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