E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 1, 2016

Towards Thinking Not Modelled on the ‘External’:
Discussion of Alternative Thinking within Research on JapanesePhilosophy of Education
Mika OKABE
Osaka University
Abstract
Since the advent of the modern era, Japanese educational and academic fields have been characterized
by a tendency to model domestic education and pedagogy after given alternatives from overseas. This
type of thinking has provided an orientation for alternative solutions, but has not sufficiently
contributed to human or social transformation. Rather it has sometimes been complicit in maintaining
existing societies. In this study, I will provide an overview of special issues, symposiums and subject
studies/thematic researches collected from Studies in the Philosophy of Education, from the founding
issue (1959) through Volume 111 (2015), and then review how the Philosophy of Education Societyof Japan has examined and evaluated its own research style, particularly its own alternativeorientations and thinking. In addition, I will consider how we should reflect on our own alternativeorientation and thinking from now on, and, moreover, what these self-reflections might lead to in
research on educational philosophy. This study will demonstrate the importance of thinking beyond
the traditional dichotomy and the disregard for the Other (the alien outside of the known) in researchon educational philosophy. What I mean here the traditional dichotomy is, for example, that between
language-centrism (logo-centrism) and intuitionism, that between education for the purpose ofindustrialisation and pedagogy with the goal of human emancipation from industrialization, thatbetween institutionalisation and criticism of institutionalisation and so on. I will also show theimportance of continually questioning and examining our political positioning and thinking style.
Keywords
alternative orientations and thinking, Japanese philosophy of education, beyond the dichotomy,
beyond to the Other, thinking not modelled on the ‘external’24

M. OKABE

Introduction
The statement of the purpose of this symposium mentions that ‘an orientation to adifferent, better education than what exists here and now’, in other words ‘an alternativeorientation’, is what drives the pursuit of education and pedagogy. This is certainly valid,
if we presume that education and pedagogy, in particular modern education and pedagogy,
should be the forces driving human transformation, which in turn creates socialtransformation. This is also valid for educational philosophy in the present-day, which
has attempted to succeed critically modern pedagogy or to overcome or transcend it. If
we recall that the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan was founded with the goalof examining and designing post-war pedagogy from a perspective different to that of theJapanese Educational Research Association1, the work of the Philosophy of Education
Society of Japan, as well as its very existence, might well be said to embody alternativeorientations and thinking themselves.
In such a case, we would do well always to be mindful, as is noted in the statementof the purpose of this symposium, of whether alternative orientations of research on
educational philosophy have ‘betrayed their own purposes and closed themselves withina certain fixed structure of thinking’. A typical example of this pitfall is the phenomenon
criticized by Akira Mori2, which he referred to as ‘exhibitions’ and ‘rapid discards andadoptions’: the successive introduction of new systems, methodologies or concepts fromthe West by government and academia, to which school teachers should respond by
quickly discarding the old and adopting the new. This phenomenon has been seen in
Japanese educational and academic fields since the advent of the modern era. Criticismsof similar phenomena are found in symposiums and subject studies in Studies in the
Philosophy of Education, for example, Vol. 31 (1975)3, Vol. 55 (1987) 4and Vol. 73(1996)5.
1

M. Ogasawara et al., “Sengo Kyouiku Tetsugaku no Shuppatsu” (Departure of Educational Philosophy after theSecond World War), Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 97, 2008, pp. 164-172 and p.174.
2
A. Mori, “Gendai no Kyouiku to Kyouiku Shichou” (Modern Education and Educational Trends), Gendai
Kyouiku Shichou, A. Mori ed., Daiichi Houki Shuppan, 1969, p. 34.
3
T. Oura, “Shinohara Sukeichi ni okeru Kyouikugaku Keisei no Tokushitsu: Oubei Kyouiku Shisou Sesshu no
Taido wo Chuushin ni shite” (Characteristics of Pedagogical Formation in Shinohara Sukeichi: A Focus on
Attitudes for Ingesting Western Educational Thoughts), Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 31, 1975, p.
2.
4
H. Usami, “Kenkyuu Tougi ni kansuru Soukatsuteki Houkoku” (A Comprehensive Report on the Symposium),
Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 55, 1987, pp. 14-15.
5
S. Yano, “Kyouiku Tetsugaku no Mirai” (The Future of the Philosophy of Education), Studies in the Philosophyof Education, Vol. 73, 1996, pp. 42-43.
Symposium: The Alternative as Pedagogical Desire: How Do We Seek for Transcendency in Education?

Towards Thinking Not Modelled on the ‘External’

25This structure of thinking has certainly driven domestic education and pedagogy byseeking out given alternatives from overseas. This raises the questions of why thisstructure of thinking is problematic and whether contemporary research on educational
philosophy is already free from such thinking.
In past research on educational philosophy in Studies in the Philosophy of Education,
many special issues, symposiums and subject studies/thematic researches have reflected
on research on educational philosophy itself, including this structure of thinking.
Therefore, in the following sections, I will provide an overview of special issues,
symposiums and subject studies/thematic researches collected from the founding issue ofStudies in the Philosophy of Education (1959) through Volume 111 (2015), and then lookback on how the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan has examined and evaluatedits own research style, particularly its own alternative orientations and thinking. In
addition, I will consider how we should reflect on our own alternative orientation andthinking from now on, and, moreover, what these self-reflections might lead to in researchon educational philosophy.
1. Lack of a Sense of the Other
Before giving an overview of past content from Studies in the Philosophy of
Education, let us first examine the issue underlying the structure of thinking that drives
domestic education and pedagogy in their search for given alternatives from overseas.
As is well known, this structure of thinking is not unique to pedagogy. According to
Masao Maruyama 6 , the same tendency can be found across Japanese research andthought. Generally speaking, Japanese academics have imported Western ideas andthoughts without regard to their inherent historical structures and premises, and havefocused only on independent fragments of them (for example, Rousseau’s concept,
Hegel’s dialectic, Dewey’s school system and so on), with this continuous influx offragments occurring without profound dialogue or examination of their roles andmeanings in the context of Japan’s past and current situation. Put differently, Japanese
academia’s encounter with Western research and thought has not been a dialogue or
confrontation with the Other, but rather a non-confrontational acceptance based on one’s
own daily life and experience7. Thus, Japanese research and thought have never been able
to form a historical core or pivot, through which they could position themselves
67

M. Maruyama, Nihon no Shisou (Japanese Thoughts), Iwanami Shoten, 1961, p. 7 and p.14.
J. Karaki, Shinban Gendaishi e no Kokoromi (An Attempt to the Contemporary History: New Edition), Chikuma
Shobou, 1963, p. 236.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 1, 2016

26

M. OKABE

historically in relation to foreign research and thought8.
Maruyama notes that the biggest danger brought about by this structure of thinking is
the lack of a sense of the Other, the alien outside of the known. The ‘sparsity of attitude
in confronting what is completely different from oneself’ creates a certain type of‘tolerance’ in accepting any type of foreign research and thought9. However Maruyama
notes that such ‘tolerance’ brings about an ‘easy joining’ of the ‘internal’ (the known) andthe ‘external’ (the Other), and forms a timeless and borderless world of thinking in which
one sees and thinks always and everywhere based on one’s own daily life and experience,and therefore one never encounters or confronts the Other10. There are no discontinuities,
leaps or qualitative transformations in this world of thinking, and there are no deep
conversations with or confrontations of the Other. Even with new systems,
methodologies or concepts being continuously introduced from overseas, the structure of‘internally’ oriented closed thinking remains largely unchanged. This results in what
appears to be a constant, passionate struggle of alternatives, but is actually a state in which
there is no change; that is, no human transformation nor social transformation to speakof.
2. Alternative Orientations in Studies in the Philosophy of Education
In this section, we discuss how the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan has
addressed issues surrounding the style of its own thinking.
(1) Initiative
The first appearance of reflective discussions on the Society’s own research style wasin the special issue of Volume 12 (1965), entitled ‘Kyouiku no Kitei toshite no Ningenkan’(Viewpoints of Human Being as the Basis of Education).
According to Sosuke Hara11, a contributor to this special issue, modern educational
thought has asserted the emancipation of sensibility via intuitionism that could break outof the closed language-centric system (logo-centrism) so that education could maintain a‘transformative effect’, as well as an orientation towards change. However, underneath
8

Cit. Maruyama.
Ibid., p.16.
10
Ibid.
11
S. Hara, “Ningen Henkaku to Kansei: Kindai Shimin Shakai Seiritsuki ni okeru Kyouiku no Kadai to Houhou
kara” (Human Reform and Aesthesia (Sensibility): an Examination of Educational Issues and Methods at the timeof Founding a Modern Citizen Society), Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 12, 1965, pp.28-43.
9Symposium: The Alternative as Pedagogical Desire: How Do We Seek for Transcendency in Education?

Towards Thinking Not Modelled on the ‘External’

27

this simple dichotomy between intuitionism and language-centrism/logo-centrism lurks
the spectre of all education causing simple ‘assimilation’ to existing societies. Only byescaping this dichotomy would actually occur a breakthrough leading to a‘transformative effect’ in education.
Hara was a pioneer on this topic. It is not until the end of the 1980s that discussions
on this kind of dichotomy became prominent in the Philosophy of Education Society ofJapan.
(2) Moving with Alternative Movements in Society
At the beginning of the 1970s, the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan began
to question its own research style12. Initial reflections were strongly influenced by drastic
social changes, such as accelerated progress in science and technology, industrialisation,
high-level economic growth, internationalisation and a shift towards a society of lifelong
learning.
The series of self-reflections by the Society at that time uncritically condemnedschool education and educational administration for the purpose of industrialisation, andalternatively elevated and promoted pedagogy with the goal of ‘human’ emancipationfrom industrialization. This was an overly naïve dichotomy politically, as is well known
today 13 . This dichotomy failed to take into account the fact that some aspects ofindustrialization have contributed to safe cultural ‘human’ life and that ‘human’ itself is aconcept that is both context-dependent and political14.
This dichotomy in the Society’s thinking at that time presumed the institutionalisationof the modern society to be ‘external to pedagogy’ and criticism of institutionalisation tobe ‘inside (or internal to) pedagogy’, and then attempted to mediate or sublate the‘external’ and the ‘internal’, while making no attempt to understand a complex andcomplicated reality. This is, as was noted by Tsunemi Tanaka, no more than a discourseon ‘the union of institutionalisation and criticism of institutionalisation; at first glancethese appear to be in conflict, but are actually complementary and unified’15. In light of12

See symposium in Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 29 (1974), subject studies in Vol. 47 (1983) andsymposium in Vol. 49 (1984).
13
M. Okabe et al., “Kyouin Yousei ni taisuru Kyouiku Tetsugaku no Shikou Style no Hensen” (Thinking Styles of
Educational Philosophers Engaged in Teacher Training: A Historical Review), Studies in the Philosophy of
Education, Vol. 100, 2009, p.90.
14
M. Okabe, “Ronsou no Topos toshite no ‘Ningen’” (‘Human Being’ as a Controversial Topos), Studies in the
Philosophy of Education, 100S Special Supplementary Issue, 2009, pp. 312-328.
15
T. Tanaka, “Kyouiku Kankei no Rekishiteki Seisei to Saikousei: System to Sougosei” (The Historical Generation
and Reconstruction of Educational Relationships: Systems and Mutuality), Kindai Kyouiku Shisou wo Yominaosu,
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 1, 2016

28

M. OKABE

the fact that this discourse itself has efficiently promulgated institutionalisation since theadvent of the modern era, the series of self-reflections by the Philosophy of Education
Society of Japan has led to a certain orientation towards change, but in actuality wasperhaps complicit in maintaining the existing society. It was not said to be an alternativeorientation and thinking in itself.
(3) Beyond the Dichotomy
This dichotomy in thinking finally became a central focus of self-reflection by theSociety in the 1980s. In this reflection, concepts and principles assumed to be self-evident
in post-war educational philosophy in Japan became the subjects of critical scrutiny.
Tsunemi Tanaka, for instance, noted that it may now be extremely difficult to reach aconsensus on what constitutes a ‘mature adult’16. Yasuo Imai noted that education ‘forchildren’ has not necessarily turned out according to the projections of educators, and hassometimes conversely given way to the pathological suppression of children17 . Akio
Miyadera claimed that no universal principles of education now exist, and we must
constantly examine their dependence on their contexts of use18. Satoji Yano proposes that
we treat the subject of learning/education not as an entity, but rather as a complex
communication system (or relationship) that flows in a diverse fashion19.
Common to these four researchers’ thinking is a concern that criticism of modern
education and pedagogy does not simply devolve into anti-modernism. They were verymuch aware that the supporting foundations for criticism of modernity are fully contained
within modernity itself; hence it is important to criticize modernity even as we inherit it20.
This style of thinking does not model substantially the ‘external’ (and the ‘internal’) inorder to drive domestic education and pedagogy in their search for alternatives from the‘external’ like overseas or outside of modernity.
S. Hara et al. eds., Shinyousha, 1999, p.195.
T. Tanaka, “Otona no Seijuku to Isedaikan Sougo Kisei” (Adult Maturation and Mutual Regulation between
Generations), Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 61, 1990, pp. 6-7.
17
Y. Imai, “Filter/Jiko Katsudou/Kaisou: Mollenhauer ‘Wasurerareta Renkan’ no Yohaku ni” (Filter, Self-activity
and Retrospection: Mollenhauer; In the Margins of Vergessene Zusammenhänge), Studies in the Philosophy of
Education, Vol. 61, 1990, p. 13.
18
A. Miyadera, “Kyouiku no Gourishugiteki Rikai towa Nani ka” (The Meaning of Rationalistic Interpretation of
Education), Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 63, 1991, p. 7.
19
S. Yano, “Gouri Shugi to Higouri Shugi no Nikou Tairitsu wo Koete: Asobi no Ronrigaku to Kindai Gourishugi”(Transcending the Dualistic Opposition of Rationalism and Irrationalism: the Logic of Play and the Modern
Rationalism), Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 63, 1991, p.14.
20
Y. Masubuchi, et al., “Kenkyuu Tougi ni Kansuru Soukatsuteki Houkoku” (Summary Report on the Symposium),
Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 81, 2000, p. 18.
16

Symposium: The Alternative as Pedagogical Desire: How Do We Seek for Transcendency in Education?

Towards Thinking Not Modelled on the ‘External’

29

In this style of thinking, there are certainly no preformed consensus or substantive
entities. There is also no possible way of setting predetermined goals, processes or plansin education and pedagogy. Moreover, languages as media are constantly being revised.
In such a case, it is critical for researchers to be aware not only of the historicity ofthoughts as objects of one’s research, but also of one’s own historicity as a researcher andthat of the languages one uses. Specifically, it is important that ‘each researcher [creates]
a map of thoughts in which one’s theoretical research is positioned’, ‘self-consciously
forms a framework for organizing, understanding and evaluating the process of scholarly
development’, and plans and conducts unique, original research for the future of
educational philosophy in accordance with this map and framework21.
Conclusion
The proposal to create a map and framework for researchers to use in positioning andevaluating their own work is perhaps a response by educational philosophy to address the
problem of a lack of historical core or pivot in Japanese research and thought, as was
posited by Masao Maruyama. The problem, as suggested by Maruyama, is that thebiggest and most fundamental danger is the lack of a sense of the Other. In actuality, thePhilosophy of Education Society of Japan has already begun work on this problem inrecent years. This work includes discussions on ‘public sphere’ and ‘pathos’ that go
beyond into the Other 22 . As noted by Satoshi Tanaka, ‘the potential to go beyond
monologues and to resist neoliberalism can be found within the knowledge of pathos’23.
If this is so, discussions on public sphere would be ontologically supported by theknowledge of pathos, and the knowledge of pathos would reflect itself within discussions
on public sphere. They are just in a relationship with each other, neither too close to nor
too distant from one another.
What must be kept in mind is that the knowledge of pathos as a form of alternative
thinking certainly points towards the Other, but that this is extremely different fromsubstantially modelling the ‘external’ and assimilating the ‘external’ into the ‘internal’.
21

S. Yano, “Kyouiku Tetsugaku no Mirai” (The Future of the Philosophy of Education), Studies in the Philosophyof Education, Vol. 73, 1996, p. 44.
22
For more information on discussions of public sphere, see subject studies in Studies of the Philosophy of
Education, Vol. 83 (2001) and symposium in Vol. 101 (2010) and Vol. 111 (2015) of the same. For more
information on discussions of pathos, see Thematic research in Vol. 109 (2014).
23
S. Tanaka, et al., “Kyouiku Jissen to Kyouiku Tetsugaku: Kore made no Kyouiku Tetsugaku, Kore kara no
Kyouikugaku” (Summary Report on the Thematic Research: Educational Practice and Philosophy of Education),
Studies in the Philosophy of Education, Vol. 109, 2014, p. 52.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 1, 2016

30

M. OKABE

With the knowledge of pathos one gazes on the Other, reaches out to it, resonates with its
emotions and actions, and in doing so, both the self and the Other ‘turn towards their own
inherent and intrinsic lives’24. This thinking is not modelled on the ‘external’ even though
it stares off and beyond into the Other, evokes a sense of the Other, and invites us to theknowledge of pathos. We can then pursue alternatives. Our pedagogical desire for analternative orientation will avoid the desire for enlightenment that attempts to assimilate
and incorporate the Other, and will perhaps become a wish or a prayer for the Other tocontinue to exist as it is.
In any case, our thinking no longer involves a simple dichotomy between the‘external’ and the ‘internal’. The position where we research educational philosophy here
and now is comprised and textured by multi-dimensional, varied potentialities of pasts,
presents and futures that are not necessarily on one’s own daily life and experience, while
resonating with the Other. We are so open that we can freely envisage potentialities of ourresearch positions. That is why the political positioning of our thinking should becontinually questioned and examined.

24

Ibid, p. 53.

Symposium: The Alternative as Pedagogical Desire: How Do We Seek for Transcendency in Education?