Online ISSN : 2187-5278
Print ISSN : 0387-3161
ISSN-L : 0387-3161
Volume 82 , Issue 1
Showing 1-30 articles out of 30 articles from the selected issue
  • Koichiro FUCHIGAMI
    2015 Volume 82 Issue 1 Pages 1-12
    Published: 2015
    Released: May 19, 2016
     This paper focuses on a Japanese philosopher, Saigusa Hiroto (1892-1963), and explores how he tried to produce ‘knowledge’ aimed at the public.
     In postwar Japan, intellectuals confronted strong doubts cast upon the social class gap as the outgrowth of existing academic disciplines and universities, which led them to set about establishing a “civilized nation” through democratizing academism. This has been pointed out before, but little research has been done concerning what kind of thought and academic disciplines were consequently shaped and reconstructed. When faced with a new audience, intellectuals were required to change their conventional methods of enlightening the public and demonstrate novel ideas in an unorthodox way. Subsequently, they brought into question and transformed the existing academism and embarked on the reform of educational institutions. This paper argues why and how Japanese intellectuals reshaped Japanese academism by juxtaposing the transformation with that of their own intellectual activity.
     This paper examines Saigusa’s contributions as principal to the foundation and administration of an unorthodox educational institution called “Kamakura Academia” by linking the proceedings with his intellectual turning point. His involvement in “Kamakura Academia” coincided with his new theory, “technology of life” (seikatsu no gijutsu). First, this paper analyzes his doubts as to politics and relates them to his reasons for believing that philosophy was necessary for life (Section 2). Subsequently, the process is examined by which his interest in philosophy turned toward the philosophy of technology. An important point is that he referred to “technology” as a unique intellectual field different from science or ethics (Section 3). Following this, this paper looks at the difference between Saigusa’s theory on technology and that of Taketani Mitsuo (1911-2000), a Japanese physicist who was influential in the Japanese postwar science movement, and examines how the two academics debated intellectuals’ participation in a mass society.
     Saigusa’s idea was to place the people as the producers of “knowledge” and the subject of philosophy, as well as intellectuals. The idea couldn’t be realized in the intellectual circuit supplied by the existing academy, and thus Saigusa’s ideas enabled the advent of new “Academia” such as the “Kamakura Academia”.
    Download PDF (1306K)
  • Kiyoshi EGUCHI
    2015 Volume 82 Issue 1 Pages 13-24
    Published: 2015
    Released: May 19, 2016
     The purpose of this paper is to examine the change in salesclerks’ vocational literacy in response to a store’s transition to a department store. In particular, this study focuses on Matsuzakaya Department Store and its efforts toward salesclerk education during this transition.
     First, I touch upon the process through which a department store salesclerk education system was established from the mid1910s through the mid-1920s. Mainly because one of Matsuzakaya’s key persons for transforming the kimono fabric store into a department store emphasized salesclerk education, they started systematizing the methods of their education around 1910. In the 1910s, they built Shataku, a type of employee dormitory unique to Matsuzakaya, in which Shataku supervisors specializing in education started playing a central role in salesclerk education within their facility. Consequently, a kind of education different from what one would get in the traditional model of education began.
     Second, I look at Matsuzakaya’s salesclerk education reforms with an eye to the expansion of education for working youth. The period during which Matsuzakaya was transitioning into a department store was the same period during which Seinen-Kunrenjo, or educational institutions for working youth, were being established. Matsuzakaya was conducting two operations simultaneously: organizing salesclerk education required for department store work and responding to the institutionalization of working youth education. These simultaneous operations were evident in the number of teaching hours set by Matsuzakaya’s own Seinen-Kunrenjo, which went far beyond the norm of such hours defined by the Seinen-Kunrenjo regulations.
     Third, I address curriculum transformation in facilities for salesclerk education in the 1920s. The traditional model of education at Matsuzakaya was to train salesclerks to tailor kimono and to calculate customers’ payment. In the mid-1920s, as the store’s main commodities shifted from kimono to miscellaneous goods, salesclerk education came to focus more on the knowledge and skills necessary for handling miscellaneous goods than on the specialized knowledge and skills for kimono. The establishment of the Seinen-Kunrenjo in 1926 served as a catalyst for expanding the curriculum of salesclerk education.
     Finally, I examine the change required in salesclerks’ vocational literacy in response to the store’s transformation to a department store. The increase in the number of products at Matsuzakaya demanded that salesclerks acquire vocational literacy to study new products. As such, there was a growing emphasis on the general education curriculum as the foundation for understanding these products. For example, as department stores commonly dealt with miscellaneous goods influenced by Western culture, English was a required subject in order for salesclerks to understand those goods. In addition, subjects such as science and geography were part of the basic knowledge necessary for researching novel products on their own.
    Download PDF (1306K)
  • Toshiyuki KANBAYASHI
    2015 Volume 82 Issue 1 Pages 25-35
    Published: 2015
    Released: May 19, 2016
     The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the workloads of Japanese teachers are increasing, through comparative analysis of the aggregated results of 14 teachers’ time use surveys for elementary school teachers and junior high school teachers in Japan. These surveys were conducted in the 1950s-60s and from the late 2000s on. The comparative analysis uses a general linear model, which is a type of regression model.
     Recently, some policy makers in Japan have pointed out teachers’ workloads increasing. In particular, they emphasize that Japanese teachers’ non-teaching workloads (for example, paperwork) are increasing and that the teachers don’t have enough time to take care of their students. Moreover, some researchers in Japan have raised the same points.
     However, these discussions have not been adequately examined. In addition, we need to pay attention to the reports on the workloads of Japanese teachers in the 1950s-60s. These reports pointed out that teachers had heavy workloads of paperwork at that time. This is similar to the issues raised by policy makers and researchers as above.
     Based on the above, this paper tries to examine the two following points through comparative analysis of teacher working hours:

     1) Are Japanese teachers’ workloads increasing?
     2) Are Japanese teachers’ non-teaching workloads increasing?

     The results of elementary and junior high school teachers’ time use surveys conducted in the 1950s-60s are compared with those of the surveys conducted from the late 2000s on. The results are as indicated below.

     1) The amount of total working hours from the late 2000s on is larger than that of the 1950s-60s.
     2) The amount of teaching hours (especially extracurricular activities) from the late 2000s on is also larger than that of the 1950s-60s.
     3) The amount of non-teaching hours from the late 2000s on is not larger than that of the 1950s-60s.

    According to these results, the answers to the two research questions above are as follows:

     1) Japanese teachers’ workloads are increasing, just as many policy makers and researchers have pointed out recently.
     2) Japanese teachers’ non-teaching workloads aren’t increasing, but the teaching workloads are increasing.

     Some policy makers and researchers in Japan suggest that Japanese teachers’ non-teaching workloads are increasing. However, these suggestions cannot be correct, according to the results above. In fact, Japanese teachers’ teaching workloads (especially, extracurricular activities) are increasing, so we need to consider further what teachers and schools can teach students within a reasonable range, in order to reduce the teachers’ workloads.
    Download PDF (1956K)
  • Hironori KOJIMA
    2015 Volume 82 Issue 1 Pages 36-47
    Published: 2015
    Released: May 19, 2016
     As Michael Young described in The Rise of Meritocracy, while the realization of meritocracy appears to liberate people’s life prospects from the fetters of their birth and heritage, the formal equality of opportunity as an element of meritocracy does not necessary lead to their social and economic equality. Indeed, meritocracy possibly even widens the gaps between people. Thus, methods of securing equality of opportunity and educational opportunity have been a serious and controversial topic in educational debates.
     In this paper, I consider John Rawls’ theory of justice and clarify its implications for problems concerning meritocracy and equality of opportunity. In examining Rawls’ critical view on meritocracy, I focus on the moral reasoning in order to discuss and explore the rationale for pursuing the Rawlsian conception of equal opportunity. By doing so, I will try to propose a way to transform a certain kind of schema often assumed within arguments on equality of opportunity.
     Although some debaters insist that solely guaranteeing the formal equality of opportunity is insufficient, their arguments are usually strongly opposed when they proceed to more substantive or egalitarian conceptions of equal opportunity. In such cases, it is often emphasized that the idea of equality conflicts with that of liberty, and the Rawlsian conception of equal opportunity is taken up as a representative of the egalitarian side.
     I, however, avoid both stressing this conflict and defending the Rawlsian conception of equal opportunity from a standpoint of egalitarianism. As Derek Parfit points out, some kinds of egalitarianism have intrinsic difficulties such as ‘leveling down.’ Therefore, I take a negative stance on using such egalitarian reasoning, especially within debates on equality of opportunity without relation to its conflict with liberty. Does this mean, then, that we should give up holding a Rawlsian substantive rather than formal view on equal opportunity? My answer is no.
     Reinterpreting Rawls’ text, I find that there is a different reason to support his arguments on equality of opportunity. When he makes a case for the principle of fair equality of opportunity and prior distribution of educational resources for people in a less favorable position, he emphasizes that their role consists of, for example, enabling people to experience the realization of self and to take part in social affairs. Thus, I define these roles as promoting effective freedom, which cannot be reduced to the logic of equalization. In conclusion, we can say that merely securing the formal equality of opportunity is insufficient not because it results in inequality but because it still undeservedly places restrictions on less favored people’s effective freedom from a Rawlsian perspective. In addition, the Rawlsian conception of equal opportunity can be considered as further pursuing the liberation of people’ life prospects, which is indicated in meritocracy.
    Download PDF (1324K)
Book Review
Book Review