In line with the essentialised approach of understanding culture discussed above, the historical and social circumstances of Japanese society have reinforced the tendency to highlight the distinctiveness and characteristics of Japanese culture more extremely than in other cultures (Raz, 1992). The need to recognise, redefine, and reinforce the national identity and cultural uniqueness increased after the loss of World War II and in the course of the rapid economic growth during the 1960s and 1970s (Kubota, 1998, 1999; Hashimoto, 2000). Underpinned by the need to explain the country’s economic success (Kubota, 1999) as well as the struggle for power against Westernisation, discourse and research on ‘Japaneseness’ or ‘Nihionjinron (theories on being Japanese)’ flourished in juxtaposition with the movement of ‘internationalisation’ (Kubota, 2002; Hashimoto, 2000, 2007). It was not until the early 1980s that scholars started to criticise the perceived homogeneity of the Japanese as an ideologically constructed worldview (Befu, 1993, 2001; Kubota, 1998; Murphy-‐Shigematsu, 2004). Japan’s political and economic role and positioning in the global context during the past decades has influenced the way it created and presented Japanese cultural identity ideologically vis-‐a-‐vis (especially Western) others (Kubota, 1999, 2002; Liddicoat, 2007;
Raz, 1992).
Since the 1990s, the increased awareness of diversity within the society is evident
under the keywords of tabunka kyosei (多文化共生, multicultural coexistence) and
tabunka kyoiku (多文化教育, multicultural education) politically, economically, and
academically (Japan Business Federation, 2009; Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications, 2006; Yuki, 2011). Nevertheless, dichotomous perspectives remain in
that the minority groups are still perceived as separate entities in contrast to the majority Japanese (Murphy-‐Shigematsu, 2004; Okano & Tsuneyoshi, 2011). In particular, research sheds light on the assimilation perspectives underlying the society, school systems, and curricula, especially towards non-‐Western residents (Horike, 2010;
Sakuma, 2010). The concept of tabunka kyosei (多文化共生, multicultural coexistence)
is camouflaged as a slogan to encourage a sense of respect for other cultures instead of its true sense of facilitating equilibrium (Takezawa, 2009). From this perspective, ‘Japanese’ is still situated in the centre while visibly different Others are positioned on the periphery insofar as the dominant discourse centres on nationalities and ethnicities (Takezawa, 2009; Yuki, 2011). Unless the dominant values attached to everyday social and cultural practices are critically reviewed, the linguistic and cultural imbalance and contradictions will remain unsolved (Kubota, 1998). Of importance is the attention as to how boundaries of difference are constructed and reconstructed through interactions, involving multiple cultural backgrounds and groups (Okano & Tsuneyoshi, 2011). As Japanese society becomes more diversified, referring to difference external to oneself and cultivating tolerance towards Others is not sufficient. Awareness is needed on the difference within the self, in other words, the mixed or multiple identities existing within the self (Gergen, 1971; Murphy-‐Shigematsu, 2004). This informs the necessity to understand how Japanese students perceive and
understand the culturally diverse self, and how such awareness can be enhanced in the study.
Despite the issues above, the dichotomous and nationalist approach of English language education and internationalisation remains problematic (Hashimoto, 2000, 2007, 2009; Kubota, 1999, 2002; Liddicoat, 2007; McKenzie, 2008; McVeigh, 2004; Rivers, 2011; Whitsed & Volet, 2011). In Japan, English language education under the title of internationalisation has been ideologically driven in that English enables Japanese people to express their distinct values and identity to gain trust in the international community (Hashimoto, 2007; Kubota, 1999; 2002; Liddicoat, 2007). From this perspective, the essentialised representation of culture and the national collectivity has been appropriated and maintained through English as the means of communication (Kubota, 1999; Liddicoat, 2007). Hashimoto (2000) also argues that the objective of Japan’s language teaching and internationalisation implies ‘Japanisation’ insofar as students are expected to cultivate self-‐awareness of being Japanese. Alternatively, non-‐Japanese are encouraged to understand the culture and values by learning Japanese language (Liddicoat, 2007). The underpinning motive of internationalisation in the Japanese context does not align with the Anglo-‐European literature from the perspective of developing reciprocal intercultural understanding and inclusive social practices (Whitsed & Volet, 2011). Scholars argue for the necessity of critical consciousness among the people, especially educators, as to how the nationalistic view of culture is idealised and embedded in policy discourses, including Japan’s language education and internationalisation policy. Despite the increasing ethnic and linguistic diversity within the society since the 1990s, the hegemony
continues to drive otherisation in the domestic context (Hashimoto, 2007; Kubota, 1999, 2002). Otherisation is ‘[to imagine] someone as alien and different to “us” in such a way that “they” are excluded from “our” “normal”, “superior” and “civilized” group’ (Holliday, Hyde, & Kullman, 2004, p. 3).
The discussions to this point suggest the need to challenge the concept and discourse of ‘intercultural’ in the Japanese context. The word ‘intercultural’ is translated as ibunka (異文化) with a primary indication of different (i -‐ 異) cultures (bunka -‐ 文化).
Underpinned by the belief in the linguistic and cultural uniqueness of Japanese people,
intercultural understanding (ibunka rikai -‐ 異文化理解) is based on a non-‐critical
approach to the contexts and communication of Japaneseness and Others (Liddicoat, 2007). In other words, ibunka rikai represents the discourse about the hegemonic Japanese norms and Others on the periphery or beyond the national boundary (Numata, 2009, 2010; Takezawa, 2009). Sato (2015) reviewed past studies in the area of intercultural education, and highlighted that much research centres on transnational mobility of individuals, such as Japanese children who grow up overseas,
those who returned to Japan as returnees (commonly called as kikoku-‐shijo -‐ 帰国子女),
international students, and non-‐Japanese children and pupils living in Japan, surrounding the topics of cultural adjustment, identities, language acquisition, and cultural acceptance. Furthermore, Asaoka and Yano (2009) examined Japanese undergraduate students’ expectations and perceptions of study abroad, and identified ‘deepened intercultural understanding’ as one of the major self-‐reported gains after their return to Japan. However, it is unclear how students construed different cultures, and the people who construct them, and what specifically they learned interculturally.
Given the dominant ideology of Japanese collectivity versus Others discussed throughout this section, the underlying assumption of ‘intercultural understanding’ in study abroad practice and research needs a critical review on its definition and interpretation. Thus, I discuss in the following section Holliday’s (2011, 2013, 2016c) grammar of culture as a way to interpret ‘culture’ as an alternative to the essentialist discourse prevalent in the Japanese context.