The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia, Vol.10, pp.31-37, 2021

BOOK/JOURNAL REVIEWBook Review: Hosetu to haijo no kyoikugau zouho shinban(Inclusion and Exclusion of Educational Studies: From Minority
Studies to Social History of Educational Welfare. 2nd ed.)Jinichiro Saito* and Yoshihiro Hosaka***Professional Licensing Training Center, Tokai University, Japan** Professional Licensing Training Center, Tokai University, Japan

Hosetu to haijo no kyoikugau zouho shinban (Inclusion and Exclusion of EducationalStudies: From Minority Studies to Social History of Educational Welfare 2nd ed.)
Author: Ichiro Kuraishi Publication Year: 2018 Publisher: Seikatsushoin
Page: 344 ISBN: 978-4-86500-077-1 Price: ¥ 3600 (excluding tax)

Suggestions Regarding the Theory of Inclusion and Exclusion in the History of Social
Studies in Japan
Emergence of the Term “Citizenship Education” in JapanThe term “citizenship education” has been frequently used of late in the field of educational studies inJapan. Although regular educational studies in Japan is described in similar terms, such as “civic education”(komin kyoiku, simin kyoiku) and “national education” (kokumin kyoiku), the trend of researchers using“citizenship education” (shitizunshippu kyoiku) is recent. The meaning of citizenship education has been argued
and interpreted variously by researchers, with these definitions differing depending on researchers’ educational
and political viewpoints; however, all such definitions broadly agree that civic engagement and politicalparticipation by citizens (rather than the elite) is important. These movements for the emergence of citizenshipeducation have influenced research on social studies education in Japan since the 2000s.
The term “citizenship education” is derived from citizenship, which was introduced as a subject in theUK around the year 2000. In the UK, the popular Crick Report was published in 1997 (Qualifications andCurriculum Authority, 1998), and the national curriculum on citizenship was announced in 1999. The backgroundfor the introduction of the subject of citizenship in the UK includes new social problems such as highunemployment rates among the youth, the apoliticism of the youth, and social exclusion. Citizenship wasoriginally introduced by the Labor Union to resolve problems of social exclusion (Weller, 2007).
Japanese researchers have considered citizenship education from various perspectives, such as political31

Jinichiro Saito and Yoshihiro Hosaka

literacy, caring diversity, and the empowerment of minority people. However, they have often focused only on
the contemporary nature of citizenship education. This perspective is similar to the structural outline in whichsocial exclusion was considered a “new” social problem that arose in Europe after 1980. However, someresearchers in Japan have historically considered citizenship education to be synonymous with civic education(Ikeno, 2011).

Perspective on Exclusion in the History of Social Studies EducationThe relationship between citizenship education and problems of exclusion are not limited to the present.
For example, the history of social studies education is broadly related to social exclusion, especially socialstudies education practices in the early postwar years of poverty and economic discrepancy. Attempts atexclusion are seen in famous practices such as Yamabico Gakko and fukuoka eki. Educational organizations,such as the Rekishi Kyoikusya Kyogikai (History Educators Council), which were influenced by the principlesof Marxism, drew up educational practices to strengthen the critical consciousness of the working class.
However, after the late 1950s, the number of social studies of social exclusion, in the broad sense of theterm, decreased. In fact, between 1960 and 1990, articles in the journals of the Academic Conference (e.g., theJapanese Educational Research Association for the Social Studies’ Journal of Educational Research on SocialStudies and the Japanese Association for Social Studies’ The Journal of Social Studies) scarcely referred to theproblems of minority people.
We may assume that some historical factors were related to these trends. First, Japan witnessed higheconomic growth in the 1960s and an expansion of academic careers when cultural differences between thesocial classes became no longer noticeable. At the same time, views on inequalities in education were focusedon inequalities in academic careers (Kariya, 1995; Kimura, 2017). This apolitical phenomenon might have been
related to schemes of the welfare state, which made the poverty problem invisible. Second, social studies
research after the 1960s weighed heavily on scientific and academic research in the field. This trend could be
attributed to the government’s increased control of the course of study nationally, during which academic
researchers had to counter the role of the conservative Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (Monbu Syo).
As a result, researchers in the field of social studies maintained their distance from the educational movement
and ideological confrontations.
Between 1960 and 2000, educational practices focusing on socioeconomic discrepancies andcontradictions began to increase steadily, as is evinced by the work of various practitioners and activists on topics
such as educational practices concerning pollution, the problem of Okinawa, and peace education in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki (Miyahara, 2008). Thus, problems of exclusion and contradiction among members became
contentious in the field of education in postwar Japan.
The problems of the inclusion and exclusion of minority people were not directly discussed in academic
journals on social studies, at least until 2000. The term “citizenship education” began to influence research onsocial studies only in the background of globalization and a simmering nation-state. The term “citizenshipeducation” has returned the focus to the problem of inequality, and minority people have become visible again.
However, since the term is used nowadays only in relation to its contemporary character, its historical backgroundremains unclear.

32

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Implications of Inclusion and Exclusion of Educational Studies
The book Inclusion and exclusion of educational studies, however, makes some valid points that lead toa rethinking of the history of citizenship education and social studies education, the most important being the“embedded structure of inclusion and exclusion” (Kuraichi,2018, p.13).
According to Kuraishi (2018), exclusion has historically been paired with inclusion; in other words,exclusion contains the seed of inclusion. As exclusion takes precedence, inclusion appears. Kuraishi alsoestablishes a distinction between the recent perspective on social exclusion and his own perspective on inclusionand exclusion, viewing it from a historical perspective (Kuraishi, 2018). The book focuses on the historical
discourse and texts of minorities—such as those of outcasts (Burakumin) and Korean residents in Japan (ZainichiKoreans)—and education in their schools and communities between 1950 and 1980. One historical incident
mentioned in the book is claimed to reflect the ambivalence of containing exclusion and inclusion. For example,
this book considers reports A and B of 1965 in which the way of caring for Zainichi Korean students wasannounced. The book claims that these reports had both inclusive and exclusive aspects.
When we focus on the unique nature of education in the globalized age, we tend to regard education in
the pre-global age as consisting of homogeneous national education. However, in the pre-global age, variedinterest groups and people from different socioeconomic backgrounds still influenced educational programs.
Further, inclusion and exclusion have always been problematic. This book reveals the structure of inclusion andexclusion from a historical perspective.

The Position of This Book in the Field of Sociology of Education
Minority Studies in the Sociology of Education
So far, we have examined the significance of this book based on discussions in the field of social studies
education research. However, Kuraishi states that he considers himself to be a sociologist of education (Kuraishi,2009, p. 331). Therefore, I would like to discuss the significance of this book in relation to the discussion in thefield of sociology of education. This book explores educational issues for minorities in Japanese society. Hence,I would first like to review the characteristics of minority studies in the sociology of education to date.
The accumulation of research on minorities in the sociology of education in Japan is not very long. InThe Journal of Educational Sociology, the official journal of the Japan Society of Educational Sociology, areview article with the word “minority” in the title was published for the first time in Vol. 94 (Shimizu, Takada,Horike, & Yamamoto, 2014). In this article, it was pointed out that research on the education of minorities has
been positioned as marginal in Japanese sociology of education and that research has been accumulated mainly
after 2000 (Shimizu et al., 2014).
Our next question then is, what is the background for the accumulation of research on minorities? In theaforementioned review article, it is pointed out that the progression of inequality since the mid-1990s has
prompted research focusing on the socially vulnerable (Shimizu et al. 2014, p. 134). In other words, it can besaid that the background to the accumulation of minority studies can be ascribed to the fact that social interest
has been focused on minorities as those who are at high risk of facing the problem of inequality.
In minority studies, which focus on inequality, the problems faced by minorities have been discussed in33

Jinichiro Saito and Yoshihiro Hosaka

the context of social exclusion. The concept of social exclusion focuses on the problem of lack of participationin various socially desirable activities due to the combined experience of various disadvantages. This problem
is said to have arisen in the context of globalization and neoliberal trends (Iwata, 2008). In order to deal withsocial exclusion, the question of how minority children can be included in education has been examined. It canalso be said that research aimed at such inclusion has been developed under the influence of clinical approaches
that aim to return research findings to practice.
The development of minority studies in the field of sociology of education has been influenced not onlyby the focus on the problem of inequality and the accompanying social exclusion theory, but also by thedevelopment of qualitative research in the sociology of education.
Many of the minority studies that have been accumulated since 2000 have been qualitative studies
based on fieldwork. Such research has clarified the meaning-making of educational experiences of minority
children and their teachers, and the process of interaction between minority children and those around them in
educational settings. These research interests have been influenced by the influx of “new sociology of education”
perspectives, mainly from the United Kingdom, into Japanese educational sociology since the late 1970s. The“new sociology of education” is an approach that targets the internal processes of schools, which had not been
included in the scope of research as a black box before the 1970s, and focuses on the distribution of educational
knowledge, curriculum composition, and the interaction between teachers and students (Shimizu & Uchida,2009, p.104).
This “new sociology of education” perspective has emerged to shed light on how inequality in educationis achieved due to internal school processes. In the early days of the influx of this approach into Japan, qualitative
research through fieldwork was not necessarily the main focus in relation to the issue of education and inequality.
However, with the establishment of qualitative research and the aforementioned social conditions such as theemergence of inequality issues, it can be said that qualitative research on the educational experiences ofminorities has been accumulating.

The Significance of This Book for the Sociology of Education
Through an examination of the background to the accumulation of minority research in the field ofsociology of education, I have confirmed the characteristics of minority research, such as interest in inequality
issues and fieldwork research. In this section, I would like to discuss the originality of this book compared to theconventional minority studies in the sociology of education.
First, as already mentioned, exclusion and inclusion are viewed as “embedded structures.” This isdifferent from the perspective of exclusion and inclusion as represented by the conventional “social exclusion”
theory. This “embedded structure of inclusion and exclusion” perspective is the basis of the entire book. This
perspective is particularly clear in the second part of the book, which examines the practice of education of“Zainichi” Koreans in public schools after WWII.
For example, other than the analysis on the report A and B of 1965, the author examines the shift indiscourse on education for Zainichi Koreans from the records of educational practices around 1970. On accountof this, Kuraishi is able to reveal a shift from a discourse that excludes Zainichi Koreans as uneducable bydrawing a line between Japanese as rational beings and Zainichi Koreans as irrational beings, to a discourse that
includes Zainichi Koreans as educable beings by finding rational aspects inside them. However, even in the34

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

inclusive discourse after the shift, the boundary between educable rational beings and uneducable non-rational
beings is still maintained, which means that the inclusion still includes the exclusionary aspect.
The embedded structure of inclusion and exclusion is made possible by taking a stance that abandons
the practicality and clinical nature of inquiring into the effects and outcomes of educational practices (Kuraishi,2018, p. 260).
Another point of originality of this book is that it examines how alternative education that differs fromthe current logic of school education is possible in educating minorities. This point of view, of course, also
appears in the second part of the book, which examines the education of Zainichi Korean. However, it is moreevident in the first section, which examines the practice of “Fukushi kyoin (social work teacher)” who were
established in post-WWII Kochi Prefecture to deal with the problem of prolonged absences of children from“Buraku.”
For example, in Chapter 2, Kuraishi focuses on three records of welfare teachers’ practices from theearly 1950s to the late 1960s, and examines the transition of welfare teachers’ practices in relation to the socialsituation. He clarifies the process by which the practice of Fukushi kyoin shifted from one based on values
different from those of the school to one based solely on the values of the school. These changes in the practicesof Fukushi kyoin indicate a situation in which alternative values of school education are disappearing.
Consequently, Kuraishi questions how education based on alternative values of school education is possible.
In this way, it is possible to examine the need for alternative perspectives on schools in minority
education because this book is based on a perspective such as the social history of education and welfare, rather
than on fieldwork as in conventional minority studies. The perspective of how to include minorities in school
education while taking into account alternative values is very suggestive in today's social situation, where
poverty and inequality are expanding due to the progress of neoliberal policies.

Expanding the Scope of Social Studies Education as Citizenship Education
Inclusion and exclusion of educational studies, written by an educational sociologist, has implications
for rethinking research on social studies history in Japan. Additionally, when social studies researchers begin toobjectively examine Japanese society, the scope of social studies research will expand further. More specifically,as this book focuses on the political context of educational practice after World War II, the perspective is likely
to be closely related to the interests of social studies education researchers. There are three possibilities foraccomplishing this expansion.
First, the historical study of social studies could focus on the experience of minorities after World War
II. This book considers the educational context of such minorities as Zainichi Koreans and Burakumin. As
mentioned above, sociology of education researchers came to focus on minorities after 2000. In a similar
fashion, historical studies of social studies have the potential for rediscovering minorities through educationalpractices. For example, historical studies of American social studies have recently begun to focus on minorities
and alternative curricula (Woyshner & Bohan, 2012). The focus on minorities in educational practice is afundamental and crucial perspective for the consideration of social studies as citizenship education. Describing
the details of educational practice is one of the strong points of historical research.
Second, this book suggests that there is a double meaning to political neutrality in the historical

35

Jinichiro Saito and Yoshihiro Hosakaperspective. Chapter 5 refers to the case of Iida, a Japanese person who worked to improve education for
Zainichi Koreans. Though Iida weighed heavily the political neutrality as not emphasizing ethnic separatism,
this book regards the attempt by Iida as the wise attempt to create publicness for public education. In otherwords, not expressing political advocacy is not always apolitical but is at times a wise political strategy forengaging in political education. Iida’s attempt occurred when ideological struggles and social movements
predominated. In other words, social studies theory, which fought down political opinion during an ideologicalage, is less apolitical theory and more wise strategy for engaging in political education.
Third, this book considers the identity of teachers and students in educational practice from a historicalperspective. For example, Chapter 7 focuses on one high school teacher who made a record of his teachingexperiences. This teacher discovered that one of his students was a Zainichi Korean. The teacher made various
attempts to encourage this student, including creating some lessons about Zainichi Koreans for his class on
modern society (gendai syakai). These descriptions illustrate that the problem of identity is an important aspectof the relationship between teachers and students. Social studies as a form of citizenship education must discuss
the sociopolitical positions of social studies educators and their students.
A variety of fields conduct research on citizenship, including political science, sociology, and history.
Thus, there will always be a need for social studies research not only to improve educational practices but also
to investigate social studies as an object or phenomenon. In diverse research areas, the history of social studies
education has the potential to unite research on social studies and the history of citizenship.

References
Ikeno, N. (2011). Postwar citizenship education policy and its development. In N. Ikeno (Ed.), Citizenshipeducation in Japan (pp. 15-28). New York, NY: Continuum.
Iwata, M. (2008). Syakaiteki haijyo, sanka no haijyo, hutashika na kizoku (Social exclusion: Lack ofparticipation, uncertain belongingness). Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Kariya, T. (2009 ). Kyoiku to byodo (Education and equity). Tokyo: Tyuo koron sya.
Kimura, H. (2017). Launch of the schooling society: 1930s to 1950s. In M. Tsujimoto and Y. Yamasaki(Eds.), The History of Education in Japan (1600-2000) (pp. 86-116). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kuraishi, I. (2009). Hosetu to haijo no kyoikugau zouho shinban (Inclusion and exclusion of educational
studies, 1st ed). Tokyo: Seikatu syoin.
Kuraishi, I. (2018). Hosetu to haijo no kyoikugau zouho shinban (Inclusion and exclusion of educationalstudies: From minority studies to social history of educational welfare, 2nd ed). Tokyo: Seikatu syoin.
Miyahara, T. (2008). Rekisi kyoikusha kyogikai 60 nen no ayumi (History of 60 years of historicaleducators’ council). In Rekisi kyoikusya kyogikai (Ed.), Syakaika kyoiku nenpo 2008 nenban (Annual
report of history education, social studies education in 2008) (pp. 115-126). Tokyo: Sansei do.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracyin schools. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Shimizu, K., Takada, K., Horike, Y., & Yamamoto, K. (2014). Minority and education. The Journal of
Educational Sociology, 95, 133-170.
Shimizu, M., & Uchida, R. (2009). Qualitative researches in the last decade: Review of the Journal of36

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Educational Sociology. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 84, 103-121.
Weller, S. (2007). Teenager’s citizenship: Experiences and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Woyshner, C. & Bohan, C. (2012). Histories of social studies and race: 1865-2000. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.

37