E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 6, 2021

A Summary Report of the Symposium on “Psychoanalysis andEducation: Freudian Thought as an Educational Theory”

Natsuki SHIROKANE
Kwansei Gakuin University
Kimihiro SUKAWA
Shiraume Gakuen University

1. Symposium’s Implementation Status for This YearFirst, due to the global situation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 63rd
Annual Meeting was shifted to an online format for the first time in the history of thePhilosophy of Education Society of Japan (PESJ). This step was taken to avoid gatheringsat the host university, Nihon University, College of Humanities and Sciences. The inperson symposium was replaced by manuscripts posted on the Collection of Presentation
Manuscripts, which, in turn, were sent to the conference participants. Questions from theparticipants were accepted online on October 17th and 18th, the dates of the conference.
Four members—three reporters and a designated debater—exchanged comments,
questions, and replies through e-mail. The contents were sent online at a later date, alongwith replies to the participants’ questions. We would like to express our gratitude to Prof.
Akira Geshi, who worked as the planner, reporter, and organizer of the symposium; Prof.
Deborah P. Britzman, who worked as the reporter and who was unfortunately unable tocome to Japan; and Prof. Takeru Mashino and the members of the Conference
Preparation Committee for their great effort in providing a liaison and coordination
between the members of the symposium. We would like to sincerely thank them for theirefforts.

Correspondence:
Natsuki SHIROKANE, Kwansei Gakuin University. Email: natsuki＠kwansei.ac.jp
Kimihiro SUKAWA, Shiraume Gakuen University. Email: sukawa＠shiraume.ac.jp

20

N. SHIROKANE & K. SUKAWA

2. The Purpose of the Symposium
The purpose of the symposium is as follows:Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis is one of many major movements that have shaped
the academic world since the 20th century. Although its scientific and therapeutic
credibility is sometimes called into question, the idea of psychoanalysis has become
part of our paradigm and lifestyle. One cannot think of modern philosophies andideas without considering Freud’s influence. Education is no exception.
Understanding children using depth psychology, beginning with psychoanalysis, isdeeply ingrained in modern educational discourse and practices. Nonetheless,educational studies have rarely considered Freud and his psychoanalysis as a central
research topic. Pedagogists have argued that psychoanalysis has only had a partial
impact on education. This underestimation may be regarded as resistance topsychoanalysis in education. Education that holds a romantic view of children—for
example, that they are born good—is an idea that is incompatible with Freud’s
theory of infantile sexuality. Moreover, we may argue that Freud’s philosophy
radically differs from Japan’s postwar education, which sought to envision apeaceful future by reflecting on the war with regret. In contrast, Freud espoused thepessimistic idea that war cannot be eradicated because it is ingrained in humannature. These conflicting views are founded on opposing perceptions regardingchildhood, such that while education looks at the future of children, psychoanalysis
looks back at the cause of pathology in early childhood. As such, there have been
few meeting points between these two positions. Considering the above, we would
like to re-examine the relationship between psychoanalysis and education andattempt to argue that Freudian thought has a place within educational theory, as wellas in this symposium.
The reporters were as follows: Prof. Deborah P. Britzman (FRSC/York University),a leading researcher in theoretical and practical research on psychoanalysis andeducation; Prof. Minako Nishi (Kyoto University), a psychoanalyst who is also known
for her study on the history of psychoanalysis in Japan; and Prof. Akira Geshi (Nihon
University), the organizer of this symposium. They were joined by Prof. Tadashi
Nishihira (Kyoto University), a designated debater.

Symposium: Psychoanalysis and Education: Freudian Thought as an Educational Theory

A Summary Report of the Symposium

21

3. Summary of the Symposium
We had a profound discussion because the comments, questions, and replies among
the four debaters, the queries from the general members, and the reporters’ replies were
all conducted in writing. Please refer to the Collection of Presentation Manuscripts forthe summary of each report. Here, we would like to summarize the discussion (thesections inside quotation marks were quoted from “Collection of Questions, Comments,
and Replies”).
(1) Comments and questions for the Britzman Report and their corresponding
repliesProf. Nishihira first focused on the connotation of “otherness,” as suggested by Prof.
Britzman. It is something “mysterious, uncanny, and unknowable”; “we cannot control
it, but [it is] definitively essential in the current situation.” Prof. Nishihira supported Prof.
Britzman’s theme that teachers should stand with the students while acknowledging theirown and the students’ otherness, and that such an acknowledgement encourages mutual
growth. While supporting this idea, Prof. Nishihira also asked whether this theme could
be connected with the trust in otherness and whether the Eastern philosophy involving
the affirmative and constructive role of non-articulation could be explored. Prof. Nishi
asked about the connection between learning and otherness, perceived as something
dynamic that “may not always exist, but may be transient.” She likewise inquired about
the relationship between otherness and libido. Prof. Geshi asked how the “pain ofeducation for otherness” could be tolerated and how it could be conveyed. The general
members asked: 1) whether there is transference specific to education that differs frompsychoanalytic treatment (Mr. Yuho Goto), and 2) Prof. Britzman’s opinion on teachersattempting to escape exhaustion by shutting out their emotions (Prof. Nana Hatano).
Other questions were about Prof. Britzman’s view on the relationship between the theoryof queer pedagogy and psychoanalytic research (Prof. Masato Fukuwaka). They alsoinquired about her motives for becoming interested in psychoanalysis (Prof. Nana
Hatano).
Prof. Britzman provided a comprehensive response to individual questions. The
content of the reply covers her own research history, supplementary explanations, andperspectives for considering the relationship between psychoanalysis and education andthe redefinition of keywords. The following are the topics that we found interesting andsuggestive:
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 6, 2021

22

N. SHIROKANE & K. SUKAWA(ⅰ) Psychoanalysis suggests the approach of “we feel before we know and learn
before we can understand.” Such an approach is different from “we understand and thenlearn,” which is often found in education. This approach understands the emotional
experiences that underlie the relationships with others. It likewise examines “negative
capability” as “tolerance to otherness” (i.e., “not knowing” and “uncertainty”). It can also
be used as a “means for handling one’s countertransference or urgent feelings to act out
and even to destroy contact with an actual other.” (ii) Prof. Britzman stated that “the link
between psychoanalysis and education is both fragile and hopeful.” While
psychoanalytic knowledge echoes fate and is not easily received, it demonstrates theimportance of the teacher’s attention to their own and students’ past mental lives. Throughan understanding of the bodies and eros, it teaches that “the right to have a mind of one’s
own and to freely associate to people and memories can take on importance.” (iii)
Emotional situations in learning can be considered at two levels. The first is the level atwhich teachers recognize the difference between reality and ideals and respond to
unknown situations. The second level is the creation of resources and vocabularies for us
to pay attention to our mental lives. For example, what Prof. Nishihira called “nonarticulation” and Koichi Togashi formulated as “the psychoanalytic zero” can also be
regarded as an expression of the dynamics to know, despite the existence of translationand communication gaps and other uncertainties. (iv) “Anxieties are a significant
experience in education.” A violent child’s game of teacher may be “reaction formations
or defenses against both anxiety and the otherness of learning.” Furthermore, one of thefactors that student teachers blame themselves for not becoming an “ideal” teacher may
lie in the harsh model of classroom teaching that leaves them with the choice to either“sink or swim.” (v) The reply concludes as follows: “I don’t see otherness so much as aself-possession, or as something to teach others. I think of otherness as a situation withothers that has the quality of a nonrelation (…).”(2) Comments and questions for the Nishi Report and their corresponding replies
The general members asked questions around three topics: 1) the Freudian
understanding of human beings (Prof. Keiko Nakano), 2) the fact behind “educational
attitudes” that many analysts try to avoid (Mr. Yuho Goto), and 3) whether transference
takes place through intervening factors such as letters and IT equipment (Prof. Nana
Hatano). According to Prof. Nishi, the point of Freud’s understanding of human beingsis that “he had made it clear that human beings do not know much about themselves.”
Moreover, the “educational attitudes” that analysts warn people about refer to the
Symposium: Psychoanalysis and Education: Freudian Thought as an Educational Theory

A Summary Report of the Symposium

23

superiority of those who know over those who do not know. This state of affairs leads toidealizing the analyst and, conversely, strengthening their patients’ intellectualization by
providing them with too much advice. Concerning the last question, Prof. Nishi answeredthat she continues to ask herself the following questions amid the COVID-19 pandemic:“will transference occur” and “what has been lost” in the context of clinical practices
where people wear masks?.
Prof. Nishihira’s comment developed from a situation “that cannot be helped” (i.e.,otherness) in which Heisaku Kosawa and Seishi Shimoda had found themselves.
According to Britzman Report, even though teachers do not want a sense of otherness toemerge between them and their students, they have no choice but to manage it andsomehow survive in that situation. On the other hand, analysts attempt to “facilitateclients’ otherness unknowingly” and “experience it together, scrutinize it, and try tosurvive.” As to this difference between psychoanalysis and education, Prof. Nishi argued
that while much of the transference between teachers and students is slowly diffused andeliminated, psychoanalysis (especially Kleinian psychoanalysis) creates and facilitates
the transference to turn the situation into one where they can discuss it. She described thisas a storm in which we work, and we have to throw ourselves into the storm even if wewant to escape from it.
Prof. Geshi asked two questions. The first asks why Japanese psychoanalysis
emphasizes mother–child relationships. The second asks about the validity of educational
consultations conducted through the media (e.g., television and magazine). Regarding theformer, Prof. Nishi explained that she could attribute the emphasis of Japanese
psychoanalysis on mother–child relationships to the development of the object relations
theory in Japan’s postwar psychoanalysis and the reflection of men’s Oedipal complex.
Regarding the latter, she replied that, while educational consultation involves providing
professional advice, psychoanalysis is a special type of communication that goes far
beyond the help that the client in need could imagine.
Prof. Britzman recognized the relationship between the “demonic fate of humannature and education” in Nishi Report. When an analyst says, “Let’s get started,” thephrase sounds heartless to the patient: “There is something that cannot be started because
it already happened. It’s as if the analyst’s words threw the patient back into childhood(…).” With this in mind, Prof. Britzman asked two questions based on the clinicalpractice of psychoanalysis, where a situation will “repeat what cannot be remembered.”
The first question is: “What kind of education and what kind of resistances are we callingon?” The second question is: “In discussing the disparities between advice and life, (…)
how may we understand the urgency of affect carried out as in conflict with our
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 6, 2021

24

N. SHIROKANE & K. SUKAWA

theoretical claims?” In response to the first question, Prof. Nishi answered that
understanding the “educational attitudes” of analysts is an aspect of education andrequires reconsideration. Replying to the second question, she said that ‟a storm of urgent
affections may always be brewing behind our calm world.” As such, it may be ‟theoverwhelming power of the unconscious that cannot be helped by advice.”(3) Comments and questions for the Geshi Report and their corresponding replies
The questions from general members concerned both the criteria for measuring thepositive and negative aspects of “retroactive education” (Prof. Hiroaki Sekine), and theview of education that promotes “retroactive learning” (Prof. Hiroaki Sekine and Mr.
Yuho Goto). Prof. Geshi answered these questions by organizing his replies into threestatements. First, what constitutes an experience that can lead to retroactive learning moreeasily?— It is something beyond our understanding when we experience it, and it settles
like sediment at the bottom of one’s unconscious mind. Second, what kind of secondary
experience activates initial experience?— It requires similarities with the initial
experience, but it is difficult to standardize. Third, what criteria can be used to evaluate
self-transformation?— Generally, there are two criteria; the person himself/herself andthe community to which the person belongs. However, these two factors do not always
agree. Moreover, individuals belong to multiple communities, and therefore, there are
multiple criteria. In addition to these factors above, the criteria are constructed afterwards
and may change.
Prof. Nishihira recognized the logic of eschatology in Nachträglichkeit. This logic
denotes that the meaning of every event in (life) history will be revealed at the end. In
response to Freud, the Britzman and Nishi Reports emphasized the retroactive act of“touching the darkness and digging up the shadowy part” to aid in human development.
Further, Geshi Report considered the retroactive act to suggest a kind of education that“cannot be predicted in advance and can only be confirmed after reflecting on later.”
However, Prof. Nishihira indicated that such a perception may lead to relativism,
skepticism, nihilism, and populism: “There are ‘no foundations,’ ‘no guarantees’ ineducation. In spite of having shared that reality, how much ‘courage to educate’ can wehave? While feeling confused about asking such a question to myself, I cannot help but
think about what is being asked today.” On the other hand, Prof. Geshi admitted that it isa “gamble” whether “retroactive education” will happen. Moreover, he argued that weneed to be vigilant toward “barbarism,” which has lost the perspective of uncertainty: “Itmust be the sensibility that perceives education as something incomprehensible that
Symposium: Psychoanalysis and Education: Freudian Thought as an Educational Theory

A Summary Report of the Symposium

25

enables teachers to broaden their horizons when they stumble in educational practice andsupport children and people who cannot get used to education.”
Prof. Britzman asked two questions. First, “how can we narrate the significance of
uncertainty in learning?” Second, “how can those who direct education accommodate a
psychical reality in their theories of transmission and reception and thus go beyond thestasis of education as screen memory?” Prof. Geshi replied by redefining the ambiguous
meaning of “retroactive education.” He said that it would enable the learning that
accompanies a philosophical sensibility. This would create educational systems thatdiffered from the present one, which would not be constrained by the desire for“immediate effects.” Second, it would overcome a view of education that tends to arrive
at topics, such as “the content to be communicated” and “better technology.” Lastly, heargued that to have the understanding that “education is accompanied with ‘uncertainty’
could well prepare him/her to effectively address something that is difficult to understandduring his/her future educational practice.”
Prof. Nishi said that “every event associated with the trauma we experience has thepotential to create a meaning.” She suggested the possibility of “education to create
Nachträglichkeit,” which prompts the “symbolization of trauma.” Prof. Nishi argued that“psychoanalysis can learn a lot from education” in regard to “thinking,” which isindispensable for this symbolization. While affirming her argument, Prof. Geshi
acknowledged the need to overcome endless enlightenment and the threat of “Es” with“our own intelligence and the courage to step away from dependence on specialists suchas teachers and analysts.” At the same time, he suggested the need to explore “a way toco-exist with others while keeping a certain amount of dependency on them.”

4. Issues and Prospects
As discussed previously, “otherness” was the keyword in this symposium. In thephilosophy of education, otherness has been discussed in a wide variety of contexts, suchas “inner others,” “children as others,” and “transcendence.” However, the issues ofotherness in this symposium ranged from the emotions between the educator and theeducated to cultural events that are difficult to understand with the individual’s innerstorm of emotions as a starting point.
Psychoanalysis focuses on the emotional storm that suddenly blows up fromindividual unconsciousness. Furthermore, psychoanalysis has theorized otherness andhas dealt with it clinically. Prof. Nishi argues that within psychoanalysis, education can
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 6, 2021

26

N. SHIROKANE & K. SUKAWA

be found both as a cause of the storm and an opportunity to reveal the storm. Prof.
Britzman argued that for education, psychoanalysis stimulates inquiries into the nature ofstorms and ways to deal with them. They are storms within a child, within a teacher, andthose that suddenly blow violently in a place when they face each other. As we can see inthe exchange between Prof. Nishi and Prof. Nishihira, while psychoanalysts throw
themselves into the storms of their patients, the best that a teacher can do is manage theirown and their students’ storms. If we look away from the storms, we will allow theviolence that exists everywhere in society and schools to continue. One of the roles of
education is to pay attention to one’s own storm and that of others, to give appropriate
expressions to them, and to seek ways to relieve them.
Prof. Britzman’s discussion on “otherness” and Prof. Geshi’s discussion on
Nachträglichkeit included various cultural phenomena and cultural heritages, such as theglobal political youth movement, precarious situations involving violence and inequality,
and the contemporary significance of classics. These discussions could be considered as
educational variations of Freud’s criticism of culture. Historical catastrophes, such as
genocides, disasters, and pandemics can be added to these cultural phenomena.
Education that could cause a catastrophe must survive without escaping otherness andNachträglichkeit. If that is the case, how does education carry the weight of surviving acatastrophe, facing the emotional storms of the dead, and supporting those who haveexperienced the catastrophe and those who later speak about it? I think that educational
philosophy is required to show uncompromised hope in the form of constant questioning
without assisting the hasty symbolization or the oblivion of the storm, while staying in its
difficulties and uncertainty. It seems to us that the “Nachträglichkeit of educational
philosophy” was suggested in this year’s symposium, which was held amid thecoronavirus pandemic, and in last year’s symposium entitled “Inheritance of
HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation.”

Symposium: Psychoanalysis and Education: Freudian Thought as an Educational Theory