The Discourse of Kyōyō and English
Education in Japan
Kimie YAMAMURA
Ryō GAKUTANIMarzena KARPINSKA
Tetsurō TANOJIRITom GALLY
Introduction
Among the many controversies that have raged about English
education in Japan (Kawasumi, 1978), one of the most fundamental has been about whether the teaching of English in schools
should be for practical purposes or for fostering the students’intellect, character, and general knowledge. Advocates of practical applications, called jitsuyō in Japanese, emphasize English’s
usefulness in education, work, and personal life, and they point
to the language’s growing role as an international lingua franca.
Supporters of the second approach, while not denying the practical uses of the language for some, say that, in Japanese educational contexts, most students would be better served if theirinstruction in English is positioned as part of a broad, liberal
education, or kyōyō.
This controversy is not new. As described below and in
Gally (2018), this conflict between jitsuyō and kyōyō can be seen indisputes about the need for English education that flared in the
1920s and 1970s. Although this debate has not been completely
resolved, there has been a widespread perception, probably justified, that kyōyō has largely given way to jitsuyō as the primary
motivation for teaching and learning English in Japan. This
increased emphasis on practical applications of the language canbe seen in several areas, including the reduced focus on literature in university language classes and the adoption of “communication” as a central concept in government-directed Englishlanguage curricula. In areas other than English language
49

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

education, however, kyōyō has maintained a strong presence, as
can be seen by the incorporation of ethics education (dōtoku
kyōiku) into standard school curricula and the many books andmagazines published in recent years that promise to foster thekyōyō of adults. And despite the disbanding of liberal arts
departments at many public universities in the early 1990s, several continue to have major divisions with kyōyō in their names,
including Saitama University and the University of Tokyo. Interestingly, Akita International University and the School of International Liberal Studies at Waseda University, both establishedin 2004, include kyōyō in their Japanese names while teaching allof their classes in English.
Nevertheless, while the term kyōyō has been frequently usedin different educational contexts, the continuity in the different
meanings of kyōyō has rarely been discussed. The disputes about
English education, even the one between jitsuyō and kyōyō, havetended to be discussed fragmentally, as if the meaning of kyōyō isunique to a specific time and context. In this paper, drawing on
Foucault’s concept of discours, which we here call “discourse,”
we attempt to explore how the meanings of kyōyō have been used
to justify statements about who needs to learn English in Japan
from a broader perspective. Our focus is on how the evolving
meanings of kyōyō share a certain consistency and similarity. In
the process, we reveal that the discourse of kyōyō functions inpart as resistance to the profit- and efficiency-driven perspectives of policies at the national level.1

The Evolving Meanings of Kyōyō
Despite its importance for understanding education and learning in Japan, the word kyōyō (教養) does not seem to have beenused in the premodern era. The first citations in the largest historical dictionary of Japanese date to the 1870s, when the word
was used to mean “education” or “teaching” (“Kyōyō,” 2001).
The word first appeared in the title of a book in 1901 with Kokumin no Kyōyō (The Kyōyō of the Nation) (Katō, 1901). In this book,which has sections on Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism, andChristianity, the word kyōyō means the knowledge necessary forthe formation of one’s personality and character. Several books
published soon thereafter, including Akiyama et al. (1902), Shi50

THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPANmoda (1902), and Ōhara (1907), treated kyōyō as cultural knowledge that mothers should know for harmonizing Japanese cultural traditions with Western science. In contrast with the
influential polymath Yukichi Fukuzawa (1834–1901), whoemphasized the shift from kangaku (漢学, classical Chinese learning) and kokugaku (国学, classical Japanese learning) to yōgaku (洋学, Western learning), that is, from ethical studies to scientific or
rational thought, these authors stressed that kyōyō should be considered a part of character building and be based on both Japanese and European cultural knowledge.
According to Kiyotada Tsutsui’s history of the developmentof kyōyō in modern Japan, this aspect of kyōyō, which dates to thelate Meiji period (1900–1912), emerged with the flowering ofshūyō shugi (修養主義), which meant the development of one’s
personality through knowledge and practice of both Western literature and traditional Japanese literature and religion. Especially after Japan emerged from its victories in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895 and the Russo-Japanese War of
1904–1905, having apparently achieved the prosperity and military strength that it had been seeking since the mid–19th century,
young Japanese started to turn their interests from social problems to personal self-improvement, including kyōyō (Tsutsui,2009, pp. 5–6).
With the beginning of the Taishō period (1912–1926)
appeared another current: kyōyō shugi. This “kyōyōism” also
insisted on personal development. But while the earlier shūyō
shugi had been available to the mass of people, kyōyō shugi,
according to Tsutsui, was restricted to a small, mostly urban
educated elite. Tsutsui found the origin of Taishō-era kyōyō shugiin the Daiichi Kōtōgakkō, or First High School, in Tokyo, whose
principal from 1906 to 1913 was Inazō Nitobe (1862–1933). There,
Nitobe organized extracurricular classes and special lectures inorder to promote the students’ personal development. The
school came to be seen as a training ground for shūyō, and its
graduates included authors who later emphasized the importance of kyōyō, including Tetsurō Watsuji, Jirō Abe, and Yoshishige Abe (Tsutsui, 2009, pp. 21–41). Thus shūyō shugi and kyōyō
shugi were both used to mean “intellectual and personal self-cultivation,” a notion similar to the concept of Bildung in German.
This didactic role for kyōyō has been pointed out much more
51

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

recently by Tadashi Karube, who wrote that “statements that
insist on the importance of kyōyō are often regarded as being likedull sermons” (Karube, 2007, p. 10),2 because the term is often
associated with the question of how one should live one’s life.
As the influence of Marxism spread in Japanese society
toward the end of the Taishō period, the influence of kyōyō shugi
declined for a while (Tsutsui, 2009, pp. 108–109). In the first two
decades of the Shōwa period (1926–1989), however, with the riseof militarism, the suppression of Marxism, and the outbreak of
the Pacific War, kyōyō shugi emerged again, but this time with yet
another focus. Kyōyo now took on a more systematic character, as
shown by the many books published that sought to explicate
how one should read (Tsutsui, 2009, p. 115). Thus kyōyō shugi,
which originally emphasized the personal development of theindividual, evolved into an organized system of knowledge. Thistendency continued after the Second World War and into the
1960s, when higher education became more widely available(Tsutsui, 2009, pp. 122–123).

Kyōyō in the New Universities: The Case of the University of Tokyo
After the Second World War, the term kyōyō took on new, institutionalized meanings when the Japanese educational system wasreorganized. In 1947, following the creation of three-year highschools for both boys and girls, a new system of higher education was also introduced (Monbushō Daijin Kanbō, 1981). The
old high schools (kōtō gakkō) and colleges (senmon gakkō) and someteacher-training schools for men (kōtō shihan gakkō and shihangakkō) were combined to form new four-year universities. In
those universities, professional or specialized education (senmon
kyōiku) was contrasted with general education (ippan kyōiku).
That concept was partially modelled on the general educationthat was a feature of higher education in the United States. This
led to the establishment of kyōyō katei (kyōyō programs), which
had been implemented in the high schools under the old system.
These kyōyō katei included courses in foreign languages, especially English, French, and German, which were largely taught
using the grammar-translation method. The main motivation forincluding foreign-language education in these programs seems
52

THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPANto have been that by reading texts in those languages students
would acquire Western kyōyō.
In 1949, the University of Tokyo established its Kyōyō
Gakubu, now called the College of Arts and Sciences (Universityof Tokyo, n.d.). Around the same time, Kyōyōbu (kyōyō departments) were introduced at the national universities in Kyoto,
Osaka, Nagoya, and Kyushu as well. Other universities followed
later, reaching a total of 33 officially established kyōyō departments or colleges by 1968. Many universities began providing
ippan kyōyō kyōiku, or “general kyōyō education,” through departments that often included kyōyō in their titles.
At the University of Tokyo, the descriptions of kyōyō givenby three different deans of the Kyōyō Gakubu through the 1970s
reveal several common elements. According to Tadao Yanaihara,
the first Kyōyō Gakubu dean, kyōyō means “the basis of specialized knowledge” and is “not divided into parts” (Yanaihara,
1951), that is, it is a unified, integrated field of knowledge. Thisapproach to kyōyō as something general and basic, a kind of prespecialized studies, was shared by other academics in the 1950s
and 1960s. For example, Isoji Asō, who also served as dean of the
Kyōyō Gakubu at the University of Tokyo and, later, as presidentof Gakushuin University, defined it as “the attainment of multifaceted knowledge” (Asō, 1952). The mathematician Teiji Takagi
called it “the broad basis for all specialized knowledge, a deep
foundation for the formation of the human being” (Takagi, 1953).
The Sanskrit scholar Naoshirō Tsuji wrote that kyōyō provides“balanced shared knowledge, enabling an attitude of understanding and acceptance between different fields” (Tsuji, 1955).
And the physicist Shigekichirō Nogami called it “a clear conceptualization of how a particular specialized field fits within scholarship as a whole” (Nogami, 1968).
On the other hand, some scholars also attached importanceto the practical side of kyōyō. Isoji Asō wrote that it “fosters theability to make comprehensive judgments and understanding
from many viewpoints” (Asō, 1952). Atsushi Kawaguchi, ascholar of French literature, called it “the ability not only toremember what one has learned but to put it to use” (Kawaguchi, 1959). Natsuo Shumuta told undergraduates at the University of Tokyo that “lectures in the College of Arts and Sciences
are intended not only to provide you with knowledge but also to53

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

give you the ability to think and make judgments” (Shumata,1960). Addressing a similar audience a decade and a half later,
the philosopher Shōzō Ōmori told students that the education
they would receive during their two years in the Kyōyō Gakubu
would “provide more than a collection of knowledge; it will also
provide a way of viewing things, whether nature, literature, or
human beings” (Ōmori, 1976).
In addition to its generality and practicality, the “character
development” aspect of kyōyō continued to be emphasized aswell. Teiji Takagi’s assertion that kyōyō is “a deep foundation for
the formation of the human being” was noted above. Similar
claims were made by Shigeru Aihara (1963) and Sachio Takagi(1972), and Shōzō Ōmori (1976) wrote that kyōyō allows one to“understand what you are and what you are trying to do.”Discourses about the word kyōyō thus evolved to include
several interlocking strands. To the prewar emphasis on character development has been added, especially in university contexts, a view that a broad education is valuable both for specialized studies and for practical uses later in life. These multiple
meanings of kyōyō were carried over, more or less intact, when
the term riberaru ātsu (“liberal arts”) came to be used as well inuniversity contexts.
But as the meanings of kyōyō were evolving, its implementation at many Japanese universities encountered difficulties. Students came to see the courses offered under the kyōyō label only
as credits that they needed in order to graduate. In the 1980s,
pejorative slang was coined for kyōyō classes: pankyō, an abbreviation of ippan kyōyō kamoku (general kyōyō courses). Anotherproblem was the distinction between kyōyō classes and senmon(specialized or professional) classes and a tendency to belittle theteachers of the former. Economic pressures continued to drive
calls for increased emphasis on practical knowledge, making
kyōyō a relic from the past for many people (Nakabachi, 2003,
pp. 97–98). Finally, in 1991, a large-scale deregulation and reformof Japanese higher education was implemented with the aim ofmaking the system more flexible and enabling each university to
act according to its own educational philosophy. In the next few
years, most national universities eliminated their kyōyō collegesor departments (Yoshida, 2003, p. 75). Instead of focusing onkyōyō courses first, students now entered their majors immedi54

THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPAN

ately upon matriculation and took general education courses,
including foreign languages, throughout their four years ofstudy. The only national universities that managed to keep thekyōyō concept alive as a distinct program for all students wereTokyo Medical and Dental University and the University ofTokyo. This shifting institutional role for kyōyō education createda particular challenge for English education.

Kyōyō and English Education
Discourse of Kyōyō as Resistance
As shown by the evolving meaning of kyōyō—including personal
development as well as general knowledge as preparation for
specialized studies or for practical applications—the concept has
been fluid, being shaped over time by changing social relations
and circumstances. The various meanings of kyōyō, however, doshare certain elements, including the integration of a spirit ofmodernity and knowledge gained through education and anemphasis on individual self-actualization, which might not haveexisted in Japan’s previous feudal society. Furthermore, themeanings of kyōyō often encompass the social systems and techniques for realizing that integration. In other words, the conceptof kyōyō is an example of an aggregation of spirit, knowledge,
and social systems that regulates people’s thinking and behavior,
which Foucault (1969/1972) calls discours and which we refer toin this paper as “discourse.”
The discourse of kyōyō has been used to justify and explain
the purposes English education in Japan. One of the most
famous early proponents of kyōyō as the purpose of English education was Yoshisaburō Okakura (1868–1936). In his book Eigo
Kyōiku (“English Education,” 1911), Okakura argued that English, as it was taught at the time in the middle schools in which
many boys from middle-class families studied, conveyed certain
important values, including broadening perspectives, overcoming stereotypes, eliminating prejudice against foreign countries,
and removing exaggerated misconceptions about the homecountry. He also claimed that the study of the linguistic structureof English provided valuable exercise in analysis, generalization,
classification, and application as well as in understanding and55

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

presenting ideas in a language other than one’s native tongue(p. 39). Although Okakura referred to these educational values asshūyō and the introduction of knowledge and insights from overseas as jitsuyō, in his usage these two concepts fit squarely withthe later discourse of kyōyō for English education.
Tetsuo Kawasumi (1978) argued that the underlying factor
behind Okakura’s claims for the educational values of English
was the fading appeal in Japan of the academic field of Eigaku,
which encompassed both the study of the English language andthe acquisition of knowledge and values from the West throughthe language (p. 44). While influential in the 19th century, theimportance of Eigaku gradually declined as Japanese society
developed and as the influence of the father of Eigaku, Yukichi
Fukuzawa, declined after his death in 1901. Kawasumi also
noted that, from around that time, English came to be regarded
merely as an examination subject that students must study inorder to move on to higher education (p. 45). The evolving social
situation at the time of Okakura’s book suggests that his emphasis on the kyōyō value of English education was a defensive moveto try to protect the tradition of Eigaku, which was then facing
difficulties.
The discourse of kyōyō was used in defense not only of
Eigaku but of English education itself when it faced severe criticisms regarding the necessity of teaching English in publicschools. One strong attack on English education in publicschools was made by Tsukuru Fujimura (1875–1953), a scholar ofJapanese literature. He pointed out the low cost-effectiveness ofEnglish education in Japan: huge amounts of time and effort
were devoted to teaching and learning it, even though there waslittle need for English in business in Japan (Fujimura, 1927,
p. 252). He advocated that English as a subject be eliminatedfrom the middle-school curriculum (p. 262).
Yoshisaburō Okakura, Riichirō Hoashi, and other English
educators responded to Fujimura’s attack by describing the educational value of English education in terms of kyōyō. Hoashi(1927) stated that Fujimura’s point about the lack of need forEnglish in business did not prove that learning English was
unnecessary; instead, he emphasized that English education contributed to developing a poetic imagination, moral beliefs, religious faith, and an understanding of the universality of human56THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPANnature (p. 278). Okakura and Hoashi used the discourse of kyōyō,
which was based on the concept of shūyō, as a strategy to shift
the focus of the arguments away from monetary values, refuting
Fujimura’s statements as myopic (Kawasumi, 1978, p. 239)
With the creation of the new education system after WWII,
in which male-dominant middle schools, which had been preparatory schools for higher education, became open to females as
well, English education entered a new phase. English became ade-facto compulsory subject in what were now called junior highschools. For the widespread implementation of English education, the government’s Courses of Study, which set the objectives
and methods for education in public schools, kyōyō was included
both as personal development and as linguistic skills (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Terasawa (2014) refers tothis new interpretation of the purposes of English education in
public junior high schools as “the downward extension of kyōyō”(pp. 215–218). In other words, the application of kyōyō as personal development, which had been intended only for wealthyclasses, was expanded to the entire citizenry. Terasawa argues
that some scholars identified the purposes of English educationin public junior high schools as being not only the teaching of
language skills in preparation for reading texts written in sophisticated English but also the teaching of the history, cultures, andcustoms of Western countries like England using plain English
with simple expressions. Thus, as the disputes about English
education continued, the social groups being taught English
through the national education system changed and kyōyō was
systematically incorporated into the government’s postwar educational policy.
Although the concept of kyōyō was brought into the educational system, the discourse of kyōyō as resistance to criticism did
not completely disappear. The views of kyōyō as personal development through reading English remained alive, reappearing
when English education in Japan was required to change. One
reflection of this discourse of kyōyō could be seen in the stance of
Shōichi Watanabe in his dispute with Wataru Hiraizumi in the
1970s. A member of the upper house of the National Diet, Hiraizumi submitted a proposal for the reform of foreign language
education to the Policy Affairs Research Council of the Liberal
Democratic Party (Hiraizumi, 1974). In his proposal, Hiraizumi
57

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

questioned why children must learn English as part of their
compulsory education in spite of the limited benefits and outcomes for most of them. His proposal focused not only on theineffectiveness of English education in terms of time and workload and the low demand for English in business, but also on thestudents’ low motivation, the harmful effects of including English on university entrance exams, and the monopoly of English
in foreign language education.
Shōichi Watanabe, a scholar of English linguistics, refuted
Hiraizumi’s proposal by stressing the benefits and outcomes ofEnglish education. He raised the example of the long tradition ofreading-based learning in Japan, emphasizing the importance ofreading to develop students’ potential for language learning and
to increase their intellectual ability (Watanabe, 1975). This refutation by Watanabe resembles the defensive statements of Okakura(1911) that also emphasized reading skills. The Hiraizumi vs.
Watanabe dispute illustrated one aspect of resistance to government power, since Hiraizumi was a member of the ruling party
at the time. The point is that critics of English education in Japandenied not the value of learning English but rather the focus on
its economical value and the effectiveness of teaching English to
everyone in public schools. In this case, it was the advocates ofuniversal English education in public schools who used the discourse of kyōyō as a strategy to claim that English education had
value beyond monetary considerations.
This aspect of the discourse of kyōyō as resistance to economic values becomes clearer after the dispute between Hiraizumi and Watanabe in the 1980s and later. Business interests
began to advocate that the Japanese government promote English education that focused on developing speaking and listening skills, the so-called communication skills. Since then, thenear-sacred status of English education in public school curricula
has no longer been seriously threatened, and the Japanese government has placed even greater emphasis on English education.
Since 2013, in fact, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, and Technology (MEXT) has implemented a “communication-based” approach in which English classes in public highschools are supposed to be taught using only English, rather
than the more typical method, in which the teachers use Japanese to explain grammar and vocabulary and to manage their
58

THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPANclassrooms. In 2011, the start of compulsory English classes inpublic schools was moved from the first year of junior highschool to the upper grades of elementary school. At around thesame time, educational institutions began to put more emphasis
on English proficiency tests, such as TOEIC or TOEFL, created byoutside organizations, with universities increasingly using applicants’ scores on such tests as a supplement to or in place of
exams created and administered by the universities themselves.
Such changes at the university level have a great impact on secondary and even elementary education.
Where power exists, however, resistance emerges. Somescholars and teachers in the field of English education have
opposed the recent trend toward “communication-based” English education driven by MEXT on the grounds that it does not
actually focus on the use of English in real life (Torikai, 2011) orthat the educational system and support for teachers are inadequate for that purpose (Erikawa, 2013). Abe (2017) points outthat the recent communication-based policy is not new but just aparaphrase of conventional four-skills-based policies and that it
downplays reading and writing on the one hand and overemphasizes speaking skills on the other without convincing support (p. 49). Abe further claims that cozy relationships between
the government and private English proficiency-test organizations may be a major reason behind MEXT’s drive to impose thefour-skills-based English proficiency tests as a replacement forthe current common university entrance exam (p. 49).
In criticisms against the current English education policies,
the discourse of kyōyō appears once again. Yoshifumi Saito (2017),
a scholar of English literature and English education, also
severely criticizes communication-based English education,
claiming that it can contribute only to the mass-production of
low-grade learners as well as the development of Japanese society as a cultural colony (p. 183). Instead, he advocates sodoku(reading aloud), kutō (reading in phrases), and yakudoku (reading
through direct translation) as traditional pedagogical methods
that are compatible with Japan’s linguistic culture (p. 183).
Saito’s argument is unusual in promoting English education as
kyōyō while sharing similarities with the opposition to the proliferation of English in terms of the ideology of the Japanese language (Nihongo ron), which Kubota (1998) describes as resistance59

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

to the hegemony of the West and English.
Haruo Erikawa (2013), a scholar of the history of English
education in Japan, argues that the significance of learning foreign languages in public schools is not only for acquiring skills
but also for personal development and for mutual understanding and coordination with people outside Japan in order to create a peaceful and democratic world and to understand thediversity of languages and cultures, leading to expanded ways ofthinking and sensibility (p. 11). Erikawa’s argument suggeststhat the discourse of kyōyō can also function as resistance to thecurrent “communication-based” English education, which isconsidered to reflect a worldwide trend toward globalizationand competition-based human relations, or neoliberalism (Erikawa, 2013).
Several common threads thus run through the discourse ofkyōyō regarding English education: a focus on the intellectualand spiritual benefits to individuals rather than monetary profit
or economic development; an emphasis on international understanding rather than the protection of the nation-state; and opposition to approaches and goals for English education that are
advocated by business and government interests. The unifying
feature of these threads is that, in each case, the arguments infavor of a kyōyō-grounded focus for English education are used toresist perceived threats and prevailing trends.

Discussion
This paper has attempted, by drawing on Foucault’s concept of
discours, or “discourse,” to find continuity in the meanings of theJapanese word kyōyō as it has been used in debates over English
education in Japan. As discussed above, different scholars in thecontext of English education in Japan have used the discourse ofkyōyō, which originated in a concept of personal development, or
shūyō, in order to resist various attacks, from advocation for theelimination of English as a required subject in public schools in
the 1920s and 1970s to the current business- and government-led
focus on “communication-based” English education.
While still incomplete, this overview suggests that the discourse of kyōyō, which has sometimes been considered to be a60

THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPAN

conservative, even reactionary position, functions as resistanceto national-level perspectives that focus on income and efficiency. The most common criticisms focus on two issues, the firstbeing why English needs to be taught to all students in all publicschools, and the second being who needs to learn English, as thepercentage of working adults actually using English is onlyaround 10% even now (Terasawa, 2015, p. 162). The first issue
focuses on the national resources devoted to English education,
while the second issue involves the time and effort devoted tolearning English.
While the scholars promoting the concept of kyōyō in thecontext of English education in public junior high schools wereunable to completely resist the attacks, they succeeded somewhat in shifting the focus of the argument from economic values
and cost-effectiveness at the national level to the development of
the individual. The focus of the disputes can therefore be interpreted as being whether public education is for the benefit ofsociety as a whole or for that of individuals. Ideally, perhaps,
public education should benefit both, but the history of the disputes on English education in public schools proves the difficulty of realizing that ideal. In particular, the recent “communication-based” educational policies strongly reflect demands frombusiness interests for a more “globalized” workforce. In that
context, discussions of English education for kyōyō purposes, thatis, for personal development and self-realization, may become
more important. Rather than just focusing on building learners’
linguistic skills in English so that, as adults, they can meet thedemands of business, industry, and government, educators, policymakers, and others need to discuss how English and otherlanguages can be taught as kyōyō to foster individuals who canmaintain a sense of independence and dignity against the seemingly relentless drive toward economic growth and efficiency.

Acknowledgments
This paper was inspired by a research project conducted in 2015 and 2016
by the five authors together with Hidehiro Minagawa and Diego Tavares
Vasques. That project, which focused on the role of kyōyō in undergraduate
English curricula in Japan, was made possible by a grant from the Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tokyo. As part of the proj-

61

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

ect, the authors interviewed Yoshifumi Saito, Katsuya Sugawara, and Shiro
Yamamoto of the University of Tokyo about their views on English education as well as faculty members at Kyoto University, Osaka Prefecture University, and Osaka University. The authors would like to express their
deepest thanks to all of these people for their cooperation and insights aswell as to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and the Department ofEnglish Language at the University of Tokyo for making the project possible.

Note on Coauthorship
The idea to write this paper was first proposed by Gakutani, who, together
with the other authors, gathered information on and developed insights
into the evolution of the kyōyō concept and its role in English education in
Japan. The final text includes passages originally written by all five authors.
The central thesis was developed by Yamamura, who is therefore listed as
the first author. The writing and completion of the paper were coordinated,and greatly delayed, by Gally.

Notes
1. Some might call the opposed concept jitsuyō, but we refrain from using
the term in our discussion, as the meanings of jitsuyō have also been
evolving over time.
2. Here and below, all translations from Japanese sources are by thispaper’s authors.

References
Abe, M. [阿部公彦]. (2017). Shijō saiaku no Eigo seisaku: Usodarake no “yon ginō”
kanban [史上最悪の英語政策 ウソだらけの「4 技能」看板. English education in chaos: Confusion and dishonesty in Japanese government policy]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo [ひつじ書房].
Aihara, S. [相原茂]. (1963). Erabareta hito to shite: Shakaiteki sekimu no jikaku o. [選ばれた人として 社会的責務の自覚を. As a selected person:
Being aware of one’s social responsibilities]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 50, 1.
Akiyama, N. [秋山七朗], et al. (1902). Joshi kyōiku katei kyōyō hō [女子教育家庭
教養法. Education and household kyōyō for girls]. Tokyo: Jichikan [自治館].
Asō, I. [麻生磯次]. (1952). Shinshi keiken na taido o: “Shoshin wasuru bekarazu” [眞摯敬虔な態度を 「初心忘るるべからず」. For serious and pious
behavior: “Never forget the ideals with which you started out”]. Kyōyō
Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 112, 1.
Erikawa, H. [江利川春雄]. (2008). Nihonjin wa Eigo o dō manande kita ka: Eigo

62

THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPANkyōiku no shakai bunka shi [日本人は英語をどう学んできたか 英語教育の社
会文化史. A socio-cultural history of English language education in
Japan]. Tokyo: Kenkyūsha [研究社].
Erikawa, H. [江利川春雄]. (2013). “Daigaku nyūshi ni Tōfuru tō” to iu jinsai
TOEFL 等」という人災からkara kodomo o mamoru tame ni. 「大学入試に[子どもを守るために. To protect children from the human-generated
disaster “TOEFL for university entrance examinations”] in Y. Ōtsu, H.
Erikawa, Y. Saitō, & K. Torikai [大津由紀雄、江利川春雄、斎藤兆史 & 鳥飼玖美子], Eigo kyōiku, semarikuru hatan [英語教育 迫り来る破綻. English language education in danger] (pp. 1–27). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo [ひつじ書房].
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith,Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969).
Fujimura, T. [藤村作]. (1927, May). Eigoka haishi no kyūmu [英語科廃止の急務. Urgent task of abolishing English departments]. Gendai [現代].
Reprinted in T. Kawasumi (Ed.). (1978). Shiryō Nihon Eigakushi, 2: Eigo
kyōiku ronsōshi [資料日本の英学史 2 英語教育論争史. The history of English-related studies in Japan 2: The history of English education controversies] (pp. 251–262). Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten [大修館書店].
Gally, T. (2018). Machine translation and English education in Japan. Komaba Journal of English Education, 9, 43–55.
Hiraizumi, W. [平泉渉]. (1974). Gaikokugo kyōiku no genjō to kaikaku nohōkō: Hitotsu no shian [外国語教育の現状と改革の方向 一つの試案. The
current state and direction of reforms of foreign-language education:
An attempt at a proposal]. Reprinted in Hiraizumi, W. [平泉渉], & Watanabe, S. [渡部昇一]. (1975). Eigo kyōiku daironsō [英語教育大論争 Big argument about English education] (pp. 9–14). Tokyo: Bungei Shunjū [文藝春秋].
Hoashi, R. [帆足理一郎]. (1927, July). Haishi ni wa hantai de aru [廃止には反対である. I am opposed to abolition]. Gendai [現代]. Reprinted in T. Kawasumi (Ed.). (1978). Shiryō Nihon Eigakushi 2: Eigo kyōiku ronsōshi [資料日本の英学史 2 英語教育論争史. The history of English-related studies inJapan 2: The history of English education controversies] (pp. 274–283).
Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten [大修館書店].
Karube, T. [苅部直]. (2007). Utsuriyuku “kyōyō” [移りゆく「教養」. The evolving“kyōyō”]. Tokyo: NTT Publishing.
Katō, T. [加藤咄堂]. (1901). Kokumin no kyōyō [国民の教養. The kyōyō of thenation]. Tokyo: Tsūzoku Bukkyōkan [通俗佛教館].
Kawaguchi, A. [川口篤]. (1959). Shinnyūsei o mukaete: Yūigi ni okure [新入生を迎えて 有意義に送れ. Welcoming new students: Spend your time
meaningfully. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 77, 1.
Kawasumi, T. (Ed.) [川澄哲夫 (編)]. (1978). Shiryō Nihon Eigakushi 2: Eigo
kyōiku ronsōshi [資料日本の英学史 2 英語教育論争史. The history of English-related studies in Japan 2: The history of English education controversies]. Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten [大修館書店].

63

KOMABA JOURNAL OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

Kubota, R. (1998). Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17(3),295–306.
Kyōyō [教養]. (2001). In Nihon kokugo daijiten [日本国語大辞典] (vol. 4, p. 499).
Tokyo: Shogakukan [小学館].
Monbushō Daijin Kanbō [文部省大臣官房]. (1981). Wa ga kuni no kyōiku suijun[我が国の教育水準 (昭和 55 年度). The educational levels of our country(FY1980)]. Retrieved November 12, 2018, from http://www.mext.
go.jp/
Nakabachi, K. [中鉢恵一]. (2003). Atarashii kyōyō kyōiku no shiza: 21 seiki
no kyōyō kyōiku to wa? [新しい教養教育の視座 21 世紀の教養教育とは. A
new perspective on kyōyō education: What is kyōyō education in the 21st
century?]. Journal of Business Administration, 58, 93–104.
Nogami, M. [野上茂吉郎]. (1968). Shinnyūsei shokun ni: Ippan kyōiku no igi[新入生諸君に 一般教育の意義. To the new students: The meaning ofgeneral education]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 156, 1.
Ōhara, S. [大原里靖]. (1907). Jinkaku no kyōyō [人格の教養. The kyōyō of character]. Tokyo: Sanbunsha [参文舎].
Okakura, Y. [岡倉由三郎]. (1911). Eigo kyōiku [英語教育. English education].
Tokyo: Kenkyūsha [研究社].
Ōmori, S. [大森荘蔵]. (1976). Shinnyūsei shokun e no kitai [新入生諸君への期
待. Expectations for new students]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 222, 1.
Saitō, Y. [斎藤兆史]. (2017). Eigo shūrai to nihonjin: Ima nao tsuzuku kumon tokyōran [英語襲来と日本人 今なお続く苦悶と狂乱. The invasion by English
and the Japanese: Agony and frenzy, still continuing]. Tokyo: Chuokoron-Shinsha [中央公論新社].
Shimoda, U. [下田歌子]. (1902). Eiji no kyōyō [嬰児教養. The kyōyō of infants].
Tokyo: Katsujirō Furukawa [古川勝次郎].
Shumata, N. [朱牟田夏雄]. (1960). Shinnyūsei shokun ni: Igi aru gakusei seikatsu o [新入生諸君に 意義ある学生生活を. To new students: For a meaningful student life]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 85, 1.
Takagi, S. [高木貞二]. (1953). Ningen keisei no tame ni [人間形成の為に. For
the formation of the person]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 20, 1.
Takagi, S. [高木佐知夫]. (1972). Atarashii shuppatsu no jikaku o [新しい出発の自覚を. Being aware of your new departure]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 186, 1.
Terasawa, T. [寺沢拓敬]. (2014). “Nande Eigo yaru no?” no sengoshi: “Kokumin[kyōiku” to shite no Eigo, sono dentō no seiritsu katei 「なんで英語やるの？」の戦後史 《国民教育》としての英語、その伝統の成立過程. The postwar history of “Why do we have to study English?”: The process of building
up the tradition of “English as national education”]. Tokyo: Kenkyūsha[研究社].
Terasawa, T. [寺沢拓敬]. (2015). “Nihonjin to Eigo” no shakaigaku: Naze Eigo
なぜ英語教育[kyōiku ron wa gokai darake nanoka 「日本人と英語」の社会学論は誤解だらけなのか. The sociology of “Japanese people and English”:
Why are discussions of English education so full of misunderstand-64

THE DISCOURSE OF KYŌYŌ AND ENGLISH EDUCATION IN JAPAN

ings?]. Tokyo: Kenkyūsha [研究社].
Torikai, K. [鳥飼玖美子]. (2011). Kokusai kyōtsūgo to shite no Eigo [国際共通語としての英語. English as an international Lingua Franca]. Tokyo: Kodansha [講談社].
Tsuji, N. [辻直四郎]. (1955). Shinri no tsuikyū ni wa yūkan ni: Kōdō ni wa
shinchō o [眞理の追及には勇敢に 行動には慎重を. Courage in the pursuitof truth: Deliberation in one’s actions]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報],38, 2.
Tsutsui, K. [筒井清忠]. (2009). Nihongata “kyōyō” no unmei: Rekishi-shakaigakuteki kōsatsu [日本型「教養」の運命 歴史社会学的考察. The fate of Japanese-style kyōyō: A historical-sociological study]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten [岩波書店].
University of Tokyo (東京大学). (n.d.). Sōgō Bunka Kenkyūka–Kyōyō Gakubu norekishi [総合文化研究科・教養学部の歴史. The history of the Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences and College of Arts and Sciences]. Retrieved
November 12, 2018, from http://www.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Watanabe, S. [渡部昇一]. (1975). Bōkoku no “Eigo kyōiku kaikaku shian”:
Hiraizumi Wataru-shi no kaikaku shian o hihan suru [亡国の「英語教育改革試案」 平泉渉氏の改革試案を批判する. A doomed nation’s “attempted
proposal for English education reform”: Criticizing Wataru Hiraizumi’s attempted proposal for reform]. Reprinted in Hiraizumi, W. [平泉渉], & Watanabe, S. [渡部昇一]. (1975). Eigo kyōiku daironsō [英語教育大論
争. Big argument about English education] (pp. 15–50). Tokyo: Bungei
Shunjū [文藝春秋].
Yanaihara, T. [矢内原忠雄]. (1951, April 10). Shinri tankyū no seishin o:Kyōyō Gakubu no seimei [真理探究の精神を 教養学部の生命. For the
spirit of the pursuit of truth: The life of the College of Arts and Sciences]. Kyōyō Gakubu Hō [教養学部報], 1, 1.
Yoshida, A. [吉田文]. (2003). Daigaku no kyōyō kyōiku e no atsuryoku tokyōin hensei ni kansuru kenkyū: Taikōka kara 10 nen o taishō ni shite[大学の教養教育への圧力と教員編成に関する研究 大綱化から 10 年を対象にして. Research on pressure on universities regarding kyōyō education
and reorganisation of teachers: From the perspective of 10 years since
the establishment of new standards]. National Institute of Multimedia
Education [メディア教育開発センター].

65