Japanese Model of Schooling

Comparisons with the U.S.

Ryoko Tsuneyoshi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN:
  9781138992825
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136600869
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

In this book, Dr. Tsuneyoshi observes the educational approach of two nations, one most often cited as being the home of rugged individualism, and the champion of the free market, the other more often cited as being the most groupist amongst the industrialized societies, known for strong central guidance. He argues that American approach individualizes assistance, is competitive, focuses on the child's cognitive sphere, differentiates its faculty, and each faculty deals with the child in a specialized sphere. Meanwhile, the Japanese approach stresses the whole child, places children and faculty in close proximity with each other for extended periods of time in a cooperative framework, levels of self-containment are higher, collective goals, tasks, and reward structures are extensively organized, and the school provides the same treatment for all. Yet, despite such differences, Dr. Tsuneyoshi points out that we can notice many parallels, both in the contexts of education, and in the direction in which the two societies are headed. Dr. Tsuneyoshi brings to light both similarities and differences, asking and attempting to answer the difficult question all educators are asking: What do we need to teach children for the 21st century?

CHAPTER 1

Patterns of Childrearing

Legacy and Change

THE TRADITIONS: VIEWS OF CHILDHOOD IN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES

With the rising international status of Japan, visual images of Japanese people have become more readily available to the Western public. Yet, ironically, such images sometimes appear quite “alien” to the Japanese themselves. For example, Western photographers often focus their cameras on scenes that strike them as typically “Japanese.” As a result, photographs depicting rows of black-haired schoolchildren, bowing in unison in a classroom with the top of their heads facing the camera, end up in magazines. Photographers may be trying to focus on what seems typically “Japanese,” maybe an image of homogeneity, harmony, and orderliness, but from the Japanese perspective, the photographs sometimes tell more about how the Japanese are perceived than about who they are.

Stereotypical images of Japanese abound in the Western mass media, and even scholarly works sometimes purvey popularized versions of Japanese life. Thus, Japanese family relationships are portrayed as traditional, with mothers assumed to stay at home; Japanese men are said to be perfect “organization men,” sacrificing everything for their companies; and Japanese schools are oppressive and based on rote memorization. Accounts such as these tend to reconfirm existing stereotypes of the Japanese. The reality is often far more complicated, if not quite different.

The reverse is also true. For example, watching the Japanese mass media, one might receive the impression that the United States is crime-ridden, that Hollywood is mainstream America, and that Americans survive on fast food.

Regarding stereotypes of schooling, contrary to the common reputation of Japanese schools as tightly regimented, some American scholars have observed that the Japanese preschool and elementary school classrooms are usually noisy; not only that, but that the teachers seem, strangely enough, unbothered. The classroom observations of researchers such as Catherine Lewis (1984, 1988) and Joseph Tobin and his colleagues (1989) suggest that Japanese children, at least in their preschool and primary school years, are treated more leniently than their American counterparts despite the fact that the opposite would be predicted from Japan’s reputation in the West.

In the past as well, foreign visitors, such as missionaries, have left records about “tolerant” childrearing practices in Japan. Japanese customs of co-sleeping (soine), carrying children on one’s back (onbu), and feeding based on the child’s demand, were seen as indicating a level of tolerance not present in the West, especially a few generations ago. According to Ruth Benedict in her 1940s study:

Japanese babies are not brought up in the fashion that a thoughtful Westerner might suppose…. We put him immediately on a feeding schedule and a sleeping schedule, and no matter how he fusses before bottle time or bed time, he has to wait…. The Japanese, however, do not follow this course…. (Benedict 1967, p. 253)

One approach by present-day observers of Japanese childrearing and education has been to link the “tolerant” treatment of Japanese children to traditional Japanese views of childhood, whose traces, it is maintained, can still be detected in the values of contemporary Japanese. Catherine Lewis offers a typical explanation below:

The notion that young children are incapable of intentional wrongdoing is one that figures strongly in Japan’s childrearing history. My observations and those of Peak suggest that a benevolent interpretation of children’s wrongdoing characterizes contemporary preschools as well. (Lewis 1989, pp. 146–147)

Another similar line of reasoning links relics of the traditional Japanese teacher-pupil relationship patterns with teacher behavior today. According to this view, traditionally, Japanese teachers did not “instruct,” as in the present sense of the word, but were rather expected to be brotherly figures, role models of behavior and character, whom the children can try to emulate.

The image of the teacher in early modern Japan did not consist of, as seen especially in the cases of Western societies, a relationship between the teacher as a professional of instruction, who faces the children and teaches with authority. The relationship is, rather that of one proceeding before the other, where the teacher, as a model, walks one step faster than the child…. When we observe the present tendency of schoolteachers from this perspective, teachers themselves dislike the Western type of relationship where the teacher instructs with authority, backed by techniques of instruction, judgement, and professional knowledge. Rather, they prefer a ‘horizontal relationship,’ or at most, that of an understanding senior or an older brotherly figure. (Tsujimoto 1999, p. 218)

The manner in which Japanese teachers are led to treat children presumably differs by the age level, the social class, gender, and other attributes of the children, as well as the attributes of the teacher, and by various structural constraints; thus it is difficult to say with precision whether and how much such relics of tradition influence Japanese teacher attitudes today. It will suffice here to note that such observations do exist.

CHILDREARING AND CHILDREARING VALUES

The Japanese childrearing tradition has been said to be very lenient compared to its American counterpart. For example, the concept of child depravity, which is said to have characterized the traditional childrearing views of the early American settlers, has no counterpart in Japanese history.

According to an analysis of nineteenth-century childrearing advice, the “foremost” American doctrine of this period was

the Calvinist theory, which was adhered to not only by the New England Puritans but also by many of the other Protestant sects…. The keystone of Calvinist doctrine regarding child rearing was “infant depravity,” which, leaving theological subtleties aside, consisted in the belief that the infant was born “totally depraved” and doomed to depravity throughout life unless given careful and strict guidance by the parents and, ultimately, saved through Grace. (Sunley 1955, p. 159)

Such views of child depravity have no counterpart in Japan’s child-rearing thought. As scholars have generally agreed, the traditional Japanese view of childhood was that children are pure and innocent until contaminated by the adult world (Kojima 1989, p. 87; Shibano 1989, p. 227). Hara and Wagatsuma (1974, Chapter 3) note that the idea of “discipline” in the American sense of the word is alien to the Japanese childrearing tradition. If the proverb that symbolizes the traditional American approach is “Spare the rod and spoil the child,” its counterparts in Japan describe the child as “among the gods before age seven” or say that “children know no sin nor contamination.”

In seventeenth- to nineteenth-century Japan, when most of the population lived in rural villages, children were often assigned a sacred role in the village festivals since they were perceived to be close to the gods (Kami 1991, p. 177; Tokuoka 1986). Evil was associated with the adult world.

Influenced in part by such traditional views of childhood, “leaving it to nature” was the preferred childrearing mode in Japan. Children were seen as having a “natural” tendency to learn and to assimilate their environment (Shibano 1989, p. 228). Thus, the adult role was that of a bystander, to give the child a proper environment, and to intervene mainly when the child’s natural course of development seemed to be going astray (Kojima 1986, 1989; Shibano 1989, pp. 229–231).

Indeed, the view of children as pure and devoid of willfulness or bad intentions, the stress on the natural course of their development, and the belief that in a good environment, children will grow naturally, all resemble the logic applied to gardening. Thus, it is no coincidence that the writers of this period found the analogy to gardening very useful (Kojima 1989, p. 79; Shibano 1989, p. 225; Yokoyama 1986, p. 186; Yamazumi 1979, p. 40). The analogy assumes that what one is raising—whether a plant or a child—has a natural tendency to grow on its own. The traditional Japanese idea of painstakingly turning in the proper direction an inherently good child who has strayed off-course resembles the use of a stake to straighten a plant that has inadvertently grown crookedly.

On the other hand, traditional Western childrearing has been likened to the training of animals (Yamashita 1974, p. 128). The similarity between methods of “disciplining” children and the techniques used to train animals may derive from the revelation that, compared to adults, children are still primitive beings, prone to act on impulses, unable to delay gratification, and in possession of a willfulness that has to be corrected to set them on the path to civilized adulthood.

Of course, this traditional “disciplinary” strain of childrearing thought and the techniques that derive from this tradition (the extreme case being physical punishment) are no longer dominant in American childrearing thought. Today, parents in both Japan and the United States are most likely to be told to respond to their child’s emotional and physical needs, to understand that children aren’t intentionally being “bad,” and that when the time comes, children will outgrow most of their irritating behavior. Instead of associating willful behavior with intentional rebellion, parents are told, for example, to think of dropping things and throwing tantrums as natural at a certain developmental stage. Changes in society, such as new ways to view childhood, the impact of disciplines such as psychology, and changes in the family and society, have all worked to undermine the “disciplinary” tradition in the United States (Tsuneyoshi and Boocock 1997).

At the same time, as cited previously, observers of Japanese and American education still often point to the pervasive influence of past traditions when they enter elementary school classrooms in the two countries and witness the different relationships which exist between the children and teacher.

Values are always shifting. So are their social bases. It is difficult today to say with certainty how much the relics of traditional views of childhood and child care affect the manner in which adults view and treat children in Japanese and American society today. It will suffice simply to note that as described above, scholars still recognize the influence of the different traditions within the two societies today.

THE TRADITION OF FAMILY SOCIALIZATION

In terms of family relationships, the close mother-child tie has often been regarded as one of the central traits of the Japanese family. A tendency of Japanese scholars, especially in the post–World War II period under strong American influence, has been to compare Japanese families with Western, especially American, families, and to understand Japanese characteristics through this comparison.

Earlier works often had a distinctly critical approach to Japan, upholding the West as a model to which Japan should strive to become. With the rise in Japan’s position in the world, the increasing visibility of social problems in the West, and the rise of a new generation, this earlier trend is being replaced by a tone which is considerably less self-critical.

The parent-child tie, especially the emotional tie between mother and child, has often been described as the most salient aspect of the Japanese family, whereas in American families, the relationship between husband and wife has been said to be central (Masuda 1969, ch. 1; Kamiko and Masuda 1981; Befu 1986). The Japanese maternal role has been described as permeating spouse relationships, so that the husband is treated as, one might say, the “oldest child” (Lebra 1984, p. 133; Vogel 1971; Yamamura 1980, p. 63). Scholars have talked about the Japanese “mother fixation” (Lebra 1976, p. 154) and the sense of oneness between mother and child (Caudill and Weinstein 1974). Japanese society has been said to be governed by the “maternal” principle in contrast to the “paternal” principle of the West (Kawai 1976). In his unique analysis of the Japanese media, Yamamura (1971) argued that the Japanese had glorified the maternal figure to a near “religious” (ch. 4) level; she was an all-sacrificing figure, internalized in the child, the motivation of guilt and achievement, the idealized object of gratitude.

The relationship between the caretaker and the child in general has been said to be emotionally and physically closer in Japan than in the West. Traditional Japanese practices of co-sleeping and carrying a child on one’s back or in a sling are seen as consistent with such a close parent-child relationship. This is contrasted with the American practice of having separate rooms for children, seen as symbolic of the greater physical and emotional separation between parent and child.

Empathy is regarded as a key concept. Japanese childrearing culture has been described as, one might say, a “culture of empathy” (Lebra 1976, ch. 3). A characteristic Japanese method of persuasion is to appeal to the child’s emotions, to his or her sense of guilt (DeVos 1974; DeVos and Suarez-Orozco 1986; Okonogi 1982). This tendency has been confirmed in more recent research as well. The study of mothers and children in Japan and the United States conducted by Hiroshi Azuma, Robert Hess and colleagues suggested that Japanese mothers more readily appealed to empathy, whereas American mothers tended to assert their authority (Hess et al. 1986; Azuma 1994). In the former case, the expectation was that the child would, based on empathy, behave “spontaneously,” without anything being said.

Needless to say, the tendencies laid out here are merely tendencies. American parents and teachers undoubtedly appeal to a child’s empathy, and Japanese also persuade by means other than emotion, such as displaying their authority and power, or by explaining the consequences of an action. However, scholars comparing the two nations have noticed differences in the emphasis placed on factors such as empathy and physical contact in the socialization process.

Now, the closeness of the emotional ties between mother and child, the dedication of the mother to her children, the subordination of the husband-wife relationship to the parent-child relationship, and appeals to empathy, as were mentioned above, have all been regarded as central characteristics of the Japanese family and family socialization, as compared to the West. The maternal role permeates not only parent-child relationships, but husband-wife relationships as well. The wife was seen as taking care of the husband as if he were another child (Vogel 1971, p. 200; Lebra 1984, pp. 131–133). The traditional Japanese mother was associated with an image of self-sacrifice—the emotional pillar of the Japanese family, as described by Yamamura (1971, ch. 4).

At the same time, a word of caution is required here. To discuss “Japanese” characteristics out of context sometimes feeds popular stereotypes, such as that Japanese women’s role is “uniquely” traditional and backward, and that this leads to their overdedication to their children. It is often forgotten, for example, that the majority of married women in Japan now work; stereotypical views of Japanese women often seem to rely on an outdated and limited image.

The pitfalls of studies on the Japanese and their characteristics, some of which have been, somewhat misleadingly, labeled discussions on “Japaneseness” (nihonjinron), have often been documented and will not be repeated here (Sugimoto 1982). The tendency has been to compare Japan with the “West” while actually referring only to the United States, and even then not in any syst...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Editor’s Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• CHAPTER 1 Patterns of Childrearing: Legacy and Change
• CHAPTER 2 The Basic American and Japanese Models of Schooling
• CHAPTER 3 The Basic Patterns at Work
• CHAPTER 4 The Emergence of the Japanese School Model
• CHAPTER 5 The Japanese Model under Siege
• CHAPTER 6 Newcomers in the Japanese Classroom: Implications for Change
• CHAPTER 7 Parallel Issues and Concerns: Japan and the United States
• Concluding Remarks
• Appendix
• Bibliography
• Index
• About the Author