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).
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).
3

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