Philosophy of Education Society of Japan
President
Masaki SAKAKOSHI (Hiroshima Bunka Gakuen University)

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan
Editorial Board
Chief Editor
Fumio ONO (Doshisha University)
Board Members
Koki HIRAISHI (Kanazawa University)
Sunji LEE (Hosei University)
Yasushi MARUYAMA (Hiroshima University)
Reiko MUROI (Iwate University)
Mika OKABE (Osaka University)
Kunimasa SATO (Ibaraki University)
Atsushi SUZUKI (Kyushu University)
Masamichi UENO (Sophia University)
Assistant Editor
Kazunao MORITA (Graduate Student, Kyoto University)

Title: E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Societyof Japan, Vol. 5
Published: 18 October 2020
© 2020 Philosophy of Education Society of Japan
ISSN 2435-5364
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan is
published annually by the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan. The Office Address: Graduate School of Education,
Hiroshima University, 1-1-1, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima City, Hiroshima 739-8524, Japan. Email: phil.ed.soc.jp
＠gmail.com

Contents

The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of“the World”: The Temporality of Hannah Arendt’s Critique of Modern Education 1
Tomoki TANAKA

Symposium
Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation:
Changing Representations in Polyphony of／between German, Korean andJapanese Voices

Foreword to the Symposium “Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory andEmerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in Polyphony of/between
German, Korean and Japanese Voices”
Yasushi MARUYAMA
The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany: History and Current Problems
Lothar WIGGER

17

21

Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourse of Others: “The Last 10 Feet”
Project and the “Making a Better Hiroshima Textbook” Project
42
Jongsung KIM
Educational Theory of “Hiroshima” after the “Memory Turn”:
Summary of the Symposium and Moderator’s Comments
Jun YAMANA

52

Thematic Research
Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself
Through Philosophy of Education
Liz JACKSON

60

Philosophy, Education and Translation:
Towards Bidirectional Academic Exchange
Naoko SAITO

71

Theses on the Problem of the Language of Philosophy of Education
in a Globalized World
Lothar WIGGER

87

Possibility and Difficulty of Translation:
Issues Related to Citizenship and Border Crossing
Shigeo KODAMA

92

Beyond the Difference in Language: A Comment
Yasuo IMAIThe Preface to the Thematic Research: The Globalization,
Internationalization, and Universality of the Philosophy of Education
Mika OKABE
Fumio ONO

95

99

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession andRenewal of “the World”:
The Temporality of Hannah Arendt’s Critique of Modern Education
Tomoki TANAKA
Rikkyo University
Abstract
Arendt suggests that the purpose of education is to renew “the world,” which is, otherwise, inevitably
ruined without the coming of the new and young. However, as she acutely points out, education today
faces a crisis. According to Arendt, this crisis takes place against the following backdrop: although
education cannot forgo either authority or tradition, it must proceed in a world that is neither structured
by authority nor held together by tradition. The question now arises, how can we deal with the past
without a tradition that is able to explain it? Arendt’s interpretation of Walter Benjamin in Men in Dark
Times may be helpful in answering this question―she regards Benjamin as a master who has
discovered new ways of dealing with the past. To borrow Arendt’s phrase, he did his thinking withouta banister. This article consists of three attempts; first, to examine the difficulty and possibility ofeducation she indicates in her educational criticism. As the second, to clarify the meaning of “anattitude toward the past” in terms of the unique tense at the base of her argument. As the third and last,
to present the significance in education, as well as in politics, of such attitude.
Keywords
Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, Critique of Modern Education, Temporality

2

T. TANAKA

1. Introduction
1.1. The purpose of this paper
Is it possible for past events and memories to be passed on? To begin with, what
would the workings of this succession of past events and memories be? Such questions
have been addressed in a variety of discussions, which are at the roots of our communal
activities. Take for instance questions of ethics in the sense of response and responsibility
to others or issues of politics pertaining to who the people to be remembered in various
cases are. These points of interest also appear in pedagogy. However, when discussed inrelation to education, there is one indispensable aspect—the matter of inheritance acrossgenerations. In the field of pedagogy, there has been much discussion about how much
attempts to pass on past events and memories relate to character building and community
formation, as well as what roles the teachers play in those efforts [Shirokane 2003,
Kodama 2001, Yano 2000]. These discussions have severely criticized “past events” (assubjects in modern education) for solely focusing on presenting a singular narrative that
supports the nation-state and suggested the need for reconstructing semantic spaces byretelling various narratives as well as the possibilities for this as an approach to education.
Nevertheless, contrary to the aforementioned theoretical attempts, there has also
been a growing movement that seeks a single “correct history”; this is an outcome of the
return of nationalism amidst globalization. This trend cannot be overlooked. Under thesecircumstances, it is important to address the questions on the state of education that
contributed to the unification of communities by converging past events into a single
narrative. In other words, more in-depth consideration is necessary for dealing withquestions regarding how education can enable the conveyance of past events andmemories without tying them together as a single story and whether we can ensure
cooperation across generations. Additionally, this examination needs to be based on athorough criticism of modern education, as modern education itself is inextricably linked
to the formation of the nation-state.
Regarding the matters mentioned, this paper will seek to make a consistent responseby beginning with Hannah Arendt’s (1906-1975) critique of modern education;
furthermore, it will seek to clarify how she believed succession and renewal of “the world”
could be achieved through the “attitude toward the past.” Arendt was a political thinker,
who also became widely known in pedagogy for her acute criticisms of modern
education based on her unique perspective. She centrally addressed these critiques in her

The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of “the World”

3

work “The Crisis in Education” (first published in 1958) and expanded upon them in“Reflections on Little Rock” (first published in 1959), as she built upon criticisms of theUnited States' inclusive education policy. However, exploring the totality of her theory ofeducation or providing thoughts on specific educational phenomena based on it is beyond
the objectives of this paper. Rather, this article will focus on the issues suggested in
Arendt's critique of modern education, including those not explicitly discussed.
The detailed discussions presented in this paper show that education requires an“attitude toward the past” based on Arendt’s argument about education’s responsibility inaiding the succession and renewal of “the world.” However, regarding the meaning of
the term “attitude toward the past,” she provided no further explanation in her theory ofeducation. Still, her work does offer some clues, though fragmentary. For instance, “TheCrisis in Education” appears as an essay in the book Between Past and Future, where, inthe preface, Arendt emphasizes that the aim of each essay in the collection is “to gain
experience in how to think” [BPF: 14, emphasis from the original text] in the gap between
the past and the future.
From the above reference, we can see that how to handle the past is an underlying
theme in her theory of education. Even more precisely, at the root of Arendt's
contemplation, there is a concern as to the kind of attitude we are to take between the pastand the future, and it may be best to say that she derived her theory of education fromsuch concerns. This paper therefore begins with Arendt’s theory of education and also
extends some consideration to the multiple texts in which she moved beyond the theoryof education itself and addressed question regarding the “past.”
1.2. The Subjects in this Paper
Several research studies focusing on Arendt have been undertaken based on myriad
concerns involving pedagogy, and they offer a certain amount of theoretical accumulation
and active discussion of new reading possibilities. Among these prior research studies,some are deeply related to the subjects of this paper. We will point out discussions that
rely on Arendt’s theory of education while looking at the succession of “the world” andthe bridging of the gap between generations. Focusing on Arendt’s key concepts of“natality” and “the world,” the reconstruction of political semantic spaces througheducation and the reinterpretation of children as political actors are used to address theteacher's positionality within that context [Biesta 2013, Levinson 1997, Kodama 2013,
Tanaka 2016, Park 2006]. Such discussions are not necessarily monoliths under close
examination; many contain a number of important issues. Among at least a few, there is

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

4

T. TANAKA

a shared perspective that Arendt’s theory of education is inextricably linked to herpolitical thought with relation to the concern of ensuring that “the world” is a stage forfree speech and activity. This paper also shares this perspective and focuses on the“attitude toward the past” as essential for the succession and renewal of “the world”, as
Arendt does.
However, previous studies have not addressed Arendt’s “attitude toward the past”
as a central subject. This is because her references to it have been extremely limited andfragmented. Meanwhile, H. Gordon presented one of the few studies that touch upon thispoint. Supporting Arendt’s strict delineation between the public and the educational
realms, he stated that teachers who aim to provide an education for promoting democracy
cannot create a public realm in the classroom but can encourage the thinking ofchildren[Gordon, H: 55]. In keeping with working toward encouraging children to think,
the importance of an "attitude toward the past" in education from Arendt’s theory is
acknowledged. Issues including how thinking and an “attitude toward the past” overlap
and how the encouragement of thinking contributes to the succession and renewal of “theworld” have not been discussed even in the writings of H. Gordon.
M. Gordon’s research also poses a similar problem. His essay evaluates theimportance Arendt placed on the “attitude toward the past” in education in the affirmative.
He extended Arendt’s views regarding “attitude toward the past” to the practice ofteaching classical works and discussed the significance of doing so. In contrast to theconservatives, represented by A. Bloom, who expected classical works to complement
traditional moral norms, Arendt’s theory of education focused on children’s “newness”
and highly valued “attitude toward the past” as an agent, specifically with regard to using
it to create new things[Gordon, M: 57]. However, some questions remain in the wake of
M. Gordon’s observations: whether Arendt’s suggestion of an “attitude toward the past”
should involve teaching classical works in the first place, and even if there is somethingthat can be transferred over, how learning from classical works can lead to the creation of
new things.
As has been mentioned, previous studies have shown that Arendt’s “attitude toward
the past” has certain pedagogical implications. Nevertheless, the fundamental question
regarding the “attitude toward the past” relates to the creation of new things, and as aresult, the succession and renewal of “the world” has remained unexplored. Additionally,
this issue is not limited to Arendt’s theory of education. How can we address the past in
a way that does not base itself on “tradition” or a single narrative? Arendt explores thisthrough her own experiences of thinking. Through her thinking experiences, Arendt
discovered the concepts of past, present, and future different from continuous time.
The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of “the World”

5

Therefore, to interpret Arendt’s suggestion regarding an “attitude toward the past,” wemust begin by clarifying what kind of consciousness of time she is referencing as apremise for the “attitude toward the past.”
Considering the above, by the existing research, the implications of her “attitude
toward the past” being important in the educational effort for succession and renewal of“the world” have not been sufficiently covered. Therefore, this study attempted to clarify
the nature of the “attitude toward the past” that Arendt seeks in education by going backand examining the underlying temporality of her critique of modern education.
First, when we traverse Arendt’s critique of modern education, it is important torecognize why so much significance is accorded to the “attitude toward the past.” In thisstudy, the focus of this consideration will be her work “The Crisis in Education,” where
it is treated as a central topic.
Second, we will consider what the “attitude toward the past” as suggested by Arendt
is and try to clarify the matter of what sort of consciousness of time it is based upon. Here,we will consider Arendt’s interpretation of an approach to the past as suggested in thefables of W. Benjamin and F. Kafka.
Third, it is important to examine the “attitude toward the past” revealed by the
aforementioned sources for any political or pedagogical significance. This section will
reveal the “attitude toward the past” sought by Arendt as well as the possibilities it holdswith regard to facing the past—especially with regard to attempting to construct an
education for the succession and renewal of “the world.”

2. Arendt’s Critique of Modern Education
2.1. “Loss of Tradition” and the Education Crisis
Why did Arendt, who was renowned as a political thinker, discuss the subject ofeducation? Her reasoning can be inferred in various ways, but she offers at least two
specific points. First, she asserts that education is indispensable in bringing persistence to“the world.” As stated before, the concept of “the world” is central to Arendt's thinking
and forms a key concept. Although we will not discuss the concept of “the world” in too
much detail here, the central tenets are as follows. For Arendt, “the world” refers to thespace of free speech and action, or in her own vocabulary, “the public realm.” This space
is important because it is where each of us can appear individually as unique entities.
However, “the world” is lost if no people are present there through actions and speech.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

6

T. TANAKA

Arendt viewed education as a means of countering such a crisis and stated her views asfollows.
And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not
to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strikefrom their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseenby us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common
world.[BPF:193]
As clearly shown here, Arendt’s motive for discussing education is with regard to
the concern of supporting her whole ideology; in other words, it is rooted in what shecalls “love for the world.” To put it differently, Arendt’s interest in education stems fromthe roots of her thinking.
This interest alone does not make it clear why she came to discuss the “crisis” ofeducation. Arendt stuck her neck out as an amateur in the field, having almost no
knowledge from experts because such a “crisis situation” provided an opportunity toidentify the nature of the problems that become exposed [BPF: 171].
That being the case, what is this “crisis situation,” which is being described here?
Arendt locates it in the “loss of tradition” [BPF: 191]. According to Arendt, the educator
bears authority, and the bridge that can join the past and the future should rely on being
rooted in epic origins; in Western history, this principle is exemplified in the founding ofRome. However, with the advent of modernity, that tradition was lost. Arendt described
it as follows: “politically speaking, it was the decline and downfall of the nation state;socially, it was the transforma-tion of a class system into a mass society; and spiritually it
was the rise of nihilism” [MDT: 228].
This notion, which views tradition as an origin to return to, was thus lost. Until then,it had been the bridge between the past and the future in education. As a result, thefundamental mission of education—that is, aiding the succession and renewal of “theworld”—has become elusive. Arendt believed that this situation caused numerous
distortions in education. Now, “we have lost the thread (the Ariadne’s thread) whichsafely guided us through the vast realms of the past;” [BPF: 94, addition by the quoter] it
can no longer be relied upon, and now generations cannot be linked using the same origin.
This is how a crisis was already created in the establishment of modern education, andthe history of modern education became a history of responding to a crisis situation
because of the “loss of tradition.” Thus, the essay “The Crisis in Education” not only
points out that modern education has faced the crisis of losing tradition since its inception,
The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of “the World”

7

but it also includes the criticism that the responses to that crisis had amplified it in a certain
direction.
2.2. Critique of Progressive Education
How has modern education handled the crisis of the “loss of tradition?” According
to Arendt’s insights, in place of the lost tradition, what supported education was anillusion arising from the pathos of the new [BPF: 174]. This illusion extends from theblind belief in the absolute newness of children and points to seeing this newness as anestablished fact. This originated in Rousseau's educational philosophy, which came underthe banner of progressive education and spread through educational circles. Arendt
criticized these educational movements because they regarded the newness of children
as an established fact and believed that, as long as “the world” were left to children, it
would progress and develop naturally; they abandoned education’s responsibility withregard to the succession and renewal of “the world.” Therefore, Arendt suggested thatchildren were not led to “the world” where they ought to be, and that the absolute newnessof each individual was being overlooked; simultaneously, they would only be driven
toward new things.
Let us now organize our thoughts based on the discussion in the previous section;
modern education responded to the crisis of the “loss of tradition” by avoiding—insteadof seeking—the “story origin” (tradition) of the shared principles that the community
relied on. The principles that one was to rely on were replaced by the “story of progress.”
In the past, the succession of “the world” over generations was fulfilled by a shared origin(tradition). Now, it is the narrative of progress that links generation to generation.
However, the “narrative of progress” is an illusion that does not tie to a real image, andpeople only share the spirit of seeking something newer. Therefore, in progressive
education, sharing “the world” is no longer the purpose. Through the loss of tradition,
education confronted difficulties regarding the succession and renewal of “the world,”
but modern education’s response to this challenge was to abandon the original purpose.
Arendt provided this harsh critique of modern education in a passage that closes the
essay “The Crisis in Education”: “Education is the point at which we decide whether welove the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it fromthat ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would
be inevitable” [BPF 193]. How can we take on the responsibility for the succession andrenewal of “the world” at such a fork in the road? Arendt does not explicitly explain how
this can be done. However, she seems to have left some indications of possibilities in the

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

8

T. TANAKA

her statements.
Arendt pointed out that the loss of tradition was at the root of modern problems andelaborated this notion in the following way: “Thus the undeniable loss of tradition in themodern world does not at all entail a loss of the past”[BPF: 93]. Indeed, Arendt states thattradition was the thread that guided us through the realm of the past, but at the same time,“this thread was also the chain fettering each successive generation to a predetermined
aspect of the past”[BPF: 93-94]. Therefore, the loss of tradition also signifies liberation
because one is released from this “chain.” Thus, Arendt states that the loss of tradition
does not only cause negative consequences. The loss of tradition does not mean that “theworld” itself is incapable of being passed on; it shows that a singular narrative that can be
identified as “tradition” will not be inherited. As a result, we must ponder the question of
how we can share “the world” with people in a way that does not tie to the single narrativethat is tradition. When Arendt states that “learning inevitably turns toward the past, nomatter how much living will spend itself in the present” [BPF: 192], it is not representing
a kind of nostalgia—something she is often criticized for. Rather, instead of returning totradition, this means reconstructing “the world” in a way that does not destroy the pastand betting on education for the succession and renewal of “the world” across generations.

3. An “Attitude toward the Past” from Arendt
3.1. A New Way to Discuss the Past
As the previous section showed, the loss of “tradition” noted by Arendt may notnecessarily have only negative consequences. What is lost is simply the continuity of past
events. That being said, how should we handle the past? While this question is being
thrown at us, from the content of Between Past and Future, this is clearly an issue thatArendt herself pondered upon frequently.
It should be noted here that Arendt took important clues from W. Benjamin’s wayof thinking. She dedicated a chapter from Men in Dark Times to Benjamin’s theories andnoted that he became a master of handling the past via new methods [MDT: 193],
describing it more fully as follows. “Walter Benjamin knew that the break in tradition andthe loss of authority which occurred in his lifetime, were irreparable, and he concluded
that he had to discover new ways of dealing with the past” [MDT: 193]. This method of
Benjamin resulted in his manuscript Theses on the Philosophy of History, but oddly
enough, the draft was entrusted to Arendt, who rushed to get it published following his

The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of “the World”

9death. From this, we can also see that they deeply shared circumstances, areas of concern
and interest, and thinking.1 Furthermore, the confluent relationship between the two was
not isolated with biographical truths2. This paper will not provide a detailed considerationof the ideological relationship between the two; however, as far as the “attitude toward
the past” is concerned, the following three points demonstrate their shared ideologicalaffinity in general terms.
First, Arendt and Benjamin shared an awareness regarding the times surrounding
the crisis. Second, during the crisis, they rejected leaning toward “progressivism” as well
as returning to tradition (in Benjamin’s terms, “historicism”), and thus shared the same
critical perspectives. Third, through these critiques, they shared in the ideologicalchallenge of trying to reframe how time itself is captured. Let us now look at Benjamin’s
theory, which is presented in Men in Dark Times.
Arendt likens Benjamin to a “Pearl Diver,” and discusses his “new ways of dealing
with the past” as follows. According to Arendt, Benjamin’s thinking is like that of “a pearl
diver who descends to the bottom of the sea, not to excavate the bottom and bring it tolight but to pry loose the rich and the strange, the pearls and the coral in the depths and tocarry them to the surface, this thinking delves into the depths of the past” [MDT: 205206]. Here, the “pearl” is compared to a fragment of the past or a “thought fragment.”
Unshared fragments of the past are destined to decay on the seabed, but Benjamin reaches
for those fragments, uses thinking to snatch them from their fate of decay, and gathers
them up into stories that have not yet been told [MDT: 205-206]. When he does this, hemay take the fragment and “resuscitate it the way it was,” but not in order “to contributeto the renewal of extinct ages” [MDT: 205-206]. Rather, his objective is to use thesecrystallized fragments of the past to dismantle the constancy of the obvious story shared
as “history” until then. Only by breaking the chain of already-told events can fragmentsof the past of as yet untold stories be carried to the surface. Arendt points out that the“Theses on the Philosophy of History” represents Benjamin’s clearest statement
regarding his thinking in this way. In the ninth section of the “Theses on the Philosophyof History”, the “Angelus Novus,” while looking to face the past, does not perceive a“chain of events,” but “one single catastrophe.”
1Starting from 1934 or 1935, Benjamin and Arendt exchanged their thoughts each other and came to holddiscussions regularly after they defected to Paris [Bruehl: 122]. The days of their friendship coincided with the period
Benjamin wrote “Thesis on Philosophy of History”. The hand-written draft of it was entrusted to Arendt at their last
meeting with Benjamin in Marseilles. After she flew to the United States, seeking refuge, she made every effort topublish the manuscript left by the deceased [Bruehl: 166-168].
2[Kodama 2001] and [Morikawa 2010] indicate the influence of the thought of Benjamin on Arendt’s idea of“natality.”
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

10

T. TANAKA

A Klee painting named ‘Angelus Novus’ shows an angel looking as though he isabout to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are
staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angelof history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events,
he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage and hurls it in front of
his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has
been smashed. But a storm is blowing in from Paradise; it has got caught in his
wings with such a violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm
irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile ofdebris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.[Benjamin:249]
In this “Theses”, the attitude of the “Novus Angelus” toward the past is in
opposition to the two views of history Benjamin himself was critical of. In other words,
it goes against “historicism” and the progressive view of history. From the perspective of“historicism,” past events are understood as part of a continuity or constancy. Benjaminbelieved that this was the story of rulers, which was built up for forgetting losers and thedead. This “chain of events” does not reach the eyes of the “angelus” (angel). The “angel”
observes debris that piles up from the story of the ruler. However, there is a power greaterthan the “angel,” and that power is “progress,” which sweeps the angel into the future.
The storm of progress, while giving rise to successive sacrifices, propels the “angel” away
as the “pile of debris before him grows skyward.”
On reflection, for Benjamin, talking about the past, both in terms of “historicism”
and progressive history, refers to the history of those who are fated to be forgotten.
Additionally, what is told there cannot be recovered as a continuous history, and in thatsense, it must always be treated as being fragmentary. Nevertheless, in the daily
temporality of everyday life, these fragments may also be recovered as a singularnarrative of history that is connected as a “chain of events.” Therefore, when the past is
told as fragments, it is fundamentally thought to be a consciousness of time that differsfrom the continuous sequence of time. Based on these suggestions, Arendt moves torecapture temporality itself.
3.2. The Clash of TimeWith the past not in continuity, when a newness emerges from the disruption of

The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of “the World”

11stories that have been told before, in what temporality can we find this newness? Here,
what Arendt puts forth for discussion is temporality experienced in thinking. This isbecause, according to her, handling fragments of the past as fragments originally is onlyin thought, and time experienced through the “thinking ego” differs entirely from thelinear time that we experience in daily life [LMT: 212].
According to Arendt, the time experienced in “thinking” is caught in the gap
between the past and the future. Seeking to express this temporality, Arendt cites a
passage from Franz Kafka’s collection of aphorisms titled “He.”He has two antagonist: the first presses him from behind, from the origin. The
second blocks the road ahead. He gives battle to both. To be sure, the first supports
him in his fight with the second, for he wants to push him forward, and in the same
way the second supports him in his fight with the first, since he drives him
antagonists who are there, but he himself as well, and who really unguarded
moment―and this world require a night darker than any night has ever been
yet―he will jump out of the fighting line and be promoted, on account of his
experience in fighting, to the position of umpire over his antagonists in their fightwith each other.[BPF: 7]
Here, “he” stands between the two antagonists—who are no-longer of the past andnot-yet of the future—who crash onto the present “Now.” “His” battle, on the one hand,
involves “the fear of a future (whose only certainty is death), driving him backward
toward 'the quiet of the past' with nostalgia for and remembrance of the only reality hecan be sure of” [LMT: 205]. Nevertheless, “he” must withstand the force of the “past.”“This past, moreover, reaching all the way back into the origin takes him and “presses
forward” [BPF: 10]. The force of the “past” seeks to push him to origins as “not-yet”
things. If “he” remains thinking in the “now,” “he” must remain locked in the battle
between these two antagonists.
However, according to Arendt, this parable is not enough to fully understand thetemporality of thought. Here, the issue she raises is about “his” dream of jumping out of
the fighting line and taking the position of an “umpire.” “He” dreams that, by escaping
from the battle, “he” can observe the world and free himself from any interests in it or
any real engagement with it [LMT: 207]. However, if “he” were to jump out of this the“world,” the two antagonists would vanish at the same time, and only the circular
movements of the universe, an indifferent flow, would remain. This lacks a humanperspective and indicates that only the natural circulation will remain. Arendt points out
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

12

T. TANAKA

that, despite this, “his” being trapped in a dream of escaping from the battle results from
Kafka himself adhering to the traditional image of linear time. “Obviously what is
missing in Kafka’s description of a thought-event is spatial dimension where thinking
could exert itself without being forced to jump out of human time altogether”[BPF: 11].
Thus, using this new perspective,
Arendt reconceptualizes this not as a clash
between the past and the future but in a waythat is similar to what physicists call a“parallelogram of forces.” In this image,“he” originates in the present, whileadvancing “his thoughts along a diagonalline composed of the force pushing into the
future and the force pushing back into thepast. This diagonal extends into infinity, but[LMT: 208]
the starting point is always the present.
Arendt declares that the good thing about this image is that “the region of thought would
no longer have to be situated beyond and above the world and human time” [LMT: 208].
Thinking here does not mean a complete departure from “the world.” “The fighter would
no longer have to jump out of the fighting line in order to find the quiet and the stillness
necessary for thinking” [LMT: 208]. This is rooted in “the world”; while going a distancefrom the association of system and meaning in “the world,” amidst the clash between thepast and the future, new events are always being discovered and thinking directed toward
this continues to be stimulated.
Here, let us organize Arendt’s newly shown sense of time. Regarding the time
continuity that extends from the past to the present and then to the future, she offers thecriticism that the unrecoverable fragments of the past from that cumulatively developed
story could be doomed to oblivion. Turning from this critique, she directs us toward a
way to think of time by using new methods to discuss the past. While doing this, a gap inthinking formed by the clash between the past and the future is discovered. Within thisconsciousness of time, neither the past nor the future is privileged, and while constantly
maintaining a distance from both, a position can be found that allows for events to beunderstood in myriad ways.
The consciousness of time this is now revealed was discovered embodied in thefoundation of Benjamin’s work on thinking. However, Arendt states that, at last, theexperience of time has ceased to be the exclusive property of those who have the special
destructive power to create a rift between the past and the future. This is because “whenThe 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of “the World”

13

the thread of tradition finally broke, the gap between past and future ceased to be a
condition peculiar only to the activity of thought and restricted as an experience to those
few who made thinking their primary business,” and “it became a tangible reality andperplexity for all” [BPF: 14]. As has already been observed, the loss of tradition puts
educational efforts in a position where the past and the future collide. If so, the “attitude
toward the past” Arendt mentions in discussing her theory of education would be implied
to originate from first assuming a consciousness of time built from a clash between pastand future.

4. An “Attitude toward the Past” from Arendt
4.1. The Politics of the “Attitude toward the Past”
The preceding section showed that Arendt conceived a new way of thinking about
the past based on Benjamin’s thoughts. When past events are related, they are always
expressed as a singular narratives with a beginning and an end. They are spoken of as achain of events that can be incorporated into a single time continuity. Therefore, in the
background of a story that has already been told, countless past events remain
unincorporated into the chain that remains. These unspoken fragments of the past are
exposed to being forgotten. The “attitude toward the past” that Arendt found from
Benjamin is directed toward saving these yet unrevealed events from being forgotten.
Let us return to the questions posed by this paper. To begin with, Arendt’s search
for new ways to face the past with the loss of tradition came from an interest in protecting“the world” that is the stage of politics. Taking this context into account, we must
determine how the “attitude toward the past,” which was clarified in this paper’s
examination, is aligned with Arendt’s interest.
Arendt concludes The Life of the Mind “Part 1: Thinking” referring to historian andsays that they are those who inquire and make judgments about the past. However, shealso states that “History” is a pseudo-divinity of the modern age. That is to say that in themodern age, “History” itself acts as the ultimate judge, and by forgetting events thatcannot be restored to its intended chain of events, it raises itself to the position of theultimate. In this, “History” functions as a mechanism to make the existing politicalframework absolute. By criticizing the “History” of the modern age in this way, Arendt
insists that the ability to relate history should be reclaimed by people[LMT: 216].
Based on the considerations raised by this paper, what this “ability to relate history”

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

14

T. TANAKA

refers to seems to overlap with the new way Arendt seeks to talk about the past. In thewake of the loss of tradition, Arendt does not seek the pseudo-divinity “History” of themodern age. This is because “History” tries to replace “tradition” by removing events andactions that do not contribute to the process, and because it is a thing that excludes
different people, it is something that renders the succession and renewal of “the world”
inert. To resist this “History,” this lie must be exposed; in other words, it is necessary tosave the as yet untold events and otherwise possible stories. In this context, the “attitude
toward the past” has a very political meaning. Arendt concludes The Life of the Mind
“Part 1: Thinking” by quoting the following phrase from Cato, as a basis forunderstanding. “The victorious cause pleased the gods, but the defeated one pleases Cato”[LMT: 216]3.
As mentioned above, “attitude toward the past” is particularly political in resisting
the “correct history” that supports the existing political system by saving events that have
not yet been told. Finally, based on the politics of this “attitude toward the past,” we must
consider what is the suggested form education itself should take, considering Arendt’s
request for an “attitude toward the past” in education.
4.2. The Topos for Those Who Are Coming
Arendt’s critique of modern education revealed that it had lost the absolute story of“tradition” in its formation, but the “story of progress” became an alternate story; however,this could not fulfill the responsibility toward succession and renewal of “the world.”
Although, this is not to say that “the world” cannot be inherited. The “attitude
toward the past” explored by Arendt is indeed an attempt to seek out a method of
succession and renewal of “the world.” She showed that, by seeking yet unshared past
events, the existing chain of events could be questioned, and therein lies a new story that
could be brought out. As examined in this article, the relationship between past and future
cannot be captured either as a straight line moving toward the future or as a circle
representing the origin of traditions. The past and the future are in a relationship where
they clash at a gap. This gap between the past and the future is the topos of education.
This being the case, education is not aimed at closing this “gap” with a convenient story;
rather it aims to discover fragments of the past in this rift and think about its various
possibilities of new stories.

3

Although Arendt wrote this sentence was the word by Cato the Elder in her book, Cato referred in the phrase
means, in fact, Cato the Younger the great-grandson of Cato the Elder [Komori: 141].
The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

“Attitude toward the Past” and its Role in the Succession and Renewal of “the World”

15

5. Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to explore H. Arendt’s critique of modern education
while clarifying how she perceived an “attitude toward the past” aimed at the succession
and renewal of “the world” that could stretch over generations. Through this, it was
confirmed that Arendt’s criticisms concerning contemporary education were based on her
own theory of time, and the succession and renewal of “the world” were not to beachieved in a continuous sense of time. Furthermore, the mission of education, that is the
succession and renewal of “the world,” was shown to be fulfilled in the gap between pastand future. From this, it became clear that the “attitude toward the past” could beunderstood as an attempt to explore and think about past events not yet spoken.
However, a new issue emerged in the course of this analysis. While this paper
revealed the feature of the “attitude toward the past” and its significance, it did notconsider the possibilities of discovering past events that have not yet given a story.
Dealing with this matter will necessarily involve examining the issues surrounded bymedia in education. In particular, given Arendt’s discussions surrounding world
alienation and in light of it being pointed out that artifacts that leave a trace of people’s
activities lose durability, these issues should be discussed within the framework of her
theory of world alienation and theory of education.

References
Works of Hannah Arendt
BPF: Between Past and Future, Penguin Books, 1977.
LMT: The Life of the Mind, Harcourt, 1978.
MDT: Men in Dark Times , Harcourt Brace & Company,1968.
RL: “Reflections on Little Rock”, Dissent, Vol.16, No.1, 1959.
Other Works
Benjamin, W. (1999) Illuminations, edited and with an introduction by Hannah Arendt ;translated by Harry Zorn, Pimlico.
Biesta, Gert.J.J. (2013) The Beautiful Risk of Education, Paradigm Publishers.
Bruehl. E. Y., (1982) Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World, Yale University Press.
Gordon, H. (1998)“Learning to Think: Arendt on Education for Democracy”, theE-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

16

T. TANAKA

educational Forum, 53(1), pp.49-62.
Gordon, M. (2001) “Hannah Arendt on Authority: Conservatism in Education
Reconsidered”, edited by Mordechai Gordon, Hannah Arendt and Education,
Westview, pp.37-65.
Kodama, Shigeo. (2001) “Hajimari no Sōshitsu to Kindai: Arendt ni okeru Syussei tokyōiku”, Hannha Arendt o yomu, (Loss of Beginning and Modernity: Natality
and Education in Arendt), Jyōkyōshuppan, pp.153-163.
Kodama, Shigeo. (2013) Gakuryoku Gensō, (Ideology of Academic Competence),
Chikumashinsyo.
Levinson, N. (1997) “Teaching in the Midst of Belatedness：The Paradox of natality in
Hannah Arendt’s Educational Thought,” Educational Theory, Vol.47, No.4,
pp.435-451.
Morikawa, Terukazu. (2010) “Hajimari” no Arendt: “Syussei” no Shisō no Tanjyō,(Hannah Arendt of “Beginning”： The Birth of her Thought and “Natality”),
Iwanamisyoten.
Paku, Sun-nam.(2006) “Hannah Arendt ni okeru “Sekai” Gainen: Kyōiku to Ken-i no
Ichizuke o megutte, (World and Authority in Arendt's View of Education),
Tetsugaku, 115, pp.25-43.
Shirokane, Natsuki. (2003) “Ningenkeisei ni okeru Jikanteki Renzokusei ni kansuru ichi
Kōsatsu: Jikan Ishiki o neguru Adorno no Shisō o tegakari to shite”(A Critical
Study on the Continuity of Human Life: From the Perspective of Theodor W.
Adorno's Thoughts on Time-Consciousness), Kindaikyōikufōramu, 12, pp.221223.
Tanaka, Tomoki. (2016) “Kyōiku ni okeru “Ken-i” no Ichi: H.Arendt no Bōryokuron otegakarini” (The Position of "Authority" in Education: A Study of One Strand of
Hannah Arendt's Argument on Violence), Kyōikugakukenkyū, 83 (4), pp.461-473.
Yano, Satoji. (2000) Jikohenyō to iu Monogatari: Seisei, Zōyo, Kyōiku, (A Narrative
Called "Self-transformation": Becoming, Gift, Education)
Yano, Satoji. Yamana, Jun.(2017) Saigai to Yakusai no Kioku o tsutaeru: Kyōikugaku
niha naniga dekirunoka,(Passing Memories of Disaster and Calamity down :What Education Studies Could Do?) , Keisōsyobō.
This work was supported by KAKENHI JP17K13976.

The 5th Research Promotion Award Article (2019)

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Foreword to the Symposium “Inheritance of HIROSHIMA
Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing
Representations in Polyphony of/between German, Korean
and Japanese Voices”
Yasushi MARUYAMA
Hiroshima University

Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Even
after seventy-four years have passed, no end of the controversy over its meaning is insight. The voice that justifies the drop and the voice that conveys the tragedy of the Abomb pass each other and do not encounter.
Certainly, the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the
UN General Assembly in July 2017 was a big step toward realizing the long-standing
wish of the atomic bomb survivors to abolish nuclear weapons. However, none of thenuclear-weapon possessing states, including the United States, even attended theconference. The damage caused by nuclear weapons is a "crime against humanity",
which is clear from the terrible consequences of the atomic bombs on the people ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. Nevertheless, the abolition of nuclear weapons has notprogressed. It may be because the reality of the atomic-bombed has not been unknown
to the world. From such thoughts, many A-bomb survivors have talked about their painful
memories of the atomic bombs and tried to convey them by drawing pictures. Over 70
years passing, however, the aging of A-bomb survivors becomes more crucial, and it isobvious that there will be no survivors in the near future who can tell the actual experienceof the atomic-bombed. An urgent issue is how to pass on the memories of Hiroshima andNagasaki so that properly understanding the reality of the atomic bombed should preventfrom using any more nuclear weapons.
What can Educational Studies do for this task? One measure would be to envision

18

Y. MARUYAMA

and practice peace education originating in Hiroshima. It is a type of peace education that
carefully elucidates and verifies why the atomic bomb was dropped, what was happening
under the mushroom cloud, and what kind of life the hibakusha were forced to spend;
and then that develops methods to convey them correctly. It is the peace education that
fosters an attitude of exploring together what should be done in order not to repeat thefact.
However, it is in a situation where people from different positions cannot
understand each other over this HIROSHIMA. Each other thinks the other is wrong.
Others are indifferent to or tired of hearing the discourse of HIROSHIMA. Here is atanble that must be unraveled before the peace education is given.

HIROSHIMA complexity
The thing to consider is the complexity of the issue. HIROSHIMA has beenvariously understood in various types of discourse such as science, medicine, policy,
religion, ethics, and diplomacy. Along with indifference, lack of knowledge, regret, or thesense of mission and justice, people from different positions have understood
HIROSHIMA with different representations.
For example, Hiroshima, where the atomic bomb was dropped for the first time inhuman history, was revived as an international peace city, but before the end of the war it
was a military city from which many soldiers were sent to the mainland China, and once
was the war-time capital where Imperial Headquarters was set up during the SinoJapanese War. Someone who knows the ravages of the war has criticized that the more
HIROSHIMA emphasizes the damage caused by the atomic bomb, the less visible theharm done by Japan in Asia. In addition, when HIROSHIMA is universalized as aconception praying for peace and linked with the heroism of external supporters, theparticularity of the A-bomb survivors’ own suffering—that of the experience of sufferingfrom anxiety about radioactivity and from discrimination, while feeling the sudden lossof relatives/friends, the severe pain of heat ray burns, and survivors’ burden to victims-is regarded as trivial. Voices calling HIROSHIMA a symbol of peace may block thevoices accusing A-bomb droppers of the misery. Voices requiring for the repose of
the victims’ souls may oppose the voices seeking urban development or better quality oflife. Just as the “Nuclear Peace Expo” was once held at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum, HIROSHIMA is even a political magnetic field where inconsistent words, like
“nuclear umbrella,” “nuclear weapons abolition,” “nuclear peace use,” and “opposition
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Foreword to the Symposium

19

against nuclear power”, are invited while passing each other.

Toward the intersection of different voices and the renewal of representations
In this complex situation, how is inheritance of memory possible to make the voices
encounter, revise fixed representations, and create reconciliation? How can Philosophyof Education respond to this challenge?
As a related study to be listed is Lisa Yoneyama, Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space,
and the Dialectics of Memory (University of California Press, 1999). Hiroaki Ozawa, oneof the translators of the book, characterizes it as follows: "The polyphonic voices evokedby the representations of ‘Hiroshima’ and ‘Atomic Bomb’ tend to be absorbed in therecollection of the damage and the narration of the history of the nation. Since the power
to promote embezzlement of memory is unevenly distributed, those who oppose it cannot
avoid having difficulty. The author vividly shows the placement of power and unravels
the place where memory works and the way the politics of historical knowledge plays”(Yoneyama, Iwanami, 2005, p. 299). Since the publication of the book, the focus on
discourse formation and the politics of memory has been understood as one of theimportant approaches to unravel the complex HIROSHIMA problem.
What is expected from Philosophy of Education considering the HIROSHIMA
problem? It is to respond to the urgent task of Hiroshima--avoiding the crisis of using
nuclear weapons, and reviewing the way of memory inheritance due to the decrease in
the number of atomic bomb survivors--and at the same time to show the path to tackle
the difficulties of this problem. That is to say, we ask how we obtain representations andhow we can change them, and demonstrate how changing representations enables those
who disagree with each other to reach mutual understanding and reconciliation.
"Philosophy of Education" mentioned here refers to activities that elucidate thefoundations and preconditions of what brings about human transformation. By reading
the intersections of various voices and unraveling the complexities of HIROSHIMA,
Philosophy of Education seeks ways to change our thoughts and attitudes throughmeeting the voices of others.

Purpose and outline of discussion
In order to meet this challenge, this panel discussion invites Lothar Wigger of
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

20

Y. MARUYAMA

Dortmund Technical University and Kim Jongsung of Hiroshima University to review
practices and challenges concerning the representations and reconciliation over
HIROSHIMA. How is HIROSHIMA represented in Germany and South Korea, where
the meaning of World War II is settled in its own way? And how can these representations
intersect and mutually transform the representations in Japan? These questions are
examined in their reviews so as to confirm that the inheritance of the memory of war canbring about reconciliation,
Dr. Wigger is a philosopher of education, who contributed "Catastrophe andPedagogy" to Passing Memories of Disaster and Calamity Down : What Can Education
Studies Do? (edited by Jun Yamana and Satoji Yano, Keiso Shobo, 2017). He may also
be known as one of the editors of Recognition and Human Formation (edited by Lothar
Wigger, Jun Yamana and Kayo Fujii, Kitaoji Shobo, 2015). He has recently started fieldresearch on Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. He is asked to review the
representation of HIROSHIMA in Germany through the analysis of how it was treatedin textbooks and the mass media, and to examine in the German context how passing on
the memory of war would make reconciliation possible/impossible, entitled "The Legacyof ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany: History and Current Problems".
Dr. Kim is an up-and-coming researcher who specializes in social studies pedagogy.
Focusing on the concepts of "citizen" and "nation," he is conducting developmental
research aiming to educate children who are aware of coexistence with others living
outside their country. A recent publication of him is J. Kim, (2019), “Beyond national
discourses: South Korean and Japanese students ‘make a better social studies textbook'”,in B. C. Rubin, E. B. Freedman & J. Kim (Eds.) Design research in social studies
education: There is Critical lessons from an emerging field, Routledge. He is asked thistime to examine how preservice teachers of social studies in Japan and South Korea haverenewed the representation of HIROSHIMA, and whether they could or could not reacha common understanding, entitled “Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourseof Others: ‘The Last 10 Feet’ Project and the ‘Making a Better Hiroshima Textbook’
Project”, so as to suggest a possible direction that the inheritance of HIROSHIMA
memory and reconciliation could take.
In response to the two reviews, Dr. Yamana will illustrate the HIROSHIMA
problem as challenges for Philosophy of Education from the perspective of cultural
memory theory, followed by a discussion.

Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany:
History and Current Problems1
Lothar WIGGER
TU Dortmund University

1. The remembrance of the atomic bombs dropped 74 years ago in the German
media
On August 6th 2019 the news programs of public German television (ARD 2019a,
ZDF 2019a) reported several times on the commemoration ceremony on the occasion of
the atomic bombing of Hiroshima 74 years ago, including the news reports of radio,
Deutschlandfunk (DLF 2019) and Deutsche Welle (DW 2019). While the print media
only reported sporadically (FAZ 2019a, see Netzwerk Friedenskooperative 2019c), theInternet interfaces of major newspapers recalled the event (FAZ 2019b; SZ 2019). In
most cases, the statement of the German press agency (DPA) that the atomic bombing
claimed 140000 lives, that at the commemoration ceremony Hiroshima's mayor Kazumi
Matsui called upon his country to accede to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of
2017, and that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did not mention the treaty in his speech on the
day of commemoration was adopted by these outlets. Similar coverage on television,
radio and in the daily press took place on August 9th. It was reported that tens of thousandsin Nagasaki commemorated the victims in a minute's silence, that the worldwide
abolition of nuclear weapons was demanded, that Nagasaki's mayor Tomihisa Taue also
called on his country's government to accede to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
and that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe again did not mention the Treaty in his memorial day
speech (ARD 2019b, ZDF 2019b). It was stressed that the commemoration ceremonies
were influenced by the recent missile tests in North Korea and the expired INF Treaty.
1

Revised and extended version of my lecture from the Symposium “Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory andEmerging Reconciliation”, 62nd Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Hiroshima
University, 12 October 2019. I thank my colleague Douglas Yacek (TU Dortmund University) for the linguistic
corrections and him and all my other colleagues for their critical comments. A shortened version of the lecture istranslated in Japanese by Atsushi Suzuki and published in Kyoiku Tetsugaku Kenkyu, Vol. 121, May 2020, p. 5-12.

22

L. WIGGER

In the weeks around August 6th, there were only two television broadcasts on thehistory of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the Franco-German
cultural channel ‘Arte’ and on the public news channel ‘Phoenix’. 2 Both television
broadcasts were easy to lose among the diversity of stations and the almost unmanageable
range of entertainment. If one takes a first look at the extent to which the German media
public is reminded of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today, then - apart from public law
television and radio - there have been only very few reports in surprisingly few press
outlets. The events are not forgotten, but the remembrance is receding behind many othernews items.
A few days earlier, on August 2nd 2019, the INF Treaty (Intermediate Range Nuclear
Forces), which was ratified in 1987 between the USA and the Soviet Union and which
prohibited the possession of nuclear intermediate-range missiles with a range of 500 to
5500 km, was terminated. This treaty was considered a sign of the end of the Cold War
and a central pillar of Europe's security architecture, and represented particularly theinterests of Germany and Europe. The German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas tried towork towards not abandoning the treaty in two trips on January 18th in Moscow and on
January 24th in Washington. The USA terminated the treaty in February 2019 due to a
Russian violation of the treaty; conversely, Russia in turn accused the USA of violation.
Both sides have not yet presented the public with any evidence for their claims or denialsof violations of the treaty. The American announcement shortly afterwards to station
land-based medium-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the test of a
medium-range missile a few days later, seems to point to the real reason for breaking freefrom these contractual ties: the confrontation with China (cf. Fähnders 2019; Kolb/
Kruger 2019).
In a commentary in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on the end of the INF Treaty entitled"There is a lack of a young generation committed to disarmament", a connection wasmade with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, pointing to theirsignificance in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany (cf. Mascolo 2019). The
commentator of the Süddeutsche Zeitung was surprised that the end of the INF Treaty
provoked so little public response or protest among the younger generation in Germany.
He recalled that the ratification of the treaty in the 1980s in Germany was preceded by
years of protests by the peace movement and demonstrations with hundreds of thousandsof participants against the stationing of nuclear weapons. In his view, the dropping of2

Arte has shown the documentary "Countdown to a new age" (GB 2014) on July 30, 2019, Phoenix thedocumentaries "Pacific War - The war goes on" (film by Kerstin Zhukovsky, 2015), "Inside Hiroshima" (film byBertrand Collard, 2015) and "Nagasaki. Why did the second bomb fall?" (film by Klaus Scherer, 2015).
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

23

atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a formative experience for the older
generations, who experienced the Cold War and who are now again warning against a
new nuclear arms race. But the younger generations, on the other hand, are politicized
and mobilized by climate change, as the Fridays for Future movement shows. The
nuclear threat of another arms race seems to have remained unseen by this demographic,
as the commentator argues.
This commentary speaks to some of the central topics of the present article. First ofall, I discuss the question of the meaning of 'Hiroshima' for the older generation inGermany (part 2). The name 'Hiroshima' is the sign of the first atomic bomb dropping in
the history of mankind and the horror with over 100000 dead and the long suffering of
the survivors 3 . After a review of the immediate post-war years in Germany and thenuclear-critical philosophical discourse in the 1950s, the history of the (West) German
peace movement is outlined (part 3). The commentator's assertion that the younger
generation pays no attention to nuclear armament unfortunately cannot be examined here.
Nor can the question be answered: "What do young Germans today know about
Hiroshima and nuclear armament?” Instead, in a further part (part 4), an answer to thequestion of what is taught about 'Hiroshima' is sought through an analysis of 18 newer
textbooks for secondary school history lessons. The background is an older study by
Florian Coulmas on West German textbooks, according to which the depictions of the
Pacific War and the atomic bombing have only a minor significance and, in addition, theAmerican view is adopted. Only a few newer textbooks do not confirm Coulmas'
conclusions.After a critical review of the analyzed textbooks, the question of the legacyof 'Hiroshima' in contemporary Germany is taken up again (part 5).

2. The importance of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany in the post-war period
In May 1945 the fighting in Europe during the Second World War ended with thedefeat and unconditional capitulation of Germany. The murderous war instigated by theThird Reich in September 1939 with the invasion of Poland resulted in 60 million deadand immense suffering for the survivors as well as a devastated Europe (cf. Herbert 2014,
p. 545f). It was a "war of enslavement, exploitation and annihilation" (Wehler 2003, p.
842; see also Buruma 2013) in Poland, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the socalled "bloodlands" (Snyder 2010). The four victorious powers divided Germany into
3

On Hiroshima as a place of remembrance see Buruma 1994; Yamana 2001; 2017.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

24

L. WIGGER

four zones of occupation, the areas east of the Oder-Neisse line fell to Poland and theSoviet Union, Austria became independent again.
"In Europe, there was little interest in the war in the Far East since the capitulationof Germany; the concerns of daily life were the focus of attention almost everywhere on
the continent.” (Coulmas 2010, p. 44; cf. Schwentker 1998) Almost half of the people
staying in Germany were "displaced persons", living far from their home and wanting toreturn: prisoners of war, forced laborers, concentration camp prisoners, refugees,
expellees, evacuees. It was a life and survival in anarchic everyday conditions and thechaos of a defeated country lying in ruins, with a destroyed infrastructure and ruined
economy (see Wehler 2003, p. 951ff). The victorious powers confronted the Germans
with the crimes of National Socialism. The vast majority of the German people were loyal
to their National Socialist regime until the end of the war. But the horrors of war, Nazi
terror and expulsion, the destruction, the traumatization (cf. Alley 2019, p. 155; Bode2019) and the hard post-war years "left many Germans with no thought of the past. They
felt themselves to be victims - and thus spared the thoughts of the real" (Jähner 2019, p.
12f; p. 396) victims. The past was to be forgotten, something to keep silent about. Most
Germans were occupied with themselves in this "time of wolves" (ibid., p. 10), as it iscalled in reference to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. The events in Japan were faraway.
The atomic bombs, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and9th and the surrender of Japan were reported in the newspapers, based on American andBritish agency reports and under the supervision of Allied censorship. The strategic andhistorical significance of the new weapon was also immediately discussed in the press,
but not the suffering of the population (cf. Coulmas 2010, p. 40). The reporting remained"very abstract" (ibid., p. 56) and one-sided. Diary entries of German intellectuals in exile
testify to consternation, but also to perplexity and sometimes cynicism (see ibid., p. 57;
see Ötzelt 2018). The interpretations of the events were also one-sided due to the scarce
information available. Thus Thomas Mann emphasizes the ambivalence of scientific andtechnical progress: on the one hand the achievement of human cognitive faculty and on
the other hand the eager work of scientists on means of unimaginable destruction (seeMann 1986, p. 237ff). Here an "awareness of the scope of technical innovation" is evident(Coulmas 2010, p. 59), but the victims, the human suffering, are not taken into account.
With the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938, the destruction of Hiroshima marked
the beginning of a new era in the history of mankind, the atomic age. With the burgeoning
antagonism of the USA and the USSR and the beginning of the Cold War shortly after
the end of World War II, the founding of two German states in 1949, their rearmament
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

25

and their integration into the hostile military blocs of NATO (admission of the FRG in
1955) and the Warsaw Pact (admission of the GDR in 1956), political controversies
dominate the public debate. The dangers of a new nuclear war and - after the Americanhydrogen bomb test on March 1st, 1954 on Bikini, which also irradiated the crew of theJapanese tuna boat ‘Fukuryu Maru’ (‘Happy Dragon’) No. 5 (cf. Stölken-Fitschen 1995,
p. 93), - also the dangers of the atomic bomb tests are increasingly discussed. The
remembrance of 'Hiroshima' is only now beginning in Germany, delayed by about adecade.
For philosophy in post-war Germany, the experiences of the Nazi era and its crimes
were central themes, as well as the threat of nuclear war and the responsibility to be
assumed as a result. Georg Picht (1913-1982) gave the two-volume collection of his
essays the subtitle "Philosophizing after Auschwitz and Hiroshima". These two names
stand for the newness of the historical epoch, that science and technology can destroy alllife on earth and that therefore mankind today bears the responsibility for its future history.
They denote "two different manifestations of evil" (Picht 1981, p. 11; cf. 1981a). For
Picht both the political orders and the sciences are "without reason" (1968/1981, p. 121)and only the insight into the danger to humanity and the threatening catastrophes could
force the necessary change of consciousness to a new morality and reason (see ibid., p.
127; see Jaspers 1957; 1958).
In the public disputes about the nuclear armament of the ‘Bundeswehr’, the West
German army, Theodor Litt (1880-1962), who during the Third Reich was prohibitedfrom lecturing and who in 1947 after conflicts in the Soviet Zone moved from Leipzig toBonn, emphasizes that with the increased scientific and technical possibilities, theimportance of responsibility also increased. He sees in the development of nuclear
weapons, of instruments of possible self-destruction of mankind the result of "threecenturies of strictest service to the cause" (Litt 1957, p. 18). This "devotion to the cause"
limits the freedom of man and threatens his humanity, although it is "an act of freedom"(ibid., p. 22f). The necessary corrective is the "self-contemplation" (ibid., p. 23), theinsight into these modern circumstances of life in the so-called "atomic age". For Litt,"means always remain means" (ibid., p. 27), on which the "purpose-setting will" (ibid.,
p. 26) decides, even if these means make total destruction possible. For him, these
possibilities of self-destruction only refer to the significance of the "self" and emphasize
the burden of responsibility.
Günther Anders (1902-1992), who in 1950 after American exile did not move to
one of the two German states but to Austria, was the only philosopher of note who madethe atomic bomb his central philosophical theme. For him, it is the expression of a
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

26

L. WIGGER

technologized world that achieves monstrous effects beyond human imagination andmakes the destruction of mankind possible. "While utopians cannot create what they
imagine, we cannot imagine what we create." (Anders 1981, p. 96) Since it is actually nolonger possible to act morally in a world under the atomic threat, a moral dilemma follows,
because to accept irresponsibility would mean accepting the end of the world. For Anders,the possibility created by man to eliminate himself as a species represented a completely
new anthropological and historical situation. Anders was one of the main initiators of theinternational movement against nuclear weapons and tried to overcome the "apocalypse
blindness" of mankind. He visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1958 on the anniversaryof the airdrops (cf. 1959/1982) and in 1959 he began an exchange of letters with theformer air force pilot Claude Eatherly, who had explored the weather conditions over
Hiroshima and thus felt guilty as a co-responsible person (cf. 1961/1982).
Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969), who returned to the Federal Republic of
Germany from American exile in 1953, made the historically unprecedented andsystematic mass murder of European Jews the thematic core of his thinking like no other.
The fact that Auschwitz was possible is for him an expression of the failure of culture:"All culture after Auschwitz, including the urgent criticism of it, is garbage.” (Adorno
1966/1973, p. 359) He sharply criticized the way the past was dealt with in Germany(Adorno 1959/1977) and considered the most important demand on education that
Auschwitz should not repeat itself: "The demand that Auschwitz should not happen again
is the very first demand on education” (Adorno 1966/1977, p. 674). In contrast to thephilosophy of religion, of technology, of history and anthropology of Picht, Litt or Anders,
he argues on the basis of a critique of capitalist society and the development of nationstates in world history: "Genocide has its roots in the resurrection of aggressive
nationalism that has taken place in many countries since the end of the nineteenth century.
One will not be able to dismiss the consideration that the invention of the atomic bomb,which can literally wipe out hundreds of thousands of people in a single blow, belongs in
the same historical context as genocide” (ibid., p. 675). Under the conditions of overpowerful production conditions and international antagonism, people live with "theprospect of total annihilation" (Adorno 1969/1972, p. 367), they are "enclosed by ahorizon in which the bomb can fall at any moment" (ibid., p. 366). This gloomy andpessimistic view of the political and social conditions did not prevent Adorno fromattempting to enlighten the public. He was a public intellectual who "played agroundbreaking role for the cultural and political self-discovery of the Federal Republic
and the self-image of the post-war generations" (Müller-Dohm 2003, p. 494), and heinfluenced the student movement in particular.
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

27

3. “Never again Hiroshima” - On the history of the German peace movement"Never again Hiroshima" became the "slogan of the German peace movement" andthe opponents of nuclear weapons (Stölken-Fitschen 1995, p. 239). However, "the"German peace movement did not and does not exist (see Buro 2008, p. 272). The
occasions, actors, goals, stages, forms of action and participation are too different to group
into one movement. With regard to the topic 'Hiroshima', for example, three stages of theWest German peace movement can be distinguished: the "fighting against nuclear death"campaign at the end of the 1950s against the planned equipment of the Bundeswehr with
nuclear carrier systems, the Easter March movement against nuclear armament in the
1960s, and the campaign against the NATO double decision to station nuclear mediumrange missiles in the early 1980s.4"The reflection on Hiroshima as a synonym for the apocalypse now made possible
by man, as an unforgettable memorial for the present and the future, came late. This waspartly due to the fact that, under the censorship of the American occupying forces, little
information about the effect of the bomb on Hiroshima, especially about its late effects
and continuing dying, leaked out in the period leading up to the conclusion of the peace
treaty". (Stölken-Fitschen 1995, p. 245) According to Stölken-Fitschen this late reflection
was also due to the attitude of the Japanese, who also wanted to forget and start anew andwho only after the accident of the ‘Happy Dragon’ began to pay attention to the "atomic
bomb patients"(cf. ibid.).
On 12 April, 1957, 18 scientists, mostly nuclear physicists, published a statement in
Göttingen in which they spoke out against the planned equipment of the Bundeswehrwith nuclear carrier systems and announced that they would never participate in the
production, testing or deployment of nuclear weapons. This declaration had a great public
resonance (see ibid., p. 205ff). But despite the nuclear fears of the German people, theChristian Democratic Union (CDU) won the 1957 parliamentary elections with anabsolute majority in the person of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who supported theequipping of German troops with nuclear carrier systems (see ibid., p. 236). In contrast,
the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), supported by the trade unions (DGB),
initiated the movement "Kampf dem Atomtod" (fighting against nuclear death), which in1958 tried to make the nuclear threat clear to the public with vigils, demonstrations andposter campaigns, fought against the decision of the Federal Government and organized4

On the peace movement in the GDR see "Bewegter Frieden" (2018).

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

28

L. WIGGER

rallies with up to 150,000 participants (ibid., p. 238f; p. 248; cf. Otto 1983, p. 215;
Kurscheid 1981). The movement understood the atomic bomb as an existential threat andaimed at the abolition of the bomb. But only a few months later, after the parliamentary
debates on the nuclear armament of the Bundeswehr and the decision of the Parliament(Bundestag) on 25 March 1958, the rejection of strikes by the SPD and DGB executive
committees, and the rejection of a plebiscite as unconstitutional by the Federal
Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 30 June 1958, the campaign cameto an abrupt end (see ibid.; Stölken-Fitschen 1995, pp. 265f; pp. 282f).
Following the example of the British "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament",
pacifist groups organized the first Easter marches against nuclear armament in 1960. Thisdeveloped into a nationwide, independent, extra-parliamentary opposition which, under
the impression of the Vietnam War, became increasingly politicized and became thesocially critical "Campaign for Democracy and Disarmament". The number ofparticipants in the Easter marches rose from 1000 (1960) to 300,000 (1968). "Especially
under the impression of the emergency legislation (1968), the military intervention inČSSR (1968), the formation of a social-liberal federal government (1969) as well asinternal differentiation processes through the independence of the student protest
movement and the formation of an anti-authoritarian subculture, the movement came toa virtual standstill in 1970.” (Otto 1983a, p. 297) The policy of détente of the 1970s
seemed to defuse the threat of nuclear weapons, and it was more important to deal withother problems.
In reaction to the NATO double decision to station medium-range missiles on 12
December 1979, the largest mass movement in the history of the Federal Republic of
Germany was born. The "Krefeld Appeal" of 16 November 1980, an appeal by the West
German peace movement to the Federal Government to withdraw its consent to thestationing of new nuclear medium-range missiles in Europe and to press within NATOfor an end to the nuclear arms race, had about 4 million signatories (Buro 2008, p. 275).
Forms of non-violent civil disobedience, such as blockade actions, were widespread. In
autumn 1983 (Bundestag debated on missile stationing) almost one million people
demonstrated simultaneously in four parallel large-scale demonstrations. The stationing
decision of 21 November 1983 was considered a defeat and was the end of the peace
movement.
Similar to the "Fighting against Nuclear Death" campaign and the Easter marches,no concrete goals were achieved (cf. Buro 2008, p. 282). Neither the nuclear armamentof Europe could be prevented, nor could nuclear weapon-free zones or disarmament beaccomplished. Government policy has "hardly been influenced by the activities of the
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

29

peace movement" (ibid., p. 286). However, the campaigns and actions have informed andmobilized large sections of the public. "The discussion about nuclear weapons led large
parts of society into a debate about the monstrosities of military thought and practice(Hiroshima/ Nagasaki)." (ibid., p. 282) Perhaps it is the merit of the peace movement toshow the population the possibility of peaceful conflict resolution and thus demonstrate"that military-supported policy is not absolutely necessary and that there are peaceful andde-escalating alternatives" (ibid., p. 287).
Four years after the stationing of medium-range missiles in Europe, the INF Treaty
was ratified between the USA and the Soviet Union, and with the end of the "Cold War"and the self-dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the nuclear danger ofwar disappeared from the horizon of public attention. There were then peace actions anddemonstrations in Germany on the occasion of the Iraq War and the Yugoslavian War(see Buro 2008, p. 275ff). Only the termination and end of the INF Treaty brought thedanger of a nuclear conflict in Europe back into the public eye. For the younger
generations, the period of the Cold War and the fear of a nuclear war is a closed past,
without significance for present life and the future.

4. The knowledge of ‘Hiroshima’ in history textbooks
A knowledge of Hiroshima as a place of nuclear destruction cannot be assumed tobe known by younger generations. There is no reliable empirical data on historical andpolitical knowledge about the dropping and testing of atomic bombs, their causes andconditions, the Cold War and the various nuclear weapons treaties. A (non-representative)
survey of students of the teaching profession at the TU Dortmund University a few years
ago showed that only one in two of those questioned knew Hiroshima as the site of an
atomic bomb release. Many answers to the question about the locations and the year ofthe deployment of nuclear weapons were inaccurate, incomplete or wrong. The survey
cannot provide any information about the reasons for the mostly vague and insufficientknowledge.
Florian Coulmas investigated what is taught about Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) in
German textbooks and what knowledge and views on the use of nuclear weapons areconveyed there. In his comparison of German, Japanese and American textbooks, henotes that in German textbooks "the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... does notappear as part of national history" (Coulmas 2010, p. 96) and occupies only a small placein the presentation of World War II. He rightly asks the critical question "whether this is
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

30

L. WIGGER

appropriate in view of its world-historical significance" (ibid.).
The results of his study of older West German history textbooks5 can be largely
confirmed by an analysis of 18 textbooks for history teaching that were published after
2000 and are approved in North Rhine-Westphalia as teaching material for the subject ofhistory in courses at secondary level I and II. These courses have World War II and postwar history as subjects of the curriculum (see MSB-NRW 2020, see also Hindemith2020). The presentation of the Pacific War, the atomic bombing, the human and politicalconsequences and the significance of 'Hiroshima' varies greatly, usually comprising only
one or two pages, sometimes only a few sentences (cf. e.g. Brokemper/ Köster/ Potente
2006, p. 197), sometimes nothing at all (cf. Breiter et al. 2018). For the majority of thebooks analyzed, it is also true, as Coulmas sums up his investigation: "The German
textbooks mostly adopt the official American view and present the supposed causal
connection between the bombs and the capitulation of Japan as a fact". (Coulmas 2010,
p. 97) For example: "The Second World War ended three months later with theunconditional surrender of Japan after the USA had dropped atomic bombs for the firsttime over Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (Langendorf 2015, p. 255) or: "In Asia the war did
not end until September 1945, after the USA had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th and thus forced Japan to surrender with the crueldestructive power of this new weapon" (Laschewski-Müller/ Rauh 2016, p. 237; see also
Baumgärtner/ Fieberg 2009, p. 132; Christoffer et al. 2009, p. 210; Christoffer et al. 2016,p. 150; Derichs et al. 2017, p. 145; Droste et al. 2015, p. 679; Ebeling/ Birkenfeld 2009,
p. 58; Lendzian 2017, p. 315; Lendzian/ Marx 2005, p. 206; Regenhardt 2008, p. 97). On
the other hand, only one textbook associates Japan's capitulation with the declaration of
5

Unfortunately, Coulmas does not identify editors, publishers, publication years and editions for the history books
he consulted. The following textbooks are probably involved:
Ebeling, H. (1970): Die Reise in die Vergangenheit - ein geschichtliches Arbeitsbuch. In d. Neubearb. von Wolfgang Birkenfeld.
Bd. 4: Unser Zeitalter der Revolutionen und Weltkriege. Braunschweig: Westermann.
Schmid, H. D. (Hrsg.) (1979): Fragen an die Geschichte - Geschichtliches Arbeitsbuch für Sekundarstufe I, Band 4: Die Welt im
20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a.M.: Hirschgraben.
Graßmann, S. (1983): Zeitaufnahme. Geschichte für die Sekundarstufe I. Bd. 3/4: Vom ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart.
Braunschweig: Westermann.
Mickel, W./ Wiegand, B. (1987) (Hrsg.): Geschichte, Politik und Gesellschaft Bd. 1: Von der Französischen
Revolution bis zum Ende des 2. Weltkrieges. Lern- und Arbeitsbuch für Geschichte in der gymnasialen Oberstufe.
Bielefeld: Cornelsen.
Cornelissen, J. et al. (1993): Geschichte 4 G: Das 20. Jahrhundert. München: Bayerischer Schulbuch Verlag.
Bernlochner, L. (Hrsg.) (1997): Geschichte und Geschehen II.AusgabeA/B. RSR. Oberstufe. Gymnasium. Stuttgart: Klett.
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

31

war by the Soviet Union and the occupation of Manchuria (see Berger-v.d.Heide 2009,p. 103), and only another textbook mentions Japan's hopelessness and willingness tosurrender (Brückner/ Focke 2012, p. 129). The situation for Japan was hopeless in thesummer of 1945. The call for an unconditional surrender after the Potsdam Conference
was initially ignored by Japan, while at the same time unsuccessful soundings were madeabout an end to the war. With the Soviet cancellation of the Neutrality Agreement and thedeclaration of war on August 8, Japan lost the last hope of a neutral mediator and finallyaccepted the Potsdam conditions on August 14 (cf. Coulmas 2010, pp. 20ff; Melber 2020,
p. 19; ausführlich Scherer 2015, pp. 36ff, 82ff, 141ff).
As a motive for the use of the atomic bomb, the statement by President Truman is
only occasionally mentioned (see Langendorf 2015, p. 255; Sauer 2009, p. 52f). Also thequestion of the justification of Truman's decision is only occasionally explicitly put to thestudents as a task (Derichs et al. 2017, p. 145; Berger-v.d.Heide 2009, p. 103). Coulmas
had stated that "the complexity of the reasons that come together" and "the moral
problems that were quite visible at the time" are rarely taken into account (cf. Coulmas
2010, p. 97). In only one textbook, which includes an excerpt from Coulmas' text,
Coulmas’ presentation of the various reasons for Japanese capitulation is put up for
discussion (see Baumgärtner/ Fieberg 2009, p. 134), and only in one other is Truman's
justification printed next to an American newspaper article from 1945 containing a moral
critique of the atomic bombing, about which the pupils are asked to comment (see Sauer
2009, pp. 53f). The military necessity of dropping atomic bombs is denied by mostscientists today (cf. Coulmas 2010, p. 17; Scherer 2015, pp. 180ff), the use of atomic
bombs was already controversial at that time within the American government, among
high-ranking military personnel and among scientists involved in the development.
Scientists see it primarily as a demonstration of power towards the Soviet Union (cf.
Coulmas 2010, pp. 18f; Scherer 2015, pp. 12ff; Melber 2020, p. 18f).
The history of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the war between Japan and
China, the American oil embargo, and the Pacific battlefield as a whole are presented
rarely and then very briefly (see Ebeling/ Birkenfeld 2009, p. 58; Baumgärtner et al. 2016,p. 313; Lendzian 2017, p. 315; Regenhardt 2008, p. 97). There are others, but again only
a few textbooks, in which not only abstractly and summarily the number of fatalities, latehealth consequences or the almost complete destruction of the cities are mentioned orsome photos are printed, but also the suffering of the victims is broadly and vividly
thematized, for example by the report of a doctor from Hiroshima (see Ebeling/
Birkenfeld 2009, p. 58) or through memories of children from Hiroshima (cf. Christoffer
et al. 2009, p. 211; Christoffer et al. 2016, p. 151). For most books, 'Hiroshima' is the
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

32

L. WIGGER

beginning of the age of nuclear weapons and the arms race (cf. Baumgärtner et al. 2016,p. 316; Baumgärtner/ Fieberg 2009, p. 133; Berger-v. d. Heide 2009, p. 174; Christoffer
et al. 2016, p. 150; Derichs et al. 2017, p. 145; Ebeling/ Birkenfeld 2009, p. 58), in a single
case it is explained by texts by R. Oppenheimer and G. Anders (cf. Lendzian/ Marx 2005,
p. 206) or 'Hiroshima' is discussed as "a reminder" of suffering, nuclear dangers and theimportance of peace (cf. Christoffer et al. 2009, pp. 210f; also Christoffer et al. 2016, pp.
150f).
Coulmas' analysis of 2010 and this new investigation refer to Federal Republic
textbooks. A look at the book "Geschichte in Übersichten" (‘History in Overviews’) from1982, which summarizes the "subject matter of history lessons in grades 5 to 10" in the
GDR, shows exemplarily not only other historical facts, but also a different view ofhistory and a different evaluation of events:"In accordance with a promise made to its Western allies, the USSR declared war
on Japan on August 8, 1945, three months after the end of the war in Europe. Since
67 percent of the Japanese armed forces were in China, the Soviet Army's attack
was of decisive importance for the war. ... The US government dropped atomic
bombs on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. Morethan 300,000 people died, tens of thousands were wounded by the radiation andcondemned to years of infirmity. There was no military necessity for the droppingof the atomic bomb, as the defeat of the Japanese forces was imminent. Reactionarygroups in the USA wanted to impose their will on other peoples with the solepossession of this terrible weapon, but above all they wanted to intimidate andblackmail the USSR." (1982, p. 417)
The military necessity and the justifications for the dropping of nuclear bombs arestill heavily disputed today (cf. Melber 2020, pp. 18ff). Coulmas analyzed the historicalbackground of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the basis of historical
documents and scientific research, distinguished the interwoven technological, military,political and human aspects of the Pacific War, and attempted a differentiated assessmentand evaluation of the many different factors that came together (cf. Coulmas 2010, p. 23).
Against this background of historical knowledge and political controversy, the accounts
in almost all textbooks appear to be more or less clearly biased, abridged and - even the
more detailed accounts - ultimately inadequate. The competencies expected and aspired
to in the core curricula for a reflected awareness of history (cf. MSW-NRW 2011a, 2011b,
2011c, 2014, MSB-NRW 2019) require a differentiated consideration of the historical
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

33

connections including political controversies based on scientific knowledge. This
includes the discussion of the historically given but rejected political alternatives of all
conflict parties involved (detailed and critical about it Scherer 2015) on the basis ofhistorical research instead of the suggestion of a causal effect connection between the
dropping of atomic bombs and Japanese capitulation or instead of the uncritical adoptionof the later American justification. The fact that German and European history occupy alarge part of school lessons and that the 20th century and the debate about National
Socialism in particular carry great weight is well justified and comprehensible. But an
exclusive focus on German national history and the West, also in the treatment of theSecond World War and post-war history, seems to be problematic. It is inappropriate bothin view of the importance of the Asian states in past, in view of the conflicts in East Asia
in the globalized world of the present and in view of the world-historical significance ofthe dropping of atomic bombs, the history of their victims and the dangers of nuclear
armament.

5. The legacy of ‘Hiroshima’
The legacy of 'Hiroshima' is articulated in the annual Peace Declarations of the
Mayor of Hiroshima in remembrance of the dead and the sufferings of the survivors of
the atomic bombing ('hibakusha'), the commitment and efforts to ban and abolish all
nuclear weapons with the goal of a nuclear-free world and eternal world peace (seeMatsui 2019; see also Melber 2020).
In Germany there are a large number of civil society organizations and initiatives
that are active in the spirit of the Hiroshima heritage: Netzwerk Friedenskooperative,
Trägerkreis "Abolish Nuclear Weapons", IPPNW (International Physicians for thePrevention of Nuclear War), ICAN-Germany (International Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons), PNND (Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation andDisarmament. Engaging legislators worldwide in steps towards nuclear disarmament).
On Hiroshima Day there were commemoration events in 70 German cities (cf. Netzwerk
Friedenskooperative 2019b). In addition, a picket protest was held for several weeks infront of the gate of the Büchel airbase (Eifel), where some twenty American atomic
bombs with the destructive power many times greater than that of a Hiroshima bomb are
stored (cf. Nuclear-free 2019). This year again more people took part in the Eastermarches than in previous years. The Netzwerk Friedenskooperative speaks of several
tens of thousands who took part in actions for peace, disarmament and justice in about
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

34

L. WIGGER

100 cities. The central demands of the Easter marches were disarmament, a nuclear
weapons-free world and a stop to arms exports (cf. Netzwerk Friedenskooperative 2019;2019a). A representative survey published a few weeks ago by Greenpeace Germany
found that an overwhelming majority (91%) of Germans are in favor of joining the UN
nuclear weapons ban. The survey also found that 84% of respondents believe that nuclear
weapons stationed in Germany should disappear completely (see Greenpeace 2019).
Local politicians are also working in the spirit of the legacy of 'Hiroshima': 600 German
cities have joined the organization "Mayors for Peace", founded in 1982 by the mayor of
Hiroshima, in order to take responsibility for the security and lives of their citizens and toprevent the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons through actions and campaigns
and to achieve their abolition.
But government policy seems to be unaffected by this. To this day, Germany has
not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The government argues that the goal ofa nuclear weapons-free world cannot be achieved in this way, the security policy reality
is not taken into account, and Germany is fully committed to the obligations within theframework of NATO (see Deutscher Bundestag 2018). The legacy of 'Hiroshima' is thus
politically controversial, has a very different media presence and seems to be relevant
only for subgroups of society. In this respect it can be said that it is still an unfinished task,
also an educational task. If the legacy of 'Hiroshima' also implies responsibility for peaceand reconciliation, then textbooks should deal with this history in a more differentiatedway and give the subject a greater place in the classroom. For responsible action does not
require abstract knowledge and information about the atomic bombs and their effects, butrather a comprehensive and concrete knowledge of the events, their conditions andhistory as well as the consequences and the history afterwards, including the longsuffering of the 'hibakusha', their denial of aid, their discrimination and their struggle forrecognition.

Cited Literature
Adorno, Th. W. (1959/1977): Was bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit? In: ders.:
Gesammelte Schriften 10.2: Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft II. Eingriffe –Stichworte – Anhang (hrsg. von R. Tiedemann). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, S.
555-572.
Adorno, Th. W. (1966/1973): Negative Dialektik. In: ders.: Gesammelte Schriften 6:
Negative Dialektik. Jargon der Eigentlichkeit (hrsg. von R. Tiedemann).
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

35Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, S. 7-412.
Adorno, Th. W. (1966/1977): Erziehung nach Auschwitz. In: ders.: Gesammelte
Schriften 10.2: Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft II. Eingriffe – Stichworte – Anhang(hrsg. von R. Tiedemann). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, S. 674-690.
Adorno, Th. W. (1969/1972): Spätkapitalismus oder Industriegesellschaft?
Einleitungsvortrag zum 16. Deutschen Soziologentag. In: ders.: Gesammelte
Schriften 8: Soziologische Schriften 1 (hrsg. von R. Tiedemann). Frankfurt a.M.:
Suhrkamp, S. 354-370.
Alley, J. (2019b): Nicht vergessen können. In: Alley, J./ Wettengl, K. (Hrsg.): Vergessen– Warum wird nicht alles erinnern. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung im Historischen
Museum Frankfurt. Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, S. 155-162.
Anders, G. (1959/1982): Der Mann auf der Brücke. Tagebuch aus Hiroshima und
Nagasaki. In: ders.: Hiroshima ist überall. München: C. H. Beck, S. 1-189.
Anders, G. (1961/1982): Off limits für das Gewissen. Der Briefwechsel zwischen dem
Hiroshima-Piloten Claude Eatherly und Günther Anders (1959-1961). Mit
einem Vorwort von Bertrand Russell und einer Einleitung von Robert Jungk. In:
ders.: Hiroshima ist überall. München: C. H. Beck, S. 191-360.
Anders, G. (1981): Die atomare Drohung. Radikale Überlegungen. 5., durch ein Vorwort
erweiterte Aufl. München: C.H. Beck.
Bode, S. (2019): Die vergessene Generation. Die Kriegskinder brechen ihr Schweigen.
35. Auflage. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Buro, A. (2008): Friedensbewegung. In: Roth, R./ Rucht, D. (Hrsg.): Die sozialen
Bewegungen in Deutschland seit 1945. Ein Handbuch. Frankfurt/ New York:
Campus, S. 267-292.
Buruma, Ian (1994): Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany and Japan. New
York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Buruma, Ian (2013): Year Zero. A History of 1945. London: Atlantic Books
Coulmas, F. (2010): Hiroshima. Geschichte und Nachgeschichte. München: C.H. Beck.
Fähnders, T. (2019): Bloß kein Kanonenfutter sein. In: FAZ Nr. 181, 7. August 2019, S.6.
FAZ (2019a): (ohne Titel). In: FAZ Nr. 181, 7. August 2019, S. 6.
Herbert, U. (2014): Geschichte Deutschlands im 20. Jahrhundert. München: C.H. Beck
Hindemith, C. (2020): „Hiroshima“ – Hintergründe und Sichtweisen Eine Analyse vonSchulbüchern für den Geschichtsunterricht in NRW. Dortmund (unveröff.
Masterarbeit, TU Dortmund)Jähner, H. (2019): Wolfszeit. Deutschland und die Deutschen 1945-1955. Berlin:
Rowohlt.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

36

L. WIGGER

Jaspers, K. (1957): Die Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen. Ein Radiovortrag.
München: Piper.
Jaspers, K. (1958): Die Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen. Politisches
Bewusstsein unserer Zeit. München: Piper.
Kolb, M./ Krüger, P.-A. (2019): Ende des INF-Vertrags. Der Grundpfeiler stürzt. In:
Süddeutsche Zeitung
Nr. 177, 02. August 2019. (URL:
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/inf-abruestung-usa-russland-1.4550574[02.04.2020])
Kurscheid, R. (1981): Kampf dem Atomtod! Schriftsteller im Kampf gegen einedeutsche Atombewaffnung. Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein Verlag.
Litt, Th. (1957): Wie versteht unser Zeitalter sich selbst? In: Bundesministerium fürVerteidigung. Innere Führung (Hrsg.): Handbuch politisch-historische Bildung
der Gegenwart. Erster Band. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, S. 9-28.
Mann, Th. (1986): Tagebücher 1944-1946. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.
Mascolo, G. (2019): Es fehlt eine junge Generation, die sich für Abrüstung einsetzt. In:
Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 178, 03./04. August 2019, S. 4. (URL:
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/inf-vertrag-abruestung-fridays-for-future1.4550067 [02.04.2020])
Melber, T.: Das Leid der Eigenen. 1945 in der japanischen Erinnerungskultur. In: 1945.
Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Zeitschrift der Bundeszentrale für Politische
Bildung. 70. Jg., H. 4-5, S. 17-24.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MSWNRW) (2011c) (Hrsg.): Kernlehrplan für die Realschule in NordrheinWestfalen. Geschichte. (Heft 3316) Düsseldorf.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MSWNRW) (2011b) (Hrsg.): Kernlehrplan für die Hauptschule in NordrheinWestfalen. Gesellschaftslehre Erdkunde, Geschichte/ Politik. (Heft 3202).
Düsseldorf.
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MSWNRW) (2011a) (Hrsg.): Kernlehrplan für die Gesamtschule – Sekundarstufe
I in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Gesellschaftslehre Erdkunde, Geschichte, Politik.
(Heft 3120). Düsseldorf
Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2014)(Hrsg.):
Geschichte.
Kernlehrplan
fürdie
Sekundarstufe II.
Gymnasium/Gesamtschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Heftnummer 4714).
Düsseldorf.
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

37

Ministerium für Schule und Bildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MSB-NRW)(2019) (Hrsg.): Geschichte. Kernlehrplan für die Sekundarstufe I. Gymnasiumin Nordrhein-Westfalen (Heft 3704). Düsseldorf Müller-Doohm, S. (2003):
Adorno. Eine Biographie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Offergeld, P./ Schulz, D. (1994) (Hrsg.): Krieg und Frieden. Friedensordnungen und
Konflikte vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Geschichte Oberstufe NordrheinWestfalen. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Otto, K.A. (1983): Kampagne „Kampf dem Atomtod“. In: Donat, H./ Knoll, K. (Hrsg.):
Die Friedensbewegung. Organisierter Pazifismus in Deutschland, Österreich
und in der Schweiz. Hermes Handlexikon. Düsseldorf: Econ Taschenbuch, S.
214-215.
Otto, K.A. (1983a): Ostermarsch-Bewegung/ Kampagne für Demokratie und Abrüstung.
In: Donat, H./ Knoll, K. (Hrsg.): Die Friedensbewegung. Organisierter
Pazifismus in Deutschland, Österreich und in der Schweiz. Hermes Handlexikon.
Düsseldorf: Econ Taschenbuch, S. 296-297.
Özelt, C. (2018): Literatur im Jahrhundert der Physik. Geschichte und Funktion
interaktiver Gattungen (1900-1975). Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.
Picht, G. (1968/1981): Mut zur Utopie – Die großen Zukunftsaufgaben. In: ders.: Hierund Jetzt. Philosophieren nach Auschwitz und Hiroshima II. Stuttgart: KlettCotta, S. 23-127.
Picht, G. (1981): Vorwort. In: ders.: Hier und Jetzt. Philosophieren nach Auschwitz undHiroshima II. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, S. 7-12.
Picht, G. (1981a): Über das Böse. In: ders.: Hier und Jetzt. Philosophieren nach
Auschwitz und Hiroshima II. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, S. 484-500.
Scherer, K. (2015): Nagasaki. Der Mythos der entscheidenden Bombe. München: hanser
Berlin.
Schwentker, W. (1998): Hiroshima und die europäische Resonanz 1945-1960. Vortraggehalten auf den Tagen der Forschung 1997 am 25.4.1997 (Hagener
Universitätsreden 25.8). Hagen.
Snyder, T. (2010): Bloodlands. Europe between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic
Books.
Stölken-Fitschen, I. (1995): Atombombe und Geistesgeschichte. Eine Studie derfünfziger Jahre aus deutscher Sicht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Wehler, H. (2003): Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Vierter Band. Vom Beginn desErsten Weltkriegs bis zur Gründung der beiden deutschen Staaten 1914-1949.
München: C.H. Beck.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

38

L. WIGGER

Yamana, Jun (2001): Behält Hiroshima den Zweiten Weltkrieg im Gedächtnis? Zur
Raumanalyse des Friedensparks in Hiroshima. In: Jahrbuch für historische
Bildungsforschung, Bd. 7, S. 305-327.
Yamana, Jun (2017): Hiroshima als architektonischer Raum der Erinnerung: Zur
Problematik der Pädagogisierung eines geschichtlichen Ortes. In: Jahrbuch für
historische Bildungsforschung, Bd. 22, S. 61-79.

Cited Internet Sources
ARD (2019a): Japan gedenkt der Atombombenabwürfe von Hiroshima und Nagasaki.
(URL:
https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video-577435.html [17.09.2019])
ARD (2019b): Gedenken in Nagasaki. Forderung nach atomarer Abrüstung. (URL:
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/nagasaki-atombombe-gedenken-101.html[02.04.2020])
atomwaffenfrei (2019): 20 Wochen Protest gegen Atomwaffen in Büchel enden am
Nagasaki-Gedenktag. (URL:
http://www.atomwaffenfrei.de/home/artikel/8392246e0f9540cec4cb3be6ef097
b70/20-wochen-protest-gegen-atomwaffen-in-buechel-enden-am-n.html[02.04.2020])
Berliner Morgenpost (2019): 74 Jahre nach Hiroshima und Nagasaki ist Gefahr nicht
gebannt. (URL:
https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article226728539/74-Jahre-nachHiroshima-und-Nagasaki-ist-Gefahr-nicht-gebannt.html [02.04.2020])
Bewegter Frieden (2018): Bewegter Frieden - Die Friedensbewegung in der DDR. (hrsg.
v. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung und Robert-Havemann-Gesellschaft
e.V., letzte Änderung Dezember 2019, www.jugendopposition.de/145332).
(URL:
https://www.jugendopposition.de/themen/145332/friedensbewegung-in-der-ddr[02.04.2020])
Deutscher Bundestag (2018): Haltung der Bundesregierung zur atomaren Abrüstung.
Drucksache 19/1779 vom 20.04.2018. Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die
Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Kathrin Vogler, Heike Hänsel, Christine
Buchholz, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE. – Drucksache
19/1549 – (URL:
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

39

http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/017/1901779.pdf [02.04.2020])
DLF (2019): Gedenken an Atombombenabwurf vor 74 Jahren. (URL:
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/japan-gedenken-an-atombombenabwurf-vor74-jahren.1939.de.html?drn:news_id=1035387 [17.09.2019])
DW (2019): Japan gedenkt der Hiroshima-Opfer. (URL:
https://www.dw.com/de/japan-gedenkt-der-hiroshima-opfer/a-49904388[02.04.2020])
FAZ (2019b): 140.000 Tote: Gedenken in Hiroshima. (URL:
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/gedenken-in-hiroshima-zum-74-jahrestag140-000-tote-16320336.html [02.04.2020])
Greenpeace (2019): Umfrage Atomwaffen. (URL:
https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/publications/umfrag
e_ende_infvertrag.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2fPlDRevqkqwddeJRcqG3epFkMKnISTNqS94Kh
WR55cuafLN6hjeWbYLg [02.04.2020])
Matsui, K. (2019): Hiroshima Peace Declaration on 74th A-bomb anniversary. (URL:
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190805/p2g/00m/0na/104000c[02.04.2020])
Ministerium für Schule und Bildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MSB-NRW)(2020): Zulassung von Lernmitteln in NRW (URL:
https://www.schulministerium.nrw.de/docs/Schulsystem/Medien/Lernmittel/[02.04.2020])
Netzwerk Friedenskooperative (2019): Friedensbewegung zieht positive Bilanz derOstermärsche. (URL:
https://www.friedenskooperative.de/aktuelles/friedensbewegung-zieht-positivebilanz-der-ostermaersche [02.04.2020])
Netzwerk Friedenskooperative (2019a): Das war der Ostermarsch 2019. (URL:
https://www.friedenskooperative.de/aktuelles/das-war-der-ostermarsch-2019[02.04.2020])
Netzwerk Friedenskooperative (2019b): Hiroshima-/Nagasakigedenktag. (URL:
https://www.friedenskooperative.de/aktuelles/netzwerk-friedenskooperativestellt-auch-2019-infos-zu-den [02.04.2020])
Netzwerk Friedenskooperative (2019c): Pressesplitter zum Hiroshima- undNagasakigedenktag 2019 (URL:
https://www.friedenskooperative.de/hiroshimatag2019/pressesplitter[02.04.2020])
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

40

L. WIGGERSZ (2019): Gedenken in Hiroshima. (URL:
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/gedenken-in-hiroshima-1.4554182[17.09.2019])
ZDF (2019): Angriff auf Hiroshima. Japan gedenkt Atombombenabwurfs. (URL:
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/angriff-auf-hiroshima-japan-gedenktatombombenabwurf-100.html [02.04.2020])
ZDF (2019b): Atombombenabwurf vor 74 Jahren. Japan erinnert an die Opfer vonNagasaki. (URL:
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/japan-gedenkt-der-opfer-desatombombenabwurfs-auf-nagasaki-100.html [02.04.2020])

Textbooks
Baumgärtner, U./ Fieber, K. (2009): Horizonte 3. Geschichte Gymnasium NordrheinWestfalen. Braunschweig: Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage.
Baumgärtner, U. et al. (2016): Horizonte. Geschichte Qualifikationsphase Sekundarstufe
II. Nordrhein-Westfalen. Braunschweig: Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage.
Berger-v. d. Heide, Th., Oomen, H.-G. (Hrsg.) (2009): Entdecken und Verstehen 4. Von
der russischen Oktoberevolution bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag.
Breiter, R. et al. (2018): Stark in... Gesellschaftslehre 2. Ausgabe 2017. Braunschweig:
Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage.
Brokemper, P./ Köster, E./ Potente, D. (Hrsg.) (2006): Geschichte Real 3. Arbeitsbuch fürRealschulen. Nordrhein-Westfalen. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag.
Brückner, D./ Focke, H. (Hrsg.) (2010): Das waren Zeiten 3. Das kurze 20. Jahrhundert.
Bamberg: Buchner Verlag.
Christoffer, S. et al. (2009): Mitmischen 3. Unterrichtswerk für den Geschichtsunterricht
an Haupt- und Gesamtschulen. Stuttgart, Leipzig: Ernst Klett Verlag.
Christoffer, S. et al. (2016): Zeitreise 3. Geschichte Nordrhein-Westfalen. Stuttgart,
Leipzig: Ernst Klett Verlag
Cornelissen, J. et al. (Hrsg.) (2009): Mosaik. Der Geschichte auf der Spur. D3 Vom Endedes Ersten Weltkriegs bis zur Gegenwart. München: Oldenbourg Schulverlag.
Derichs, J. et al. (2017): denk/mal Geschichte 3. Nordrhein-Westfalen. Braunschweig:
Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage.
Droste, P. J. et al. (2017): Geschichte und Geschehen. Oberstufe. Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Stuttgart: Klett Verlag.
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

The Legacy of ‘Hiroshima’ in Germany

41

Ebeling, H./ Birkenfeld, W. (2009): Die Reise in die Vergangenheit. Arbeitsbuch
Geschichte und Politik. Band 9/10. Nordrhein-Westfalen. Braunschweig:
Bildungshaus Schulbuchverlage.
Langendorf, E. (Hrsg.) (2015): Buchners Geschichte. Oberstufe. Ausgabe NordrheinWestfalen. Qualifikationsphase. Bamberg: Buchner Verlag.
Laschewski-Müller, K./ Rauh, R. (Hrsg.) (2016): Kursbuch Geschichte.
Qualifikationsphase. Nordrhein-Westfalen. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag.
Lendzian, H.-J./ Marx, C. A. (Hrsg.) (2003): Geschichte und Gegenwart. Band 3.
Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag. 4. Aufl.
Lendzian, H.-J. (Hrsg.) (2017): Zeiten und Menschen. Geschichte. Qualifikationsphase
Oberstufe. Nordrhein-Westfalen. Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.
Regenhardt, H.-O. (Hrsg.) (2008): Forum Geschichte. Kompakt 2. Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Teilband 2. Vom Ende des Ersten Weltkriegs bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin:
Cornelsen Verlag.
Sauer, M. (Hrsg.) (2017): Geschichte und Geschehen 3. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourse of Others:“The Last 10 Feet” Project and the “Making a Better Hiroshima
Textbook” Project
Jongsung KIM
Hiroshima University
Abstract
This paper aims to clarify how the citizens who are open to the discourses of others understandhistorical events and how social studies education can contribute to that goal. With the use of atomic
bomb in Hiroshima during WWII and its related events, which is one of the representative events thatis remembered in dissimilar ways in different countries' discourses, I developed and implemented two
projects whose participants can bridge the discourse gap and develop cross-border mutual
understanding. One is to redesign the last 10 feet of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, and theother is to make a better Hiroshima textbook. In this paper, firstly, I explain the theoretical andphilosophical background of the projects. Then, I describe the details of the projects and theparticipants’ learnings. Finally, I will propose what education can contribute to developing mutual
understanding that transcends national borders.
Keywords
Mutual understanding, Authentic communication, Hiroshima, Social studies, Museum, Textbook

Introduction
From the advent of the modern nation, the autobiographical narrative of a nation has
supported the imaginary community of nation-states (Anderson, 2006; Korostelina,
2013; Smith, 1991). The government of each country selected the narrative matching thecontext of their own country from among the collective memories domestically andabroad and granted the authority of national public records (Apple, 2000; Zajda, 2015).
National history, which is shared within its people, is the border that divides the internaland external cultures.

Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourse of Others

43

Narratives of the nation are transmitted through various mediums such as mass
media, novels, and museums (Morris-Suzuki, 2005). Among them, the public education
system has played the role of systematic reproduction (Cassel & Nelson, 2013;
Nakamura, 2000). National narrative, which is managed by the national curriculum andtextbook certification system, gains an absolute position in the classroom and is passed
on to teachers and children as the truth (Carretero, Asensio, & Rodríguez-Moneo, 2011;
Coulby, 2000).
However, the nation’s narrative loses its position outside of its borders. “Our”
narrative about an event is only a fragment of multiple narratives around the world. The
theme of this symposium, Hiroshima, is also recalled in various forms (Crawford, 2003;
Hogan, 1996; Morris-Suzuki, Low, Petrov, & Tsu, 2013; Naono, 2005; Schwenger &Treat, 1994; Taylor & Jacobs, 2018; Yoneyama, 1999). In their respective textbooks, eachcountry—Japan’s suffering from the atomic bomb, the United States dropping the atomic
bomb, and Korea’s colonization by Japan—remembers Hiroshima as follows1).
・ Japanese textbook [Hiroshima in the present tense]:- Cutting off Hiroshima from the history before the atomic bombing.
- Damage, reconstruction, the abolition of nuclear weapons, peace, and succession.
・ American textbook [Hiroshima in the past tense]:- Centered on the Pacific War.
- Discussing the event of dropping the atomic bomb as a controversial issue.
・ Korean textbook [Hiroshima in the past tense]:- The marginalization of Hiroshima.
- Appeared as a trigger for Korea to become independent.
A Japanese textbook depicts Hiroshima as an event that continues to be present
while keeping a distance from history before the atomic bombing. A U.S. textbook
discusses Hiroshima as a past event and the suitability of the decision at that time. A
Korean textbook emphasizes independence from Japan, marginalizing descriptions about
Hiroshima. Even with the same Hiroshima event, what and how to remember, which isthe politics of memory surrounding Hiroshima, is dependent on the context within the
country.
Insisting only on the memories of one’s own country in the presence of diverse
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

44

J. KIM

memories would be contrary to the inclination of the times when coexistence with others
in other countries is required. However, considering the nation-state-based world order,
it is not possible to solely criticize school education aimed at forming a nation. What canschool education do under today’s demand for a balance between the two? To answer theabove question, I, as a specialist in social studies education, have utilized the theory ofsocial sciences to develop, implement, and refine projects to nurture citizens who are
open to the discourses of others. This paper briefly introduces the outline and results ofthe two projects developed and implemented with Hiroshima as the subject. It thenconsiders the prerequisites for developing citizens who have an openness for the
discourses of others in other countries2).

Research Design
In this paper, citizens who are open to the discourses of others are those who pursue“progressive” mutual understanding. Sudo (2001) explains the impossibility of perfectmutual understanding between oneself and others as with the case of the “Prisoner’s
Dilemma” game. However, that does not mean giving up on coexistence with others. He
argues that only by acknowledging that oneself and others are unable to understand one
another fully, or by “agreeing to disagree,” raises the possibility of the two mutually living
together. I agree with his approach to mutual understanding and aim to foster a “citizen
who acknowledges the impossibility of mutual understanding, but who can continue tocommunicate with others towards it” through this research.
The individuals buried under the nation must first be restored to the agents of mutual
understanding in order to develop mutual understanding among people belonging todifferent countries. For that purpose, it is necessary to create a place where people cancommunicate with those in other countries beyond the context of their own country, that
is, a public sphere that transcends national borders. From the context of international andcomparative education, the author devised the concept of “authentic communication”(Kim, 2016; 2017; 2019), which is the actual dialogue by the agents of mutual
understanding, based on critical patriotism (Banks et al., 2003), critical theory (Habermas,
1991), and dialogic constructivism (Sakurai, 2002). For details of the concept, pleaserefer to the cited references. Here, I only refer to design principles extracted fromauthentic communication.

Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourse of Others

45

・ Challenging the existing cognitive framework by visualizing one’s own discourse
narrative and then suggesting the possibility of new discourse.
・ Assisting students in capturing the (political) context surrounding the discourse of
oneself and others. Also, providing opportunities to analyze and criticize it.
・ Providing opportunities to convey the results of the inquiry/discussion of the internalgroup to the members of the external group. Also, supporting the continuation of theexchange of opinions among students.
・ Selecting a medium for communication that symbolizes the discourses of the groupand is familiar to students.
I have developed and implemented the following two projects based on the above
principles; one is to redesign the last 10 feet of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum,and the other is to make a better Hiroshima textbook. In the following section, I will
describe not only the details of the projects but also the participants’ learning. For that
aim, I collected the documents and works created by them, asked them to write an essay
about their learning during the projects, and conducted a semi-structure interview tounderstand their learning in more depth. All data were qualitatively coded, and the result
was utilized to refine the project.

“Redesigning ‘The Last 10 Feet’ of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum” ProjectThis project, which was developed and implemented for summer school at the“Hiroshima Innovation School” held in the summer of 2017, was an attempt to create apublic sphere for 37 students from five different countries to exchange the discourses ofHiroshima in each country. A museum is a place where the memories of the exhibitor andthe viewer intersect and a place of public memory familiar to children (Dickinson, Blair,& Ott, 2010). Therefore, in this project, I selected the museum as the medium forauthentic communication.
This project was a journey to find the answer to the question, “What is the lasting
impact of the use of the atomic bomb during WWII in Japan?” The following
supplementary questions were added to support the participants’ inquiry: “What events
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

46

J. KIMduring WWII led the U.S. to use nuclear weapons in Japan?,” “How did the use of theatomic bomb affect Hiroshima, and how did the city’s residents react to this?,” and “Whoshould the word ‘we’ represent in the memorial cenotaph for the A-bomb victims, whichreads, ‘Let all souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil?’” The first question
is to explore the cause of the atomic bombing while the second is to understand thedamage caused by the atomic bomb and the subsequent response of the Hiroshimapeople; the last question is to grasp the difference in reaction in the Japanese, Korean andChinese media regarding Obama’s visit.
The redesign of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum “The last 10 feet” 3) was
the highlight of this project. Participants determined their responses to the primary
question of this project, redesigned "The last 10 feet" of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum accordingly, and gave a presentation of their work and the reason designed in a
specific way. At the mock exhibition, additional authentic communication happened
based on the result of the authentic communication held thus far.
In the essays created after the project, the participants stated that they became awareof the existence of others different from themselves and began to think about how to live
together. Although there were many positive results from communicating with others,
such as respecting others' discourses and becoming open-minded and tolerant towarddifferences, some participants noted the difficulty of communication itself with those
who have different discourses from themselves. Through communicating with others thatthey never encountered before, the participants learned a lot, but, at the same time, thenegative aspects arose. From this, it became clear that as future practice, adding to create
the opportunities of authentic communication, it is necessary to support students in orderto overcome the challenges that arise from the communication.

“Making a Better Hiroshima Textbook” ProjectThis project was developed and implemented as part of the lectures at JP University
in Japan and KR University in Korea in the first half of 2019. Twenty students from JP
University and fifteen students from KR University who wanted to become social studies
teachers had authentic communication to recognize, analyze, and criticize the discoursesof Hiroshima in Japanese and Korean history textbooks and propose to each other a“Better Hiroshima Textbook.” Since the textbooks directly reflect the public memory of
the state and are familiar to children, I selected them as the medium for authentic
communication in this project (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1992/2017). Additionally,
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourse of Others

47

considering the school cultures of Japan and South Korea, which consider textbooks as a
“Bible” or answer books, “authentic communication” through textbooks, which theopportunity for self and others to dismantle and recreate textbooks, also has the effect ofrepositioning the participants from “consumer” to “producer” of knowledge (Kim, 2016;2017).
The authentic communication began at KR University in Korea. As an instructor, I
extracted and translated the description of Hiroshima in the textbooks of sixth-grade
elementary school students in Japan and presented it to students at KR University. Korean
students, who saw that the Japanese textbook contained a discourse of Hiroshimadiffering from that they knew, expressed a sense of discomfort. Thus, I called out, “Let’s
make a ‘Better Hiroshima Textbook,’ and propose it to students who want to becomesocial studies teachers in Japan.” Students of KR University recognized, criticized, andanalyzed not only textbooks of Japan and Korea but also various discourses surrounding
Hiroshima using multiple materials such as specialized books on Hiroshima. Based on
the results, the KR University version of a “Better Hiroshima textbook” was completed
and sent to Japan.
I translated the KR University version textbook and showed it to the Japanese social
studies pre-service teachers at JP University, inquiring on what they thought. I called out
to the Japanese students, who had many things to say about the textbook, “Let’s make a‘Better Hiroshima Textbook’ and make a counter-suggestion to Korean social studies preservice teachers.” Similar to Korean students, the JP University students fully
acknowledged the discourses on Hiroshima in both countries and examined it critically,
created JP University's version of the “Better Hiroshima textbook,” and made a counterproposal to Korean participants.
As mentioned above, a public sphere transcending national borders is constructedby repeating the process of “understanding (the other’s discourses) → recognizing (theinherent perspective in the other's discourses) → analyzing/criticizing → proposing.” As
the course instructor, I played the role of discussion facilitator and interpreter/translator
for the exchange of opinions.
A profound gap exists between Korean students who try to capture Hiroshima on
the historical relationship between Japan and Korea, and Japanese students who believe
in Hiroshima's universal value as a peaceful city, maintaining a distance from the past.
For the students of KR University who are trying to take up Hiroshima in the course ofhistory, the position of JP University students that Hiroshima should be taught as
Hiroshima itself seemed to be challenging to understand. As a result, the narrative gap
between students in both countries did not fuse. However, from this exercise, theE-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

48

J. KIM

participants did veritably learn. From the post-project feedback and interviews, many
students said they felt the presence of others and the importance of continuing tocommunicate with others despite seeming difficulties. Also, through this project, theprogression of communication led to participants becoming aware of the constructabilityof the textbook, active participation in the communication, and accepting Hiroshima as apersonal matter with a sense of ownership.

What Education Can Do for the Cross-border Mutual Understanding
How will citizens who are open to the discourses of others remember Hiroshima?
Based on the results of the above two projects, they might remember it as a place where
human rights, peace, and the future of humankind are preambles, where various ideas
compete, and that complete mutual understanding cannot exist; therefore, constantcommunication is necessary. An authentic communication about Hiroshima has provided
the opportunity to learn the value of “progressive” mutual understanding throughexperience.
In closing this paper, I would like to describe the conditions necessary for deepening
mutual understanding that transcends borders. First, it is essential to position the citizens,
who are apt to be buried under the nation, as the agents of mutual understanding. After
that, it is crucial to create a place where individuals in the nation can converse with othersfrom other countries who have different discourses. That is, public spheres beyond thenation, in which authentic communication can continue. In other words, it is a transition
from school education as a device to “reproduce” public memory to school education asa public sphere that “reconstructs” memory through constant communication. The point
to be noted is the “safety” of the public sphere. In a public sphere, where people withdifferent discourses gather, conflicts can arise at anytime and anywhere. However, if thecreation of a public sphere that transcends national borders is evaded, one can only expect
to nurture citizens who are trapped by a nation rather than those open to others. It is
important to create an environment where conflicts can be safely diffused. As attemptedin the “The last 10 feet” and “Making a Better Hiroshima textbook” discussed in thispaper, having a third party like the author acting as an intermediary to visualize andverbalize new memories to set the agenda may be one strategy to improve public spheresafety.

Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourse of Others

49

Notes
1) This is the result of discourse analysis, extracting the descriptions of Hiroshima from the social studies textbooks
in junior high schools in Japan, the United States, and South Korea, and considering the relevant context.
2) Yamana (2019) who recognizes education as an institution of memory, argues that it tried to transmit, but at thesame time, ironically, to deconstruct and reconstruct memory (p.204). However, he indicates the details oftransmission, deconstruction, and reconstruction is still unclear. This paper can be understood as a response to theissue set forth of subject-matter education, especially social studies pedagogy.
3) “The last 10 feet” can be understood as space where messages that the museum wishes to convey to the audience
are condensed.

References
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread ofnationalism. London: Verso books.
Apple, M. W. (2000). Official knowledge (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. & Christian-Smith, L. (Eds.) (1992/2017). The politics of textbook. New
York: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. et al. (2003). Democracy and diversity: Principles and concepts foreducating citizens in a global age. Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education,
University of Washington.
Carretero, M., Asensio, M., & Rodríguez-Moneo, M. (2011). History education andthe construction of national identities. Charlotte: Information Age.
Cassell, J. A., & Nelson, T. (2013). Exposing the effects of the “invisible hand” of theneoliberal agenda on institutionalized education and the process of sociocultural
reproduction. Interchange, 43(3), 245-264.
Coulby, D. (2000). Beyond the national curriculum: Curricular centralism and cultural
diversity in Europe and the USA. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Crawford, K. (2003). Re-visiting Hiroshima: The role of US and Japanese history
textbooks in the construction of national memory. Asia Pacific Education Review,
4(1), 108-117.
Dickinson, G., Blair, C., & Ott, B. L. (Eds.). (2010). Places of public memory: The
rhetoric of museums and memorials. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

50

J. KIM

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry intoa category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT press.
Hogan M. J. (Ed.). (1996). Hiroshima in history and memory. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kim, J. (2016). The challenge for “Communication-Based” international education: A
case for “Making a Better Textbook” with South Korean and Japanese students as
the main agents [Taihwagata” kokusairikaikyouiku eno cyousen: Nikkan no
kodomo o syutai tosita “Yoriyoi shakaika kyoukasyo zukuri” jissen o jireini] .
Journal of Educational Research on Social Studies [Shakaika Kennkyu], 84, 49–
60.
Kim, J. (2017). Teaching history of Japan–Korea relations based on “Authentic
Communication” between the self and others: A case for “Making a Better History
Textbook as relates to the Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War” by
Japanese and Korean students [Jiko to tasha no “Sinseinataiwa” nimotozuku
nikkan kankeisi kyouiku: Nikkan no kodomo o syutai tosita “Yoriyoi
nissin/nichiro sensou no kyoukasyo zukuri” o jireini]. The Journal of Social
Studies [Shakaika Kyouiku Kennkyu], 130, 1–12.
Kim, J. (2019). Beyond national discourses: South Korean and Japanese students “makea better social studies textbook” In a B. C. Rubin, E. B. Freedman, & J. Kim (Eds.),
Design research in social studies education: Critical lessons from an emerging
field (pp. 223-244). New York: Routledge.
Korostelina, K. (2013). History education in the formation of social identity: toward a
culture of peace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Morris-Suzuki, T. (2005). The past within us: Media, memory, history. London: Verso.
Morris-Suzuki, T., Low, M., Petrov, L, & Tsu, T. Y. (2013). East Asia beyond the history
wars: Confronting the ghosts of violence. New York: Routledge.
Nakamura, K. (2008). Cross-border Public Education: Possibility of Global Citizen
Education [Kokkyou o koeru kokyouiku: Sekai shimin no kanose]. Tokyo:
Toyokan.
Naono, A. (2005). “Hiroshima” as a contested memorial site: Analysis of the making ofa new exhibition at the Hiroshima Peace Museum. Hiroshima Journal ofInternational Studies, 11, 229-244.
Sakurai, A. (2002). Sociology of Interview: How to Listen to Life Stories [Intabyu no
shakaigaku: Raifu sutori no kikikata]. Tokyo: Serikasyobo.
Schwenger, P., & Treat, J. W. (1994). America's Hiroshima, Hiroshima's America.
Boundary, 21(1), 233-253.
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Educating Citizens Who Are Open to the Discourse of Others

51

Smith, A. D. (1991). The nation: invented, imagined, reconstructed?. Millennium, 20(3),353-368.
Sudo, N. (2001). Incomprehensible others and self: Social theory of tolerance [Rikai
dekinai tasha to rikai sarenai ziko: kanyo no shakairiron]. Tokyo: Keisosyobo.
Taylor, N. A. J., & Jacobs, R. A. (Eds.). (2018). Reimagining Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
Nuclear humanities in the post-Cold War. New York: Routledge.
Yamana, J. (2019). Education as an institution of memory: For memory pedagogy [Kioku
no seido tosite no kyoiku: Memory pedagogy no ho e], H. Morita, & Matsuura, Y.
(Eds.), Reconsidering education and pedagogy now: What does educational
philosophy investigate and what do we envision?" [Ima kyoiku to tetsygajy wotoinaosu: Kyoikutetsugaku ha nani wo kyumeshi nani wo tenbo suruka] (pp. 183209). Tokyo: Toshinto.
Yoneyama, L. (1999). Hiroshima Traces: Time, space, and the dialectics of memory.
Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Zajda, J. (Ed.). (2015). Nation-building and history education in a global culture.
Dordrecht: Springer.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Educational Theory of “Hiroshima” after the “Memory Turn”:
Summary of the Symposium and Moderator’s Comments
Jun YAMANAThe University of Tokyo

Dealing with Memories of “Hiroshima” in Education and Pedagogy
75 years have passed since World War II. What should we have in mind when trying
to reconsider the issue of remembering “Hiroshima” and reconciliation in relation toeducation? While various answers could be offered to this question, the fact that asignificant change has taken place, especially since the mid-1990s, should not be
overlooked. The “memory boom” of that time changed theoretical approaches to“Hiroshima” that can be called, from today’s perspective, a “memory turn.” The tworeports presented in the symposium show the different possibilities of the “Hiroshima”
educational theory after the turn. The first presenter Jong Song Kim demonstrated thepossibility to involve education in the process of generating representations of“Hiroshima.” The second presenter Lothar Wigger gave us the opportunity to observe
representations of “Hiroshima” in education in the broader context of other “Hiroshima”
discourses.
The “memory boom” refers to an academic and international development that
discusses actively how catastrophic events, including wars, were collectively memorized
and, how this shapes the cultures remembering such events. In addition to academic andpublic discussions, the “memory boom” also included various practices that actively
promote the formation of collective memories. Further research not only endeavored tofind out what were the facts in the past, but also how past events became to beremembered collectively as “facts,” to begin with. The term “memory turn” refers to aseries of theoretical and practical changes in the consideration of memory andrecollection regarding the latter issue. It offers, in other words, a second order observationof the events in the past.
We often hear the word “実相 jissō” in the praxis of recollecting memories of theEducational Theory of “Hiroshima” after the “Memory Turn”

53

atomic bombing in Hiroshima. “Hiroshima” theory before the “memory turn” mainly
aspired to succeed in investigating the “jissō” of the event. At times, the “jissō” was a
testimony of suffering by a survivor and at times, it was a relic or remains with traces of
the atomic bombing. At other times, it referred to the accumulation of data andinformation of the terrible damages. In any case, before the “memory turn,” the “jissō”
was often treated almost synonymously with “truth” or “facts.”
What are the features of “Hiroshima” theory after the “memory turn”? As for thepractices of recollection in relation to the atomic bombing, there are no significant
changes in the understanding and appreciation of the “jissō” considered as “truth.”
However, the testimonies, relics, or things left, documentaries, and historical descriptions
as “jissō” also have representational aspects and cultural components. The “jissō” in thiscase is regarded as a kind of product resulting from the continuous shaping ofrepresentations of the atomic bombing as an unimaginable event. Since then, it has been
critically investigated in which conditions such cultural constructions are created andwhat kind of social and personal effects they have.
Lisa Yoneyama is a key expert of the “memory turn” in the field of “Hiroshima”
research. She argues that even the testimonies of survivors in Hiroshima are constructed
through rhetoric, such as modifications, metaphors, and plotting, regardless whether they
themselves attempt to depict historical events of the atomic bombing according toaccurate facts (Yoneyama, L, 2005, Hiroshima - Politics of Memories, translated byHiroaki Ozawa et al., Iwanami Shoten: Tokyo, p. 290). From this viewpoint, sheinvestigates the possibilities of “memories of Hiroshima” as a critical knowledge.
Following her publications, “Hiroshima” theory attempted to interpret the political
dynamics in a broad sense as a process of generating representations of “Hiroshima.”
Even historiography, which professes to elucidate “facts” of the past, has to position itself
vis-a-vis the insights in collective memories. Research in cultural memory offers criticalchallenges but also opportunities for the discipline of historiography.
When reviewing the two reports of the symposium in the above context, they offer
concrete examples for the educational theory of “Hiroshima” after the “memory turn.”

Characteristics of Kim’s Report: Pedagogy Participating in the Generating Processof the “Hiroshima” Representations
One of the prominent features of Kim’s approach is that the practitioners (educator andthe educatee) as well as the researchers themselves join in and exchange educational
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

54

J. YAMANA

practices in the process of creating the representations of “Hiroshima” and their media.
At the same time, it interprets such practices and derives further “designing principles”
for educational practices. Such an approach in research, called “design-based research,”
is a consequence of the critique of the binary differentiation of theory (observation) andpractice (action). Kim’s report refers to research about museum exhibitions (The
“Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum’s ‘the Last 10 Feet’ Redesign” Project) and a
research project concerning schoolbooks (The “Improved ‘Hiroshima’ Textbook
Creation” Project).
According to Kim’s report, a textbook is a “nation’s narrative.” It is a social instrumentthat creates the national citizen’s collective memory and is itself the product of such acollective memory. There have been studies criticizing the relationship between suchtextbooks and collective memory from an observer’s viewpoint. However, Kim’s
research features an attempt to improve the communication between people acrossdifferent countries. He focuses on descriptions in textbooks about the case of “Hiroshima.”
After acknowledging that the conceptual “framework used for Hiroshima” and thedefined meaning of “Hiroshima” differ across countries, such as Japan, South Korea, andthe United States, he criticizes that a “nation’s narrative” may trigger incomprehension
and intolerance between the people from diverse countries. He then proposes ways tolead following generations in a direction of “nurturing citizens who are open to otherpeople’s narratives” through educational activities that co-create the representations of“Hiroshima.”
One of the specific measures introduced to attain this purpose was the attempt ofcreating an “authentic dialogue” about the representation of “Hiroshima” in schoolbooks
by Korean and Japanese students. Both parties in this dialogue share the results of the
discussion of their own groups with the other group and receive the answers given by theother party. Through direct but also genuine confrontations accompanied by discomfort
or unpleasant feelings, each participant attempts to redraw or overcome the boundaries
in engaging with “others.” In this way, they search for ways of “creating public spheresthat surpass nations” and enable “reconciliation” through dialogue. Of course,“reconciliation” in this case does not simply mean finding the middle point between bothparties. It is rather described as a continuous and dynamic process toward mutual
understanding.
Another project related to museum exhibitions reported by Kim also has features
similar to his textbook project. On one hand, there are cultural memories (textbooks andmuseums) as collective media, and on the other hand, there appear personal memories
that are also influenced by such media. Kim’s research projects are nothing less thanSymposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Educational Theory of “Hiroshima” after the “Memory Turn”

55

pedagogical projects to change people’s thinking regarding other countries throughcommunicative activities based on cultural memories.
Kim’s project requires careful preparation for its implementation. As Wigger pointed
out, an “authentic dialogue” also harbors the risk to unintentionally sharpen awarenessthat they are indeed facing “someone else” and thus reinforce boundaries. Consequently,“educational protection” appears necessary in order to realize the learner’s affirmativechange in the specific conflicts. How is such an “educational protection” possible forresearchers who serve as planners, instructors, and observers of the ensuing dialogue. In
the symposium discussion, I asked Kim this question in the role of the moderator.
Based on his experiences, Kim mentioned three aspects of “educational protection.”Firstly, the environment in which the participants work together toward a common
goal—creating museum exhibitions or textbooks—may decrease or even avoid
extremely negative conflicts. Secondly, communication is structured so that people
clearly see each other, effectively eliminating anonymity. This situation may haverestraining effects on violent speech and behavior. Thirdly, it becomes easier to keep asafe communicative space for educational intervention by placing a medium (museum
or textbook) between people who engage in the dialogue. In addition, Kim pointed outthat a person attempting to conduct educational interventions should be self-reflective
and may also want to decentralize him-/herself.

Features of Wigger’s Report: Replacing Education in the Spread of “Hiroshima”
Representations
Wigger’s Report presented another possibility of pedagogy concerning therepresentation of “Hiroshima” after the “memory turn.” To begin with, Wigger expresseda great sense of crisis arguing that the serious threat of the atomic era is not passed on
sufficiently to the younger generation. Wigger’s sense of crisis was caused by, what heperceived as, an insufficient description of “Hiroshima” in German history textbooks.
Why has the significant meaning of “Hiroshima” not been sufficiently conveyed in thiseducation? Wigger first surveyed the meanings of “Hiroshima” in the various discursive
practices in the news, politics, academic theories and public opinion after World War II.
Then, he interpreted the characteristics of “Hiroshima” descriptions in German textbooks
in relation to the spread of “Hiroshima” representations outside of the educational field.
Wigger first outlined the specific process by which the representations of “Hiroshima”
came to have a special meaning in Germany. He described how the name of ‘Hiroshima’
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

56

J. YAMANA

had become “the symbol for the first atomic bombing in human history and the horror ofover 100,000 deaths and the longstanding suffering of the survivors” in the political andmilitary context of the Cold War in his country. “Hiroshima” also had become a keyword
to warn people of the danger of a new nuclear war in the future. Concerning the issue of
nuclear weapons, philosophers like Picht, Litt, Anders and Adorno made an appeal thatthe development of such a technology held the potential of a catastrophe for the entiretyof humankind. Such statements inspired peace movements in Germany. However,
Wigger analyzed the current state, especially after the dissolution of the Cold War
structure as the following: “For the younger generations, the period of the Cold War andthe fear of a nuclear war is a closed past, without significance for present life and thefuture.”Wigger’s report suggests that one reason for the insufficiencies in the descriptions of“Hiroshima” in history textbooks is their very character. I would like to call this a conflictof “memory economy.” German textbooks prefer the topics of German and European
history, centering on the event of National Socialism. When compiling a textbook, it isunavoidable to gauge which knowledge should be attributed more importance forstudents in the context of their lives. Wigger conceded, the fact that “German andEuropean history occupy a large part of school lessons and that the 20th century and thedebate about National Socialism in particular carry great weight is understandable.”
Nonetheless, he criticized that the world-historical significance of the dropping of atomic
bombs is downplayed by contributing a large number of pages of textbooks to NS-history.
In his concluding remarks, Wigger emphasized that textbooks should deal with thehistory of “Hiroshima” in a more differentiated way and give the subject a more
prominent place in the classroom. According to him, to inspire responsible action it would
be more important to create not abstract knowledge (Kenntnis) and information about theatomic bombs and their effects, but rather a comprehensive and concrete knowledge(Wissen) of the events. During the symposium, I had difficulties to capture Wigger’s
differentiation between “Wissen” and “Kenntnis,” highlighting the significance of theformer. As the moderator, therefore, I asked him to clarify this point of his argument.
According to Wigger, “Wissen” features a nuance of scientific (wissenschaftliches)
knowledge, in contrast to an excessively constructivist worldview. The idea that “reality”
is in the eye of the beholder does not accord with this understanding of facts. Such an
idea is also philosophically incorrect and politically dangerous. Wigger argued
furthermore that it belongs to the perpetual tasks of “Hiroshima” theory after the“memory turn” to reflect on “Wissen” itself from the perspective of“Wissenschaftstheorie” (=science studies), constantly to investigate “facts” based on
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Educational Theory of “Hiroshima” after the “Memory Turn”

57

historical materials, and to properly transmit the verified “Wissen” from a pedagogicalperspective to the next generation. Lastly, Wigger highlighted that it would be necessary
to pursue an “ethical basis” for imagining others and the coexistence with them.

Discussions and Remaining Issues
During the questions and answers session after the presentation of both reports, Yasuo
Imai asked a question regarding Wigger’s warnings against constructivist thinking. Imaishared his opinion, yet although Kim's project has a constructivist position, it should be
esteemed highly as an important endeavor. He underlined that Kim’s project filled thegap of negotiating “Hiroshima” representations from different observers with different
backgrounds. Imai asked if it could be the feature of “Hiroshima” theory after the“memory turn” to entrust hope to the continuous dialogues to negotiate across differences
despite the definitive difficulty of ever reaching an agreement.
First, Kim commented on Imai’s question. Kim acknowledged that he held aconstructivist viewpoint. While confirming that his project aspired to what Imai had
summarized, he also agreed that an extreme affirmation of constructivism should be
avoided today, in the era of “post-truth.” He also said that he wanted the students
participating in his project to think and behave as if they were historians. His opinion
seemed to resonate with Wigger’s critique of a radical constructivism. Then, Wigger
expressed that he also had certain expectations regarding the interactions with others
across differences, as Kim had attempted. In this regard, Wigger again emphasized his
claim that such attempts harbored unpredictable outcomes, as they are not only open to
the possibility of reconciliation, but also to further conflicts. This is exactly the reason,
Wigger said, why “Wissen” and ethics concerning “Hiroshima” are indispensable.
Next, Nobuko Morita commented that mutual understanding and historical
recognition might not necessarily coincide, although they relate to each other. She thenasked how it would be possible to connect the two parties through education. Following
her question, Kim commented that he had not been conscious of the possible differences
between the two issues Morita had discussed. He then suggested that his project put moreemphasis on the aspect of mutual understanding. To this Morita suggested that Kim’s
project potentially attained both mutual understanding and historical recognition.
Following Morita’s response, unfortunately, there was no time left for Wigger to respond.
I would have been interested to hear Wigger’s answer, because Morita’s opinion seems
to resonate with Wigger’s emphasis on working toward historical recognition with ethics.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

58

J. YAMANA

Educational theory of “Hiroshima” after the “memory turn” should not entrust thereality of Hiroshima to the arbitrary eye of the beholder, just as Wigger cautioned. At thesame time, it is not enough merely to convey the “truth” justified by academics as
information. Educational theory of “Hiroshima” is involved in the extremely challenging
issue of understanding what others have experienced. To tackle this challenge, Kim
placed the difficulties of such recollection at the center of his project. In this vein, theproject participants attempted to co-create media of “Hiroshima” representation. Of
course, this should not be taken to mean that everything is acceptable. People were to fall
into the pitfall of excessive constructivist thinking, if it would not matter what theycreated. As Morita suggested, the goal of aiming for a “better” historical recognition
should be kept in mind. However, how is the education of catastrophic memories possible,
if there are no decisive methods to “understand” the experiences of others and nomeasures to “know” them appropriately? In order to further dive into this issue, it may benecessary to evaluate in detail how this issue could possibly relate to the respective
elements, such as “proficiency in (historical) recognition/empathy,” “knowledge/ethics,”“research/education” and “science/wisdom.” It is indeed the Philosophy of Education
which can contribute to tackling this task in relation to the educational theory of“Hiroshima” after the “memory turn.”

Some comments after the Symposium
After the symposium, I asked myself anew what “peace education” means. Then I
came up with the working definition that “peace education” is an educational approachthat tries to enable a “better” life for individuals and society by promoting the recollectionof catastrophic states (= the opposite of peaceful states) that have occurred in the past.
“The Plague” (1947), written by Albert Camus, suggests that forgetting should befeared the most in an era following a catastrophe. Is it however meaningful to remember
catastrophic events that could potentially destroy the whole meaning of the world? As iswell known, Camus suggested that “absurdity” was the fate of humans who did not cease
to seek the unfulfilled meaning of the world. He likens this absurd destiny of humans to
Sisyphus who was fated to push a giant rock to a mountaintop as the punishment forangering the gods. The giant rock rolls down to the bottom of the valley just before it
reaches the mountaintop. Sisyphus is destined to go back and forth from the mountaintop
to the valley for the task that he will never achieve. Sisyphus is an excellent metaphor forhumans who never cease to seek the meaning of the world, having no choice but to seek
Symposium: Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory and Emerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in
Polyphony of / between German, Korean and Japanese Voices

Educational Theory of “Hiroshima” after the “Memory Turn”

59

it, while also knowing that such meaning cannot be sought out.
However, the author of this absurdity paradoxically attempts to find hope andhappiness for humans in the sight of Sisyphus. The giant rock mercilessly rolls down thevalley at once, from a place where it almost reached the mountaintop. “At that subtle
moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning towards his rock,in that slight pivoting, he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes his
fate, created by him, combined under his memory’s eye and soon sealed by his death.”(Camus, A., 1975, The Myth of Sisyphus, translated from the French (1942) by Justin
O’Brien, Pinguin Books: London, p.110). Camus concludes the passage as follows: “Thestruggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine
Sisyphus happy.” (ibid., p.111).
Recalling catastrophes is one of the specific ways to live with “absurdity.” “Peace
education,” as defined above, is a permanent activity on this way. It must continue
indefinitely because humans cannot run away from their fate of living with “absurdity,”even if a certain catastrophe seems already to have passed.

Acknowledgements
This paper dates back to the symposium “Inheritance of HIROSHIMA Memory andEmerging Reconciliation: Changing Representations in Polyphony of /between German,
Korean and Japanese Voices” at the annual conference of the Philosophy of Education
Society of Japan, held on October 13, 2019 at Hiroshima University. I thank Mr. Jarula
M.I. Wegner for supporting the English translation.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself ThroughPhilosophy of Education

Liz JACKSONUniversity of Hong Kong

Introduction
The themes for research and related questions posed for this conference, on
globalisation, internationalisation, and universality in philosophy of education, are criticalto consider in higher education and research. Given the polarisation of conversations
across the world and within many societies today, these questions help us to explore our
responsibilities as educators and academics, to understand diversity, and to enable others,
our colleagues and students, to do the same. This work involves cultivating and sustaining
dispositions of open-mindedness, as well as tolerating awareness of the ‘known
unknown’.
In this paper, I share some anecdotes, or vignettes, to stimulate discussion aroundsome issues faced when grappling with diversity, language, and cultural difference inphilosophy of education. These problems, as revealed within my ‘case studies’, are notparticular to philosophy of education, but the stories expose some concerns relevant to
our work, as international and cross-culturally engaged scholars. They are based on myexperiences as a scholar in different parts of the world. I will conclude by discussing somepoints related to philosophy of education in the Asia-Pacific region.
I start with real-life stories rather than abstract theories for a few reasons. First, I do
not want a reader’s experience of my story to be made distant and foreign, due to the useof a specific theorist or theory. I do not want to distract from our capacity to understandeach other, by focusing on a third party, which we may understand differently. I also do
not want to rely on a philosophical argument that involves understanding a concept
according to a particular thinker. Such a style is used in analytic philosophy and pragmaticDiversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

61

philosophy. However, it is likely across language communities that we will learn more
about our differences, than about any idea, by following such a strategy. Here I am
inspired by Ono Fumio’s writing on philosophy in the age of globalisation (2018), andNaoko Saito’s work on the difficulties and impossibilities of translation (2016; 2018;
Jackson, 2016). In this paper, I do not want to needlessly confuse, by presenting a
sophisticated argument that may not be useful to people. Therefore, I ask you to consider
my perspective in the following stories, and see if you have similar experiences, of crosscultural differences in life and philosophy. Readers may ask if telling stories is a good
methodology for philosophy, since they are not generalizable, and not framed by logic or
analysis. I leave it up to others to respond to this, based on their views of this work.

1. We see what we look for
After earning my PhD and before moving to Hong Kong, I worked for two years
in international development in South Africa. I worked with the United States Peace
Corps, one of the largest international aid organisations. The Peace Corps aims to build
capabilities in disadvantaged areas, in line with nations’ own priorities (Jackson, 2013).
It also works to promote the United States, through its presence in a country, and the goodintentions of the volunteers. I worked to support the volunteers in training anddevelopment in the country. The volunteers were mostly young Americans, with little
international experience, who wanted to make a difference in the world.
In my work I found that Paulo Freire was beloved by volunteers. They particularly
liked his view that a community must decide dialogically what matters to it, in education
as praxis (theory/practice). Volunteers were passionate about this justice-based approach.
In their spare time they would organize to study Freire (1989). In formal trainings, theyalso learned how to facilitate open, dialogic “community needs assessments.” They
would learn how to discuss what people in the local area wanted, their needs, threats, andchallenges, and then collectively decide on ways to fix community problems. They took
several months of language training and lived in rural areas of the country before entering
their work sites, to prepare to do this work effectively.
However, at their sites, the volunteers did not have an easy time. They found that
dialogue for praxis is difficult, even when both parties apparently intend to engage, andseem to have a nice time talking to each other. In an article, a former volunteer discusses
that she “had lengthy, optimistic conversations with a village chief about starting acommunity garden only to discover that I misread his reaction and that he was, in fact,
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

62

L. JACKSON

against the whole endeavor” (Lau, 2011). Such challenges are common. The Peace Corps
warns volunteers about this, as a ‘cross-cultural challenge’. Yet the volunteers werealways surprised, after months (and sometimes years) of cultural and language training,that they lacked basic cultural understanding needed to do their work. Local people would
not be aggressive in the way they expected, using a passive-aggressive manner, as theyoften found it offensive for young people from the United States to enter their space, fullof complaints, and obsessed with local problems. In the local view, this was adisrespectful way of behaving to generous hosts, especially as the volunteers also claimed
they wanted to learn from local people.
In this case, the volunteers were not listening, because they did not know how tohear. They did not see signs of disagreement. The late African HIV/AIDS activist David
Ross Patient, wrote that in cross-cultural work, responses are prescribed by questions: “Ifyou communicate, then the response (or lack thereof) is simply a reflection of yourcommunication. If you communicate differently, you will get different results. Examine
their map of the world again” (2012). In an article reflecting on this challenge, I notedthat this problem is not only faced by young volunteers (Jackson, 2013). Wealthy
benefactors face the same challenge. Melinda Gates made it her goal to provide millions
of women in Africa with contraception. To justify her view, she relied on statistics onmaternal and infant mortality, and the voices of African women. She noted that “We have
100,000 women who didn’t want to get pregnant who die in childbirth. We have 600,000
babies, where mothers say they didn’t intend to get pregnant and their child dies—every
single year” (Hultman, 2012). Various African leaders, as well as the Pope, contend
that contraception goes against their faiths. Others are suspicious of Gates, respondingthat “African babies are not the threat” (Wirnkar, 2012). Gates ignored the fact that
contraception is available all over Africa. She herself stated in 2006 that condoms were
not making a major impact on HIV/AIDS in Africa because of stigma, “cruel” and“irrational.” Gates did not think about if stigma would be associated with other forms ofcontraception.
In South Africa I participated in a workshop on HIV/AIDS with local community
members. The community members were school principals, health department officials,
clinic managers, and health teachers. When they were asked if they knew how HIV was
spread, they all knew. They all knew that condoms can prevent sexual transmission. Yet
when they were asked if they used condoms, they all said no. Finally, we asked what weshould have asked in the first place: Why don’t people use protection? To have children
is essential in their communities, they said. To use a condom would offend a partner,
because everyone wants children. In their view, it was deviant to not want children. Then
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

63

they asked the Americans: Why don’t you want children? Why would you want to avoid
having children?
This experience taught me that people have very different concerns across culturaland social contexts. People assume that they have the same values, concerns, and hopes
and fears, but this is not necessarily the case. Sadly, these situations often end negatively.
Everyone feels confused and disheartened, challenged by the lack of commonality oruniversality of experience, helpless to benefit others. Such experiences can make people
fear difference, and feel cynical about helping others, but such experiences should
educate people. People should not be disturbed to learn that other people are different
from them. This means that they themselves are a certain kind of way, not universal
subjects themselves.

2. Happy classrooms
When I moved to Hong Kong, I had some challenges with teaching, since I camefrom the United States (via South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries).
I knew the students wanted me to act in a way that seemed, from an American perspective,
to be like a ‘serious authority figure’: Not smiling, serious, hierarchical, possessing all theknowledge. Since the University wants to Americanise the campus and globalise students,
I was encouraged to be ‘myself’ and teach my own way. In the United States, I would
want students to feel free to smile, laugh, and have fun in the classroom.
Yet I realised that my requests for students to act more relaxed and equal to me inthe classroom were hopeless. The more I wanted them to relax, to be casual andcomfortable, to treat me like a friend, and to say their opinions, the less they appeared torelax. My requests resulted in them becoming more serious, less smiling, more dedicated,and more respectful and hierarchical. Despite the view in the United States that professors
and students act like friends and act like they are equal, there is still a kind of respectdemanded. In this regard, I felt disrespected that the students did not trust my judgment,
and act more friendly and casual. After the class, I realised they were doing everything intheir power, based on their life experiences, to respect me, and learn from me. Yet it is notprofessional or intelligent in Hong Kong to act casual, and smile and be informal inclassrooms. The more I wanted them to respect me—by being casual—the more they
worked hard to respect me—by being formal. We all had a painful experience with eachother.
Of course, not all Hong Kong students are the same, and I am not a typical American.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

64

L. JACKSONWith time, I am a part of Hong Kong culture. Now I go to the United States, and I remind
myself to smile and act casual. New colleagues to Hong Kong from the United States are
surprised I am formal and follow conventions.
Some people hold the idea that all happiness is the same, and seen the same aroundthe world. But smiling is not the same in Hong Kong and the United States. The best
smile is toothy in the United States, which is not the same in Great Britain. In Hong Kong
and China, happiness is found more, according to research, in the wellbeing of one’s
community, rather than as individual pleasure (Ho, Duan & Tang, 2014). While people
may have the same emotions in a basic sense, they make sense of them in different ways,
based on language and conventions of relationships. To the extent that emotions are
cognitive, this means the emotions have different flavours across contexts. Many people
observe that they ‘feel different’, or their personality changes, when they speak in asecond language. Words and concepts, and feelings about relationships, are different
around the world. This adventure is ignored in the quest for universal understanding, orthe embrace of global homogeneity.

3. Is it logical?
Based on experience writing philosophy of education in different parts of the world,
I have learned that what is prized as intelligent, clever, rational, and logical changes acrosscontexts. In a simple way, this can be seen in relation to the Philosophy of Education
Society (PES), and the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain (PESGB). There
are differences among American styles, British analytic genres, and European continental
styles. I trained for my Master’s work at Cambridge in England, where I did an analysis
of liberal political philosophy, and the work of Kant and Rawls. I am only fluent in the
English language, but I realised in England that my English was not ‘English’ English. I
had to learn English grammar anew, as much as possible. Grammar is important toarguments: for example, if you are saying concepts are like each other, the same, or one
is required for the other, or vice versa. At the same time, there are argument conventions,like saying what one is going to say before they say it in the introduction, or showing thearguments against one’s view before giving arguments one prefers. English theorists
argue in a subtler way, I learned, while American scholars tend to value arguments thatare more obvious and politically oriented.
I learned these things not when I went to England, but when I returned to the states,for my PhD. At Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, where Dewey and pragmatism are valued,
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

65

I discovered many professors there found English philosophers ‘snobby’, ‘elitist’, or notinterested in real-world issues. This surprised me, because I found that are equallyconcerned with real-life issues, but these issues vary across societies, while the way toexpress concern is not the same. This can be seen in the way emotions are treated acrossthe two countries generally. Americans are usually more dramatic and emotionally showy
than English people. To not be emotionally showy is not to lack concern, among theEnglish.
I knew cultural logics were different when I worked in Africa and the Middle East,and I expected them to be different in Hong Kong and Chinese society. Indeed, I learned
how the language itself is different, and how this changes perception. To use tones toconvey meaning is different in Chinese languages than in English—while there are also
differences in how to inflect tones properly in American versus British English, and in
Cantonese in Hong Kong and in Mainland China. Meanwhile, those who use tones tochange words seem to speak English less emotionally. I learned that categorising things
for the purposes of grammar is quite different in Cantonese. Learning Cantonese gave
me a new way of seeing the world.
I heard that Chinese and Asian philosophies were more holistic than western ones,
which are more binary, either/or, and categorising, with more emphasis on yes/no, one or
the other. I learned how this made a difference for conducting philosophy of education at
a seminar in the United States. At the seminar, most of the people were Americans, butthere were a few Chinese and Japanese participants. The seminar was focused on
responding to one Chinese woman’s paper. The paper was about her perception of asituation, and a memory she had, from the past. In my understanding, her view was thatmemory changes perception, and made it difficult to describing the situation as being one
kind of situation, or another. In the example, she wondered whether she had experienced
discrimination, due to her identity in the United States as a Chinese woman, or whether
she was too sensitive. Her point was that there was no way to make a conclusive judgment.
I thought it was a very provocative educational argument, and a strong piece of writing.
However, most of the Americans there expressed that they did not think she was not
telling her story properly. They wanted her to give more details, and to say that things
were either one way, or the other: that she was discriminated against, or that she was not.
They acted as if she was failing to do what she was supposed to do. However, she
explained that this was the point of her paper: that perception could be faulty. I was
astonished to see in this case how colleagues treated this senior woman, as if she needed
help to write a paper like a student, because they did not understand that things do notalways fit into their categories.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

66

L. JACKSON

After the event, I spoke with another American woman, and I told her that I did notunderstand her concern. I told her that I thought the paper was a brilliant example of how
memory and perception are subjective. She replied to me just as she did to the author of
the paper, saying that the story was ‘not clear’. When I asked what was ‘not clear’, I did
not understand her reply. It may be part of pragmatism that one is always convincing
others about strong views—I cannot say this with certainty, because I never studied
pragmatism. However, I later discussed it with other Asian participants in the seminar,
who all agreed there had been an uncomfortable misunderstanding.
I later had a conversation with another Asian scholar, in a different context, whoremarked, ‘Americans have to put everything in boxes’. Now I tend to agree. I have also
had experiences where I feel that American editors want me to make my point more
dramatically, or make recommendations about things I do not have expertise or
knowledge about. The way to do philosophy of education is at debate here.

4. ‘Passive’ Asians
Since I live in Hong Kong, colleagues in North America, Europe, Britain, Australia,
and New Zealand ask me: How do I work with the ‘passive’ Asian students, from Hong
Kong, China, Korea, and Japan? When I entered Hong Kong, I did not assume or expectthat my students would be passive. I have not found them to be passive. There is a culturaldifference, however. It goes back to my ‘happy classroom’ example. My students in Hong
Kong do not think it is intelligent or respectful, to themselves, their peers, or their teachers,
to say their opinions when they feel they have no basis or foundation for them, in theory
or data. As in the last example, my students question that which they do not know, andthey will not assert something for the sake of asserting something. This stance is not
passive. My students have judgments about things. They do not assume the value of alesson where students express baseless opinions, as in some student-centred education(Jackson, 2015). They reject education they disagree with, on the streets in Hong Kong
(Jackson & O’Leary, 2019). They ask me for help with things they do not know about,or feel they understand sufficiently. How it this be passive?
These colleagues are similar to those described in the last example, who feel thatmaking bold claims is better than exploring the complexity and challenges of knowing.
These colleagues do not recognise that there are different logics than the ones they live
with. We are here because we are interested in understanding more about these logics,
and what to do about them. Yet many around us in daily life, our students and colleagues,
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education67

do not recognise that they are particular kinds of people—it is not just others who are‘different’.

Concluding Thoughts: Globalising Philosophy of Education
I find travel to be the best education. One does not understand how they are
American or Japanese, and what that means, until they leave their country. For this reason,
it is heart breaking to me when scholars fail to see differences as different logics, andinstead just see them as failures of understanding, on one side or another.
Besides serving as the President of the Philosophy of Education Society ofAustralasia (PESA), I am the only regular member and conference attendee in the Society
from the United States. Most members of PESA are from Australia and New Zealand,followed by Japan, Korea, and other countries in Asia and Europe. One thing I havelearned in my time at PESA, and other conferences such as PES and PESGB, is thattraditions are important to people. This includes traditions in organising conferences, aswell as scholarly traditions. However, how traditions are conceived in philosophy ofeducation is skewed in some ways, often biased toward western scholars and western
philosophies. At an excellent presentation by Mika Okabe at PESA (2018), I learned thatin Japan there is a focus on western theory, while there are also questions among Japanesephilosophers about how to make philosophy of education more Japanese. These
problems are not unique to Japan. China, Taiwan, and Korea also study western traditionsof philosophy of education. Australia, New Zealand and the United States also follow
European and British ways in part, as traditions.
This is not too problematic, from a certain perspective. All fields have their histories.
These histories can be seen in a political way, and changed, if people desire, or notchanged, while they are reflected upon. However, sometimes it can become a source ofcross-cultural challenges, when Japanese and other Asian scholars interact with western
scholars in relation to these traditions. The problem occurs when western scholars claim
a monopoly on what a scholar from history said, based on linguistic knowledge, or evencultural or historical knowledge. In other words, western primacy is inequitable, if it used
to suggest or imply that Asians know less than westerners do about philosophy. This canhappen if the topic being explored is what westerners, or particular western scholars think.
However, I am not sure these are productive or significant topics in philosophy ofeducation. I am not a Dewey scholar, compared to many people in China, or a scholar of
Derrida, like Ruyu Hung in Taiwan, or Stanley Cavell, like Naoko. In this case, I can
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

68

L. JACKSON

learn as much about Dewey from someone in the states or in China, but I am not reallyinterested in what Dewey thought, or the ‘right way’ to think about him. In my view, themore interesting question is how he resonates with scholars, and in what ways.
To me, the interesting topics relate to how similar issues are experienced andunderstood in different parts of the world, by different people. My biggest concern in thecontext of this work is the supremacy of the views of English speakers, who are often
ignorant about different logics in the world, and often lack a sense of other people’s innerworlds, yet attribute this to a failure to understand. This should not be seen as a problem
for which non-native English speakers are to blame. However, in a globalised context
where English is primary, misunderstanding puts an unfortunate burden on non-native
English speakers, who often work and study in other languages, to translate themselves,and educate people who do not know what they do not know. This translation work takes
patience, like working with a student who does not realise the need to study or think aboutsomething they have never thought about. A reward of being bilingual and cross-culturalis that those of us living in a heterogeneous world get to occupy diverse logics and various
worlds, while those in one homogeneous logic are impoverished as humans experiencing
things. How can others see the diversity of the world as a gift? How can we make themsee this is worthwhile, when they feel vulnerable (to misunderstanding, to not being rightor best), in the way that the rest of us are?
Finally, as President of PESA I want to welcome PESJ members into more PESA
spaces. I am afraid that sometimes PESA hospitality does not seem genuine. Hospitality
in Japan is exceptional. Australia and New Zealand are casual by comparison.
Nonetheless, I invite you to take up space, explain what Cavell, Heidegger, Arendt, andTesuro Watsuji mean for you, and in Japanese society. I also encourage moving awayfrom getting logics right, including the logics of PESA. I will never get the logic right,
myself. However, you will gain something from being misunderstood, including a new
vision of yourself. And if you persist, you might just get others to misunderstand alongwith you, in a peaceful and delightful way.
As I write this, China and Hong Kong are in crisis. I am planning the PESA
Conference in Hong Kong in December, and Australians and New Zealanders do notunderstand the crisis, and are afraid to come to Hong Kong, seeing media coverage which
is negative and dramatic, meant to impart fear. In Hong Kong, we pride ourselves on
efficiency, safety, and civility. Here is an example of missing the world. The media is notconcerned with educating, but profits from fear, so people keep watching, dependent on
media for security. Yet security can never come. The world is dynamic and unsafe, froman existential or experiential, emotional view. While I deplore violence, injustice, andThematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Diversity, Language, and Discovering Oneself Through Philosophy of Education

69

oppression, we must think through what is safe or unsafe, when it comes to the logics of
the world. It is not safe to cling to one’s view, and appeal to its correctness. This leads tomore camps against each other. We must share what is human about us, to learn about
ourselves while learning about each other.

References
Freire, P. (1989). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gates, M. (2006). Keynote Speech, XVI International AIDS Conference, Toronto, Aug.
13.
Ho, S. M. Y., Duan, W., & Tang, S. C. M. (2014). The Psychology of Virtue andHappiness in Western and Asian Thought. In The Philosophy and Psychology ofCharacter and Happiness, eds. N. Snow & F. V. Trivigno. London: Routledge.
Hultman, T. (2012). Africa: Beyond Contraceptive Controversy. All Africa, Jul. 23.
Jackson, L. (2016). Education as Finding the Other in Self. In Philosophy of Education
2015, ed. E. Duarte. Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.
Jackson, L. (2015). Challenges to the Global Concept of Student-Centered Learning with
Special Reference to the United Arab Emirates: ‘Never fail a Nahayan.’
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 47 (8).
Jackson, L. (2013). They Don’t Not Want Babies: Globalizing Philosophy of Educationand the Social Imaginary of International Development. In Philosophy of
Education 2013, ed. C. Mayo. Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.
Jackson, L. & O’Leary, T. (2019). Education and the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement,
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 51 (2).
Lau, M. (2011). What the Peace Corps Taught Me About Failure. Huffington Post, Nov.
17.
Okabe, M. (2018). PESJ: Beyond Colonized Thinking, Philosophy of Education Societyof Australasia Annual Conference, Rotorua, Dec. 10.
Ono, F. (2018). Philosophy in the Age of Globalization, But in Which Language?
Translation, or Loving the Experience of Enduring Pathos. Tetsugaku, Vol. 2.
Patient, D. R. (2012). Empowerment Ethics. DavidPatient.com.
Saito, N. (2018). Preface. Tetsugaku, Vol. 2.
Saito, Naoko. (2016). Gifts from a Foreign Land: Lost in Translation and theUnderstanding of Other Cultures. In Philosophy of Education 2015, ed. E.
Duarte. Urbana: Philosophy of Education Society.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

70

L. JACKSON

Wirnkar, G. (2012). African Babies Aren’t the Threat. Washington Times, July 16.

Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Philosophy, Education and Translation:
Towards Bidirectional Academic Exchange
Naoko SAITO
Kyoto University

Ⅰ.

Introduction: bidirectional academic exchange
Travel is known to have a broadening effect, at least if the traveller is willing tokeep his mind open. The amount of enlightenment which is gained from travel
usually depends upon the amount of difference there is between the civilizationfrom which the traveller starts his journey and that of the country at which hearrives. The more unlike the two are, the more opportunity there is for learning.
(Dewey 1983, p. 262)

So says the 20th century American philosopher, John Dewey. This essay from which thesewords are drawn, “Mutual National Understanding,” was written on the occasion of
Dewey’s visit to Japan and China. With metaphors of travelling and being on a journey,
Dewey expresses his idea of democracy as a way of life that is always being created, andstill to be created through mutual learning from difference. He takes the view that, evenin the midst of tension and hostility, we human beings can be open to the possibility ofreconciliation if we learn from our enemies as from “friends” (Dewey 1988). Deweyenvisions a kind of bidirectional international exchange as a means of our mutualtransformation.
In his actual experience, however, Dewey encountered radical difference in theundemocratic culture of Japan at that time—radical to such an extent that hishumanitarian position was threatened and aspects of his American philosophy wereincommunicable to the Japanese.1 Dewey’s visit to Japan proved to be a test case inwhich he was caught out by a real gap in cross-cultural communication—in a foreign
place where the English word democracy was untranslatable.2 Dewey saw a flickering
hope for liberalism in Japan, but he left the country in disappointment, especially in

72

N. SAITO

comparison with his more positive subsequent experience during his trip to China (Feuer
1969, p. 143). Despite such apparently negative experience, Dewey wrote the passage
above after his trip, sustaining his pragmatist as well as humanist faith in mutual learningfrom difference. Much as Dewey’s hope for mutual learning from difference is called for,at a time when recognition is urgently needed in the face of worldwide tensions, conflicts,
and atrocities, its viability is today severely tested. Our age encounters a greater difficultythan did Dewey’s times in that the spirit of mutual learning is blocked by fear and anxiety.
Under these circumstances, what might be the role of international academic
societies in facilitating such mutual national understanding as Dewey envisioned? Todayin the 21st century, the term internationalization has become a catchphrase in higher
education. In educational policy statements, the phrase is oftentimes coloured by the busy,
even aggressive discourse of global markets and the apparently pioneering crossing ofborders between different countries and different cultures. Academic associations aroundthe world need to respond to this trend. The sanguine confidence that is expressed ininternationalization is apt to hide the experience of those who find themselves to be
strangers in a foreign environment. There is no space to acknowledge the sense ofalienation – of getting lost, of losing one’s way (perhaps literally, in the street), of losing
one’s bearings in unknown places. When we encounter radical difference, we feel oursense of identity is threatened. We can easily close our hearts, insulate ourselves from theoutside world. Then the words we exchange in the name of internationalization become
militant, defensive and insulated. Academic exchange ends up merely with the exchangeof neutral data and information. This will prevent us from being genuinely international,
making us blind to the possibility of the rich experience we might otherwise obtain fromthe other.
Hence, the specific questions I would like to address in this paper are as follows.
How can we make academic associations in the humanities, including in the philosophyof education, places for mutual learning between friends – resisting something inourselves that holds back from this? How can we make international exchange genuinely
bidirectional? These are questions that are crucial if the philosophy of education is to beinternationalized in a global way. In response this paper proposes a turn from onedirectional and one-dimensional communication to bidirectional translation. I shall, first,
refer to three international academic associations in Europe and in the U. S. A. andobserve the general features of their being international academic communities. Second,
the problem of monolingualism is illustrated, along with some fallacies that arise inconnection with language. Third, a way out of the constraints of monolingual mentalities
is sought from the perspective of translation. In particular, from the standpoint of Stanley
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Education and Translation

73

Cavell’s idea of philosophy as translation, the paper explores translation as a metonymfor human life and thought. Finally, based upon the idea of translation, I shall propose avision of international academic community for mutual learning.

Ⅱ. International academic associations in an Anglophone context
As a start, I would like to refer to three academic societies for the philosophy ofeducation that were established in Anglophone countries and in Europe: Philosophy of
Education Society (in North America) (PES), Philosophy of Education Society of GreatBritain (PESGB) and International Network of Philosophers of Education (INPE). PES
was founded in 1941 and its headquarters is in the U. S. A. As of June 2019, there areabout 230 members and 27 are from Canada and Mexico, 38 from other countries. Thereis an affiliated yearbook, Philosophy of Education, where conference papers are
published online, while there are also close connections with the journal Educational
Theory. The PESGB was established in 1964. It is based in the U.K., and its membershipnumbers some 750 people (about 50% of the membership being international). Its journal
is the Journal of Philosophy of Education. It is also pertinent to mention in this context
the International Network of Philosophers of Education, which was established in 1988.
As a point of principle, it has no base in any particular country but rather is run by agradually evolving executive committee, led by a president whose office has no fixed
term. (The INPE conference, which is biennial, was held in Japan, in Kyoto in 2008 andnearly two hundred people from around the world participated).
They are all international in many respects, but in different styles. Let us first take
PESGB. PESGB is constituted and organized predominantly by UK scholars or those
who are located in the UK. In this sense, it is a British society. It is international, however,in four respects. First, being British, it already involves some multicultural andinternational components. Then, on a second level, the UK is already quasi-internationalin that it is constituted by four different, distinct parts – the countries of England, Scotland
and Wales, and the at times troubled and in some ways disputed territory of Northern
Ireland. Third, the UK, though in the process of Brexit, is still part of the looser structureof the European Union, which has important significance in terms of academic
association. The PESGB has for decades enjoyed strong connections with other
European nations. Finally, the PESGB is international in the most straightforward sense:
participation in Society events by people outside the UK has been increasing. For
example, approximately half of the 200 participants at the 2019 Annual Conference were
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

74

N. SAITO

from countries other than the UK.
This multi-layered international character makes the conference and the Society
very friendly to overseas participants. While a high rigor of presentation in English is
expected, one feels less foreign than being in PES. This is very much related to the factthat a significant number of the participants are non-native speakers of English. Despite
such international quality, the members of the Executive Committee are predominantly
British. Given that this is a British association, the center-periphery structure of course
exists, but I find PESGB to be a loose form of international community with British
people being at the center surrounded by international members. Furthermore, one
distinctive feature of this association is that its work was originally mainly characterized
by analytical philosophy, though over the past twenty-five years more continental
philosophy have been included, sometimes in a degree of tension with the analytical
approach. Perhaps this is another element that adds to the international quality of thisassociation.
In comparison to the international nature of the PESGB, PES is, let’s say, more
American-oriented. PES is a Northern American academic association, in which the USAof course plays the major part. The majority of the participants are Americans, though ofcourse, being American already involves being multicultural. But the sense of being
American, and of the United States as the nation, permeates the general atmosphere. In
comparison to PESGB, PES has a much stronger center-periphery structure, between
Americans and non-Americans. Board members are predominantly Americans. This
does not mean that PES is exclusive or unfriendly to outsiders: it is relatively open tothem, and politically it is liberal in that multicultural elements are outspokenly
emphasized and valued – more consciously perhaps than at PESGB. Race and feminist
studies, for example, are popular topics for presentation. The actual number ofinternational participants, however, is relatively small: for example, at the annual
conference in March 2019, about one fourth out of the 160 participants were international.
International elements are, as it were, an addition to the central core of American
participants. Despite my longer-term (nearly 20-year) affiliation with PES than withPESGB, I am more conscious of being a foreigner at PES than at PESGB , even though
I feel more at home at PES. INPE is the most “international” in terms of its inclusion ofdiverse nations and of the form of its organization. The membership is roughly 100. Thereis no central office at INPE and no tie to any particular country. In a sense, it is nomadic.3
Board members, of which I am one, come from a variety of countries (Norway, Japan,
Italy…..).
The advantage and disadvantage of this academic community is that there is no
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Education and Translation75

central influence exercised by a single nation. The common language for presentation isEnglish, though in some meetings in the past, parallel sessions have been held in the local
language (for example, in Spanish in Madrid (2004) and in Bogotá). In this community,
all are foreigners. English is the lingua franca, a common language, but tolerance to thediversity of English is highest in this conference. East and West dialogue is facilitatedmore than in PESGB or PES.4 It sounds like an ideal form of international association,
but since this is a very loose network with no central core, there is always a sense offragility in terms of its basis, and it requires constant efforts to sustain the sense ofcommitment among members and of belonging to this association.
There are two distinctive common features of these three international associations.
First, there is the interdisciplinary nature of papers presented and published. The
discipline of philosophy of education is flexibly identified, and philosophy is opened toand in dialogue with such disciplines as literature, religion and political studies. Second,
there is their emphasis on the educational implications of philosophical studies. In orderfor submitted papers to be accepted, what kind of impact a certain philosophy can havein education must be explicitly mentioned, or, conversely, an educational topic or issue
must be raised and subjected to philosophical enquiry.
As much as all of those associations are, on the surface, open to internationalization,
further questions need to be asked in order to see to what extent they provide occasions
for internationalizing philosophy of education. First and foremost, is the issue of language.
In all these associations, even in INPE whose activities are not necessarily limited to
Anglophone contexts, the common language is English – though, of course, the way
English plays its roles is different in these three associations. In PES, English tends to be
the driving force to determine the center (North America who are native speakers ofEnglish) and the periphery (non-American, non-native speakers). In PESGB, thedichotomy is not as stark as PES, but still, native speakers of English are more vocal than
non-native speakers, and they tend to play a central role in organizations and publications.
In INPE, the situation is different, and English does not necessarily serve to create any
particular center: the lingua franca is not English but English-as-a-second-language. The
majority of participants communicate in a language (English) that is not their native
tongue. Of course, a good command of English is expected for submitted papers to be
accepted, and they need to create common ground through English for smoothcommunication.
Second, and associated with this first point, there exists an inevitable tendency tosolidify identities through English, while also welcoming diverse identities and different
Englishes. PES and PESGB in effect consolidate their identities through English;
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

76

N. SAITO

language other than English tends to be a negative factor – a potential obstruction tounderstanding the arguments at issue and perhaps a weakening of the central identity.
INPE does not seem to prioritise or establish any central identity and if there is anything
like identity, it can be multiple. It is a very open community, with a flexible flow ofincoming and outgoing of members from all around the world. (Interestingly there arecomparatively few participants from the United States!) One might call this acosmopolitan community. On the negative side, it is unstable in sustaining its identities.
Third, there is the inevitable imbalance between cultures, especially between Eastand West. In all of these three societies, there is no such a thing as Orientalism – aromanticizing of the East in the eyes of West. Still, the majority of papers accepted,
presented and published, and ideas circulated are associated mainly with western ideas insome way or other. Whenever the “East” comes up (whether it is pedagogy in the East or
some aboriginal Eastern religious tradition), it tends to be in the form of some unknown,
exceptional, or even eccentric ideas to be promulgated rather than anything that might
produce a substantial change in people’s ways of thinking and that can have impact on
the whole discourse in philosophy of education. There exists not only imbalance here
between East and West here.

Ⅲ. Internationalization and the global dominance of English:
Constraints of monolingualism
As the examples of the three academic associations have shown, English is now
common language of academic exchange, and this very fact seems to be inseparable froma certain imbalance in internationalization. The global dominance of English and policy
transfer from west to east has produced the currency of thought and language that runs
from west to east, bringing forth a certain form of colonization of thought.
In his “Social Justice in Translation” (2011), Paul Standish reflects on the hegemonyof English in academic research in social science and educational studies. English
expressions carry a certain authority. He argues that such a key term as “social justice” inEnglish, precisely because it is English, has been given importance in the process ofpolicy borrowing – in such a way as to distort the way we think about the series of things:
the term is itself imported into or adapted in the language in use, effectively suppressing
the different range of significance that a translation of the term might have. The numbersof publications in educational research worldwide is predominantly in English.
Measurement of research quality gives priority to publication in English. Hence, he
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Education and Translation

77

argues: “Anglophone researchers have an obvious advantage in this process” (p. 73). At
the same time, however, the global spread of English can create opportunities, in acounter-movement, to enlighten the monolingual (native English-speaker) and to
broaden the range of understanding that can be shared.
Under these circumstances, Standish emphasizes that “the traffic is likely to be oneway” as it involves the relationship with Anglophone countries. Comparative study,
especially in the United States, tends to be undertaken out of “purely academic interest”(ibid.). This one-way traffic, however, is not necessarily an advantage for the native
speakers of English. Chinese speakers, for example, who translate “social justice” into
Chinese, can experience a difference in range of meanings, whereas native speakers ofEnglish who encounter only the English terminology of social justice, cannot experiencesuch different possibilities of meanings (p. 74). The dismissal of such experience is a kindof “suppression of thought, of which the monolingual person may be unaware” (ibid.).
The suppression of thought and of the possibilities of meanings in language bymonolingualism is not, however, limited to native speakers of English; one-directionality
is not necessarily from west to east. A reaction to the global dominance of English isfound, for example, in the “Japanese model” of internationalization.5 In this project ofexporting Japanese ideas and practices, there lies the possibility, however, of further oneway traffic, from east to west. While such a model seeks mutual understanding bycommunicating the ideas of Japan, there is an enshrining of Japan with the reactionary
turn to the primordial origins of Japanese culture and Japanese identity.
In reality, however, cultural identity is not so straightforward. In discussing Naoki
Sakai’s argument on the issue of translating subjectivity into Japanese (shukan, shutai)(Sakai 1997), Standish points out the structure of “double-grafting” in Japanese identities– the grafting of an image of Japan on Japan determined by Western notions of identity(Standish 2011, p. 76).
In other words, the East’s construction of the West is grafted on a Westernconstruction of the East, but the origin of such identity-construction is in Westernforms of representation and objectification, and Western notions of identity. (p.
79).
What is suggested here is that there is a dilemma for Japan: the alleged Japanese identitythat is exported to the West in reality takes a form that depends upon a Westernconstruction. (And this further indicates the deep power structures created by thehegemony of English.) What is called Japan, its identity, in fact, carries complexities andE-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

78

N. SAITO

obscurities. Such complexities destabilize the illusion of the secure ground of national
identity, which is a form of monolingualism.
And in fact, such monolingualism is deeply related to certain fallacies in our
understanding of language – ones that lie behind and aggravate monolingualism and onedirectionality of communication. The first is the idea that language is primarily a meansof communication. The second is the idea that major languages are pure. The assumptionof purity tends to be assumed in models of translation – where source language and target
language are unproblematically identified. But in fact no language is totally independentof others, and variations in language occur in messy and uneven ways. Third, there is theassumption that meaning is stable at the level of concepts and logic, and variations innatural language do not matter. Logic is without ambiguity, and this is taken as an idealof meaningfulness and of thought. But in fact the ambiguity of words – their openness to
new connections and association, and the unavoidable role of interpretation that comeswith this – is essential to our lives and culture and to the world that we have. This may
present us with problems at times, but it is also the source of creativity and development
and the production of thought.
A monolingual view of language is based on false views of language and, in turn,reinforces them. Where such a view is prevalent, it seems to justify one-way traffic ininternational communication. And of course, when such one-way traffic is propelled by
English, colonial tendencies are promoted and power structures are reinforced. Hence,
internationalization, if it is to overcome one-directionality and monolingualism, should
first be aware of the aforementioned fallacies in language, and open itself to theexperience of translation.

Ⅳ. Philosophy as Translation
Translation is widely viewed as a primarily technical procedure – just a matchingof words from one language to those of another in the light of a common range of
meaning. But in reality the translator is engaged in a practice where she is not simply
governed by rules (like matching temperature scales) but is constantly exercising
judgment – judgement in the absence of a rule. It follows from the above also that noperfect translation is possible – hence the Italian adage: traduttore tradittore (A translator
is a traitor). In a sense, then, we cannot translate, but we must translate! Translation isimperfect but necessary. The experience of this unbridgeable gap brings us humility inthe way we perceive the world, and it involves receptivity to new possibilities of thought.
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Education and Translation

79

In relation to this sense of a gap, Derrida talks about the abyssal nature of language
and its haunted quality (Derrida 2002, pp. 194-195). The haunting of language of which
Derrida speaks is evident because “the words we use, the very terms of our thought, are. . .
available to us only from origins we cannot know, with connotations we cannot fully
fathom” (Standish 2010, p. 364). Language is not simply a set of tools of communication
but has this haunted nature. It is this very spectral aspect of language that leaves us at aloss, that puts us on the edge of the abyss – in a position that is precisely the “space forresponsibility and judgment” (ibid.). The translation that accompanies such experienceof loss and exercise of judgment, then, is integral to human being, which is to say, tolinguistic being.
The views of the American philosopher, Stanley Cavell also carry a sense of thefragility, even the abyssal nature, of the human relation to language, but they diverge insome degree from those of Derrida in terms of the place and prominence given to the ideaof the ordinary. Neither indulges in a romanticization of the ordinary; but while Derrida,in suspicion, subjects it to doubt, Cavell embraces it as already troubled or disturbed.
Under the influence of the later Wittgenstein and Austin, as well as that of the Americantranscendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau, Cavell develops a distinctive ordinary
language philosophy (Cavell 1979). He hardly ever talks about translation explicitly, andyet in his pursuit of ordinary language philosophy, the idea of translation appears both asa substantive feature and as itself thematized (Standish and Saito 2017a; Saito 2019). His
language itself performatively enacts this process of translation, in all its transitivity andvolatility.
Cavell’s takes translation beyond any simple sense of linguistic exchange. This iscaptured most acutely in Cavell’s book on Thoreau’s Walden, The Senses of Walden(Cavell 1992). Thoreau expresses the sense of transitivity that inheres in language asfollows:
The volatile truth of our words should continually betray the inadequacy of theresidual statement. Their truth is instantly translated; its literal monument alone
remains. The words which express our faith and piety are not definite; yet they
are significant and fragrant like frankincense to superior natures. (Thoreau 1992,
p. 217)
What is implied here is something like the following. The meaning of words always
extends beyond what we intend. That the truth is instantly “translated” suggests that it
refuses to be fixed and shifts. Even if you think you are achieving true expression, that
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

80

N. SAITO

expression immediately falls out of your hands and becomes lifeless words. The residualstatement on the page symbolizes the representationalist view of language and hints atthe deadening effects of this conception. Words and their objects are not in a one-to-one
relationship of correspondence: words do not just represent the world. Language does notserve to solidify the objects or meanings: rather it allows us to confront a gap that lies
between the occurrence of words and their objects: what an object is not stable either. Yet
such dead words can be revived, translated into live words. As Cavell says, any signopens to new possibilities—which he describes in terms of the “projective” nature oflanguage: a word always exceeds its existing context and is open to new usages andcontexts (Cavell 1979, p. 180). This is at the heart of translation. In translation, thought
comes off its tracks. Yet this shows something about how language works: it exemplifies
the movement of thought that takes place within language; it reflects ways that, as
Thoreau puts it, language puts words to work; and it reveals the dynamism that inheresin them. Through it, we regain our surprise at what is beyond our grasp.
The nature of language shows something also of the nature of human being, as
linguistic being. Thus, the identity of the self does not remain the same but is always open
to new possibilities. The self is “always to be found” (Cavell 1992, p. 53). As Cavell says,“Thoreau’s book on Walden can be taken as a whole to be precisely about the problem oftranslation, call it the transfiguration from one form of life to another” (Cavell,forthcoming). In Cavell’s ordinary language philosophy, against the conventional
understanding, translation is at work not only inter- but intralingually: it is a part oflanguage’s intrinsic nature, permeating our life as a whole. In the sense that translation
itself is transformation, translation is not a metaphor of human transformation: rather it is
the metonym of our lives (Standish and Saito 2017, p. 2). As Cavell says, “I consider that
it is an essential moment in the work of philosophy to make human existence, or show it
to be, strange to itself” (Cavell, forthcoming). It is this very endeavor of making thefamiliar strange that is the process of translation. With all these features, we might thinkof Cavell’s as philosophy as translation.
Translation involves an attunement to what happens in the encounter between
different languages, and this ordinarily involves the experience of a gap—of theincommensurable, of the “untranslatable” (Cassin 2014). Philosophy as translation does
not take up the untranslatable as a problem to be solved: it does not seek some definitive
answer to the question of whether full translation is possible. The point is rather that inencountering the untranslatable we can gain some intimation of the way that we mustfind ourselves and, hence, are founded without fixed foundation. The untranslatablebrings us back to the fact, therefore, that the criteria for our judgment are generally a work
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Education and Translation81

in progress, recreated in our daily expression, tested against one another. And so, fromwithin the abyss, right in the middle of transition, it is still possible to find a foundation.
This is not, however, a metaphysical foundation that gives us ultimate guarantee, and we
do not need it.
What does it happen within such experience of translation? We find ourselves,
Cavell says, on “some boundary or threshold, as between the impossible and the possible”(Cavell, forthcoming). 6 Translation reveals the impulse to transcendence inherent inlanguage, producing “a new revelation within an old familiarity” (Ibid.). It accompanies
the sense of the obscure, the ambiguous. Quoting Thoreau’s words, “I do not suppose I
have attained to obscurity” (Thoreau 1992, p. 217; Cavell 1992, p. 50), Cavell suggeststhat our relationship with language is the matter of an endless engagement with the
obscure. Against the (Western) philosophical quest for clarity, Cavell’s worldview ispermeated by a Wittgensteinian sense of the obscure and the transient (the ungraspable).
It is only by going through the obscure that one can “lay the foundation of true expression”(Thoreau 1992, p. 216). This might be called a realism of the obscure (Saito 2017a) –keeping faith in a reality of the world that cannot be fully illuminated under light. It is thisimperfect answerability in translation that is the condition, in humility, of opening
ourselves to the other. Confronting the impossibility of solution, the unknown, we lose
ourselves. The success of translation hinges on regaining new interest and trust in theworld with the rebirth of words. What is at stake here is the experience of transcendence
through leaving and abandoning (Cavell 1992, p. 137).
Philosophy as translation emphasizes the unknowability and gap in theuntranslatable. This, however, does not point to agnosticism, relativism or anarchism.
Cavell’s antifoundationalist view of language, along with Wittgenstein’s, reminds ofconstraints imposed upon the human being who is inevitably destined for language
community – the criteria of language and the culture of the community into which one isborn: these criteria are there already but they are not static; they are always in the making
or being remade. From within such constrains, and in the light of them, criteria continue
to be revised. From such limits – as a result of a risk-taking that transcends borders anddisturbs them – the possibility of a language of “extravagance” is produced.

V.

Towards an open academic community

How, in international academic exchange, can the monolinguistic view of language
and the mentality that goes with this be reconsidered now within scope of philosophy as
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

82

N. SAITO

translation? How can international academic communities be places for mutual learning,
beyond the limits of one-directionality? Philosophy as translation points us to a different
direction than the stereotypical call for making a conference multilingual as a reaction to
the dominance of English. “Ideological position taking,” as Standish points out, “iscommonly shored up by monolingualisms of various kinds” (Standish 2010, p. 366). A
trace of such position-taking can be seen where the step is taken to make an academic
conference more equal and multicultural – by, for example, introducing session in
Spanish, in parallel to sessions in English. In reality, such attempts can turn into a closureof communication by creating divisions between languages and cultures, triggering amonolingual mentality. Hence, what is at stake here is not so much an ideologicalinsistence upon a kind of equality between languages, but the problematization of how
language is understood, inviting a change in the way that we perceive and are engaged inlanguage – including English itself. The sharing of this experience is something that thecommon use of English can, in fact, facilitate: an effort needs to be made to take up thisopportunity.
Thus, I would like to propose to shift in the mode of dialogue from the symmetrical
discourse of mutual respect and presumed commensurability to the acceptance of a
relationship of disequilibrium – one that acknowledges an unbridgeable gap and the senseof loss in communication. As Cavell indicates, such dialogue is not so much a matter ofthe social project of Rawlsian cooperation based upon fairness and justice: as the locus
for conversation marked by the opacity, or non-transparence, of the present state of ourinteractions” (Cavell 2004, p. 173; Standish 2011, p. 78) – a kind of conversation in which
we lend our ears to and expose ourselves to the dissonant voices of the other, disturbing
any cosy, self-compliant state of equilibrium and gaining the momentum for selfabrogation. It involves the constant conflict and tension within self-knowledge – whether
it involves academic knowledge or knowledge of one’s cultural identity.
More specifically translation can be a mode of academic dialogue that can have
impact on academic organizations and on the way philosophy of education is practiced
in the following respects. First, it encourages us to redeem the position of those who speak
languages other than their own. Imbalance and inequality in terms of the use of English
can be reconsidered from the perspective of translation as an advantage of the non-native
speakers as they can make best use of the lesson the untranslatable offers. They cancontribute by drawing attention to the difference between expressions in English andthose in their native language, highlighting the different fields of meaning that are thereby
opened up.
Second, philosophy as translation teaches us the significance of not solidifying
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Education and Translation

83

identities. Rather than shoring up identity, what is important is readiness to become. The
experience of translation helps us question anew our relation to our native language andgo beyond the limits of our home ground. Philosophy as translation presents a third way,
beyond the ethnocentric consolidation of cultural identities, on the one hand, and beyond
borderless cosmopolitanism, on the other.
Third, the experience of translation in the common use of English along with aforeign expressions can heighten the sense of being outside. A good example is a joint
panel between Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese scholars on Asian philosophy inPhilosophy of Education Society (March 2018). Those who originally have relatively
stable relationship with their native language (Japanese, Korean and Chinese) are
exposed to a new horizon of language by use of English as a common language and yet
as a second language. Dialogue in such a panel can be a place to re-see one’s own culture
from outside.
The use of foreign language accompanies the experience of ecstasy – in Thoreau’swords, of being “beside oneself in a sane sense” (Thoreau 1992) – sane in the sense thatbeing crazy (i.e. beside oneself) is a positive occasion to re-see oneself from outside – tobe thrown out of one’s self, to lose one’s ground momentarily. The sense of struggle overwords, the sense of loss the untranslatable brings in does not mean to stop thinking andjudging in mystifying the unknown: rather it provides us with a chance for creating
judgment out of chaos and triggers our efforts for finding common ground in meanings
out of the lack of shared ground. Hence, this is the significance of the presence ofoutsiders and space for strangers in academic associations to make them truly
international from within. The remembrance of the sense of being outside into the modeof dialogue can help overturn the existing centre-periphery structure in English speaking
academic associations – overturning the relationship between the native and the nonnative speakers of English, blurring the boundary between inside and outside. Presenceof non-native speakers of English is to be welcomed and even celebrated as anopportunity to enlighten the monolingual and to broaden the range of understanding thatcan be shared.
Thus, translation makes possible a turning from one-directionality tobidirectionality, and from symmetrical exchange to other-directedness derived from
disequilibrium. Once we realize this, we can create educational occasions in academic
conferences where the art of translation is cultivated. This is a significant factor in making
academic associations genuinely open. Academic associations, especially in thehumanities, can be reconstructed as places for mutual learning and get deeper into theinner lives of other people, as Dewey mentioned. And this can be begun by reconsidering
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

84

N. SAITO

the way we are engaged in organizing discussion, using words, raising questions andpresenting our ideas.
For academic associations to be really international, they should become
communities in which everyone can share the sense of being foreigners – both native andnon-native speakers of English. The reconstruction of an academic system should begin
from within: it requires internal human transformation of each participant and thecultivation of the art of translation. Such other-directed exchange is educational by nature.
It is here that philosophy of education can serve its role in promoting educational studies
as a mediator between different academic disciplines and between theory and practice.
There are questions that come up frequently – in INPE, PES, and PESGB that are lesslikely to be heard in Japan or China or Korea or Taiwan: for example, questions about
multicultural societies or about the oppression of some groups, and maybe questions
about gender too, including the raising of LGBT issues; also perhaps it is the case thatquestions about the governance of education occur more in PES and PESGB. To beinternational and interdisciplinary, and to heighten our global awareness, perhaps,
philosophy of education should open its eyes more to these practical issues in daily
practices without undue anxiety about maintaining theoretical purity.
Questions in the philosophy of education are not, by nature, peculiar to one country(e.g., the nature of knowledge, how we enter into language and become persons, what is
worth studying, the nature of the good life and the good society). These are fundamental
questions for education, and they typically provoke a divergence of views in all countries.
There are ways in which insight into local practice can cast light on these questions.
Hence, the standpoint of translation that I have expounded in this paper indicates a wayof making best use of such quests for universality in the philosophy of education, throughthe mutual inspirations of diverse cultures, languages and ideas. And yet, as I haveemphasized, it would not take a problem-solving direction of ideological position-taking
by calling forth multilingualism and simply by expelling English as a common language.
Translation is a way of modifying the existing power structure from a different route than
rectifying the imbalance between powers.7

References
Cassin, Barbara (ed). 2014. Dictionary of Untranslatables: A Philosophical Lexicon. Ed.
Barbara Cassin (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Cassin, Barbara. 2016. Nostalgia: Where Are We Ever at Home? (New York: Fordham
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Education and Translation

85

University Press).
Cavell, Stanley. 1979. The Claim of Reason: The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein,
Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Cavell, Stanley. 1992. The Senses of Walden (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Cavell, Stanley. 2004. Cities of Words: Pedagogical Letters of a Register of the Moral
Life (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).
Cavell, forthcoming. “Walden in Tokyo.”
Dewey, John. 1982. “Liberalism in Japan,” in The Middle Works of John Dewey, Vol. 11.
Ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press).
Dewey, John. 1983. “Some Factors in Mutual National Understanding” (1921). In The
Middle Works of John Dewey, Vol. 13. Ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, John. 1988. “Creative Democracy – The Task Before Us” (1939). In The Later
Works of John Dewey, Vol. 14, Ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press).
Saito, Naoko. 2017. “Philosophy as Translation and the Realism of the Obscure,” in Paul
Standish and Naoko Saito (eds), Stanley Cavell and Philosophy as Translation: “The
Truth is Translated” (London: Rowman & Littlefield): 11-23.
Saito, Naoko. 2019. American Philosophy in Translation (London: Rowman &Littlefield).
Sakai, Naoki. 1997. Translation and Subjectivity: On “Japan” and Cultural Nationalism[Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press]).
Standish, Paul. 2011. “Social Justice in Translation: Subjectivity, Identity, andOccidentalism.” Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook: pp. 69-79.
Standish, Paul. 2010. “One Language, One World: The Common Measure of Education.”
Philosophy of Education 2010: pp. 360-368.
Standish, Paul, and Saito, Naoko (eds). 2017. “Introduction,” in Stanley Cavell andPhilosophy as Translation: The Truth is Translated (London: Rowman &Littlefield): 1-9.
Thoreau, Henry, D. 1992. Walden and Resistance to Civil Government, ed. William Rossi(New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992).

1

Dewey acknowledged that “Japan is a unique country, one whose aims and methods are baffling to any foreigner”(Dewey 1982, p. 171).
2
Dewey saw a flickering hope for liberalism in Japan, but he left the country in disappointment, especially in

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

86

N. SAITO

comparison with his more positive subsequent experience during his trip to China (p. 143).
3
Recent annual meetings have been held in such countries as Hungary (1988), England (1990), Bulgaria (1992),
Belgium (1994), South Africa (1996), Turkey (1998), Australia (2000), Norway (2002), Spain (2004), Malta (2006),
Japan (Kyoto, 2008), Columbia (2010), Ethiopia (2012), Italy (2014), Warsaw (2016) and Israel (2018) and the next
meeting will be held in Mexico (2020). Board members, of which I am one, come from a variety of countries(Norway, Japan, Italy…..); the current President is a Canadian, now located in Ireland.
4
In the biennial meeting of 2016 in Warsaw, for which I served as Programme Chair, the conference theme was“Philosophy as Translation and the Understanding of Other Cultures,” and there was much dialogue between Eastand West.
5
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology promotes “Lessons of the Japanese Model
Education for Overseas Development and Promotion” and it tries to develop attractive Japanese education abroad.
https://www.eduport.mext.go.jp/summary/index.html
6
For more detailed account on the connection between Cavell’s ordinary language philosophy and his idea oftranslation, see Standish and Saito 2017: 2-4.
7This paper draws on the author’s following publications and international project “Philosophy as Translation andUnderstanding Other Cultures: Interdisciplinary Research in Philosophy and Education for Bidirectional Internationalization(Supporting Program for Interaction-based Initiative Team Studies [SPIRITS] (Interactive Model and International
Model) (2013-2017); Naoko Saito, “Philosophy as Translation and Understanding Other Cultures: Becoming a
Global Citizen through Higher Education,” Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, No. 9 (2015): pp.
17-26; Naoko Saito and Naomi Hodgson, Philosophy as Translation and the Understanding of Other Cultures(Taylor and Francis, 2018); Standish, Paul, and Saito, Naoko (eds), Stanley Cavell and Philosophy as Translation:“The Truth is Translated” (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017); Naoko Saito, Paul Standish and Yasuo Imai (eds)
Social Justice in Translation (University of Tokyo Press, 2018) (Japanese); Naoko Saito, “Philosophy as Translation:
Towards Other Directed International Exchange in Education,” Kyoikugaku Kenkyu (Japanese Educational ResearchAssociation,2019); pp. 162-175 (Japanese) ; Naoko Saito, American Philosophy in Translation (London: Rowman & Littlefield,2019).

Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Theses on the Problem of the Language of Philosophy of
Education in a Globalized World

Lothar WIGGER
TU Dortmund University

1. Wilhelm von Humboldt, the great theoretician of the Bildung tradition inGermany, assumes a close connection between language and national culture. According
to Humboldt, every language implies its own worldview and is an expression of its own
way of life. Languages are interwoven with their culture and time. Language is themedium of intermediation and interaction between human beings and the world. In thediversity of languages, the richness of the world and the diversity of its knowledge
become accessible. The linguistic expressions are not mere descriptions of a thing -- they
can also be these as well -- but in many respects they are different views of a thing.
Language therefore includes conversation and speeches, but also arguing and debates.
This shows that mutual understanding is possible, but all understanding is always also a
non-understanding (cf. Humboldt 1963: 439). The inaccuracies, differences and constantchanges in language cannot be reversed.
2. The conclusion of these thoughts for educational theory is the significance of theknowledge of foreign languages. Through the learning of foreign languages, a different
culture is also learned and an initially foreign worldview is opened up. As a result, thehabit of speaking in one’s mother tongue loses its matter of course, its claim to always
accurately depict and express the world. The naturalness of the conventional worldview,of one's own tradition and culture reveals itself to be an illusion. Education throughforeign languages thus includes the relativizing of one's own point of view and an
opening to new and different perspectives, not to mention a gain in reflexivity towards
one's native language and insight into the plurality of cultures and worldviews. And thatis precisely what education in the sense of Bildung is about: the enlargement and88

L. WIGGER

enrichment of knowledge and feeling through the confrontation with the diversity of theworld, to which the plurality of languages and cultures belongs (cf. Koller 1999: 90ff),
and also insight into the intermediation of the world through language.
3. This also addresses the problem of monolingualism, the unshaken self-confidence
that one's own linguistic expression is generally understandable, i.e. that one depicts theworld as it is and articulates a view of things that is acceptable to all others. The unsettling
experience of translating and the experiences of not being able to express oneself are
foreign to those whose language is also spoken by speakers of other languages. The
possibility of self-reflexively relativizing one's own views, customs and cultural habits
through the work of translation remains closed to them. Liz Jackson and Naoko Saito
have already pointed this out. Their conclusion is that it is a worthwhile and welcome
goal to rethink international conferences and academic associations as "places of mutual
learning" in which the "art of translation" is cultivated (Saito 2019: 17).
4. In the tradition of German philosophy of Bildung, the learning of foreign
languages and the understanding of people from other cultures is a goal of general
education not only restricted to academics or philosophers. Jackson’s case studies showthat these are not philosophical problems and not problems only for university teachers,
but current problems of human coexistence today. If we are responsible for "thecultivation and maintenance of dispositions of openness and the tolerance of
consciousness for the 'known unknown'" (Jackson 2019: 1), then this implies the concern
for the general education of all. I see the concern for the preservation of general education
founded in the fact that the differences between the higher and the less educated, between
academics and non-academics, develop into a societal division between people whose
work encourages cosmopolitan thinking through its international character and people
whose work is tied to their local cultures, especially when nationalist politicians andpopulists deepen this societal and political division with propagandistic oppositions of"we" and "the others", of "regular people" and "the elite".
5. The English language has developed into the lingua franca of science. This
reflects the economic and political dominance of the USA in history since the Second
World War and, conversely, the loss of economic and political significance of Germany,
France and Russia. We should not disregard the aspect of political and economic power
as a background for internationalization strategies and cultural-political exports and thedangers of political and economic instrumentalization, nor should we disregard theThematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Theses on the Problem of the Language of Philosophy of Education in a Globalized World89

discussion of ways of overcoming the differences between East and West, and also thedifferences between North and South.
6. Now the problem of a common English scientific language in international
contexts is different in the natural sciences, medicine and technology on the one hand andin the humanities and social sciences on the other hand. Saito rightly points to the errors
in the understanding of language that support monolingualism (Saito 2019: 10). By
referring to natural facts or technically defined objects, the first scientific group does nothave the linguistic translation problems of the humanities and the social sciences in regard
to their objects, which are historically, culturally and socially constituted objects. Theintertwining of these objects with the specific languages sets limits to a worldwide
common scientific language; the plurality of cultures and languages is presupposed andthese facts require translations. It is therefore the task of philosophy as well as thehumanities and the social sciences to articulate the problems of monolingualism in asocially audible way, to defend themselves against the dominance of economics,
technology and the natural sciences and to draw critical attention to colonial tendencies
and power structures.
7. The communication of scientists from many different countries and theinternationalization of scientific exchange are made possible by the common use of the
English language. This is a great gain and not to be underestimated at all, but it may not
be the end in the development of scientific internationalization. For me, the question isthat, beyond the use of the English language, multilingualism will also remain a sensible
goal, so that a "bidirectional academic exchange" of non-English-speaking scientists,
which used to exist and still exists, will also be possible in the future. Theodor W. Adorno(2003) answered to the question of why he returned to Germany after his forced
emigration to the USA during National Socialism and in view of the terror and crimes of
the Second World War, that the German language, as the language of his homeland,enabled him to express his thoughts in a differentiated and precise way. But precision anddifferentiation in philosophical or even humanistic considerations are difficult to maintainor convey when a third language has to come between author and reader.
8. Multilingual conferences, which do not only offer parallel monolingual events,
are quite possible, Switzerland with its four official languages offers examples of this. If
it is not feasible to understand several languages at the respective scientific or
philosophical level, then experts are needed who can translate, explain and bring closer
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

90

L. WIGGER

to us the philosophy, literature or discourses of the other countries. It is undoubtedly
insufficient and critical just to talk about the others, but according to Kenichi Mishima it
is not enough to talk to the others in order to understand them, but for understanding it isimportant to hear "what the others talk to each other and also against each other"(Mishima/Schwentker 2015: 18). This translation and explanation work of experts of theforeign culture, history, and society is indispensable for an adequate and real
understanding of the others, even if more scientists will be able to understand or to talkin more than one foreign language.
9. A central problem of educational philosophy is the question of what is universal
when we recognize the diversity of cultures and languages, our particularity andattachment to our origins, and the difficulties of translation and understanding. Are there
universal principles from which we can understand each other and deal with the problems
and conflicts in the world? How can we adequately explain "what is human about us"(Jackson 2019: 6) in order to find common ground? Seyla Benhabib's interpretation ofhuman dignity is the proposal of a minimal ethic in pluralistic societies that can provide
a capable basis for a consensus of different societies: "We deserve respect not only
because we are reasonable beings capable of acting in accordance with moral law, butalso because we are vulnerable beings with a physical existence potentially exposed totorture, rape, slavery, servitude and violence and therefore to be protected. Treating aperson with dignity does not only mean treating him with respect; it also prohibits theexercise of violence and cruelty against him". (Benhabib 2016: 278) This proposal seems
to me worth considering and worth discussing (cf. Wigger 2019).

References
Adorno, Theodor W. (2003): Auf die Frage: Was ist deutsch. In: Gesammelte Schriftenin 20 Bänden - Band 10: Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft. Prismen. Ohne Leitbild.
Eingriffe. Stichworte. Band 2, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, S. 691-701.
Benhabib, Seyla (2016): Kosmopolitismus ohne Illusionen. Menschenrechte in
unruhigen Zeiten. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1963): Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie. In: ders.: Werke in fünf
Bänden III (hrsg. von Andreas Flitner und Klaus Giel). Darmstadt: WBG.
Koller, Hans-Christoph (1999): Bildung und Widerstreit. Zur Struktur biographischer
Bildungsprozesse in der (Post-) Moderne. München: Fink.
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Theses on the Problem of the Language of Philosophy of Education in a Globalized World

91

Mishima, Ken'ichi; Schwentker, Wolfgang (2015): Einleitung. In: Ken'ichi Mishima undWolfgang Schwentker (Hrsg.): Geschichtsdenken im modernen Japan. Eine
kommentierte Quellensammlung. München: Iudicium-Verl. (Monographien aus
dem Deutschen Institut für Japanstudien, 56) S. 11–28.
Wigger, Lothar (2019): Kosmopolitismus – Anmerkungen zu einem Ideal historischpolitischer Bildung. In: Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik. H.2, 95.
Jg., S. 247-271.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Possibility and Difficulty of Translation:
Issues Related to Citizenship and Border Crossing
Shigeo KODAMAThe University of Tokyo

1. My discussant theme
My Discussant theme is in the possibility and difficulty of translation, that is theissues related to citizenship and border crossing.

2. On the presentation of Liz Jackson
In the presentation of Liz Jackson, she said, in a globalized context where English
is primary, misunderstanding puts an unfortunate burden on non-native English speakers,
who often work and study in other languages, to translate themselves, and educate people
who do not know what they do not know. This translation work takes patience. So she
focused on the difficulty of translation, a reward of being bilingual and cross-cultural.

3. On the presentation of Naoko Saito
In the presentation of Naoko Saito, she said, translation involves an attunement towhat happens in the encounter between different languages, and this ordinarily involves
the experience of a gap—of the incommensurable, of the “untranslatable”. It is thisimperfect answerability in translation that is the condition, in humility, of opening
ourselves to the other.
So she focused on the possibility of translation as the condition of opening ourselvesto the other.

Possibility and Difficulty of Translation

93

4. Common perception
Liz focuses on the burden and difficulty of translation, on the other hand, Naoko
focuses on the translation as the condition of opening ourselves to the other. Although Liz
and Naoko seem to be contrasting at first glance, they share a common perception thathomogeneous attitude to other cultures is a trap for multicultural society and in thiscontext translation is a stake that determines the consequences of bridging different
cultures.
But the question of multilingualism or emphasis on translation is a major issue
between the two.
So the following question could be asked of Liz and Naoko: That is, how do you
think about this issues? This is my first question.
And before asking the other question, I would like to give an example.

5. Young people on the streets of Hong Kong
On June 16 2019 there is a demonstration of 2 million people held in Hong Kong.
Agnes Chow Ting is one of the most influential leaders in Hong Kong democratization
movement. Agnes grew up strongly influenced by the Japanese “otaku” culture. “Otaku”
culture is a culture of Japanese youth who love anime and idol groups. Through “Otaku”
culture she learned Japanese and bridges the youth culture of Japan and Hongkong, andconstructs a democratic spirit to change the political regime of Hongkong. I think she isa multilingual person using Chinese, English, and Japanese, and at the same time she is
an excellent translator between Japanese and Chinese through political action as a global
citizen. I think it is this kind of citizenship that enable her to have both multilingualism
and translation.

6. Citizenship and border crossing
So in this symposium I would like to say that to have both multilingualism andtranslation is an important condition for the internationalization of the philosophy ofeducation, and at the same time political and global citizenship is the key to mediating
multilingualism and translation.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

94

S. KODAMA

So my second question is, what kind of citizenship enable us to have both
multilingualism and translation? In other words, what do you think on the relationshipbetween citizenship and border crossing?
As Lothar Wigger said, according to Humboldt every language implies its own
world view and is an expression of its own way of life. Especially in Japan in themodernization process people in Japan has incorporated western cultures throughtranslating them into Japanese, and Japanese language formed by such translations hascreated a common way of thinking for Japanese citizens. So I think thinking in Japaneseis indispensable manner in our academic community.
That is why we should not give up teaching and learning philosophy in Japanese.
What is necessary for us is border crossing citizenship and being responsible for andkeeping listening to other foreign languages and translating them into Japanese, like
Agnes in Hongkong.

Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

Beyond the Difference in Language:
A Comment
Yasuo IMAIJapan Women’s University

I would like to begin my comment with anecdotes from my personal experience.
After studying at the Graduate School of Education here at the University of Hiroshima,
I studied further in Göttingen, Germany, for two years. I found my main research field in
the German tradition of educational thought. So the choice to study in Germany was byno means accidental. During these two years in Göttingen, I discovered many themes andideas that would be of crucial importance for my entire career as a researcher. One ofthem was the significance of “media” in education. I was particularly interested in therelationship between film and education in Germany in the first half of the 20th century.
After returning to Japan, I wrote a paper pursuing this idea, in Japanese of course.
Based on a detailed reading of the journal Film und Bild, published from 1912 to 1915,
it attempted to explicate the changing relationship between film and education. I
submitted it to a Japanese journal. I will say only that this journal was not one publishedby our society; it was a major journal in the field of history of education. In Japan, it was
not unusual to discuss a closely delimited topic in the European or American history ofeducation. But my paper was rejected, and what disturbed me were the comments on it.
I found them pointless and too narrow-minded to take a novel issue like “education andmedia” seriously. I was upset because I was firmly convinced that my paper presented
something really innovative. Such conviction is probably typical of arrogant young
academics.
Moved by this arrogant conviction, I began to translate my paper into German andsubmitted it to a German journal, Bildung und Erziehung. It became my first essay
published in a foreign language. I was deeply impressed by the open-mindedness andfairness of my German colleagues in their professional judgement. This sort of trust inGerman colleagues remains with me even now. My own interpretation of this experience,
however, has changed in the meantime.

96

Y. IMAIMy early interpretation had been simple: Japanese narrow-mindedness toward
something new vs. German open-mindedness, Japanese unfairness when judging vs.
German fairness, Japanese immaturity in terms of academic professionality vs. German
maturity. But gradually, I came to recognize that my paper discussed its theme in more ofa German context than a Japanese context, albeit largely unconsciously. I got the themefrom my experience in Germany. The idea that the media, especially film, could besignificant for educational thought as a whole was reasonably convincing in a German
context; however, such a shared perception was simply lacking in the Japanese context
at that time. Now, I interpret my experience rather as an indication that profounddifferences in perception exist, even among academic communities, concerning what is
worth pursuing and what can be described as persuasive.
Please let me mention one more personal experience that points in the same
direction. In my late thirties, I concentrated on Walter Benjamin, a 20th century German
philosopher, and attempted to reconstruct his thoughts as an educational theory, focusing
on his concept of media. As part of this project, I wrote a paper comparing Benjamin withJohn Dewey in regard to their concepts of experience. I thought the paper would beinteresting for my American colleagues. I translated it into English and submitted it to a
famous American journal. The paper was rejected with devastating comments alleging
that it was far beneath the level of a scientific contribution. I could not agree with thecomments, so I submitted the same paper to a British journal, the Journal of thePhilosophy of Education. The British comments were slightly encouraging: the ideas
presented in the paper were interesting, whereas its English was terrible. After a drastic
linguistic improvement, it was published in the British journal.
This second anecdote seems to correspond with what Liz Jackson mentioned as
differences in academic culture between the USA and the UK. In fact, my paper did notstate a clear-cut position either for or against Dewey. It might have been neither obvious
enough nor politically-oriented enough for my American colleagues. Such differences ofperception among different academic cultures are expressed through statements (forexample “its argumentation is a mess”—more or less the comment I got from theAmerican journal), but the possible origins of such differences should be sought insomething other than natural language. We might name it “discourse” in the Foucauldian
sense. “Discourse” means, as far as I understand it, a system of organizing statements,
which also acts decisively on perception regarding the place value of research. The“translation” Naoko Saito proposed might be productively actualized on the level of
discourse.
In Figure 1, I have attempted to illustrate the landscape of academic exchange
Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

Beyond the Difference in Language

97

relating to the philosophy of education that I observed from my perspective. My
perspective is most probably confined and biased; it is a shame that I do not have any
experience in international academic societies like the PESA. The figure might notcorrectly depict the reality of international exchange today, but my anecdotes seem tosuggest that there are differences in perception and difficulties in mutual understandingon the level of the discourse on education. By contrast, however, the names ofphilosophers can serve as our common frame of reference, as I was expecting when I
mentioned the name of Foucault above.
Such differences and difficulties should not be understood as obstacles that are
simply to be removed. As Naoko Saito convincingly stated, they offer a chance to “learn
from different cultures as the other” and to “expose [one’s] framework of thinking andlanguage to the other.” Seen from my perspective, such a chance is desirable largely
because it enables us to discover anew what we are already meant to understand: the fieldof education.
The concepts of “education,” “(教育 kyôiku),” “Bildung/Erziehung,” etc. are neither
identical nor completely separate. They represent a “family resemblance” on the basis of
the common human condition (here again, we are referring to a philosopher—
Wittgenstein in this case—as our frame of reference). Differences in educational
discourse have their reasons in the different configurations of the field of education itself.
The “education” diverges according to its cultural, social, and historical context. As areflection on the diverse field of education, educational discourse shows diverse traits
accordingly. Translation offers a chance, through experiencing such differences, torecognize the field of education anew. The experiences of difference enabled bytranslation become productive for the philosophy of education, as well as for educational
inquiry as a whole, if they are directed toward a re-cognition of the field of education.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

98

Y. IMAI

Figure 1

Dewey
Kant
DerridaCavellAgambenNietzsche Heidegger
Wittgenstein
Foucault

FR

CH

DE

UK

US

philosophers asframe of reference

discourse


JP

CN
HK

TW

on education“translation”

education as
research field(family resemblance)

Thematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020

The Preface to the Thematic Research:
The Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of thePhilosophy of Education
Mika OKABE
Osaka University
Fumio ONO
Doshisha University

The Board of Directors of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan (PESJ) has
been especially promoting ‘the internationalization of philosophy of education’ since2016. The International Exchange Committee, officially established in March 2016,
launched the English website of the Society, and since then has been editing anotherannual journal on the website: the English E-Journal of the Philosophy of Education. In
addition, English-only international symposiums with philosophers of education fromoverseas were held at the annual conferences in 2017 and 2018. These were the first trials
for our society, where all participants spoke English in the discussion without adesignated translator. This time in Hiroshima, we have two more similar international
symposiums including this Thematic Research. Therefore, it could be said that theinternationalization of our society (PESJ) is certainly being promoted. Besides this,following the recent trend of the globalization of Japanese society and the promotion ofinternationalization of higher education by MEXT, a lot of members of our Society are
joining and playing active parts in international academic conferences and collaborative
researches. This also shows the internationalization of ‘our members’ is being advanced.
At the moment, however, we should take into consideration the question of what
the internationalization means for the ‘study of philosophy of education’ itself. It is truethat the philosophy of education in Japan has relatively been open to foreign thought,
theory and practice, and therefore we might say we have already been internationalized
in that sense. As it is often critically mentioned, however, the modern Japanese academic
system has unduly been learning and importing Western systems, cultures and sense of

100

M. OKABE & F. ONO

values and attempting to reproduce them. The state of the internationalization of thephilosophy of education in Japan is therefore never well-balanced. However, the mere
correction of balance and the simple expansion of research fields into non-Westerncountries such as Asia, Latin America, Africa as well as Eastern Europe would notnecessarily solve the problems. Without questioning the structure and customs of ourintellectual system, it might result merely in a further promotion of the academiccolonization. The study of philosophy of education also cannot have nothing to do withthe so-called post-colonial problems.
We then might have many questions as follows: Is there no difference between
internationalization and globalization today? Can the medium of English by itself
guarantee the internationality of study? How does the internationality of our studies
correspond exactly to the universality they could show? Is a paper written in Japanese,
for instance, ‘international’ or universal’? If there is a great variety of cultural and social
contexts in each country, even in the English-speaking world, what kind of change dothey undergo in the age of globalization? If the national is a precondition for being international, doesn’t the internationalization ironically result in the reinforcement of thenational and in a new standardization, segmentation or classification? If so, in what kindof ways can we think for the sake of avoiding such standardization, segmentation andclassification; namely, for the sake of maintaining the diversity and plurality of each
culture and society? How can we then, on the contrary, achieve the universality of ourstudies and avoid mere relativism? How have the scholars of other countries and othercultural spheres accumulated their experience in confronting with these problems? Whatkind of response can we Japanese philosophers of education make to them?
Based on the aforementioned issues, we would like to consider in this Thematic
Research the current and future situation of the internationalization and/or globalizationof philosophy of education in the globalized world, while comparing that of our society
to those of societies abroad. As the first presenter, we invite Prof. Liz Jackson from Hong
Kong University, who is the president of the Philosophy of Education Society ofAustralasia (PESA), one of the overseas academic societies aiming to collaborate withphilosophy of education societies in East Asian countries. Prof. Jackson talked about thetrend of the internationalization in PESA, the current academic situation in Hong Kongin relation to China, and her own vision for the aforementioned problems. The second
presenter, Prof. Naoko Saito from Kyoto University, talked about the current and future
situation in the International Network of Philosophers of Education (INPE) and otheracademic societies in the UK and the United States. Prof. Saito also presented her own
philosophical experience among several languages and ideas of the "philosophy ofThematic Research: Globalization, Internationalization, and Universality of Philosophy of Education

The Preface to the Thematic Research

101

translation."
After the presentations from Prof. Jackson and Prof. Saito, Prof. Lothar Wigger
from Technische Universität Dortmund made a comment on the theme of this Thematic
Research, from the viewpoint of non-English-speaking countries, where, as well as Japan,
the academic achievements written in English are demanded more and more by theadministrations of universities and ministries. The story in Germany brings meaningful
suggestions for us. Following this, Prof. Shigeo Kodama from the University of Tokyo,
as the second discussant, talked about his standpoint toward the globalization of the studyof philosophy of education, especially about the significance of educational study both inforeign languages and Japanese. Finally, the then president of our society, Prof. Yasuo
Imai, who has promoted the internationalization of the study of philosophy of education
itself and of our society, gave us his comprehensive comments regarding with this
Thematic Research.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 5, 2020