Contested concepts: internationalisation and multicultural coexistence in Japan – with special focus on ethnic classrooms

Abstract

The terms internationalisation and multicultural coexistence are used by a variety of actors. Depending on their respective position in society, they endow these terms with different meanings. The article aims to show how these meanings are contested and negotiated. The examination combines discourse analysis with insights into practice gained through participant observation and in-depth interviews. By focusing on the micro level and the issue of ethnic classrooms in Osaka it will become clear that multicultural coexistence, though often criticised as an anodyne catchphrase, has the potential to promote the right to ethnic education.

Keywords:

• multicultural coexistence (tabunka kyôsei)
• internationalisation (kokusaika)
• ethnic classrooms (minzoku gakkyû)
• Korean Minority (zainichi)

1. Introduction

On 6th July 2019 the author of this article had the opportunity to watch a madangguk, a Korean yard theatre, conducted at the plenary session of the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ (Tabunka kyôsei kyôiku no suishin wo mezasu Ôsaka shimin no kai). Laughter arose when one actor played the monster Godzilla: his part was to visualize the threat of internationalisation (kokusaika). How did it come about that internationalisation was depicted as a monster? The narrative that unfolded in the short play sheds light on two key concepts influencing the situation of foreign residents in Japan: multicultural coexistence (tabunka kyôsei) and internationalisation (kokusaika). The tension between the two terms highlighted in the short play differs fundamentally from the representation on the homepage of Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIC) that suggests a symbiotic relation. Multicultural coexistence appears there as a sub-category of the overarching concept internationalisation, alongside with the promotion of international exchange (kokusai kôryû) and international cooperation (kokusai kyôryoku) programs. The tension of the terms visualised in the short play also differs from descriptions in terms of a time sequence as in Flowers’ article ‘From kokusaika to tabunka kyôsei’ (Flowers 2012). Furthermore, the positive usage of the term multicultural coexistence seems to contradict the sceptical and critical views of the concept that prevail in academic discourse. Nakamatsu (2014, 140) for instance calls it an ‘anodyne catchphrase’.

The reason why multicultural coexistence is connotated positively and the relation between the two terms is perceived as antagonistic by the actors in Osaka lies in the current situation of the Korean minority and ethnic classrooms (minzoku gakkyû). After World War II, the members of the Korean minority living in Japan were deprived of Japanese nationality and received the status of special permanent residents. Ethnic classrooms were established in the 1950s in Japanese public elementary schools and junior high schools for children with Korean roots. They were the result of a protest movement launched by members of the Korean minority in 1948, when the GHQ forced Korean schools to close down. Due to the support of various civil actors and despite many difficulties they managed to persist. Especially in Osaka they have been playing an important role in the education of children of the Korean minority. In April 2017, however, a notification of the school executive board in Osaka City announced that ethnic classrooms should be reorganised and renamed into international clubs (kokusai kurabu). The above mentioned ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ came together to protest against this policy. As this example shows, the terms internationalisation and multicultural coexistence are used by a variety of actors, who, depending on the respective position in society, endow the terms with different meanings.

The article aims to show how the different meanings of internationalisation and multicultural coexistence are contested and negotiated. Title and approach are inspired by the monograph ‘Contested Citizenship. Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe’ (Koopmans, et al. 2005). In regard to citizenship in Europe, Koopmans, et al. (2005, 9) stress the ‘dynamic aspects’ and conceive it ‘as a conceptual (and political) space in which different actors (which include nation-states, but also subnational actors such as political parties or civil society actors) and policies can be situated.’ In comparison to their large-scale study, this article covers only a small area within the ‘conceptual (and political) space’ of citizenship with a focus on claims staked out by one minority group in Japan. The focus on the micro level and the issue of ethnic classrooms in Osaka, though, make it possible to analyse how the two terms of multicultural coexistence and internationalisation are used in practice. Concerning the concept of internationalisation Goodman (2007) has examined its ‘multivocality’ in the context of the Japanese educational reform in the 1980s. This article conforms with Goodman’s approach and ‘undertake(s) a detailed, “thick description” (…) in a particular social context during a defined historical period’ (Goodman 2007, 71). It will heed the relation between the two terms kokusaika and tabunka kyôsei as seen from the perspective of the Korean minority. The examination will combine discourse analysis with insights into practice gained through participant observation and in-depth interviews. It will become clear that multicultural coexistence is a multi-layered term and has the potential to be used strategically to demand the socio-political right to ethnic education.

The next section gives a short outline of the two concepts and their historical background. Section 3 introduces how the terms are perceived in academic discourse and describes the stance of the author, while section 4 investigates the situation of ethnic classrooms in Osaka and the stance of members of the Korean minority. The concluding remark will refer to the current situation during the coronavirus pandemic.

2. An outline of the two concepts

Internationalisation was initially a top-down measure, promoted and implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the predecessor of today’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIC). In the ‘Guidelines for international exchange in local governments’ of 1987 it stresses the importance to improve the quality and quantity of measures on the local level to meet Japan’s growing role in the international community. Background factors include the bubble economy of the 1980s and Japan’s emergence as economic superpower. As Japanese companies were increasingly expanding overseas, the promotion of international understanding was thought mandatory to back up this development. The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme (JET-Programme), established in 1988 and still continuing, is one typical measure of this approach: young graduates, mainly from English speaking countries are hired as Assistant Language Teachers (ALT), Coordinators for International Relations (CIR) or Sports Exchange Advisers (SEA) for a period of up to five years in order to broaden the knowledge of Japanese citizens about international issues.

The concept of multicultural coexistence, on the other hand, developed due to grassroots movements in local communities. The ‘living-together (tomo ni ikiru)’-movement of the Korean minority and the support activities after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 that were launched in order to help foreign residents to get access to necessary information provided the basis for further developments. A proposal of a meeting in 1993 concerning the town development of the district Ôhin in Kawasaki City, an area with a big Korean minority, is thought to be the first attestation of the combination of multicultural (tabunka) and coexistence (kyôsei) in a newspaper article (Tamura, Kitamura, and Takayanagi 2007, 13). The founding of the Center for Multicultural Coexistence (Tabunka kyôsei sentâ) in Kobe is seen as the beginning of a broad use of the term (Tamura, Kitamura, and Takayanagi 2007, 13; Menju 2017, 63). Whereas internationalisation was targeted at the Japanese majority, the starting points of multicultural coexistence were the needs of non-Japanese minority groups. In 2006 the term entered the national policy discourse, when the MIC published two fundamental documents concerning multicultural coexistence: the ‘Report of the working group on the promotion of multicultural coexistence’ (MIC, 2006a) and the ‘Plan for the promotion of multicultural coexistence in local communities’ (MIC, 2006b). The position of tabunka kyôsei on the HP of the MIC mentioned in the introduction goes back to the ‘Plan’, where multicultural coexistence is called the ‘third pillar’ of internationalisation alongside international exchange and international cooperation programs. The new keyword ‘multicultural coexistence’ is defined as ‘People with different national and ethnic background respect each other’s cultural differences and, while striving to build equal relationships, live together as members of the local community.’ (MIC, 2006a, 5) Foreigners are here recognized as part of the local community. This new approach is the result of the arrival of so-called newcomers – foreign residents, whose numbers have increased since the mid-1980s and who have formed new minority groups inside Japanese society. Particularly after the reform of Japan’s immigration law in 1990, descendants of former Japanese emigrants to Latin-America, mainly Brazil, have come back to Japan, recruited as they were to work in automobile, electronic and other manufacturing industries. However, the lack of integration measures, especially classes in the Japanese language, has resulted in the formation of isolated immigrant communities inside Japanese society and the rise of many social issues, not least tensions between minority groups and the Japanese majority. Accordingly, in the ‘Plan’ of the MIC, the necessity to consider the needs of foreigners with insufficient Japanese proficiency are stressed. A revision of the ‘Plan for the promotion of multicultural coexistence in local communities’ was released in September 2020 (MIC, 2020a). While the Plan of 2006 put the main focus on measures of how foreign residents, especially newcomers, should be supported, the revision redefines their position by using the terms ‘active’ and ‘autonomous’, treating them not only as members, but stressing the possibility and the necessity of them becoming keypersons in the local community (MIC, 2020b).

On the HP of the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) as well as on the HP of MIC internationalisation and multicultural coexistence are represented as two symbiotic concepts that exist side by side without major tensions, while also suggesting an implicit hierarchy as multicultural coexistence appears only as a subcategory of internationalisation. The revision of the ‘Plan for the promotion of multicultural coexistence in local communities’ in 2020, however, demonstrates a growing acknowledgement of the relevance of multicultural coexistence. An article in Nihon Keizai Shinbun of 2019/10/25 states an increase of seven years in a row and names a number of 2,820,000 foreign residents. Statistics of Japan (2020/12/11a) names a total number of 2,951,365 foreign residents for June 2020. Many International Exchange Associations are in charge of both traditional tasks belonging to the realm of internationalisation, such as exchange programmes with partner cities abroad and the organization of events for members of the Japanese majority on the one hand and the new challenge of promoting multicultural coexistence by offering Japanese classes and consultation counters on the other. Kim and Streich (2020) show in their paper ‘Tabunka Kyôsei without immigration policy’ how difficult this situation is.

3. The concepts in academic discourse and the stance of the author

When the concept of internationalisation emerged in the 1980s, in academic discourse sceptical and critical voices prevailed that saw a connection between the rhetoric of internationalisation and ‘a growth in nationalist sentiment and increasingly tighter definitions of what it meant to be Japanese’ (Goodman 2007, 72). Later research stresses this point as well. Kashiwazaki (2011, 45–47) points out, that promoting internationalisation and international understanding ultimately resulted in a solidification of the cognitive frame of the nation state and the perception of Japan and the rest of the world as interrelated but also, in ethnic terms, distinct. The analysis of Iwabuchi (2007) shows how soft and popular versions of internationalisation and the dichotomy between Japanese and foreigners have been produced, reproduced and consumed in various TV programs.

Hatsuse (1993, 4–5) on the other hand, while criticising the superficial character of events under the name of international exchange, describes the positive outcomes of internationalisation for foreign residents. With the ratification of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in 1981, the situation for foreign residents gradually improved. Specifically, the nationality clause was struck from the National Pension Law and the Children’s Allowance Laws, enabling members of the Korean minority to get access. From 1986 on all foreign residents have been able to join the national health insurance. In 1993 the fingerprinting requirement for special permanent residents were abolished. He calls these policies and other measures such as the provision of multilingual guidebooks with information for living in Japan uchinaru kokusaika (internal internationalisation), which is also the title of his book first published in 1985.

A different approach is also taken by McConnell (2000), and, as already mentioned in the introduction, by Goodman (2007). Both authors emphasize the ‘multivocality’ of the term (McConnell 2000, 5; Goodman 2007, 73). McConnell (2000, 7) writes in regard to the JET-programme: ‘As the concept of internationalization moves from the corridors of the sponsoring ministries through prefectural offices to local schools and classrooms across the nation, it is reinterpreted.’ These reinterpretations, however, are not formulated in official documents and not all voices have the same power in discourse. The author therefore agrees with the critical stances of Kashiwazaki and Iwabuchi.

Compared with internationalisation the term tabunka kyôsei has been received slightly more favourably in academic discourse, as it treats foreigners as part of the local community. It implies the acknowledgment of long-term stays and manifests clearly a different attitude to immigration than the hitherto dominant concept of internationalisation. But a sceptical view prevails. Kashiwazaki (2011, 52) comments positively: ‘Unlike kokusaika it does not necessarily imply nation-to-nation relationships. On the semantic level, therefore, it has the potential of going beyond the Japanese/foreigner dichotomy.’ Yet she continues critically: ‘In practice, however, tabunka kyôsei is understood for the most part as the relationship between the Japanese and foreigners, and this dichotomous categorization is abundantly used in official documents.’ A similar view can be seen in much academic research. Iwabuchi (2010, 15–18), for instance, points out suspicious aspects of a discourse that on the face of it seems positive and tolerant. In particular, the emphasis on culture runs the danger of neglecting political and economic issues and concealing the imbalance of social power between the Japanese majority and foreign minority groups. Hatano (2006) makes the same point with reference to the so-called nikkei burajirujin, Japanese Brazilian, descendants of former Japanese emigrants to Brazil (see above). She especially criticises their treatment by the majority and the tendency to feature the 3 F ‘fashion, food, festival’ in events for promoting international understanding. Nakamatsu (2014, 138) highlights in her study that ‘the current coexistence framework (…) simplifies the issue of diversity, has assimilationist overtones, and maintains apolitical ideas of coexistence that prioritise harmony in local communities over migrants’ socio-political rights.’ Kibe (2014, 71) points out that policies concerning multicultural coexistence ‘have functioned as a local substitute for a national integration policy.’ Kashiwazaki (2013, 42) also remarks that the concept ‘continues to lack the component of national integration.’ Relying on recent research Tokuda (2019, 14) points out that the situation of foreign residents in Japan depends heavily on the region and that in national policy discourse about multicultural coexistence the findings and proposals of local communities are not sufficiently reflected. In their investigations Tokuda, Nikaidô, and Kaishô (2019) focus on local communities in the periphery and the measures taken there. They show that the tasks of promoting multicultural coexistence such as offering Japanese classes and other support for foreign residents are becoming increasingly important.

Among the predominantly skeptical and critical voices in academic discourse, though, there are also more positive views. Bradley (2014, 23) writes, ‘Japan’s version of multiculturalism, (…), has something to suggest not about the end of multiculturalism, but a possible new direction for multicultural understanding or post-multicultural coexistence.’ In his monograph of 2008, Chapman (2008, 123) refers to both critical voices towards the concept of multicultural coexistence and its usage ‘to further the drive for positive recognition and acceptance of ethnic and racial alterity in Japanese society’ and puts forward the challenging question: ‘where does a healthy skepticism end and unhelpful and immobilizing criticism begin?’ The expression ‘healthy criticism’ accords with the stance of the author.

The author is a permanent foreign resident in Japan. When participating in events for the promotion of international understanding (kokusai kôryû) the expected and often unquestioned role has been mostly that of a representative of the country of origin and not that of a member of the local community. This perception shows clearly the influence of the concept of ‘internationalisation’ and the cognitive frame of the nation state. Recently, though, the range of possible activities has noticeably increased. In 2017, thanks to the mediation of the International Exchange Association of X-City, the author was able to participate in the ‘Training program for Managers of Multicultural Coexistence’ (Tabunka kyôsei manêjâ yôsei kôsu) conducted by the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR). This training program started in 2006 and was initially designed for civil servants of the local Japanese government and for staff of International Exchange Associations (kokusai kôryû kyôkai). Recently, however, the number of other actors like NGOs and foreign residents has increased (Doi 2019, 298). The training program provided the author with the opportunity to get to know various actors, including members of the Korean minority. The contact with members of the Korean minority allowed the author to observe several events and gatherings and to conduct in-depth interviews.

The author now also contributes to Japanese classes offered by a volunteer group X affiliated with the International Exchange Association of X-City and teaches Japanese to trainees (ginô jisshûsei) from Indonesia and Vietnam. In a revision of the directives issued in 2019, the steering committee of the volunteer group appended the following sentences to the item ‘Purpose of activity’: ‘In order to support the learning of Japanese (by foreign residents), teaching skills are necessary. Much more important, however, is to recognize that learners and supporters are equal and to promote the activities with respect for each other.’ This addition is explained in a supplementary document as ‘addition from the perspective of multicultural coexistence.’ The revision attests to the increasing importance and acceptance of the concept and its semantic potential to question and overcome deeply rooted perceptions of the relation between Japanese and foreign citizens. Here it serves to criticise – in a diplomatic way – patronising attitudes towards foreign citizens. It is the very ‘anodyne character’ of the term that enables its potential to raise awareness without causing affront. The aim of the article is to tease out these aspects of the concept of multicultural coexistence by focusing on the issue of ethnic classrooms in Osaka.

In the introduction we mentioned a madangguk, a short play conducted at the general meeting of the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’. How is it, we asked, that internationalisation is depicted as a monster, with reference to the current situation of the ethnic classrooms (minzoku gakkyû) in Osaka. The following section situates the claims at issue in a wider context and analyses their coding. When using the term ‘Korean minority’, though, some caveats are necessary. As Chapman (2008, 144), emphasizes, ‘at any given time, zainichi identity is multiple and dynamic and constantly being negotiated and renegotiated at multiple intersections on numerous axes.’ Accordingly, the following section does not claim to give a complete picture. It will focus on proactive actors in Osaka City and will provide only some glimpses into the claims they make and the narratives they promote.

4. Some glimpses into the claims made by members of the Korean minority and the meanings of the term multicultural coexistence in this context

The Korea NGO Center (Koria NGO Sentâ, HP, minzoku kyôiku, mainoritî kyôiku, gaiyô) lists more than 170 ethnic classrooms in public schools in Osaka Prefecture and Osaka City, with around 2600 participating students. For Osaka City Yamamoto (2020, 136) names 109 classrooms. (The overall number of foreign residents in Osaka City is 145,338. The largest group, consisting of 61,843 people, are residents with Korean nationality (Statistics of Japan, 2020/12/11b). Ethnic classrooms are incorporated into Japanese public schools and must be distinguished from Korean schools (chôsen gakkô), which are classified as foreign schools. Korean schools have their own curriculum and the classes are taught in Korean. For a detailed analysis see Song (2012).

When in 2006 the two fundamental documents concerning multicultural coexistence were published by the MIC, the focus was put on the coexistence with newcomers, and not on the coexistence with so called ‘oldcomers’, residents whose arrivals go back to Japan’s colonial rule of Taiwan and Korea. One semantic thread of the term kyôsei (living together), however, can be traced back to the ‘Living together in Harmony (tomoni ikiru)’ movement of the main oldcomer-group, the Korean minority. (In other contexts the term has frequently been used in the integrated education (kyôsei kyôiku) of children with and without disabilities and the quest for gender equality.) The term kyôsei consists of the same Chinese characters as tomoni ikiru. The ‘Living together in Harmony’ movement was launched by the National Council for Combating Discrimination against Ethnic Peoples in Japan (Mintôren). One key concept of the Mintôren movement is citizenship. As Chung (2010, 100) points out, ‘Mintôren activists often made their claims based on the idea that Korean residents were local citizens who deserved rights equal to Japanese nationals based on their membership in Japanese civil society’. The emphasis on the ‘membership in Japanese civil society’ is the very aspect that provides the core of the concept of multicultural coexistence and distinguishes it from internationalisation: what matters is being part of the same local community rather than belonging to a specific nation. The – in this sense astonishing – disregard of oldcomers in the two documents might be attributed to the fact that most of them now speak Japanese as first language and are in terms of language fully integrated into Japanese society. In a more critical view, it can be traced back to the obfuscation of Japan’s imperialist past and the neglect of the long-established Korean minority in Japan, as can also be seen in the original concept of internationalisation with its focus on foreigners ‘from abroad.’

4.1. Multicultural coexistence versus internationalisation

The term tabunka kyôsei is already used as an important keyword and as an alternative concept to kokusaika by representatives of the Korean Minority in the context of the Japanese educational reform at the end of the 1990s. In 1999 the Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau of Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) published a document concerning the improvement of the curriculum (MEXT, 1999a). In this document, the first basic point of improvement contained the wording ‘foster the awareness of being Japanese while living in an international society.’ This wording clearly reflects the ideology of the nation state and the concomitant reassurance of national identity that informs the concept of internationalisation. In the reform, the introduction of integrated learning (sôgô gakushû) was one important innovation. Its stated purposes are to provide each school with the opportunity to ‘develop educational activities according to the specific situation of the region and the school’ and to foster the ability of children to ‘respond proactively to social changes like internationalisation and computerization’ (MEXT, 1999b). Reacting to these documents the Network for ethnic education (Minzoku kyôiku nettowâku) published the booklet ‘Educational reforms and ethnic education’ in the same year (Minzoku kyôiku nettowâku 1999). In the foreword the joint representative appreciates that the reforms aim to strengthen the development of children’s individuality and to enhance the connection between schools and the local community but notes critically that the aspect of multi-ethnic and multicultural coexistence is missing (ii). He demands that the point of view of multi-ethnic and multicultural coexistence should be clarified in the reform (iii).

As can be seen in this rough sketch, for the Korean minority the terms coexistence and multicultural coexistence have been important keywords, whereas internationalisation is a term frequently used by Japanese authorities in official documents. In official discourse, internationalisation is positively connotated and implies reaffirmation of Japanese identity with a concurrent promotion of openness towards other countries. From the perspective of the Korean minority and their supporters, however, the term connotes the celebration of a putative homogeneous Japanese nation and one-sided focus on contacts with other, especially English speaking countries, while ignoring foreign minority groups in the local community. The term kokusai (international) and the cognitive frame of the nation state ignore the position of denizens that many zainichi take, who refuse to become naturalized, waive the political right to vote, but claim their rights as citizens (Kashiwazaki 2013, 39). This position as denizens is the result of anti-discrimination movements, which brought about access to social welfare benefits without the necessity to acquire Japanese nationality – not only for the Korean minority but for all foreign permanent residents. It comes accordingly as no surprise that members of the Korean minority in Osaka City reacted sensitively when in April 2017 a notification of the school executive board in Osaka City announced that all existing ethnic classrooms (minzoku gakkyû), ethnic clubs (minzoku kurabu), as well as so called clubs for international understanding (kokusai rikai kurabu) should be renamed into international clubs (kokusai kurabu). (Ethnic clubs and clubs for international understanding refer to after-school activities for children with Korean or foreign background. Ethnic classrooms on the other hand are more integrated in the school and have their own room inside the building.)

4.2. The renaming of ethnic classrooms as international clubs

In response to the renaming and unification under the name international club, the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ demanded a clarification of the position and significance of ethnic classrooms (Osaka City, 2020/12/10a). In a reply, the Board of Education Secretariat of Osaka City acknowledged the achievements of the ethnic classrooms and promised to consider their continuation, but justified at the same time the renaming and unification by referring to minority groups, ‘not only from South and North Korea, but others for instance from the Philippines, Peru.’ The necessity to ‘promote efforts to interact and live with various people with different cultures’ is emphasised (Osaka City, 2020/12/10b). The equal treatment of all minority groups is justified from an administrative point of view. From the position of the Korean minority, however, the specific historical background of zainichi is diluted by the equal treatment of oldcomers and newcomers; moreover, Japan’s colonial rule of Korea, the very reason why there is a Korean community in Japan in the first place, is covered up. This point is even more crucial given that it is foremost the Korean minority who is targeted by hate speech. Itagaki (2012) traces the racist hate speech against zainichi back to a general animosity against North Korea (‘North Korea Phobia’). Yamamoto (2017) with reference to Itagaki (2012) points out that the ‘North Korea Phobia’ is one reason why the Japanese government excluded Korean schools as the only type of foreign school in Japan from its ‘high school tuition free program.’

The madangguk conducted at the general meeting gives insight into the self-image of the members as proactive and creative citizens, proving that in social movements ‘framing is not simply an expression of preexisting group claims but an active, creative, constitutive process’ (McAdam, Sidney, and Tilly 2001, 16). The depiction as Godzilla served to ridicule internationalisation and the laughter that arose can be interpreted as liberating laughter in face of a threatening official discourse that tends to level out differences between minority groups and to deny the exceptional position of the Korean minority.

The emphasis on the exceptional status of Korean residents as oldcomers does not mean they dismiss the demands and needs of newcomer minority groups. The insistence on the exceptional position of the Korean minority is aimed against an undifferentiated parity that risks playing off minority groups against each other. Actually, many members of the Korean minority are proactively involved in the support of other minority groups. Kim Kwang-Min for instance, executive director of the Korea NGO Center in Osaka, serves as director of the NPO Korujio Santana, a school for newcomers from Brazil and as executive committee chairman of the Minami kodomo kyôshitsu, a night classroom for children with foreign roots in the amusement district of Osaka (see Kim 2019). At the ‘Training program for Managers of Multicultural Coexistence’ in 2017 he held a lecture and described the role of the Korean minority as supporting senior (senpai) for junior (kôhai) minority groups.

In the materials handed out at the plenary session of the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ the purpose of the Association is explained as follows:

1. Based on the International Convention on Human Rights and the Convention of the Rights of the Child we are striving for a multicultural coexisting-society (tabunka kyôsei shakai) that guarantees all human rights and citizenship rights and respects cultural diversity.

2. From the position of citizens we promote an education in which all foreigners, notably Korean residents, and Japanese cooperate and respect each other and can live together.

The citation of the International Convention on Human Rights and the Convention of the Rights of the Child can be seen as arguments against the term ‘international’ and its reliance on the theoretical frame of the nation state. Universalism as methodological tool is an eminent element in the anti-discrimination movement of Korean residents in Japan. As Tsutsui (2018, 129) points out, ‘the available rhetoric of Japanese imperialism and historical injustices failed to resonate with the wider Japanese public. (…) An emerging global human rights vocabulary provided a more appealing and effective frame for mobilizing mass support.’ By referring to the International Convention on Human Rights and the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ applies the new component of universal rights to the concept. The emphasis of the local and at the same time universal character triggers the definition of multicultural coexistence as a counter-concept to internationalisation. It also serves as frame to express solidarity with other minority groups: not in terms of an equal treatment that levels out differences, but as a universalistic ethics with benefits for minority groups as well as for the majority. Three concrete demands are put forth by the Association:

1. Guarantee of places in all schools for children with foreign roots living in Japan to build up their own identity.

2. Budget increase to expand the promotion of education for international understanding (kokusai rikai kyôiku).

3. Increase of institutions for research on education in order to fulfill education for multicultural coexistence.

Point number 2 can be seen as the Association’s attempt to define ‘education for international understanding’ (kokusai rikai kyôiku) in its own way. The term goes back to the ‘Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ by UNESCO in 1974. In Japan, the term is widely used in the educational system. Especially in the introduction of integrated learning (sôgô gakushû) mentioned above its importance is highlighted. Depending on how it is used, particularly when the element “international” is stressed, the term is likely to get skewed towards an interpretation influenced by the official discourse of internationalisation. Instead of criticising or denying the term, however, the Association incorporates the term in its own frame. It stresses the important role that teachers working in Korean ethnic classrooms have been playing in the promotion of international understanding for all children and connects it with requests for further fulfillment by increasing the numbers of teachers and pay raises.

To sum up, the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ applies three aspects to multicultural coexistence as counter term to internationalisation: the maintenance of the exceptional status as oldcomers, the solidarity with other minority groups and the promotion of education of multicultural coexistence for all children. For the third aspect the established term education for international understanding is used alternatively. How these aspects are combined in practice shall be exemplified in the next session by describing events of one ethnic classroom in Osaka City, which the author has been visiting repeatedly.

4.3. Balancing acts: events conducted by an ethnic classroom in Osaka City

The area the elementary school X is located in has a large population of residents with Korean roots. Every year in January a cultural festival of the ethnic classroom is conducted. It is a big event in which the whole school participates, visited not only by parents, but also by residents of the neighborhood and parents of former students. The festival consists of different elements. The main part are dance and music performances presented by the children of the ethnic classroom in traditional Korean costumes, while the other children of the school are watching. Here the specific cultural background of children with Korean roots is highlighted. The impact the ethnic classroom has for all students, on the other hand, is stressed by presentations about lessons concerning international understanding. These lessons are given to all students by the teacher in charge of the ethnic classroom. Each of the six grades is represented by two children not belonging to the Korean minority who present what they have learned. The fact that all children call the teacher with the Korean word for teacher, seonsaengnim, demonstrates how well the ethnic classroom is incorporated in this elementary school. The younger ones mention for instance that is was fun to play rock paper scissors in Korean or to write their names in Korean, while the older ones report what they have learned about the historical background of the Korean minority. To avoid a dichotomous separation between Korean and Japanese, however, the festival is also enriched by boundary crossing and unifying elements. All teachers, including the principal, wear traditional Korean costumes and members of the parent and teacher association perform together a traditional Korean drum play. All children, teachers and visitors sing together the song kazoe uta (counting song) by the Japanese singer and song writer Ikeda Ayako. This song contains counting in different languages. The version that was sung at the festival reflects the languages of students attending the school: Japanese, English, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Filipino. The recognition of other minority groups through reference to their languages is also an important element at smaller events like the norimadang in summer. The Korean term norimadang means ‘place to play.’ The participation is optional and open to all children. The focus of this event lies on having fun together, but when the children play for instance rock paper scissors in all languages mentioned above, it also serves as an opportunity to express solidarity with other minority groups and provides children of the Japanese majority with the chance to get in contact with different languages. In this sense it is also a form of education in international understanding.

The design of the events demonstrates how the ethnic classroom of the elementary school X attempts to adjust to the growing number of newcomers and to combine all three aspects: the maintenance of the exceptional status as oldcomers, the solidarity with other minority groups and the promotion of education of multicultural coexistence for all children. In the events the balancing act is carried out successfully. It is, however, more difficult to realize this mixture in everyday educational activities. The next section gives insight into the thoughts of the ethnic classroom’s teacher and the former chairperson of its parent and teachers association (PTA), who has been involved for eight years in the activities of the classroom during the time her two daughters were attending it. It is based on an in-depth interview conducted in March 2019 in Osaka City.

4.4. An interview with the teacher and the PTA’s former chairperson

Asked about her associations with the term ‘internationalisation,’ the chairperson spontaneously gave the answer ‘not very good ones’, explaining that for her the term refers to the relation between the Japanese majority and foreigners of mainly English speaking countries; hence she didn’t feel it pertained to her and the Korean community. By contrast, the term multicultural coexistence had a much more positive image for her; she described it as something zainichi are predestined to promote. The seonsaengnim agreed generally, though added that the one-sided focus on Western countries and the prioritizing of English in education were aspects that could also be seen within zainichi. She traced this to the ideology of internationalisation and the influence of Japanese media. As for the renaming of the ethnic classrooms into international clubs, she thought that the renaming into ‘multicultural coexistence club’ would have been preferable, favoring the term multicultural coexistence, but not supporting it entirely.

The seonsaengnim, who also participated in the ‘Training program for Managers of Multicultural Coexistence’ in 2017, explains her policy as ethnic classroom teacher as follows: in former times Japanese children were not allowed to enter the ethnic classroom. But in her opinion the room is part of school life, so she permits all children to pop in during the breaks and to look at the books, musical instruments etc. She tries proactively to include the element of multicultural coexistence into the events of the ethnic classroom. The joint singing of the counting song was introduced on her initiative. At the same time, however, she remains sceptical about the term multicultural coexistence and objects to its use as an umbrella term that lumps different minorities together: ‘the things we teach in our Korean ethnic classrooms differ from things the teachers of Philippines ethnic classrooms strive to transmit.’ An indiscriminate use of the term multicultural coexistence bears the risk of oversimplification and a leveling out of differences between minority groups. Therefore, she insists on keeping the after-school-lessons exclusive to the children of the Korean minority. The special historical background of the Korean minority should not fall into oblivion and she expresses her concerns about younger generation of teachers and parents who have only a vague knowledge about Japan’s colonial rule of Korea and the discrimination inflicted on former generations. Being also a member of the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’, though, she supports the strategic use of the term. The PTA’s former chairperson stresses the significance of protecting the ethnic classroom as part of the area’s specific history as settlement district of the Korean minority. As a mother she wants her daughters to acquire knowledge about the Korean minority. Based on that knowledge, she hopes to give them the possibility to figure out their own identity. ‘They don’t have to affirm their background as zainichi, but I don’t want them to reject it.’

One issue the seonsaengnim is frequently confronted with is the exclusiveness of ethnic classrooms. ‘Why can’t Japanese children participate in the activities of the ethnic classroom? Wouldn’t that foster mutual understanding?’ These questions are not only asked by members of the Japanese majority or other minority groups, but also by members of the Korean community. Due to a growing number of naturalizations within the Korean minority and intermarriages between Koreans and Japanese the parents’ opinions about the current state and content of the ethnic classroom are far from being homogeneous. The increasing diversity inside the community is a challenging element in the zainichi’s demands for group rights. The situation the seonsaengnim faces accords with findings of several examinations. Hatano (2006, 62) writes in regard to the minority of Japanese Brasilians that it is much more difficult for them to unite and organize as one group because they lack the unifying element of ethnicity (minzoku) which connects the zainichi. But as Tai (2002) points out, the concept of ethnicity is increasingly questioned from within. Oh (2012) names an identity crisis among Korean-Japanese. Another compounding factor is the arrival of newcomer Koreans, mostly members of the Korean middleclass, since 2000. During this time IT engineers in particular moved to Japan for business reasons. Their status of residence, highly skilled professional or engineer, differs fundamentally from the status of the oldcomers as special permanent residents. Sun (2020, 144) analyses this development and finds that, in terms of their attitude they are inclined to concentrate on work and individual interests and don’t get much involved in social and political matters of their host country, which tends to be a general feature of middleclass migrants.

Yamamoto (2020, 142–144), who observed the same ethnic classroom and conducted an interview with the teacher (in his article the school is referred to as ‘Y elementary school’) describes the stance of the seonsaengnim with the terms ‘inclusion (hôsetsu)’ and ‘conflict (kattô).’ He explains the element ‘conflict’ by referring to her remark about the issue of ‘introducing oneself by one’s real name.’ Members of the Korean minority used to have two names: one ‘real’ Korean name and a Japanese name used in public to avoid discrimination. The policy of ‘introducing oneself by one’s real name’ in public is an important part of the ethnic classroom and seen as a means for regaining identity. But children of intermarriages often have a Japanese and a Korean forename and for them it is not self-evident which one the real one is.

The ‘conflict’ of the seongsaengnim can be interpreted as conflict between the need of political group demands and the recognition of diverse individual identities. The balancing act between these two elements implies important pedagogical messages, as it shows the awareness that education is not a one-way transmission of certain contents, but a communicative process of negotiation. Yang (2013) stresses the potential of ethnic classrooms for all children. In Japanese public schools they are an example of multicultural coexistence put into practice, not only in a cultural sense, but also as a political claim for the recognition of minority rights. As Tai (2007, 16) points out, Japanese teachers can also learn from the efforts of ethnic classrooms, as they ‘can learn how to grasp education in political terms.’

4.5. Summary: stances towards multicultural coexistence

The stance the seonseangnim takes could be described as a mode of ‘healthy skepticism’, – the expression Chapman (2008, 123) uses when putting forward the challenging question: ‘where does a healthy skepticism end and unhelpful and immobilizing criticism begin?’ As teacher of the ethnic classroom she remains skeptical due to concerns regarding the treatment of minority groups. Her concerns match Nakamatsu’s (2014, 138) criticism of the concept, particularly the simplification of the issue of diversity. At the same time, however, she takes multicultural coexistence positively as a concept to express solidarity with other minority groups and to foster and promote international understanding in all children in elementary school. Here the ‘anodyne character’ of the concept helps to facilitate educational innovations. As member of the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ she supports the strategic use of the term to contest the official policy of internationalisation and to protect the special status of zainichi as oldcomers.

The demands for recognition imply the quest for funding. In order to avoid struggles over subsidies between minority groups, it is necessary to redefine multicultural coexistence as a concept regarding not only the coexistence between the Japanese majority and foreign residents, but also the coexistence between different minority groups. In the official discourse of Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIC) this point remains vague. The revision of the ‘Plan for the promotion of multicultural coexistence in local communities’ released in September 2020 mentions as a newly included point ‘promotion of initiatives, where foreign residents become supporters for other foreigners’ (MIC, 2020b). In an optimistic view, this could serve as ideological basis for funding requests. During the corona-crisis, this point is especially crucial for the Korean minority, as Korean schools were excluded from public support (Asahi Shinbun Digital, 2020/08/17).

5. Concluding remark

By focusing on the micro level and the issue of ethnic classrooms in Osaka, we have seen that the term multicultural coexistence, though often disparaged as an anodyne catchphrase, has the potential of being used as a strategic term apt to express the demands for recognition of minority education. The concept of multicultural coexistence developed originally on the grassroot level. The activities of the ‘Association of Citizens in Osaka striving for the Promotion of Multicultural Coexistence Education’ can also be seen as an attempt to contest its governmental definition and to relocate it in the local context. Grassroot activities in the local context have become ever more important during the coronavirus pandemic. At the beginning the official measures relied heavily on a dichotomy, as can be seen at the border enforcement measures announced in March 2020, which differentiated between Japanese and Non-Japanese. It was only on September 1^st that the restrictions were lifted for persons with residence status and re-entry-permit. On the local level, on the other hand, civil actors organized a variety of support activities for foreign residents, including food distribution and educational support for children. In these activities NPOs like the Tabunka kyôsei risôsu sentâ tôkai (Multicultural Coexistence Resource Center Tôkai) played an important role in connecting administration and civil actors, demonstrating the validity of the concept of multicultural coexistence.

Acknowlegdement

This article would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of many actors involved in the field of multicultural coexistence. The author owes special thanks to the seonsaengnim, who enabled and facilitated the observations und interviews.

The author also thanks the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments which helped immensely to improve the first draft of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bettina Gildenhard

Bettina Gildenhard Major in Japanese Studies and German Literature, University of Heidelberg, Germany Since 2003, tenure position at Doshisha University, Japan https://kendb.doshisha.ac.jp/profile/en.d483934a52f7ff9f.html