Regarding the human rights theory and its ethics dominating educational development, Spivak reminded people that such top-down generosity did not reach the oppressed subaltern. Due to the lack of critical perspective, human rights-based ethic is likely to alienate subaltern and lead to problematic behavioral patterns that "impose values" based on power. Moreover, the prosperity of human rights and its ethics characterized by narcissism suppressed the possibility of establishing an alternative ethic for the subaltern who was always represented. In Spivak's view, the unconditional ethic of such a subaltern is the "responsibility", the ability to respond to the call of others. Responsibility is the ethical symbolism of the first language acquisition, an unlearning of one's privileges, and an experience of the wholly other. The supporter must train their responsibility through imagination in order to help the subaltern. Spivak emphasizes the role of humanities (especially translation) in training such ethic. Translation, as the most intimate reading, enables the translator to responds to the traces of the other while yielding to the text.

In this article, an alternative approach to citizenship promotion is explored, drawing on the author's fieldwork in rural Bhutan. The country's recent democratic reforms encourage its citizens to become self-reliant and avoid ongoing relations of dependency, drawing on the conventiona ‘l liberal/civic republican’ models of citizenship. This move has caused ambivalence among villagers, who appreciate the reforms, but are also concerned about their adverse effects on communal bonds that have bound them by trust and reciprocity. While the ‘radical democratic’ model of citizenship would urge villagers to divulge such dilemma, they would have to articulate it in a public arena with the protocol of decorum that they are not conversant with. This disadvantageous nature of political deliberations would be overcome, under the ‘symbolic’ citizenship model, which would serve to allow villagers to narrate their views on the democratic reforms in a more informal, spontaneous setting. Such citizen participation, however, is not always the top priority of villagers, given the multitude of tasks and issues that they deal with in their daily lives.

In the view of real-world complexities that prevent any of the existing models from capturing the entirety of villagers' lives, an alternative ‘dialogical’ approach is called for, which accords them the leverage to set the terms of their own citizenship, through continual dialogue and conversation among themselves, and with researchers and policymakers. In this way, citizenship promotion will not only be able to better take into account the polyvalent nature of people's daily experiences, but will also arrive at an approach that problematizes and marks a departure from the scientifically constructed models of citizenship, which project regularities and logic onto the non-theoretical and multi-dimensional flows of people's daily lives.

　ヘイトスピーチを典型とする差別的な言動や振舞いを意図的にする人々と同じ社会でどのように生きていくべきかということは、政治学の重要な問いの一つである。

　本稿の目的は、〈敵対者の背景へのケア〉というケアの新たな構想が差別者に対する寛容の実践の一つだと論証することである（この構想をCEB（Care for an Enemyʼs Background）と呼ぶ）。端的に言えば、CEBとは差別を行う理由やその理由の個人的な背景を差別者に対して疑問文の形式で問うことである。

　差別者による差別的言動の縮減を目的とした場合、差別者と反差別者の間に暫定協定を結ぶ必要があり（第一節）、その暫定協定のためには差別者と反差別者との間の敵対性を緩和することが必要である（第二節）。敵対性の縮減のためには、差別者に自由民主主義社会で生きる〈我々〉という感覚を生み出す必要があり、その方途の一つがCEBである（第三節）。その上で、CEBをケアの新たな構想として位置づけ、既存のケア倫理との比較を通じて、明晰化する（第四節）。最後に、CEBが寛容の弱い積極的構想と呼び得るものに相当することと、被差別者への感情的紐帯によって動機付けられることを明らかにする（第五節）。

Local educational administration is a front-line system for coordinating personal requirements for policy implementation and rights protection based on government responsibility regarding education. In postwar Japan, the coordination was made by the Board of Education system. However, today, decision-making on educational matters is not restricted to the Board of Education. The following three points need to be clarified in order to think about how to secure the public nature of education. First, decision-making on education takes on an official character given from positions of responsibility. Second, it is in pursuit of common interest. Third, issues are considered in an open place accessible to everyone. This paper shows the conditions for shaping the public nature of education over the politics of citizens and professions in the context of local educational administration.

Postwar Japan designed a system to give the official authority of educational administration to the Board of Education, which maintained independence from political power. In addition, to explore the desirability of education, it was necessary to separate educational practice and administration from general politics and administration. However, when trying to form “the public nature of education”, the politicization of education should be aimed at while preventing the progress of the privatization of the educational subjects and policy. The politicization of education means promoting understanding of education. It requires a system of coordination of multiple, multi-layered decision-making units, which is different from the movement of aggregating individual opinions and aiming at homogenization.

This decision-making unit is not limited to the existing administrative divisions such as the prefectures ‘or municipalities’ government. Especially in rural areas, we should seek unique units to sustain, develop and grow in the community and school education in a long-term span. In all this, it is essential that professional leadership seeks relevance that is different from legitimacy based on the will of the people. A group of professionals with leadership needs to have a long-term perspective and cross administrative divisions. The expert group is considered to include all faculty members. When making decisions about education, they should not only listen to the voices of stakeholders but if they decide it is necessary for education, they should take actions to demonstrate and guide their own leadership. The action is a manifestation of intention based on the accumulation of practical experience and research findings in the place of dialogue.