While the above success stories were identified during the focus group discussions with MSN members, the challenges were hardly shared. This was because any negative outcomes tended to be avoided in the group meetings in Japan in general. It could be assumed that the sensitivity of the issues the MSN was facing included Hatakeyama’s irrational behaviour, as discussed in this section. Hence, the challenges reported in this section were identified mainly from the individual interviews and observations.
163
(i) Ainu is not a homogenous group
Firstly, MSN’s ESD efforts indicated that the local Ainu group was not homogenous. In fact, they were diverse, complex and at times contradicted each other within a group and in the relationship with the majority, Wajin Japanese people. The discussions on the proposed industrial management plant showed significant complexity within the Ainu group. The local Ainu people had diverse thoughts on the construction plan and Hatakeyama’s rights claim. While Hatakeyama personally heard members of Hatakeyama’s AAH Mombetsu Chapter support him, few did so publicly (MSN, 2010b).
Other than the Ainu individuals who were under the political and economic pressures from their organisations and industries in Mombetsu, some Ainu individuals did not want to get involved in any action related to the Ainu because of their fear of discrimination. They said:
Wake not a sleeping baby! 47 Don’t mention the word of Ainu anymore. I just
want to forget about it and live quietly.
寝た子を起こさないでほしい。アイヌ、アイヌって言わないでほしい。むしろ忘 れて、静かに暮らさせてほしい。(MSN, 2010c)
They feared that Hatakeyama’s activism would remind them of past discrimination and pain. These were issues that they did not want to recall, and would rather forget.
One Ainu MSN member made the following comment that indicates the complex relationship within the Ainu group:
47
164
The Ainu people never come together. They are always busy fighting. Wajin Japanese are more trustworthy than Ainu.
アイヌは、ばらばら。いつだってけんかばかり。和人のほうがアイヌより信頼で
きる。(F Noguchi, 2013).
Colonisation destroyed their community, including their social ties. Current local Ainu people do not have opportunities to unite themselves to share their thoughts and concerns.
Critical EE and critical theory recognise the marginalised people in a society. It identifies their struggles, and resistance to the power of the majority. In these theories, however, marginalised people tend to be treated as if they were a homogenous group against the majority. In these theories, the complex relationship within a marginalised group is rarely understood. Likewise in MSN, a socially-critical approach to the activities helped participants understand that there were struggles and resistances of the local Ainu people in relation to the Wajin people. This could not bring participants a clear understanding, however, on what to do with such diversity, complexity and contradiction within a marginalised people when both the marginalised and the majority had to work on the common goal of achieving local sustainable development.
(ii) Disempowerment of few Ainu
The second challenge was identified through observations at MSN meetings. The MSN efforts left some Ainu members feeling disempowered, including Hatakeyama. This was a contrasting or even contradicting finding, because the social actions and learning activities of MSN effectively empowered many key members, as presented in 5.2.1. These members were mostly Wajin, Japanese and
165
some Ainu member who were relatively from a younger generation than Hatakeyama.
The most symbolic incident of the disempowerment was Hatakeyama’s ‘irrational’ behaviour during and after the arbitration process through HEDCC from 2011 to 2012, as detailed in Chapter 7. Around that time, MSN members were split into two groups over the strategies for Hatakeyama’s claim at the HEDCC process. Hatakeyama’s words and attitudes were inconsistent between the two groups. While many MSN members celebrated the result of the arbitration, Hatakeyama seemed unsatisfied with the result and asserted his wish to conduct illegal whaling. It was observed that Hatakeyama became depressed, angry and irritated during and after the arbitration process. His behaviour upset the MSN members, who saw it as irrational (F Noguchi, 2013).
5.3
‘Patchy empowerment’: Success or ‘unsuccess’?
The cross-analysis between successes and challenges of MSN’s ESD efforts highlighted different degrees of local empowerment. The MSN’s ESD efforts resulted in a mosaic; an uneven and unbalanced degree of community empowerment between the larger majority of Wajin, the younger generation of Ainu people, and people in Hatakeyama’s generation. Hence, different degrees of local community empowerment were referred to as ‘patchy empowerment’. Patchy empowerment was contrary to the intention of ESD for MSN that aimed to achieve community development with “no-one’s exclusion” (Tsurumi, 1999, p. 344). Among the Ainu members observed as disempowered, Hatakeyama’s
166
disempowerment was so critical that it had the potential to eliminate all the successes of the MSN. While Hatakeyama’s empowerment through the actions and learnings of MSN were of critical importance to ESD, he became the least empowered of all. Patchy empowerment implies a problem in the understanding of a socially-critical approach and in the guiding theories which include critical EE. This sets social actions and empowerment as its own goal of education (Fien, 1995, p. 6).
Audience feedback following my presentation on MSN’s ESD practice in 2010 became the very beginning of the investigation into the possible problems in the understanding of ESD. After the presentation, this audience came up to me and commented as follows: “This is not ESD. How many Ainu people are living in Mombetsu?” It was ultimately assumed that this comment might relate to the struggle in understanding ‘patchy empowerment’. Ultimately, it questioned what socially-critical ESD is really for.
The assumption was that some degree of utilitarian view might be embedded in critical EE. When the presentation on the MSN was made in 2010, the MSN had only just been established based on the interests of a few individuals and had not yet achieved any large social impact through mobilising the networks of the MSN members. It was assumed that this audience might not have seen the MSN as part of ESD because of this lack of social impact. Based on the same understanding, it was assumed that this audience would see the MSN as part of ESD once they knew of the social impact the MSN’s ESD efforts made through collective efforts by 2012. With that in mind, it must be asked what ESD really means to the few Ainu people, like Hatakeyama.
167