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