A student at Sakuranomiya Senior High School in Osaka who was a member of the basketball team committed suicide at the end of 2012 because he could not endure the severe corporal punishment meted out by the advisory teacher of the basketball team. This suicide brought corporal punishment in school sport club activities to the attention of the public and gave it a social dimension.
From the legal point of view, the Japanese education system has prohibited corporal punishment since the “Education Order” was enacted in 1879. Nonetheless, corporal punishment has been used as a means to discipline students. Particularly, corporal punishment was discussed with the assumption that it was necessary for education before the Second World War. In the postwar period, however, discussions have focused on why corporal punishment prohibited by law is carried out in schools, and corporal punishment is depicted as deviant behavior by teachers. In the 1990s, the notion that corporal punishment is tantamount to violence, which is not allowed for any reason whatsoever, grew dominant.
Emile Durkheim asked more than 100 years ago why a school that plays the central role in human training has inevitably to become the center of barbarian behavior. He attributed the occurrence of corporal punishment to two points: schools need forcible interventions instead of letting students grow naturally, and teachers unknowingly cherish the habit of expansive delusion in the course of contact with students who are inferior to them in knowledge and skills. His discussion, however, did not necessarily explain the sufficient conditions for the occurrence of corporal punishment, though it did explain the necessary conditions. Making up for this shortcoming, Yoshiaki Kameyama applied the triangle of desire proposed by Rene Girard to the explanation of the occurrence of violence in schools. What is ambitious about his model is that it fully considered three kinds of violence: corporal punishment; violence against teachers; and bullying, all of which take place in schools. Although corporal punishment and bullying are different problems, they have significant similarities.
It is possible to explain a large part of corporal punishment in the classroom by assuming the decreasing authority of teachers. However, it remains questionable even now if the same background can explain corporal punishment in club activities.
The purpose of this paper is to raise several issues in connection with the coaching and teaching, with the use of violence, of sport in Japan. This is done by examining perspectives of the historical study of physical education and sport, and the training of physical education teachers.
The suggestions from this paper are summarized as follows:
1)The most important point to note is that we need to have a sense of “self-reflection” toward the coaching and teaching of sport with violence, that we need to recognize that the origins of these problems come from within physical education and sport
2)The explanation that the coaching and teaching of sport with violence in Japan came from the military system is well known, but when and how this became part of the educational process is not known. Therefore we must show a historical fact based on historical materials.
3)The reason why the historical study of coaching and teaching with violence in sport could not develop is that we had ignored the method of historical study of modern problems. So we need to pay attention to this method.
4)We must exchange views with many people who know nothing about physical education and sport in order to construct new creative methods for coaching and teaching without violence in all fields of physical education and sport.
5)The attention to students' attitude toward lectures for the training of physical education teachers in college is more important than the reform of curricula.
As a final point, this paper should emphasize that the elimination of the coaching and teaching with violence of sport in Japan will be difficult to implement and may take a great deal of time.
The topic of “ sport and physical punishment” which this paper deals with could be redefined as violence conducted to “bodies for learning sport” by “bodies for teaching sport” in “the space for teaching/learning sport”. This paper bisects it into the following problems, “bodies for sport and violence” and “bodies for teaching/learning and violence”, and unites them together afterwards. The first problem will be able to be understood by referring to Norbert Elias’s discussion on the “civilizing process” and sport. The second one will need to be interpreted with the frameworks of “learning” and “double bind” developed by Gregory Bateson. By giving the example of Bungoro Yoshida, a master of Ningyo Joruri (Japanese traditional doll play), this paper focuses on the situation of “therapeutic double bind” which gives rise to “learning III” explored by Bateson. In this situation, bodies for learning cannot be successful if they continue to follow “learning II” as before, and they have got to jump to brand-new habits. Bodies for teaching, however, are located in another double bind situation at the same time. In addition, “bodies for sport”, which “bodies for learning” should aim to learn, are affected by some structural double binds concerning the relationship between sport and violence. It will be in this situation that “bodies for teaching sport” resort to violence. Furthermore, many “bodies for learning” will fail to jump into “learning III”. How has “the space for teaching/learning sport” accumulated the culture to cope with “the losers” and what kind of “culture for losers” is it fostering? This question would be regarded as one of the crucial issues for considering “sport and physical punishment” presumably.
This paper aims to find a solution to the tangled problem of corporal punishment in the field of Japanese sport, not by criticizing it directly, but by looking at the justification for violent discipline. Following the increase in human rights awareness in the recent past, it is hard to advocate the “spare the rod, spoil the child” policy anymore, even in Japanese education. However, in the Japanese sport field, you may easily find advocates of this policy, not only among coaches but also among young athletes and their parents. It can be explained by the fact that phrases like “human development” and “socialization,” which are commonly associated with sport, have different connotations in Japan compared to other countries.
In the Japanese sporting realm, the styles of advocacy discourse can be classified into two parts. The first part is based on courtesy and manners. The second stems from the reasons for making athletes conquer obstacles, which are difficult to overcome alone, using the symbiosis between coach and athlete. These two discourses commonly contain a kind of collectivism and a mind and body monism. The former, Japanese collectivism, tends to give priority to the maintenance of the organization over the achievement in the sport field. The latter, a peculiar type of mind and body monism in Japanese culture, puts more emphasis on physical communication than language.
In addition, the persistence of corporal punishment in the field of Japanese sport in the Heisei period came about as a result of the recommendation entrance examination for high schools and universities. However, with the advent of globalization, a change in this attitude is seen as desirable. So sport lovers in Japan have begun to explore a coaching system that does not allow corporal punishment.
During the last two decades, sport-based social intervention programs were conceptualized as potential vehicles for broad, sustainable development and other social benefits, rather than as “sport for sport’s sake.”This conceptualization assumes that there is a potential for sport to be used as a “panacea” for development goals such as social integration, peace building, and health promotion. Despite the recognition of the role of sport as a potential engine of development, there are some significant problems in any argument that considers sport a priori to be a force for human well-being. This article aims to further this debate by examining the nature of sport’s presumed contribution, particularly the new ambition of “sport for development and peace” (SDP) in the current social context. I have structured this article in the following way. First, I outline how sport has been conceptualized in relation to international development. I then briefly explain the SDP context and discuss some of the key actors involved in the field. To understand the complexity and intricacy of the challenges faced by SDP, I present a critical analysis of the implications of development through sport with respect to the increasing tension between aid agencies and local communities in the construction of racial knowledge between “The White” and “The Others.” Awareness of concerns about this form of neo-colonial repositioning has been observed in some previous research, which has highlighted the fear that SDP simply imposes the values of developed countries on those living in less developed countries. Nonetheless, there is no questioning the role of sport as a versatile tool for social development in the use of SDP as a policy model. In this social milieu, the article argues that the success of SDP should be measured by formative evaluations and that there is a strong need to identify the value and the cultural and social interpretations connected to local knowledge.
The right to enjoy sport is specified in the Basic Act on Sport enacted in 2011, but there is no guarantee that this right will always be recognized. In this paper, a lawsuit is studied from the viewpoint of the right of spectators to enjoy sport. The purpose of this study is to discuss the legal judgment in relation to the concept of ‘publicness’ and to focus on the regulation and control exercised in the stadium during professional baseball games by describing the background to excluding cheering clubs and forbidding collective cheering.
In March, 2008, the Professional Baseball Organized Crime Exclusion Measures Conference decided to issue an exclusion order for 26 members of a private cheering club and to not issue a special cheering permit to an association that consisted of seven private cheering clubs. In the same year, the cheering clubs sued Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) and its 12 professional baseball teams in Nagoya District Court for refusing to sell them tickets and refusing to issue special cheering permits.
The plaintiffs claimed they had the right as sport spectators because of professional baseball’s ‘publicness’, but the court denied their claim on the grounds that professional baseball is an area in which freedom of contract applies. The relation of the defendants to the cheering clubs should be open to criticism from the standpoint of ‘civic publicness’, which means to be free to discuss and to be open to watch (Habermas). The case described in this study revealed that NPB and its baseball teams have, as entrepreneurs, enclosed private cheering clubs as ‘prosumers’ by controlling them based on database information and self-discipline.