(Article referred to in this entry can be found at this location.)
This article observes the democratic practices of the Japanese governments, specifically focused on the inclusion of democracy in their schooling system. Also addressed is the Western perception of this democracy or the apparent lack thereof to these observers. The article first lays the foundation for the case of democracy; how it was already pseudo-present in Japanese culture, and how they assimilated pieces of Western ideas of Democracy to ‘modernize’. Next, schools in Japan are considered for their democratic practices, and compared to their Western counterparts in Europe and the United States to see what mark they realistically hit. Finally, two examples of modern Japanese ‘democracy in schools’ are given, completing the case that while democracy is present, it’s in a more complicated, Eastern approach than a precursory glance would allow most people to see.
To provide the reader with a history of Japanese ‘democracy’, and the United State’s attempt to Westernize these processes, the authors look back to the Japan of the 1940’s as it transitioned from Japanese culture to forced internationalism. They bluntly state that “[the] impression that Japanese democracy stems from US intervention in the 1940’s arises because of conspicuous US policy statements at that time, not from a sound understanding of Japanese social history” (p. 2-3). The article continues to explain what Japanese decision making looked like before this ‘intervention’; a communal system that allowed for individuality, but favored consensus. It considers this a legitimate form of democracy “as the Oxford English Dictionary states [democracy is] ‘government by the people’. [So] this does not, therefore, preclude other systems such as consensus” (p. 2).
Moving to the core topic of democracy in Japanese education, the article looks back in time again, to see where the roots of the topic lie before addressing the modern situation. It outlines how the Japanese assimilated parts of many cultures to create a new education system, and how, while “[there] seemed little evidence of a democratic perspective in Japanese education at this time, then neither was it much evident in the formal Western systems” (p. 3). As this system progressed, democracy was gained and lost again and again through many changes, until it reached the point that ‘democracy’ was undesirable to teachers and students alike. They refer to it as “a dead word” and “something you see in history books”. They keep the ideals of consensus and ‘government by the people’, but the word and concept of democracy itself have developed a stigma in the culture. The authors looked at a number of modern appearances of this pseudo-democracy in schools today: different forms of student councils, a survey of grade-schoolers about what they should be allowed to decide for themselves, and one teachers ‘consensus’ approach to letting her students decide how to celebrate an occasion. Through each of these, the presence of democracy is shown in the schools, but it is also acknowledged that this democracy is not perfect, nor is it the Western embodiment of democracy. Instead it is something that the Japanese have taken at its idealistic level and assimilated into something of their own, a new cultural adaption of a world-wide story.
This article has a number of strengths, but is not without a fair share of weaknesses in making its case. One of the greatest strengths is looking at this situation from the native side, the Japanese view point. All too many scholarly articles end up being an author watching another country through binoculars from his own homeland, just writing up observations and trying to come up with theories as to the reasons behind these ‘foreigners’ actions. Also, using the classroom survey to discern democratic tendencies was a good method to add solid, tangible fact to a topic that can be very abstract and hard to pin down. Unfortunately, in the authors efforts to associate themselves with the Japanese perspectives, they’ve accidently removed themselves much too far from the outside influences on Japan; specifically, the US influences. They mention these international efforts to change the Japanese culture, but never go in depth with them. US intervention is referred to as “policy rhetoric” many times throughout the article and then dismissed. Even assuming the article is correct in these interventions having little to no effect, it should at least approach exactly what some of this ‘rhetoric’ was, and why it didn’t have as great an impact as Westerners think.
In the light of a comparative study, this article and its topic act as an interesting base. Much discussion goes into the definition of ‘democracy’ across the globe, but looking at where democracy is shaped for the next generation is a new angle. The article makes passing comparisons between the level of democracy in Japanese schools and in those schools in Europe and the United States. Expanding on this as a research topic between multiple nations across the globe would likely lead to interesting revelations about the shaping of democracy. Most importantly is the viewpoint of the article, telling the story from inside the Japanese culture, rather than assuming Western superiority, and jesting at the probable intentions of the ‘developing nations’.
