マイノリティ教育における〈包摂〉原理の再検討

1970年前後の大阪市における在日朝鮮人教育をめぐる「言説の交代劇」から

抄録

This paper attempts to reconsider the principle of “inclusion” in minority education, which emphasizes the need to educate distinctively minority students who were formerly excluded. For this purpose, the author examines the case of the “discourse shift” which took place around the year 1970 in Osaka-city, from an “exclusion” discourse that assumed it was the essential nature of Korean ethnicity which caused deviant behavior, and claimed it was impossible for Japanese to educate Korean resident (hereafter Korean) students, to a discourse of “inclusion” that criticized the former, emphasized discrimination and mental depression among Koreans as the cause of problems, and claimed that Korean students must be objects of education.
The “exclusion” discourse clearly had racist features, in that it carelessly superimposed ethnic borderlines upon the borderline between human/non-human (rational/irrational). The “inclusion” discourse which followed it, and that was produced by the “pedagogy of liberation” teachers in 1971 in Osaka, condemned such racism. However, the “pedagogy of liberation” teachers also maintained the borderline between human/nonhuman itself, and merely changed the place where the line was drawn. Namely, the “pedagogy of liberation” teachers thought that the Korean students' deviant behavior ought not to be attributed to their individual character nor their ethnicity, but should be seen as a temporary mental and social condition typically caused by Japanese racism. Therefore, the teachers tried to preserve the “sphere of educability” of Korean deviants, and founded an ethnic pedagogy of liberation for them. In such reinterpretation of deviant behavior, the borderline between human/nonhuman was placed inside rather than outside each individual (between some and others). It could be said that the fundamental logic of education that “only the educable can be educated”, which is obviously tautological, was preserved even within the discourse of “inclusion.”
The author concludes that the “inclusion” practice of Korean education is also based on the orthodox logic of education, and can not criticize the latter. This is why the “inclusion” of minorities has been repeated as a “normal” phenomenon in the educational order in post -war era Japan. It can also be concluded that educational practice based on such a principle as “inclusion” can not successfully intervene the everyday world and change the reality of discrimination, because human relationship in everyday world is also organized by the similar tautology, “only the human can be permitted to human relationship”. However, it also means if minority education practioners become aware of the implication of “inclusion” principle, it could be a great force for changing not only education but also everyday world itself.