuses solely on reproduction and the rearing of ideal descendants—genetically desirable descendants. As such, we can no doubt say that this constitutes a definitive point of rupture between education (pedagogy) and eugenics.2

  • 3 See for example Ogawa, 2006 and Fujikawa et al., 2006.
  • 4 See for example Kuwahara, 2005a, Yamamoto, 2010 and Fujikawa, 2011.
  • 5 See for example Nemura, 2008.

4Most post-war literature on the subject in Japan has thus focused on general considerations,3 the situation of disabled children4 and/or the use of the education system to disseminate eugenic thought.5 These subjects will be covered in the first and second parts of this paper.

  • 6 I would like to sincerely thank Isabelle Konuma for her involvement in this paper, from the initia (...)

5Despite the limited focus of Japanese literature, the link between education and the growth of eugenics in post-war Japan appears to have operated on at least two other levels, both of which have received much less scholarly attention. The first consists of the principles driving (either implicitly or explicitly) the educational practices adopted for “normal” children; the second concerns the notion of equality on which the entire Japanese education system rests. As well as being a fundamental principle in the Japanese workplace—one challenged, as we shall see, by opponents to eugenics—, “ability-ism” (nōryokushugi 能力主義) dominated Japanese educational thought from the late 1950s onwards. We will examine the philosophy and implications of this concept in part three. Finally, part four looks at how eugenic ideology influenced the principle of educational equality in post-war Japan and how it shaped the behaviour of all those involved in education provision.6

1. The role of education in disseminating eugenic thought up to 1978

  • 7 See Fujikawa, 2011 and Kuwahara, 2001, p. 60–61.
  • 8 Source: 文部省、学校体育指導要綱、昭和二十二年度, https://erid.nier.go.jp/files/COFS/s22ejp/index.htm (accessed Februa (...)

6The most obvious link between education and eugenics is, as previously noted, the use of schools to disseminate eugenic ideology. This was undeniably the case in Japan, both before7 and after the war. In fact, eugenics appeared in official curricula right from the early post-war years. It is mentioned twice in the 1947 Guidelines for Physical Education at School (Gakkō taiiku shidō yōryō 学校体育指導要領8), written for senior high schools and universities:

  • […] Senior high school (provisional name) [roughly ages 16 to 18]
    • Hygiene [eisei 衛生]:
      • [Category:] hygiene for life in society [shakai seikatsu no eisei 社会生活の衛生]
      • [Content (boys and girls):] national nutrition, rural and urban hygiene, national eugenics, the population problem, occupational hygiene [kokumin eiyō, toshi oyobi nōson no eisei, kokumin yūsei, jinkō mondai, shokugyō no eisei 国民栄養・都市及び農村の衛生・国民優生・人口問題、職業の衛生]. […]
  • […] University (provisional name) [roughly ages 19 to 22]
    • Hygiene [eisei 衛生]:
      • [Category:] national eugenics [kokumin yūsei 国民優生]
      • [Content (boys and girls):] genetics, hereditary diseases and so forth [iden, idenbyō sonota 遺伝・遺伝病その他]. […]
  • 9 I would like to thank Isabelle Konuma for bringing this point to my attention.

7This text is notable on several counts. First, it predates the 1948 Eugenic Protection Law (Yūsei hogo hō 優生保護法) by one year. In fact, the expression “national eugenics” (kokumin yūsei 国民優生) echoes pre-war terminology and the eponymous National Eugenics Law (Kokumin yūsei hō 国民優生法), enacted in 1940. The replacement law of 1948 instead uses the term “eugenic protection” (yūsei hogo 優生保護). Similarly, the stress on genetics and hereditary diseases in the 1947 school guidelines more closely reflects the law of 1940. By 1948 the focus had shifted to social issues such as poverty, family size and non-hereditary illnesses.9

8From this point onwards, the term eugenics appeared in all new senior high school curricula until the 1968–1970 teaching guidelines (implemented until 1978):

  • […] Raising children […]
    • [VII]-3. Ability to use child welfare and marital guidance services, etc.
      • 3. Discuss the National Eugenics Law [Kokumin yūsei hō 国民優生法] or the maternal and child health handbooks [boshi techō 母子手帳], for example.
  • 10 Source: 文部省、学習指導要領 家庭科編 高等学校用、昭和二十四年度, https://erid.nier.go.jp/files/COFS/s24hh/index.htm (accesse (...)

(Curriculum Guidelines – Home Economics – Senior High School [Gakushū shidō yōryō – kateika hen – kōtō gakkō yō], 1949).10

  • […] 8) Everyday life and health of citizens […]
    • c) Rationalisation of the daily life and health of citizens:
      • Discuss national eugenics, improving [one’s] environment and diet, etc. [kokumin yūsei, kankyō kaizen, eiyō kaizen nado o toriatsukau 国民優生、環境改善、栄養改善などを取り扱う]
  • 11 Source: 文部省、高等学校学習指導要領 保健体育科編、昭和三十一年度, https://erid.nier.go.jp/files/COFS/s31hp/index.htm (accesse (...)

(Senior High School Curriculum Guidelines – Health and Physical Education [Kōtō gakkō gakushū shidō yōryō – hoken taiiku ka hen], 1956).11

  • […] Chapter 5 – Health and physical education […]
    • II – Health […]
      • (2-)5 Everyday life and health
        • a) Marriage and eugenics [kekkon to yūsei 結婚と優生] […]
        • c) Maternal and child health [boshi hoken 母子保健]
  • 12 Source: 文部省、高等学校学習指導要領 付 学校教育法施行規則(抄)

(Senior High School Curriculum Guidelines – Appendix: School Education Law Enforcement Regulations (abridged) [Kōtō gakkō gakushū shidō yōryō – tsuki: Gakkō kyōiku hō shikō kisoku (shō)], 1970).12

9In accordance with these guidelines, some of which seem to fall more closely within the realm of euthenics (yūkyōgaku 優境学) than eugenics, health and physical education textbooks (hoken taiiku kyōkasho 保健体育教科書) all featured content that can be described as pro-eugenic. Take this textbook from the 1970s:

National eugenics aims to improve and perfect the genetic quality of the population, in other words, to pass on the best mental and physical traits possible to the next generation of citizens. A eugenic protection law was promulgated in Japan in 1948, and in the interests of preventing particularly malignant genetic illnesses, it is now possible to perform eugenic surgical acts and artificial abortions in the case of rare genetic disorders like schizophrenia, cyclothymia, colour-blindness, haemophilia and hereditary deformities, or where the pregnancy jeopardises the mother’s health. […] As for eugenic marriage, which aims to improve the quality of the population, it is important to check before marrying whether there is a history of genetic disorders in either partner’s family. The scope [of these premarital checks] should extend not only to parents, brothers and sisters but also to grandparents and cousins.

(Hoken taiiku – kaiteiban 保健体育–改訂版 [Health and Physical Education – revised edition], Hitotsubashi Shuppan 一橋出版, 1971–1973)

The term national eugenics involves working [to protect] the quality of citizens through eugenic practices. One way is to control, as far as possible, the fertility of those with a poor genetic constitution and, where necessary, prevent reproduction thanks to the Eugenic Protection Law. It is also desirable, through the dissemination of national eugenic thought, to encourage people to participate in the nation’s eugenic policy and prevent the spread of poor-quality genetic traits.

  • 13 Both of these quoted extracts appear in Nemura, p. 252–253.

(Kōtō hoken taiiku – santeiban 高等保健体育–三訂版 [Health and Physical Education at High School – third edition], Taishūkan Shoten 大修館書店, 1970–197413)

  • 14 See Anne-Lise Mithout’s article on the Green Grass Association (Aoi shiba no kai 青い芝の会): Mithout, (...)
  • 15 These excerpts also appear in Nemura, p. 255–256.

10Significantly, the term “eugenics” disappeared from high school curriculum guidelines in 1978 and never reappeared again. This development seemingly reflects a shift in public opinion following campaigns by disability rights movements and attempts to reform the 1948 eugenics law in 1972 and 1982.14 Not only did school textbooks abruptly cease disseminating eugenic thought, they actually adopted a critical stance, as seen in the following excerpts from the aforementioned textbook series15:

The imposition of national eugenics nonetheless violated the rights of people with physical and mental handicaps and encouraged society to disregard the lives of children born with disabilities. For this reason, the movement demanding a revision of the Eugenic Protection Law also gathered momentum.

(Hoken taiiku – kaiteiban 保健体育–改訂版 [Health and Physical Education – revised edition], Hitotsubashi Shuppan 一橋出版, 1979–1982)

  • 16 As pointed out by Isabelle Konuma, this statement is surprising to say the least, given that invol (...)

However, it is a personal decision and a matter of individual responsibility. We now know that Nazi Germany introduced a compulsory policy of eugenics in order to protect the purity of the Germanic race, a policy that ignored the wishes of those concerned. Japan too previously had a National Eugenics Law (1941) that made it possible to force certain people suffering from mental disorders or infectious diseases to undergo eugenic procedures because it was believed they posed a risk to social order.16

[…] The eugenic policies of our country are rooted in the Eugenic Protection Law, but this too has many critics and is seen by some as reflecting a way of thinking that prioritises the public interest.

(Kōtō hoken taiiku – santeiban 高等保健体育–三訂版 [Health and Physical Education at High School – third edition), Taishūkan Shoten 大修館書店, 1979–1983)

  • 17 For a more detailed explanation see Galan, 2016.
  • 18 Nakane Yoshibumi and Mine Mariko came to a similar conclusion in their study of the way mental ill (...)

11To understand how such an about-turn was possible from one textbook edition to the next—particularly when they were written and produced by the exact same authors and publishing houses—, we need to briefly re-examine the links between official teaching guidelines and school textbooks in Japan.17 Since curriculum guidelines have the force of law in Japan, only textbooks “approved” by the Ministry of Education and deemed to comply with national curricula can be used in classrooms. Textbook authors and publishers thus adhere as closely as possible to the prescribed course of study to ensure they get the official stamp of approval and can be distributed in schools. There is no room for manoeuvre: as long as the curriculum guidelines stated that eugenic law and policies had to be presented to students—and, it was implied, in a positive manner—, the authors had no choice but to comply, regardless of their personal opinion. With this stipulation gone, authors were free to present, if not their own opinions, at least a more balanced perspective reflecting the debates underway in society at the time rather than the official line held by the government (or certain members of it).18

  • 19 Asano Kin’ichi was a professor at Keiō University, member of the Japanese Olympic Committee and th (...)
  • 20 Imamura Yoshio was a professor at Tokyo University of Education and Tokyo Women’s University of Ph (...)
  • 21 Nemura, p. 255.

12Such was the decision made by the seven textbook writers at Hitotsubashi led by Asano Kin’ichi 浅野均一 (1901–1984) and Sasaki Kichizō 佐々木吉蔵 (1912–1983).19 The ten textbook writers at Taishūkan, led by Imamura Yoshio 今村嘉雄 (1903–1997) and Kasai Shigeo 鵜飼道夫 (1912–2005), made a similar choice.20 It is difficult to know exactly what drove this renowned group of scholars and physical education/physiology specialists to decide—or accept—to modify their presentation of eugenics so radically. Given their many links to the Ministry of Education, however, it is clear that this decision would have been made with the ministry’s backing, if not at its behest. As for what drove the ministry itself to change its stance, without being privy to the discussions held internally at the time we can only guess, or speculate, as Nemura Naomi 根村直美 has done, that the ministry was particularly sensitive to the growing issue of disability rights, the increased opposition to involuntary sterilisations and the calls to revise the Eugenic Protection Law.21

  • 22 OECD, 1971.

13It is also possible that eugenics was just not a pressing issue for ministry officials at the time, who in the 1970s were more concerned with the future of Japan’s much-criticised education system. This followed the publication in 1971 of an OECD report commissioned by Japan but written by foreign specialists, the conclusions of which shook Japanese beliefs on education.22 The report praised the role of education in Japan’s economic success but criticised its overly centralised control and heavily standardised curricula. It also highlighted various issues that would be debated in Japan over the coming decades, including the inadequacy of teaching content in the face of technological innovation and industrial change, and the weakness of tertiary education. Another hypothesis is that, of all Japan’s public bodies, the Ministry of Education was among the most sensitive to foreign opinion and thus more inclined to worry about the potentially negative image projected by Japan’s support of eugenic policies.

14Whatever the case may be, the changes to Japanese curricula seem to suggest two important things. First, that academics, in particular university professors—who were often invited to write textbooks—were far from being entirely convinced by eugenic theories and were quick to express, if not opposition, then at least serious reservations about Japan’s eugenic policies when the opportunity presented itself. This change in stance also reflected a growing opposition to such policies within Japanese society at large.

15The second conclusion we can draw is that this lack of consensus was echoed at senior levels of government and in cabinets throughout the 1970s. By removing all references to eugenics in school curricula, the Ministry of Education revealed itself to be much more progressive—or at least, more receptive to popular debate—than the Ministry of Health, which only revised the law on eugenics in 1996. The newly named Maternal Body Protection Law (Botai hogo hō 母体保護法) no longer contained negative eugenic measures such as sterilisation and abortion. Nevertheless, as underlined by Fujikawa:

  • 23 Fujikawa, 2011, p. 8.

Although a counterweight to the dissemination and teaching of eugenic theories certainly seems to have existed in the education world, given that at the time techniques in reproductive medicine and the life sciences had advanced much faster than philosophical, ethical and legal debates, it is doubtful this counterweight had much effect.23

16Furthermore, while some education officials and academics began to voice opposition to the official eugenic discourse in the 1970s, most were teachers and scholars not directly involved in special education. The majority of specialists in that field adopted an entirely different stance, as we shall see in the next section.

2. Eugenics and special education

17While the first three decades post-WWII saw the Japanese education system promote a positive view of eugenics, this discourse differed significantly from pre-war rhetoric, particularly in the way it was justified.

  • 24 Kuwahara, 2005a; Hirata, 2004.

18As demonstrated by Japanese scholars, the country’s defeat in 1945 marked an important turning point in eugenic ideology and practices.24 This is particularly evident in the passing of a new law on eugenic protection (Yūsei hogo hō) in 1948, which not only continued to allow involuntary sterilisations (including for non-genetic illnesses) and eugenic abortions (yūsei hogo), but now also aimed to “protect” mothers (bosei hogo 母性保護), thereby considerably altering its character.

  • 25 For more on this subject see Matsubara, 1999, 1998 & 1997.

19This development led teachers and experts in special education to focus solely on the sterilisation of intellectually disabled children (seishin hakujaku ji 精神薄弱児) and its necessity for the child’s “happiness” and “education”. The difference here was that, whereas before the war such sterilisations had been advocated on the grounds of racial or ethnic purity, they were now justified in the interest of the individual’s social well-being. Although “racial/ethnic quality” still appeared to be a key argument in the 1950s and 1960s (textbooks spoke of “perfecting the genetic quality of the population” until the late 1970s), it was now clearly linked to the idea of social well-being.25 With personal, individual and/or family concerns now in the foreground, this concept of social well-being centred on the theoretical impossibility of certain individuals to attain happiness (tōjisha no kō-fukō 当事者の幸・不幸), the idea being that intellectual and physical disabilities were an impediment to happiness, in turn preventing the families of such children—or the able-bodied children of intellectually or physically disabled parents—from being happy. This explains the justification frequently used by special education experts advocating the need to sterilise disabled children whose birth had not been prevented.

20A further contrast with the pre-war period was the shift in educationalists’ views on the relationship between heredity (iden 遺伝)—i.e. nature, genetics—and environment (kankyō 環境), i.e. nurture. Whereas previously each had enjoyed equal weighting, after WWII a person’s environment became a sufficient justification for eugenic practices, in particular sterilisation, and was heavily used by those involved in special education. The post-war emphasis on environment as a criterion for eugenic procedures reflects the influence of an American school of thought advocating a new form of eugenics (reform eugenics) cleansed of all racialist considerations.

  • 26 Kuwahara, 2008, p. 190 et seq., p. 205 et seq.

21The nature-versus-nurture debate decisively shaped the way eugenics and education intersected in post-war Japan, as elsewhere. This context prompted a considerable growth in twin studies, seen as best able to reveal the true link between nature and nurture. In turn, this boosted research in psychology and education science at the University of Tokyo.26

22According to Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, the evolution from pre- to post-war thinking essentially centred on the following three points:

  • 27 Ibid., p. 204.

1. The fact that “personality” [jinkaku 人格], from an idealistic point of view, [was now] an important part of the new education advocating post-war democracy. 2. The fact that, as a result of point 1, educational psychology paid particular attention to the developmental mechanisms behind the “whole personality”, “individuality” and “problem behaviours”, which are describable phenotypes of “personality”. 3. The fact that the relationship between “heredity and environment” was highlighted as a key part of these developmental mechanisms.27

23The impossibility of providing a “normal” education environment capable of ensuring a child’s happiness, simply because the child lacked the ability to be educated or to educate others in turn, became one of the main arguments used to justify sterilisation during this period. The legitimacy of this practice no longer lay in the risk of passing on a defect but in the inability of the person carrying the defect to raise any future children they might have. Eugenic sterilisation, in the post-war era, was thus advocated by special education professionals not for the health of the nation or race, but out of respect for the person and their happiness and to uphold the values enshrined in the new Constitution and 1947 Fundamental Law of Education (Kyōiku kihon hō 教育基本法). As Kuwahara explains:

After the war, those involved in education advocated the need for sterilisation in order to respect the individual and their human dignity, focusing on the “happiness/unhappiness of those concerned”, [a justification] that deviated from the original objective of eugenics.

  • 28 Kuwahara, 2005a, p. 270–271.

The fact that education-based arguments, such as the importance of environment for a child’s healthy growth, and “educational” considerations focusing on the happiness/unhappiness of children and their families, became key themes for both eugenics and education shows that pedagogy and education established a new link with eugenics after the war.28

  • 29 For more on Miki Yasumasa, see Iwasaki & Yoneda, 2017.

24Kuwahara examined articles and readers’ letters published in the magazine Child Psychology (Jidō shinri 児童心理), as well as numerous texts written by Miki Yasumasa 三木安正 (1911–1984),29 an expert in special education from the 1950s to 1980s, published in Child Psychology and Parents Hand in Hand (Te o tsunagu oya-tachi 手をつなぐ親たち). She looked in particular at the way many special educationalists used the learning environment to justify sterilisation, an argument widely adopted by local authorities in the late 1960s when they launched a “movement to prevent the birth of unhappy children” (fukō na kodomo no umarenai undō 不幸な子どもの生まれない運動) to promote amniocentesis. Kuwahara summarises such thinking as follows:

It is preferable that people unable to raise children or provide a proper learning environment be sterilised. In this case, certain individuals may nonetheless be allowed to experience the joy of marriage.

Since children who cannot be given a good learning environment at school or at home will be unhappy once they are born, it is better that they not be born.

Children with insufficient abilities, such as those with a “mental handicap”, are unhappy. The parents of such children are also unhappy. It is therefore better for a mentally handicapped child not to be born, and thus that they are not allowed to be born.

Children with insufficient abilities, such as those with a “mental handicap”, pose a high risk to the security of society. It is thus preferable that they not be born.

  • 30 Kuwahara, 2005a, p. 271.

Since the children of “mentally handicapped” parents will be unhappy due to the various problems they will face, it is better that they not be born.30

  • 31 Ibid.

25According to this summary, it was clearly the inability of intellectually disabled people to be educated and to educate in turn that drove experts to advocate the non-birth and sterilisation of such individuals. Kuwahara describes this mindset as “‘ability-ism’ [nōryokushugi] that threatens the existence of such people” (sono hito no sonzai o obiyakasu nōryokushugi その人の存在を脅かす能力主義).31 In her opinion, it resulted from the post-war use of environment and individual happiness to justify sterilisation: by this way of thinking, it was better for the “mentally handicapped” not to be born, since their impaired “ability” (nōryoku) could only be a source of unhappiness for themselves and for their family. The criticisms expressed within the education world in the late 1970s (see section 1 of this paper) thus found little echo among special education experts, who continued to support involuntary sterilisation until the 1990s.

26Kuwahara also explains the rationale behind nōryokushugi as seen in the aforementioned magazines and in the arguments put forward by educationalists promoting eugenic abortion and sterilisation: these specialists conflated individuality (kosei 個性) with personality (jinkaku 人格), and personality with abilities (nōryoku 能力). The child’s individuality and personality thus depended on their abilities, which in turn determined their worth as a human being. From this perspective, how developed these individuality-personality-abilities were became the main—if not the sole—criterion for evaluating a child’s happiness, the idea being that any child incapable of developing “abilities” was necessarily unhappy. However, these abilities were not abilities per se, just those deemed useful to society. It was only as members of society that individuals could fulfil themselves, as Fujikawa Nobuo has commented:

  • 32 Fujikawa, 2011, p. 9.

It is fair to say that advocates of eugenic policies like the law on sterilisation and immigration restrictions see future-born children not as individualised human beings but solely as constituent elements of the state or society.32

27The rationale was that since disabled children had nothing to offer others, they could not become fully fledged individuals and thus attain happiness. Furthermore, since a combination of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) determined a child’s abilities, the role of education and pedagogy was restricted to the only part of this equation accessible to them, i.e. environment. This required a scientific understanding of children, hence the growth of child psychology after the war.

28The inability of intellectually disabled children to access an environment—in particular an educational one—, and thus attain happiness, became the main justification for sterilisation during these years. In short, “mentally handicapped” children lacked “abilities” and were therefore better off not being born. This reasoning took shape between 1945 and the end of the 1950s, a critical period for the subject of this paper, since this is when the structure and practices of the Japanese school system were also established—and set in stone—for the half century to come.

3. “Ability-ism” and education (and eugenics)

29The Japanese education system and discourse on it have changed so much over the past two decades—the discourse more than the reality—that one tends to overlook these days how, between the late 1950s and the late 1980s, the educational and pedagogical principles underpinning the school system were clearly and expressly designed to replicate the productivity of Japanese workers.

30Jean-Michel Leclercq, writing in 1984, stood out for his balanced and realistic description of the system:

The educational approach ultimately established [after the war] aimed to develop rapid reflexes in order to obtain the most accurate answers possible to questions that were as precise as possible.

Japan’s efficient production is clearly based in large part on similar divisions of labour, implying a voluntarily narrow specialisation, as well as speed and precision in executing tasks.

There is thus a striking symmetry between teaching practice and labour organisation: the former prepares the latter for the overriding imperative that is mass production. […]

The competitive spirit that prevails at school prefigures that which reigns between members of the same company and between different companies.

  • 33 Leclercq, 1984.

School children are not alone in facing competition. Each individual, throughout their entire life, feels obliged to give their all to earn [people’s] trust and work their way up.33

31Without citing it by name, what Leclercq was describing here—and in other texts he published at the time—was an education system dominated by “ability-ism” or nōryokushugi (literally the “ability principle”). The term is often translated as “meritocracy” in English, but this is potentially misleading because rather than a link between merit and power, the Japanese term indicates a link between abilities (or talents) and recognition and worth. For this reason, I prefer to translate it as “ability-ism”. If it were truly a form of meritocracy, nōryokushugi would have no reason to exclude disabled or otherwise different children, and yet this is exactly what it did do, as we shall see. One could also translate nōryokushugi, in part, as ableism or validism, but these terms are already used—admittedly in a very similar context—to describe a form of discrimination against people with disabilities, seen as defects or deviations from a social or other norm. The terms are poorly suited to describing educational practices and in any case, appeared much later (in the late 1980s) than nōryokushugi.

  • 34 Although it existed earlier, the concept of nōryokushugi began to appear quite frequently in the l (...)

32The Japanese principle of “ability-ism” evaluates a person’s worth based on their individual capacities, in particular their ability to accomplish a specific task, for themselves and in comparison to others. It conditions job performance appraisals, which in turn determine promotions and salaries.34 The basic idea is that an individual’s worth is based solely on their abilities, meaning what they can contribute to the community (their company or society as a whole). This way of thinking has characterised Japanese work culture since the 1950s and became the dominant—if not the official—educational philosophy.

  • 35 Most of these ideas had been known in Japan since the 1910s, although they had only been implement (...)
  • 36 For more information on the clash between these two educational philosophies in the realm of liter (...)

33The second half of the 1950s saw a clash in Japan between two major educational philosophies, each with radically differing views of the learning act, the individual and the child. The first was the so-called “experience principle” (keikenshugi 経験主義), i.e. learning based on real experiences, while the second consisted of ability-led teaching strategies (nōryokushugi), which focused on developing students’ ability to quickly and systematically acquire the knowledge and skills listed in the national curriculum and/or seen as indispensable to life in society. Keikenshugi was one of—and ultimately came to encompass—several pedagogical concepts imported in large part from the United States: these included “real life study” (seikatsu gakushū 生活学習), theme-based learning using “study units” (tangen gakushū 単元学習), “problem-resolution methods” (mondai kaiketsu hō) and the idea of a “core curriculum” (koa-karikyuramu コア・カリキュラム).35 These practices were an integral part of what came to be known after the war as “new education” (shinkyōiku 新教育) and were presented not as mutually exclusive but as interlinked parts of a whole. It was to counter keikenshugi, criticised by some as being overly steeped in the principles of freedom, holistic learning and process, that nōryokushugi was advocated by those in favour of a more systematic teaching style focusing on abilities and procedures. The balance rapidly tipped in favour of nōryokushugi, however, when the Ministry of Education adopted this philosophy in its official teaching guidelines in 1955–1958.36

  • 37 See Kurosaki, 1990 or Kurosaki, 1995.

34Proponents of progressive education and holistic child development opposed this change of direction, fearing a return to rote memorisation, morals education and a denial of the individual. They stressed that nōryokushugi undermined the objectives defined in the Fundamental Law of Education and other legislative texts from 1945–1947, which aimed to enrich the lives of children—all children without exception—and to adapt teaching practices to learners based on their abilities and experiences. Their arguments failed to stem the tide of change.37

  • 38 Galan, 2001.

35As I have shown in my previous work on literacy education, from 1955–1958 onwards the Japanese teaching guidelines imposed a mechanistic view of learning based on pupils’ systematically acquiring clearly defined skills for each school grade.38 Whereas for adults, nōryokushugi applied to a diverse range of concrete realities, in schools it meant an exclusive focus on how quickly and how well pupils could learn the curriculum-prescribed material, as measured by objective, norm-referenced tools such as grades, hensachi 偏差値 scores (more on this below) and competitive exams.

36Criticism from those working in education essentially centred on the idea that nōryokushugi ran counter to natural child development:

  • 39 Kuwahara, 2005b, p. 179; see also Kuwahara, 2004.

The focus on strong economic growth in the early 1960s resulted in an education policy designed to develop the human capacities necessary for [economic] success. This sparked many criticisms of nōryokushugi and the biased selection method characterising education at the time, wherein human beings were categorised according to their abilities as measured exclusively by the hensachi and other exam-based rankings, without taking into account other abilities.39

37The hensachi score in particular, by its nature and role, perfectly embodies the nōryokushugi philosophy. As Claude Lévi Alvarès explains:

  • 40 Lévi Alvarès, 2013.

[The hensachi] is a composite index that indicates year by year how difficult an educational establishment is to enter and thus the academic level required to have a chance of being accepted. This index […] takes the form of a range showing the lowest and highest scores within which a student has a chance of passing the entrance exam. Since an establishment’s hensachi score predicts the likelihood, after three years of study, of being accepted at a particular university, it is easy to understand the anxiety that accompanies the choice of senior high school or the sitting of exams.40

38Developed by the Japanese as a means of measuring students’ academic performance—in comparison with others and against an ideal of perfection –, the hensachi reduces an individual’s “worth” to a numerical score and perfectly illustrates the ability-ist view of the person “capable” of scholastic achievement.

39Supporters of nōryokushugi—who advocated a similar approach to the “knowledge principle” philosophy (chishikishugi 知識主義) popular in the second half of the Meiji period (1868–1912)—emphasised the systematic learning of subject material, and while they did not totally reject the concept of experience, they reduced it to intensively practising skills and techniques.

  • 41 Hida, 1966, p. 281.

40As pointed out by Hida Takio 飛田多喜雄, while experience and ability (keiken and nōryoku) differed in nature, they were not fundamentally opposed,41 and yet they came to represent conflicting educational philosophies and principles during this period. Without listing every point of divergence, suffice it to say that as well as proposing different models they had differing views of the individual and thus the child—of what a child should be and what a schoolchild should be. In short, whereas keikenshugi accepted all types of children, nōryokushugi accepted only those who were capable of being capable.

  • 42 Kuwahara, 2005a and 2005b; see also Morioka, 2008.
  • 43 See Anne-Lise Mithout’s article on the association: Mithout, 2021.

41From this perspective, it is easy to understand why opponents of eugenics also criticised the dominance of “ability-ism” in the world of work and education, as other scholars have pointed out.42 One example is the Green Grass Association (Aoi shiba no kai 青い芝の会43), which from the 1970s onwards vigorously attacked Japan’s eugenic legislation and parents who unilaterally decided the fate of their unborn children. The group also criticised the dominance of nōryokushugi in society and education.

  • 44 As argued by Kuwahara, 2005b, p. 179.

42While these criticisms may seem different to those expressed by teachers and educationalists,44 in reality they were complementary, since they clearly illustrated the logic underpinning nōryokushugi, and in a way that was more immediately perceptible than in the context of normal schooling (whether that normality was real or imagined). Indeed, the nōryokushugi they targeted as part of their anti-eugenics stance concerned disabled and “normal” children alike. Criticism of nōryokushugi by anti-eugenics groups like the Green Grass Association also mirrored that expressed by advocates of holistic and humanistic education, in the sense that both placed the blame on parents. As Kuwahara notes:

  • 45 Ibid., p. 180.

On the one hand, [parents] were criticised and told that “they could not decide [by themselves] whether their children would be happy or unhappy”, and yet on the other they were asked to accept their role and duty as those “responsible for the happiness or unhappiness of their children”. The criticisms of “ability-ism” […] should inform [our] reflection on the dilemma facing parents.45

43What is noteworthy here is not so much the nature of the criticisms but the fact that both targeted (and thus blamed) parents. We will return to this in part four.

  • 46 Tokieda Motoki was one of Japan’s best known (and most controversial) linguists. As a professor at (...)
  • 47 See for example Galan, 2010, 2013a and 2014.

44On another note, proponents of “ability-ism” in education were able to implement this philosophy by separating school from society. I have quoted the linguist Tokieda Motoki 時枝誠記 (1900–196746) elsewhere in my work, but his arguments are worth citing here again because they perfectly illustrate the logic underpinning eugenic ideology as applied to education, or at least the influence of eugenic thought on educational practices.47 In his 1963 Revised Method for Japanese Language Instruction (Kaikō kokugo kyōiku no hōhō), Tokieda openly advocated “ability-ism” and explicitly set out what would become the official framework for teaching the Japanese language at primary school:

  • 48 Tokieda, 1970, p. 3; English translation taken from Galan, 2010, p. 77–78.

The goal of education is to acquire, as effectively as possible and in the shortest time possible, the knowledge and skills needed to live in society. [Reaching this goal] is impossible if education is conceived as a continuation of society. This is why places of education must be cut off from places of society; the former must be clearly established outside the latter, and the educational experience must be developed separately from the social experience. We will proceed to teach after breaking down the overall experience, which is chaotic, into separate disciplines [each covering one type of experience]: experiences of a scientific type, experiences of a social type, etc. We will use this method because it appears to be that most effective for the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Moreover, education is not an activity carried out in places in which time is unlimited: it is carried out in places in which time is always limited to 3 or 6 years. The fundamental concept is that education is not life in society itself, but a life in preparation for social life. Thus, what we request—what we demand—with regard to the fragmented knowledge and skills acquired over the course of a school education is not [knowledge and skills] extracted from life as a whole, but rather the fundamental knowledge and skills which, once acquired, will later enable one to pursue one’s path in life and act on one’s own.48

45Cut off from the world and real society, the Japanese school system established in the 1950s could only cater to “ideal” children, who themselves were cut off from the real world: in other words, children who were “normal” and “normalisable”. There was no place for the outside, the foreign, the different; such things were excluded by definition. Teaching practices based on “ability-ism” were designed to be scientific and efficient, leading anything likely to hinder the smooth implementation of procedures to be rejected. The result was that disabilities had no place at school, with eugenics positioned upstream to ensure they never existed.

4. Eugenics as the foundation of Japanese egalitarianism

46No one who has spent time in a Japanese school could fail to agree that children there are as heterogeneous in their behaviour and abilities as their counterparts in France, Europe and beyond. Some are academically gifted, others less so, some are hyperactive, others calm, some aggressive, others passive, some noisy, others quiet; there are fidgets and sloths, class clowns and melancholics, with every nuance or combination possible, all intrinsically linked to differing levels of ability. In other words, dissimilar students made superficially similar by their uniforms and regulation haircuts (from middle school onwards). Despite this reality, teachers in Japan—at least in their discourse—claim that students all have the same abilities and that nothing distinguishes them intellectually, psychologically, or in some cases even physically, and they act or attempt to act accordingly. This striking aspect of the Japanese doxa on education and teaching has surprised foreign observers since the late 1970s.

  • 49 Galan, 1998 & 2001.

47As I have shown in previous publications,49 the Ministry of Education’s desire for absolute uniformity in curricula and educational practice has meant that, since the 1950s, teaching in Japan has been conditioned by three basic principles: (1) all children have equal or at least equivalent intellectual potential, (2) all children are capable of studying and assimilating the curriculum, (3) habits such as diligence and attention can and should be taught. In short, to put it rather crudely, the raw material is identical and any subsequent differences are the result of the child’s environment, and thus, essentially, the direct and indirect actions of parents.

48However, while it was clearly in the school’s—the government’s—interest to impose and disseminate these principles as a means of controlling those within the system, it is less easy to understand—unless we adopt a culturalist perspective that is clearly questionable but has no obvious alternative—why parents and teachers would also assimilate the idea that any differences between children were down to their efforts and study ethic, and not the result of individual abilities, personalities and experiences. Indeed—and this is no doubt where eugenics and education truly intersect in Japan –, the dissemination of eugenic thought in Japanese society gradually instilled the idea (which conditions perceptions of the schoolchild in Japan) that all children inherently start out “healthy” and “normal” because (1) they have been born, (2) they have been allowed to live and (3) they have been sent to school (i.e. “with other children”). This reasoning also supposes that parents will perform their role properly: throughout the school years of course, by caring for, supervising, helping and encouraging their children, but also, tacitly, much earlier on. Underpinning this view of the schoolchild is the idea that any child incapable of demonstrating the expected abilities and efforts has no business living. The first responsibility of parents is thus to ensure that only children capable of conforming to expectations are brought into this world; the second is that they provide children with a healthy, stimulating environment in which to develop their abilities. The “born child” in Japan is necessarily a “normal child”.

49This view of the schoolchild as a “born child” has several implications. Firstly, it means that lessons in Japan are designed and taught with an “ideal” or “average” student in mind. Numerous studies of the subject were written in the 1980s, particularly by foreign researchers, showing that in Japan, the best and weakest students are obliged to look outside school for ways to move ahead or catch up with their peers.

50Another natural repercussion is the refusal of academic failure: since lack of effort is always the cause, failure can be turned around by working harder and for longer (i.e. by studying outside school or during the holidays). This philosophy, which makes it rare for students to repeat a year and tends to favour homogeneous “class groups” (intrinsically homogeneous in every way and with equivalent component parts), necessarily assumes a common starting point: i.e. a fundamental, inherent “normality” acquired by virtue of being born.

  • 50 For more on this subject see Tajan (2015).

51A further consequence is the silent refusal by the vast majority of teachers—particularly at primary school—to flag students who are “different” or “problematic” in order to avoid stigmatising the children (who are assumed to be perfect by virtue of being at school) and their parents (who are assumed to have done everything to ensure this perfection). The fact that there were no school psychologists in Japan until the mid-2000s is highly significant, as their absence was largely justified at the time by the widespread lack of official cases and resistance to reporting psychological and behavioural problems. It was only in 1995 that the Japanese Ministry of Education introduced a pilot scheme to appoint clinical experts as “school counsellors” (sukūru kaunserā) but not as school psychologists. The aim was not to help students solve their individual psychological problems but to combat bullying (ijime) and school non-attendance (futōkō).50 The belated recognition of this profession and its acceptance in the educational landscape stems directly from the widespread refusal to recognise the possibility of being different, of deviating from the norm or “normality”. It also reflects a fear of stigmatising students (and their parents), since from a eugenic perspective, such differences should not rightfully exist. As Nicolas Tajan pertinently remarks:

  • 51 Borovoy, 2008.
  • 52 Tajan, 2015.

It should be noted that the term tōkō kyohi shō [school refusal syndrome] is not used anymore in the MOE’s guidelines: the term ‘school non-attendance’ (futōkō) is preferred because it is more neutral and does not imply a conscious will or intention to refuse. From an individual’s perspective, some of these students might indeed not refuse school willingly, but, from a socio-anthropological perspective, the shift from ‘school refusal syndrome’ to ‘school non-attendance’ reveals a widespread difficulty to address the issue of mental disorders with the student’s parents: in fact, ‘doctors, aware of the sensitivity of the families, avoid diagnosing major psychopathology to the extent that is possible’ (Borovoy, 2008, p. 55651).52 […]

  • 53 Ibid.

According to Mr B, [a clinical psychologist and school counsellor interviewed], when you tell the parents psychological testing will be necessary, they resist and fear that their children could be mentally ill. Also, it is difficult in everyday clinical practice to gain the trust of the parents and to obtain sufficient information from them about their history, and to find a good balance with what they want to say and what they do not want to say.53

52In Japan, the role generally ascribed to school psychologists elsewhere was—and still is—fulfilled by “health teachers” (yōgo kyōyu) present in every establishment. Like school nurses in France, they support students’ physical and mental well-being. This system presupposes that any psychological problems will be superficial in nature, seeing them as akin to temporary physical injuries that can be cured rather than as constituent parts of a person’s personality. Visiting a school nurse or health teacher also has the advantage of keeping the reason for the consultation private. And finally, the practice remains inside the school walls, since health teachers are full-time members of staff, whereas “school counsellors” are external professionals who visit the school for just a few hours a week (depending on the local authority).

53While the trend seems to be reversing today and child protection now appears to be overcoming even the extreme reluctance of Japanese schools to stigmatise parents, the prevailing trend is still to not consistently report issues unless they are criminal matters.

54This view of the child (and thus the schoolchild) creates a tendency to blame parents as soon as a child deviates too far from the norm or average in terms of their behaviour, intellect, academic results or production. Here, the link with eugenics is no doubt the most salient. Since all children have—or are assumed to have—the same abilities, any differences must be caused by “bad habits” (laziness, lack of motivation, etc.) resulting from the “poor environment” in which they have been raised. This situation is solely attributable to the parents, who either failed to raise their child correctly or did not offer them the best possible environment.

55In other words, this view of the schoolchild is implicitly based on the idea that, given the existence of medical tools (antenatal diagnosis, ultrasound, maternal serum screening) to prevent the birth of children at risk of having partial or total “incapacity”, any child brought into this world is considered to have infinite capacities simply by virtue of having been born. In a eugenic society such as this, birth itself is a guarantee of normality. Since a child’s expected and desired potential is determined by heredity and environment, his or her innate (genetic) abilities are guaranteed by the non-use of eugenic practices and subsequently maintained by the high quality “environment” offered by parents. The child’s abilities thus depend on the parents’ ability to make the right decisions and provide the best possible conditions for their child’s development.

  • 54 Absolute equality refers to education provision and goals, not to legal equality.
  • 55 Konuma, 2017.

56Most importantly, this view of the schoolchild only works by distorting the principle of equality on which it is supposedly based. This principle of absolute equality in student treatment and ability is consistently highlighted in studies of the Japanese education system.54 It has most often been analysed in isolation and as resulting from the post-war constitution and 1947 Fundamental Law of Education. Some scholars, including myself, have also seen it as a means for the Ministry of Education to standardise curricula and control the behaviour and practices of teachers. Both are important aspects of the Japanese conception of egalitarianism as applied to education. A third—hidden or concealed—aspect can nonetheless be seen as resulting from the introduction of eugenic thought and practices in Japan in the 1950s. In this respect, studies of eugenics—in particular the work of Isabelle Konuma55—provide valuable insights for understanding the true nature of Japanese equality in education. Although the link between eugenics and educational equality is rarely mentioned in discussions of “normal” children, examining the way eugenics has influenced education policy in Japan provides a potential alternative (or counter-argument) to the culturalist interpretation of egalitarianism.

57It goes without saying that equality, when it consists of giving each individual what they most need to reach the same potential as everyone else, does not inherently imply eugenic ideology. The same cannot be said, however, of the Japanese view of equality, which consists of obsessively applying a one-size-fits-all approach as a means to standardise content, control the population and teachers, and provide economic benefits. The inevitable outcome is a denial of people’s differences and a refusal to truly take them into account.

58The Japanese principle of educational equality is only meaningful and operative if children are equal to begin with, or at least considered to be. To put it bluntly: those incapable of being “equal” have no place in such a system.

Conclusion

59The growth and dissemination of eugenic thought and practices in post-war Japan directly influenced the way both disabled and “normal” children were educated. Indeed, in the eugenic regime that developed in Japan, a “born child” was necessarily a “normal” child. Parents were –and still are—held accountable in this matter: before birth, since the tacit social expectation is that if a genetic disease or hereditary pathology is picked up during antenatal screening, parents will do the responsible thing by using eugenic practices to prevent a potentially “ab-normal” child from being born; and after birth, when parents are expected to provide a suitably stimulating environment in which the “born child” can reach its full developmental potential, by definition unlimited and equal to that of all other children.

60Since birth in Japan equals “proof” of the absence of defects—for the simple reason that the available eugenic procedures were not used –, teachers are obliged to consider all their students to be “healthy” and equal in ability. Although “ability-ism” in education presupposes a eugenic regime able to “guarantee” the birth of “normal” children with equivalent abilities, Japanese schools must nonetheless address the differences that appear between students as they progress through the system. They go about this by permanently measuring those differences (via hensachi scores and competitive exams, etc.) and attributing them (since the content they teach is identical) to student effort and the out-of-school environment, in particular the home. These are the only kind of differences accepted by “ability-ism”, whose end goal—via a supposedly fair and objective process—is to assign each individual their rightful place in society, for the latter’s benefit.

61By reducing a person’s individuality and personality to their abilities, Japanese “ability-ism” establishes a direct link between a person’s capacities and their potential to be happy. In addition, a low hensachi score not only marks out a “bad student”, it also signals “bad parents”, or at least, ones who failed where the parents of high scorers succeeded, despite starting out with the same “raw material”. Parental blame has thus always extended to the parents of “normal” children based on their ability to provide an environment in which their offspring can fulfil their potential and achieve happiness.

62The situation described in this paper gradually took shape after 1945 and certainly continued until the early 2000s. The current—and above all future—state of affairs is less clear. New factors must be taken into account that will no doubt modify the situation, although at this point it is impossible to say in what way.

  • 56 See Miyamori, 2014.
  • 57 See for example Horio, 2005, p. 129–210.
  • 58 For more on the subject see Galan, 2011.
  • 59 See Galan, 2013 & 2006.

63Firstly, “ability-ism” as an educational philosophy has been attacked in recent years by proponents of children’s rights and advocates of neoliberal ideology, two difficult-to-reconcile positions that make it even harder to grasp the changes underway.56 The first position, championed by educationalists like Horio Teruhisa 堀尾輝久 (1933–),57 calls for a return to a holistic approach to child development by seeing children as fully fledged individuals (as opposed to people-in-the-making) with rights that should be respected (for example the right to difference, diversity, independence and a childhood).58 The second position is linked to the rise of neoliberal ideas and policies in Japan and their consequences for education. Indeed, the reforms implemented since the late 1990s aim to further deregulate the Japanese education system based on key neoliberal themes like individual responsibility (jiko sekinin), free parental choice, differentiated instruction, reduced state funding and decentralisation.59

64Supporters of children’s rights call for true equality to be restored (as set out in the post-war constitution, the 1947 Fundamental Law of Education and the 1959 UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child), meaning equality that respects the individual, does not deny differences, treats all people fairly and recognises each person’s right to an education suited to his or her needs (and “differences”). Neoliberals, on the other hand, promote free choice in all matters and stress individual responsibility while accepting the inequality this approach engenders.

65While both groups share their desire to end the fanatical egalitarianism that has characterised “ability-ism” since the late 1950s, their reasons and objectives differ markedly. How are teachers and parents adapting to this and how will they adapt in the future? Which of the two paradigms will prevail (unless they manage to coexist in different spaces or for different segments of the population)? For now, it is impossible to say, although the Ministry of Education has clearly made a long-term commitment to neoliberalism, as it did with “ability-ism” in the late 1950s. It seems reasonable to think, then, that the neoliberal approach will increasingly dominate.

  • 60 For more on this topic, see for example: Kuwahara, 2002, p. 108 & Kuwahara, 2003; Sugihara, 2006; (...)

66The other factor to take into account is the emergence, in Japan as elsewhere, of a “new eugenics” (shin yūseigaku 新優生学) driven by the decoding of the human genome in 2003 and the advances in DNA-sequencing technology. This new eugenics strives to distinguish itself from the abuses of the past and justifies itself using values such as individual freedom and child protection, of which education is presented as the natural extension.60

  • 61 For more on this situation, which Japan is not alone in facing, see for example: Campbell, 2000; B (...)

67Once again, however, it is extremely difficult to predict at this stage how the Japanese population at large will adapt and respond to the new educational landscape. The only thing we can say with any certainty is that some parents will make radical choices. As an institution that brings together proponents of eugenics and advocates of a highly controlled and restrictive education system—who share their refusal of difference and plurality, believing that uniformity will guarantee Japan’s economic and social security –, school has played a key role in educating the Japanese for over 70 years. However, it may lose its prerogatives in this domain under the combined influence of new eugenics and neoliberalism, both of which call for individuals to be able to choose freely for and by themselves. If that happens, the state will also lose its power over a deregulated and privatised education system transformed into a simple machine to train children for “success” as per the individualised wishes of parents. The Japanese school system, whose philosophy and structure were previously rooted in post-war eugenics, would then evolve towards a new model, the purpose of which would transcend its own existence and lie outside school itself. Nevertheless, rather than spelling the end of the tyranny of “normality” and heralding a diversification of the norm, the result, as many opponents of new eugenics fear, would be a strengthening of the norm, made all the more insidious and oppressive because instead of being imposed by the state, it would appear to have been freely chosen by individuals themselves.61

Top of page

Bibliography

Andō Jukō 安藤寿康, 1999, Iden to kyōiku: ningen kōdō idengakuteki apurōchi 遺伝と教育: 人間行動遺伝学的アプローチ [Genetics and Education: A Genetic Approach to Human Behaviour], 風間書房 [Kazama Shobō], 東京 [Tokyo].

Baker Bernadette, 2002, “The Hunt for Disability: The New Eugenics and the Normalization of School Children”, in Teachers College Record, vol. 104, no. 4, June, p. 663–703, DOI: 10.1111/1467-9620.00175.

Borovoy Amy, 2006, “Japan’s Hidden Youths: Mainstreaming the Emotionally Distressed in Japan”, in Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, vol. 32, p. 552–576, DOI: 10.1007/s11013-008-9106-2.

Campbell Fiona A, 2000, “Eugenics in a Different Key? New Technologies and the ‘Conundrum’ of ‘Disability’” in Crotty M., Germov J., & Rodwell G. (eds.), A Race for a Place: Eugenics, Darwinism, and Social Thought and Practice in Australia, University of Newcastle Press, Newcastle AU, p. 307–318.

Fujikawa Nobuo 藤川信夫, Maruyama Yasushi 丸山恭司, Takagi Masashi 高木雅史, Nemura Naomi 根村直美, 2006, “Kyōikugaku ni okeru yūsei shisō no tenkai – rekishi to tenbō” 教育学における優生思想の展開 – 歴史と展望 [The Development of Eugenic Thought in Education – History and Perspective] in Forum on Modern Education, no. 15, p. 179–190, DOI: 10.20552/hets.15.0_179.

Fujikawa Nobuo 藤川信夫, 2011, “Yūseigaku kara mita kodomo, kyōiku (gaku) kara mita kodomo – Fujikawa Nobuo (hencho) ‘Kyōikugaku ni okeru yūsei shisō no tenkai’ (Bensei shuppan 2008-nen) no sōkatsu to shite” 優生学から見た子ども、教育(学)から見た子ども: 藤川信夫(編著)“教育学における優生思想の展開” [Children from the Perspective of Eugenics, Children from the Perspective of Education (Pedagogy) – A Summary of The Development of Eugenic Thought in Education, edited by Fujikawa Nobuo (Bensei Shuppan 2008)] in Ōsaka Daigaku Kyōikugaku Nenpō Dai [Pedagogy Annals of Osaka University], vol. 16, March, p. 3–15.

Galan Christian, 1998, “Japon: l’uniformité comme principe pédagogique” [Japan: Uniformity as an Educational Principle] in collective work, Proceedings for the Conference “Défendre et transformer l’école pour tous” [Defending and Transforming School for Everyone], Université de Provence, Marseille, 3–5 October 1997, published by the IUFM of Aix-Marseille, URL: https://hal.science/hal-02399202/document (accessed 20 November 2023).

Galan Christian, 2001, L’Enseignement de la lecture au Japon – Politique et education [Literacy Instruction in Japan – Politics and Education], PUM, Toulouse.

Galan Christian, 2006 “L’évolution du concept ‘d’éducation d’après-guerre’” [The Concept of “Post-war Education”] in Lucken Michael, Bayard-Sakai Anne and Lozerand Emmanuel (eds.), Le Japon après la guerre [Post-war Japan], Philippe Picquier, Arles, p. 47–81.

Galan Christian, 2010, “Out of this World, in this World, or Both? The Japanese School at the Threshold” in Heinrich Patrick and Galan Christian (eds.), Language Life in Japan: Transformations and Prospects, Routledge, Abingdon, p. 77–93.

Galan Christian, 2011, “La question des droits de l’enfant au Japon: regards croisés” [Children’s Rights in Japan: A Comparative Perspective] in Actes du 4e Congrès du Réseau Asie et Pacifique [Proceedings of the 4th Asia–Pacific Network Conference], Paris, 14–16 September, URL: https://hal.science/hal-02567839/document (accessed 20 November 2023).

Galan Christian [Kurisuchan-Garan], 2013a, “Gakkō wa jitsushakai ni kōken subeki na no ka ? – Nihon no kyōiku seido ni kan suru kōsatsu” 学校は実社会に貢献すべきなのか? 日本の教育制度に関する考察 [Should School Participate in Real Society? Reflections on the Japanese School System] in Shakaigaku zasshi [Sociological Review of Kobe University], no. 30, p. 223–238.

Galan Christian, 2013b, “La réforme de la Loi fondamentale de l’éducation de 2006: quelle réponse à la ‘crise’ du système éducatif japonais?” [The 2006 Reform of the Fundamental Law of Education: Responding to the ‘Crisis’ in the Japanese Education System] in Butel Jean-Michel and Ueda Makiko (eds.), Japon pluriel 9, Philippe Picquier, Arles, p. 497–506.

Galan Christian, 2014, “Sortir ou rester, et comment ? – quatre pistes possibles pour l’étude des hikikomori” [Go Out or Stay In, and How? Four Possible Approaches to the Study of Hikikomori] in Fansten Maïa, Figueiredo Cristina, Pionnié-Dax Nancy and Vellut Natacha (eds.), Hikikomori, ces adolescents en retrait [Hikikomori, Japan’s Teenage Recluses], Armand Colin, Paris, p. 94–111.

Galan Christian, 2015, “L’ère Taishō, premier âge d’or de l’‘éducation rêvée’ au Japon” [The Taishō Period, the First Golden Age for “Dream Education” in Japan] in Cadot Yves, Fujiwara Dan, Ōta Tomomi and Scoccimarro Rémi (eds.), Japon pluriel 10, Philippe Picquier, Arles, p. 23–61.

Galan Christian, 2016, “Éducation et censure au Japon” [Education and Censorship in Japan] in Martin Laurent (ed.), Les Censures dans le monde [Censorship Around the World], Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, p. 209–228.

Hida Takio 飛田多喜雄, 1966, Kokugo kyōiku hōhō ron shi 国語教育方法論史 [The History of Methods for Teaching the Japanese Language], 明治図書 [Meiji Tosho], 東京 [Tokyo].

Hirata Katsumasa 平田勝政, 2004, “Nihon ni okeru yūseigaku no shōgaisha kyōiku–fukushi e no eikyō – chiteki shōgai o chūshin ni” 日本における優生学の障害者教育・福祉への影響 ─知的障害を中心に [The Influence of Eugenics on Education and Well-being for Disabled People in Japan – Focus on Intellectual Disability] in Nakamura Makio 中村満紀男 (ed.), Yūseigaku to shōgaimono 優生学と障害者 [Eugenics and Disabled People], 明石書店 [Akashi Shoten], 東京 [Tokyo], p. 629–654.

Horio Teruhisa 堀尾輝久, 2005, Kyōiku o hiraku: kyōiku kaikaku no futatsu no keifu 教育を拓く. 教育改革の二つの系譜 [Opening Education: Two Avenues for Education Reform], 青木書店 [Aoki Shoten], 東京 [Tokyo], p. 129–210.

Iwasaki Yu 岩﨑優 & Yoneda Hiroki 米田宏樹, 2017, “Sengo no ‘seishin hakujaku’ ni kan suru Miki Yasumasa no shisō – kyōiku no ba to hōhō ni chakumoku shite” 戦後の「精神薄弱」に関する三木安正の思想 : 教育の場と方法に着目して [Yasumasa Miki on the Subject of Intellectual Disability in Post-war Japan: Educational Places and Methods] in Shōgai kagaku kenkyū [Japanese Journal of Disability Sciences], vol. 41, no. 1, p. 135–148, DOI: 10.20847/adsj.41.1_135.

Konuma Isabelle, 2017, Reproduction et droit au Japon (1868-1996) – Les enjeux législatifs de l’eugénisme [Reproduction and the Law in Japan (1868–1996) – Legislative Issues Relating to Eugenics], unpublished thesis written for the Accreditation to Supervise Research (HDR), Inalco, Paris.

Kurosaki Isao 黒崎勲, 1990, “Nōryokushugi kyōiku hihan no hansei” 能力主義教育批判の反省 [Reflections on Criticisms of “Ability-ism” in Education ] in Maki Masana 牧柾名 (ed.), Kōkyōiku seido no shiteki keisei 公教育制度の史的形成 [Historical Development of the Public Education System], 梓出版 [Azusa Shuppan], 松戸 [Matsudo].

Kurosaki Isao 黒崎勲, 1995, Gendai Nihon no kyōiku to nōryokushugi 現代日本の教育と能力主義 [“Ability-ism” and Education in Contemporary Japan], 岩波書店 [Iwanami Shoten], 東京 [Tokyo].

Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, 2001, “Yūseigaku no kankei to kyōikugaku no kankei ni kansuru rekishiteki kenkyū: senzen Nihon no yūseigaku no tenkai to kyōiku kagaku kenkyūkai ni chūmoku shite” 優生学の関係と教育学の関係に関する歴史的研究: 戦前日本の優生学の展開と教育科学研究会に注目して [Historical Study of the Links Between Eugenics and Pedagogy: The Association for the Scientific Study of Education and the Growth of Eugenics in Pre-war Japan] in Nihon kyōiku shakai gakkai taikai happyō yōshi shūroku 日本教育社会学会大会発表要旨集録 [Collection of Conference Abstracts for the Japanese Society of Educational Sociology], vol. 53, p. 60–61.

Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, 2002, “‘Iden-kankyō’ o meguru kyōikugaku no mondai: sōseiji kenkyū no rekishi o tegakari ni” 「遺伝-環境」をめぐる教育学の問題 : 双生児研究の歴史を手がかりに [The Pedagogical Problem of “Heredity and Environment”: A Twin Studies Perspective] in Nihon kyōiku shakai gakkai taikai happyō yōshi shūroku 日本教育社会学会大会発表要旨集録 [Collection of Conference Abstracts for the Japanese Society of Educational Sociology], vol. 54, p. 108–109.

Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, 2003, “Yūseigaku to kyōiku – “kyōikuteki” kankyō sōsa ga tadoritsuku tokoro” 優生学と教育 –「教育的」環境操作がたどりつくところ [Eugenics and Education – Fostering “Educational” Environments] in Gendai shisō 現代思 [Contemporary Thought], vol. 31, no. 13, November, p. 215–229.

Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, 2004, “Sengo Nihon ni okeru yūseigaku no tenkai to kyōiku” 戦後日本における優生学の展開と教育 [Education and the Growth of Eugenics in Post-war Japan] in Nihon kyōiku shakai gakkai taikai happyō yōshi shūroku 日本教育社会学会大会発表要旨集録 [Collection of Conference Abstracts for the Japanese Society of Educational Sociology], vol. 56, p. 72–73.

Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, 2005a, “Sengo Nihon ni okeru yūseigaku no tenkai to kyōiku no kankei – sengo kara 1950 nendai no kyōiku gensetsu ni mirareu ‘sono hito no sonzai o obiyakasu nōryokushugi’” 戦後日本における優生学の展開と教育の関係.戦後から1950年代の教育原説に見られるその人の存在を脅かす能力主義 [The Links Between Education and the Growth of Eugenics in Post-war Japan – The “Ability-ism” Threatening the Existence of Those People in Educational Discourse from the End of the War to the 1950s] in Kyōiku shakaigaku kenkyū [Research in Educational Sociology], no. 76, p. 265–285.

Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, 2005b, “Sengo Nihon ni okeru yūseigaku no tenkai to kyōiku (2)” 戦後日本における優生学の展開と教育 [Education and the Growth of Eugenics in Post-war Japan (2)] in 日本教育社会学会大会発表要旨集録 [Collection of Conference Abstracts for the Japanese Society of Educational Sociology], vol. 57, p. 179–180.

Kuwahara Makiko 桑原真木子, 2008, “‘Iden-kankyō’ mondai o meguru yūseigaku to kyōikugaku no kankei – sōseiji kenkyū no rekishi o tegakari ni” 「遺伝-環境」をめぐる教育学の問題 : 双生児研究の歴史を手がかりに [The Pedagogical Problem of “Heredity and Environment”: A Twin Studies Perspective] in Fujikawa N. 藤川信夫 (ed.), p. 179–225.

Leclercq Jean-Michel, 1984, Éducation et société au Japon [Education and Society in Japan], Anthropos, Paris.

Lévi Alvarès Claude, 2013, “Une privatisation inégalitaire des usages scolaires” [Disparity in the Privatisation of Education], Revue internationale d’éducation de Sèvres, no. 62, p. 39–48, DOI: 10.4000/ries.3101.

Matsubara Yōko 松原洋子, 1997, “Minzoku yūsei hogo hōan to Nihon no yūseihō no keifu” 民族優生保護法案と日本の優生法の系譜 [Racial Eugenic Protection Bills and the Genealogy of Eugenic Law in Japan] in Kagakushi kenkyū II [History of Science Journal II], vol. 36, p. 42–50.

Matsubara Yōko 松原洋子, 1998, “The Enactment of Japan’s Sterilization Laws in the 1940s: A Prelude to Postwar Eugenic Policy” in Historia Scientiarum [Journal of the History of Science Society of Japan], vol. 8, no. 2, p. 187–201.

Matsubara Yōko 松原洋子, 1999, “The Making of the Eugenic Protection Law of 1948: Reinforcing Eugenic Policy after WWII”, paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Boston.

Mitout Anne-Lise, 2021, “Aoi shiba no kai: Un movement de personnes handicapées face à l’eugénisme” [Aoi Shiba no Kai: A Disability Rights Movement Fighting Against Eugenics] in Cipango, Cahiers d’études japonaises, no. 24, DOI: 10.4000/cipango.4215.

Miyamori Kunitomo 宮盛邦友, 2014, “‘Kodomo no kenri’ to ‘kyōiku ni okeru nōryokushugi hihan’ no kyōikugaku rironteki bunseki – “Ningen keisei to gakkō bunka” to shite no gendai kyōikugaku ni mukete” 〈子どもの権利〉と〈教育における能力主義批判〉の教育学理論的分析: 〈人間形成と学校文化〉としての現代教育学に向けて [Theoretical Pedagogical Analysis of “Children’s Rights” and “Criticism of Ability-ism in Education” – For a Modern Pedagogy of Human Development and School Culture] in Kenkyū nenpō / Gakushūin daigaku bungakubu [Annual Collection of Essays and Studies, Faculty of Letters, Gakushuin University], vol. 61, p. 173–192.

Morioka Jirō 森岡次郎, 2008, “‘Aoi shiba no kai’ no shisō to undō” 青い芝の会の思想と運動 [Green Grass Association: Philosophy and Campaigns] in Fujikawa N. 藤川信夫 (ed.), Kyōikugaku ni okeru yūsei shisō no tenkai – rekishi to tenbō 教育学における優生思想の展開 – 歴史と展望 [The Development of Eugenic Thought in Education – History and Perspective], [勉誠出版] Bensei Shuppan, 東京 [Tokyo], p. 267–296.

Nakane Yoshibumi 中根允文 & Mine Mariko 三根真理子, 2013, “Seishin shōgai ni kakaru antistigma no kenkyū – kyōkasho ni miru mentaruherusu kyōiku chūgakkō kōtō gakkō no kyōkasho ni okeru kisai o tōshite (1950-2002-nen made no ‘hoken taiiku’ kyōkasho chōsa kara)” 精神障害に係る Anti-stigmaの研究 – 教科書に見るメンタルヘルス 教育∼中学校・高等学校の教科書における記載を通して∼(1950 ∼ 2002年迄の「保健体育」教科書から) [Study of Anti-stigmatisation Regarding Mental Disorders – Mental Health Education in Secondary School Textbooks (Based on a Study of “Health and Physical Education” Textbooks From 1950 to 2002)] in Nihon shakai seishin igakukai zasshi (Japanese Bulletin of Social Psychiatry), vol. 22, no 4, p. 452–473.

Nemura Naomi 根村直美, 2008, “‘Byōki – shōgai’ o meguru yūseigaku-teki gensetsu to kyōiku” [Education and Eugenic Discourse on “Illness” and “Disability”] in Fujikawa Nobuo 藤川信夫 (ed.), Kyōikugaku ni okeru yūsei shisō no tenkai – rekishi to tenbō 教育学における優生思想の展開 – 歴史と展望 [The Development of Eugenic Thought in Education – History and Perspective], [勉誠出版] Bensei Shuppan, 東京 [Tokyo], p. 247–265.

OECD, 1971, Reviews of National Policies for Education: Japan, OECD, Paris.

Ogawa Takashi 小川崇, 2006, “Yūseigaku to kyōiku no sekkin” 優生学と教育の接近 [Points of Contact Between Eugenics and Education] in Kyōto daigaku shōgai kyōikugaku – toshokan jōhōgaku kenkyū 京都大学生涯教育学・図書館情報学研究 [Journal of Lifelong Education and Libraries], vol. 5, p. 37–54.

Sugihara Toru 杉原徹, 2006, “Shin yūseigaku to kyōiku: seishoku keiretsu idenshi kairyō to kodomo no “tasha”-sei o meguru kōsatsu o tōshite” 新優生学と教育--生殖系列遺伝子改良と子どもの〈他者〉性をめぐる考察を通して [New Eugenics and Education: Reflection on the Genetic Improvement of Reproduction and Children’s “Otherness”] in [Tōkyō daigaku daigakuin kyōikugaku kenkyūka kyōikugaku] Kenkyūshitsu kiyō 東京大学大学院教育学研究科. 研究室紀要 [Bulletin of the Department of History and Philosophy of Education, Graduate School of Education, University of Tokyo], no. 32, p. 27–38.

Tajan Nicolas, 2015, “Adolescents’ School Non-attendance and the Spread of Psychological Counselling in Japan” in Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, vol. 6, no. 1–2, p. 58–69, DOI: 10.1080/21507686.2015.1029502.

Tokieda Motoki 時枝誠記, 1970, Kaikō kokugo kyōiku no hōhō 改稿国語教育の方法 [A Revised Method for Japanese Language Instruction], 有精堂 [Yūseidō], 東京 [Tokyo] (first edition: 創文社 [Sōbunsha], 1954).

Thomann Bernard, 2008, Le Salarié et l’Entreprise dans le Japon contemporain: formes, genèse et mutations d’une relation de dépendance (1868–1999) [Workers and Companies in Contemporary Japan: Forms, Origins and Changes to the Relationship of Dependency], Les Indes savantes, Paris, 343 p.

Yamamoto Kiyoko 山本起世子, 2010, “Shōgaiji fukushi seisaku to yūsei shisō ─ 1960-nendai ikō o chūshin to shite” 障害児福祉政策と優生思想--1960年代以降を中心として [Disabled Child Welfare Policy and Eugenics Since the 1960s in Japan] in Sonoda gakuen joshi daigaku ronbun-shū 園田学園女子大学論文集 [Journal of Sonoda Gakuen Women’s University], no. 44, p. 13–26.

Top of page

Notes

1 Fujikawa, 2008, p. 7.

2 Ibid. p. 10–11.

3 See for example Ogawa, 2006 and Fujikawa et al., 2006.

4 See for example Kuwahara, 2005a, Yamamoto, 2010 and Fujikawa, 2011.

5 See for example Nemura, 2008.

6 I would like to sincerely thank Isabelle Konuma for her involvement in this paper, from the initial commission through to the final proofread. Her own research also provided new elements that enriched my analysis of the Japanese education system.

7 See Fujikawa, 2011 and Kuwahara, 2001, p. 60–61.

8 Source: 文部省、学校体育指導要綱、昭和二十二年度, https://erid.nier.go.jp/files/COFS/s22ejp/index.htm (accessed February 2023).

9 I would like to thank Isabelle Konuma for bringing this point to my attention.

10 Source: 文部省、学習指導要領 家庭科編 高等学校用、昭和二十四年度, https://erid.nier.go.jp/files/COFS/s24hh/index.htm (accessed March 2023).

11 Source: 文部省、高等学校学習指導要領 保健体育科編、昭和三十一年度, https://erid.nier.go.jp/files/COFS/s31hp/index.htm (accessed March 2023).

12 Source: 文部省、高等学校学習指導要領 付 学校教育法施行規則(抄)

昭和45年10月, https://erid.nier.go.jp/files/COFS/s45h/index.htm (accessed March 2023).

13 Both of these quoted extracts appear in Nemura, p. 252–253.

14 See Anne-Lise Mithout’s article on the Green Grass Association (Aoi shiba no kai 青い芝の会): Mithout, 2021.

15 These excerpts also appear in Nemura, p. 255–256.

16 As pointed out by Isabelle Konuma, this statement is surprising to say the least, given that involuntary sterilisations were not permitted under the 1941 law (due to the suspension of article 6), but were authorised by the 1948 law, which was then still in force.

17 For a more detailed explanation see Galan, 2016.

18 Nakane Yoshibumi and Mine Mariko came to a similar conclusion in their study of the way mental illness was presented in junior and senior high school textbooks between 1950 and 2002. They comment that “between 1950 and 1965, people suffering from mental illness were presented as having incoherent speech and problematic behaviour; they were ultimately likened to invalids on whom eugenic medical procedures should be performed. Later, [textbooks] for some time mentioned the need to better understand and recognise [such individuals]. Then from the latter half of the 1970s onwards, all mention of mental illness disappeared, even down to the names of such disorders themselves.” Nakane & Mine, 2013.

19 Asano Kin’ichi was a professor at Keiō University, member of the Japanese Olympic Committee and the Ministry of Education’s Council for Health and Physical Education (Monbushō hoken taiiku shingikai 文部省保健体育審議会); Sasaki Kichizō was a former sprinter who represented Japan at the Berlin Summer Olympics before pursuing a career at the Ministry of Education.

20 Imamura Yoshio was a professor at Tokyo University of Education and Tokyo Women’s University of Physical Education, and a member of the Council for Health and Physical Education; Kasai Shigeo was a professor of physical education at Tokyo University of Education and Tsukuba University.

21 Nemura, p. 255.

22 OECD, 1971.

23 Fujikawa, 2011, p. 8.

24 Kuwahara, 2005a; Hirata, 2004.

25 For more on this subject see Matsubara, 1999, 1998 & 1997.

26 Kuwahara, 2008, p. 190 et seq., p. 205 et seq.

27 Ibid., p. 204.

28 Kuwahara, 2005a, p. 270–271.

29 For more on Miki Yasumasa, see Iwasaki & Yoneda, 2017.

30 Kuwahara, 2005a, p. 271.

31 Ibid.

32 Fujikawa, 2011, p. 9.

33 Leclercq, 1984.

34 Although it existed earlier, the concept of nōryokushugi began to appear quite frequently in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when it became a central part of managerial discourse. This evolution is summed up by the slogan “from seniority-based HR management to meritocracy-based HR management” (Nenkōshugi jinji kanri kara nōryokushugi jinji kanri e 年功主義人事管理から能力主義人事管理へ). The idea for organisations, such as employers’ federations, the Japan Productivity Centre (Nihon seisansei honbu) and private or public labour research institutes, was to overhaul the way salaries were calculated. The aim was to gradually do away with seniority- or qualifications-based pay, which is essentially a cost-of-living wage (seikatsukyū 生活給), and replace it with a salary reflecting the actual work done, in other words, pay based on job evaluation (shokumukyū 職務給) or the skill-grading system (shokunō shikaku seido 職能資格制度). Many studies of the subject exist, as illustrated by the number of hits returned by a search for nōryokushugi in the National Diet Library’s catalogue. See for example Horikawa 1962, p. 20–30. I would like to thank Bernard Thomann for this information; see (in French) chapter 10 of Thomann, 2008.

35 Most of these ideas had been known in Japan since the 1910s, although they had only been implemented temporarily and by a minority of teachers. For more information see Galan, 2015.

36 For more information on the clash between these two educational philosophies in the realm of literacy teaching, see Galan, 2001, chapters VI and VII.

37 See Kurosaki, 1990 or Kurosaki, 1995.

38 Galan, 2001.

39 Kuwahara, 2005b, p. 179; see also Kuwahara, 2004.

40 Lévi Alvarès, 2013.

41 Hida, 1966, p. 281.

42 Kuwahara, 2005a and 2005b; see also Morioka, 2008.

43 See Anne-Lise Mithout’s article on the association: Mithout, 2021.

44 As argued by Kuwahara, 2005b, p. 179.

45 Ibid., p. 180.

46 Tokieda Motoki was one of Japan’s best known (and most controversial) linguists. As a professor at the University of Tokyo his life’s work and research activity, to quote Catherine Garnier, “was driven by a single purpose: to devise a general theory of language based on the Japanese linguistic tradition capable of illustrating the true nature of the Japanese language” (Garnier, 1982). To do so, Tokieda developed a Process Theory of Language (gengo katei setsu)—in opposition to Ferdinand de Saussure, Western linguistics and Japanese structuralists—as well as his own Japanese grammar using research on pre-modern Japanese. His grammar described Japanese as having a “box-in-box structure” (irekogata kōzō), in contrast to the previously dominant theories in Japan, which argued for a linear sentence structure (bunsetsu). From the early post-war years he played a pivotal role in Japanese language instruction and within the Japanese Ministry of Education as a member of the National Language Council (Kokugo shingikai) and, above all, as a member and then chairman (beginning in 1960) of the ministry’s Curriculum Guidelines Council (Monbushō shidō yōryō iinkai).

47 See for example Galan, 2010, 2013a and 2014.

48 Tokieda, 1970, p. 3; English translation taken from Galan, 2010, p. 77–78.

49 Galan, 1998 & 2001.

50 For more on this subject see Tajan (2015).

51 Borovoy, 2008.

52 Tajan, 2015.

53 Ibid.

54 Absolute equality refers to education provision and goals, not to legal equality.

55 Konuma, 2017.

56 See Miyamori, 2014.

57 See for example Horio, 2005, p. 129–210.

58 For more on the subject see Galan, 2011.

59 See Galan, 2013 & 2006.

60 For more on this topic, see for example: Kuwahara, 2002, p. 108 & Kuwahara, 2003; Sugihara, 2006; Andō,1999.

61 For more on this situation, which Japan is not alone in facing, see for example: Campbell, 2000; Baker, 2002.

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Christian Galan, “Eugenics and Education in Post-war Japan”Cipango - French Journal of Japanese Studies [Online], 8 | 2024, Online since 03 December 2024, connection on 21 May 2025. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/cjs/2338; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/12vjy

Top of page

About the author

Christian Galan

Université de Toulouse-Jean Jaurès – CEJ/Inalco

By this author

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search