Japans Censorship or a Way to Maintain Neutrality - Assignment Example

Japan’s Textbook Approval System: Is it a means of censorship or a way to maintain neutrality? A look at the Japanese history textbook controversy Over the last few decades, many political issues related to Japan and World War II have been covered in the media. They range from monetary compensation issues to war victims to the visiting of the Yasukuni shrine to the presence and strength of Japan’s self-defense force. Of the many issues related to the involvement of Japan in WWII, one issue essentially envelops them all. It is this that has possibly caused the most controversy and created the most outcries of them all: history textbooks and how they are approved. The Japanese textbook controversy dates as far back as the 1950s. Ever since the beginning of the controversy, it has represented a struggle between progressive (the left) and conservative (the right) minds. While the former demand the right to depict Japan’s wartime record more accurately and critically, the latter, often referred to as nationalists, favor more control and a reduction for details pertaining to Japan’s wartime transgressions. The media often depict the debate as a struggle between Japan and the rest of the world (Beal Nozaki & al. 2001, 177; Seaton 2005), which is not the case. In fact, the problem only entered the international scene in the 1980s. Early examples of controversy at the domestic level include a series of writings entitled “The Deplorable Textbooks” by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in the 1950s, as well as Prof. Ienaga’s struggle for the approval of his textbooks from the 1950s to the 1990s1. Many have argued that the system lacks neutrality. Prof. Ienaga Saburo even tried to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the screening system in court (Nozaki, 2000, 114), but the system has changed over the years and is not what it used to be. I propose to exam two relatively recent issues: the establishment of the “Neighboring Country Clause” in 1982 and the approval of Atarashi Rekishi Kyoukasho (New History Textbook) in 2001. The first might be considered a victory for the left, while the second might be considered one for the right. Both of these events have been central in the debate about whether Japan’s textbook approval system is neutral or not. By neutral, I mean the quality of something that is “not engaged on either side; not aligned with a political or ideological grouping” (Merriam-Webster 2008). Japan has been accused of censorship and negationism, which is the act of “rewriting history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts” (answers.com) countless times. The textbook approval system, however, is not at fault; it assures neutrality. In order to understand the system and ascertain its neutrality, I propose to have a brief look at its history and the process through which textbooks are approved. Then I will look at the 1982 and 2001 issues to determine how they have affected the system. In order to fully understand the textbook approval process, let us first look at what is expected to be learned in Japan’s history class. History and why the Japanese learn it History is the “branch of knowledge that records and explains past events” (Merriam-Webster). It is a subject that is taught all over the globe and, like any other subject taught at an educational institution, needs to be defined and regulated by a governing body. In Japan, the Ministry of Education and Science2 (MEXT) defines the objectives and content of subjects taught at the elementary and secondary levels. Each subject has specific objectives for each grade level. Japan’s history course objectives are summarized as follows: “under the Japanese national standard curriculum, or government guidelines for teaching, the goals of history education are emphasized on knowledge acquisition and fostering patriotic spirits.” (Fuyada, 313, 2003)3. Japan also requires the use of textbooks for teaching and thus, textbooks approved by the ministry will have a direct influence on what the pupils learn. With this knowledge in hand, let us now look at this system itself and how it works. Present-Day Textbook Approval Process The textbook approval and distribution has four different phases. The whole process roughly takes four years. First, publishing companies hire a number of specialists in the subject in question and have them write a textbook. Writers are free to create the book the way they want and use their own particular teaching methods, though they must follow the criteria published by MEXT. Next, the produced textbook is screened by the Textbook Approval and Research Council, a council that acts on behalf of MEXT. Any editing that is needed is noted and publishers are expected to rewrite the sections following MEXT’s criteria. Once the textbook is deemed suitable, it is made available to the public. Boards of education and schools then decide which textbook to use out of those available4. Finally, the books are ordered, the publisher prints them and they are directly sent to the schools (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). An important thing to note here is that students do not directly pay for their textbooks. Rather, it is the government of Japan that bears their cost5. Some authors have advocated the removal of the system, but the very fact that the textbooks are publicly funded makes this request difficult. Textbooks are very profitable for publishers to sell and thus their quality must be assured. Let us now look at the origin of this system and see how the system is used. Brief History of the Textbook Approval System The textbook approval system was first implemented during the post-World War II occupation. Before that, Japan’s education system was centralized and the government only allowed government-issued textbooks to be used in class (kokuteikyoukasho). Education being one of the fundamental building blocks of a nation, the Allied powers decided that education reform was needed and had the Fundamental Education Law be passed in 1947. In doing so, they hoped to promote greater democracy within Japan’s educational system. Decentralization was also considered important; one of the main changes was the implementation of boards of education. Tied to this was the School Education Law (1947) that brought changes to the school textbook system. According to this new system, private publishers could create their own textbooks, which then had to be assessed by the government before used in the classroom (Nozaki 2000, 100-101). Issues facing the Textbook Approval System As previously mentioned, many disputes arose from the textbook screening system since its introduction. More recently, however, two incidents do stand out: the 1982 release of newly published textbooks and the 2001 publication of the New History Textbook6. Let us first look at the 1982 dispute, whose importance is reflected in the fact that 1) it was “the year that Japan first began quarreling with neighboring countries over historical issues” (Shibuichi, 2008) and 2) the Japanese government was eventually pressured into changing its policy to appease international and local anger. Background leading to the 1982 controversy The present-day textbook approval system started in 1947. At the time, the Japanese government limited the amount of information related to WWII in textbooks saying that Japanese historians were still debating the extent of Japan’s involvement and the true nature of Japan’s war crimes. Later on, in the 1960s, more detailed explanations of Japan’s involvement in WWII were allowed mainly because of partial court victories by Ienaga Saburo, a famous historian that filed a series of lawsuits against the government. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the main actors on both sides were divided as follows: The left was comprised of various scholars like Ienaga, progressive media groups such as the Asahi Shimbun, as well as various trade unions – namely the Nikkyouso, a teacher’s union comprised of more than 727,000 elementary and junior high school teachers. On right side were various right-wing scholars, such as those at Tsukuba University, some right-wing politicians including some heavyweight LDP politicians and some business interest groups (Yayama 1983, Nozaki 2002, Shibuichi 2008). While these various parties were battling it out on the political scene, MEXT “[revised] its Instructional Guidelines in 1977 and 1978” (Nozaki Y., 2002, 605). Although the new guidelines did not specifically target textbooks, they were right-leaning in their suggestions that “the Hinomaru flag be hoisted and the Kamigayo anthem be sung at school events” (Nozaki Y., 2002, 605). MEXT also revised its textbook screening regulation to make authors follow the Instructional Guidelines more closely and in doing so made it clear that they wanted a firmer control on the textbook screening process. These rules were to be implemented in the following round of textbooks screening for textbooks to be published in 1981-82. What Sparked the 1982 Issue Although parties on both sides had been quite vocal about the textbook issue, media coverage was one of the major reasons that the controversy gained such momentum. On June 26 1982, the Asahi Shinbun claimed that MEXT’s screening council had required textbook authors to change the term “invasion” (shinryaku) to “advance” (shinshutsu) in sections dealing with the invasion of Japanese soldiers into Northern China. This, coupled with various other reports of forced changes or watered down expressions of passages depicting Japan’s wartime tragedies, put the spotlight on Japan’s textbook approval system first at the national level and then all over the globe. Although some of the reported changes were true, the most famous change of them all (that of “invasion” to “advance”) was found to be false a month later7. In fact, “the term “invasion” still appeared in some textbooks, while in others the word “advance” had been used in the original manuscript” (Shibuichi 2008). This fallacy only became widely publicized several months later with headlines such as "Uproar Over a Non-issue: How Newspapers Misled the Public over Textbooks" (Yayama 1983), but by that time MEXT and the Japanese government had already been questioned and accused of revisionism. What had happened over the course of that month and the following months? Once the news was reported in the newspapers, the Chinese and Korean reactions were almost immediate. In July, the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China lodged formal complaints with the Japanese government. Vietnam and Okinawa also took part in the uproar with the Vietnamese government and two major Okinawan newspapers demanding revisions be made to corrected passages concerning their history. In August, while protests were still being held over the issue, Cabinet Secretary Miyazawa Kiichi managed to appease voices a little by officially stating that the government would review the issue and try to promote friendship with its Asian neighbors. Although not very clear, the Korean government and, afterwards, the Chinese government decided to accept the proposal and wait it out. Miyazawa had wanted MEXT to allow for an immediate revision of the textbooks but MEXT refused, not wanting to give in to external pressure. Not surprisingly, right-wingers backed MEXT’s decision. In November 1982, MEXT brought something concrete to the table. They revised the textbook screening process with the so-called Neighboring Countries Clause, which, in essence, says that “history texts should be edited so that they do not cause friction or acrimony in Japans relations with its Asian neighbors” (Hanai 2001). MEXT also stated that “it would not ask authors to replace the term “aggression” with “advance” or to add phrasing suggesting the Nanjing Massacre occurred as the result of a moment of chaos” (Nozaki, 2002, 608). This, in effect, gave authors much more liberty than before. Previously reported wording issues by the media were no longer a problem and disputes about the reporting of major hostilities such as the Nanjing Massacre could be reported by authors. In fact, almost all textbooks at the elementary, junior high and high school levels reported the Nanjing Massacre in some form (Tawara 1998). Although the battle over censorship and revisionism was far from over, the new clause was a victory for the left-leaning parties. Was the textbook screening policy favoring the censorship of textbooks prior to 1982? It is very difficult to say. It would appear, however, that the new clause helped balance the system and give left-leaning authors the right to express their thoughts. This does not, however, mean that revisions brought to some textbooks before the clause were unjustified. As an example of the necessity for the textbook screening system, here is an example of a request for the revision of a manuscript prior to the establishment of the “Neighboring Country Clause”: Manuscript: When we want to change our Japanese society to a more human one, we have to think about how we will achieve such change. Marxist ideology may provide an important clue. Suggestions for Revision: The tone is too strong for the students. Reconsider. Be sure to point out some of the problems of socialism. (quoted from Yayama 1983 312) This was a reference submitted by the Union of Publishing Workers to show that “even in such unobjectionable cases, the Ministry officials demanded revisions.” (Yayama 1983, 313). Even to the untrained eye, it is obvious that the author does not maintain an objective point of view in this quote. Although similar right-leaning passages are sure to be found, this passage shows that 1) authors try to transmit their ideologies through their textbooks and hence that 2) the textbook screening system is necessary to maintain a certain degree of objectivity in textbooks. Overall, we can see that the 1982 controversy brought a certain balance to the history textbook issue. Conservatives may blame and criticize the media for wrongly accusing the screening council and progressives may argue that the screening council was showing bias and being unsupportive of Asian and Okinawan war victims. However, putting the causes aside, the end result enabled authors to express their opinions more freely while still maintaining a system that assures objectivity and quality. New History Textbook In the early 1990s, the issue of comfort women surfaced when several women finally came out and described their experiences as sexual slaves for the Japanese army. These developments along with some Japanese historians confirming their discourse lead to the Japanese government acknowledging the involvement of Japanese Imperial Forces in the establishment of brothels. This acknowledgment “gave authors the justification they needed for including the topic in their textbooks” (Nozaki, 2002, 608), which led to many high school history textbooks mentioning the comfort women issue and passing screening in the mid-1990s. This was a victory for the left, but created much unhappiness among the right. Many right-wingers were starting to feel that the government was allowing too many liberties and a group of them started to focus on the history textbook issue. Professor Nobukatsu, who had once belonged to the left, published “a series of books stating that progressive ideologies were still dominant in Japanese school textbooks” (Shibuichi 2008) and later, with the help of other nationalists, formed the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform (Atarashii rekishi kyoukasho wo tsukuru kai). Their members believed that the progressive camp had gone too far and that a “new history textbook” needed to be created representing their views. They justified the need by saying that the progressive camp had had the backing of various groups and countries over the previous two decades and had “pressured” Japan into submissiveness. Many changes had been made to the textbook screening process, with most of them being in favor of the progressives. Shibuichi suggests that the situation was so unbalanced that popular political manga writer Kobayashi, who had kept an “anti-establishment stance” until then, decided to join the group to help tip the scales back (Shibuichi 2008). The ball did, however, return to the camp of the conservatives in the late 1990s. Conservative LDP politicians used their influence and in January 1999, MEXT asked publishers ‘to make their book content more “balanced” ’ (Nozaki, 2002, 616). Towara explains that publishers exerted “self-censorship” and erased some sections of the textbooks, most notably the references to comfort women (Towara 37 2000). Progressives were furious and the publication of Kokumin no rekishi (History of the Japanese People) by one of the members of the Society for History Textbook Reform in October 1999 only added fuel to the fire (Inaga 2002). Meanwhile, the Society’s New History Textbook was being screened for publication in 2002. While until now, rightist council members had been working on limiting the portrayal of Japan’s wartime crimes in textbooks. Now it was the turn of leftist members to oppose the adoption of a book. Council members, such as Noda Eijiro, even “started discussing rejecting it” (Nozaki, 2002, 617) but it was eventually accepted after 137 revisions were made. Reactions Both the Korean and Chinese reacted negatively to the approval of the New History Textbook and warned Japan that its adoption would damage Japan’s relation with neighboring countries. Domestically, left-wing parties resented its adoption and felt that “all the efforts they [had] made in the last fifty years or so were jeopardized by the right-wing politicians and ideologues.” (Inaga. 2002, 24) Although right-wingers were happy with its adoption, they complained that the revised parts were a sign that Japan had succumbed to international pressure. Whether the book should be used in the classroom or not is a difficult question to answer. In the end, once guidelines are set, the screening council’s duty is to limit subjectivity. Not approving the textbook would have been taking a moral stance. Although it would have helped relations with neighboring countries, it would have caused dissent within Japan. Even taking the viewpoint shared by many authors that the textbook was lacking in certain areas, the system still prevailed because only an estimated 0.04% of junior high schools (roughly 520-570 copies) decided to use the textbook. Part of the selection process is the board of education’s decision. Whether the screening council sees it fit or not, the system in essence has two selection processes: the first being that is done by the council appointed by MEXT, and the second by the boards of educations. In this case, even though the book passed the first part of the screening, it did not pass the second, as its market would seem to indicate. Conclusion Hein and Selden explain that history lessons are suppose to “[instruct] people how to think and act as national subjects and how to view relations with outsiders” (Hein Selden, 2001, 4). Does the Japanese textbook screening system help obtain this objective? I believe what I have said shows that it does. Its basic purpose is to help maintain conformity; it is a quality assurance program. In a society like Japan with “many wars under its belt”, controversy is bound to occur. The textbook approval system and its history is the perfect example of the struggle between those that wish to face their history and those that wish to forget it. The system itself is, however, not to blame for man’s shortcomings. Polls have shown that public opinion does not favor the right (Jeans, 2005, 193) and over the course of time, the right will only be losing support. The textbook approval system is in constant evolution. Court battles, politics, the media as well as the public have all contributed to this evolution and will continue to do so for the years to come. In the end, a textbook is a tool. How it is used will always be up to the teacher. Read More