The purpose of this paper is to consider how audio-visual education theory was established in occupied Japan, focusing on the audio-visual education theory of Kanji Hatano (1905-2001).

 The paper consists of the following sections:

 1. Kanji Hatano and pre-war motion picture education

 2. The restructuring process of the audio-visual education community in occupied Japan

 3. Hatano's reception of American audio-visual education theory

 4. Hatano's interest in communication studies and development of audio-visual education theory

 In the first section of this paper I consider Hatano's prewar activities and ideology with regard to motion picture education. Hatano's motion picture education theory is marked by devotion to the cultural movement for children. By referencing film studies in America, he argued for the validity of central controls on movies and the necessity of the psychologist's role in this cultural field.

 In the second section of this paper I survey the process of reformation of Dainihoneigakyouikukai (Greater Japan Motion Picture Education Association) in occupied Japan. If we examine the specific activities of this association, it is clear that their most important issue was the economic reconstruction of related companies.

 In the third section of this paper I analyze the reception process of American audio-visual education theory by Hatano in occupied Japan. Hatano was given the opportunity to encounter American theories at the very beginning of the postwar period. By referencing the theories of Dale and Hoban, Hatano argued for the necessity of the advance from “motion picture education” to “audio-visual education”. However, when we examine Hatano's audio-visual education ideas in detail, we find that some features differ from Hoban's ideas. Hatano's audio-visual education theory reflects the ideology of New Education and the criticism of pre-war motion picture education.

 In the fourth section of this paper I examine Hatano's survey work in America and the progress of his ideas after returning to Japan. While surveying in America, Hatano became interested in the problems of communication studies and audio-visual education. Touching on communication studies, he presented a critique of the commercialism of mass communication, and spoke for the positive significance of audio-visual education.

 Nowadays in Japan, English language education reform corresponding to globalization is promoted as a policy, and under the premise that English is an “international common language”, communicative “foreign language proficiency” is called for. However, “English as an International Language (EIL)” is not distinguished clearly from “English as a Foreign Language (EFL)”, so that the essential problem for English language education in Japan is the torsion of EIL and EFL with ambiguity in both. For historical consideration of this problem, Yoshisaburo Okakura (1868-1936) plays an important role. Okakura was a leader of awareness regarding culturalist EFL while playing a major role in the institutionalization of English language education, but he devoted himself to the “Basic English (BE)” devised by the British Charles Kay Ogden, and made an effort to introduce and popularize the facilitated English system in the 1930s, as an older man. This paper focuses on his acceptance of BE and discusses his thought and action on EIL. Its main points are as follows.

 Okakura's last trip abroad was in 1931, for almost half a year. He proposed English as an “International Auxiliary Language (IAL)” or EIL in the United States, and deepened his understanding of BE through a talk with Ogden in the United Kingdom while acting as the Japanese representative of the campaign. Earlier, an intense debate had arisen on whether to retain English education, severely questioning its social significance. As for Okakura's propositions after his return, his previous focus on EFL gave way to a foregrounding of EIL, namely English as IAL. When English was regarded as “an international language” rather than “a foreign language”, the path for intervention into methods of English was opened up. For him EIL was a kind of reform of English itself, facilitated rationally so that non-native speakers could learn equally, and linked to his active popularization of BE and his attempts at spelling reform.

 However, Okakura did not abandon EFL or discard his knowledge of it. The reason he accepted BE was that it was a rational approach to standard English, allowing, he thought, for an outlook including culture such as English literature. The discourse of EIL would not only conceal blatant pandering to British and American imperialism in the form of learning a “foreign language” such as English, which had been criticized as “imitation of the West” in the previous debate, but also distinguish the problem of mental colonization which was feared to result therefrom. In addition, it was necessary for aggressive “Japanese” speech while a sense of impending crisis at the international isolation of Japan was increasing. Eventually, this distortion was retained in Okakura and seems to have been repeated up through today.