Stimulated by Martha C. Nussbaum's book, Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education (1997), we propose a revitalization of area studies programs in universities, to encourage them to respond to the profound academic challenges now being thrown up by globalization. The paper sketches a critique of conventional area studies in favor of the kinds of 'internationalizing' curricula advocated by Professor Nussbaum- and by many others, including some leading scholars in Asia-e.g., Singapore's Professor Wang Gungwu. In the light of Nussbaum's recommendations, we outline a new approach to Australian Studies in Japanese universities. This approach is based on what we identify as Australia's distinctiveness in a globalizing world. We suggest that this distinctiveness has three core components: (1) Reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; (2) Australian multiculturalism (e.g., as a micro-model for global citizenship); (3) Australia's European cultural heritage in proximity to Asia (e.g., modeling the politics of recognition). We propose that Australian Studies programs in Japanese universities are justified on two important grounds-viz., (A) Acknowledging that the Japan-Australia relationship can (and should) be broadened and deepened, and by (B) Integrating Australian Studies in Japan into a renewed area studies framework.

抄録全体を表示

The experiences of Asian migrants to Australia vary depending on their length of resettlement. For example, among Vietnamese migrants, first-generation migrants are mostly refugees who came following the Vietnam War approximately twenty-five years ago. Since then, the social welfare institutions established under Australia's multicultural policy have resulted in a concentration of Vietnamese migrants in the western suburbs of Sydney. The public's stereotypical image of Vietnamese views them as destructors of social stability. Among the Vietnamese migrants, cultural differences between those from the North and those from the South have resulted in distinct communities amidst residential suburbs. Furthermore, among ethnic Chinese people from Vietnam are affluent entrepreneurs, so there is the potential for tension between Vietnamese migrants and Chinese-Vietnamese. While Vietnamese-Americans are psychologically pressed to become American citizens, Vietnamese-Australians sometimes enjoy their identity even as Australian-Vietnamese. However, most of the Vietnamese migrants who have experienced life in Australia prefer to stay there, not only because of its political democracy, but also because of the daily freedom away from the traditional kinship ties in their home country. Nowadays there are second- and even third-generation adult Vietnamese-Australians in Sydney. Tension within Vietnamese families is generally observed between the older generation and the younger ones, and between parents and children, wives and husbands. However, recent conflicts between parents and children can be resolved when children, with their flexibility to adapt to the duplicate cultural situation, play as "actors" to "negotiate" with their parents. In some cases, parents learn English from their children's conversations. Children serve as an "entrance" to Australian culture for their parents, and thus the older generations are also gradually integrated into the Australian way of life. A transformation in power relations is also apparent in the gender relationship within families. Vietnamese women find it easier than men to get jobs of various kinds in Australia, and women can hold more sway and influence based on this economic foundation. While most women derive satisfaction from living in Australian society, older men are liable to resent their marginalized positions in the family. Such people gather together to form political organizations critical of the present dominant political parties in their home country (long distant nationalism). Asserting such a standpoint through this movement partly functions to restore their identity and symbolic influence within the Australian-Vietnamese community.

抄録全体を表示

The main purpose of this paper is to make clear the differences between two national language policies, National Policy on Language (NPL) and Australia's Language: Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP), in Australia, by comparing on ideas, objectives and goals of these policies. The first national language policy, NPL was established in 1987. This policy was based on the philosophy to respect all of languages that were used in and needed for Australia. They thought that the respect for languages could bring two major benefits to Australia and her people. One of these was to mold identities at some levels-individual, group, national and human level. Another one was economic development at each level. In order to obtain these two benefits, NPL stressed the importance of cooperation with each state and institutions, and language education, especially second language learning. English was regarded as the element to contribute to mold national identity, and Languages other than English (LOTE) to develop Australia's economy. ALLP was established in 1991. This policy was based on the thought that languages are part of human resources, and ALLP considered language education was firstly based on national interests. So, English and some LOTEs was regarded as the importance for economic development to Australia. The responsibilities for these language education were divided to each state and institutions under the initiatives by the federal government, in order to achieve outcomes efficiently. Another elements besides the stressing by the policy, like the languages that were used in ethnic communities in Australia, were said to implement at fixed institutions like ethnic schools. In conclusion, the differences between NPL and ALLP, I can point out, were primarily the shift of a center of balance of the policy. While NPL was regarded that languages were important to mold identities, to promote communication and to obtain economic benefit, ALLP was regarded that languages brought economic development to Australia. As a result, in ALLP, harmony between federal government and each state government, institutions etc was broken. The responsibilities for language education were divided to each state and institutions under the leadership of federal government. So, language education was divided to some groups from the point of objectives, target people, and institutions. In consideration of these divisions, we have to think what is Australia's multiculturalism.

抄録全体を表示

Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation (2000) emphasises the importance for 'all Australians' to learn 'our shared histories', and states 'our hope is for a united Australia'. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose of reconciliation initiated by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is reimagining the 'united' nation-state of Australia. This paper calls such a style of reconciliation 'closed reconciliation', in which the global implications of Australian colonialism are largely ignored. If a closed reconciliation process promotes a united Australia, how, for example, can Asian immigrants (who have been victims of white racism) share histories of British invasion with mainstream white Australians? Instead, it is suggested that reconciliation should promote a 'divided Australia and beyond' by exploring different people's perspectives and memories and the implications of the colonisation of Australia. Thus, this article calls for 'open reconciliation' which seeks to de-nationalise Aboriginal reconciliation by articulating histories of Asian migrants and Australian Indigenous people. As a case study, this paper examines pre-war Japanese immigrants who worked for the Pearl-Shell industry in northern Australia. Previous studies on Aboriginal-Japanese relations in this industry often emphasised the peaceful working relationship between the two ethnic groups by contrasting them with the empowered racist authority of white Australians. Such a view may promote and celebrate histories of multicultural Australia. However, what is lacking in this type of narrative is the obvious fact that Japanese workers were also colonisers and racists towards indigenous people. Although careful and substantive research needs to be done in future, this paper briefly explores two aspects of possible colonial exploitations by Japanese labour migrants: economic exploitation of Aboriginal land and marine resources, and sexual exploitation of Aboriginal women. In short, the Japanese should not be left outside the process of Aboriginal reconciliation. In order to explore the ways of conceptualising global responsibility for Australian colonialism, Tessa Morris-Suzuki's conception of 'implications' is worth considering. Morris-Suzuki suggests we may not be responsible for colonial invasion itself, but we are responsible for historical implications in which we receive benefits from the past (and present) exploitation of Aboriginal people and their land. In this context, it is strongly suggested that Aboriginal reconciliation crosses national boundaries.

抄録全体を表示

This article discusses sugarcane plantations in Queensland and images of the Japanese indentured labourers who worked them from 1889 to the early 1890s. Stories of Japanese on Queensland's sugarcane plantations in the late 19th century are barely available to the Japanese public these days. However, images of the times survive in the minds of some modern Australians as an early Japanese invasion of Queensland or an ominous precursor to the Pacific War. Some writers conclude that the Japanese government had a long-standing ambition to send a large number of its people to Australia, and still does. This paper scrutinizes whether such images of an early "Japanese invasion" of Queensland are legitimate. Chapter One reviews the scheme under which Japanese workers were indentured to work on sugarcane plantations in Queensland in 1889, and the negative responses expressed in the Colony, as seen in articles from periodicals such as the Brisbane Courier and the Boomerang. Chapter Two examines the appointment of Enomoto Takeaki as Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs in May 1891 and his personal influences on migration policy during his term in office. Chapter Three discusses the importation of labourers to Queensland sugarcane plantations in late 1892 and considers possible reasons for the decline in opposition to them in the Colony. Chapter Four considers Queensland parliamentary debates regarding Japanese labourers in 1893 and analyses how positive and negative images of Japan and the Japanese were utilized to support or criticise Queensland's immigration policies.

抄録全体を表示

During World War II, the Australian Government applied wholesale internment to Japanese residents in Australia. The Japanese community in Australia was small and easily identifiable. The catch-all policies which were applied to Japanese in Australia were simple and expedient. The Japanese were held in three internment camps which were located inland. As a result of internment and the subsequent deportation of most Japanese residents after the war, pre-war Japanese communities in Australia were largely snuffed out. Only a handful Japanese Australians were allowed to remain in Australia after the war. The purpose of my paper is twofold. Firstly, I will give an overview of the Japanese internment experience in Australia - from internment to repatriation/deportation. I will then focus on a few individual Japanese Australians still living in Australia to describe what internment meant for them, its effects and where they are now in contemporary Australian society.

抄録全体を表示

After the defeat of Japan in the Pacific War, the country was occupied by the Allied Forces, in which Australian troops played relatively small nonetheless significant roles. The presence of the Australian soldiers in Japan continued for about ten years from 1946, initially as part of the Occupation Forces, then as part of the United Nation Forces during the Korean War. In spite of a strict anti-fraternisation policy, which Australian military authorities tried to enforce, many Australian soldiers met and fell in love with Japanese women. After the Australian Federal Government officially lifted the admission ban in 1952, about 650 Japanese women migrated to Australia as wives and fiancees of Australian servicemen. These women are generally called war brides. As the first group of Asian immigrants in the post-war era, the women arrived in Australia when the "White Australia" policy was strongly enforced, and hostility towards Japan was still prevalent among the general public. In this paper, firstly, I examine the women's experiences which derived from the changes in their formal status through marriage and naturalisation. Secondly, the various personal experience of cultural assimilation is also studied. I argue that their motivation for naturalisation could not be interpreted as a sign of their decision to make Australia as permanent home, for there were other motives. The women realised that they would ultimately settle in Australia rather than search for a possibility of returning to Japan, when they became aware that their children were growing up as Australians, with very weak emotional connections to Japan. The realisation of that fact would bring about an awareness that they had gone beyond "the point of no return". Now they needed to settle down in Australia for good, rather than to hope to return to live in Japan if they wanted to maintain their family lives. Consequently, a new perspective in understanding the sense of belonging is proposed through the analysis of the war brides' narratives. Namely, the women's sense of belonging was cultivated by not going back to their own past connections, but by internalising the next generation's belongingness within themselves. Thus, the war brides firmly realised that it was necessary to make Australia as the place of their permanent settlement, not because they themselves have a strong sense of connection to the country, but because their children felt they belonged to Australia.

抄録全体を表示

Critics of multiculturalism argue that it is a discourse that essentialises 'ethnic' cultures and therefore should be deconstructed. However, the problem of these anti-essentialism critiques is that it can also diminish the legitimacy of cultural practices by ethnic minorities and social welfare services for them. The purpose of this paper is to offer a viewpoint which can overcome the limitations of critical multiculturalism studies by examining practices at a Japanese ethnic school in Canberra. Fieldwork was carried out at the school for approximately one year. During this time interviews were conducted with teachers, staff members and Japanese parents of students who have mixed origins. Japanese residents who founded and now administer this school hope to pass on Japanese culture to their children. They define the essential 'Japanese culture' by drawing upon their own memories and try to teach it to children. However, their practices actually try to give students memories which will result in the reproduction of hybridity which resists assimilation with the dominant culture. Therefore, this paper suggests that we cannot reject multiculturalism just because it is essentialism. That is, we have to examine carefully by each case study whether the essentialism discourse of multiculturalism actually produces essentialist people, or the essentialism discourse causes 'the unexpected consequence': it consequently maintains and reproduces hybridity through the everyday life of people as agencies.

抄録全体を表示