The Dialectic of Globalisation, Identity, and Local Activism: Multicultural Education Policies in Japan

Abstract

‘Multicultural education policies in Japan’ sounds contradictory in itself. Japan not only projects itself as an ethnically and linguistically homogeneous nation but most citizens share that view. In 1986 Prime Minister Nakasone declared that ethnic homogeneity, when compared with multi-ethnic US, has benefited Japanese society in terms of economic progress and social stability, causing outrage in the US (Schweisberg, 1986; New York Times, 1986). The modern Japanese state was underpinned by ethnic nationalism in the mid nineteenth century, but the empire it built in the next several decades was a multi-ethnic entity, incorporating peoples in the expanded territories. The post-war ‘democratic’ Japan was, however, conceived as mono-ethnic polity, depriving former colonial subjects of Japanese nationality. Throughout the modern Japan’s trajectory, the dominance of ‘ethnic Japanese’ has continued. The system of education has disseminated ‘modern’ knowledge, and nurtured a sense of what it is to be ‘Japanese’. In this process it has taken various measures to assimilate other ethnic groups under its umbrella. This seems to have been successful, despite local activism which has pursued social justice for ethnic minorities. Long-existing distinctive ethnic groups (i.e. indigenous peoples Ainu and Okinawans, and long-time residents of Korean and Chinese descent) have become, to casual observers, ‘invisible’, since many individuals have ‘assimilated’ to mainstream Japanese society through schooling. However, they still remain ethnic minorities, seen as ‘different’ from the mainstream and marginalised in the society. It was against this backdrop that globalising forces started affecting Japanese schools in the late 1980s. On the one hand, the perceived need for Japan to make contributions to global and regional politics and to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy drove the central government’s adoption of the ‘internationalisation of education’. Critics argued that this ‘internationalisation’ policy was economically oriented, Japan-centric, and nationalistic (e.g. Lincicome, 1993).