Efecto de la concentración total de metales (CTM) y de la relación de

Foreign language learning has been a preoccupation of Japan’s authorities for centuries, but always viewed with a degree of ambivalence. On the one hand, foreign languages have been seen as a key to national security and economic development, but on the other they have aroused suspicion as potential threats to Japan’s indigenous culture. Under the Tokugawa shogunate, Japan entered more than two hundred years of self-imposed isolation – the sakoku period (鎖国, 1640-1853). Overseas travel was forbidden for ordinary Japanese, and the only

authorized communication with foreigners was confined to a Dutch trading community on the small island of Dejima, specially constructed off the coast of Nagasaki. While this allowed Japan to benefit from some highly regulated exchange with the outside world, it also acted as a bulwark against undue foreign influence. Seargeant (2005, 2009) argues that long after the forcible end of the

sakoku policy by Commodore Perry’s American trade mission, a “Dejima

mentality” has persisted in shaping Japan’s “protectionist and ideologically regulated” contact with the international community (Seargeant, 2009, pp. 69- 70).

Following the end of the sakoku era, Japan embarked on a period of rapid modernization, fearful of colonization by foreign powers. In the latter half of the 19th century, the study of foreign languages, and English in particular, became an elite pursuit of Western know-how based on the translation of foreign texts into Japanese. The strategy of wakon yousai (和魂洋才 “Japanese spirit, Western learning”) allowed Japan to embrace modern technology while simultaneously resisting Westernization and preserving its own cultural identity. As Koizumi (2002) puts it, “When this [modernization] strategy succeeded, the Japanese attributed it to wakon, the Japanese spirit, rather than to yousai, Western learning” (p. 30).

The rise of nationalism and militarism in the 1930s and the war in the Pacific were a setback for the study of foreign languages in Japan, but following Japan’s defeat in 1945 the importance of learning English became widely accepted (Ike, 1995). Under the US Occupation, the Japanese education system was restructured, and for the first time English became a required subject for all junior high school children (Aspinall, 2013).

In the post-war period, English teaching has gained increasing prominence in Japanese education. During the 1980s, high-profile initiatives such as the JET Programme were at the centre of a policy of kokusaika (国際化), or “internationalization”. Successive amendments to the Course of Study

(gakushuu shidou youryo 学習指導要領) – essentially a national curriculum for Japan’s schools – have steadily increased the presence of Foreign Languages (i.e. English) within the school curriculum. Now English accounts for more class time than any other subject, including kokugo (Japanese) (MEXT, 2008a).

This brief historical background highlights themes running through the discourse on English language teaching in Japan. Seargeant (2009) notes that scholarship in this area (e.g. Ike, 1995; Koike & Tanaka, 1995) often focuses on the close historical association between English education and Japan’s

connections with the outside world: “While the English language is not cast as being directly responsible for this political history, it is presented in such a way that its status becomes an index of Japan-international relations” (p. 49).

In the context of globalization, government policy documents very explicitly link English teaching to Japan’s capacity to pursue its overseas interests. Particularly influential was the report of the Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-First Century, published in January 2000 and known in English as The Frontier Within, and MEXT’s 2003 Action Plan to Cultivate

“Japanese with English Abilities” (hereafter referred to as “the Action Plan”).

These documents and the debates surrounding them provide clear examples of the tension between nationalism and cosmopolitanism in Japan’s post-war education policy (Saito, 2010). The Action Plan and the new Courses of Study based on it, include language that provides a cosmopolitan rationale for learning English. English is presented as fundamental to education that “aims at instilling a broader perspective and an understanding of different cultures, fostering attitudes of respect, … and the ability to live with people of different cultures” (MEXT, 2003, §3). Announcing the Action Plan, then Minister of Education Atsuko Toyama drew attention to the challenges posed by globalization: “Given such circumstances, international understanding and cooperation are essential, as is the perspective of living as a member of the international society” (Toyama, 2003, para. 1). Thus, at least part of the reason given for cultivating citizens’ English abilities was to raise their consciousness of belonging to an international community.

On the other hand, language policy in Japan has also been guided by more nationalist priorities. The Action Plan reflects what Kubota (2015) refers to as the “neoliberal promise of English” (p. 3), which presents proficiency in the language as essential to participation in the world economy and Japan reaping the benefits of globalization. At the same time, globalization is widely perceived as a process that threatens to dilute national identity (Tollefson, 2013).

documents and the wider political discourse concerning English teaching tend to frame globalization as more threat than opportunity. For example, during debates in the Japanese Diet on the pros and cons of introducing English classes to elementary schools, members of the governing party aired concerns that it would risk undermining children’s identity as Japanese, and threaten national unity.

In fact, the Action Plan is as much concerned with the teaching of Japanese as it is with English, “combining ideologies of both internationalism and nationalism in one policy” (Gottlieb, 2012, p. 18). While it proposes various improvements to English teaching in schools, including better teacher training, a greater focus on practical communication skills, and expanded use of native English-speaking ALTs, the Action Plan is clear that all this must go hand in hand with a renewed focus on the teaching of Japanese. Indeed, students’ success in English is deemed to depend on proficiency in the national language:

It is necessary to foster in students the ability to express appropriately and understand accurately the Japanese language and to enhance

communication abilities in Japanese in order to cultivate communication abilities in English. (MEXT, 2003, my emphasis)

In The Frontier Within, English proficiency is promoted along with IT skills as part of global literacy. Kawai (2007) interprets this as an attempt to minimize the perceived threat to Japanese identity. She notes how the original, Japanese version of the report refers to English as saiteigen no dougu (最低限の道具) – “the minimum tool” – for understanding the world. Seen in this way, as a neutral lingua franca rather than as a language that embodies distinct, foreign cultures, English can be presented as wholly necessary to Japan’s continued prosperity in a globalizing world, but at the same time as posing no threat to Japanese

language and culture.

Moreover, if English is conceived of as a neutral tool, it can be put to the service of the nation by projecting its culture overseas. Seargeant (2009) refers to this as the “promulgation function” of English, noting the “interesting paradox whereby promotion of a nationalist sentiment requires the embracing of a ‘foreign’ language” (p. 79). While stressing that all Japanese should be able to

communicate in English, the authors of The Frontier Within gave reassurances that this was to strengthen Japanese language and culture, and raise Japan’s profile in the world:

if we treasure the Japanese language and culture, we should actively assimilate other languages and cultures, enriching Japanese culture through contact with other cultures and showing other countries the attraction of Japanese culture by introducing it in an appropriate fashion in their languages. (Prime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-First Century, 2000, chap. 6, §V 3)

Hashimoto (2013b) argues that, ultimately, the government’s reason for promoting English is its concern that “Japanese people’s voices are not being heard internationally because of inadequate language skills” (p. 178).

While English is promoted as an international lingua franca and a means of projecting Japan’s interests abroad, Japanese government policies on English can also be seen as furthering reflexive, inward-looking objectives, concerned with the way Japanese citizens view themselves in relation to the outside world. Some scholars see policy as being guided by the nihonjinron discourse, and its notion of a culturally and linguistically homogeneous Japan. According to Liddicoat (2007), “Within the Nihonjinron ideology, the study of languages of the other reinforces what it means to be Japanese; in other words, distinguishing self from other, insider from outsider, ‘we’ from ‘they’, and Japanese from non- Japanese” (p. 38). This tendency can be seen in the announcement that ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, MEXT will “vigorously promote” learning about traditional Japanese culture and history in English with the aim of “nurturing … [a] sense of Japanese identity” (MEXT, 2013, §1). Barrett and Miyashita (2016) suggest that in view of the expected increase in foreign visitors to Japan in the lead up to the Olympics, “MEXT aims to equip students to become capable of presenting Japan [sic] identity to the world in a type of ‘we vs. you’ discourse …” (p. 62).

The concerns that have shaped Japan’s English education policy are also closely associated with the discourse on citizenship. The Frontier Within is a wide-ranging discussion of the challenges Japan faces in a globalizing world, and

the knowledge, skills and values that current and future generations of Japanese will need in order to confront them. There is, of course, a strong emphasis on

national priorities and on the identity Japanese require as kokumin (Japanese

nationals), but at the same time there is recognition that the boundaries between the national and the global are becoming harder to distinguish:

The ties of international interdependence will become even closer, and the international and domestic spheres will become so seamlessly linked that it will be unclear where one stops and the other begins. Many people will have a direct sense of living in the world even while living in Japan. … And given the interplay of diverse interests crossing the line between the domestic and the international, the general public will need to develop

a deeper awareness of what Japan’s own national interest is. We must

develop our sense of enlightened national interest … [which] must be based on the recognition that the pursuit of Japan’s interests will resonate with the pursuit of global public interests and that the achievement of global public interests will overlap with the achievement of Japan’s interests. (Prime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-

First Century, 2000, chap. 1, §IV 4))

It is recognized, then, that Japanese increasingly relate to the outside world not simply as kokumin but also as individuals (kojin 個人). As individuals, they will need to develop not only a sense of Japan’s “enlightened national interest” but also of the “global public interests” they share with other members of the international community. It is implied that individual Japanese have an active role to play in ensuring that national and global interests overlap: “The main actors are individuals; individuals will change society and the world. From this will emerge a new society and a new Japan” (chap. 1, §V). Thus, while the English language is envisaged as having a clear promulgation function (Seargeant, 2009) in that it can be employed to project a Japanese presence overseas, at the same time The Frontier Within acknowledges a more nuanced role for English in facilitating the negotiation by individuals of complex national and international identities.

In addition to the role of English from a national policy perspective, it is also important to consider what the language means for individual Japanese. For most Japanese, learning English is more likely to be seen as enhancing individual life chances than conceived of as a national duty. Seargeant (2009) argues that English can be aspirational for Japanese on different levels. There is, of course, an instrumental desire for English as a means of improving employment

prospects in an increasingly globalized job market. Seargeant notes, however, that by itself English proficiency is unlikely to count for much compared with other, traditionally more significant, factors in shaping a Japanese person’s career opportunities, such as age, gender, and university attended. For those already well positioned in these respects, English may have added instrumental value, but for the vast majority of Japanese, English is still not a requirement for finding work. On the other hand, Seargeant suggests that anyone who feels disadvantaged within Japan’s traditional social hierarchy may be drawn to English because of its association with “Western” culture, which is perceived as offering more opportunities for personal advancement (because of higher levels of gender equality, for example). According to Seargeant, then, the appeal of English to Japanese needs to be understood not only in terms of “the potential that English will allow within given social structures”, but also “the potential that English will allow to transcend given social structures” (p. 123, original

emphasis).

Literature reviewed in this section demonstrates the complicated status of English in Japan. English is both a means for promoting the national interest overseas and a medium for developing a sense of belonging to an international community. It is an instrument of national policy, but also a tool that individual Japanese can utilize for their own betterment, and perhaps to develop identities that transcend the nation. English is, therefore, closely tied up with matters of Japanese citizenship, and with the tensions that exist between national and post- national perspectives. This means there is a clear need for research to illuminate how those charged with teaching English to young Japanese can contribute to citizenship education. Literature reviewed in 2.3 has established that FLTs can play a distinct role in teaching knowledge, values and skills for citizenship, but also suggests that this role implies the use of participatory, communicative pedagogies. The purpose of the next section of this review is to establish what

the literature tells us about how English is taught in Japan’s high schools. Government policy reviewed above might suggest that schools are focusing on the English communication skills targeted in the Action Plan. As explained below, however, numerous studies have revealed a disconnect between policy and practice which raises doubts about whether JTEs working in this

environment will be able to make any contribution at all to citizenship education. In this way, the next section underscores the necessity for my study.