Discourses of Discipline: An Anthropology of Corporal Punishment in Japan's Schools and Sports 1557291055, 9781557291059

Table of contents :
Cover
Notes to this edition
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication Page
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Three Stories of Taibatsu
What Is Taibatsu?
Why We Should Study Taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports
Thesis and Chapter Summaries
1: Anthropology and Corporal Punishment
Corporal Punishment (Research) Today
How Anthropology Can Help Us Better Understand Corporal Punishment
2: Histories
“Taibatsu” Before the Term “Taibatsu” Existed
Prewar Legal Prohibitions of Taibatsu
Postwar Legal Prohibitions of Taibatsu
The Postwar Construction of Taibatsu as “Solution,” “Problem,” and “Non-Issue”
3: Contexts
The Importance of Context
The Forms of Discipline
The Genders of Discipline
The Spaces of Discipline
The Inflictors of Discipline
The “Languages” of Discipline
4: Ethics
Conflicting Sports and Classroom Pedagogies
Arguments of Right and Wrong
Arguments in Favor
Arguments Against
5: Purported Causes and Plural Cultures
Causal Interpretations of Corporal Punishment Worldwide
Structural “Causes” of Taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports
Cultural “Causes” of Taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports
Beyond Culturalism
6: Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse
The Importance of Historical and Cross-Cultural Analysis
Theories of Power, Violence, and the Body
Silence, Words, and Actions: How Discourses of Discipline Are “Powerful” in Their Own Right
Epilogue: Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth
Appendices
Bibliography
Index
Back Cover

Citation preview

Notes to this edition This is an electronic edition of the printed book. Minor corrections may have been made within the text; new information and any errata appear on the current page only. Japanese Research Monograph 17 Discourses of Discipline: An Anthropology of Corporal Punishment in Japan’s Schools and Sports Aaron L. Miller ISBN-13: 978-1-55729-161-5 (electronic) ISBN-13: 978-1-55729-105-9 (print) ISBN-10: 1-55729-105-5 (print)

Please visit the IEAS Publications website at http://ieas.berkeley.edu/publications/ for more information and to see our catalogue. Send correspondence and manuscripts to Katherine Lawn Chouta, Managing Editor Institute of East Asian Studies 1995 University Avenue, Suite 510H Berkeley, CA 94720-2318 USA [email protected]

May 2015

Discourses of Discipline

JAPAN RESEARCH MONOGRAPH 17 CENtER fOR JAPANESE StuDiES

Discourses of Discipline

An Anthropology of Corporal Punishment in Japan’s Schools and Sports Aaron L. Miller

A publication of the institute of East Asian Studies, university of California, Berkeley. Although the institute is responsible for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts in this series, responsibility for the opinions expressed and for the accuracy of statements rests with their authors. the Japan Research Monograph series is one of the several publications series sponsored by the institute of East Asian Studies in conjunction with its constituent units. the others include the China Research Monograph series, the Korea Research Monograph series, and the Research Papers and Policy Studies series. Send correspondence and manuscripts to Katherine Lawn Chouta, Managing Editor institute of East Asian Studies 2223 fulton Street, 6th floor Berkeley, CA 94720-2318 [email protected] Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Miller, Aaron L. (Aaron Levi), 1980– author. Discourses of discipline : an anthropology of corporal punishment in Japan’s schools and sports / Aaron L. Miller. pages cm. — (Japan research monograph ; 17) includes bibliographical references and index. iSBN-13: 978-1-55729-105-9 iSBN-10: 1-55729-105-5 (alk. paper) 1. Corporal punishment of children—Japan. 2. Rewards and punishments in education—Japan. 3. School discipline—Japan. 4. School children—Abuse of—Japan. 5. Child athletes—Abuse of—Japan. i. title. LB3025.M46 2013 371.5’4—dc23 2013001591 Copyright © 2013 by the Regents of the university of California. Printed in the united States of America. All rights reserved. Cover design: James Wildman

For my parents

When society is orderly, a fool alone cannot disturb it; when society is chaotic, a sage alone cannot bring it order. —Proverb from the Huainanzi, an early taoist classic

Contents

Acknowledgments introduction

xi 1

Three Stories of taibatsu What Is taibatsu? Why We Should Study taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports Thesis and Chapter Summaries

1

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

31

Corporal Punishment (Research) Today How Anthropology Can Help Us Better Understand Corporal Punishment

2

Histories

47

“taibatsu” Before the Term “taibatsu” Existed Prewar Legal Prohibitions of taibatsu Postwar Legal Prohibitions of taibatsu The Postwar Construction of taibatsu as “Solution,” “Problem,” and “Non-Issue”

3

Contexts

82

The Importance of Context The Forms of Discipline The Genders of Discipline The Spaces of Discipline The Inflictors of Discipline The “Languages” of Discipline

4

Ethics

98

Conflicting Sports and Classroom Pedagogies Arguments of Right and Wrong Arguments in Favor Arguments Against

5

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures Causal Interpretations of Corporal Punishment Worldwide

125

Structural “Causes” of taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports Cultural “Causes” of taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports Beyond Culturalism

6

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

154

The Importance of Historical and Cross-Cultural Analysis Theories of Power, Violence, and the Body Silence, Words, and Actions: How Discourses of Discipline Are “Powerful” in Their Own Right

Epilogue: Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth Appendices Bibliography index

164 171 203 235

Acknowledgments

ultimately, all scholarship is collective, the modest product of grand philosophical influence, selfless mentorship, generous collegial support, and candid informants. this work is certainly no different; to only a minor degree is it the result of individual epiphany. the idea for this research project first crystallized at Oxford, in the summer of 2006, under the exceptional tutelage of Nissan institute Professor of Modern Japanese Studies and Head of Social Sciences, Roger Goodman. Here i express my warmest gratitude to Professor Goodman for guiding me through my graduate work in the study of anthropology, education, sports, and Japan. i could have had no better doctoral supervisor. Professor Kariya takehiko also played a tremendously instrumental role in my intellectual development, serving as a most hospitable host at the university of tokyo, where the fieldwork portion of this study was undertaken. More importantly, though, i must thank Professor Kariya for taking a personal as well as professional interest in my work, and giving me the chance i needed to develop it. Professors William Kelly and Sogawa tsuneo have left major impacts on my research, as any careful reader will note, and Professors Ellis Krauss, David Blake Willis, and Jeremy Rappleye have been wonderful friends and mentors throughout the early years of my academic career. i also wish to thank Professor William Damon of Stanford’s Center on Adolescence, who has graciously encouraged me to broaden my research focus beyond Japan. Professor Damon’s unparalleled generosity has given me the opportunity to not only finish this book, but also to start my next one. for an “egg of a scholar” (gakusha no tamago) like myself, nothing could be more important. Among many other colleagues and mentors, Professors Nathan Badenoch, Marcus Banks, Robert Barnes, thomas Blackwood, Christopher Bjork, Christoph Brumann, Simon Creak, Silvia Croydon, Martin

xii

Acknowledgments

Dusinberre, Elise Edwards, Elizabeth Ewart, Glenn Hook, Horiguchi Sachiko, imoto Yuki, inagaki Kyoko, Victor Kobayashi, Konishi Sho, Sophia Lee, Sarah Moskovitz, Mark Rebick, Mike Singer, Patricia Steinhoff, tanaka Koji, tuukka toivonen, Ann Waswo, Dan White, and colleagues on Kyoto university’s Hakubi Project have all guided me along the path that must be walked to make sense of one’s most complicated thoughts. these mentors, colleagues, and friends have helped shape the overarching ideas that guide my research, but special thanks must also be given to those who helped shape this book in particular. My sincerest appreciation goes to Professors Stephen Carney and Jeremy Rappleye, Nakajima Mizuki, and the anonymous reviewers at the institute of East Asian Studies (iEAS), university of California, Berkeley, for carefully considering early, middle, and late-stage drafts, and also for making eminently constructive suggestions toward their improvement. Suzanne Zaretsky’s help with the index was also invaluable, although it was no doubt torturous work for her. An exceptional group of Japanese sports researchers helped me map out the ideas for this book project as well as fill that map in. i wish to especially acknowledge Demachi ichiro, ikegami tsuyoshi, Nakazawa Atsushi, Sawai Kazuhiko, Shinta Sasao, Suzuki Naofumi, takahashi Yoshio, tsukahara fumio and Yokota Masatoshi, for all of these scholars have helped me consider corporal punishment and Japanese culture in new and enlightening ways. Many of them also helped track down elusive bibliographic references in Japanese, which any non-native Japanese studies specialist knows is truly yeomen’s work. i must also mention Professor Okamoto Kaoru of Japan’s National Graduate institute for Policy Studies, who helped me make contact with relevant bureaucrats at Japan’s Ministry of Education. Last, but certainly not least, i would never have been able to read or understand, let alone translate, the vast Japanese literature on corporal punishment without the incomparable language education provided by the instructors of Stanford university’s inter-university Center for Japanese Language Studies in Yokohama, Japan; to all of them, but especially to Aoki-sensei, Sato-sensei and Akizawa-sensei, i offer a humble bow and, “Arigato gozaimasu!”, perfectly enunciated, i hope. My close friend and artist James Wildman designed the marvelous book cover, and David Nakanishi of the San francisco Kendo Dojo kindly allowed the use of his personal shinai to grace it. Kate Chouta and Keila Diehl of iEAS shepherded the publication of this project through its many peripatetic stages, with outstanding professionalism and patience, and Erin Martineau’s editing expertise worked wonders for my writing. i very much appreciate all of your hard work.

Acknowledgments

xiii

Among the many friends around the world who have supported me throughout the years it took me to write this book, i must single out thabit Al-Murani and Kate Hibbs, Bud Anderson, Shilpa thanawala, talia Andrei and Matt Presseau, Jihan Bowes-Little, Burt and Amy Coombe, Mike and Anna Downing, tommy Duncan, Will feldman, Verity fitzsimmons, the futagamis, Sean Greenwood, Scott Henderson, Nadia Kanagawa, Kashmali Khan, Komori Yusuke, Martha Anne Leche, Namiko Kunimoto, Haku Li, the Medevoys, Steve Miller, Obayashi Mika, Rhys and Bethan Parsons, Kyle Peacock, tzveta Pokrovska, Nate Pollak, Nicole Quinton, Andrew and Marian Pomerantz, Eric and Sara Rotner, tony and Vanessa Rusca, the Sasakis, the Singers, and Jeff Vahid-tari. i thank each and every one of them for taking time out of their busy lives to help me to improve my work and, often more importantly, to forget about it. finally, these pages would still be blank if not for the unconditional love and limitless support of my loving family. thank you all very much.

introduction “Corporal punishment is education.” —totsuka Hiroshi

Three Stories of Taibatsu in the early 1980s, a seventeen-year-old javelin thrower named takeuchi Emi took first place in a regional track and field tournament in central Japan, thereby securing herself a berth at the All-Japan High School Championships. it seemed a dream come true. But before Emi could become Japan’s best javelin thrower she tragically committed suicide, leaving notes that indicated that persistent “corporal punishment” (taibatsu) by her coach had taken its toll. She wrote the following letter to her parents just before her death: Dear Mom and Dad, i am tired. there is no escape route anymore. Why did all the other children have so much fun in our club activities, while i suffered so much? i am tired of being beaten. i am tired of crying. What else should i do? that is why i don’t want to be in this world anymore. i am sorry. i am really tired. there is no way out. i am really fed up . . . i am not that strong . . . i am sorry. (quoted in imabashi 1986, 34)

According to news reports, Emi’s coach, once a well-known track and field athlete in his own right, had slapped her face to the “point that it became red,” made her sit on her knees with her legs curled up behind her buttocks for excessive periods of time (seiza), and repeatedly kicked her when she did not perform to his liking (see imabashi 1986, 39). the following entry was discovered in her diary by authorities investigating her suicide: “i like my teacher, but he is really scary. He is always so angry with me, so much so that my heart hurts. i am really fed up. i am really tired. i don’t know what to do anymore. . . . i’ll probably get yelled at again tomorrow, and i hate it” (quoted in imabashi 1986, 39). tragically, Emi’s story is not unique. thousands of Japanese people choose to take their own lives every year. Some estimates suggest that there may be as many as 30,000 suicides each year in Japan, many of

2

Introduction

which are committed by children, adolescents, and young adults. Many, like Emi, leave notes blaming rigid regimes of strict discipline, demanding teachers and sports coaches, or taibatsu. in June 2007, there was another death caused by taibatsu, but this time it was not a suicide. in a shocking and highly publicized incident involving sumo, Japan’s national sport (kokugi), a seventeen-year-old wrestler named tokitaizan was killed after being beaten by senior members (sempai) and coaches of his training stable (Kyodo News 2007, Economist 2007). Although sumo journalist takeda Yorimasa’s January 2007 article about “match-fixing” had already begun to sour public opinion toward the sport, tokitaizan’s death brought renewed condemnations of sumo’s training styles and even sumo culture as a whole.1 According to various reports, tokitaizan had been physically forced to train through extreme pain, even as he made it clear that he was having trouble breathing. When he tried to escape, his sempai dragged him back to their stable and struck him with metal baseball bats and beer bottles. they even burned him with cigarettes (Nikkan Supotsu 2007). Japan’s national newspapers published gruesome photographs of his bruised and battered body. Although tokitaizan’s stablemaster, tokitsukaze, insisted that the incident was an “accident” and that his corpse ought to be cremated immediately, tokitaizan’s father, infuriated by his son’s death, demanded a thorough autopsy. Coroners complied, concluding that excessive training had triggered a heightened level of potassium in tokitaizan’s body, and that his death had been no accident. in fact, tokitsukaze had apparently also hit tokitaizan with a beer bottle, a specific blow that autopsies determined had contributed to, if not outright caused, tokitaizan’s death (Japan Times 2010). tokitaizan’s older and by definition more experienced sempai wrestlers insisted that they had repeatedly thrown tokitaizan to the ground “to instill toughness.” they said that “the purpose of their violence was 1  the controversy between takeda and the Japan Sumo Association (JSA) involved the issue of whether the practice of “match fixing” (yaochō)—when two wrestlers agree to throw certain sumo matches in exchange for cash payments—existed, how prevalent it was, and how many people were involved. in 2007, when takeda’s article first appeared, the JSA claimed that the “yaochō problem” was a myth and sued takeda, along with his publisher Kodansha, for publishing the articles. in a series of court cases, juries eventually found takeda guilty for naming individuals in the scandal, and though it seemed that takeda had lost his “battle” with the JSA, he won the broader “war” when, in 2011, a large match-fixing scandal was discovered by an independent investigation commissioned by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and technology. the 2011 sumo “match-fixing” scandal precipitated the first cancellation of a “Grand tournament” (honbashō) since 1946, the JSA was finally forced to admit that “match-fixing” had long been widespread, and takeda’s article was vindicated after all.

Introduction

3

to sanction tokitaizan” and to show him the error in his ways, and they added that such punishments were also an example of kawaigari, something done “out of love” for one’s apprentice.2 the Japan Sumo Association (JSA), for its part, did not refer to the acts as kawaigari. instead, in response to the death, the JSA began surveys of all of its affiliated sumo stables to determine the extent and type of discipline being used and began offering lectures to instruct sumo coaches how to discipline wrestlers in ways “other than taibatsu.” Ever conscious of sumo’s Shinto roots as a “pure,” “spiritual” sport, the JSA was trying to polish the image of what was increasingly being seen as a “corrupt” sport. So while the sempai referred to the physical punishments leading to tokitaizan’s death as “love” (kawaigari), and the JSA referred to them as “corporal punishment” (taibatsu), prosecutors used a different term altogether, calling the acts “violence” or “assault” (bōkō). As the editorial board for the Sankei newspaper astutely argued at the time, no one within the JSA could discern the difference between “discipline” (shitsuke) and “bullying” (ijime), nor between the “whip of love” (ai no muchi) and “hard training” (shigoki). But the “chaos” within sumo extended beyond the JSA; many sumo coaches shook their head when asked the question, “How do you know when enough is enough?” because they believed that “strictness was essential for training athletes in our national sport” (Sankei 2008).3 this pedagogy—that “strictness is essential for training”—is not limited to Japan’s “national sport,” as the most notorious cases of taibatsu in Japanese history, the “totsuka Yacht School incidents” (Totsuka yotto 2  According to Victor Kobayashi, Professor Emeritus of the university of Hawaii at Manoa, the term kawaigari refers to the ways in which Japanese grandparents, parents, and other elders have traditionally expressed love for their favorite, “cute” (kawaii) offspring (personal communication, October 27, 2008). Kawaigari therefore relates to what the Japanese call “vertical hierarchy” (jōgekankei), which assumes that older people must look after younger people, and younger people must be obedient in return. this “looking after” can include financial, emotional, and other forms of support, and, if we are to believe tokitaizan’s sempai wrestlers, also involves physical discipline. 3  By 2008, one stablemaster and three senior sumo wrestlers had been found guilty of causing tokitaizan’s death. However, the judge was lenient in his sentencing of the latter three, writing, “it was extremely difficult for them to oppose the instructions given by the former stablemaster” (quoted in Asahi 2008). the judge handed down suspended sentences of three, three, and two and one-half years, respectively, noting that violence was common at this stable, and as a result, the “three wrestlers were unable to exercise self-control and avoid the use of violence.” in 2009, stablemaster tokitsukaze, whose real name is Yamamoto Jun’ichi, was convicted to a six-year sentence for ordering the use of violence and “grossly disrespecting the victim’s human dignity” (Japan Times 2009). After an appeal, however, the sentence was cut to five years. the court also forced tokitsukaze to pay tokitaizan’s family a total of 64.6 million yen (approximately uS$685,000 on April 5, 2010, the date of the newspaper report).

4

Introduction

sukūru jiken), make clear. the totsuka Yacht School (tYS) opened in 1976 in Aichi Prefecture with former Olympic yachtsmen totsuka Hiroshi as its head teacher and principal. Although tYS was established with the goal of “sharing the enjoyment of yachting,” in time the institution came to deal primarily with so-called “problem children” (mondaiji), many of whom refused to attend school (tōkōkyohi or futōkō) or stayed locked in their rooms for extended periods of time (hikikomori). totsuka described tYS’s work as “rehabilitation” training for such “problem children,” and parents paid high sums for the school’s services. in the early 1980s, however, several children under totsuka’s watch went missing or died. Among them, two apparently committed suicide when they jumped off a ferry returning to Aichi from the island of Amami-Oshima, where tYS had been running a “training camp” (gasshuku). in another incident, in 1982, subordinate coaches hit a thirteen-year-old boy with sandals, yacht shafts, and bamboo sticks, threw him in the ocean without a life preserver, and simulated drowning him. Court records revealed that he died from internal bleeding, the stress of full-body shock, and severe trauma. totsuka and some of his assistant coaches were charged for their roles in these incidents, and eventually were convicted. However, they did not serve jail time until two decades after the boys’ deaths because the totsuka Yacht School trials, from initial prosecution to final verdict, took almost two decades to complete (1983–2002). Court convened over one hundred times and the case went all the way to Japan’s Supreme Court. the Japanese media labeled it a “marathon trial.” Soon totsuka and his school were household names throughout Japan. totsuka’s lawyers insisted that tYS’s main goal in using taibatsu was to “heal” children. totsuka himself maintained that his acts were justified because he held the “right to discipline” (chōkaiken).4 He insisted that the parents of his victims had consented to transfer this right to him and his subordinate coaches when they signed up for his program, for Japan’s Civil Law (Article 822, item 1) affords parents the “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) their own children, although it does not speak directly to the issue of transferring this “right”). the prosecutor disagreed, though, labeling these incidents neither as “rehabilitation” nor as “taibatsu.” He instead used the term “violence” (bōryoku), telling a national newspaper, the Asahi Shimbun (1991): “it is a terrible crime to make money off of these children and then commit acts of violence against them, all the while professing to be a healer.” When totsuka was finally sentenced to prison in 2003 to 4  this is also known as the principle of in loco parentis; the corresponding Japanese phrase is oya no kawari (literally, “in the place of the parent”) (Sugiyama 1997, 199).

Introduction

5

begin serving a three-year term,5 it was the first criminal conviction in Japanese history for what the judge called “strict taibatsu” (kibishii taibatsu). When totsuka was released from prison in 2006, members of the media eagerly approached him for a statement. Defiantly, he replied with four clear and concise words that succinctly summarized his unrelenting belief in the educational efficacy of taibatsu: “Corporal punishment is education” (taibatsu wa kyōiku da). Remarkably, totsuka was not forbidden from reopening his school after his release. this was legally possible because tYS is a private educational institution and therefore not strictly regulated by Japan’s Ministry of Education, Sports, Science, and technology (MEXt). Soon after his release, totsuka began organizing support meetings for tYS, delivering as many as seventy lectures per year to potential supporters and parents sympathetic to his pedagogy. Despite his criminal conviction, totsuka has continued to insist on the efficacy of taibatsu in such lectures, as well as in various published works (see, e.g., totsuka 2007). influential government and business leaders who subscribe to totsuka’s educational philosophy—among them the bristling tokyo Governor ishihara Shintaro6 and former Miyazaki Prefecture Governor/entertainer Higashikokubaru Hideo (see Ohara 2008)—also continue to support his school. the tYS continues to attract scores of desperate parents, including many divorceés, willing to try anything to “heal” their drifting, “lost” children. However, not all current tYS trainees (kunrensei) are children. A handful are in their twenties. increasingly, such trainees are dubbed as “NEEts”: youth who are “not in education, employment, or training.” With the shrinking of Japan’s economy and many entry-level jobs now automated or off-shored, more and more Japanese young people have become reclusive, developed psychological problems, and have been unable to find meaningful work. Even though there are other more accommodating alternatives available for the rehabilitation of such “problem youth,” many desperate Japanese parents believe that the “problem” is not too much discipline, but rather not enough (see Miller and toivonen 2010). totsuka is a charismatic man who offers parents simple answers to difficult child-rearing problems. He tells parents that taibatsu is necessary because children must be inculcated with “character” (jinkaku), even if such inculcation requires the use of force, and that yachting is a good way to build character because it simulates life and death situations. Challenging situations such as those presented by an unfriendly sea force young 5 

this sentence was reduced from the six-year term totsuka initially received. See Nathan (2004, 169–202) for a lucid account of ishihara’s various forms of influence in contemporary Japanese society. 6 

6

Introduction

people to “see what they are made of,” he insists (personal communication, May 23, 2007). totsuka’s views on other related educational issues further reveal his seemingly eccentric beliefs. for example, he defines “bullying” (ijime) and taibatsu in similar terms, insisting that both have the strengthening and “progress” (shinpo) of the individual in mind, and therefore are, contrary to popular belief, eminently desirable. He asserts a theory about how the “brain stem” (nōkan) works to “seek pleasure” and “avoid pain,” illustrating why he believes that taibatsu is “effective” (totsuka 2007). His logic holds that striking a child will inevitably help her/him develop an animalistic urge to avoid future similar pain and will force her/him to choose more appropriate behaviors. totsuka believes that anti-“corporal punishment” rhetoric in Japan first gained popularity during the American Occupation following World War ii, and that this rhetoric has questioned the efficacy of taibatsu without truly analyzing its “merits” on the ground. But the divide is not simply one of practice versus theory; totsuka also maintains that there is an unbridgeable divide between this American influence against taibatsu and Japan’s “true” spirit, which ostensibly approves of the practice unconditionally. While there exist serious “flaws” in Western Christianity, such as the belief in original sin, totsuka believes that one can find nothing similar in Buddhism or Confucianism, the philosophical wellsprings of Japanese culture (personal communication, May 23, 2007). Perhaps not surprisingly, some have seen totsuka as a savior and some have seen him as a villain. in fact, it would not be too much of a stretch to say that totsuka Hiroshi has been the most polarizing figure in Japan’s ongoing debate over the proper limits of physical discipline in its schools and sports. two recent films have further solidified totsuka’s notoriety in Japanese society. A documentary entitled “Heisei Dilemma: thirty Years of the totsuka Yacht School, and Now today” (Heisei jiremma: Totsuka yotto sukuru no sanjūnen, soshite genzai) was released in early 2011 in theaters across Japan, highlighting tYS activities after totsuka’s release from prison. Although it is sometimes unclear when the footage was recorded in this documentary and totsuka forcefully asserts that he no longer uses taibatsu, tYS coaches can be seen violently striking children in this film. A second film about totsuka, entitled, “the Sea of Sparta” (Suparuta no kai), which was originally released in 1983 but had its screenings postponed following totsuka’s arrest, presents fictionalized accounts of tYS activities. the second film also hit theaters across Japan in late 2011, revealing the staying power of, or at least the controversy elicited by, totsuka’s educational methods. Even if totsuka no longer admits to using taibatsu, history repeated itself in October 2009 when an eighteen-year-old girl at tYS committed

Introduction

7

suicide by jumping off the school roof. While authorities did not file charges against totsuka or his five subordinate coaches—they say they had little evidence to go on—totsuka was extremely skeptical of the ensuing media coverage (Japan Today Online, October 28, 2009). He said he was infuriated that members of the media would insinuate that tYS coaches had forced the girl to jump (http://totsuka-school.jp).7 Since totsuka reopened tYS, a few things have changed, but the institution’s general regime remains disciplinary in nature. in tYS’s three-story building, where holes ripped in the wall mark a clear record of violent activity, trainees now study English, math, and Japanese before and after mandatory yacht training. instead of being kicked or punched, trainees are now forced to run long distances or do pushups as punishment for bad behavior. No longer can coaches forcibly remove young children from their homes and bring them to tYS, as they once had. finally, totsuka today allows older trainees to beat younger students rather than do so himself. He seems to have figured out that while he and his subordinate coaches were sentenced to jail time for committing “strict taibatsu,” no one in Japan has ever been convicted for failing to stop violence by other students. Learning their lesson, perverse as it may be, totsuka and his associate coaches now simply turn a blind eye to the violence. totsuka is an intriguing figure in many ways, but perhaps mostly because he does not feel the need to use euphemistic language to justify his use of physical discipline. While many Japanese choose other terms to justify such physical discipline, such as shidō (“guidance”), shitsuke (“discipline”), and ai no muchi (“whip of love”), totsuka is perfectly comfortable employing the term taibatsu in public. As we shall see in greater detail throughout this book, these other terms are very often used to justify the use of physical discipline in Japanese schools and sports, but totsuka is unflinching and unapologetic in using the term taibatsu. in this way, when totsuka insists that taibatsu is effective, “educational,” and in the best interest of the child, he speaks for Emi’s track and field coach, tokitaizan’s sempai and tokitsukaze, and many other educators throughout Japan who believe in taibatsu but are less confident admitting that they do. While these three stories might be deemed “extreme” cases in which acts referred to as taibatsu have led to the tragic, untimely deaths of a few unfortunate young Japanese, they are simply the tip of the iceberg. What’s more, these stories raise important questions about how Japanese 7  the roof of the run-down three-story tYS building has a five-foot retaining wall, so it would have taken some effort to climb to the top to get in position to jump off. the girl’s family asked that her funeral be held at tYS, suggesting that they believed totsuka when he said that the death had been an unprovoked suicide.

8

Introduction

educators discipline their youth, how Japanese people talk about the ethics of such discipline, and what these words mean for our understandings of classroom education, sports training, culture, and even power. these three stories also show us why in-depth, long-term field-based research is essential to help us move beyond momentary media coverage of “extreme” incidents in order that we may better understand the practice of “corporal punishment” within the many educational contexts in which it is used. finally, these stories demonstrate how the issue of “corporal punishment,” even in societies far from our own, can severely polarize debate on classroom and sports education. in the English-language introduction to a report prepared by the fukushima Nuclear Accident independent investigation Commission, which had been charged by Japan’s National Diet to determine the root causes of the fukushima nuclear disaster of March 2011, Commission Chairman Dr. Kurokawa Kiyoshi argued that several “ingrained conventions of Japanese culture” were to be blamed for having caused this tragic, “man-made disaster”: “What must be admitted, very painfully, is that this was a disaster ‘Made in Japan.’ its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity” (quoted in tabuchi 2012). Where do these “cultural conventions” come from, and how are they passed on from generation to generation? Although this book is chiefly about “corporal punishment” in Japanese schools and sports, it is also about the educational ideas and practices that promote such obedience and deference to authority, the inner workings of such groupism and its inertia, and, perhaps most important of all, the perceptions of shared national culture about which many, including Dr. Kurokawa, have become so convinced. What Is Taibatsu? Taibatsu versus Corporal Punishment

What exactly is taibatsu, and how closely does it correspond with the English “corporal punishment”? Some Western researchers believe that corporal punishment in all societies can and indeed ought to be covered by a single definition, arguing that such a definition is essential for understanding corporal punishment cross-culturally (Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006, 244). for example, psychologists Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner use the following definition:

Introduction

9

[Physical punishment refers to] the direct or indirect infliction of physical discomfort or pain on a youth by a parent or other person in a position of authority over the youth, usually for the purpose of stopping a youth’s unwanted behavior, for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of an unwanted behavior, or because the youth failed to do something (s)he was supposed to do. (2006, 241)

Comparative sociologists Miethe and Lu also argue that corporal punishment “involves the infliction of pain on the offender’s body,” and that “pain and suffering are the primary and immediate goal of corporal punishment,” but they use examples such as “flogging, branding, stretching (racking), keel-hauling, dunking stools, electric shock, raping/sodomizing, amputations, other disfigurements/mutilations, and capital punishment” (2005, 33–34), not likely forms of “corporal punishment” that education scholars, for example, would include in their definitions. for example, education scholars Hyman and McDowell cast a rather wide net in their definition of corporal punishment in schools: the infliction of pain by a teacher or other educational official upon the body of a student as a penalty for doing something that has been disapproved of by the punisher. the infliction of pain is not limited to striking a child with a paddle or the hand. Any excessive discomfort, such as forcing the child to stand for long periods of time, confining one in an uncomfortable space, or forcing a child to eat obnoxious substances, fits the description. (1979, 4; see also Ember and Ember 2005, 609 for a similar definition)

While psychologists thus tend to focus on the mental or emotional toll incurred in their definitions of “corporal punishment,” and criminologists tend to highlight the cruel and unusual nature of the punishments handed down by the state, education scholars often focus on the various violations of a child’s body without that child’s consent. Clearly there is much disagreement among such Western scholars regarding what the proper definition of “corporal punishment” ought to be. in Japan, by contrast, these definitions are only somewhat helpful because the kinds of acts considered “corporal punishment” (taibatsu) are often rather different. in Japanese schools and sports (the latter of which, as we will see later, is generally seen as a very important educational domain) the term taibatsu can mean many of the aforementioned things, but it can also mean “sitting with one’s knees curled up behind the buttocks” (seiza) (fukuzawa 2006, 18), “holding buckets of water for extended periods of time” (hōman), “forced cleaning” (Kiku 2001), “boxing of the ears” (binta), and being “forced to stay after school and study” (Kobayashi et

10

Introduction

al. 1997). Some Japanese have even suggested that the forced attendance of regular class lessons by the state ought to be included in the definition of taibatsu (Hosaka 1986, 142). As one Japanese teacher complained in the early 2000s, the definition of taibatsu in Japanese includes disciplinary acts that English-speakers would not likely include in the definition of “corporal punishment”: “No one will support us if we try to discipline the students. teachers in the united States can send kids out of the classroom where they’re out of line. if we tried that we’d be in big trouble with the administration. Denying a child his right to be in class is in the same category as physical punishment, striking a student. it’s against the law today!” (quoted in Nathan 2004, 37). universal definitions of “corporal punishment” thus offer little more than approximations of the ways that human adults around the world physically discipline or punish youth, and while aspirations for cross-cultural research are certainly admirable and indeed desirable, “corporal punishment” cannot easily be defined in universal terms.8 The Difficulty of Defining Taibatsu

Without a hard and fast definition to go by, many in Japan are today and long have been confused about what the term taibatsu means. in this way, taibatsu functions a bit like uS Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s retort about pornography in 1964 (see Jacobellis v. Ohio): Japanese people may not be able to define it clearly, but they often “know it when they see it.” Of course, definitions of corporal punishment, even within one nation, are dynamic and always changing. in Japan, the definition of taibatsu has changed significantly over its lifetime, adding to this confusion. in the mid-1980s, for example, Japan’s Ministry of Education (MOE) used the following definition for taibatsu:

8  though Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner (2006) use a rather broad definition, considering the wide-reaching overview of corporal punishment they succinctly summarize in their article, it seems strange that they would attempt a definition at all. At one point in their article, they argue that some corporal punishment researchers have confused definitions of “abuse” with “corporal punishment,” and that this has led to the confounding of “mild” with “more severe forms.” they write: “Many detractors consider all forms of corporal punishment as abuse; and they often include in their definition of physical punishment a continuum of practices ranging from normative spanking to severe beatings. As a result of such omnibus definitions, the effects of mild physical punishment tend to become confounded with more severe forms” (224). But Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner seem to forget that this is the same problem that comes from having universal definitions of corporal punishment across nations and cultures: it scoops up potentially different forms of “corporal punishment” in the same net.

Introduction

11

Taibatsu is basically something that brings about a degree of physical suffering as a result of the body being violated by a physical act, an act to a student that cannot be tolerated by social norms. However, not all acts that violate the body are prohibited as taibatsu. Light striking that does not injure is a common method used as discipline by fathers and older brothers, and so long as it is not based on the mere anger of a teacher or school principal, the light hitting of the body that does not injure is actually accepted as discipline. in other words, there are times when striking is the most effective educational method. if it is just a light smack to the body to the degree that it can be accepted as “the whip of love,” striking can be allowed.9 (1986, 3334)

With this definition, the MOE added to the confusion about what taibatsu meant as well as left Japanese teachers with the power to decide what constituted “light hitting” and “light striking of the body.”10 if they had concluded that their physical discipline was “light,” then it would not have been prohibited by law and, indeed, might not be considered to fit within the definition of the term taibatsu. All Japanese did not accept this MOE definition, of course. Just a year later, the Japan federation of Bar Associations (1987) offered a rather different definition of taibatsu: “Acts that control, through force, situations of violent destruction of school property, violence against teachers, violence among students, or bullying among students, are not taibatsu. However, if such acts come to exceed mere ‘control’ and, in that instance, become [incidents of] ‘hitting’ or ‘kicking,’ then we can call such acts ‘taibatsu.’” While the MOE definition highlights the issue of suffering that physical punishment can cause and therefore the distinction between “light hitting” and “heavy hitting,” the Japan federation of Bar Associations focuses on those acts that exceed the justifiable goal of maintaining “control.” in other words, in attempting to draw a line on the limits of physical discipline, the MOE definition focuses on the need for an educator to consider the outcome an act of physical discipline may have on the individual, while the latter focuses on taibatsu’s effect on everyone else. Yet neither of these definitions account for the thoughts of all Japanese people, neither at the time they were drafted, nor today. in part because of 9  this Ministry of Education document goes on to read: “However, we hope that [educators] will do their best to [use taibatsu] prudently to protect the human rights of students who have not yet developed mentally and physically. Even if the act of an educator comes from love, and even if the act does not injure, it is hoped that acts which might cause injury will be avoided as much as possible.” 10  One study published the same year found that there were an equal number (40 percent) of teachers who believed that taibatsu represented the “whip of love” as there were people in the general public who believed that taibatsu was “violence” (imabashi 1986).

12

Introduction

these nuanced differences between Japan’s government ministries, there has for many decades been a great deal of confusion about what taibatsu means within the Japanese language. Goodman’s description of this definitional problem a decade ago still rings true today: the definition of physical abuse in the late 1980s and early 1990s was also unclear in Japan. Much of the uncertainty reflected by scholars related to the fact that the use of physical force against children was described using a number of different expressions: taibatsu (corporal punishment), chōkai (disciplinary punishment), gyakutai (abuse), and the more general term shitsuke (training/discipline). (2000, 167)

indeed, many legal prohibitions of taibatsu afford educators the right to use “chōkai” but not “taibatsu,” but because neither term is satisfactorily defined in these laws, educators have often misunderstood these terms or conflated their meanings, as we shall see in greater detail in chapter 2. Opinion surveys also suggest that the sorts of acts Japanese people consider to be taibatsu have changed over the years. teachers surveyed in 1986, for example, believed that taibatsu referred to “all kinds of bodily punishment” (73 percent), “hitting with a rod or something like it” (69 percent), “kicking” (63 percent), “punching with the fist” (60 percent), “making a child sit in seiza for a long time” (59 percent), or “slapping” (54 percent) (imabashi 1986, 213). A survey completed a decade later, however, found that taibatsu perceptions had changed. Now “punching with the fist” (nearly 42 percent) and “sitting in seiza for any length of time” (25 percent) were considered less relevant to the definition of taibatsu, but “slapping” (about 58 percent) was considered slightly more applicable (Sugiyama 1997, 105). Since its introduction, the term taibatsu has been so vigorously debated that it might be one of the most controversial terms in the Japanese language. Taibatsu’s definition has been especially vulnerable to conflicting interpretations because Japanese education laws have been written with considerable uncertainty. As a result, the term taibatsu has evolved to connote very different meanings to different Japanese people, as well as very different meanings from the English term “corporal punishment.”11 Although Donnelly and Straus define corporal punishment as “the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correcting or controlling the child’s behavior” (2005, 3), and Ember and Ember define it as “hitting, striking, 11  the English-derived foreign loan words “power harassment” (pawâ harasumento) and “sexual harassment” (sekkusuaru harasumento) further confuse the situation, as these are terms occasionally ascribed to incidents that might also be dubbed taibatsu.

Introduction

13

wounding, or bruising a dependent child for the purpose of punishing, disciplining, or showing disapproval” (2005, 609), a direct and complete use of these or the other aforementioned English definitions is not possible in Japan. While these definitions basically describe the situation in Japan, a literal translation of taibatsu (体罰), as its Chinese ideograms (kanji) maintain, means only the “punishment” (罰) of the “body” (体). Since the term was added to the Japanese language in the late nineteenth century, the term taibatsu has taken on a life of its own, as we will see in chapter 2.12 therefore, any study of “corporal punishment” in Japan must carefully disentangle the often-overlapping definitions of physical punishment (taibatsu), disciplinary punishment (chōkai), violence (bōryoku), training/ discipline (shitsuke), and abuse (gyakutai) noted by Goodman (2000) above. this process must begin by acknowledging that physical discipline for “educational” purposes appears to have deep linguistic roots in East Asia. the meaning of the Chinese ideograph for “teach” (教), for example, is made up of the elements for “parent/father” (父) using a “whip” (攵) against a “child” (子), and the term for “training/discipline” in Japanese, shitsuke (躾), literally means “beautifying” (美) the “body” (身). Why We Should Study Taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports To Discover the Truth about Discipline in Japanese Schools and Sports

this disentanglement process also requires debunking some commonly held myths about taibatsu. in the English language, there have been brief popular accounts (Schoolland 1990; Young 1993), short sections in scholarly works (Hill 1996; Yoneyama 1999), and a few longer research studies on “corporal punishment” in Japan (Kobayashi et al. 1997; Nogami 2005; fukuzawa 2006). But as is the case with most Japanese social issues, there is much more written about taibatsu in Japanese, including numerous scholarly accounts (e.g., Aoki and Manita 1990; Emori 1984, 1989; imazu 2006; Ae 1991, 2006; Miyata 1994; Mogami 1996; Morikawa 1990; Nagatani and Namimoto 1999; Okihara 1980, 2006; Sakamoto 1995; takahashi and Kumeda 2008; terasaki 2001; tomie 2011), and thus this disentanglement process must primarily consider the work of these many Japanese scholars. unfortunately, until now, very little Western scholarship has synthesized, incorporated, or built upon this great body of work. As i will illustrate in the pages that follow, these works reflect the many diverse

12  the traditional (i.e., not simplified) Chinese characters for “corporal punishment” are tifa (體罰), using the character “ti” (體) rather than “tai” (体). this “ti” is comprised of the elements for “bones,” “beans,” and “curves”: in other words, “body.”

14

Introduction

Japanese opinions about what the term taibatsu literally means, whether it is educationally effective, and whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps unaware of this thick stack of Japanese scholarship regarding taibatsu, some non-Japanese scholars have claimed that there is no debate within Japanese schools over “physical punishment,” that Japan is a “society that has tolerated severe physical punishment and intimidation by teachers” (treml 2001, 115; see also Stensrud and Burnett 1977; Schoolland 1990; and Young 1993). it is, however, a great oversimplification to conclude that Japan lacks the controversy over corporal punishment found in other countries. there is much more controversy than meets the eye, but it is necessary to read about taibatsu in Japanese to discover the depth and breadth of this controversy. Some scholars assume that “corporal punishment” in Japan has all but been outlawed, but this is not quite accurate, either. Hori, for example, argues that, “corporal punishment and coercion were formerly part of school education in both Japan and the West but since World War ii, modern Japanese schools follow Western example and actively discourage their use” (1994, 22). it is true that some Japanese schools discourage the use of taibatsu, but in the postwar period there have been many schools in which the use of taibatsu was encouraged as part a policy of “managed education” (kanri kyōiku) (see chapter 2). today, even when taibatsu is not actively encouraged by school policy, some Japanese teachers continue to use it. So it might be surprising to learn that taibatsu has been continuously illegal in Japanese schools since 1941. though taibatsu was first banned in Japanese schools in 1879, this prohibition was soon repealed (1885), reinstated (1890), repealed again (1900), and then reinstated again (1941). following the end of World War ii, taibatsu was again prohibited in Article 11 of the fundamental Law of Education (gakkō kyōikuhō dai 11 jo). Since then, taibatsu has been continuously illegal in schools. in that sense, perhaps, Hori was accurate in his assertion that in the postwar period “modern Japanese schools [have] follow[ed] Western example.” Yet Japanese teachers who use taibatsu today are only punished 30 to 45 percent of the time, suggesting that there is more to this story than meets the eye. this statistic also means that teachers—and sports coaches who coach school-affiliated sports club activities—who use taibatsu are clearly violating Japanese law, yet more often than not they are left unpunished. How we should best understand this inconsistency between law and educational practice is another central subject of this book (see especially chapters 2 and 5). Many non-Japanese observers of Japanese education are also surprised to learn that a certain number of Japanese parents allow or even encourage

Introduction

15

corporal punishment of their children by schoolteachers or sports coaches. the existence of private, fee-based educational institutions like the totsuka Yacht School proves this to be the case. Parents are said to transfer their “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) to educators like totsuka.13 the number of parents willing to transfer this “right to discipline” is higher than some non-Japanese observers might expect: a 1996 survey done by the AllJapan Parents and teachers Association found that only 25.6 percent of responding parents believed that taibatsu should never be administered by a teacher (Goodman 2003, 137). to such parents, taibatsu is seen as a “necessary evil” (hitsuyō’aku) that they would rather have a teacher execute for them. to these parents, taibatsu in the school is acceptable because there are no laws against the use of taibatsu in the home, and the school ought to be an extension of the home.14 Some of these Japanese adults see children as “things” (mono), dependent extensions of parents rather than separate entities, inferior subjects in need of protection. As a result, according to some surveys, nearly 60 percent of all Japanese parents believe that “there are times that the use of taibatsu cannot be helped” (iwai 2008b). in other words, one cannot therefore assert that taibatsu is always “abuse,” as some researchers do (Segal 1999, 40), for there are many within Japan who do not see the practice in such judgmental terms. in fact, there is quite a broad spectrum of “corporal punishment” in Japan as elsewhere, ranging from “mild” to “severe,” and many Japanese clearly approve of or at least condone its use. To Better Understand the Differences between Japan and Other Nations

it is also important to study taibatsu in Japanese schools and sports, and especially to do so from an anthropological perspective, in order to better understand the differences between Japan and other nations, mild and harsh corporal punishment, “rational, educational discipline” and “emotional, purposeless violence,” classroom education and sports education, as well as the relationship between the education system and the economy and how that relationship has changed over time. unlike many other Asian nations, Japan was never colonized by a Western power, and so some anthropologists might see her as a peripheral nation, both geographically and intellectually, literally and figuratively “on the edge of the world” and on the edge of anthropological studies.15 13  these do not apply to unregulated educational institutions such as the totsuka Yacht School (see Miller and toivonen 2009). 14  there is one exception: Kawasaki City prohibits taibatsu in its homes by a local ordinance. 15  this is one reason why recent anthropological studies of Japan have engaged broader debates on important global issues, such as the role of violence in modern armies (called Self-Defense forces in Japan) (frühstück 2007) or the role of popular culture in globalization

16

Introduction

Yet even if she was neither colonized nor is today underdeveloped, Japan has dealt with many of the same issues that other colonized Asian nations have faced. When she opened herself up to the West in the late nineteenth century, after many decades of isolation from the outside world (sakoku), the Japanese people had two substantial questions thrust upon them: “What are these Western ways?” and “Are they compatible with our own?” these were essential questions considered by all Asian nations coming into contact with Western nations for the first time, even if they were not forced into submission by the colonizing Western power. Soon Japan would become an imperial power of its own in Asia, and its experiences managing its colonies as well as negotiating with Western powers regarding the management of these colonies therefore also deserve our attention. Culture weighs heavily on this world of international relations, so anthropologists must continue to be involved in its study. finally, anthropologists must continue to highlight the interconnectedness of human societies, connections that actually predate our current and purportedly “new” era of “globalization,” as well as the important issues of power raised by such cross-cultural encounters. though the colonization of foreign societies no longer occurs in the same forms and on the scale as it did in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, this persistent interconnectedness remains an essential aspect of the twenty-first-century human condition, and perceptions of power and “neocolonialism” continue to shape people’s beliefs regarding various matters, including educational discipline. in fact, as we shall see in greater detail below, Japan actually had a rather ambivalent relationship with the idea of physical discipline during its own imperial era, as it willfully used taibatsu in its colonies of taiwan and Korea while outlawing it at home in its schools (see chapter 2). To Better Understand the Differences between Mild and Harsh Corporal Punishment, as well as the Differences between Rational Educational Discipline and Emotional Purposeless Violence

Studying “corporal punishment” in Japanese schools and sports is important for a variety of reasons. for one, it helps us better understand, in a contextualized manner, the point at which a physical act of punishment ceases to be “educational” and begins to be “violent,” ceases to be “mild” and begins to be “harsh.” this is why some scholars, such as Straus and Donnelly, emphasize that “experiencing pain” is an essential part of the (Condry 2006). Anthropologists of Japan rightly recognize that they must deal with such issues in order to appeal to colleagues who may not be naturally interested in this island nation.

Introduction

17

definition of corporal punishment: it is the educator’s intention to inflict pain but not injure that is integral in determining whether an act is corporal punishment or simply “violence” (2001, 7). By contrast, “violence” is “an act carried out with the intention, or perceived intention, of causing physical pain or injury to another person.”16 if the difference between “violence” and “corporal punishment” hinges primarily on the intention of the perpetrator to either injure or discipline, then it is essential to analyze incidents within their proper sociocultural, historical, and educational contexts, on a case-by-case basis. Such contextualization demands situating the practice within other possible disciplinary measures used by Japanese educators, as well as understanding who disciplines in Japanese society, when, and why. Describing such context in rich detail—so that we can better understand the differences between “rational, educational discipline” and “emotional, purposeless violence”—is a central aim of this book (see especially chapters 3 and 4). To Better Understand the Relationship between the Japanese Education System and the Economy, as well as How that Relationship Has Changed over Time

Studying corporal punishment in Japanese schools is also essential to understand the relationship between the Japanese education system and the economy, as well as how that relationship has changed over time. that many members of the Japanese business community support controversial figures like totsuka Hiroshi suggests that many of them condone if not outright support the use of taibatsu as a tool to cultivate disciplined bodies that will conform to the wishes of the group (read: company) and its leaders (read: management). Given the fact that many Japanese believe that their nation’s greatest “natural” resource is its people, especially considering the fact that Japan does not enjoy the same wealth of natural resources as other large nations such as the united States or China, many believe that such human resources must be as disciplined and efficient as possible to help Japan maintain the economic standard to which her people have grown accustomed. Of course, neither Japan’s economy nor its people’s perspectives on education are static, so this situation must constantly be monitored. until Japan’s economic bubble burst in 1990, the Japanese education system had been seen as a direct distributor of top-quality disciplined workers prepared to fuel corporate Japan. Since then, however, many Japanese 16  Kant’s categorical imperative supports this interpretation: “Never treat minds as means only, always as ends.” interpretations of corporal punishment therefore often have to do with the intentions of the teacher, rather than punishment in itself. this seems to be the reasoning underlying the following rather common statement: “i’m spanking you for your own sake,” or “it hurts me as much as it hurts you.”

18

Introduction

have come to see their education system as a problem contributing to, rather than a solution for, its postwar economic woes (Goodman 2011). After Japan’s economy began to falter, some began pointing to the education system’s inability to foster the creative minds considered necessary in a quickly changing, “globalized” world (Economist 1997). Many saw a breakdown in the education system altogether. in March 2001, for example, the National institute for Education Policy Research, an agency of the Ministry of Education, surveyed principals and teachers and asked them if they had experienced a classroom in which “group education and the teaching process itself have ceased to function over a continuous period of time due to children engaging in arbitrary activity in defiance of instructions by the teacher.” fully one-third of all respondents said that they had. in response to this “educational breakdown,” the so-called “relaxed education” (yutori kyōiku) reforms were implemented in the early 2000s, promising “room to breathe” for overburdened students. With yutori kyōiku, 30 percent of the core curriculum was reduced in elementary and middle schools, independently selected and directed electives were implemented, integrated study options aimed to foster enhanced creative and critical thinking skills were added, teachers began to expect students to memorize less of the information they offered than ever before, and a shorter school week (from six to five days) was introduced. (the number of hours students spent with sports clubs actually increased as a result, suggesting further need to study sports as educational realms.) According to Nathan, the emphasis in these reforms was clear: “selective learning, subjectivity, and above all, student autonomy” (2004, 33). Order in the classroom had clearly broken down, and the MOE believed that was because students did not have enough “room to breathe.” Not surprisingly, this was an extremely controversial education reform. in recent years, while some Japanese on the right side of the political spectrum have seen this reformed education system as too lenient, others on the left have seen it as too rigorous. the former group often asserts that it is “Western” democratic elements (including the prohibition of taibatsu), imposed by the American Occupying forces after the war, that should be drawn back in favor of more “traditionally Japanese practices.” Only then, they believe, will Japan solve its educational and economic problems. Critics of yutori kyōiku such as tokyo Governor ishihara Shintaro and Kawakami Ryoichi have argued that such “child-centered education” has “shifted educational priorities away from conformity” (Nathan 2004, 31), “transformed schools into an extension of the home, where children are encouraged to act at every impulse,” limited children’s ability to “endure difficulty or unpleasantness in the interests of the group,” and even created a state of “educational consumerism” that

Introduction

19

many Japanese assume characterizes the “individual-oriented” American education system (33). On the other side of the debate are the so-called “neoliberal leftists”: the MOE, the Japan teacher’s union, the federation of Economic Organizations, and the Socialist Party. these groups argue that, “Japan is now paying the price for decades of sacrificing trust and intimacy and personal realization to efficiency and economic growth” (Nathan 2004, 33). in the past, some have said that increasing levels of school violence and unruly children, not to mention this general “breakdown” in the education system, were caused by an extreme emphasis on conformity. Others insisted that it was due to Japan’s “entrance-exam hell” (juken jigoku), and some blamed the system for producing robotic children who could not think for themselves. in truth, it was probably also a lack of purpose that led to Japanese youth’s widespread and declining interest, and therefore poorer performance, in school. they saw little for them on the horizon. No longer was Japan’s economy at the top of the world, so young people no longer saw their fathers reaping substantial rewards for their seemingly endless hours of industriousness. Why would Japanese children want to work so hard if they knew that it would lead to so little? it was then and remains impossible now to disentangle this intimate link between the education system and the economy. By focusing on an extremely controversial educational issue such as taibatsu, we can more accurately pinpoint the moments at which perceptions of the education system—and its relationship with the economy—began to change (see chapter 2). To Better Understand the Differences between Classroom Education and Sports Education

Studying taibatsu can also help us better understand the similarities and differences between classroom and sports education, which may eventually help improve them both. Although i quickly learned how polarizing the issue of taibatsu could be to educational debate, i initially chose to investigate taibatsu in Japanese sports (specifically, high school baseball; see Miller 2006) because of the “educational value” that it was purported to hold. i had seen physical acts of discipline firsthand while working as an English teacher in a conservative, rural prefecture (Ehime) of Japan in the early 2000s. i was intrigued by taibatsu because it was supposed to be illegal in Japanese schools, yet some teachers and coaches still used it rather conspicuously, as if they were proud to be setting these children upon the proper path. it seemed puzzling to me at the time that such educators used taibatsu despite a rather clear legal prohibition against its use, especially given my assumption, incorrect and ignorant as it may have been, that Japan was filled only with law-abiding citizens. As i later learned,

20

Introduction

more than a few Japanese have ignored taibatsu’s illegality in schools and school sports, so i decided that studying taibatsu in both realms might help to better understand this disciplinary practice and how it functions differently in these two educational settings. the punishment of young athletes must be explored in the same context as the punishment of young students because both categories of youth are seen as subjects that must be molded into disciplined Japanese adults, and because both realms are ultimately important educational spaces for such molding. Socialization through sports is no minor matter, either; more than 90 percent of all Japanese teenagers play sports or exercise, and almost half (46 percent) of them actively participate in a sports club of some kind (Sasakawa Sports foundation 2006). Most of these clubs are affiliated with schools. Japan remains one of the few nations to place sports under the auspices of a governmental ministry also entrusted to oversee education. this Ministry, whose previous incarnation was the Ministry of Education (Monbushō) but since 2001 has been called the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and technology (Monbukagakushō, hereafter, “MEXt”), explicitly links school sports with school education for the purposes of bringing about “a fulfilled lifelong sports life” (MEXt 1961 [2000]). Schools in Japan are thus entrusted with the task of cultivating the next generation of ethical, upstanding adults and they use both classrooms and sports fields to do so. Moreover, sports settings have long been considered a realm in which the use of taibatsu has persisted unchallenged (Yoda 2002), a “hotbed” (onshō) of the practice in the words of some (see, e.g., tomie 2011, 221). So as sports and schools in Japan are perceived to complement each other and further similar goals of socialization, including the fostering of “teamwork, friendship, fair play, and a sense of achievement from leaving results” (tomie 2011, 221), we must look at both realms to better understand how teachers and coaches pursue these socialization goals. A careful study of corporal punishment in Japanese sports is also essential because sports are widely perceived to be effective conduits for the (physical) training of boys as they grow into men. in Japanese sports in particular, men and boys test their (physical) strength against each other and in some cases “battle” against foreigners in actual or imagined ways (Light 1999, 2000, 2003, 2008; Miller 2011a, 2011b). this is the only real “international competition” available to these boys and men, as Article 9 of Japan’s postwar constitution prohibits Japan from waging war or maintaining a standing army. in a way sports are one of the few remaining ways that Japanese men and boys can test their physical prowess on a global stage. thus Japanese men often talk about the “cultural” ways their sporting practices differ from sporting practices in other nations (Miller

Introduction

21

2011b), and many Japanese sportsmen call themselves “samurai,” emphasizing their belief that sports are a suitable realm not only for warriors, but for warriors with a “Japanese” spirit. Sports therefore give young Japanese boys a chance to become young Japanese men, even if their “international competition” today is “battled” in a baseball uniform, rather than in military garb. To Move beyond a Benedictian Theory and toward a Foucauldian Theory of Japanese Discipline

the corporal punishment of youth is a controversial practice across many human societies, especially in the so-called “civilized first world” in which some of us have begun to question our more “animalistic” behaviors, but perhaps nowhere has this controversy been overlooked more often than in Japan, a nation whose complexities have frequently been hidden from the gaze of Western observers. We Westerners are as much to blame for this outcome as any, however, for as visitors to Japan, we have rarely dug beneath the many stereotypes of Japanese cultural uniqueness or platitudes of cultural difference to unearth these complexities. Even when we have not visited Japan, our writings of what makes Japan “Japan” have cast a rather long shadow. for example, in the middle of the twentieth century Ruth Benedict was among a group of American anthropologists who helped established the intellectual foundations of the so-called “culture and personality school,” which suggested that cultures were like people in that they had personalities or exhibited a “national character.” Although the “culture and personality school” has since been criticized for propounding “pseudoscientific” theories of nation and race that merely essentialize the collective characteristics of any given nationstate, many laypeople, journalists, and even some scholars continue to argue that all Japanese are alike and that all Japanese share the same “national character.” the aforementioned report on the fukushima disaster by Dr. Kurokawa is merely one example in a long line of this kind (see chapter 5). And yet few who borrow her ideas realize that Benedict never even traveled to Japan. in hindsight, it may be easy for some to understand why Benedict would have felt compelled by the idea that cultures reflected personalities. She was living at a time in which international conflict was the norm and world war was a simple reality. Given that context, Benedict tried to apply anthropology’s ethnographic methods in a way that could account for a foreign culture’s distinct characteristics and help America defeat its opponents abroad. in the beginning of The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, in which she examines the defining aspects of Japan’s national character, Benedict writes: “Conventions of war which Western nations

22

Introduction

had come to accept as facts of human nature obviously did not exist for the Japanese. it made a major problem in the nature of the enemy. We had to understand their behavior in order to cope with it” ([1946] 2005, 1). Although Benedict could have written that she desired to “understand their behavior in order to defeat the enemy,” she instead used the term “cope,” suggesting that she truly believed that peace could be achieved through greater cultural understanding. She continued, “there has never been a time when civilization stood more in need of individuals who are genuinely culture-conscious, who can see objectively the socially conditioned behavior of other peoples without fear and recrimination” (10–11). these were admirable aspirations, to be sure. the problem, then, was not so much Benedict’s personal aspirations in publishing The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, but rather the assumptions undergirding her study, the methods used to undertake it, as well as the life the book took on after it was published. Although there were considerable limitations to Benedict’s study—she wrote during war time so she never had the chance to visit Japan, was forced to take notes for her book primarily from discussions with New York-based Japanese-Americans of a particular socioeconomic class, and crafted her thesis in a span of only three months (Kent 1999, 191)—the Japanese were relatively unconcerned or at least unaware of these issues when they began to consume her writings in voracious quantities. the Japanese knew that the uS Office of War information had commissioned Benedict’s study, and, perhaps as they were eager to see what such an esteemed anthropologist would say about their race, it was quickly decided that The Chrysanthemum and the Sword ought to be translated into Japanese. Before long the Japanese version of the book, entitled Kiku to Katana (1948) and published just two years after the first English edition, had become one of the best-selling books in Japan and Benedict’s assessments of the Japanese were considered a full and exhaustive encapsulation of the “essence” of the Japanese people. ultimately, Kiku to Katana sold an astonishing 2.3 million copies but, as Kent has shown, its author never became as popular as the text she wrote (1999, 181–185). few considered the question of why Benedict would write about Japan in the way she did, few questioned the assumptions of “national character” that she carried into her study, and little was made of her use of Japan as a case study to further her sweeping anthropological argument that cultures, like individuals, exhibited personalities. instead, the Japanese seemed quite satisfied simply welcoming the “essence” that Benedict had distilled, perhaps in part because the book appeared at a time when Japan was facing a national identity crisis (Aoki 1989). the book was first published just a few years after Japan had suffered a devastating defeat to the Americans in World War ii, which ended

Introduction

23

many decades of imperial superiority in Asia. So Benedict’s conclusions were considered national character gospel to many Japanese; at a time of severe insecurity, they wanted to know what made them special among the many nations of the world, and Benedict delivered. there were various problems with Benedict’s claims. for one, Benedict’s argument that the Japanese could be understood by examining how Japanese behavior was shaped primarily by an intense awareness of social hierarchy, honor, indebtedness, virtue, and duty (on and giri) was intriguing but ignored other motivations for Japanese behavior. As we now know, loyalty to the Emperor and the great fear associated with failing to repay one’s debts to one’s family, community, and nation are ideas to which not all young Japanese will today recognize as eminently Japanese values. Even at that time there were dissenters who did not calculate their every move based on loyalty to the nation and its prime symbols. Benedict also missed the mark when she wrote about the issues of discipline in child-rearing and formal schooling as well. She had shown that ridicule and insult were used to shame the Japanese person into doing the right thing, lest “the world will laugh” at him (Benedict [1946] 2005, 273). for the Japanese she described, the worst thing that could happen would be ostracism or alienation from the group. in some ways, Benedict was rather insightful about Japanese discipline, especially given the fact that she never traveled to Japan. After all, the Japanese still frequently discipline their peers, honoring one’s elders is still a key value in Japanese society, and being ostracized from the group is still considered extremely undesirable. these were all things Benedict duly noted (272). Yet as this book will show, Benedict’s assessments regarding ridicule and insult as the primary methods of Japanese discipline have failed to stand the test of time. in the early 1990s, for example, Stevenson and Stigler identified three ways that Japanese children were given greater responsibilities than American children, which in turn helped to maintain order in the classroom (1992, 62–63; see chapter 3 for more details). None of these ways involved ridicule or insult. first, children are entrusted to discipline each other; teachers do not do all the disciplining. Second, leadership is fostered from an early age on a rotating basis; everyone has the chance to be a leader, and by extension, a follower. third, everyone cleans communal spaces and serves each other school lunch. Since there are no “lunch ladies” or janitors in Japanese schools, students feel a sense of ownership over their space. if ridicule and insult were the primary methods of discipline used at that time, they are no longer today. Over the years, Benedict has become best known for her argument that the Japanese have a “shame culture” rather than a “guilt culture,” but the suggestion that shame drives much Japanese behavior does not

24

Introduction

convincingly explain the existence or significance of taibatsu. As this book will show, many Japanese believe taibatsu functions much differently: when young students or athletes are singled out and struck, they are said to be brought into the group, not sent out of it. Rather than being alienated from the group, taibatsu emphasizes their importance to it. they are being told, without actually being told: “We need you as a member of this group, so you must conform to our demands.” Physical punishment in these cases suggests that the individual “victim” of taibatsu is someone from whom much is expected. Taibatsu, in such cases, could be considered an honor, not a source of shame. finally, Benedict oscillated between analyzing Japan on its own terms and analyzing Japan with reference to the united States, making it difficult to trust her conclusions. Even as she herself acknowledged Japan’s rich diversity in her book’s title, she failed to acknowledge how such diversity undermined her own “national character” thesis. for example, when it came time to characterize what made Japan unique and different from the uS, Benedict concluded that the Japanese could not be stereotyped in simple terms: Both the sword and the chrysanthemum are a part of the picture. the Japanese are, to the highest degree, both aggressive and unaggressive, both militaristic and aesthetic, both insolent and polite, rigid and adaptable, submissive and resentful of being pushed around, loyal and treacherous, brave and timid, conservative and hospitable to new ways. they are terribly concerned about what other people will think of their behavior, and they are also overcome by guilt when other people know nothing of their misstep. their soldiers are disciplined to the hilt but are also insubordinate. ([1946] 2005, 2–3)

Meanwhile, when Benedict emphasized differences between Japan and her home country, the united States, rather than internal differences within Japan, she wrote “No one is unaware of the deep-rooted cultural differences between the united States and Japan. We even have a folklore about the Japanese that says that whatever we do they do the opposite.” ([1946] 2005, 10) these two quotations show that when Benedict compared Japan to the uS, she insisted that Japan was one thing, X to America’s Y, if you will. Yet when she compared with Japan with itself, she said that it was both X and Y. Plurality characterized Japan in one instance, singularity in another. Regrettably, many scholarly studies in the English-speaking academic world still begin like Benedict’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, with a West-centric mindset that looks for differences between one’s home nation and Japan, so it is extremely important for social scientists to consider

Introduction

25

non-Western societies on their own terms before they attempt to use these nations as “mirrors” to better understand their own. this is not to suggest that crosscultural comparison is altogether unimportant; it is simply that the steps of this process are often out of order. first we must study the “Other” deeply, and then we should try to compare it with the “Self.” Only then will we know whether we are comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges, and whether our comparisons are at all justifiable. in this regard, an approach modeled on the historically rigorous social studies of Michel foucault (e.g., 1995, 2006) seems far superior to one modeled on the comparative approach taken by Benedict. foucault’s approach first considers a society on its own terms, rather than beginning by saying that we ought to understand the “Other” primarily in order to “cope with it.” in a way that i imagine foucault might have appreciated, this book is a critical study of discipline and punishment in the educational settings—in this case, schools and sports—of a non-Western society, as well as an attempt to show how power actually operates in those educational settings, which is to say how power “makes subjects” by using the body as the object of discipline and/or punishment, how power not only limits but also produces certain behavior, and how power can use action—as well as inaction—to structure the education experience and ultimately control both children and society. Much in Japan has changed since Benedict wrote The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, and certainly it would be unfair to have expected her to detail all of the nuances of why young Japanese students and athletes are physically punished; it was not her central purpose in writing her book. Still, the influence of The Chrysanthemum and the Sword remains quite considerable in Japan today, so it is important to set the record straight. the Japanese have all sorts of ideas about discipline and punishment, just as they have all sorts of other ideas that Benedict overlooked. Although The Chrysanthemum and the Sword was very important at the time it was written, both to Americans seeking to understand Japan and to Japanese seeking to understand how they were understood by others, and though the book continues to influence opinion leaders from many walks of life, a book about Japanese culture and discipline that goes beyond Benedict is long overdue. Thesis and Chapter Summaries this book is about the many “discourses of discipline” that encircle the issue of “corporal punishment” (taibatsu) in Japanese schools and sports. these discourses encompass the ways that people discuss discipline, the patterns of rhetoric about what discipline should be, as well as what

26

Introduction

discipline signifies. in the case of taibatsu, these discourses generally crystallize around a few themes—definitions, histories, contexts, ethics, causes, and theories—which is why these issues have been selected to form the skeleton structure for this book. this book scrutinizes these discourses of discipline in order to disentangle the allegedly intimate connections between culture, discipline, and pedagogy in Japanese schools and sports. We have long needed to cast doubt on the purportedly “cultural” connections between “violence” and “physical punishment,” especially in Japan. in our increasingly interconnected world, the term “culture” is deployed perhaps now more than ever as a causal explanation without sufficient precision. it is extremely important to describe and understand the “countless conflicts, tensions, crosscurrents, and anxieties” among the Japanese (Smith 1998, 36) so that we do not fall into the trap of assuming that the many different people who live in Japan represent a homogenous group of harmony-seeking conformers. As this book will illustrate, nothing could be further from the truth. this is why i have chosen to interpret the ways that Japanese people have imagined, discussed, debated, and ascribed meaning to this controversial term taibatsu throughout modern Japanese educational and sporting history, rather than try to explain why Japanese culture causes taibatsu or why Japanese people use it. it is important to interpret what these discourses mean on a symbolic level, rather than relying on simplistic cultural explanations, in order to understand why educators use taibatsu, why many recipients appreciate its use, and what its use can tell us about other more general themes in Japanese education, sports, and society. Such an interpretive rather than explanatory approach can also help us understand the nature of social change in these realms. By attempting to understand how specific Japanese actors have appropriated taibatsu as a symbol in order to pursue their own interests or agendas, we can come to understand changes within Japanese society, sports, and education over time far more accurately and insightfully than if we sought to conclusively explain why taibatsu exists. the important question is not “What explains taibatsu’s existence?” but, rather, “How have people used taibatsu as a symbol?” By asking this latter question, which by definition demands historical as well as field-based research, we can better understand how Japan has changed over time and how it continues to change today. the general outline of this book is as follows. Chapter 1 asks and answers the question, “What can an anthropological approach offer to the study of corporal punishment”? it explores the ways in which there are many “corporal punishments” around the world, not just in the sense that there are many forms of corporal punishment, such as kicking or slapping or “boxing the ears,” but also in the sense that perceptions of the practice

Introduction

27

differ considerably across cultural and national borders, and that as a result we must strive toward more reflexive research.17 Although i did not anticipate this outcome, writing this book has forced me not only to gain a deeper understanding of “corporal punishment” in Japan but has also required me to study corporal punishment in the uS, the nation of my birth and upbringing (see appendix 3). Although initially against the practice, i realized during the early stages of this research that i would have to suppress my tendency to judge another culture’s “despicable” practices in order to undertake an effective study of them. that is why i have sought in these pages to critically dissect both arguments for and against the practice of corporal punishment, and in the process i have realized not only that there are more opinions within Japan about the practice that i had initially assumed, but also that i personally had the capacity to set my own preconceived notions aside in order to learn more about Japanese society, culture, sports, and education. “Restraining one’s self” (jibun wo osaeru), as a Japanese person might put might, ought to be the ideal to which all corporal punishment researchers strive, and for that matter the ideal to which all researchers considering controversial, sensitive social issues ought to strive, especially when their investigations are conducted outside the boundaries of their native culture. Chapter 2 considers the question: “How have people defined and debated taibatsu since the term was coined in the Meiji Period?” Beginning from the assumption that there is no such thing as “history” in a singular sense, this chapter examines the various perceptions of what the term taibatsu has meant to various people and institutions throughout modern Japanese “histories,” as well as how these people and institutions have attempted to legally define this term in ways that would further their respective agendas. this chapter also argues that “things legal” are inseparable from “things linguistic”: particularly, how ambiguities in education laws regarding taibatsu have allowed the practice to persist in Japan’s schools and sports. Taibatsu’s initial banning was implemented in the hopes that Japan would be accepted as a “civilized” nation by the Western world. in more recent years, however, taibatsu has alternately been constructed to be an “educational solution” and an “educational problem,” marginalized 17  this book does not, however, discuss the debate over corporal punishment as a sexual activity or as a penal reprimand, although the latter debate is as heated as the debate on corporal punishment in schools. for example, Moskos (2011) argues that flogging might be a better way to punish American criminals quickly and effectively without spending large amounts of money to imprison people. the Economist magazine (2011) said Moskos’s proposal was “almost reasonable” because the united States incarcerates 2.3 million inmates and has an incarceration rate five times the world average, yet it does not have an answer for recidivist crime.

28

Introduction

by other more pressing youth problems such as “bullying,” and recast in government and media discourse using the less controversial term, “child abuse” (jidō gyakutai). Chapter 3 asks the question: “What are the contexts in which taibatsu occurs?” this chapter situates the practice of taibatsu in its proper contexts in order to show how it is but one disciplinary measure used by Japanese educators today. After exploring the forms, genders, spaces, and inflictors of discipline, this chapter concludes that taibatsu ought to be understood as but one example of one of three “languages” of discipline: silent, verbal, and physical. Chapter 4 answers the question: “How do people debate the ethics of taibatsu?” by exploring the various perspectives and positions from which Japanese people decide whether they approve or disapprove of taibatsu. it represents a descriptive, dispassionate overview of the arguments for and against taibatsu, summarizing the ways people judge taibatsu to be right or wrong. the variety of ethical opinions detailed in this chapter, including the belief that taibatsu is valuable for “guidance,” “discipline,” or “educational effectiveness,” and the notion that it is not valuable because it represents “violence,” “abuse,” or a “violation of human rights,” suggests that taibatsu is a multivocal symbol, and demonstrates that, contrary to what many believe, taibatsu is as just as controversial as “corporal punishment” has been in English-speaking sociocultural contexts. Curiously, theories continue to be put forth that attempt to explain taibatsu with reference only to Japanese culture. Yet taibatsu is not the culturally Japanese practice that many assume it to be, and “culture” alone cannot explain its existence or persistence. Refuting such unfounded and illogical culturalist arguments is a central aim of chapter 5, which aims to answer the question, “How do Japanese people explain taibatsu’s existence and persistence?” Although this chapter accepts that there may be “cultural” factors affecting taibatsu’s existence and persistence, it refuses to blame or attribute taibatsu to “flaws” (or depending on one’s perspective, “virtues”) in Japanese culture. “Culture” has been unjustifiably deployed to explain taibatsu in Japanese schools, and assertions that the Japanese sporting body, mind, or spirit are incomparably unique are equally groundless because they are based on an untenable comparison with an imagined “Western sporting body.” One can neither conclude that the Japanese use taibatsu because of their “unique culture,” nor blame the persistence of the practice on such “culture.” this chapter argues that the only justifiable theory of taibatsu is one that goes beyond such culturalism and accounts for the various symbolic meanings that this so-called educational practice holds. Contrary to what many believe, there is no single

Introduction

29

“Japanese” discourse of discipline, just as there is no single “Japanese” culture. finally, chapter 6 considers the question: “What does taibatsu in Japanese schools and sports tell us about power, discourse, violence, and the body?” this chapter examines several theories that can be applied to the study of taibatsu, especially the theories of power, violence, and the body put forward by the influential french scholar Michel foucault, in order to interpret why many young Japanese people come to approve of the taibatsu that was used upon them, and, in some cases, choose to use taibatsu when they transition from the role of student to the role of educator. foucault detailed how power disciplines through the human body as well as how the words we use shape our consciousness, and thus, our “reality.” the same is true with the multivocal “discourses of discipline” that encircle taibatsu. the words that have been used to describe taibatsu have shaped Japanese beliefs regarding educational and sporting discipline, at least as much as the physical act of taibatsu itself has shaped youth behavior. We must therefore consider not only how the physical act of taibatsu routinizes the behavior of young Japanese students and athletes, but also the ways in which various discourses regarding such discipline have shaped Japanese understandings of their “educational reality.” this chapter thus shows how controversy itself—in this case, controversy regarding the definition of taibatsu—can open up space for particular social acts to persist. A more compelling and precise definition of taibatsu by the Ministry of Education, as well as a more deliberate and consistent record of enforcement of existing taibatsu prohibition laws, would likely have made Japan a global pioneer in the advancement of children’s rights. instead, these legal ambiguities have allowed both the act and the immense debate surrounding it to continue, leaving Japan, like many other industrialized nations, rather ambivalent about the efficacy and ethics of “corporal punishment” as a tool of educational discipline.

CHAPtER 1

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment “Anthropology is philosophy with the people in.” —tim ingold

Corporal Punishment (Research) Today in the last two decades, rigorous efforts have been undertaken to eliminate corporal punishment around the world. these efforts partly constitute a reaction to the enactment of Article 19 of the united Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Signed into law in 1989 by the General Assembly and effective beginning the following year, the Convention reads: Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Yet according to an advocacy group called the Global initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, by 2009 there were only twentyseven nations that had ratified this international treaty in all potential spaces where corporal punishment might occur (i.e., the home, the school, the penal system, and in alternative care settings).1 Bans on corporal punishment in schools far outweigh bans in the home. As of 2008, 106 nations had outlawed corporal punishment in their schools, and most of these bans have come in the last few decades (Economist 2008). Corporal punishment may perhaps be on the decline in schools 1 

Austria, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, iceland, israel, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Sweden, (Southern) Sudan, ukraine, uruguay, and Venezuela (as of May 2009, italy’s ban on corporal punishment in the home had not yet been confirmed in legislation) (http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org). See also Economist (2008) and Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner (2006, 223).

32

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

around the world, but it remains a tool used by many parents. Governments around the world seem reluctant to enact laws forbidding parents from using the practice in their own homes, on their own children. Even if corporal punishment were banned in homes, enforcement officials would not likely be aware of its “mild” use (e.g., in cases in which the parent does not permanently injure or scar the child). Enforcement of the law is not the only problem, however. Compliance is a different but related problem; some educators are ignorant of or knowingly disobey laws prohibiting corporal punishment. Corporal punishment also continues to be used as a disciplinary method in the sports of various nations, but because sports teams are often affiliated with schools or coached by schoolteachers, in theory the practice should be unlawful in countries that have chosen to ban the practice in their schools. Such recent eradication efforts mark an important shift in the way that international organizations and national governments perceive the childrearing process, and their role within it. they reflect a growing belief that children have a certain amount of private space that must never be violated while present in public institutions such as schools. Yet children’s rights laws are only one aspect of a complicated social landscape that is the backdrop to the issue of corporal punishment, in Japan as elsewhere. in this chapter, i make the case that an anthropological approach, which incorporates archival historical as well as contemporary ethnographic research, can enhance our understanding of “corporal punishment” by describing it in richer detail. in contrast to research on corporal punishment by psychologists and medical professionals, much of which seeks only to condemn the practice and work towards its eradication, an anthropological approach can help us achieve greater understanding of this still rather widespread global practice. Global Trends in Corporal Punishment Research

Globally, some scholars assert that corporal punishment is under-researched (Straus and Donnelly 2001, 7) but it has certainly been given much more attention in Western nations in recent years (see, e.g., Arcus 2002; David 2005; Gregory 1995; Grossman et al. 1995; imbrogno 2000; Morrell 2001; Owen and Wagner 2006; Raichle 1977–1978; Shaw and Braden 1990). While corporal punishment in homes and in schools seems to have been given its fair share of scholarly attention, especially regarding its consequences in the latter realm2 (see, e.g., Grossman et al. 1995; Arcus 2002; 2 

Some provocative conclusions have come out of global research on corporal punishment in schools. for example, Arcus (2002) argues that corporal punishment in American schools

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

33

Morrell 2001; Raichle 1977–1978; Skiba et al. 2002; Gregory 1995; Shaw and Braden 1990; David 2005; imbrogno 2000; Owen and Wagner 2006) the issue seems particularly under researched in sporting contexts.3 Scholars around the world have interpreted the purposes of corporal punishment in various ways. for example, Miethe and Lu outline the general purposes of punishments in the penal realm, broadly conceived, as follows: 1) to reinforce the dominant values of a society, 2) to deter future crime or deviance, 3) to restore or compensate for loss, 4) to rehabilitate, 5) to incapacitate, and/or 6) to eliminate threats to the social order (2005, 1). One purpose they overlook, however, is the infliction of pain. Scott explains: “Pain, physical or mental, is the essence of punishment. Every form of punishment that has been devised has had for its object the infliction of pain or suffering upon the individual; physical pain in some cases, psychical suffering in others, a combination of physical pain and mental suffering in most” (1938 [1952], 165). As we saw earlier, Straus and Donnelly emphasize that it is an educator’s intention to inflict pain but not injure that is essential to determining whether an act is “corporal punishment” or “violence” (2001, 7).4 creates an environment in which school violence can be accepted as a norm, noting that states in which corporal punishment is legal also have a significantly higher number of fatal school shootings. 3  South Korean sports stand out as an exception to this rule. Corporal punishment appears to be rather widespread in the sports and schools of this East Asian nation, according to numerous studies. Hahm found that 95 percent of student-athletes had experienced corporal punishment, and most of these athletes tended to disagree with the necessity of the punishment technique; that is, its use had “no positive effects” (1997, 162). Kang reported that male coaches with university degrees tended to use corporal punishment more than other coaches (2007, 135). According to Kim, corporal punishment by South Korean sports coaches happened mostly when “one did not do one’s best” and “problems arose in teamwork” (2001, 70). Kang found that corporal punishment of junior members of sports teams was caused by “a desire to create solidarity,” “a lack of manners,” and the “misbehavior” of peers, and that students training to be teachers and athletes with extensive playing experience were more likely to have experienced corporal punishment than others (2004, 79). Even in adult sports teams in South Korea, Song found that 86.5 percent of athletes had experienced corporal punishment, and though these “adult athletes strongly disagreed with the necessity of the punishment,” they “still respect[ed]” their coaches afterward (2001, 420). Corporal punishment is apparently also used in Korean professional sports. in 2000, in the Korea’s Women’s Basketball League, Coach Jin Song Ho of the Hyundai Hyperion struck three players, causing one to suffer a ruptured eardrum. His coaching license was later revoked (see Jenkins 2005, 164). 4  Scarry’s influential and provocative work, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (1985), also makes this point. She argues that the infliction of physical pain leads to destruction and the “unmaking of the human world,” whereas human creation, such as artistic and cultural activity, leads to the “making of the world.” Because pain is inexpressible, and because expression (especially verbal expression) is a form of creation, invention,

34

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

But the infliction of pain, though it may accomplish the end of maintaining social order, can have unintended, deleterious consequences. that is why a great deal of research on corporal punishment focuses on the negative consequences of its use in the home. for example, Strauss and Paschall (2009) found that children who were the recipients of corporal punishment at an early age were likely to have lower iQs than children who did not, and Straus and Donnelly (2001) argue that “children who are spanked quickly learn that love and violence can go hand in hand.” According to their research: “Children who are spanked are from two to six times more likely to be physically aggressive, to become juvenile delinquents, and later, as adults, to use physical violence against their spouses, to have sadomasochistic tendencies, and to suffer from depression” (Straus and Donnelly 2001, back cover). Cross-cultural studies seem to support such psychological findings. for example, Levinson found more cases of wife beating in societies where corporal punishment of children was common (1989, 37), and Gershoff (2002), in her review of eighty-eight other research studies regarding corporal punishment, also concluded that the practice produced negative results. though Gershoff found that corporal punishment was associated with the “positive” short-term results of immediate compliance, moral internalization, quality of parent-child relationship, mental health in childhood, and mental health in adulthood, she concluded that the long-term, overall effects of corporal punishment are more often than not detrimental because they are associated with some combination of the following undesirable outcomes and experiences: aggression in childhood, aggression in adulthood, childhood delinquency and antisocial behavior, adult criminality and antisocial behavior, being a victim of physical abuse, and abusive behavior toward one’s own child or spouse (see also fergusson and Lynskey 1997; Haj-Yahia Musleh and Haj-Yahia 2002). Gershoff’s review of this literature used a definition wide enough to include both “mild” and “harsh” forms of corporal punishment, but a small minority of scholars believe these two types of corporal punishment should be considered distinct because “mild” corporal punishment (e.g., spanking) can have “beneficial effects” (see, e.g., Larzelere 2000; Baumrind, Larzalere, and Cowan 2003; Kobayashi-Winata and Power 1989). Larzelere (2003) uses a definition of corporal punishment that excludes various forms of “harsh” corporal punishment in order to argue that spanking can reduce noncompliance and fighting if used on children aged or “making,” the infliction of pain on a victim is effectively an act of destruction, or “unmaking.” As a result, the infliction of bodily pain prohibits acts of creativity, such as the production of literature or art.

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

35

two to six.5 Gunnoe (2003) corroborates this conclusion, finding that 92 percent of all studies involving children younger than six reported mostly positive outcomes from the use of corporal punishment. On the other hand, 86 percent of all studies of children aged seven to eleven reported negative outcomes (see Gunnoe 2003). At first glance, research on corporal punishment in Asia appears to “confirm” some of these findings. While some scholars make only narrow conclusions regarding corporal punishment in one society (e.g., Lui 1993), others argue that corporal punishment is generally considered acceptable in “Asian cultures” until “about the age of six” (Segal 1999, 48). Segal explains that in “Asian cultures”: Proper character development is thought to be linked with moral development, and early leniency is replaced by rigidity and control when the child is believed to have reached an age of reason, usually at about the age of six. unswerving duty toward, and acceptance of, parental expectations and demands are the primary mechanism for socializing children in Asian cultures. (1999, 48)

By Segal’s logic, it is not that the effectiveness of corporal punishment ends at the threshold of age six (as scholars like Larzelere and Gunnoe believe to be the case with Western children); rather, it is that adults must begin to be stricter on children when they pass into this “age of reason” in Asian childhood. this is a provocative “cultural” conclusion, but as this book will show, the historical and contemporary contexts in which corporal punishment has taken place are too diverse and complex to generalize even in one nation, let alone in all “Asian cultures.” How Anthropology Can Help Us Better Understand Corporal Punishment As we have seen, much previous research on corporal punishment by psychologists and medical professionals has focused on the detrimental effects of this practice, and while such research is certainly important, anthropologists have also contributed to our global understanding of corporal punishment by trying to illuminate what the practice signifies when it happens rather than to condemn it when it does (see, e.g., Ember and 5  Although they disagree on whether corporal punishment should be used, both Larzelere (2000) and Gershoff (2002) found that corporal punishment is associated with children’s immediate compliance. Both scholars also agree that the effects of corporal punishment vary with age. in particular, they found that corporal punishment tends to have fewer positive outcomes after children turn six years old because its use is associated with externalizing problems, mental health issues, and lower competencies (see Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006, 229).

36

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

Ember 2005). While much previous research has been aimed at the eradication of corporal punishment, an anthropological approach can provide richer historical and contemporary detail as well as a mirror for crosscultural comparison, without necessarily passing judgment on any culture’s disciplinary practices.6 Anthropology, with its demand for reflexive understanding of one’s own society before trying to understand another culture, does not easily lend itself to polemical campaigns for the outlawing of social practices in foreign societies. Not all anthropologists are cultural relativists, but most acknowledge that an explicit research agenda is bound to distort research findings because it can potentially control what the researcher is looking for during fieldwork, and therefore also what (s)he finds. i too have been careful in this book to craft my argument beginning with the research “data”—e.g., ideas from published works and informant statements—rather than beginning with a hypothesis i was trying to prove (e.g., “corporal punishment is always wrong and ought to be outlawed”). Attempting to study this phenomenon as objectively as possible, i spoke with people who use corporal punishment, as well as those who do not, and to people who have had it used upon them, as well as those who have not, in order to understand corporal punishment in all its manifestations. ultimately, i wanted these research “findings” to speak for themselves, and i wanted my normative opinions on the subject to play as small a role in this book as possible. in the past, anthropologists and ethnographers have emphasized the need to understand specific cultural perceptions in order to understand corporal punishment in a foreign place. Some have connected the use of corporal punishment to supernatural forces (in the Bahamas, see Otterbein and Otterbein 1973) or denoted the influence of fundamentalist Protestant beliefs on parental attitudes (in New Zealand, see Ritchie and Ritchie 1981; in Northern ireland, see Murphy-Cowan and Stringer 2001). in these latter accounts, because the act of inflicting corporal punishment is perceived to be an act of duty to both God and society, corporal punishment is not necessarily considered in a negative light. (Here we can see 6  understanding this plurality and the contexts in which it takes place was not always the central goal of anthropologists studying corporal punishment. Some anthropologists used to see the eradication of corporal punishment as an example of human progress, as falk explained in 1941:

Anthropologists picture the ascent of man to his present state of culture, achieving a new philosophy of life with correlative social attitudes and more human practices. in this ascendancy to a more human way of living and social control, we would naturally expect evidence of modifications in the theory and practice relative to the infliction of corporal punishment as a means of realizing the purposes of education. (i)

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

37

the lasting influence of Solomon’s Biblical dictum, “He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loves him chastises him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24)—and its more colloquial maxim, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Advocates of corporal punishment throughout nations in which JudeoChristian ideas dominate have frequently used these expressions (RipollNúñez and Rohner 2006, 222). in Japan, anthropologists have also been at the forefront of research that has considered disciplinary regimes, broadly conceived. for example, in her study of a Japanese ethics center, Kondo found that one of the center’s essential doctrines was “hardship is the gateway to happiness” (1987, 264), and Rohlen’s (1984) study of “spiritual education” (seishin kyōiku) in a Japanese bank showed that some disciplinary techniques used on Japanese soldiers before and during World War ii (see, e.g., tsurumi 1978, 171), though not necessarily taibatsu, came to be used in Japanese companies in the postwar period as well. the best anthropological studies consider taibatsu’s role within the context of other disciplinary measures that parents employ (Goodman 2000, 2003; Hendry 1986, 109ff). for example, Hendry found that there were three general types of punishments used on children in Japanese homes: taibatsu, isolation, and banishment (1986, 109ff). She explains that though taibatsu is “not often administered in public,” most of her informants “said that they did smack their children from time to time if they refused to listen, or if they were particularly naughty” (109). While taibatsu in the home could mean pinching, striking, or, as Hendry writes of moxa cautery, “the well-known one which has shocked several Western writers into describing it in detail,7 the burning of incense on the skin” (109), as the child “matures, disciplinary measures tend increasingly away from physical punishment and more towards censure designed to make the child feel ashamed” (115). following Hendry, it has been my hope to similarly contextualize corporal punishment within the many other forms of discipline employed in Japanese schools and sports. The Importance of Perceptions, Problems, Symbols, and Subcultures

instead of assuming that there can only be one “right way” (e.g., “the American way”) and one “wrong way” (e.g., “the Japanese way”) to educate or discipline, this book interprets taibatsu from the perspective of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism supposes that people interact with each other based on how they perceive and interpret certain social situations. Over the years taibatsu has also come to garner symbolic 7  Here Hendry is probably referring to Benedict, who discusses moxa cautery at length and in detail in The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (see Benedict [1946] 2005, 267).

38

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

status in Japan, affecting many people beyond just the inflictor and recipient, and significantly influencing national debate about classroom and sports pedagogy. At the heart of the symbolic interactionist approach is this attempt to reveal the symbolic status of important cultural keywords, such as taibatsu. the “symbolic interactionist” approach can also be thought of as “interpretive anthropology.” Clifford Geertz, Victor turner, and David Schneider were the pioneers of this “school,” decoding local symbols to interpret social interactions between the people they observed.8 While each of these anthropologists had slightly different approaches, they all subscribed to the idea that “culture” could be understood best as a shared set of meanings.9 they also argued that one could not easily make sweeping generalizations about social phenomena, a theoretical approach that has come to be known as “cultural particularism.” in this respect they were writing in response to structuralists such as Claude Levi-Strauss (1949, 1967), who had sought to categorize and understand universal human activities and thought processes that were similar across all societies. instead of assuming that corporal punishment is always a problem or always a solution, this book applies the theory of social constructionism, especially as it relates to the construction of “social problems.” this theory assumes that one cannot justifiably claim to describe an objective reality of this or that “social problem”; rather, the perception that something is a “social problem” is the traceable socially constructed product of a process in which interested actors make claims that such thing should be perceived as a problem. Spector and Kitsuse defined “social problems” as “the activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions” (1977, 75). unlike other works, which assume that taibatsu has always been a “social problem” in Japan, this book draws attention to the ways in which people claim that taibatsu is a problem (e.g., by labeling it “violence” or by asserting that it is a “violation of human rights”), and the ways in which people claim the opposite (e.g., “that is an indispensable ‘tradition’ of Japanese culture”). the interactions between these “for” and “against” camps demonstrate how taibatsu symbolizes different things to different people at different times (see chapter 4). 8  turner (1967), for example, showed how mudyi trees, which ooze a white latex substance, were used by the Zambian Ndembu tribe in various rituals to symbolize mother’s milk, the principle of matriliny, and ultimately the endurance of Ndembu custom itself. 9  Geertz (1973), for example, asserted the need for ethnography to be “thick description” and anthropology to be an “interpretive activity,” and said that understanding another culture was like reading a text.

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

39

understanding taibatsu therefore necessarily involves accounting for its multivocality (turner 1965, 1974, 1975). What exactly is a multivocal symbol? in his definition of social categories as symbols, turner defined social categories as having the qualities of “multivocality, complexity of association, ambiguity, open-mindedness, primacy of feeling and willing over thinking in their semantics, and their propensity to ramify into further semantic subsystems” (1975, 155). Taibatsu may not be a social category per se, but as this book will show, it fits turner’s qualities quite well.10 Moreover, as Needham explained,11 words themselves can represent “social facts,” which are: verbal concepts framed by cultural traditions in the classification of the world, whether this was the ordering of social life or the ascription of capacities to the human mind. in the analysis of such collective representations, whether they were the quasi-technical generalizations of social anthropologists or the ordinary resources of everyday language, it was found that certain deep miscomprehensions were ultimately the results of the traditional assumption that classificatory concepts were necessarily composed about common definitive features, i.e., that they were monothetic. in each case, however, it was shown that the words in question actually denoted classes composed by family or sporadic resemblances, i.e., that they were polythetic. (1975, 366–367)

As a multivocal symbol, taibatsu is also “polythetic,” insofar as it “describes a group that cannot be defined on the basis of any single character, but on a combination of characters” (Needham 1975, 357). the term taibatsu denotes a “group” of classes or concepts about, or perhaps a “language” of, physical discipline that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending on the time, place, or circumstance. understanding such perceptions, problems, and symbols is also important because it helps us move beyond simple definitions of “culture.” in recent years, the increased frequency of international, cross-cultural contact in a new age many call “globalization” has increasingly challenged 10  Donnelly and Straus’s (2005) collection of theoretical articles on corporal punishment, which mostly deal with corporal punishment in the home and showcase various mutually exclusive theories, proves that even among North American scholars, corporal punishment is a multivocal symbol. Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner also show that scholars differ widely in their definitions of corporal punishment, some including “normative, nonabusive punishment such as mild spanking” and some using a definition that conflates this “mild” punishment with more “abusive behaviors” (2006, 231). 11  Needham believed social anthropology was an “approach guided by the ambition inherited from the Année sociologique school and directly traceable back to the Enlightenment, to determine what can be called the primary factors of experience by the comparative study of social facts” (1975, 366).

40

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

the idea that there can even be such a thing as “culture,” especially as it has historically been conceived as something inherent found within one nation’s borders. this is primarily a problem of “representing” a culture, or making claims about its essence or authenticity. Clifford (1988) called this problem the “predicament of culture,” asking the important question, “Who has the authority to speak for any group’s identity and authenticity?” As a result of his work and the work of others, we now appreciate that there are many subcultures in all modern nations, from “corporate cultures” to “working-class cultures” to “youth cultures” to “geek cultures.” Acknowledging this “social fact” requires us to use the term “culture” with more precision. Now more than ever, we must be careful not to overgeneralize about all people in any one nation. A Grounded, Contextual, and Historical Approach

for these reasons, anthropologists today strive to offer readers rich sociocultural context as well as historical depth, ideally richer and in more depth than a reader could ever attain without living in the particular foreign context in question. A context-based approach helps us to go beyond the sound bites and shallow understandings that present-day media coverage invariably provides. the incidents of taibatsu that are accessible in Japanese media reports, for example, by and large represent only the tip of the iceberg of all taibatsu incidents, and they often highlight only the most severe and “extreme” cases (see chapter 2). While it is certainly important to study taibatsu in all of its manifestations, including such “extreme” cases, it is equally important to situate these incidents within the broader social, cultural, and historical contexts in which they occur, in order to better understand why they happen and what people think about them when they do. As a result, many scholars who have studied discipline and punishment in Japan have insisted on such attention to context (Hori 1994; Hill 1996; fukuzawa 1994, 2006; fukuzawa and Letendre 2001; Letendre 1994, 1999, 2000). Still, many scholars continue to seek the eradication of taibatsu first and foremost (e.g., Kobayashi et al. 1997; Koshino and Miki 2008; Kubota 2000; Mogami 1996; Morita 2003; Sanuki 2005; Sato 1999; Schoolland 1990). Although some scholars adeptly make their case for eradication by discussing taibatsu within proper context—Yoneyama (1999), for example, notes the close link between taibatsu and regimes of school management that “silence” students, and though she takes a stand against the practice, she does so with scholarly rigor—others offer blanket judgments of Japanese education as a whole, seeing taibatsu as a part of this education system’s unsavory “dark side” (Schoolland 1990).12 12 

in Schoolland’s critique of Japanese education at end of the 1980s, in the face of “a growing perception in the West that the education model for the twenty-first century lies across

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

41

Perhaps some scholars have settled for de-contextualized explanations because of taibatsu’s historical associations with the Japanese military, but this association cannot be assumed to describe the behavior of all Japanese, neither at the time of Japanese militarism nor today. While it is true that taibatsu was widely used before and during World War ii, when it was considered to be an essential part of a project to socialize soldiers into the Japanese military (see tsurumi 1978, 167–168; Millet and Murray 1987, 230: Drea 1998, 92: Kratoska 2006, 179: Ohnuki-tierney 2006, 3, 5, 10 and 41), and while it is true that taibatsu continues to be used occasionally in Japan’s Self-Defense forces,13 this is not evidence enough to conclude that there is some sort of homogenous “Japanese” ideology regarding the use of physical discipline.14 understanding definitions of relevant key terms is an important part of understanding this context. this may seem to be a rather obvious consideration, but there is a significant body of scholarly literature that overlooks the very meaning and usage of words purported to describe “corporal punishment” in other sociocultural contexts (e.g., Anderson and Payne 1992; Dubanoski et al. 1983; Kim et al. 2000; Solheim 1982). there is certainly value in cross-cultural research on corporal punishment, but specific, local definitions must be considered before proceeding with such comparison. this is yet another reason this work begins with the “data” and then theorizes, rather than the other way around. the use of a theory-driven approach to study corporal punishment is intriguing, yet problematic. it is too ambitious to argue that “corporal punishment” can be exhaustively explained by one theory applied to all sociocultural contexts, yet some scholars believe this is essential. for example, Donnelly and Straus argue: “[the] lack of adequate theoretical grounding for research has undoubtedly hampered study on corporal punishment. A theory-based approach to corporal punishment is needed because it is likely to stimulate more creative and fundamental research the Pacific” (1990, 9), he painted a picture of the “dark side of the Japanese education” that he believed few people knew about in the West. He argued that taibatsu was wrong because its use was a “contradiction” between the existing laws and the existing practice (56–57). 13  in 2008, a Marine Self-Defense forces (SDf) soldier was killed after being beaten during training. His father called the incident “taibatsu” (Kyodo News 2008, Mainichi Shimbun 2008, and Chugoku Shimbun 2008). this twenty-five-year old soldier had taken part in a mixedmartial arts training activity in which he was forced to fight against other soldiers one by one until his fourteenth opponent knocked him unconscious. tragically, he died two weeks later. According to one media report, the father said: “that was not a training accident. it was a serious case of taibatsu. i cannot accept the Marine SDf explanation [for my son’s death]” (Chugoku Shimbun 2008). 14  tsurumi interprets the use of taibatsu in the Japanese military in this way: “More often than not, when new recruits were hit or humiliated by their superiors, it was for no other reason than to drive home the necessity of unquestioning obedience” (1978, 169).

42

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

than the ad hoc approach that now prevails” (2005, 6). Donnelly and Straus seem to assume that grounded, data-first approaches are ad hoc, which is certainly not the case. it takes considerable self-discipline to suppress the urge to judge or theorize one’s fieldwork observations before collecting all the data. More importantly, a theory-driven approach, much like a predetermined eradication agenda, dangerously entices a researcher to discard data that does not fit his theory. it is far better to investigate corporal punishment first by seeking to understand the historical and sociocultural contexts in which the practice has been documented. Given this perhaps unconventional approach, this book represents something of a departure from much previous research on corporal punishment, which has primarily employed psychological and medical methodology to advocate the eradication of corporal punishment, often overlooked important cultural keywords or cultural contexts, or pushed specific theories over “honoring” the data. By contrast, this book suggests that scholars more carefully consider sociolinguistically specific definitions as well as historical (temporal) and sociocultural (spatial) contexts when researching corporal punishment, especially in non-Englishspeaking societies. Research Methods, Challenges, and Surprises

in order to fully appreciate these various contexts in which social phenomena take place, anthropologists typically undertake long-term, “participant observation”-based fieldwork. ideally, this means participating in and observing a small group of some kind. for this project, i undertook long-term, semi-participant observational fieldwork with a tokyo-area private university basketball club between late 2007 and early 2009, helping the team as best i could. While i was too old to be a full-time player and too young (and inexperienced) to be a full-time coach, i taught these players English and shared stories about basketball in the united States, a subject about which they were remarkably interested in learning. in crafting the conclusions herein, i also draw upon my experiences as a longtime resident of both rural and urban Japan (in Ehime Prefecture between 2002–2004, and in Yokohama, tokyo, and Kyoto between 2006–2011). Although these experiences do not represent “official” anthropological fieldwork, they have helped me more faithfully interpret my informants’ stories about taibatsu, Japanese education, and Japanese sports. throughout the course of my fieldwork i was able to speak candidly with hundreds of Japanese people about their experiences with taibatsu. these conversations often happened casually on the heels of other, less sensitive discussions. i spoke at length with dozens of former recipients of taibatsu, many of whom had received it during school or sports activities.

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

43

i also spoke with educators who chose not to use corporal punishment; sometimes these conversations were as revealing as conversations with educators who did. i even interviewed the convicted corporal punishment criminal totsuka Hiroshi on three occasions (May 17, 2007, June 19, 2007 and June 21, 2007), after he was released from prison for his unlawful use of “strict taibatsu.” through these conversations i have been able to gather firsthand recollections from teachers, coaches, students, and athletes that contrast rather starkly with the views of the scholars mentioned above. in fact, as they have had time to percolate, these recollections present some of the most intriguing— and perhaps controversial—opinions regarding taibatsu. Historically, anthropologists have often undertaken long-term fieldwork with one small group, and many have found that unexpected issues can quickly overshadow one’s initial research interests. this was certainly the case in my fieldwork as well. After i learned that informant coaches at my field site did not use taibatsu, i became interested in other sociocultural phenomena, including sports coaching pedagogy, which became the subject of my doctoral dissertation (Miller 2009b). However, although i did not observe taibatsu firsthand during this long-term observational fieldwork, i did witness it many times in elementary schools, middle schools, and on sports grounds during a two-year period teaching English in Ehime (2002–2004). in most cases, participant-observation is an effective method of data collection for anthropologists, but observational fieldwork must be supplemented with other data collection methods (e.g., archival research and discourse analysis) when researching sensitive issues such as “corporal punishment.” this is partly because anthropologists run the risk of limiting their chances of seeing “corporal punishment” firsthand if their informants know they are looking for it, especially in Japan, where Japanese occasionally change their behavior when foreigners are present. the dichotomy of tatemae/honne is an important fact of Japanese sociocultural life and must be introduced here to illustrate this research challenge i faced. Tatemae/honne can be defined as “what is said”/“what is truly believed.” Tatemae refers to things people say to strangers or acquaintances, including foreigners, which they think they want to hear. it can imply the use of ceremonial language that is used to appease, please, or placate a listener. this contrasts greatly with honne: “one’s true feelings or beliefs.” this dichotomy helps us understand how Japanese often interact with each other, but also how they interact with foreigners. Because many foreigners visiting Japan want to be told what makes Japan “unique,” and because many Japanese are interested in better understanding their own identity within the wider world, some Japanese assume that foreigners want to hear about “cultural” differences and Japanese “uniqueness.”

44

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

this is a serious challenge for anyone interested in digging beneath these “culturally-informed” opinions. At the same time, though some Japanese will only say the minimum amount necessary for an anthropologist to stop asking them questions, scholars can “hear” more nuanced opinions regarding taibatsu in the wide range of publications available on the subject. for me this meant reading about taibatsu as much as talking to people about it. By consulting as much literature on taibatsu as i could as well as talking to as many informants as i could, i believe i was able to overcome the tatemae/honne dichotomy and sufficiently supplement the data collected through participant observation. As a result, while this book should be considered a work of anthropology, some may conclude that it is not a strict ethnography in the sense that the conclusions i have drawn within it are not primarily based on what intimate informants have told me face-to-face. Of course, if one believes, as i do, that Japanese scholars ought to be included in the category “informant,” and that their writings should also be considered “ethnographic data,” then one might label this book an ethnography. At any rate, in writing this book, i have tried to include and interpret a variety of Japanese voices, from “traditional” informants in the fieldwork setting to scholars, sportswriters, and pundits (hyōronka). i do not believe any one of these groups deserves any more attention than any other, so i have endeavored to include them all. My sense is that, having spent a great deal of my adult life in Japan as a member of various Japanese universities (e.g., tokyo, Kyoto, Waseda, and Sophia), both as faculty and student, why should the people that i have interacted with most not be considered “informants”? During this research, i was rather surprised to learn that there is extensive Japanese-language literature on taibatsu that it is written by advocates of the practice. While it has been said that in the uS, “there are few who willingly defend in print the use of corporal punishment as a suitable method for maintaining discipline in the schools” (Hyman and McDowell 1979, 4),15 in Japan the situation seems quite different. While a Japanese person may perhaps be less likely to vocally advocate taibatsu to a foreigner, if they feel strongly enough about it, they may be more likely than an American to write a book or article explaining their reasons for using the practice. i realize now that while i initially believed taibatsu would be considered a subject too sensitive for public confession, especially to a foreigner, i was actually fortunate to encounter many people who were willing to share 15  One exception is Reinholz’s (1979) chapter in the same edited volume (Hyman and Wise 1979). it is the only chapter in this volume that takes a pro-corporal punishment perspective.

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

45

detailed descriptions and opinions regarding their taibatsu experiences. i think these informants felt comfortable sharing their stories with me at least in part because i am a culturally sensitive fieldworker. i can speak Japanese, i always speak it politely, and i show my respect for elders by using especially formal language. i had studied the tatemae/honne dichotomy before i began my fieldwork. i had been trained to have such cultural competency during my graduate studies, and researching taibatsu gave me a chance to put it to the test. i rarely asked the direct question, “What do you think of taibatsu?” knowing that if i did, my informant might justifiably counter, “What do you mean by taibatsu?” i wanted to know what people thought about taibatsu but i did not want to influence their ideas with my own. instead, i waited for the subject to come up— and it often did— and i took notes on other related subjects in the meantime. that being said, if a professional colleague or friend introduced me as the “American who is studying taibatsu,” i took the opportunity to ask what that person thought about it. Although it is always hard to tell, i think most respondents gave me candid answers. i will never know exactly why these informants shared their personal stories with me, but i imagine it helped that i am a white male American. Since World War ii, when the uS defeated Japan, white male Americans have arguably sat at the top of an unspoken racial hierarchy for foreigners living in Japan, above white males of other nationalities, white female Americans, and other people of color. Even fellow Asians are sometimes viewed as inferior, and once-expatriated Japanese returning home can also have difficulties readjusting. in my opinion, none of these other racial groups are afforded the same level of “default respect” that i received. i never felt that i earned this default respect, and undoubtedly i exploited this hierarchy for my own personal gain, often unknowingly, but there was little i could do about it other than to try and “repay my debts” after the fact. i just so happened to be a member of a well-respected “category of foreigner” while living in Japan, so i hope that this book in some way helps to repay these debts both to the Japanese for their favorable treatment as well as to these other less generously treated foreigners who live in Japan. Towards Reflexive Corporal Punishment Research

i learned a great deal about Japan doing this research, but i also learned a lot about myself. that was no accident, either. Anthropologists typically seek to be “reflexive” in their research; that is to say, they seek to understand why they personally do or believe something before they describe why members of another society do or believe something different. i had to consider why i was personally against the use of physical forms of

46

Anthropology and Corporal Punishment

punishment or discipline in schools and sports. i had never used it in my own classrooms nor did i anticipate ever using it on my own children or future students. i believed—and still do believe—that there are other nonphysical alternatives that educators ought to use instead. My personal judgments on taibatsu in Japan were inevitably influenced by my upbringing in a liberal American household that did not employ corporal punishment. Because California, the state in which i grew up, outlawed the practice in schools when i was six (1986), i never experienced corporal punishment there either, nor was it prevalent on the many sports teams of which i was a member. (i did, however, endure long and arduous practices as a high school football and basketball player, what the Japanese call “hard training,” and some of my coaches might have been described as “strict disciplinarians”.) However, i decided early on that i did not want this book to represent a “best practice” theory of child-rearing, nor would it be my place as a non-Japanese person to tell the Japanese how they should rear or educate their own children. Still, critical reflection of my own familial, educational, social, and cultural background was essential to fully understand why i interpreted Japan’s social practices in the way i did, which is why i have included appendix 3, a detailed study of the phenomenon of corporal punishment in the uS. for me, it was not enough to just think about what corporal punishment in the country of my birth was like; i had to study it with a comparable level of rigor. Before beginning this research, i had come to believe that “corporal punishment” was “wrong,” meaning that the ways i “read” the people and texts i encountered, as well as the ways i interpreted taibatsu incidents, were perhaps problematic endeavors in some sense. We all see the world through the lens of our own life experiences and, often, our most recent frame of reference. Knowing this, i did my utmost to mitigate the effects of these biases. Specifically, i tried to undertake these “readings” as carefully and objectively as possible, and i did my utmost to understand the motives and reasoning of those people in Japan who use and approve of taibatsu, that is, those with whom i disagree. in the process of completing this research, i have come to better understand both Japanese views and my own, even if i have not changed my mind about the value of “corporal punishment.” though subjective, personal opinions are impossible to completely eliminate, reflection on one’s own cultural biases makes anthropology one of the few academic disciplines capable of describing foreign social practices without casting undue moral judgment. in a world of increasing contact—and potential conflict—with people from other walks of life, few things could be more important.

CHAPtER 2

Histories “What experience and history teach is this—that peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.” —Georg Wilhelm friedrich Hegel

the types of acts that humans have used to punish each other have changed over time, as have the purposes of these punishments. for example, corporal punishment and torture were first used in Europe in an effort to reform criminals. Before this, criminals were simply executed. At that time, few saw a point in maiming criminals since there seemed little hope that they could ever be made into law-abiding citizens. According to Gombrich (2008), torture became a tool of state terrorism in the time of Nero around 60 a.d., when Christians were rounded up, killed and maimed in the Roman arena, but by the eighteenth century many European countries had abolished the practice (Pinker 2011, 149). According to Hunt (2007), this was in part because the spread of the novel helped people begin to see human suffering as something rather universal; as a result, many began to believe that everyone ought to have their “human rights” protected, regardless of birth or station in life. Corporal punishment historian George Ryley Scott identifies three stages of punitive systems in human history, explaining that the “earliest of all forms of punishment was neither more nor less than private vengeance, immortalized in the proverb, ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’” ([1938] 1952, 165). Later, people gave tribal gods “the responsibility for the infliction of punishment,” and with the “advent and growth of civilization the whole concept of punishment was elaborated and the responsibility for its ordering and its infliction was no longer placed upon God, but was accepted by society itself” (165). As a result, he argues, the “number of rules and the need for retributive or punitive measures were enormously extended,” and the “machinery for inflicting punishment became ever more extensive.” in other words, over time punishments became more complex: first justified as “private vengeance,” next justified by “God,” and finally by the will of “society.”

48

Histories

Some scholars believe this evolution constitutes “progress” as punishment practices have developed alongside the modernization of human societies, in particular the modernization of the legal system. Miethe and Lu, for example, argue that over time sanctions have evolved alongside social complexity, moving from repressive sanctions, which “served to denounce, stigmatize, and degrade the offender,” to restitutive sanctions, which serve to “restore or compensate for the disruptive relationship” (2005, 7). Gombrich supports this argument, claiming that the Enlightenment, which was premised on tolerance, reason and humanity, brought the “end of corporal punishment” (2008, 215). Elias (1939) also believed that human societies have undergone a “civilizing process” in which they increasingly demonstrate elements of self-control and sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of others, and Pinker (2011) has lately argued that violence has declined substantially over the course of human history. these theories all suggest a rather linear historical view of modernization, civilization, and progress; that is, they suggest the belief that today’s punishments, especially those handed down by the state, are much “better” than they ever have been.1 Arguably, punishments in Japan today also represent “general progress” that one might reasonably associate with the nation’s “advance” toward modernity, but after careful review it becomes clear that Japan’s comparatively early banning of corporal punishment in its schools was as much about presentation as it was about progress.2 Japan’s initial banning of taibatsu in schools happened during an age of competition between imperial powers such as England, france, and the united States, reflecting efforts by Japanese government officials to seek global acceptance as a “modern” and “civilized” nation. this was in part to justify Japan’s own claims to colonies throughout Asia. Japanese officials either believed that the “punishment of the body” in public schools was an “uncivilized” practice or at least they wanted Westerners to think that they believed that to be the case. this desire to present their newly minted “modern” nation as “civilized” cannot be separated from the desire to appear “powerful” on the world stage. Japanese government officials who decided to ban taibatsu believed that doing so would curry favor with the West and solidify Japan’s place as a “great power.” 1 

Of course, if this theory is correct, it took some time to become reality. According to Pinker, capital punishment remained a common practice in most European nations until its use began to decline around 1950 (2011, 150). 2  Capital punishment remains legal in Japan, and those who denounce the practice would likely dispute the claim that Japan’s punishment practices are today more “progressive” than in the past.

Histories

49

After World War ii, when Japan’s imperial experiment came to a brutal, tragic end, the debate over taibatsu began to reflect a deep divide between inward- and outward-looking Japanese, symbolizing tensions between conflicting pedagogies brought to bear on classroom and sports education. Although the Japanese government re-emphasized taibatsu’s illegality following the war, various educators insisted that taibatsu was a necessary evil that must be used to enforce what was then a popular policy among Japanese educators: “managed education” (kanri kyōiku). this marked the beginning of a period in which taibatsu was seen as a “solution” to various educational problems afflicting Japanese schools, such as “school violence” (kōnai bōryoku). following that period, as Japanese educational and disciplinary methods came under greater international scrutiny and Japan again sought to improve its global image, taibatsu began to be seen as one of these “educational problems.” in recent years, the term taibatsu has been generally ignored in educational discourse altogether, as other issues such as “bullying” (ijime) have taken center stage. incidents once labeled taibatsu have been re-labeled “abuse” (gyakutai) by the Japanese government and media, and taibatsu is now seen neither as a “solution” nor as a “problem,” as it once was. today, the term “taibatsu” has nearly vanished from Japan’s educational discourse, as we shall see in this chapter. throughout modern Japanese history, taibatsu has served as a powerful symbolic term that has been used instrumentally to further other ends. if we assume that nations are like individuals, then Japan has been like an “individual appear(ing) before others” (Goffman 1959, 25), presenting her “Self” to the global community in carefully calibrated ways. first, with her relatively early ban (late nineteenth century) on corporal punishment in schools, Japan presented her Self as eminently “civilized,” but in recent years, many conservative Japanese have begun to question whether the abolition of “corporal punishment”—a move they perceive to have been influenced by “Western” sensibilities—was such a good idea after all. Proponents of taibatsu today see it as symbolic of “traditionally Japanese” disciplinary methods, capable of solving other educational problems that have arisen as closer contact with the outside world has “corrupted,” or at least complicated, Japanese life. to detractors, taibatsu has been seen as a symbol of the “strict,” “disciplinarian” nature of Japanese education and/or sports, but one that must be jettisoned in favor of more “enlightened” disciplinary measures that respect children’s basic “human rights.” Such detractors point to the prohibitions—and, more specifically, the adherence to these prohibitions—of corporal punishment in Western nations and insist that Japan should follow suit. to many of them, the rejection

50

Histories

of this disciplinary tool is seen as the rightful embrace of “Western (global) ways.” this chapter traces this complex historical development, exploring how various actors and institutions have defined, interpreted, and contested taibatsu throughout modern Japanese history. it examines the changing ways in which the term “taibatsu” has been discussed in order to show how linguistically ambiguous definitions of taibatsu reflect tensions between those within Japan who have desired to follow the lead of various Western nations in banning “corporal punishment,” and those who have not. this linguistic ambiguity—and the ambivalence toward the practice that it implies—has allowed Japanese educators to use taibatsu without consistent reprimand, even as the practice has been continuously illegal throughout the postwar period. “Taibatsu” Before the Term “Taibatsu” Existed few people realize the remarkable fact that Japan was the sixth nation to ban corporal punishment in its schools. A Ministry of Education official called tanaka fujimaro (figure 2.1) came across the English term “corporal punishment” in an 1867 New Jersey law banning the practice in that state’s public schools3 during his participation on the iwakura Mission, sometime between 1871 and 1873. this New Jersey law later became the basis for Japan’s own national prohibition. At the time, David Murray (figure 2.2), a Rutgers university professor who was working for the Japanese government as a “hired foreign teacher” (o-yatoi gaikokujin kyōshi), was helping shape the new, modern Japanese education system. Professor Murray likely assisted tanaka with the translation of the English term “corporal punishment” and may have even encouraged the Japanese government to enact a ban on this newly coined Japanese word.4 though “corporal punishment” was initially translated in early Meiji Period education documents as shintai no chōbatsu (literally “discipline/punishment of the body”), the Japanese government began using the shorter term “taibatsu” 3  New Jersey was the first American state to ban corporal punishment in its schools, and it remained the only state to do so until 1972, when Massachusetts followed suit. Raichle shows that this New Jersey law, though enacted remarkably early, was rather weak: “However popular the ban may have been among parents, it found virtually no support among educators” (1979, 62). 4  in 1877, Murray drafted a proposal for a new education system entitled, “A Superintendent’s Draft Revision of the Japanese Code of Education” (Gakkan Koan Nihon Kyōikuhō), later on became superintendent at the Ministry of Education, and also helped found the university of tokyo. in assisting the Japanese government, Murray borrowed heavily on his own nation’s (and state’s) educational principles and laws, and was known for promoting educational values that did not discriminate on the basis of class or gender.

Histories

figure 2.1 tanaka fujimaro. Source: Nagasaki university Library.

51

figure 2.2 David Murray. Source: Rutgers university Library.

as early as the Education Law of 1879. in this law, taibatsu was officially prohibited from use in the nation’s newly established public schools, and although the prohibition was repealed twice, it was re-enacted in 1890 and 1900 (terasaki 2001, 231–232). there were, of course, physical forms of punishment in Japan before tanaka translated the English term “corporal punishment” as taibatsu. Chinese law significantly influenced the kinds of penal punishments used in pre-modern Japan (Schmidt 2002, 9). for example, the term sotatsu referred to “Chinese landlords randomly whipping the common people” with a “three-meter carrot stick” (ibara or ninjinboku), and references to this practice can be found in the Manyōshu (compiled during the Nara Period [710–794]), suggesting that such punishments were used in Japan at that time as well. Physical punishment was also used in the late eighth century on students who failed their exams at the universities (ryō) of the time (Emori 1989, 6). in the Middle Ages,5 the samurai punished criminals in various ways, including confining them to horse stables or chopping off their fingers, 5 

Although the Middle Ages are referred to as chūsei in Japanese and roughly denote the

52

Histories

noses, and/or ears “without any great trouble.” Physical punishments were also common in the Zen sect of Buddhism. During silent “seated meditation” (zazen), Zen monks admonished unfocused monks using a three-meter rod called a keisaku (also, kyōsaku). Such punishment, as it was and is still rather widely known, was aimed at “rebuking the monks’ careless spirit” (Emori 1989, 10–12) as well as helping practitioners reach “enlightenment” (satori), the ultimate objective of all Zen Buddhists (Hori 1994). Although not the only path to reach enlightenment, some Zen experts say that an enlightenment-seeker must suffer “severely.” According to Suzuki, for example, “A Zen monk is no Zen monk unless he goes through at least a few years of severe discipline” (1965, 3). Of course, such physical punishment can be seen in Chinese history documents before Ch’an Buddhism reached Japan and became Zen Buddhism (Emori 1989, 12), suggesting that the practice is not originally a Zen—or “Japanese” for that matter—practice. the etymology of the Japanese term for “discipline” (shitsuke), which is represented by the Chinese character meaning “beautifying the body,” also suggests that the concept of “physical punishment” dates back long before Zen or the establishment of the modern Japanese nation-state.6 in the early part of the Sengoku Period (roughly 1550 to 1614) taibatsu was probably used in Japanese homes because Japan was rife with violent warfare; parents likely wanted to prepare their children for it (see Ember and Ember 2005). Schmidt describes taibatsu at this time as particularly “cruel” (2002, 14). However, in the seventeenth century, after the epic 1614–1615 battle in which Osaka castle was surrendered, Japan experienced a “long period of peace” (tenka taiyō), illustrated by the expression Gen’na enbu, or “when the samurai laid down their arms in the first year of Gen’na.” Emori argues that during this period of peace, the use of taibatsu probably decreased somewhat (1989, 24). People were apparently so tired of violence that by the 1620s and 1630s, “feudal nobles” (daimyō) had stopped hitting their daughters and “temple school” (terakoya) teachers time from the establishment of the Heishi Seiken to the end of the Sengoku Period, this term was initially used in Western history. Japanese history is more typically referred to by periods of time derived from the respective reigns of its Emperors. Emori chooses to use the term chūsei here. 6  the Korean term for “corporal punishment,” chebaol, derives from the same Chinese characters as the Japanese term chōbatsu, which was used before tanaka’s translation, supporting the argument that there are common linguistic roots and perhaps even common disciplinary practices throughout East Asia. the fact that chebaol remains the most commonly used term to refer to corporal punishment in Korea today also reveals the relatively important influence that Western ideas had on Japan during the Meiji Period (1868–1912).

Histories

53

had stopped hitting their charges. Sadly, the peace did not last. By the middle of the seventeenth century, taibatsu had begun to garner wider acceptance and approval once again, and landowning samurai of the day were said to frequently hit commoners. Terakoya teachers also struck their pupils (Emori 1989, 25–27). throughout much of the Edo Period (1603–1868), it appears that the use of taibatsu became generally rare, both in the penal and educational realms (Emori 1984, 11).7 According to Schmidt, “during the eighteenth century, mutilating punishments disappeared, [and] the number of executions decreased” (2002, 15). As those who encountered foreign visitors to Japan were typically members of the “intellectual class” (chishikisō), a class in which people “recognized the oneness of all humans” and thus universally disapproved of taibatsu (Emori 1984, 21), a Swedish employee of the East india Company and botanist found cause to write in 1775 that the “Japanese never whip their children. in Japan i have never seen the kind of frequent and cruel punishments inflicted on children in Europe” (quoted in Emori 1989, 68). in fact, much evidence of physical punishment in pre-modern and early modern Japanese history refers to the punishments of criminals, not children. However, there is some evidence of corporal punishment in educational institutions from these eras as well. Such “educational” punishments are the focus of the next two sections, which explore the sorts of punishments that were used in the “samurai fief schools” (hankō) and “temple schools” (terakoya) of the Edo Period.8 Physical Punishment in “Samurai Fief Schools” (Hankō)

the morals of the samurai spread throughout Japan during the late Edo Period. in the approximately two hundred “samurai fief schools” (hankō), most instructors believed that praise was more effective than criticism, and the major form of punishment in these schools was not physical. Dore explains that in hankō: 7  Scholars are not in complete agreement on this point, however. for example, uno argues that parents often used corporal punishment in the early modern period (or, the Edo Period, 1603–1868):

in the early modern period, adults encouraged very young and older children to learn social and vocational skills. they believed that imitating good models was important, and used patient persuasion, cajoling, moral lecturing, and silent example to train children, but also resorted to harsher means, such as scolding, physical punishment, confinement in dark storehouses or cages, locking children out of the house, and, for extremely intractable children, moxa cauterization (burning dried vegetable powder on the child’s skin). (1991, 395) 8  Dore defines terakoya as “the houses/families that made it a business to take in pupils” (1965, 252).

Histories

54

Physical punishment was rare, though it was practised [sic] in at least three schools. the isezaki School used the moxa cautery, commonly used in Sino-Japanese medicine. the little cone of powder burned on the skin, as well as inflicting pain, was also supposed to have a direct therapeutic effect in quelling rebellious spirits. At fukue a cane was used and the report on the school gives conscientious details to the effect that it was of bamboo, four to five feet in length, and used on the flesh of the elbows (very probably a misprint for the buttocks). At izushi caning was only for younger students, with a fixed scale of strokes related to the gravity of the offense; older students had to pay money fines. (1965, 102)

Nevertheless, these physical punishments were relatively rare; instead, hankō educators more often used the written word to keep order. Pupils at these schools were required to work tirelessly inscribing tablets. if keeping them busy did not work, they were temporarily suspended (Dore 1965, 103–104). Most hankō tried their best to avoid using taibatsu because they “wanted to instill dignity” into future samurai (Shigematsu 1976, 96). Discipline was accomplished partly through peer pressure or peer control, not educator-to-student physicality. At some schools, groups of pupils who lived close together were required to manage each other and “offenders against the code were either ostracized . . . or beaten—in some instances to death” (Dore 1965, 105). it therefore seems that there were only limited occurrences of teachers inflicting physical punishment on pupils in hankō because a system had developed in which pupils inflicted the majority of all physical punishment on each other. Physical Punishment in “Temple Schools” (Terakoya)

the use of physical punishment in “temple schools” (terakoya) is a more complicated matter, although it appears that it was not as uncommon as in hankō. Emori argues that there are two kinds of scholars who have written about taibatsu in terakoya: one group that remains “loyal to the facts of history,” and one group that researches using “trial and error” (1989, 176–177, 180). He puts the scholars ishikawa and Otake into the latter group. ishikawa (1990) explains that children who were caught misbehaving in terakoya would immediately be reprimanded with “unrestrained” and “serious” discipline. Otake agrees, writing that “extremely strict discipline and punishment was used” and that “taibatsu was used with no problem at all” (quoted in Emori 1984, 6). However, Emori disputes these claims, arguing that in contrast to other types of punishment, “cruel” physical punishments were relatively rare (1984, 7). According to records from terakoya across Japan (summarized in Emori 1989, 184–185), the most prevalent form of punishment was “confinement” (ryūchi) (27.64 percent). “Whipping” (muchi’utsu) was a distant second (13.81 percent) (table 2.1).

Histories

55

table 2.1 Prevalence of Various forms of Punishment in terakoya Form of punishment

Prevalence

Confinement (ryūchi)

27.64%

Whipping (muchi’utsu)

13.81%

forced standing

7.53%

Holding buckets or large cups of water with arms extended for long periods of time (hōman)

7.51%

Admonishment

5.59%

Starving

3.82%

Bodily suffering (shintai ni kutsū wo ataeru mono)

3.3%

Source: Emori (1989, 211).

However, combining “whipping” with “holding buckets or large cups of water with arms extended for long periods of time” (hōman) (7.51 percent) and “bodily suffering” (3.3 percent)—all “physical punishments” in the broad sense of the phrase—the total for “taibatsu-like” punishments constituted 24.62 percent of all punishments in terakoya, very close to the percentage held by “confinement” (27.64 percent). Based on these calculations, physical punishments may have actually been relatively common in terakoya, as ishikawa and Otake assert. The Enduring Influence of Samurai (Fief School) Values on Japan

it is therefore difficult to accurately measure how prevalent or severe the physical punishments were in either hankō or terakoya. in any case, it is of much greater consequence to consider which school’s educational ideas, traditions, and principles of discipline had more influence in the new public schools established following the Meiji Restoration (1868). ikegami (1995) argues that samurai values were more influential than religious ones: Even though they had the desire, the religious traditions of Japan did not have a sufficient institutional basis in most situations to enforce their values on the samurai population in general. Rather, religious authorities tended to accommodate the spiritual needs of the samurai (190) . . . [the] importance of samurai contributions to Japanese culture is clear, based upon several centuries as the ruling class. (6)

Although ikegami downplays this contribution in comparative terms, stating that she does not consider it more significant than the contributions

56

Histories

of the peasantry, fisherman, hunters, craftsmen, or merchants (1995, 6), few in Japan today believe that they owe their values to the hunters or merchants of the Edo Period. However, contemporary Japanese often pay homage to the samurai. in sports settings in particular, evocations of the samurai continue to be widespread (see, e.g., Whiting 1977; Nakamura 2005; Collins 2007; Blackwood 2008; Miller 2011b), so it therefore seems likely that the educational values of hankō, which generally repudiated the use of physical discipline, were more influential than those of terakoya in Japan’s newly established public schools. Prewar Legal Prohibitions of Taibatsu Taibatsu was first banned soon after the Meiji Emperor was restored to the throne, in 1868. As we saw earlier, although taibatsu has been continuously prohibited under Japanese education law since 1941, there were actually much earlier prohibitions that were repealed, reinstated, and then repealed again (table 2.2).9 Article 46 of the Education Law of 1879 (kyōikurei dai 46 jo) stated that taibatsu could not be used in schools (imazu 2006; Mogami 1996; terasaki 2001) though this prohibition was soon after repealed (1885), reinstated (1890), then repealed again (1900), and then reinstated again (1941). According to Kobayashi et al. (1997), these legal reversals occurred each time the education system itself was changed, but they also reflect what must have been a lively debate within the Japanese government over the value of taibatsu as a tool of educational discipline. Initial Taibatsu Prohibitions and Japan’s Desired Acceptance as a “Civilized” Nation

if discipline after the Meiji Restoration owed more to the educational legacy of hankō than to those of the legacy of terakoya, and there was less physical punishment in the former than in the latter, perhaps it is not surprising that education officials like tanaka fujimaro, who were themselves raised in hankō, were in favor of banning physical punishment. then again, it seems strange that Japan would ban a practice that it had never before banned, especially at the time corporal punishment remained legal in most of the schools of the world. At the time of Japan’s first prohibition in 1879 there were only a handful of other countries of the world whose 9  there is some confusion regarding when the first law banning taibatsu was enacted. Nogami (2005, 28) and Kobayashi et al. (1997) argue that taibatsu was first banned after World War ii, while the website of the Center for Effective Discipline, a leading authority on corporal punishment worldwide, reports that the shogakkorei (Elementary School Law) of 1900, which banned taibatsu in elementary schools, was the first law to ban “corporal punishment” in Japanese schools (http://www.stophitting.com/). Neither assertion is factual.

Histories

57

table 2.2 History of Governmental/Legal Considerations Concerning Taibatsu in Japanese Schools Year

Legal consideration

1879

Prohibition of taibatsu enacted in Article 46 of Education Law (kyōikurei dai 46 jo)

1885

Repeal of 1879 law prohibiting taibatsu

1890

Prohibition of taibatsu reinstated in Article 47 of law of elementary schools (shōgakkorei dai 47 jo)

1900

Prohibition of taibatsu repealed (second time)

1941

Prohibition of taibatsu reinstated (second time)

1943

Passing of Middle School Regulation, Article 18, which allows principals to exercise “discipline” (chōkai) but not taibatsu

1947

Prohibition of taibatsu in Article 11 of School Education Law (gakkō kyōikuhō dai 11 jo), a statute that followed the 1947 fundamental Law of Education

1948

Distribution of first Ministry of Justice Memorandum, entitled “Degrees of Discipline” (Chōkai no teidō)

1949

Distribution of second Ministry of Justice Memorandum, entitled “teachers’ ideas Regarding the Prohibition of Taibatsu against Students”

Sources: Kobayashi et al. 1997; terasaki 2001.

formal education systems had banned the practice, as well as one uS state (New Jersey). But Japan had just opened itself up to the world after a long period of isolation, and was seeking to be accepted as a “civilized” and “advanced” nation, especially in the eyes of Americans like Professor Murray who were helping Japan modernize its institutions. As imazu argues, Japan enacted its first anti-taibatsu law because it wanted to “appeal to the world as an advanced country” (2006, 238–239). Since Professor Murray was an influential assistant to tanaka as well as an important figure helping Japan reform its education system, it seems likely that Japanese officials like tanaka believed that the New Jersey law represented the wave of the “civilized” future. As Miethe and Lu write, “statements about the civility of particular countries are often based on the nature and type of their formal punishments” (2005, 208); Japan’s initial banning of taibatsu was therefore not simply about taibatsu itself.

58

Histories

this relatively early prohibition of taibatsu also makes sense in light of the new, Western-inspired and “modern” social institutions established during the Meiji Period. One of these was a new penal code. As Japan became more “modern,” physical punishments of criminals were discarded in favor of a less violent penal system (Botsman 2005).10 At the time Japan banned taibatsu, it did so “under the influence of educational ideas of human rights and humanism” (Okihara 1980, 190). torture was also banned in 1879, the same year as taibatsu (terasaki 2001, 227–229). finally, there are two more facts that suggest that the first prohibition of school taibatsu was primarily for “show.” first, although Japan sought to use its ban on taibatsu to demonstrate how it had become more “civilized,” by outlawing physical punishment policies for its own schoolchildren, it continued to employ physical punishment on criminals in its colonies.11 though the Qing Empire used flogging in taiwan, when the Japanese first colonized the island in 1895, this “backward punishment” was quickly abolished (Botsman 2005, 211). However, ten years later floggings in taiwan were revived, and by 1912, the “Korean flogging Ordinance,” based closely on laws in taiwan, was also enacted, bringing corporal punishment to Korea as well. imperial Japan had turned an about-face in its colonies, initially shunning the use of flogging but then reinstating it (Botsman 2005, 212). A leading penologist of the time, Ogawa Shigejirō, argued that, “in order to be effective, punishments had to be adjusted to the people’s overall ‘level of civilization’: backward people would only understand backward punishments” (quoted in Botsman 2005, 213). Second, and as we will see in greater detail later in this chapter, the practice of taibatsu has persisted for many decades in Japan’s schools despite rather consistent laws prohibiting it. Most Japanese teachers who use taibatsu are rarely punished by the Ministry of Education (MOE) or by their local boards of education. these facts demonstrate how the initial banning of taibatsu took place during a time of sweeping change in Japanese history, in which the nation grappled with competing beliefs—indigenous and foreign—of what constituted “the modern” and “the civilized.” the intense modernization that followed the Meiji Restoration was among the most rapid industrialization projects in world history, and it is important to remember that this drive to modernize was as much about presentation as it was about 10  Before this new penal code, Botsman argues that unlike other punishments handed down by the Bakufu (ruling military government in Edo), corporal punishments of Japanese criminals were like death sentences, “carried out as soon as they were announced,” and therefore “not generally subject to any kind of pardon” (2005, 48). 11  As Roberts (2010) shows, colonizers often get away with things in their colonies that they would not get away with at home.

Histories

59

substantive reform. Leaders in the new Japanese government like tanaka wondered how they could symbolically show Western observers that Japanese people were not “uncivilized.” they wanted Westerners to believe that they were not only expanding and improving their technologies and institutions, but also their ideas. the first laws banning taibatsu were thus in large part symbolic gestures aimed at impressing Western observers like Professor Murray as much as they were intended to protect Japan’s own schoolchildren from physical discipline. Prewar Taibatsu Debate

this law-for-show strategy might have worked if Japan’s people had not had to live with it. throughout the Meiji and taisho Periods there was significant disagreement over the use and value of taibatsu, both within the Japanese government and without (Emori 1989, 110). One passionate debate recorded in the pages of the education magazine Kyōikujiron (“Current Views on Education”) detailed different opinions regarding taibatsu among teachers, parents, and students in the Meiji and taisho Periods (terasaki 2001, 237ff). Although Kyōikujiron published a wide range of opinions, in general the magazine was in favor of abolishing early taibatsu prohibition laws (terasaki 2001). through its publication, Kyōikujiron may have been successful in achieving its goal of legalizing taibatsu: after an early prohibition on taibatsu was repealed in 1900, the practice remained legal until 1941. Some taibatsu detractors suggested alternative disciplinary measures in their letters to the editor of Kyōikujiron. in the late 1890s, a man called Kasai argued that taibatsu was unjust and should be replaced with punishments that limited children’s freedom (terasaki 2001, 238–239). However, most contributors to Kyōikujiron argued for the use of taibatsu in Japanese schools. in 1910, a man called Mizutani wrote, “taibatsu is sometimes necessary, even if it makes the child cry” (terasaki 2001, 239). Other proponents asserted that parents had no right to complain to the police about matters involving taibatsu because they had entrusted their children to the school and must therefore show respect for the teacher by accepting whatever disciplinary method(s) he chose to employ (terasaki 2001, 240). Still others advocated taibatsu because other advanced Western nations used it. for example, a man called Minema argued that German and English schools did not face the problems that Japan faced because taibatsu was legal in those countries, and a man called Nishi wrote that Japanese schools were “disappointing” when compared to schools of a city such as Boston, where taibatsu also remained legal (terasaki 2001, 242). teachers during the Meiji and taisho periods generally defended their right to use taibatsu on similar grounds (Hirota 2001).

60

Histories

Hirota has drawn four general conclusions about the educational debate surrounding taibatsu before World War ii: most people approved its use in schools to some degree, believing it represented a “whip of love” that could control unruly classrooms and “cure” children with temperamental problems, and yet teachers and parents could not always see eye to eye regarding how often or how much it should be employed (2001, 213–220). Postwar Legal Prohibitions of Taibatsu Postwar Prohibitions of Taibatsu in Japanese Classrooms

the end of World War ii brought significant, rapid changes to the Japanese education system, as it did to the nation as a whole. Perceptions changed regarding what the education system’s role was in broader Japanese society, as well as what it should be. Now the education system was entrusted to serve democratic values and corporate needs, not nationalist or militarist ones. Now education was not for war and imperial aims but for peace and democratic purposes, not for strengthening the military but for rebuilding the economy. According to scholars such as Hirota, this meant that by the postwar period, taibatsu was no longer deemed quite as necessary, anti-taibatsu norms had become stronger, teachers ceased to be able to say that they had a “right to use taibatsu” (taibatsuken), and all that was left for those in favor of taibatsu was the argument that taibatsu represented a “whip of love” (ai no muchi) (2001, 220). Nevertheless, despite these significant changes to Japanese society and its education system, the postwar prohibition of taibatsu in Article 11 of the School Education Law of 1947 was articulated in very similar language to the prewar prohibitions against taibatsu: teachers and principals were entrusted with the “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) but not the right to use taibatsu.12 As with the prewar prohibitions, there was nothing in the School 12  the language of the laws prohibiting taibatsu are as follows: the September 9, 1879 law reads: “gakkō ni oite wa seitō ni taibatsu (naguchi arui wa kessuru mono rui) wo kuwaeru e karasu”; the October 7, 1890 law reads: “shōgakkōchō oyobi kyōin wa jidō ni taibatsu wo kuwaeru koto wa ezu”; the August 10, 1900 law reads: “shōgakkōchō oyobi kyōin wa kyōikujō hitsuyō to mitometaru toki wa jidō ni chōkai wo kuwaeru koto wo enin shi taibatsu wo kuwaru koto wo ezu”; the March 2, 1943 Middle School Regulation (Article 18) reads: “gakkōchō wa kyōikujō hitsuyō aru to wo mitomeru toki wa seitō ni chōkai wo kuwaeru koto wa eru”; the March 31, 1947 School Education Law (gakkōkyōikuhō) (Article 11) reads: “gakkōchō oyobi kyōin wa kyōikujō hitsuyō ga aru to mitomeru toki wa, kantokuchō no sadameru tokoro ni aru, gakusei, seitō oyobi jidō ni chōkai wo kuwaeru koto ga dekiru. Tadashi, taibatsu wo kuwaeru koto wa dekinai”; and the May 23, 1947 School Education Law Enforcement Regulation (Article 13) reads: “kōchō oyobi kyōin ga jidō nado ni chōkai wo kuwaeru ni atatte wa, jidō nado no shinshin no hattatsu ni ōjiru nado kyōikujō hitsuyōna hairyo wo shinakereba naranai.”

Histories

61

Education Law of 1947 that offered a more concrete definition of what the term taibatsu meant or how it differed from chōkai. this definitional ambiguity was finally addressed in a Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Memorandum (tsūtatsu) on December 22, 1948. in this memorandum, entitled “Degrees of Discipline,” the MOJ concluded that the term “taibatsu” connoted “discipline that appears to inflict physical pain and infringes on the body of a victim.” it also outlined various concrete examples of what acts should be considered taibatsu: “Any kind of discipline that is physical, such as hitting and kicking; in other words, a direct infringement against the body, such as ‘forcing someone to sit quietly’ (tanza), ‘making someone stand up straight’ (chokuritsu), ‘leaving someone somewhere’ (inokori), forced ‘fatigue’ (hirō), or ‘nutritional privation’ (kufuku).” the December 22, 1948 MOJ memorandum was followed by another in 1949, this time entitled, “teachers’ ideas Regarding the Prohibition of Taibatsu against Students.” it was in this second memorandum that certain rather unusual (at least when judged from an American’s perspective) acts were defined as “taibatsu,” including “refusing to let students go to the bathroom,” or “keeping students out of the classroom if they arrived late” (Ninomiya 2008; Mogami 1996; imazu 2006). the 1949 memorandum declared that the following acts should be included in the definition of taibatsu: “[the infliction of] physical pain, making students miss lunch, forcing them to stay in the classroom, not letting them go to the bathroom, not allowing them in the classroom if they are late, putting loud students out of the classroom, forcing a student to sit or stand in any position for an extended period (especially seiza), or ordering them to do taxing labor.” Other acts, such as increasing the number of times a student was put in charge of cleaning duty, making students stand in class, or making students stay after class or school, were in turn labeled “discipline” (chōkai) but not taibatsu (Mogami 1996). these memoranda were the product of wide-ranging discussions within the MOJ in the years following the 1947 School Education Law, and it is important to note that they were only reluctantly drafted. According to Emori, “in the midst of tension brought about by opposing opinions of parents and teachers, [the MOJ felt it] had no choice but to show the administration’s opinion” (1989, 256). Since this was the only official definition offered by the Japanese government, Emori’s interpretation suggests that other ministries (e.g., the MOE) may have perhaps felt that it was acceptable or perhaps even preferable to keep the distinction between “taibatsu” and “chōkai” vague. it is possible that MOE officials wanted to keep the language of these laws vague so that teachers

62

Histories

would have room to decide how to best discipline their charges on a case-by-case basis. in the following decades, in particular during the High Economic Growth Period (kōdo keizai seichōki, 1955–1973) in which Japan emerged from the ashes of World War ii to become a global economic power, the Japanese government, including the MOE and MOJ, remained relatively silent on the issue of taibatsu, at least in terms of the production of official legal documents. At this time, the Japanese education system was widely thought to produce intelligent workers who followed orders and worked diligently to make their companies—and by extension, Japan itself—profitable. Discipline was a driving force behind this: teachers emphasized the importance of learning by rote memorization and rebellious students were not tolerated. Taibatsu was often employed to ensure that Japanese classrooms remained orderly and instruction could proceed uninhibited by unruly distraction. thus with its silence the Japanese government, especially the MOE, ignored the taibatsu prohibitions on its books and, at least tacitly, acknowledged taibatsu’s ability to keep classrooms orderly and keep this economic machine well fueled with obedient, hard-working, and disciplined graduates. throughout the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and most of the 1970s, then, taibatsu was not widely seen as an educational “problem,” even as it was officially illegal during this time. No books were written about it, there was no moral panic over it, and the Japanese government seemed content to let its anti-taibatsu laws collect dust rather than remind the public about them. However, as we will see in greater detail, this changed in the late 1970s and early 1980s around the time of high-profile incidentscum-media frenzies such as the taibatsu-associated deaths at the totsuka Yacht School. in April 1981, for example, the tokyo High Court decided that while the use of “a little power” was considered acceptable under social norms, and was therefore within the range of the “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) legally afforded to Japanese teachers, taibatsu was not included in this range, reiterating the linguistic distinction used in the Meiji Period prohibitions, the School Education Law, and the MOJ memoranda of 1948 and 1949. this ruling ended a long period of official governmental silence on the issue of taibatsu, and along with the totsuka Yacht School incidents, marks an important turning point in postwar taibatsu discourse. from this point until the mid-2000s, taibatsu was increasingly seen as an “educational problem.” in 1994, the MOE published the following condemnation of taibatsu in a White Paper (hakusho). in it they pointedly rebut the argument that taibatsu is justified in the face of “school violence” (kōnai bōryoku):

Histories

63

it is extremely unfortunate that children are still subjected to corporal punishment in schools. A variety of factors appear to be involved. Some teachers have the attitude that the use of force is sometimes necessary in response to problem behavior, such as school violence. Some also hold the simplistic view that a certain amount of corporal punishment is acceptable as a means of guidance. in addition, some parents regard the use of corporal punishment as a sign of teachers’ enthusiasm. Corporal punishment is strictly prohibited by law, and its use to chastise children is also unacceptable from the viewpoint of respect for children’s human rights. Moreover, corporal punishment damages the relationship of trust between teachers and students. Overall, it is unlikely to produce any educational benefit. (Japan MOE 2003)

Postwar Prohibitions of Taibatsu in Japanese Sports

And yet, taibatsu did continue, both in schools and in sports. Sports have long been seen as an arm of the Japanese education system, so the language of postwar prohibitions of taibatsu in Japanese sports has been rather similar to the language in Japanese education law, allowing for some range of discipline but categorically prohibiting taibatsu. Although there have been no official laws specifically prohibiting taibatsu in Japanese sports, the Japan (Amateur) Sports Association (JASA), which is a quasi-governmental body that oversees most13 Japanese sports as well as certifies coaches in a range of sports, categorically condemns the use of taibatsu in its coaching manuals and coach certification programs. Based on my fieldwork observations, i have found that JASA sends a clear message to coaches that they must exercise care when instructing youth athletes and must never resort to taibatsu (see chapter 4, section entitled “Human Rights” for details). JASA manuals (e.g., JASA 2008d) explicitly prohibit JASA certified coaches from using taibatsu, going so far as to define taibatsu as an act of “violence”: “Violent acts are, even in the name of sports, an infringement of basic human rights, and as a violation of the law will be punished accordingly” (40–41). this particular JASA manual explains that while parents in Japan have the “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) their children by Civil Law Article 822, item 1, and while schools and teachers are also endowed with a similar right by the 1947 School Education Law, schoolteachers and sports coaches are prohibited from using taibatsu by Article 11 of the same School Education Law: Civil Law Article 822, item i reads: “in exercising parental authority guardians may discipline in a necessary range.” in sports guidance, so 13  the Japan football Association and the Japan High School Baseball federation oversee their respective sports.

64

Histories long as the [coach has the] guardian’s consent, it is accepted that [coaches have] equal right to exercise the same right to discipline in a necessary range. However, taibatsu is completely forbidden. Taibatsu involves individual emotions. “Scolding” (shikaru koto) is not taibatsu. Taibatsu is neither “guidance” (shidō) nor “education” (kyōiku); it is simply “violence” (bōryoku). that is why no matter what reason there may be, taibatsu is a completely impermissible act.14 (40–41)

JASA also firmly condemns the training regime in which they say taibatsu occurs most—“hard training”—and to bolster its case, cites examples of Japanese court rulings that have judged taibatsu to be illegal (e.g., fukuoka’s Superior Court (June 25, 1996)15 and Kagoshima Local Court (December 25, 1990)16). in all of the JASA documentation that i have surveyed, the organization echoes previous legal language used to prohibit taibatsu in Japanese schools: teachers have the “right to discipline” but not “punish physically.”17 The Postwar Construction of Taibatsu as “Solution,” “Problem,” and “Non-Issue” The Limits of Statistics in Measuring the “Problem” of Taibatsu in Japanese Schools

the linguistic ambiguity evident within such taibatsu prohibitions suggests that understanding taibatsu requires much more qualitative rather 14  Legal scholar Yagi defines “chōkai” as the act of “disciplining or teaching a lesson” (korashii mashimeru koto), adding that “hitting an athlete because he cannot do something well” or because “they lost a game” does not fit into this definition (2009, 19). in these cases, the state could charge coaches with a “violent crime” (bōryokuhan) or “bodily injury crime” (shōgaihan). 15  the fukuoka court’s ruling read: “On top of the fact that it is hard to distinguish between taibatsu and other emotional actions, taibatsu is prohibited because, as it was correctly written in Article 11 of the School Education Law [of 1947], acts such as these leave remarkable scars on the “dignity of one’s character” (jinkaku no songen), are linked with the negation of the self, and are also contrary to a fundamental idea of education, which is based on a keystone of mutual respect and faith.” 16  the Kagoshima court’s ruling read: “these sorts of taibatsu incidents happen all the time . . . there is a part of the parental population which accepts these incidents, and we should think about why this is a fact about which everyone knows . . . we need to think a little bit more about the mental shock which the plaintiff suffered in this case.” 17  However, these prohibitions have either been ignored by teachers and coaches who believe that taibatsu remains a “necessary evil,” or they have been too vague to be considered meaningful. Sugiyama asserts that no matter how many laws or memoranda are produced by the government, such laws will “mean nothing” to teachers who are in charge of student guidance and believe in the power of taibatsu (1997, 115). He reports that only 7.7 percent of teachers who have never used taibatsu said they do not use it because it is “illegal” (105).

Histories

65

1200

..

1000 800 600 400 200

r-

.. _,.. r-

r-

r-

-

-

r-

r-

r-

f-

-

r-

r-

r-

-

-

-

r-

r-

-

-

r-

r-

-

-

r-

r-

-

r-

r-

.. - ,..

-

-

-

-

-

,..

..

-

-

0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

• Number of total incidents of "taibatsu" in Japanese schools (as reported by schools to the Ministry of Education)

Figure 2.3 Incidents of Taibatsu. Source: Ministry of Education Statistics, accessed August 4, 2007. http:/ /www.mext.go.jp.

than quantitative analysis. In fact, it is important to show how our understanding of "corporal punishment" in Japanese schools and sports is more often limited than edified by the unreliable nature of taibatsu-related statistics. Various attempts have been made to understand the statistical prevalence of the "taibatsu problem." Some surveys suggest that 80 percent of all Japanese children receive taibatsu in the home (Benesse Educational Research Center 1999). As for the education system, Goodman relates that "a 1984 survey ... suggested that physical punishment was practiced in almost all (97%) of Japanese schools" (2000, 167), while a survey two years later, in 1986, showed that 68 percent of all teachers had witnessed another teacher using taibatsu either "some of the time" or "all of the time" (Sugiyama 1997, 106; Nogami 2005, 28). However, these survey statistics all come from the 1980s and 1990s, when public consciousness of taibatsu was at an all-time high. By contrast, as figure 2.3 shows, the number of incidents reported to be "taibatsu" (as tabulated by the MOE) has hovered between 800 and 1,000 for most years between 1990 Gapanese annual calendar, Heisei 2) and 2004 (Heisei 16). Figure 2.3 therefore suggests that taibatsu occurred in only about 2 percent of all the nation's schools (one incident per fifty schools) during these years. How can we reconcile these MOE statistics with the survey results mentioned above?

66

Histories

the truth is that in many cases statistical data regarding taibatsu is riddled with methodological problems; as a result, these statistics can obfuscate, confuse, or raise further questions as much as they can edify.18 first of all, these MOE statistics are unreliable because they rely on self-reporting by schools and school administrators themselves. Certainly most school administrators would rather not report to the MOE that they have broken the School Education Law, so these numbers must only represent the tip of the iceberg. Secondly, the gathering of statistics is often based on ambiguous definitions, or sometimes even no definition at all (e.g., ishikawa 1998). Some statistics measure both “mild” and “harsh” forms of taibatsu together. unless the researcher is specific about what kind of definition his respondents should use, one needs to taken a critical eye to the survey’s results. thirdly, taibatsu statistics in some studies cast a wider net on where taibatsu takes place or by whom it is inflicted than in other studies. fourthly, statistics on taibatsu often conflict with each other. for example, as we saw above, in terms of the number of taibatsu incidents, the MOE reports statistics that show a fairly consistent rate of eight hundred to one thousand taibatsu incidents each year between 1990 and 2004, which would amount to only one incident per fifty schools. Yet during the same years, Yoneyama found different MOE statistics that directly conflict with this accounting, writing: “Of the teachers included in the [MOE] survey, 67% are also reported to have used corporal punishment in the previous year, compared to 37% for teachers specializing in academic subjects, 39% in technical and vocational subjects, and 49% for primary school teachers (where P.E. teachers are not specialists)” (1999, 101).19 How is it possible that two-thirds of all teachers say they use taibatsu but the number of 18  Exact statistics regarding the prevalence of corporal punishment worldwide are equally difficult to determine. According to three cross-cultural surveys (Barry et al., 1977; Ember and Ember 2005; Levinson 1989), “parents in more than 75 percent of the world’s societies use corporal punishment at least occasionally” (Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006, 220). Yet this percentage represents the occasional use of corporal punishment, by parents only. According to Ember and Ember, “corporal punishment of children was frequent or typical in about 40% of the sample societies” of their survey (2005, 609). this percentage is even lower for Levinson (1981, 1989), who found that corporal punishment was only used “frequently” in 20 percent of the societies he sampled. 19  there are other surveys that show that the number of taibatsu incidents in Japanese schools has been decreasing over time. According to the NHK’s Cultural Research institute, for example, 32 percent of all middle school students in 1982 said they had been hit by a teacher, but in 2002 the percentage had fallen to 7 percent, suggesting that taibatsu was decreasing (see Asahi Shimbun 2007). Likewise, Sugiyama reports that whereas 52 percent of all “student guidance teachers” (seitō shidō shūji) had used taibatsu in 1986, this percentage had fallen to 18.8 percent by 1996 (2007, 104). Judging from these studies it seems that taibatsu was probably much more prevalent before 1990, when the MOE began tabulating statistics.

Histories

67

the incidents reported by the MOE involves only 2 percent of the nation’s public schools? this discrepancy suggests that the incidents that get reported to the MOE are only the most severe incidents. for this reason several scholars conclude that taibatsu statistics must be used with considerable caution (imabashi 1986; Okano and tsuchiya 1999, 209; Yoder 2004, 45). Even Japan’s MOJ has acknowledged that “most cases of corporal punishment are not reported” (see Wray 1999, 102). in many cultures, few victims of corporal punishment have the courage to report being hit. it seems safe to say that the same would be true for Japan, and perhaps to an even greater degree since Japan is a society in which restraint is considered a virtue and many people do not say what they believe does not need to be said. Since such statistics are not completely reliable, we must look beyond the numbers to fully understand taibatsu. indeed, that is precisely the stance that the MOE has taken in recent years. As we will see in the following sections, the MOE has recently become wary of the validity of its own statistics, ceasing to collect them altogether in the mid-2000s. Taibatsu as “Solution”: School Violence and Managed Education

there has been much debate about taibatsu since the term was coined, but taibatsu has become especially controversial in the last four decades. Beginning in the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, “school violence” (kōnai bōryoku), both between teachers and students and between students and other students, was increasingly perceived as a problem afflicting Japanese schools (Okano and tsuchiya 1999; Yoneyama 1999; Kakinuma and Nagano 1997; Miyata 1994, 219). As incidents of “school violence” increased, especially cases in which students were the perpetrators of violence against teachers, more and more people began to assert that taibatsu was necessary to “fight fire with fire.” Many asserted that taibatsu was “educational love” (kyōikuai) or “the whip of love” (ai no muchi) (Kobayashi et al. 1997; Hirota 2001). Some believed that teachers should be entrusted not just with the “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) but also with the “right to use taibatsu” (taibatsuken) to combat violence by students against teachers as well as violence by students against other students. Outside the school, “youth crime” (shōnen hanzai) hit its peak in 1983, according to Japanese Police Agency statistics (n.d.). At the same time, a media firestorm around issues of youth crime and violence against adults invited Japanese teachers to use stricter forms of discipline to keep young people orderly. Taibatsu and “managed education” (or “controlled” or “regulated” education, kanri kyōiku), which emphasized rigid control and strict discipline of student behavior, were perceived to be appropriate remedies for such “school violence” and an important means to control

Histories

68

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1993

1999

2000

Figure 2.4 Incidents of School Violence. Source: Ministry of Education Statistics, accessed August 8, 2007. http:/ /www.mext.go.jp.

such "wild" youth (Imabashi 1986). According to Rohlen, this debate intensified in the late 1970s and early 1980s and could even be observed within individual schools between teachers who subscribed to opposing pedagogies of discipline (1983, 202-203, see also Sato 1999, 157££). Taibatsu was thus considered by many to be the sharp teeth necessary to combat school violence and make "managed education" work (Kakinuma and Nagano 1997; Morikawa 1990; Miyata 1994, 219; Okano and Tsuchiya 1999; Yoneyama 1999). Morikawa (1990) directly links taibatsu to "managed education" policies, noting that some teachers--especially those in charge of physical education-were asked to become "corporal punishment teachers" (taibatsu kyoshi), a role perceived to be essential for the maintenance of order in the school (see also Chujo 1980). Kiku believes the rise of "school violence" (figure 2.4) legitimized "corporal punishment teachers' monopoly on violence" in the school (2001, 109).20 In one example that illustrates the predicament many educators faced around this time, a teacher writing under the pseudonym Sato lchiro reflected on the early years of his teaching career, in the early 1980s (Sato 1999). Taibatsu was at that time considered the only answer to combat the threat of "school violence" at his "wild" (areta) middle school: There was a group of ten or so third-year delinquents who swaggered around the school like they owned the place ... they stole other student's food at lunchtime ... It was the kind of school that if a teacher warned a student, he would get hit or made fun of ... They had been kicked out of their homes by their parents, so we couldn't send them home. (157-159)

As a young teacher, Sato's frustrations peaked when this group of boys forced some first-year students to smoke tobacco: "I could not allow that. I gave in to temptation and hit one of the boys, over and over again. I hit 20 Yoneyama and Naito believe that this situation continues today: "Teachers who use physical violence against students are often incorporated as an essential part of the school management" (2003, 322).

Histories

69

him from first period all the way to third period. i thought: ‘i’ll convince you with blows. i’ll convince you with blows’” (157–158).21 Satō thought that he could instruct without taibatsu, but he soon found that he did not have the educational “know-how” to use “any method but taibatsu” (159). the fact that his fellow teachers said “managed education” and taibatsu were necessary to combat “school violence” only served to legitimate his decision to resort to taibatsu. Taibatsu as “Problem”: Media Coverage of “Extreme” Incidents

in this way, up until the late 1970s and early 1980s, “school violence” was considered a problem and “managed education” or taibatsu were considered the solutions. Taibatsu only came to be considered a problem as the Japanese media began to sensationalize “extreme” incidents thereafter. Such media coverage rarely distinguished between the severity of various highly publicized incidents of taibatsu and more commonplace incidents of taibatsu, thus creating a moral panic over even “mild” forms of taibatsu.22 Among the most well-known cases of taibatsu were the “totsuka Yacht School incidents” (Totsuka yotto sukūru jiken), presented briefly in the introduction to this book. As we have seen, totsuka and his subordinate coaches were sentenced to prison for their use of “strict taibatsu.” the totsuka Yacht School incidents, more than any other case, brought the term taibatsu into mainstream Japanese discourses on education. Of course, there have been other “extreme” incidents; the totsuka Yacht School incidents were only the most widely covered. in 1985, a Gifu boy was beaten for breaking school policy by bringing a hair dryer on a school trip. the incident was dubbed the “Giyō Hair Dryer incident” and a court gave his teacher a three-year sentence for the crime, stating that it “had no relation to education” (kyōiku to wa muen no kōi) (Yoneyama 1999, 92 and Watanabe 1986, 45). At Kobe takatsuka High School, a fifteen-yearold girl was killed after the teacher in charge of closing the school gate at night closed it on her head. in 1991, at a public institution called Kazenoko Gakuen, two children died after the school’s principal put them in solitary confinement during the height of summer (Yoneyama 1999, 93). Between 2001 and 2003, a Kitakyushu a table tennis coach repeatedly abused students both verbally and physically to the point that the students developed autonomic nerve imbalance, or dysautonomia (see also appendix 2). 21  the use of the term “temptation” suggests that Satō knew he was doing “something wrong”; perhaps he was aware of taibatsu prohibition laws. 22  this moral panic was also at least partially the result of foreign observers like Schoolland pointing out that the Japanese education was “dark” and needed to be changed. Schoolland’s book, first published in 1990, was translated into Japanese in 1992.

Histories

70

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

-

-

1-

1-

-

-

1-

1-

-

-

-

I - 1-

'-

I- I- I-

-

-

-

-

1-

'-

1-

-

1-

1-

1-

tttl

199) 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 • Nwnber of Reported Taibatsu Incidents • Nwnber of Teachers Punished

Figure 2.5 Proportion of Teachers Punished for Using Taibatsu. Source: Ministry of Education Statistics, accessed August 8, 2007. http:/ /www.mext.go.jp.

These incidents are unquestionably tragic, and they certainly deserve our attention, but we must also remember that the media mostly covers only such extreme incidents, and that they rarely consider the deeper reasons why educators like Totsuka believe so strongly in taibatsu's efficacy. The media often simply fans the flames of the "taibatsu problem" more than it helps us to understand it. Most incidents of taibatsu in Japanese schools are not nearly as heinous as these aforementioned cases, but media focus on these most "extreme" incidents of taibatsu has shifted attention away from the fact that educators who employ milder forms of taibatsu are still going unpunished (Imazu 2006). Vocal taibatsu advocates like Totsuka are found guilty of their crimes while most educators who employ taibatsu, even when they admit their crime to the MOE, are never punished for their more mild use of taibatsu (figure 2.5).23

Punishments for Teachers Who Use Taibatsu What accounts for this rather low percentage of Japanese teachers who are punished for using taibatsu? After all, taibatsu is illegal in Japanese 23 Totsuka and the fifteen coaches who worked under him all served prison sentences. Totsuka's sentence was initially six years of "hard labor" (choekt), but he only served three (2003-2006). For the "crime of confinement," Kazenoko's principal received a six-year sentence (later reduced to five years in consideration of his ailing health). The Kitakyushu table tennis coach was never formally punished.

Histories

71

schools. Among the schools reported to have had incidents of taibatsu between 1990 and 1995, only around 30 to 45 percent of them received legal sanctions. Only a few of these educators were dismissed from their jobs altogether. Many scholars believe that this lack of punishment for teachers who use taibatsu is “problematic” (Okano and tsuchiya 1999, 209), but it appears that the number of reprimands for such teachers has actually increased fivefold since the late 1970s (table 2.3). Although the MOE did not provide statistics regarding the total number of cases of taibatsu until 1990, the work of scholars such as Sugiyama (1997), Okihara (1980), and Murakami, Nakagawa, and Hosaka (1986) can be brought together, as in table 2.3, to offer a detailed chronological breakdown summarizing the types of punishments handed down to teachers who have used taibatsu over the last few decades. At the very least, this consistently low rate of punishments for teachers who admitted using taibatsu says something about how ambivalent the MOE has been about the taibatsu prohibition laws on its own books. The Marginalization of a “Problem,” Part I: The Discontinuation of Government Taibatsu Statistics

As we have seen, taibatsu was first seen an “educational solution” but later came to be viewed an “educational problem.” However, in recent years interest in taibatsu has waned, almost entirely. One measure of any “social problem” is whether the government and/or media determine it important enough to warrant collecting statistics. this shows whether a certain social phenomena is “on their radar” or not, so to speak. the MOE’s Elementary and Middle School Education Bureau, Young Students Division (shotōchūtō kyōikukyoku jidō seitoka, hereafter EMSEBYSD), gathered statistics on “incidents thought to be taibatsu” (taibatsu de wa nai ka) beginning in 1990, but they stopped collecting these statistics in 2004. the EMSEBYSD has offered no taibatsu statistics for any year after 2004 in their “Survey Regarding Various Problems in the Guidance of Students” (Japan MOE 2007a), the report in which taibatsu statistics had previously been reported. An official from the EMSEBYSD said in a telephone interview that they “couldn’t define what taibatsu was” and therefore had to stop gathering the statistics (personal communication, November 13, 2007). in the words of the person in charge of these statistics, the definition of taibatsu was “ambiguous” (aimai). this was because the statistics that they had been collecting, which depended on schools reporting their own incidents, represented diverse incidents all grouped under the blanket but ambiguous heading “incidents thought to be taibatsu.” the official said the EMSEBYSD was “at a point where they couldn’t fully grasp” the problem of taibatsu and “couldn’t say positively what taibatsu was,” so they determined

1

4

5

1989

4

1992

1991

4

1993

1990

8

6

8

1996

1995

5

1997

1994

9

11

1999

1998

7

2000

1

15

2001

21

18

2002

2003

64

20

1

18

2004

2005

Year

8

15

24

10

16

18

27

34

37

44

40

56

56

63

71

66

64

Teaching license revoked Suspension from office Reduction in pay (menshoku) (teishoku) (genkyū)

Disciplinary punishment (chōkai shobun)

table 2.3 Punishments for teachers Who Have used Taibatsu

28

34

20

39

45

43

39

68

67

59

65

68

54

56

80

57

300

Warning (keikoku)

221

277

151

159

193

212

236

297

305

269

271

295

299

313

320

277

1

Reprimands (kunkoku)

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

2

1

0

1

1

0

447

Prosecution leading to leave of absence (kiso taishoku)

262

331

196

213

258

280

311

407

414

383

387

428

424

451

494

420

Total

2

4

2

1987

1986

1985

0

0

1969

1968

1

0

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

0

0

4

0

2

3

1

4

5

3

2

3

3

3

4

0

2

4

5

2

6

11

18

10

6

10

13

15

13

21

24

7

5

10

26

14

11

21

11

10

26

41

27

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

27

43

27

27

30

23

31

60

69

55

102

197

247

200

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

9

12

18

20

16

52

72

39

37

44

49

53

75

98

69

120

241

311

240

Sources: Adapted from Sugiyama 1997, 100; Okihara 1980, 66; Murakami, Nakagawa and Hosaka 1986,197–198). Note: the aforementioned scholars appear to have had access to Ministry of Education data between the years of 1964 and 1989; the Ministry no longer displays this data on its website.

0

0

1964

0

1971

1970

0

0

1972

1965

0

1973

0

0

1974

0

0

1975

1967

0

1976

1966

0

1

1978

1977

DAtA uNAVAiLABLE BEtWEEN 1985 AND 1979

3

1988

74

Histories

that their statistical methodology was unsound. that is why, in 2004, the EMSEBYSD decided to discontinue taibatsu statistics entirely. When i asked the EMSEBYSD for an explanation regarding why these statistics were discontinued in 2004, and not in some other year, the official explained that it was “not due to any particular recent event.” Rather, the EMSEBYSD had occasionally been told that their definition of taibatsu was “problematic.” the EMSEBYSD responded to the questions, “Why did the MOE stop taking statistics on taibatsu,” and “Why did they discontinue them at that time?” with the following e-mail message: until the 2004 surveys, we first undertook statistics in a survey called “Survey Regarding Various Problems in the Guidance of Students.” this used an extremely vague definition and we published the results as “the Number of incidents of What is thought to Be Taibatsu in Schools.” in order for incidents to be counted as actual cases of taibatsu, we had to assume that many of the incidents would be disputed (and on the other hand we were not saying that each incident was officially an incident of taibatsu). that is why we decided, after a discussion within the department, to stop collecting the statistics. We still consider taibatsu to be a problem, but it just so happened that we had to stop collecting statistics at that time.

The Marginalization of a “Problem,” Part II: A Failed Attempt to Redefine Taibatsu

the failure to sufficiently define taibatsu has continued to plague the Japanese government’s ability to both measure and curb its use, even more than a hundred years after the term’s initial use in Japanese education policy. though it still “considers taibatsu to be a problem,” when the MOE stopped collecting taibatsu statistics in 2004, it implicitly downgraded the status of taibatsu vis-à-vis other problems. these changes in governmental policy must be understood in the context of the politico-educational debates surrounding Japanese schools in the mid-2000s. in particular, it is important to note the debate regarding the so-called “relaxed education to allow children room to grow,” or “low pressure education” (yutori kyōiku) (tsuneyoshi 2004, 367) reforms,24 in which the number of mandatory classroom hours and curricular content

24  With these reforms, 30 percent of the core curriculum was reduced in elementary and middle schools and independently selected electives were introduced. Only physical education remained mandatory at the high school level—all other classes were optional. According to Nathan, the “emphasis [was] clear: selective learning, subjectivity, and above all, student autonomy” (2004, 33).

Histories

75

were both significantly reduced.25 in October 2006, then Prime Minister Abe Shinzo aimed to reconsider the yutori kyōiku reforms, so he convened an education advisory group dubbed the Education Rebuilding Council (kyōiku saisei kaigi, hereafter ERC), comprised of seventeen conservativeleaning education “experts” from business, academia, and government. Along with general recommendations that Japanese schools be strengthened with “greater patriotism” and “firmer discipline,” and that classrooms be made more orderly so that students could learn in a quiet environment, the ERC also attempted to redefine taibatsu in two 2007 reports (see Education Rebuilding Council 2007, BBC News 2007).26 While the Council’s recommendations echoed aforementioned laws and government memoranda that had stated that teachers should not be allowed to “inflict bodily harm” on students, or cause any kind of physical pain as punishment, it also argued that the definition of taibatsu should be changed to exclude various definitions that had been included in the two aforementioned 1940s MOJ Memoranda. Specifically, the ERC proposed eliminating “making a student stay after class to study” and “making a student leave the classroom” from the definition.27 the ERC also suggested that neither making students clean the classroom, nor taking away their mobile phones, nor making them stand during class should be considered taibatsu, though they agreed that prohibiting students from using the bathroom should still be included in the definition. (it bears mentioning that such examples of taibatsu would not likely be considered “corporal punishment” in Western classrooms.) As many media reports have noted, the ERC’s recommendations for the redefinition of taibatsu were articulated as a “conservative” response to the “liberal” yutori kyōiku reforms, which were thought to have “deprived” Japanese schoolchildren of a disciplined learning environment. the ERC was attempting to prevent incidents of “bullying” and was concerned that classrooms with more “room for students to breathe” might not be best for Japanese children. the ERC therefore wanted to create 25  Vassar College Professor Chris Bjork found that Japanese middle school teachers had much less control over youth and “were holding themselves back from using taibatsu since the yutori kyōiku education reforms” (personal communication March 31, 2011). for Bjork, yutori kyōiku was not simply curriculum reform; it also triggered behavioral changes in both students and teachers (see Bjork 2011). 26  Among its other recommendations, the ERC called for competition in education, performance-based pay for teachers, selection, and concentration in higher education, the elimination of professors’ ability to make university administration decisions, and the reduction of salaries for professors over age sixty by 30 percent (Goodman 2010, 76). 27  One section from the MOJ Memorandum that the Council wanted to change read: “children who are lazy or disruptive cannot be sent outside the classroom” (jugyōchū namaketa, sawaida to itte seitō wo kyōshitsugai ni dasu koto wa yurusarenai).

76

Histories

“stronger” classrooms with “firmer” discipline, choosing to do so by limiting the number of disciplinary procedures that were considered taibatsu so that teachers could more easily control disruptive students (BBC News 2007; Asahi Shimbun 2007; Nihon Keizai Shimbun 2007). the ERC’s recommendations seemed to be an attempt to strengthen not only teachers’ ability to “discipline” but also their very authority in the classroom (BBC News 2007). though the ERC did stop short of proposing that teachers be able to hit, kick, or strike their students, the lead member of the ERC, Yamatani Eriko, said that the 1940s definitions of taibatsu used in these MOJ Memoranda “deprive[d] teachers of a means to instruct children” (quoted in Nakamura 2007). the ERC apparently sought to pare down these old MOJ definitions of taibatsu in order to “sanitize” the term, attempting to limit the scope of the taibatsu definition in order to strengthen teachers’ authority. the ERC’s recommendations may not directly relate to the discontinuation of MOE taibatsu statistics—after all the ERC and the EMSEBYSD are unrelated (quasi-) government institutions—but by ceasing to collect statistics in 2005, the EMSEBYSD at least set the stage for the ERC to “revise” the definition of taibatsu by once again calling into question the definition of a “social problem” that had long been debated and whose definition had long been considered “ambiguous.” if anything, the ERC’s attempts to redefine taibatsu only added more confusion to an already complicated semantic situation. in the end, Abe stepped down as Prime Minister and the ERC’s taibatsu recommendations were never implemented. The Marginalization of a “Problem,” Part III: Taibatsu Gives Way to Bullying and Child Abuse

Just as taibatsu was being pushed off the government’s radar, other “problems” were taking its place. Although they cited definitional ambiguity as their reason for being unable to continue collecting statistics on taibatsu, strangely the MOE continued to gather statistics on other similarly ambiguously defined “social problems” within Japanese education such as “bullying” (ijime) and “child abuse” (jidō gyakutai). Although the MOE did not define taibatsu in a 2007 publication entitled “Regarding the Outlook of the Survey on Various Problems in the Guidance of Students,” they did define “bullying” (ijime), despite similar concerns about its definition. the following is an excerpt that shows that the MOE had come under criticism for its handling of the “bullying problem” (ijime mondai): “Considering the opinions of intellectuals, we are now proceeding with our “Survey on Various Problems in the Guidance of Students’ . . . standing in the shoes of the bullied children, we will comment on the definition of “bullying” in order that we can better understand the actual situation” (Japan MOE 2007a).

Histories

77

the MOE then offered the following definition of a victim of “bullying”: “Someone who, because they have normal human relations, feels mental pain after receiving psychological or physical attack” (Japan MOE 2007b). the language used for this “bullying” definition is very similar to the 1948 MOJ definition given for taibatsu, except instead of the expression “bodily suffering” (nikutaiteki na kutsū) the “bullying” definition is replaced by the expression “physical suffering” (butsuriteki na kutsū). How can the MOE define “bullying” but not taibatsu? Both definitions seem to be particularly vague, but it seems that the MOE may have been under pressure to define “bullying” while at the same time under pressure to stop defining taibatsu (through the discontinuation of statistics). Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education has also begun to re-label taibatsu, now describing physical punishment in schools as “abuse” (gyakutai) and “child abuse” (jidō gyakutai), terms also riddled with definitional problems (Goodman 2000, 167) but which cannot carry the positive connotations that taibatsu does for some people (e.g., totsuka Hiroshi). Around the same time that taibatsu statistics were discontinued, the term “abuse” (gyakutai) began to be used in government publications (e.g., Japan MOE 2006) to describe incidents of teacher-to-student-violence that had in the past been called “taibatsu.” With this semantic sleight of hand, the MOE has begun to use a term that it believes more clearly shows the deleterious consequences of physical discipline by teachers against students. Still, as with taibatsu and ijime, the MOE has not clearly defined what they mean by “abuse” in many of their reports. for example, in a report published in 2005 on “Various Problems Related to Student Guidance” (Japan MOE 2005), the word taibatsu is not even mentioned once, though “violence” (bōryoku) and “child abuse” (jidō gyakutai) are both used many times. in 2006 as well, the MOE published a report under the heading “Regarding Efforts towards Preventing Child Abuse in Schools,” but the word taibatsu is only mentioned twice, showing that it does not believe taibatsu to be “abuse.” When i asked the EMSEBYSD what they meant by the phrase “child abuse in the school” (gakkō ni okeru jidō gyakutai), a phrase that seemed to greatly overlap with historical perceptions of taibatsu, officials said that they “did not have one in particular” (toku ni nai desu). in sum, taibatsu is a “problem” according to the MOE’s own statements, but not one worthy of gathering statistics; taibatsu has not officially been defined as “abuse” despite the fact that its usage in government documents has followed a rather similar pattern, and the linguistic patterns employed to define taibatsu in government documents are rather similar to that of “bullying.” At the same time, taibatsu remains illegal in the schools that the MOE oversees and the Ministry fails in its duty to enforce the School Education Law. though it had been commonly used between

Histories

78 450 400 350

• Number of articles referencing "abuse" (gyakutai) and "school" (gakkou) D Number of articles referencing "corporal punishment" (taibatsu )and"scfiool" (gakkou)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

.

-

_A

11

-t

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Figure 2.6 Newspaper Articles Referencing Abuse and Corporal Punishment (Search Results with School). Source: Asahi Shimbun Kikuzo II Database (all editions except AERA or Shukan Asahi).

1990 and 2004, taibatsu is now no longer the preferred term of the MOE to describe incidents of "violence," "abuse," or "physical discipline" by a teacher against a pupil in the school setting. In a way, it is as if the concept "taibatsu" has vanished entirely, at least in government discourse. These developments in the government seem to be mirrored in media discourse. As figure 2.6 shows, the term "abuse" (gyakutat) gradually came to replace the term taibatsu in media discourse around the new millennium. Thus, the language regarding physical discipline in the Japanese classroom used by both the Japanese government and media has shifted from "corporal punishment" to "abuse." While the number of newspaper articles referencing taibatsu decreased, there were over half as many articles on "bullying" in the six years between 2003 and 2009 as there were in the eighteen years between 1984 and 2002, and more articles on "abuse" in those years altogether (figure 2.7). Taibatsu is thus no longer a central keyword in government and media discourse; these institutions have moved on to "bullying" and "abuse" in schools. In other words, up until the late 1970s the perceived increase of "school violence" and the perceived effectiveness of "managed education" forced

Histories

79

20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1984-2002

2003-2009

• Number of articles referencing "bullying" (ijime) D Number of articles referencing "corporal punishment" (taibatsu) • Number of articles referencing "abuse" (gyakutai)

Figure 2.7 Newspaper Articles Referencing Bullying, Abuse, and Corporal Punishment. Source: Asahi Shimbun Kikuzo II Database (all editions except AERA or Shukan Asahi).

some to consider taibatsu an "educational solution," but taibatsu began to be seen as a "social problem" after incendiary, extreme cases like the Totsuka Yacht School Incidents were brought into public consciousness by the mass media. Taibatsu was later decreasingly viewed as a "social problem" after the discontinuation of statistics in 2004 by the MOE, and the entrance of other "problems" in government or mass media discourse, such as "bullying" and "abuse." "Bullying" and "abuse" discourses have served to diminish the need for the media to discuss or the government to measure taibatsu. It is plausible that the collecting of statistics was deliberately discontinued in order to de-emphasize taibatsu as a "social problem," opening the door for quasi-governmental bodies like the ERC to explain how taibatsu could, if redefined, be an "educational solution," but there is no convincing evidence of this as yet. What we can say for certain is that taibatsu has clearly been marginalized by other educational"problems" in recent years. Taibatsu today is no longer perceived to be as newsworthy or worthy of government attention as it was in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. This points to the significant influence that government and media have in shaping public consciousness, in Japan as elsewhere. As we have seen, physical discipline has, in one form or another, been used and debated within Japan since the Meiji Period, even if the debate was not always about the specific term "taibatsu." Moreover, as we have also seen, various forms of physical punishments have been used and debated within Japan for much longer. Today, the Japanese government and media work vigorously to influence what people perceive to be "social problems," "educational solutions,"

80

Histories

and issues not worthy of either label. toward that end, these institutions have made rather conspicuous attempts to change the language they use in order to articulate—and then actualize—their respective visions for what Japanese education should be. From Ambiguity to Silence: The Interplay between Language and Law

Mark twain once said, “Laws are sand, customs are rock”; in another articulation, there is the cliché: “Laws are meant to be broken.” Either could succinctly describe the modern linguistic evolution of the term “taibatsu.” As we have seen, much prewar and postwar debate regarding taibatsu, especially in terms of whether it should be banned in schools, has hinged upon its definition. Such semantic debates show that over time, taibatsu has evolved to become much less like the English term “corporal punishment” from which it was birthed, and more of a slippery expression that neither the government nor the media wants to try to grasp. the Japanese government has never clearly defined the term “taibatsu,” so educators, scholars, and students have remained uncertain as to what it refers to or what it looks like. in the Meiji Period, even if teachers and principals were afforded the ability to “discipline” (chōkai) but not use “corporal punishment” (taibatsu) by the Elementary School Law (shogakkorei) of 1900, it would have been very difficult for them to tell the difference at the time, not least because the word taibatsu itself had only been in common parlance in Japan for twenty years or so (terasaki 2001, 226, 249). Because these initial laws were written in a vague manner, at times they have been interpreted loosely to include certain acts but not others. As a result, some teachers cannot decide for themselves whether an act of taibatsu is “harsh” or “mild” (Mogami 1996), or whether “physical pain and bodily harm, [which] constitute taibatsu, [can be] distinguish[ed] from hard training” (Sakamoto 1995, 213). in short, ambiguous legal definitions of taibatsu have allowed Japanese educators to decide for themselves whether an act of discipline constitutes taibatsu, and ultimately, whether that act is right or wrong. in recent years, it has not been the government’s lack of clarity that has been the biggest factor in taibatsu’s linguistic life, but rather its silence. Surely fewer Japanese people are talking about taibatsu now that the gathering of taibatsu statistics by the Japanese government has ceased. While ambiguous laws allowed the term taibatsu first to be seen as cause for prohibition (and with the banning, a symbol of Japan’s inherently “civilized” and “modern” nature), in more recent years the term has come to symbolize a potential “educational solution” for rampant “school violence,” an increasingly serious “social problem,” and, with recent government and media marginalization, a non-issue altogether. Taibatsu has clearly meant

Histories

81

different things to different people at different times, and the term has never really stood on solid, uncontested definitional ground. Perhaps it is not surprising then, given that such controversial definitional-cum-ethical debates over discipline have continued for so long, that some people in the Japanese government and media have actively endeavored to end these debates altogether.

CHAPtER 3

Contexts “The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences.” —Ruth Benedict

The Importance of Context in chapter 1 we examined the many benefits an anthropological approach can provide to the study of corporal punishment, and in chapter 2 we investigated the historical trajectory that the term “corporal punishment” has taken in Japan. in this chapter we will focus on detailing the various contexts in which such “corporal punishment” takes place in Japan today. the analysis of “corporal punishment” in any foreign context must be based less on “universal” definitions (see, e.g., Ember and Ember 2005; Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006) and more on individual, socioculturally contextualized incidents. As we saw in chapter 2, taibatsu has been used and discussed in a variety of contexts throughout Japanese history. Because the definition of taibatsu has continuously been challenged, redefined, reinterpreted, and even at times ignored, one can only truly understand discipline in Japanese schools and sports if one understands the specific social, cultural, and historical contexts in which it has been used or discussed.1 the impetus for taibatsu depends greatly on when and where it occurs (e.g., elementary school, middle school, high school, university, sports, or the home). the impetus for its use also depends upon the intent of the individual inflicting such discipline: parent, teacher, coach, or peer. these diverse antecedents can only be understood through contextualized analysis (Scott 1938 [1952], vi; Miethe and Lu 2005, 212). 1 

Various anthropologists advise that scholars must put specific incidents of “violence” in proper context. for example, Ben-Ari and frühstück write: “Anthropology’s most useful contribution has been to document how violence is preeminently collective rather than individual, social rather than asocial or antisocial, and culturally interpreted” (2003, 551). Blok also argues that the “forms, meanings and images of violence differ widely in time and space, and can only be grasped in terms of their specific social and historical contexts” (1988, 785).

Contexts

83

understanding context is particularly important to avoid unfair judgment of a foreign culture. Letendre, for example, has shown that American teachers who have never been to Japan perceive Japanese schools to have a “brutal system of discipline” (2000, 141) but their judgment fails to account for the context that Letendre elaborates in much of his work (see, e.g., fukuzawa and Letendre 2001, 82). Similarly, Hori argues that to a Western observer of a Japanese Zen monastery, “a stick-wielding teacher will probably be perceived as requiring psychological treatment” (1994, 22), but such judgment overlooks the purpose of the endeavor itself. Physical punishment in “Zen monastic practice is essentially directed at spiritual freedom or liberation,” but because “freedom” and “liberation” mean different things to practicing Buddhists (Hori 1994, 22), one cannot understand why such physical punishments exist unless one understands how such concepts are understood in their local context. The Forms of Discipline Banishment

Taibatsu is but one of many disciplinary methods used in Japanese homes, schools, and sports. if punishments are used in the home at all: “they are often associated with the outside world (soto), rather than with members of the inside of the home (uchi). thus threats may be made about demons, policemen and passing strangers, and a severe punishment is to put a child out of the house altogether” (Hendry 1995a, 45; see also Hendry 1986, 109ff). One single mother told me that sending children out of the house was effective in the past because neighbors would scold the children and send them home having learned their lesson. However, she noted, “now it is too dangerous to banish my child from the house because i live in an urban area.” She explained that while she did occasionally use taibatsu on her five-year-old boy, it was not as effective as banishment once was: “i use taibatsu sometimes, but if i do it is just a little pat on the bottom. Sending my son out of the house would be far more effective, but he is lucky because i live in an apartment above my parents’ house, so when i banish him he simply runs downstairs to them.” More Verbal Reprimand than Taibatsu and More Criticism than Praise

Like the use of banishment, verbal reprimands also appear to be used more often than taibatsu, both in the home and at school. in fact, in one survey, the Benesse Educational Center found that the percentage of parents

84

Contexts

that scold verbally (70 percent) was much higher than the percentage that used taibatsu (less than 20 percent) (Benesse Educational Center 1998). Criticism (i.e., scolding) also appears to be used much more than praise (e.g., Benesse Educational Research Center 1998; Kobayashi-Winata and Power 1989; Ban 1995). Hendry notes that praise is rarely used by mothers in child rearing, “nor is praise mentioned very much in the manuals as an important aspect of training” (Hendry 1986, 106). She suggests that praise, if it is showered on a child at all, is more likely to come from outside the family, or from someone in a position of some distance from the uchi (inside) group. i came to similar findings in my fieldwork with a university basketball team; coaches on the team i observed rarely praised their players, rather it was the team’s fans, parents, and OB (“old boys”) and OG (“old girls”), who are important members of the community but not inside the central “uchi” group, who offered praise.2 Criticism is used more than praise because many Japanese appear to believe that praise weakens students and limits their growth. As Letendre and fukuzawa explain, Japanese parents want teachers to “realistically strengthen students, not shelter them, in anticipation of the future tasks that students will face” (2001, 93).3 ultimately, criticism is aimed at getting children to understand what they have done wrong so that they can make sure they do not repeat the mistake again. fukuzawa found in her fieldwork in middle schools that “punishment consisted of [teachers] lecturing students until they ‘understood’,” and that “discipline consisted of students’ recognition of the error of their ways, sincere repentance, and resolve not to repeat the problem behavior again” (1994, 78). She explains: Japanese middle schools have developed a variety of disciplinary activities to instill students with a disciplined, well-organized lifestyle. Discipline is personal: teachers state that discipline begins with a caring relationship. therefore, homeroom teachers who have the greatest knowledge of and close relationships with their students are the primary disciplinarians. Discipline is psychological: students reflect on their misdeeds until they “understand,” i.e., internalize school norms and routines. Discipline reaches into the home: lifestyle management is more penetrating than physical punishment and makes it possible to supervise home life. (1994, 83–84) 2  Hendry also notes that this theory of inside critique and outside praise “would fit in with the general practice in polite language of humbling oneself and one’s family in conversation with others, to whom one accords deferential phrases of respect” (1986, 107). 3  Ban (2005) also argues that teachers play a major role in the disciplining of children because Japanese schools are expected to prepare students to conform to roles they will later play in the larger society; in other words, the socialization mechanism of Japanese schools is very strong and widely accepted.

Contexts

85

these ethnographic studies suggest that discipline at various levels of Japanese education is accomplished through a close personal relationship between teacher and student (or coach and player) and includes criticism, “lifestyle management,” and demands that students think about the mistakes they have made in order to avoid making them again. Ritual Cleaning

the “internaliz[ation] of school norms and routines” to which fukuzawa refers requires the acknowledgement of the (in)appropriateness of various actions but also the ritualization of certain behavior. Rituals can serve to “discipline” students. One such “disciplining ritual” used in Japanese schools and sports is daily cleaning, mandatory tasks whose disciplinary effectiveness is sometimes believed to be greater than the use of praise, criticism, banishment, or taibatsu altogether. in Japanese schools and sports, daily cleaning routinizes daily habits and structures one’s schedule more than it is used as an overt punishment. in this way, it may be viewed as a kind of “preventive maintenance,” whereas taibatsu may be viewed as a “remedy” for “bad behavior.” Educators and scholars among my informants agree that cleaning functions to both tidy one’s surroundings as well as one’s own “mind” (kokoro). Janitors are rarely hired in Japanese schools; students and athletes generally clean their own classrooms, sports fields, and gymnasiums. this both creates a desire to keep one’s workspace clean and cultivates a sense of respect for the surrounding people and place (Blackwood 2005, 137). Kuwayama found that cleaning, along with “meetings for reflection” (hansei-kai) and keeping to the daily schedule, was integral to the success of the “training camps” (gasshuku) where he completed his fieldwork. He writes: “Cleaning is essential to Japanese discipline, not because the Japanese are obsessed with cleanliness, but because darashinai (being untidy) is a sign of moral degeneration” (1996, 121). Whereas the completion of cleaning tasks—negatively referred to as “chores” in the united States—might be rewarded with something “fun” in an American school, the Japanese school is cleaned without the promise of something else to follow, and without much complaint (Letendre 1999, 41). Self-Discipline

in a sense, daily cleaning is aimed at encouraging students and athletes to discipline themselves by managing their own space every day at a prescribed time. As in many cultures, in Japan learning to discipline and control oneself is seen as an essential part of becoming an adult. An emphasis on such self-discipline remains strong in Japan; as one informant explained to me, “in Japan it is most important to understand one’s role

Contexts

86

figure 3.1 tanaka Kuniaki. Source: tanaka (2008, cover image).

within the group by oneself,” recalling Benedict’s idea that all Japanese must know their “proper station” (Benedict 1946 [2005]). understanding this role and “being self-disciplined” also requires mastering what the Japanese call kejime (literally “distinction”).4 this term refers to adapting one’s behavior to different social situations. it implies being able to shift adeptly between informal to formal social situations. tobin defines kejime as “correctly reading the context for what it is and acting accordingly” (1995, 246), and “how to adjust one’s expectations, behaviors, and speech according to the moment’s contextual demands” (2000, 1157). Making such distinctions requires being disciplined in one’s public behavior in particular. Bachnik explains: the ability to shift successfully from spontaneous to disciplined behavior . . . is a crucial social skill for Japanese, and a paramount requirement to function as an adult. it makes sense that this ability to shift—or kejime—is also a major pedagogical focus in Japanese education and that in the first educational experience outside the home, that of preschool, emphasis is on learning kejime. (1992, 7)

4  Other Japanese terms that correspond with the English term “self-discipline” are jikai (self-admonition), jiko kunren (self-training), jiko shūyō (self-cultivation), or jiritsu (autonomy).

Contexts

87

Kejime must therefore be learned; Japanese people are not born with this skill. in fact, taibatsu is often justified as a means of disciplining young people so that they will be able to make such “distinctions” on their own. for example, high school basketball coach tanaka Kuniaki (figure 3.1) argues that neither the rules of basketball nor the laws of society will be violated if players learn to make proper “distinctions” by themselves, and that learning to make these distinctions requires the use of taibatsu (2008, 132). Being a self-disciplined Japanese adult, then, implies the proper use of ritualized language and polite greetings, the ability to seamlessly shift between formal and informal social situations (kejime), and internalizing and following the rules. to educators like tanaka, taibatsu is an effective means to achieve these ends. The Genders of Discipline Male Educators Use Taibatsu More than Female Educators, Mostly on Male Students

More often than not, males are both the “perpetrators” and “victims” of taibatsu. More male educators use taibatsu on male pupils than female educators use taibatsu on female pupils (takahashi and Kumeda 2008, 168; Miyata 1994). Wray, for example, reports that male teachers inflicted 91 percent of all corporal punishment cases inflicted between 1985 and 1989 (1999, 102). the same is also true of taibatsu inflicted by parents; fathers use this form of discipline far more often than mothers, and far more often on sons than daughters (Kobayashi et al. 1997; Benesse Educational Research Center 1998). Attitudes towards the use of taibatsu reflect these statistics. According to a 1985 survey, male teachers in their twenties approved of taibatsu at a rate of 84 percent, male teachers in their thirties approved at a rate of 77 percent, and male teachers in their forties and fifties approved at a rate of 49 percent. female teachers in their thirties, meanwhile, approved of taibatsu at a rate of 63 percent, a much lower percentage than male teachers in the same age bracket (imabashi 1986, 205). Clearly there is a perception in Japan that the disciplinary value of taibatsu is greater for boys than it is for girls.5 for example, Kaneko, a self-labeled “corporal punishment teacher” (taibatsu kyōshi), says that while taibatsu against girls is “not unacceptable,” it is “not as effec5  in imperial Russia as well, Shrader (2002) found that corporal punishment was used more sparingly on women. it was also used less on the young, very old, and infirm. Corporal punishment was used on members of non-Russian ethnic groups, people exiled to Siberia, and the lower classes, while the upper classes were exempt from penal corporal punishment.

Contexts

88

tive” as taibatsu against boys (2002, 246). A Japan Amateur Sports Association (JASA) brochure (JASA 2008b) given to attendees of a coach certification and training conference that i attended also suggested that taibatsu is an acceptable disciplinary measure for boys, but never for girls: there are times when coaches, while trying to instruct passionately, use taibatsu or become violent with their words. However, this is a real problem because even a trifling word or action can injure a player, cause them to hate sports, or flee from the sports world. it is essential to sufficiently ensure that one does not hurt a child’s feelings, especially in cases of coaching girls and small children (5–6; see also JASA 2008c, 15).

it is clear that taibatsu is perceived to be a disciplinary measure most often used by Japanese men6 on boys.7 The Spaces of Discipline Exploring the Prevalence of When and Where Taibatsu Takes Place

We know that taibatsu happens in Japan’s schools and sports, but as we saw in chapter 2, it is difficult to say exactly how much, or exactly how often. As we have seen, this is because there are few reliable statistics regarding the precise age at which young Japanese students or athletes most often receive taibatsu. However, one particular data set can be explored to determine the age at which young Japanese people may be receiving taibatsu most: Japan’s General Social Survey (JGSS). this survey includes data on “experiences of violence” (bōryoku no keiken), separated by age 6  in other countries as well, males use and approve of corporal punishment in higher numbers than females. in the united States, for example, “males report more favorable attitudes toward corporal punishment than females. Males also reported a higher frequency of actual use of corporal punishment than females” (Bogacki 1981, 70). in the schools of the united Kingdom, long notorious for their use of corporal punishment, Scott ([1938] 1952) shows that female students have come to feel the “birch” far less then male students. However, he does not argue that this has always been the case, instead attributing it to a change of opinion seen around the middle of the nineteenth century “mainly due to the growth of Victorian prudery,” which held that the “exposure of the naked fundament was indecent and immoral, particularly so in the case of girls” (104). 7  “Violence” and “bullying” also appear to be generally male activities in Japan. Given iwai’s (2008a) analysis of JGSS statistics, we find that most (83.1 percent) girls have never been the “recipient” of “violence.” On the other hand, 37.8 percent of all boys have been beaten, showing a stark gender difference in the number of victims of violence in Japan (see also Kobayashi et al. 1997). Akiba, Shimizu, and Zhaung (2010) also found that “bullying” (ijime) happens much more often among junior high school boys than among high school girls. Girls exclude other girls when they “bully,” while boys use physical violence or the threat of it (371).

Contexts

89

table 3.1 Experiences of Violence in Childhood and Adulthood Age 18–34

Age 35–49

Age 50–64

Age 65–89

38.8% 13.6%

25.9% 8.9%

21.9% 6.3%

15.7% 10.7%

9.3% 9.4%

9.4% 5.0%

Experienced violence during childhood Male female

45.4% 20.3%

Experienced violence during adulthood Male female

14.9% 10.4%

Source: Adapted from iwai 2008a, 320.

group. Responses are divided into two categories: those adults who remember having been the victim of violence in their childhood and those who remember having been the victim of violence in their adulthood (table 3.1). We can see from this table that a far greater percentage of survey respondents experienced “violence” in their childhood than they did in their adulthood. What implications do these percentages have for our understanding of taibatsu and discipline in schools and sports? Although the JGSS offers responses to questions about “violence” (bōryoku), and although it does not specify whether or not taibatsu is included in this definition of “violence,” because some Japanese people use these two terms interchangeably, we can draw some limited conclusions from this data set regarding the age at which Japanese people most likely receive taibatsu (table 3.2). table 3.2 shows various perpetrators of “violence” in Japanese society and the time at which “violent” incidents are experienced, divided along gender lines. Japanese males are the “recipients” of “violence” overwhelmingly in their youth (25.6 percent of incidents occurred in childhood compared with only 5.7 percent in adulthood), while women are “recipients” almost equally between their childhood and adulthood (8.0 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively). this imbalance suggests that while teachers, coaches, and parents may strike boys when they are young, boys are less likely to be the victims of “domestic violence” after they become adults. instead, men are more often the perpetrators of it (iwai 2008a, 320). Since most of the violence experienced by males happens during their childhood, and since most Japanese children spend little time outside of school, sports, and home during their childhood years, and, further, since the vast majority of those cases were incidents where the recipient was hit by “someone other than a family

3

1

Both childhood and adulthood

No response

Subtotal

1

371 (12.0%)

Source: Adapted from iwai 2008a.

Subtotal

Never experienced violence

No response

64

129

Adulthood

Both childhood and adulthood

177

Childhood

Female

143 (5.5%)

6

Adulthood

Never experienced violence

133

Childhood

Male

Age of experience

From family member

78 (2.5%)

0

2

30

46

592 (22.8%)

1

82

141

368

From someone else

67 (2.2%)

0

42

2

23

237 (9.1%)

0

79

1

157

From both family member and someone else

table 3.2 Perpetrators of Violence and Victim’s Age of Experience

4 (0.1%)

1

1

1

1

11 (0.4%)

2

0

0

9

No response

2562 (83.1%)

2562

1618 (62.2%)

1618

Never experienced violence

3082

2562 (83.1%)

2 (0.1%)

109 (6.3 %)

162 (5.3%)

247 (8.0%)

2601

1618 (62.2%)

4 (0.2%)

164 (6.3%)

148 (5.7%)

667 (25.6%)

Total (percentage of total)

Contexts

91

member” (14.1 percent) or by “both a family member and someone other than a parent” (20.2 percent), one can reasonably conclude that these cases were school- or sports-related incidents of “violence” (table 3.2) (iwai 2008a). At what particular schools are students being hit most? As we also saw in chapter 2, it is very hard to tell, but there is some data that suggests that taibatsu is more commonly used in middle and high schools than in elementary or special education schools.8 Between 1985 and 1989, for example, 13 percent of the total number of taibatsu incidents occurred in elementary schools, 65 percent in middle schools, and 24 percent in high schools (Wray 1999, 102). A 1997 study by Kobayashi, et al. also found that while less than half of Japanese children (44 percent) had received taibatsu in elementary schools, by the time they reached middle school the percentage of those who had received taibatsu had increased to 56 percent (Kobayashi et al. 1997). in addition to the use of taibatsu in schools, several incidents of taibatsu have occurred at the so-called “training camps” (gasshuku), which are often administered by sports coaches or physical education teachers (see Kuwayama 1996 and appendix 2). in fact, there is a strong belief in Japan that taibatsu is more common in Japanese physical education classes and extracurricular sports clubs than in other realms. Kiku (2001) and Morikawa (1990, 74), for example, cite Ministry of Justice statistics9 to show that 33 percent of all taibatsu incidents involve physical education teachers, more than any other subject teacher. (Next in line are social studies teachers, who are involved in 19.2 percent of the incidents.) Masumoto also found that among 564 respondents from three universities, anywhere from 19 to 35 percent recalled having received taibatsu in either middle or high school sports clubs (2001, 222–223), and 2004 Ministry of Education data showed that out of 450 taibatsu incidents for which some disciplinary punishment was handed to the inflictor of taibatsu (e.g., teacher or coach), seventy8  it is unclear how widespread taibatsu is in the schools for the disabled, but one eighteenyear-old young man suggested that some people believe that taibatsu is necessary for people who cannot be disciplined through words: “it is how you use ‘violence’ (bōryoku); you cannot always say that it is bad. Sometimes we do not have a choice but to use taibatsu on those who are psychologically underdeveloped” (ishikawa 1998, 123; see also Sanuki 2005, 185). On the other hand, a twenty-year-old woman polled in the same survey contended the exact opposite: that the use of taibatsu would cause damage to psychological development. She said, “Taibatsu is wrong. through receiving taibatsu there would be some kind of damage on the person’s physical and psychological development. there are probably occasions where the person doing taibatsu is doing it merely for himself and no one else” (ishikawa 1998, 113). 9  i was unable to locate these statistics on the Ministry of Justice’s Japanese-language website (http://www.moj.go.jp). Only regional statistics compiled by individual prefectures (e.g., Kagawa, Hokkaido) were available.

92

Contexts

eight incidents occurred in “club activities” (17.3 percent). takahashi and Kumeda (2008) note that 25 percent of the university athletes in their survey had experienced taibatsu while participating in high school sports clubs, but this percentage may be even higher in certain sports, such as baseball, volleyball, and basketball (Masumoto 2001, 224). in a 2006 study of over twenty-five hundred high school baseball coaches, the Asahi Shimbun found that 70 percent of them admitted to having used taibatsu at some time (Asahi Shimbun 2006a; see also takahashi and Kumeda 2008, 162).10 Sports coaches and physical education teachers have also been implicated in “extreme” taibatsu incidents throughout much of the postwar period; among thirty-five taibatsu-related court cases between 1955 and 1984, fifteen (43 percent) involved coaches or physical education teachers (Hirata and Okada 1998, 38; see also imabashi 1986). As a result, Yoneyama, among others, concludes that these statistics “consistently indicate that sport activities, especially after school club activities, constitute a hotbed of corporal punishment and physical violence for students” (1999, 101; see also Yoda 2002 and tomie 2011).11

10  in the same Asahi survey, however, only 7 percent of coaches said they had used taibatsu recently. 11  At first glance, the prevalence of taibatsu appears to be increasing in school sports club activities (bukatsudō), but the data is too complicated to know for certain. for example, Sugiyama (1997) considers survey data from 1986 to 1996 regarding why “student guidance teachers” (seitō shidō shūji) used taibatsu. in 1986, the main reasons for a teacher to use taibatsu on students were: “a bad attitude during class” (44.7 percent), “doing something dangerous that infringes upon other students’ safety” (32.4 percent), “bullying” (31.4 percent), and being “violent” with other students (27.1 percent). Meanwhile, “a bad attitude during club activities” was in ninth place (15.3 percent) (Sugiyama 1997, 105). A decade later, in 1996, while “a bad attitude during class” (41.7 percent) remained in first place, “a bad attitude during club activities” (33.3 percent) had risen to second place, suggesting that taibatsu in sports clubs was on the rise (Sugiyama 1997, 105). (the third most cited reason, at 25 percent, had become “because the student had violated a school rule of dress code and/or hairstyle, or had cut class.”) Moreover, according to a website called the “Corporal Punishment Database” (http://www7.atwiki.jp/kyouiku_hiroba/), there has also been an increase in the number of incidents in after-school “club activities” since 2000. According to this database, the number of incidents in this realm is as follows: two in 2000, two in 2001, one in 2002, two in 2003, twenty-six in 2004, twenty-four in 2005, and thirty in 2006. in 1985, however, the number of incidents of taibatsu in “club activities” was also reported to be twenty (Murakami, Nakagawa, and Hosaka 1986, 198). this suggests that the jump from two incidents in 2003 to twenty-six incidents in 2004 could well be due to an increase in coverage of taibatsu incidents by the manager of the Corporal Punishment Database website rather than an actual increase in the number of incidents. therefore, such statistics should be used cautiously.

Contexts

93

The Inflictors of Discipline Parent, Educator, and Peer

these statistics reflect the fact that Japanese educators—and especially physical education teachers—have historically been expected to perform the role of disciplinarian within broader Japanese society. Peak explains that “the role of Japanese teachers in inculcating proper social behavior was more important than that of Japanese mothers” (1991, xii) and to some extent this remains true, especially in rural areas like Ehime Prefecture, where i taught English for two years. these roles often shock Westerners visiting Japan, which is why Hill contrasts the Japanese teacher’s disciplinary role with expectations in the uS: “Compared to uS schools, Japanese schools are allocated greater responsibility in the discipline and moral education of children, with authority extending to demands of behavior and methods of correction reserved to parents in the united States” (1996, 90). the Japanese system apparently “works” because there exists a “trust relationship” between parents and the school. Both parties accept the strength of a complementary educational process in which teachers discipline and parents indulge, as Kuwayama explains: Whereas American parents, with their ethnic diversity, tend to see the school with suspicion, particularly programs like “life guidance” that may affect students’ private life, and resist yielding their parental authority to school, Japanese parents not only trust the school but also expect it to play a central role in disciplining their children . . . Japanese parents are able to maintain amae relationships (i.e., the trust and affection of intimate relationships) with their children because discipline is instilled through school in a way that exempts the parents from the negative aspects of child-rearing.12 (1996, 129)

Of course, as we have seen, there are important differences in discipline depending on the school level. Early on, Japanese teachers are said to take a hands-off approach, allowing “children to regulate children”: “teachers do not abdicate authority; they simply keep a low profile, avoid setting firm guidelines, but maintain a constant, unobtrusive presence . . . the techniques for fostering cooperation among the children suggest that in nurturing the compliant child, social congeniality is felt prior to—and a basis for—ethical judgment” (Kelly 1991, 409). the teacher’s role as disciplinarian appears to become most clearly defined in Japanese middle 12  this role-sharing appears to be nothing new; Rohlen wrote years ago that “parents typically look to the teacher for the discipline that they feel their affection for their children prevents them from exercising fully” (1983, 196–197).

94

Contexts

schools. According to Kuwayama, Japanese children “leave behind them all the innocent days upon entering middle school” (1996, 129). the middle school’s disciplinary response is apparently harsher than that of Japanese parents and even that of the Japanese police. Hill writes: Japanese tend to believe that parents are too easy on their children but that schools have the moral authority and resolve to properly punish a delinquent child and to take aggressive steps to reform her or him . . . police who take pity on a contrite juvenile caught smoking will sometimes call parents instead of school officials in order to protect the child from the severity of the school’s response. (1996, 103)

Parents, coaches, and teachers are not the only ones inflicting discipline; peer discipline also constitutes a major form of discipline at various stages of Japanese education, among both boys and girls (fukuzawa 2006, 14). Based on my own fieldwork observations of a Japanese university basketball club, which included both young men and women, i found that “peer discipline” was as common as discipline by coaches, if not more so. this became clear to me one day before a women’s intra-squad practice game. in these games, teammates were asked to compete against each other to hone their skills in preparation for “real” games. One of the coaches told the team’s starting members (called the “first team”) that they needed to make their own game plans going forward because they had been defeated in the first practice game by the “Second team.” the “first team” huddled close together, discussed strategy quietly so the Second team could not hear, and resolved, without any aid or advice from their coach, to keep the opposing team under thirteen points in the next ten minutes of play and “play tough defense.” But then, while they were waiting for the “Second team” to finish their own meeting, the “first team” players fell silent. Wary that the silence might compromise their concentration, one thirdyear player announced that the underclasswomen looked “dark” and “depressed” (kurai). All of a sudden another upperclasswoman slapped an underclasswoman on the left shoulder with considerable force, in an apparent attempt to “cheer them up.” An echo of nervous giggles ensued, and several players cried, “Ouch!” (Itai!). the team’s coaches offered no reaction at all, and practice continued. While i never saw a coach on this team strike or slap a player, i did witness older players strike younger players like this from time to time. Although it is questionable whether such an act could by definition be considered taibatsu, such “peer discipline,” especially if, as in this case, the team’s coach tacitly sanctioned it, constitutes another form of discipline in Japan’s schools and sports that must not be overlooked.13 13 

Depending on one’s perspective, in offering no reaction these onlooking coaches were complicit/to blame/to thank in this case. As in the Mafia or other organized crime syndi-

Contexts

95

One Japanese friend who had lived in both Japan and the united States for extended lengths of time explained to me why such peer discipline made taibatsu such a “tough problem to root out”: i heard you are studying taibatsu. if you want to see it i could show you some clubs at my university. the handball club is the worst. Sometimes blood flows. the thing is, taibatsu is not usually coach-to-player but rather upperclassmen-to-underclassmen. the coach, who is a professor at the university, just turns a blind eye. that is why the younger athletes come to think it’s no big deal. Oh yeah, when i was at university there was a lot of taibatsu. We tried to get rid of it, but i heard recently that it is being used again.

The “Languages” of Discipline Although many clearly perceive taibatsu to be a deeply rooted problem, the various forms, genders, spaces, and inflictors of discipline detailed above suggest that there is more diversity in the way that Japanese educators discipline than scholars have previously acknowledged. in fact, Japanese educators “physically discipline” less than some foreign observers might expect. As we have seen, when Japanese educators verbally “discipline,” they often scold or criticize more than they praise or offer rewards. Japanese peers also begin to exert control upon each other at a very young age and continue to discipline each other throughout their lives. this is especially the case in close-knit groups like school groups14 and sports clubs. in some cases, there is no “disciplining actor” at all, as ritualized cleaning is known to effectively routinize young people’s behavior in both schools and sports, impersonalizing and “strengthening” the disciplinary process at the same time. While these disciplinary measures are diverse, when Japanese adults discipline children their aim most often seems to be the acquisition of understanding by the child. Such understanding is sought so that young people will be able to make the necessary “distinctions” to become adult members of Japanese society who will not repeat mistakes. it is therefore important to note that taibatsu is only the most visible and graphic form of discipline used in Japanese schools and sports, a provocative lightning rod that can deflect attention from the fact that there cates, by entrusting (or allowing) the “dirty work” of inflicting punishment to (be done by) a peer of the person being punished, it could be argued that the coach keeps the group “pure,” or in Durkheim’s words, “sacred” ([1915] 2008, 37). in this way, leaders keep their authority intact. from a coach’s perspective, this sort of discipline is “more effective” than any discipline he could mete out himself. 14  Japanese students are split into and referred to by their age-based grade levels (e.g., ichinensei) as well as by smaller groups created for group activities (e.g., yuki gumi). Both cohorts help form a child’s sense of identity derived from belonging to smaller and larger groups.

96

Contexts

are many other disciplinary measures used by Japanese educators, some of which are used even more often than taibatsu.15 Taibatsu surprises some who see it, especially if they arrive from places where similar practices are no longer used commonly. Taibatsu turns heads, but in a way it is a tempest in a teapot, much ado about a lot less than many onlookers have believed. Compared with other forms of discipline, taibatsu is used sparingly, often as a last disciplinary resort. Just because it is most easily noticeable to an outside observer does not mean that it is the most commonly used form of discipline. for these reasons, it is best to think of taibatsu as representative of but one of three languages of discipline: silent, verbal, and physical (table 3.3).16 Silent languages of discipline include any form of discipline that does not use verbal language or physicality (e.g., banishment, confinement, or ostracism). Verbal languages of discipline include any sort of discipline that uses words to advise or admonish (e.g., praise, reprimand, and ridicule). Physical languages of discipline include corporal punishment as well as physical abuse and torture. Clearly there are many other disciplinary measures that Japanese educators use instead of taibatsu; as Morita notes, educators can send messages of affirmation, set rules, relate to the child’s feelings, explain one’s own feelings to children with words, give children space, not fight with children for authority, set time for children to have “special rights” (tokken), respect a child’s choices, adjust their instruction to a child’s developmental stage, 15 

Several international scholars believe that corporal punishment is given disproportionate attention and would be better understood in the context of discipline writ large. for example, Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner argue that: “Holocultural research clearly shows that parents around the world tend to rely on a variety of strategies to discipline their children. this perspective on corporal punishment as a ‘packaged variable’ that occurs within the richly textured context of overall parenting is endorsed by most contemporary researchers of all persuasions” (2006, 226). turner echoes these arguments, explaining that before corporal punishment was banned in uK schools, physical punishment was neither the first nor last option: Because of a ruling of the European courts, corporal punishment has been made illegal in the united Kingdom. in fact, this change is symbolic rather than practical. Corporal punishment was not as widely practiced as one might suppose from the importance that many teachers attached to its retention. it was rarely used on female pupils, and it was rarely used on non-achieving pupils who actively confronted the authority of the education system. in both cases, exclusion was a much more likely response than corporal punishment. in this teachers were realists, and they were unlikely to use a punishment that could only have negative effects in the long run. from any perspective, exclusion, rather than corporal punishment, was the punishment of last resort. (1998, 546) 16  in analyzing Russian methods of punishment, Shrader (2002) used the phrase “languages of the lash” to explore official definitions and discussions of corporal punishment. i use similar terminology here but expand its conceptual framework to include these three forms of discipline.

Contexts

97

table 3.3 the “Languages” of Discipline Silent

Vocal

Physical

Banishment (from family home, group, classroom, team)

Criticism (scolding)

Physical abuse

(Solitary) confinement (e.g., time-outs), exclusion

Verbal reprimand (verbal abuse)

torture

Ostracism

Ridicule

Corporal punishment

and “fill the tank” of love and respect (2003, 86–102).17 Morita’s suggestions illustrate how verbal communication is seen as a necessary and meaningful alternative to the use of physical communication—“violence”—to educate. Silent languages can also be combined with verbal languages to form another alternative; as Kuwayama relates, one teacher “disciplined her young students by skillfully appealing to the(se) dynamics of shame and guilt” rather than using taibatsu (1996, 124). these alternative measures are considered essential to some because, as Sanuki explains, “taibatsu . . . goes against the purpose of the school, which is to be a place where people can earn the understanding of others by convincing them with words” (2005, 178–180). When these verbal alternatives are not employed, it only reveals an educator’s deficiencies, or, as Yagi puts it with respect to sports coaches who use taibatsu to stimulate improved performance, it only reveals a coach’s “limited guidance abilities” (shidōryoku busoku) (2009, 19). in this way, in Japan as elsewhere, “corporal punishment” represents an incomprehensible language to many people, while to others this “physical language” makes all the sense in the world. the deep-seated ethical debate between these two camps is the subject of the next chapter.

17  Like Morita, Western scholars of Japanese education have also generally rejected the idea that taibatsu is more effective than other disciplinary measures. DeVos points out that “excessive scolding is linked to unsuccessful results, and children are thought to develop negative attitudes or become sour if they are punished with severity” (1973, 88). Hendry concurs, explaining that “the true discipline [of a child is] that [to which] the children themselves have willingly consented” (1986, 146).

CHAPtER 4

Ethics “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” —Author unknown

Conflicting Sports and Classroom Pedagogies the “languages of discipline” detailed in the last chapter reflect conflicting pedagogies of the classroom and sports field. After all, the disciplinary method an educator chooses to employ says a lot about his professional pedagogy. these “languages of discipline” and conflicting pedagogies therefore indicate a larger debate in sports education as well as classroom education regarding the issue of how coaches and teachers should educate players more generally. As Yoneyama rightly explains, “Discipline is the issue on which autocratic and democratic paradigms of education divide most clearly, and the question of punishment is at the heart of the issue of discipline” (1999, 91ff). Considering the general tendency of scholars worldwide—most vocally, medical doctors and psychologists—to oppose corporal punishment, it seems clear that a significant divide also exists between (“idealist”?) academics theorizing the scientific causes, effects, and morality of corporal punishment in order to seek its eradication, and (“realist”?) teachers and coaches interacting with students and athletes on a daily basis who believe the corporal punishment will always be necessary in some instances. these two groups—scholars and practitioners—do not see eye to eye when it comes to corporal punishment. these debates have long existed in Japan’s discourses of baseball coaching. Although various Japanese baseball players insist that they endured extremely harsh training (see Waldstein 2012), and while sports journalist Kobayashi asserts that “incidents of [baseball] coaches throwing their fists never end” (2007, 167) and there is clearly a perception that taibatsu by high school baseball coaches is widespread (Asahi Shimbun 2006a), there are many Japanese coaches who have not used or do not use this disciplinary method. for example, at schools like Meitoku Gijuku High School in Kochi Prefecture, there is a perception that if “hard training”

Ethics

99

(hādo toreiningu) is done right, there will be no need for taibatsu. A former Meitoku Gijuku baseball coach explained: “there was no hitting or anything like that here . . . there was so much practice we did not need it. i overpowered them with my strength, you see. the players always stood at attention” (quoted in Nakamura 2007, 66).1 With proper autocratic strength, such proponents claim, taibatsu is never necessary. Many other Japanese baseball coaches have also refused to hit their players, even some well-known heroes of the game. According to Blackwood, Abe isō, a “father of Japanese baseball,” “did not believe in beating character into his players”: He was known as an egalitarian on and off the ball field (as well as in politics), and indulged students more like an enlightened father than a coach. Abe did not believe that the team needed rules, and officially, there were none. He did not feel that he needed to restrain the players, and he wanted them to make their own independent efforts to create a good team atmosphere, one conducive to learning. (2005, 72)

there were other “moderate” professional baseball managers such as Mihara Osamu and ishii tokichiro, both of whom believed that taibatsu was an unnecessary disciplinary tool. Mihara, who coached professional baseball in Japan across four decades, from the 1940s through the 1970s, apparently never raised a hand in anger at his players, saying, “i can win without hitting my players.” ishii also believed that “baseball should be fun”: “tokichiro’s first words as manager [were]: ‘it’s too cold today. Let’s forget about practice.’ . . . His idea of a manager’s duties was to encourage his players to make choices (including what position they played) and to bring out the best in their talents through [a] mix of discipline and laughter” (Whiting 2005:280). these examples illustrate that there have always been both “strict” and “accommodating” coaches and teachers in Japanese baseball, and their opinions regarding taibatsu highlight the ways in which their respective pedagogies diverge.

1  Since Meitoku Gijuku baseball players lived together in communal dorms and practiced for long hours, Nakamura believes that the high school was “an environment ripe for the birth of a cult. Clear goals. A charismatic coach. A break from one’s home environment. Control of information. No privacy. . . . i am not joking when i call Meitoku Gijuku a cult” (2007, 104). to Nakamura, sports teams in Japan are often characterized by “cult tendencies”; Meitoku Gijuku was just one extreme example. According to Nakamura, these socalled “powerhouse high schools” (kyōgōkōkō) have their own unique language and culture, including various “ascetic practice” (shugyō) rituals such singing Japan’s national anthem (Kimi ga yo) and the school song in the morning, while raising the flags of school, Japan, and the united Nations.

100

Ethics

this debate continues in other Japanese sports as well. in my own research, i have found that the conservative and authoritarian “Shut up and follow me!” (damatte, ore ni tsuite koi) coaching-style that once emphasized an ideology of “hard-training,” selflessness, and devotion to the team, and was apparently dominant in Japan following World War ii (igarashi 2000; Otomo 2007), is in many places now being challenged by liberal, “scientific” coaching methods which emphasize the teaching of skills (gijutsu), reliance on self-discipline, and a “thinking” approach to sports (Miller 2009b, 2011b). this trend is stronger in university and professional sports than in amateur school-affiliated sports clubs. two groups of coaches epitomize these conflicting pedagogies of sports education: those coaches who make the news for what the media label “bad behavior,” often for their advocacy of strict discipline or taibatsu (see, e.g., Asahi Shimbun 2006a), and a group of theorists and practitioners who call for sports to be taught on “scientific,” “individualistic,” and “democratic” bases (see Miller 2011b). Members of this latter group believe that players should discipline themselves, while members of the former group generally embrace an authoritarian, disciplinarian role for coaches. One university professor and basketball coach i encountered during my doctoral research, himself a liberal, scientific scholar, labels these disciplinarian coaches “Bushidō coaches” (“Samurai coaches”) because they believe that instilling a “samurai code of ethics” is one of their main coaching duties (Miller 2011b). this professor is among a group of scholars and coaches who argue that taibatsu, among other things, needs to be eliminated and replaced by more “scientific” and “democratic” coaching methods.2 Morikawa is another. He calls for coaches and physical educators to use more “scientific and democratic methods” (kagakuteki shidō to minshūshugiteki shidō) in their teaching of sports (1990, 79).3 Watanabe agrees, arguing that it is easy to secure obedience through the use of taibatsu but that all Japanese educators should seek the higher purpose of “democratic education” (1986, 57). Sanuki adds that “real strength in sports is inseparable from training and instruction based on scientific methods,” and that Japan must “rely on the power of democracy and science to bring forth results in sports” (2005, 185).4

2  the dichotomy of “Bushidō coaches” vs. “scientific coaches” represents something of an oversimplification, of course. these conflicting pedagogical paradigms are surely not the only options for sports coaches in Japan, although they do seem to be the most dominant at least in the minds of many involved in Japanese sports (see Miller 2009b). 3  Masumoto also calls taibatsu “undemocratic” (himinshuteki) (2001, 226). 4  Scott long ago argued that corporal punishment was “out of tune with modern scientific reformative and educational trends” ([1938] 1952, xiv).

Ethics

101

Historically, Japanese schoolteachers have performed the role of (physical) disciplinarian, but in recent years some Japanese have apparently begun to believe that schoolteachers should no longer continue to do so. in 2001, fukuzawa and Letendre reported that they observed a greater willingness by parents to challenge disciplinarian teachers (91). this was remarkable given the prior conclusions of various researchers. for example, in his introduction to the Japanese education system, Nemoto had argued just a couple years earlier that Japanese parents would tolerate a schoolteacher’s use of taibatsu on their children as a “necessary evil” (1999, 77). in addition, according to a 1997 survey by Kobayashi, et al., in the late 1990s, thirty percent of mothers “were able to accept or tolerate corporal punishment [by teachers] because their child had misbehaved, 16% of the mothers denied their child had misbehaved, but only 20% protested the teacher’s use of corporal punishment . . . 68% approved of occasional punishment, but only 17% disapproved of corporal punishment on any occasion.” Judging from these studies, it would seem that many Japanese parents reluctantly if not willingly transferred their “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) to Japanese schoolteachers, and with it the “right to use taibatsu” (taibatsuken).5 there is great debate over whether parents should have the right to transfer this right, of course. the eschewing of physical discipline is increasingly associated with liberal educationalists who believe that classrooms, as well as sports fields, should be focused around the needs and desires of students, not teachers (also termed “child-centered education”); that students have various rights that ought not be infringed; and that learning should be interactive, rather than based on the students’ repetition or memorization of what a teacher has said. Effective verbal communication is also integral to this “liberal,” child-centered approach, highlighting how anti-taibatsu activists embrace verbal languages of discipline far more than they do silent or physical languages. As we saw in chapter 2, while the generally conservative Education Rebuilding Council has tried to use taibatsu to justify reforms that “strengthen discipline” in schools, liberal scholars have tried to use taibatsu for the exact opposite purposes: to show that there is a need for more “relaxed education” (yutori kyōiku). Such liberal education scholars see taibatsu as part of a rigid Japanese education system in need of progressive reform, especially greater respect for children’s rights (see, e.g., Horio 1988, 2006; field 1995; Yoneyama 1999; Yoneyama and Naito 2003). Yoneyama hammers this point home, arguing that the Japanese school “silences” students through harsh discipline. 5  Legal scholar Yagi points out that while there are cases in which parents can transfer their chōkaiken to teachers, these cases are extremely limited (2009, 19).

102

Ethics

in analyzing some highly publicized incidents where the use of taibatsu caused deaths, she argues that such incidents “were not just unfortunate accidents, but were firmly rooted in the ‘normal’ practice of school” (Yoneyama 1999, 91; see also Miyata 1994, 219; Okano and tsuchiya 1999; Kakinuma and Nagano 1997; and Kiku 2001 for similar arguments). On the other hand, the embrace of both physical and silent discipline (e.g., the use of “solitary confinement” [kankin]) appears to be a hallmark of a “conservative approach” to education. Students are taught to obey their teachers (around whom the classroom revolves); students do not enjoy the rights that liberals insist they must (if “rights” are considered at all, they are the “rights” of other students to not be disrupted from their learning by the unruly student who is physically punished; in the ERC’s language: “quiet environments for learning”); and learning is assumed to be the product of rote memorization, a “downhill” knowledge transfer from teacher to student. Taibatsu therefore exposes not only the debate between theoretical “idealist” researchers and grounded “realist” educators, but also the debate between strict, authoritarian, conservative disciplinarians, and accommodative, liberal, scientific educators (Miller and toivonen 2010). Taibatsu helps to pinpoint this crossroads at which verbally communicative, accommodative, “liberal” pedagogies that seek to include the student’s desires in the learning process, and strict and authoritarian “conservative” pedagogies that do not, diverge. in fact, in many ways taibatsu is itself a fork in the road where perspectives on pedagogy part ways. Arguments of Right and Wrong if taibatsu splits educators into conflicting pedagogical camps, it also elicits various moral perspectives as a consequence. Taibatsu is an emotional and sensitive issue that sparks considerable ethical debate. Should children be controlled with force? Do children have rights? if so, what are they? At what age should we expect to be able to discipline without using physical punishment? in some sense, pedagogical debates are always ethical debates, and vice versa. in Japan, as in other places, there are both those who make “arguments for the use of taibatsu” (kōteiron, literally “affirmative arguments”) and those who make “arguments against the use of taibatsu” (hiteiron, literally “negative arguments”). taken together, kōteiron and hiteiron make up what the Japanese call zehiron, or “arguments of right and wrong.” in the rest of this chapter, i discuss the common justifications advocates offer in defending taibatsu’s use, as well as the many arguments deployed against it. toward that end, i detail the connotations of various Japanese terms used

Ethics

103

to make these arguments. i focus on these keywords because the terms people use when they speak about taibatsu are reflective of the pedagogies they advocate as well as symbolic of their ethical positions. farmer notes, “Anthropology concerns itself less with measurement than with meaning, as in mastering a language . . . one had to learn not just the literal meanings of words but also their connotations, and to grasp those one had to know the politics and economic systems and histories of a place; only then could you understand” (quoted in Kidder 2003, 73). But it is not just the “politics and economic systems and histories of a place”; ethics are also an essential component to understanding taibatsu and the culture in which it is used. Arguments in Favor “Guidance”(Shidō)

Shidō is a term often used by coaches and teachers to justify their use of taibatsu. Dictionaries translate shidō as “guidance,” “leadership,” “coaching,” or “instruction,” but it can also be thought of as the mentoring that people in positions of authority are expected to offer to their juniors. Letendre explains that “the word shidō is composed of Chinese ideographs that mean ‘to point out the path’” (1994, 38, n2), and that shidō constitutes “an institution that forms a core of activities and expectations for what goes on in secondary schools” (38). Japanese secondary school teachers must accomplish three types of “guidance” (shidō) in the course of their work: “student guidance” (seito shidō), “club activity guidance” (bukatsudō shidō), and “career guidance” (shinro shidō) (Cave 2011, 13), highlighting just how prevalent the word is in the minds of Japanese educators.6 Shidō is a keyword heard at many levels of Japanese education; McVeigh found that “the most common word encountered in official discourse of [moral education] is ‘guidance’ (shidō) though it often denotes more of a sense of actively directing or strongly persuading others” (1998, 127).7 these connotations show that shidō is extremely important in a society like Japan, which generally honors and values the experience—and consequent wisdom—of one’s elders. 6  in Japan’s junior high schools, Cave found that “many teachers were extremely enthusiastic supervisors who saw these club activities as an arena in which children could learn much about discipline, social relations and life itself” (2011, 12). in saying “enthusiastic,” Cave is here referring to the Japanese term “nesshin,” which is also used to excuse a teacher’s use of taibatsu (see Yagi 2009, 19). 7  the term shidō was once used to profess the morally elite status of the samurai. Sogawa explains that “during the tokugawa Period, we see terms such as shidō which were used to denote the ethical system of the ruling bushi class, setting them above the other classes as moral paragons” (2005, 199). therefore, the term shidō not only literally means “coaching,” but can also imply “moral education.”

Ethics

104

Various Japanese educators use the term shidō to excuse their illegal use of taibatsu.8 in one controversial and publicized incident, a high school baseball coach said: “i knew that violence (‘bōryoku’) was wrong but in order to coach, i started to think that a little taibatsu was necessary. i felt it was necessary to use taibatsu to guide (shidō)” (quoted in Asahi Shimbun 2006a). Kobayashi et al. (1997) also note that “teachers in general still depend on corporal punishment to solve difficult guidance problems” (similar arguments can be found in Rohlen 1983, 196; Nakano 1990; Morita 2003; Nogami 2005; and takahashi and Kumeda 2008). Shidō is therefore a common justification offered by educators who advocate taibatsu. “Discipline” (Shitsuke)

Shitsuke is another term used in justifying the use of taibatsu. Along with the terms kiritsu and chōkai, shitsuke is among the closest Japanese equivalents to the English term “discipline.” As we saw earlier, chōkai is used in many Japanese laws on taibatsu. it is a form of “discipline” that educators may lawfully use, while taibatsu is not. Shitsuke can mean “discipline,” “training,” or “breeding” (Hendry 1986; McVeigh 1998; Goodman 2000). its opposite, bushitsuke, implies being improper, impolite, or having bad manners. the Chinese ideography used to depict shitsuke literally means “beautifying the body” (Morita 2003, 14), suggesting a historical connection between “discipline” and the “body,” and perhaps even corporal punishment. Hendry notes that dictionary definitions of shitsuke also “include the idea of the inculcation of good manners in a child, the passing on of daily customs, and the teaching of correct behaviour” (Hendry 1986, 11). She adds that folklore definitions imply the “putting into the body of a child the arts of living and good manners in order to create one grownup person” (11). these ideas of “discipline” are rather different from ideas encountered in languages derivative of Latin. Chantrell, writing in the Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories, informs us that: Disciple (Old English) is from Latin discipulus “learner,” from discere “learn”; it was reinforced by Old french deciple. the Latin verb discere is also the source of Middle English discipline which meant “mortification by scouring oneself”; this came via old french from Latin disciplina “instruction, knowledge.” the adjective disciplinary (late fifteenth century) was originally used with reference to ecclesiastical order: the source is medieval Latin disciplinarius from Latin disciplina. (2004, 152) 8  According to the legal scholar Yagi, this is technically a poor excuse because Japanese case law does not include taibatsu in the official definition of “strict guidance” (kibishii shidō) (2009, 19).

Ethics

105

these roots do not imply the “disciplining of the body” as the Chinese roots of shitsuke do. Shitsuke and “discipline” thus might not be perfect translations, but shitsuke is important because it is often used by advocates to justify corporal punishment, as in “i did it to discipline” (shitsuke wo suru tame ni shimashita) (see Asahi Shimbun 2006a; Morita 2003, 42–43). the concept of shitsuke in Japan may be broader than its Western counterpart because, as Hendry explains, “oriental culture generally opposes th[e] Cartesian opposition” of a separation between mind and body, so many Japanese have connected the training of the body with the training of the mind (1986, 12). this explanation makes sense given the Japanese expression shin’shin ichi’nyō (“mind and body as one”) (Emori 1989, 16–17). in fact, Professor Sogawa tsuneo of Waseda university asserts that the real purpose of taibatsu, though literally the punishment of the body, is probably the punishing of the “mind” (kokoro), an idea he terms “mind punishment” (shinbatsu) (personal communication, September 17, 2007). the linguistic roots connecting “discipline” and the “body” thus reveal a long-standing perception that elements of one’s mind and manners can—and should— be trained through the disciplining of the body. “Moral Education” (Dōtoku)

the terms shidō and shitsuke are the linguistic foundations of Japan’s explicit curriculum for moral education (dōtoku). this is one important reason why some teachers and coaches use these terms as justifications for their use of taibatsu. As civil servants employed by the Japanese government (kōmuin), such Japanese teachers feel entrusted with the responsibility to achieve the goals of “guidance,” “discipline,” and “moral education,” seeing taibatsu as a necessary evil to achieve these otherwise desirable ends. Japan’s curriculum for moral education in public schools often perplexes Americans who are used to leaving such instruction to private institutions, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques. Lanham notes that an “American in all seriousness will ask how children in Japan learn ethics if there are no Sunday schools” (1979, 1). the teaching of morality is more or less frowned upon in American public schools because of its religious overtones and the purported separation of church and state. in Japanese public schools, on the other hand: Dōtoku [moral education] has a more secular flavor, with an accent on how best to interact with others in a group setting rather than on individual conscience. it is associated with etiquette, concrete and observable actions, and the actual methods that shape moral beings, expressed in the word shitsuke (training, breeding, discipline). that moral training is

Ethics

106

regarded as an essential component of the good citizen is evident in the fundamental Law of Education, in which the “completion of character” is enshrined. (McVeigh 1998, 129)

the need to “discipline” or “guide” underscores the fact that Japanese teachers are often expected to be—and often see themselves as—moral educators. “Guts” (Konjō) and “Spirit” (Seishin)

Shidō, shitsuke, and dōtoku are especially important terms to understand taibatsu in the Japanese classroom, and while this language is also heard in the world of Japanese sports, there are other terms used in this latter realm. for example, many Japanese sports coaches, especially in the past, have used terms like konjō (“fighting spirit,” “guts,” or “willpower”) and seishin (“spirit”) to justify using taibatsu (e.g., Asahi Shimbun 2006a; Kelly 1998a; Moeran 1989; Ae 1991). two ideologues of Japanese sports coaching had particularly significant impacts on the discourses of konjō: tobita Suishū and Daimatsu Hirofumi. Disciplinarian coaches, including Emi takeuchi’s track and field coach, tokitaizan’s stablemaster, and totsuka Hiroshi (see introduction to this book), follow in the footsteps of these legendary Japanese sports coaches. tobita, a baseball coach at Waseda university in tokyo in the 1910s and 1920s, argued for a link between education and sports, and believed that baseball coaches should inculcate the values of the samurai in their players. Called the “God of Baseball,” tobita promoted the idea of konjō in baseball, an essential ingredient in his philosophy that baseball was an educational—especially morally educational—conduit. tobita said, “the purpose of training is not health but the forging of the soul, and a strong soul is only born from strong practice” (quoted in Whiting 1990, 36). He “demanded that his players demonstrate moral commitment through absolute loyalty to the manager and total devotion to the sport” (Kelly 2000b, 104–105), and it would be hard to discount the lasting influence that tobita’s legend—and the term konjō itself—have had on current coaching ideology in Japan. Daimatsu also invoked the term konjō in his role as Japan’s best-known women’s volleyball coach. in the 1964 tokyo Olympics, Daimatsu led Japan’s National Women’s team, the so-called “Witches of the East” (tōyō no majo), to an improbable gold medal. He employed rather harsh training techniques to get them there; it was said that he even refused to allow his players to rest during menstruation. Soon after the “Witches” won a gold medal, konjō became the dominant postwar narrative of hard work in Japanese sports. Otomo explains:

Ethics

107

following the Olympics, there was a period of volleyball frenzy among schoolgirls throughout Japan. in 1966, i found myself one of just over one hundred girls putting their names down for the volleyball club at my junior high school; more than half of the thirteen-year-old girls were willing to go through mock-Daimatsu training every day after school. (2007, 119–120)

Konjō rhetoric remains rather common in Japanese sports and is still occasionally used as a justification for “hard training” and/or the use of taibatsu.9 in the summer of 2006, a girl’s basketball coach in Shikoku made his junior high school team run naked on three occasions. He said he had given these orders to “infuse fighting spirit (konjō)” (Japan Times 2005).10 Konjō is often heard in the same contexts as seishin (“spirit”), another influential term used commonly in Japanese education and sports. Scholars have discussed the importance of seishin in various Japanese sports, including rugby (Light 1999), rowing (McDonald and Hallinan 2005), and high school baseball (Esashi and Komuku 1994; Moeran 1989). At one time seishin was even considered important in the training of bank employees (Rohlen 1984). though seishin rhetoric was reconsidered after World War ii because of its association with the “spiritual education” (seishin kyōiku) of new army recruits during Japan’s era of militarism (tsurumi 1978, 171), it re-emerged in a few Japanese sports, especially high school baseball, as early as the late 1980s (Moeran 1989, 402–403). High school baseball coaches still use seishin to justify their use of taibatsu (Asahi Shimbun 2006a). in fact, Nagai argues that Japanese sports coaches “who do not know anything about sports science” hide behind various “theories of spirit” (seishinron), propounding a philosophy of overcoming obstacles but not much else (2007, 12). Still, despite these critics, konjō and seishin remain influential terms used to justify a “no pain, no gain” philosophy to which many Japanese sports coaches still commonly subscribe. 9  the rhetoric of konjō, or, more accurately, the emphasis upon it (“konjōshugi,” literally “konjō-ism”), thus understandably has a few critics. Kelly, for example, argues that konjō serves as “powerful rhetoric for reifying intersocietal differences” and that focusing too heavily on konjō can “mask intrasocietal differences of gender, class, ethnicity, and region” (1998a, 107–108). Otomo (2007) also criticizes what she believes to be the dominant postwar discourse in Japanese sports, “sports willpower” or “sports guts” (supo-kon, or supotsu konjō), which includes the ideas that athletes should “play hurt” for the nation and that females should be required to practice every day (even during menstruation). She also notes how supo-kon discourse has occasionally led to famous athletes committing suicide (120–126). 10  this was not the first time that punishment in Japan involved nudity. According to one informant, teachers in the high economic growth period (1955–1973) often embarrassingly forced students to remove their pants or undergarments before hitting them. the supposed logic was that doing so was essential to ensure that the teacher was not striking the child’s bones.

108

Ethics

Effectiveness

Guidance, discipline, moral education, guts, and spirit: these are a few concepts essential to understanding why Japanese teachers and coaches use taibatsu and believe such use to be ethically justified. there are other arguments affirming the use of taibatsu as well. One is to argue that taibatsu is effective. for example, in Japanese sports some coaches believe the use of taibatsu leads to a higher level of performance or “success,” which is usually measured by the number of victories attained (totsuka 1983, 1998, 2003, 2007; Kaneko 2002; tanaka 2008). in schools as well, taibatsu is said to be an effective means for keeping order in the classroom. Some teachers believe that the use (and the threat of use) of taibatsu is effective because it exploits fear to control student behavior and prevent deviance.11 they believe taibatsu can thus act as an effective deterrent.12 Of course, some suggest that a teacher’s intentions must be pure for taibatsu to be “effective”; that is, taibatsu is only effective under limited circumstances (e.g., when an educator “loves” his pupil).13 “The Whip of Love” (Ai no Muchi)

Some Japanese educators use the phrase ai no muchi (“the whip of love”) to justify the use of taibatsu (Asahi Shimbun 2006a), insisting they only “whip” a young person “out of love,” for “his (or her) own good.” these teachers often perceive disruptive students as lacking “parental love” and therefore needing to feel a bond with their teacher (Letendre 2000, 177). in this sense, the phrase ai no muchi is similar to the expression “zen no shinsetsusa” (“the kindness of Zen”), a saying that Hori found used in Zen monasteries to justify hitting enlightenment-seekers with a stick to enhance concentration (1994, 22).14 11 

One nineteen-year-old boy showed that the fear of taibatsu did indeed control his actions: “Taibatsu is always wrong. i was only taking part in my sports club because i was afraid of the taibatsu i would receive if i did not” (quoted in ishikawa 1998, 110). 12  Miethe and Lu explain this rationale: “Most corporal sanctions are . . . future directed, designed to change the behavior of those punished and to send a strong message to other potential offenders of the price of wrongdoing” (2005, 34; see also Scott [1938] 1952, 241–42). 13  for example, even though a teacher called Sato chose not to use taibatsu, he believed that his colleagues who did were effective because they were “sincere” and had students’ growth in mind: “Even generally friendly teachers who really like their students hit their students. they also have time for reflection about why they hit the student. they have conviction. When resistance from parents comes in the form of a phone call, they say in a dignified manner, ‘Come anytime. Let me explain the reasons why i struck your son.’ they are really thinking about the student when they hit them” (1999, 162). 14  the phrase ai no muchi is also commonly used in sadomasochistic sexual fantasies in Japan; there even exists an explicit manga (serial stories in the form of comic books or graphic novels) by this title.

Ethics

109

the “whip of love” justification for taibatsu apparently has deep roots. imazu explains, for example, that taibatsu developed in the twentieth century first as a “form of discipline,” then was seen as a form of “educational love” (kyōikuai), and finally came to be justified as ai no muchi (2006, 256–257). He concludes that ai no muchi is used as a “magic phrase” to convince people of taibatsu’s value, and one that actually serves to end all further disciplinary debate. He also believes that ai no muchi has become a tacit educational method in itself. Of course, there are those who believe that the influence of such expressions is overstated. Mogami (1996), for example, believes that ai no muchi has actually fallen out of fashion in recent years. Still, some Japanese parents say that they appreciate the use of taibatsu by a coach on their son or daughter, so a coach’s use of “ai no muchi” clearly resonates throughout at least part of the local community (Asahi Shimbun 2006a; Okano and tsuchiya 1999, 155). Even well-known public figures such as former Miyazaki Governor and comedian Higashikokubara Hideo have shown their support for the “whip of love.” in 2008, Higashikokubara reportedly said, “Children used to be taught with the fist, but in recent years we have been prevented from doing that. Can we not we make a law that allows the whip of love?” (quoted in Ohara 2008). ultimately, the use of expressions such as “ai no muchi” reflect the belief that a mutual bond exists between the adult inflicting taibatsu and the student or athlete receiving it, and that, through this “act of love,” the youth will see that the elder is looking out for their well-being. The Reality of the School Setting (Genba)

“Ai no muchi” and “effectiveness” justifications for taibatsu can be thought of as part of a “realist” pedagogy. Proponents of such “realist” pedagogies believe that taibatsu is necessary because of the genba, or “reality of the school setting” (see Kaneko 2002). this is why Hirota argues that the “whip of love” justification represents the basic “logic of the school” (genba no ronri) (2001, 220). According to Kobayashi, those who believe that education can be done without using taibatsu do not understand what a real school is like; they simply propose an “ideal theory” that will never work on the ground (1999, 39). One teacher interviewed by the Asahi Shimbun articulated his “realist” pedagogy in the following way: “for those students who are really violent, or for those who are not surprised by words, it works better to put them down with power exceeding their own” (quoted in Asahi Shimbun 2007). for this teacher, and others similarly minded, the school is a “real” place with “real” problems and taibatsu is the “real” solution to them.

Ethics

110 Youth and Adult Approval of Taibatsu

Although many Japanese people approve of taibatsu, and the percentage of people who approve appears to rise as people age (imabashi 1986),15 it may be surprising for some Westerners to learn that many Japanese youth who experience taibatsu often come to condone, appreciate, or approve of it themselves, in some cases soon after incident has occurred. Various surveys suggest that many Japanese adults approve of physical discipline. Morita, for example, asserts that in the late 1990s 75 percent of Japanese adults believed that taibatsu was necessary for the disciplining of children (2003, 21), and Goodman notes that there were surveys in the early 1980s “which suggested that the majority of parents (regularly about 70 percent) supported the use of discipline as being good for their children (kodomo no tame)” (2000, 167). iwai’s analysis of the 2008 Japan General Social Survey (JGSS) also showed that only a very few number of Japanese adults categorically condemned taibatsu by either parents or teachers. Based on a study of approximately 5,600 participants, the JGSS revealed that only 6.3 percent of men and 8.6 percent of women were against taibatsu by parents, while 7.3 percent of men and 10.7 percent of women were against taibatsu by teachers (iwai 2008a, 317). these surveys suggest that there has been rather widespread approval for taibatsu. But it is not only older Japanese who believe that taibatsu is necessary. there are a few studies that have analyzed the perceptions of young Japanese regarding taibatsu (ishikawa 1998; Kobayashi et al. 1997; imabashi 1995; Sanuki 2005),16 many of which suggest that young Japanese more often than not approve of the use of taibatsu. for example, using survey data of thirteen-year-old children, Kobayashi et al. (1997), determined that only half the children felt the corporal punishment they received was severe or too severe for what they had done. . . . Among these children, 20% developed ill feelings for their teachers, and 30% became dissatisfied with them. While 50% were able to accept or tolerate corporal punishment, 30% of these later came to dislike their teachers. Only 5% continued to like their teacher after being punished.17

university students also often approve of the taibatsu that was inflicted upon them. ishikawa (1998) surveyed over 1,000 university students aged 15  in other sociocultural contexts, children do not approve of corporal punishment as much as adults. for example, Ben-Arieh and Haj-Yahia found that among Jewish families in Jerusalem, “adolescents are less supportive of corporal punishment than mothers and grandmothers” (2008, 687). 16  Outside Japan, some scholars suggest that much research on corporal punishment ignores youth perceptions (Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006, 244). 17  these statistics are from Child Research Net (http://www.childresearch.net/papers/ rights/1997_01.html).

Ethics

111

nineteen to twenty-three, three-quarters of whom were female.18 Students were asked what they thought about the taibatsu that had been inflicted upon them by parents and/or teachers. Respondents expressed their approval of taibatsu with statements such as, “there’s nothing you can do” (shikata nai), “there are times it is unavoidable” (do shō mo nai bai), and “there are students for which [the use of taibatsu] is unavoidable” (do shō mo nai seito). One twenty-year-old girl even argued that the “experience of taibatsu” was necessary to teach young children that “violence” is “bad”: As a disciplinary measure, i think that taibatsu is necessary. it is important to use taibatsu when the child is very young because it is important to know the pain of being hit by someone else. in a way this makes you understand the pain you inflict when you hit someone else. As a result, this teaches that you that “violence” (bōryoku) is bad. You have to experience it to understand it. (quoted in ishikawa 1998, 119)

Sanuki’s informal surveys of his own university classes also found that 66 percent of all students approved of taibatsu (2005, 175–177). it is clear that many Japanese youth believe that taibatsu is used for their own benefit. Not surprisingly, then, those who received taibatsu in their youth often come to use it themselves or extol its use in their adulthood, especially in sports settings (Morikawa 1990, 76; Sanuki 2005, 184; Kaneko 2002, 43). in a study of 300 university students, for example, takahashi and Kumeda (2008) found that almost all respondents who had received taibatsu during their sports club experiences in Japanese schools came to approve of taibatsu themselves. One university student-athlete positively reflected on his taibatsu experiences this way: i have never looked back on my times receiving taibatsu—which were many—and thought that i should not have been hit. this is because my coach loved me. He did not just get angry. We both understood the meaning of ai no muchi. . . . He wanted us to “grow up to be good people,” and he communicated that message well. . . . thanks to taibatsu, i did not go down the wrong path. (quoted in Sanuki 2005, 176)

18  this survey includes transcripts of students’ actual responses to questions relating to taibatsu. it was undertaken to “deconstruct and understand the reality of shitsuke and taibatsu in order prevent, understand, solve, and improve problems relating to taibatsu, as well as raise awareness of the rights of children.” using survey methods that analyzed “the frequency and types of experiences subjects had, and the consciousness of the people receiving taibatsu,” ishikawa “tried to research the psychological effects of taibatsu, both at home as well as at school.”

Ethics

112

Many former students of high school basketball coach tanaka Kuniaki also believe that taibatsu made them strong adults. for example, one fiftyone-year-old corporate CEO explained that after he was found smoking tobacco, tanaka stood by his policy of “collective responsibility” (rentai sekinin) and made the whole team run: “there were many times we were worn out by such ‘hard training’ (shigoki). We were thirsty and we thought we would die. . . . Nowadays, when i go drinking with Coach tanaka, i think to myself, ‘Ah, that beer tastes good,’ just like when he would let us drink water after our long practices” (quoted in tanaka 2008, 34–35). Another pupil of tanaka’s, now a forty-four-year-old teacher, added: there were very strict “senior-junior” (sempai/kohai) relations between members of the club. Sometimes, the fists flew from Coach tanaka as well. . . . Although some members of the club dropped out, by choosing to stay in the club, i learned that this special training (tokkun)—and my endurance of it—was an extremely effective way of instilling “spirit” (seishin) and “guts” (konjō). (quoted in tanaka 2008, 84–85)

it would have been hard for young people to disapprove of taibatsu on teams such as tanaka’s, especially since many parents endorsed his coaching methods. tanaka once told the father of a potential standout player, “i am sorry to say this, but i will hit your son if he shows even the slightest desire to escape from my practice. i will rain blows on him (boko boko naguru yo)!” the father’s reply was exactly what tanaka wanted to hear: “Well, then, please train him ruthlessly (bishi bishi kitaete kudasai)” (tanaka 2008, 101). influenced by their coaches’ invocations of “love” and their own parents’ desires for “ruthless, strict training,” many young Japanese find it rather easy to accept the disciplinary logic of taibatsu. Although the taibatsu they receive can be painful, it does not often take long before such youth begin to express favorable opinions of the practice. “Hard Training,” “Strictness,” and the Perception of Growth

Many Japanese youth approve of taibatsu because they attribute their personal growth to “strict” training regimes.19 in this sense, as tomozoe and 19  Of course, others do not. Although he was hit by his homeroom teacher, track and field coach, and parents, Miyata came to argue that taibatsu is painful, breeds hatred, and does not stimulate the kind of positive reflection proponents say that it does: “My coach was really cruel. He hit it us whenever he felt like it. . . . All he did was make us run. Eventually i could not take it anymore, and so i quit the club. . . . Taibatsu brings good feelings to neither the perpetrator nor the victim” (1994, 229–230). Miyata eventually became a teacher trainer, educating physical education instructors in a university on Kyushu, so his anti-taibatsu stance likely influences many future teachers as well.

Ethics

113

Kondo note, people have a tendency to “glorify” (bika) the past and remember events in a favorable light (2000, 132–133). for example, Sanuki believes that those who approve of taibatsu “conflate” (kōsaku) their memories of taibatsu with the “growth” (seichō) they experienced doing “taibatsu-like hard training” (taibatsutekina shigoki) (2005, 184).20 Sanuki further believes that sports are deeply linked with taibatsu because sports teams are groups in which strict hierarchical relations and taibatsu both reinforce authoritarianism. the team’s coach sits at the top of this hierarchy and has the “greatest authority to direct,” much like the “commander” (shimeikan) of an army. As a result, taibatsu comes to be seen as “normal” because it is part of the “everyday ordering of things” (jōtaika), and players who receive taibatsu come to conflate their personal “growth” with being hit. Many of these players go on to become coaches and repeat this process all over again (Sanuki 2005, 184–185).21 Most of the male and female basketball players at the university where i did fieldwork, to which i have given the pseudonym “Mu,” also noted linkages between strict coaches, authoritarian and hierarchical regimes, and taibatsu, and not always in a negative light. in fact, some Mu players described their experiences with “strict coaches” rather nostalgically. Although i never witnessed a coach striking a player during the year i observed the Mu basketball teams, one player said that her high school coach had instructed in an “old” (mukashinagara) way, and that she understood why: He always glared at us when we made mistakes, but he often said nothing. When he did speak, he would say things to us that didn’t really make sense. Apparently he had been a good player himself, but all he would tell us was “Run and shoot! Don’t wait! Just shoot if you are open!” Nowadays, coaches have game plans and strategies but this coach never did. . . . He just wanted us to understand our place in society. that’s probably why he hit us: to teach us lessons. Looking back i can understand that now, though i didn’t at the time.

the appreciation for Japanese coaches who use taibatsu is therefore not as uncommon as some Westerners might think. Part of why so many 20  the conflation of the act of taibatsu and memories of growth through “taibatsu-like hard training” has a long history in Japanese sports. igarashi writes of Japan’s 1964 Gold Medalwinning women’s volleyball team, members of which had played through injury during the final Olympic games: “Past memories returned to 1964 tokyo through the scarred bodies of the players,” and this “transform[ed] players’ hardships into fond memories” (2000, 162; see also ivy 1995). 21  Echoing much of the substance of these arguments, Yoda states that taibatsu and “hard training” (shigoki) were first used in Japanese sports in the late 1930s when upperclassmen athletes began mimicking the hazing of Japan’s imperial Army soldiers (2005, 30).

114

Ethics

Japanese understand or appreciate taibatsu is because in sports, in contrast to classrooms, athletes believe that they are voluntarily submitting themselves to such punishments and strict training regimens. unlike mandatory classroom education, sports club participation is not generally obligatory and students usually have a basic idea about which clubs will be “stricter” than others before they join. One female informant in her thirties explained that as captain of her high school volleyball team she had often been hit by her coach. She said that taibatsu was more common in sports clubs than in classrooms because “students can always quit sports clubs, but no one can quit mandatory schooling.” in joining the club, she knew she was making a decision, on her own volition, to accept this sort of punishment. She explained that her coach often hit her when she did not adequately explain the rules to her teammates or did not perform other roles expected of her as team captain, and that she believed that the coach was punishing her to send the message to other players that they must follow the rules. though she still has a scar on her head from one of these strikes, she spoke about her taibatsu experiences candidly, with neither shame nor regret. While she did not like being slapped on the face or punched in the stomach, in hindsight she said she was able to appreciate that her coach was trying to impart certain values, such as the appreciation of “hard work” (dōryoku) and “spirit” (seishin). this “beautification” of the past can only occur because Japanese parents ask or expect schoolteachers and sports coaches to “teach (or train) their son or daughter strictly” (kibishiku oshiete kudasai or kibishiku kitaete kudasai). if parents complained, after all, such discipline would not likely continue, and indeed in the pockets of Japanese society where taibatsu is frowned upon, that is exactly what happens. this suggests that the term kibishii (“strict”), like other terms we have examined above, does not necessarily carry a negative connotation in Japanese; to put it another way, strict training pedagogies are still rather desirable in many circles. Kibishii can carry both negative and positive connotations, depending on the speaker and depending on the circumstance. in fact, when informants use the term in discussions of taibatsu, it often carries a positive connotation, because if a recipient of taibatsu wanted to denounce the practice or express disapproval of it, (s)he would select different terms, such as “abuse” (gyakutai) or “violence” (bōryoku), as we will see in the second half of this chapter, which documents the many arguments made against the use of taibatsu. Arguments Against the arguments of those who approve of taibatsu generate considerable disagreement from activists seeking taibatsu’s eradication. in general,

Ethics

115

females more than males, educated people more than less educated people, city dwellers more than rural people, and liberals more than conservatives tend to reject the supposed value of taibatsu (iwai 2008a, 327, see also Sugiyama 1997, 115). those who assail taibatsu appeal to one’s sense of humanity, and their arguments represent ideal visions of how educators could discipline better if they relinquished the bamboo shinai (as shown on cover). there have been arguments against the use of physical punishment in Japan for many millennia. the first recorded example comes from the eighth century. At that time, a tendai monk counseled that “monks must talk softly to apprentices if they are going to teach them about mercy,” rather than use physical discipline (quoted in Emori 1989, 7). Dōgen, the wellknown Zen monk of the thirteenth century, also said that “monks must teach without making apprentices angry” (Emori 1989, 14; also see Emori 1984, 17ff). Moreover, as we saw in chapter 2, there have been many people throughout the modern period who have been against the use of taibatsu. Emotional “Violence,” Arbitrarily Administered

Anti-taibatsu arguments today take many forms; one of the most common is the assertion that taibatsu is nothing but “violence” (bōryoku) (Asahi Shimbun 2006a; Yoneyama and Naito 2003, 322; Kuwata 2009, 10; Kiku 2001).22 the Japanese term for “violence”—“bōryoku”—is defined by the Kojien dictionary as “muhō na chikara,” which literally means “unlawful force.” As we saw earlier, current education laws remain that prohibit the use of taibatsu in Japanese schools, but do not prohibit it in Japanese homes. By this strict legal definition, taibatsu could be seen as “violence” when used in schools because it is technically “unlawful,” but not “violence” when used in the home. What matters here is that taibatsu is used in a public space: the school. thus some scholars point out how odd it is that educators can use “violence” in educational settings that would otherwise be condemned “in the public arena” (e.g., Okano and tsuchiya 1999, 154).23 One high school baseball player described his experience with taibatsu this way: “there was nothing gained through that bōryoku and i still don’t understand why i had to get hit” (Asahi Shimbun 2006a), while his coach described the 22  Some scholars dispute the definition of taibatsu as “violence” (bōryoku) (e.g., Mogami 1996, 147; Miyata 1994, 219). Historians suggest that they always have (Emori 1989; terasaki 2001). 23  in the uS, where corporal punishment remains legal in some states, some scholars echo this point by arguing that the legality of corporal punishment represents “state-sanctioned violence” (imbrogno 2000, 125). Owen and Wagner agree: “Corporal punishment is one of the few state-legitimated forms of physical violence permitted under law” (2006, 472).

116

Ethics

same incident a bit differently: “i understood that using violence (bōryoku) was unacceptable, but when children are bad, it is the responsibility of the teacher to stop them” (Asahi Shimbun 2006a). Although some taibatsu advocates are unconcerned with whether taibatsu and bōryoku are synonymous (see, e.g., tanaka 2008, 113)24, using the label “bōryoku” to describe an incident one might consider “taibatsu” generally represents an attempt to denigrate an act of physical punishment as emotional “violence” that is arbitrarily administered. Several Japanese scholars note this “arbitrary” nature by which taibatsu is used in Japan.25 for example, Sanuki argues that taibatsu in Japanese schools differs from corporal punishment in English schools26 in that the latter was, when it was legal, administered using an “objective,” fivetiered system that helped keep the punishments “fair” (2005, 182). One university student quoted in Sanuki’s study of “character formation” explained that he approved of taibatsu, but only when it was “calmly” administered: “the teacher said, ‘Put out your hand, stand up straight, and close your eyes.’ then she hit the boy and explained to everyone why she did it, adding, ‘My hand hurts too.’ . . . i think there should be taibatsu, but not the kind that relies on emotions. Rather, teachers should take responsibility to do it calmly” (quoted in Sanuki 2005, 176–177). the teacher’s seriousness, calmness, and thoroughness were most important to this student. Without them, the student would have seen the act as irresponsible, careless violence. for these reasons, some say that the difference between “violence” and “corporal punishment” is a matter of emotion (e.g., imazu 2006). they argue that most cases of Japanese taibatsu involve a teacher simply getting angry, losing his self-control, and hitting a child. One Japanese informant, a scholar who had lived Europe for many years, explained the difference between taibatsu and “corporal punishment” in this way: While i lived in Europe, i had some opportunities to discuss taibatsu with my international colleagues, and i found out that what is called “taibatsu” in Japan was not really “taibatsu.” it was just “violence.” if a policeman gets upset at someone and goes mad, loses his temper, and suddenly 24 

tanaka’s memoir (2008) sings the praises of taibatsu and lauds the educational value of violence (bōryoku), so it is not surprising that he is indifferent to the terms others use to describe his use of physical punishment. 25  Nemoto (1999, 77) and Yoneyama and Naito (2001) also note that taibatsu should be considered to be distinct from “corporal punishment” in the West because it is arbitrarily administered. 26  in the united Kingdom, “corporal punishment” was banned in schools receiving public funding in 1987 and in all private schools in 1999.

Ethics

117

shoots someone, do you call it “capital punishment”? the answer should be “no.” this is just violence and murder. What is called “taibatsu” in Japan is similar to this. An English colleague told me about the former taibatsu system in England: a child who did something wrong was sort of prosecuted by the teacher and/or principal in a process similar to that of a court trial, giving the child a chance to explain or excuse himself. then it was the principal who made the judgment regarding whether he was guilty or not. Also, if he was judged guilty, it was the principal who decided whether he deserved to be punished with taibatsu. if the sentence was taibatsu, the teacher who was in charge of taibatsu (not the teacher who prosecuted him) would carry out the taibatsu calmly. this is totally different from what is called taibatsu in Japan; taibatsu in Japan is just “violence” carried out by an upset teacher.

Sanuki labels this phenomenon the “subjectivity of taibatsu” (taibatsu no shukansei) (2005, 182). in such a “subjective system,” a student who is struck has no choice but to conclude that he has upset a specific teacher. if taibatsu were more effectively standardized, Sanuki argues, the child would acknowledge that he had broken a particular school rule, that doing so would always be punished in the same way, and then a lesson would be learned. instead, the child simply learns not to upset this particular teacher. this is also why former professional baseball player Kuwata Masumi (2009) believes the “violence” of taibatsu does not instill the “willpower” (konjō) that many advocates say it will; it only creates a culture in which children fear making mistakes. “Abuse” (Gyakutai)

Some use the term gyakutai (“abuse”) to describe incidents of physical punishment that “go too far” (Morita 2003). Gyakutai is defined in Japanese language dictionaries as “handling something cruelly” (mugoi toriatsukai wo suru koto), and it is generally translated into English as “abuse,” as in seishinteki gyakutai (“mental/psychological abuse”) or jidō gyakutai (“child abuse”) (Goodman 2000, 163–167). Gyakutai is thus a word used by anti-taibatsu advocates to emphasize how taibatsu is an “unusual” rather than “ordinary” form of punishment, and one which is brutal. invoking the term gyakutai also highlights situations in which a person in a position of authority (teacher, coach, or parent) has failed to perform a certain duty, thereby “abusing” or “neglecting” his charge (student, player, or offspring). As we saw in chapter 2, “gyakutai” has recently become the preferred term used by the Ministry of Education and the mass media to describe incidents of educator-on-pupil “violence,” incidents that had once been called taibatsu.

118

Ethics

Detrimental Psychological Effects

Taibatsu opponents also note the detrimental psychological effects of physical punishment, especially in terms of a child’s psychosocial development. for example, Kobayashi et al. (1997) argue that taibatsu should be eradicated because “the balanced psychological development of children [may be] threatened” and because “these experiences may affect later development of their human relationships throughout their lives.” Morita, a psychologist and human rights activist who advocates “empowering” victims of violence (including taibatsu and domestic violence), also argues that taibatsu causes “deep psychological damage” (2003, 41). Morita believes that taibatsu is an example of an angry adult looking for an outlet for their anger, and that such adults use physical force to control children’s actions through fear (30–43). the legal scholar Yagi concurs, stating that taibatsu causes “deep damage and is terrifying for children” (2009, 19). A “Silencing” Education System

Other scholars denigrate taibatsu by pointing to the rigid nature of the Japanese education system itself, which they argue diminishes the value of a child’s sense of self and/or undermines a child’s autonomy, effectively “silencing” their voices. Japanese education scholar Horio is among the most well-known members of this group; he argues that corporal punishment is reflective of the “State’s encroaching administration [into] our inner, private lives” (Horio and Platzer 1988, 280). Japanese studies scholar field (1995) also notes that “childhood” is disappearing in contemporary Japan because children are being abused by this all-consuming education system. finally, Okano and tsuchiya believe that any violation of human rights is problematic because children are “socially powerless to voice their views” (1999, 154). Japanese studies and sociology of education scholar Yoneyama puts forward perhaps the most passionate case of all, arguing that the Japanese high school itself causes taibatsu and other educational problems, that taibatsu represents an exploitation of the “vertical hierarchy” (jōgekankei) that characterizes many relationships in Japan, and that the school, in part through the use of taibatsu, “silences” students. She notes that teachers often physically punish students without listening to their side of the story (1999, 67), and that the school supports such “acts of violence” because the authority of the perpetrator is built into their superior hierarchical position as an elder. Yoneyama concludes: “the violence used by teachers in the name of corporal punishment is mostly hidden and tacitly approved by school authorities. it reflects, in many ways, the fundamental nature of the educational system” (245).

Ethics

119

Although scholars such as Yoneyama believe that the Japanese education system has long been disciplinarian, Koshino and Miki (2008) argue that the 2006 revisions to the fundamental Law of Education—which added two provocative prescriptive phrases: “respect for tradition and culture” (dentō to bunka wo sonchō shi) and “a loving heart for our country” (kuni wo ai suru kokoro)—have made the situation even worse. they argue that these reforms reflected the institutionalization of a “severe punishment policy” (genbatsushugi), “management-ism” (kanrishugi), and the “the dilution of the meaning of learning” in Japanese schools (32). they believe that Japanese people must reaffirm the school’s role as a “public sphere” (kokyōen) institution for “learning” (manabi) first and foremost, and bring to an end its disciplinary role. for all of these scholars, taibatsu is a debilitating symptom of a chronically ill Japanese education system, and one that must be treated as soon as possible.27 An Overemphasis on Winning in Sports

Just as many blame the Japanese education system for the existence of taibatsu, others blame the very “nature” of Japanese sports. for example, sports journalist Nagai (2007) sees taibatsu as part of a wider set of problems afflicting the Japanese youth sports world. in particular, he highlights the disproportionate emphasis on winning at the expense of enjoyment, arguing that one should not judge a team’s “success” in terms of victories alone. Yoda makes a similar claim, blaming taibatsu on a “winning is everything mentality” (shōrishijōshugi) that he believes is common in Japanese sports (2002, 64). Masumoto, for his part, insists that this overemphasis on winning and the associated use of violence must be eliminated if the Japanese are to “make sports fun again” (2001, 226–227). Recalling the Ministry of Education’s unwillingness to punish teachers who use taibatsu, Nagai (2007) raises concern that coaches who have been acknowledged to be violent are not sued or made to resign. in one particularly perplexing incident, a fifty-two-year-old Kyoto volleyball coach “who threw a chair at his players, was named ‘Super teacher’ by the local board of education” (Reuters, September 17, 2007). Nagai contends such acclamation is preposterous: not only do such teachers get away with using violent and illegal forms of punishment, but some are even praised for it. 27  in 1991, the Kanagawa Board of Education called for a ban on all forms of taibatsu based on similar logic. they justified their case by arguing that the “failure to eradicate taibatsu would bring people to distrust the prefectural education system” (quoted in Mogami 1996, 148). in their report, the Board argued that taibatsu not only inflicted bodily harm but also encouraged other forms of violence. the continued use of taibatsu, they claimed, revealed only the “immature” leadership abilities of teachers and an ignorance of taibatsu prohibition laws.

120

Ethics

Prioritizing winning and condoning violence lead Nagai to question whether “Japanese sports culture” actually produces “good kids.” Most Japanese sports coaches, he claims, want children who will “respond to their demands,” “not talk back,” and “listen to what they say,” and that taibatsu is a means for achieving these goals (2007, 12). Yet children who are hit, he argues, only learn not to make the same mistake again. As a result, taibatsu has the effect of encouraging them to not take risks. this is a special problem for youth sports because taking risks is essential to success and improvement, recalling an old basketball adage my own coach used to use, “One must take shots to make shots.” Human Rights

Labeling taibatsu as arbitrary and emotional “violence,” or simply “abuse,” cataloging its detrimental psychological effects, and blaming its existence on a “silencing” education system or on the overemphasis on winning in sports: these are all strategies used to denigrate taibatsu. Yet it is “human rights” activists who make perhaps the most commonly asserted arguments against taibatsu (see, e.g., tokyo Law Bureau 1990; ishikawa 1998; Japan Ministry of Justice 2003a; Nogami 2005). the united Nations issued the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Kodomo no Kenri Jōyaku) in 1989, and in 2000 the united Nations Commission on Human Rights stated that corporal punishment “can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment” (Resolution 43, April 2000). these two documents have likely had an effect on the noticeable proliferation of “human rights” (jinken) arguments made against taibatsu in recent years, but human rights advocacy in Japanese education actually began as early as the 1950s, when, according to Okano and tsuchiya, “children’s rights and welfare form[ed] the essence of the children’s charter (jidō kenshō) issued by the Japanese government in 1951” (1999, 154). thirty-five years later, Japan’s Ministry of Education definition of taibatsu (see chapter 1) included the statement: “We hope that [educators] will do their best to [use taibatsu] prudently to protect the human rights of students who have not yet developed” (1986, 3334). And two years after that, in 1988, a Prime Minister’s Office poll showed that 30 percent of all Japanese believed that taibatsu was a violation of human rights (Emori 1989, i). Clearly, then, there had been human rights-based arguments deployed against the use of taibatsu before the 1989 united Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 2000 united Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution. that being said, the “human rights” discourse has plainly influenced anti-taibatsu arguments in recent years. for example, in 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Justice surveyed infringements to human rights and found that the use of taibatsu was a common one. their report read:

Ethics

121

We have undertaken human rights consultations with people who have received taibatsu, such as those who have been the forced to sit in seiza for a long period of time, or those who have been the victims of violence by coaches and teachers of club activities. Based on these consultations and on the results of our survey, and because the facts of these consultations were confirmed by our survey, we have requested that school principals write statements solidifying their directorship of teachers’ guidance in order that such taibatsu does not continue. We have counseled our advisory board to ensure that these same teachers deeply understand the human rights of children and also that they clearly understand the wrongness of their actions [when they use taibatsu]. they need to discipline themselves.28 (2003b, 13-14)

there are, of course, those who do not believe that children’s rights should be so unreflectively protected. Kaneko, a former teacher, lambasts the argument that children have any “rights” whatsoever when they attend compulsory education (2002, 91). Moreover, as Okano and tsuchiya point out, there can be a conflict between, for example, a teacher’s rights and a student’s rights and even a parent’s rights: Some teachers exercise physical punishment and conduct authoritarian forms of teaching that violate children’s human rights. the teacher’s right to educate children and the parent’s right to educate their own children often conflict in cases of physical punishment, school rules, and confidential reports to be sent to higher schools. (1999, 156)

However, often lost in this debate are the rights of obedient students not to have their classroom disrupted by unruly children or preoccupied, punishing teachers. Nevertheless, human rights-based arguments against taibatsu today take many forms: some emphasize the “right” for children to grow, make their own decisions, or become independent. for example, Miyabayashi, a lecturer in general education at a community college in Osaka, believes that Japanese educators should avoid the use of taibatsu because studentathletes are independent individuals who must be allowed to grow (2005, 133). Kobayashi also argues taibatsu should be avoided because it cripples students’ independence: “Students who are punished corporally begin to read the teacher’s face and lose their ability to think critically or act independently. those teachers who use taibatsu and those who condone it reveal their own lack of educational abilities” (1999, 40). Shinagawa adds 28  in light of the importance of self-discipline in Japanese schools and sports (see chapter 4), it is interesting to note that the Ministry of Justice took a similar stance in its “disciplining” of school principals and teachers.

122

Ethics

that teachers who rely on “ai no muchi” (“the whip of love”) are forgetting that it is the children themselves who must decide whether something is “for their own good” (1990, 78; see also tomozoe and Kondo 2000, 132–133). And Horio, too, focuses his critique of taibatsu on the education system’s inability to stimulate positive growth, writing: “Cases of bullying, physical punishment, school phobia and suicide show that education, instead of performing its proper function of encouraging life in growth, has in fact become an agent for distorting development, so that human relations in schools are diminishing the value of life” (2006, 93). Growth, to these scholars, is something that students should shape on their own, free of physical punishment and other human rights infringements. What seems to be forgotten in this “human rights” discourse is the longstanding “illegality” of taibatsu in Japanese schools. Despite the prohibition of taibatsu by various educational laws spanning much of Japanese history, many recent critics have argued that taibatsu should not be used because it is a “violation of human rights,” rather than citing its illegality as reason enough for its eradication. the ambiguity of these laws may explain part of the reason why, but perhaps critics’ deployment of such human rights rhetoric represents an acknowledgement that its illegality has not been enough to curb the use of taibatsu. in any case, “human rights” rhetoric today appears to be the most common rhetoric used to challenge the use of taibatsu. i learned this firsthand at a 2008 Japan Amateur Sports Association (JASA) coach training and certification course.29 there, Morishita fushio, an attorney from the Kudan Law Offices in tokyo, delivered a lecture to attendees on “Sports and the Law,” framing much of his argument in the context of human rights. He was hired by JASA to transmit the message that sports coaches must never use taibatsu or violence (see chapter 2 for details on JASA prohibitions). Morishita talked at length about the totsuka Yacht School incidents, noting how parents had given totsuka and his subordinate coaches their “right to discipline” (chōkaiken) but that nevertheless, totsuka’s “hard training and use of taibatsu were still not lawful.” During his lecture, Morishita included JASA’s prohibition of taibatsu under a slide entitled, “Sports and Human Rights,” explaining that coaches must always manage risk in sports activities, and that accidents can happen anytime. Morishita noted that Japanese law distinguishes between four types of accidents: 1) individual accidents, 2) accidents within a group, 3) accidents between members within a certain group and members outside a certain 29  i attended the Japan Amateur Sports Association’s Coach Certification courses throughout the month of August, 2008.

Ethics

123

group, and 4) accidents involving equipment and/premises liability. As if to remind coaches of their significant responsibilities, he included in his lecture an example of a coach who had forced a soccer player to carry a heavy apparatus. When she lost her balance and it fell on her, she died. He said that such coaches could be convicted of “violating the obligation to regard safety” (anzen hairyo gimu ihan). Morishita concluded that coaches have a “moral responsibility” (dōgiteki sekinin) to protect their charges. By appealing to the coaches’ moral sensibilities, Morita made the case that taibatsu was not only a violation of the law, but of a coach’s moral obligation to respect and protect the rights of young athletes. the increasing occurrence of human rights-based arguments might be seen as a surprising development, given the fact that Japan used to be stereotyped as a nation in which individual rights were considered less important than group harmony, but this only proves that such stereotypes are of limited value. Goodman wrote a little more than fifty years ago that “the Japanese individual does not think of himself as autonomous, and it is his duties and obligations rather than his rights which are stressed; his attention is deflected away from self and toward family, community and the wider society” (1957, 998). Rights, especially of the individual variety, may have indeed at that time been seen as less important than duties or obligations, but even if that was an accurate characterization of Japan in the late 1950s, things are clearly changing today. Despite Morishita’s efforts, and despite the efforts of the many other human rights activists detailed above, appeals to human rights in Japan face a serious challenge because they are often associated with “the West” and therefore can be easily rejected by cultural nationalists who see such appeals as “un-Japanese.” While human rights discourses may have a long history in the Western world, they do not in Japan. in the West, human rights history begins as early as the Magna Carta in 1215, when the English king promised to consult with English nobles before making decisions (Gombrich 2008). Before the signing of the Magna Carta, the king’s subjects were not believed to have “rights” at all. these “Western” roots— and the connection between human rights and burgeoning democracy30— must be remembered when one tries to understand the difficulties that “human rights” activists currently face persuading “traditionally minded” Japanese to change their ways. Moreover, the assertion that children have rights is a “notion . . . of recent origin” (Hyman and McDowell 1979, 5), even in the West. in short, those calling for the eradication of taibatsu have come to believe that an appeal to human rights (based on morality) 30  the Magna Carta led to experiments with democracy, which, though previously attempted in Athens, had not been conceived alongside the belief that humans had “rights.”

124

Ethics

may be more effective than an appeal to the law (based on taibatsu’s illegality), though their arguments have generally fallen on the deaf ears of cultural nationalists determined to keep Japan free of Western influence. it remains to be seen whether, and if so to what extent, rights-based (individual, human, child) advocacy will be able to effectively change contemporary Japan. At least in terms of taibatsu, what we can say with relative certainty is that while advocates of taibatsu often rely on asserting its “effectiveness,” noting the “reality” of the school and the “love” of the educator, and often invoking the obligation each educator has to guide, discipline, and instill “morality,” more and more Japanese are beginning to argue that the use of taibatsu is a violation of a child’s right to live free of “violence” and “abuse,” develop in a psychologically healthy manner, have her voice heard in the classroom, have fun playing on the sports field, and make her own decisions about how she would like to grow. Which group will prevail in this debate is, of course, anyone’s guess.

CHAPtER 5

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” —Mahatma Gandhi

throughout the many years that i lived in Japan and studied taibatsu, most people i spoke with told me one of two things: either that taibatsu was a common “problem” in Japan, or that the use of strict discipline, including taibatsu, was not common enough. While proponents insisted that Japanese adults ought to keep the paddle close at hand, detractors insisted that they ought to relinquish it altogether. Although a few Japanese authors and scholars have suggested otherwise in their writings, few Japanese people i spoke with in person considered the possibility that taibatsu might be useful in only some limited cases, or that such a perspective represented the rationale behind the Ministry of Education’s notoriously weak enforcement of extant taibatsu prohibition laws. While it is possible that i encountered these “all or nothing” responses because my informants thought that i, as a foreigner “visiting” Japan, sought a simple answer to what is clearly a complicated matter, such responses could just as likely have been caused by a particular mindset held by many of these people, a mindset that assumes that Japan is a homogeneous nation of people who all think the same, talk the same, and therefore must discipline in the same way. When this lens of homogeneity is used to explain taibatsu’s existence or persistence, i call it “culturalism”: the prioritizing of cultural explanations above all other possible explanations.1 People posit such a culturalist view when they insist that it is Japanese culture—or specific aspects of it— that determines the existence of physical discipline in Japanese schools. in fact, as we will see in this chapter, culturalism has been a rather common lens through which many Japanese authors, as well as some West1 

By “culturalism” i do not mean the same thing as “cultural essentialism,” which i use to describe theories that attempt to reduce a particular culture to its purported “essence.” Rather, “culturalist” arguments emphasize how the essence of a particular culture—or essential elements of a particular culture—explain(s) certain phenomena within it.

126

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

ern authors, have viewed various aspects of Japanese schools and sports. After gathering their research data, these authors conclude that “unique” cultural factors like “spirit” (seishin) or “traditional” practices like “character development” (ningen keisei) explain the existence of taibatsu better than structural or institutional factors, such as the fact that the Ministry of Education does not regularly punish coaches or teachers who illegally use taibatsu. Such culturalist positions also ignore actor-based analyses that focus on the people who use taibatsu and the people who defend its use, choosing instead to highlight the culture in which these people live to explain their actions. People who advocate such positions assume that it is Japan’s unchanging “culture,” rather than ever-changing factors such as time, space, and sociopolitical interactions, that best explain the causes and persistence of taibatsu. in the course of undertaking this study, i have begun to believe that few scholars are interested in digging beneath such culturalist assumptions to consider other possible explanations (e.g., structural, institutional, or actor-based) for taibatsu’s existence. i have also increasingly come to believe that differences between Japan and the united States are most often perceived in cultural (rather than institutional or structural) terms and that such widespread “perceptions of difference” limit our ability to deepen our understanding of discipline in Japan’s sports and schools. After all, when scholars only emphasize these “cultural” differences, we are never forced to take the time to explore our potential institutional or structural similarities, and the ocean between us only grows wider. in sum, if taken too far, “culture” can become a flawed explanatory tool, blurring more than edifying, and dividing more than illuminating. Certainly it is true that there are differences between taibatsu in Japan and “corporal punishment” in English-speaking nations, and that there are important, real differences between the nations of Japan and the united States, but saying that Japanese culture is different from American culture is not the same as saying that Japanese culture (or any particular aspect of it) is the primary cause of corporal punishment. While it is certainly important to note that the meaning of “strict” (kibishii) in Japan is different from the meaning of “strict” in the united States, showing how this term has a culturally specific definition is not the same as asserting that such “strictness” is something “unique” to Japanese culture, or that such “strictness” causes or explains taibatsu. Cultural relativity is not the same thing as cultural essentialism. After all, one’s perceptions of “strictness” and “leniency” are entirely subjective. if a child grows up in a home with “strict” parents, he will be less likely than a person who grows up under “accommodating” parents to believe that compulsory military training, for example, is “strict.” He

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

127

may even be able to more stoically endure such training as a result. in the same way, when seen through American eyes, and especially through the eyes of an American raised in one of the more liberal states in the uS, discipline in Japan may at first glance appear rather “strict.” When i first arrived to Japan in the early 2000s that was certainly my first impression. in fact, there are many “strict” coaches in the united States, even in liberal states like my own, California. i just so happened to grow up at a time when corporal punishment was strictly forbidden in California schools (California outlawed school corporal punishment in 1986, when i was six years old; see appendix 3 for details), which inevitably colored my initial impressions of discipline in Japanese schools and sports. Despite the fact that Japan banned corporal punishment in 1879, more than one hundred years before California, when i arrived in Japan i incorrectly assumed that California educators had always been “accommodating” and “liberal” and that Japanese educators had always beat education into their charges. in hindsight it is easy to see that my premature judgment was based on anecdotal evidence, a limited unrepresentative sample of the population (Ehime, the rural prefecture where i first lived, is considered to be among the most “conservative” in Japan), and therefore flawed to begin with. Looking back it seems foolish that i had failed to ask myself an essential question of cross-cultural research: “Why don’t California teachers use corporal punishment?” Strictness and leniency can therefore only be defined, and judged, in relative terms. While some Japanese people and some foreigners have concluded that Japanese sports teams always represent “strict” training environments, and while foreigners have said that Japanese discipline is “strict” or “harsh” or even reveals the “dark side of Japanese education” (Schoolland 1990), i am not satisfied by such conclusions. that is why i have tried in this book to dig deep into the discourses of discipline to excavate new understandings of education in Japanese schools and sports. in this chapter i examine interpretations of and explanations for the causes of taibatsu in Japanese schools and sports, paying special attention to how and why such culturalist arguments fail. After briefly noting some leading causal interpretations of corporal punishment worldwide, the first part of this chapter examines “structural” explanations that are put forward regarding the causes of taibatsu, and then the latter half examines culturalist arguments. there are a few exceptional Japanese scholars who do not let this lens of homogeneity color their interpretations and explanations of taibatsu, and though their arguments are documented here, it must be remembered that they constitute a small minority of existing taibatsu research. finally, in describing both structural and culturalist explanations, this chapter aims to further document

128

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

the diversity of Japanese opinions regarding taibatsu, thereby strengthening the argument that there is no single “Japanese pattern” of discipline, neither in terms of its practice, nor its evaluation, nor the interpretation of its meaning. Causal Interpretations of Corporal Punishment Worldwide there are many culturalist explanations for corporal punishment in the Western world, but scholarly interpretations about why “corporal punishment” happens, what purposes it seeks, or what “corporal punishment” means, are perhaps somewhat more diverse than in Japan. Outside Japan, some corporal punishment scholars have simply said that humans are “inherently cruel” (Scott [1938] 1952, 3), and argued that modern sports fuel this cruelty. Many decades ago, Scott explicitly linked the violence in modern hunting and fighting sports with the physical punishment of Roman gladiators: Man is cruel. He has always been cruel. He is cruel to everything which he considers inferior to himself. He is cruel to both his fellow men and to animals. the advance of civilization has not resulted in man losing his capacity and appetite for cruelty; it has merely directed both into fresh channels, or camouflaged them, or temporarily subjugated them. . . . Sports of all nations of the world over since the dawn of civilization provide evidence in all abundance of this delight in witnessing exhibitions of cruelty. in the Roman Empire at its mightiest we have the delight of emperors and aristocrats in seeing prisoners, criminals, slaves, et al., forced into filling the roles of gladiators, being torn to bits by wild animals, and, when the supply of humans ran short, of animal pitted against animal in a struggle to the death. An echo of this custom survives today in the bull-fights of Spain. Another echo survives in the fox-hunts of England. ([1938] 1952, 3 and 9)

these sporting events were originally about sacrifice, and they continue to be about “experiencing pleasure” in watching other sentient beings suffer pain. Scott writes, “the sacrifices, first of animals and then of humans, were applauded by the populace; the roasting of the victims was accompanied with hoots of joy. So, too, the torturing of prisoners of war, the punishment of criminals” (9). the continued existence of sports fans who revel in the vicious board checks of ice hockey, the big hits of American football, or the bloodshed of the boxing ring, suggests that Scott’s case might still remain rather compelling today. However, such categorical “human nature”-based explanations do not satisfy all contemporary scholars, especially when corporal punishment in the home is considered. Scholars have debated the impact of household

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

129

composition—specifically, the number of adults present and available to discipline children—and whether it predicts rates of corporal punishment. Some scholars believe that a household with multiple caregivers will predict less corporal punishment than in, for example, single-mother homes (Munroe and Munroe 1980; Rohner 1986), while others believe that this variable does not significantly predict such an increase (Ember and Ember 2005; Levinson 1989). Other scholars seek to explain the existence of “corporal punishment” with reference to social values, demographics, and/or social complexity. According to Levinson (1989), for example, parents who live in “more complex” societies (defined as societies with larger populations, specialized roles, and formal social control mechanisms) will likely use corporal punishment more than parents in “less complex” societies. He concludes that child-rearing practices are different in each society because compliance and obedience are more desirable personality characteristics in “more complex” societies. On the other hand, in their large-scale comparative study, Ember and Ember concluded that obedience training was not an independent predictor of corporal punishment. instead, they found that when corporal punishment is used frequently, it tends to be found in societies characterized by power inequality, the presence of social stratification, high levels of political hierarchy, polygyny, help with the caretaking of children by nonrelatives, high rates of warfare, or the use of an alien currency (i.e., the (former) presence of a colonial power) (2005, 613–615). their discussion of how an alien currency predicts higher levels of corporal punishment is intriguing: What, then, might propel parents, consciously or unconsciously, to use corporal punishment? . . . if parents want children to fit into a society with inequalities in power, might parents choose corporal punishment to convey dramatically that some people are much more powerful than others? After all, to a child, parents are clearly powerful. Not only are they taller and physically stronger, they also control and dispense important resources. So perhaps parents think, consciously or unconsciously, that corporal punishment is a dramatic way to convey the discrepancy in power between themselves and their children, and that the perception of this discrepancy by the child will generalize to an acceptance of power inequalities later on when the child grows up. (615)

By this logic, a parent is more likely to use corporal punishment if (s)he lives in a society that is relatively hierarchical, especially if the society has or has once had a foreign colonizer because of the forced hierarchy—and alien currency—that comes along with it.

130

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

Structural “Causes” of Taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports is taibatsu in Japan also “predicted” by social complexity, including the values of obedience and compliance, forced hierarchy, an alien currency, or social stratification? Obedience to authority is clearly valued in Japanese society, especially in the Japanese education system, but taibatsu appears to contradict Ember and Ember’s hypothesis because Japan was never colonized by a foreign power, nor has Japan ever used an alien currency. On the other hand, since the end of World War ii, Article 9 of Japan’s postwar Constitution has prohibited her from waging war or maintaining a standing army (Japan does maintain the Self-Defense forces (SDf)), and some believe that this Article—and the ongoing uS military presence— effectively serves the same function. Nakamura’s (2007) analysis of the causes of taibatsu is thus similar to the Embers’ analysis; he argues that the prevalence of taibatsu in Japan is because it “feels” like a colonized country. Yet Ember and Ember’s attempt to explain corporal punishment worldwide rests upon the assumption that it is structural factors (i.e., aspects of a society’s social structure, including institutional rules and regulations, or the lack thereof; or its perceived hierarchical position within the international community) rather than cultural factors that best explain its existence. Nakamura, on the other hand, assumes that there is something “unique” about Japanese culture that best explains it, as we shall see in greater detail below. “Managed Education” Policy and the Expected Use of Taibatsu by Physical Education Teachers

in contrast to Nakamura, there are a few scholars in Japan who point to “structural” rather than “cultural” factors to explain why “corporal punishment” happens. for example, some point to the fact that physical education teachers in particular are expected to play the role of “corporal punishment teacher” (taibatsu kyōshi). According to several Japanese scholars, under the “managed education” (kanri kyōiku) policies that governed many Japanese schools in the 1970s and 1980s, physical education teachers were asked to use taibatsu to maintain classroom order and protect the established hierarchy of the school. As a result, these teachers were expected to perform the role of “corporal punishment teacher” (Morikawa 1990; Kiku 2001; Sawada 2001).2 Some scholars see this role as something that is forced upon physical education teachers. Physical education teachers “do not want to appear 2  By this logic, Japanese sports coaches, who are also entrusted with similar responsibilities (e.g., inculcating values and respect for authority and the hierarchical status quo), would also be expected to play this role.

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

131

weak” in front of other teachers who expect them to mete out physical punishments (Morikawa 1990, 74). Parents must therefore not lay complete blame on physical education teachers because they are forced into this role of “corporal punishment teachers.” in this sense, some scholars believe that these “corporal punishment teachers” can also be seen as “victims” (Morikawa 1990, 75, 78–79; see also imabashi 1986, 44).3 Kiku also argues that physical education teachers have been forced into carrying out taibatsu, though he believes that this is a “hidden role” and that physical education teachers wear “hidden police uniforms” (2001, 121). He suggests that physical education teachers have more opportunities than other teachers to use taibatsu, and that this frequency of opportunity leads to the general acceptance of the use of taibatsu among other teachers. in a way, physical education teachers have come to be expected to carry out taibatsu on behalf of these other teachers. Kiku concludes that modern Japanese education has forced the role of “punisher” (by his definition, “a person who uses violence”) on the physical education teacher (118).4 Of course, not all “corporal punishment teachers” are forced into their role, or, at least if they are, some of them come to embrace it. for example, Kaneko titles his book “Taibatsu Kyōshi” (“Corporal Punishment teacher”), showing that he is far from insulted by the label. in fact, Kaneko states unequivocally that he is proud to be a “taibatsu kyōshi” (2002, 25), even if the term may carry a negative connotation for others, and that he happily performs his role as disciplinarian—he even insists that “pain is necessary” in the instruction of children (80). Some scholars acknowledge that being a “corporal punishment teacher” is not always a forced role. for example, Sawada (2001) shows how Japanese physical education teachers are often given greater responsibility to undertake “student guidance” (seito shidō) than other teachers because they are believed to strongly support the status quo. these “guidance obligations” are easy for physical education teachers to meet because they enjoy team sports and generally appreciate the value of conforming to group activities. As a result, Sawada believes that physical education teachers support the formation of the Japanese group because they are the best managers of so-called “top-down managed education” (jōikatatsu

3  in certain circumstances, Japanese parents do believe that teachers and coaches who use taibatsu are “victims.” Wray reports that “when a senior high school student died in the summer of 1995 from corporal punishment, 75,000 people signed a petition requesting a reduced sentence for the teacher concerned” (1999, 101). 4  this analysis leads Kiku to call for a paradigm shift in Japanese education. He appeals to physical education teachers to “go beyond your socially constructed relationship as the teachers burdened to be the executors of taibatsu” (2001, 122).

132

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

kanri kyōiku); he sees them as important guardians of Japan’s “vertical society” (tate shakai).5 Such physical education teachers also create their own “micro-culture,” which is status-quo-oriented and conditions new physical educators into the role of disciplinarian. following Bourdieu (1977), Sawada labels this the “habitus of physical education teachers” (2001, 214).6 The Physical Superiority of Teachers and Coaches over Students and Athletes

Some authors argue that taibatsu happens because students are unable (or able but unwilling) to strike back. According to Sanuki, “taibatsu encourages a social order that is based on the premise that the strong control the weak” (2005, 184), which is why Sato (1999) argues that taibatsu is not a sustainable method of discipline unless the teacher is always bigger than the student. if students were strong enough to defend themselves from taibatsu, they could handle their “problem” without appealing to other authorities such as parents, boards of education, and the Ministry of Education. Sooner or later, educators in such cases would cease to use taibatsu not because they feared being caught for breaking the law but because of a fear of reprisal. Sato explains: Taibatsu might work when you are a young teacher, but when you pass the age of fifty it is not going to help you get through to a large middle school student. if you are going to teach until retirement age, taibatsu is not a good educational method. . . . When a student hits you back when you are approaching retirement age, it will be too late for you to think for the first time, “Ah, taibatsu does not work.” (1999, 162–163)

Yamashita tomoshige learned this lesson long before he reached retirement age. Yamashita was the baseball coach of the Japanese slugger Matsui Hideki at Seiryō High School in ishikawa Prefecture. Yamashita apparently used taibatsu on all his players, though he feared using it on Matsui because of his above-average size (6’2”, 210 lbs). While most players turned away from Yamashita when he struck them, Matsui did not. instead, as Yamashita began to strike, Matsui straightened his face and stared him down. Yamashita said, “in ten years as a coach i have only ever been afraid of Matsui” (quoted in Nakamura 2007, 81). Yamashita even said he worried Matsui might attack him,7 illustrating how taibatsu 5  Tate shakai is a term that has been used to refer to the rigid vertical hierarchy to which Japanese must conform if they want to be considered upstanding members of society (Nakane 1973). 6  Bourdieu’s notion of habitus refers to “the transmission of complex and symbolically loaded forms of discourse or practice, at all levels of human activity, [which] requires the systematic and sophisticated training of the body” (James 1996, 108). 7  Matsui himself distinguishes between “scolding” (shikaru), which he defines as a “coach

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

133

can only occur, at least on a consistent basis, with the presumption of a teacher’s physical superiority.8 The Limits of Verbal Communication

the limits of verbal communication are also cited as a reason physical punishment occurs or persists in Japanese sports (takahashi and Kumeda 2008).9 Some Japanese educators echo the research of Western psychologists such as Larzelere (2000) and Baumrind, Larzalere and Cowan (2003) in their assertion that “corporal punishment” is essential in the early years of one’s life, when a child cannot understand words and therefore needs “physical communication” (see, e.g., totsuka 1983, 1998, 2003, 2007; tanaka 2008). As sports are cacophonous affairs in which the swift motion of bodies over vast spaces can make verbal communication difficult, sports coaches may feel the need to rely on yelling to instruct. But verbal communication difficulties in loud places can also lead to misunderstandings or other conflict, which in turn may lead a coach to feel it necessary to “communicate” with physical languages of discipline. A sports coach who cannot get his message across with words may have a greater likelihood of losing his temper and becoming “violent” than a teacher in a fixed, smaller, and potentially quieter classroom. the nature of the spaces in which sports are undertaken may therefore produce opportunities for “violence” taking a player to the toilet and beating him (bun’naguru),” and “getting angry” (okoru), which he sees as “doing the same thing but in front of one’s teammates and with a raised voice” (2007, 157). Matsui frowns on the latter, but adds that, in either case, if all a coach leaves are “unpleasant feelings,” then “he will lose the ability to work together with his players” (157). 8  the physical superiority of teachers may also be a reason why taibatsu is not used as often in college or professional sports as it is in school sports. Of course, it may also be the case that at these higher levels, athletes want to listen to their coaches and do not rebel as much, thereby limiting the necessity for taibatsu. Athletes at these higher levels are no longer obligated by their parents or education policy to participate, as is often the case in lower levels of sports. in college and professional sports, coercive sports participation is rare, and players generally want to follow their coach’s guidance, in part because they want to get better. 9  takahashi and Kumeda argue that there are five things about Japanese sports clubs that make them especially susceptible to taibatsu: 1) sports involve learning with the body, so coaches do not commonly emphasize communication with words; 2) while teachers instruct in their classrooms using words to change behavior, sports coaches and physical educators more often shift the body into the posture desired, including when a coach must touch a player’s body to protect him from doing something that could cause injury; 3) sports are more focused on the evaluation of others than self-evaluation, and wins and losses are the most important aspect of this evaluation process; 4) coaches decide the rules of sports practices, so they have the potential to become “dogmatic” (dokudanteki) leaders; and 5) in Japan, physical education has the explicit goal of “developing the spirit” (seishin keisei) (2008, 162).

134

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

more often than the nature of classroom education, which relies more on verbal communication in more intimate spaces. The Failure to Enforce Existing Education Laws

Some scholars argue that taibatsu occurs because of the institutional failure to enforce existing laws that prohibit Japanese educators from using taibatsu. Japanese teachers often have the support of their principals and boards of education in controversial incidents of taibatsu. Perhaps because Japanese public schoolteachers are officially “public servants” (kōmuin), they appear to be given leeway in such matters. Nemoto believes teachers are given the benefit of the doubt in controversial cases of taibatsu because “local authorities are . . . reluctant to make cases public and are keen to protect both the honor of problem teachers and the reputation of the schools” (1999, 79–80). this is also why Sato laments the fact that “when incidents of taibatsu are printed in the newspapers, the principal always comments, ‘He was being an enthusiastic teacher (nesshin na kyōshi deshita)’ ” (1999, 162).10 to Sato and Nemoto, taibatsu exists because authorities let teachers get away with it, despite the education laws prohibiting it. the above discussion has highlighted a few of the “structural causes” that a small number of Japanese scholars believe explain the existence of taibatsu in Japanese schools and sports. they include the following explanations: physical education teachers are expected to employ taibatsu to keep order in Japanese schools; teachers and coaches who are physically larger than students players can use taibatsu without fear of reprisal; instruction and discipline accomplished through physical means are seen to be more effective than instruction or discipline accomplished through verbal communication, especially in sports education; and the legal prohibition on taibatsu is not consistently enforced by educational administrators. Cultural “Causes” of Taibatsu in Japanese Schools and Sports Despite these “structural” explanations of taibatsu, many of which seem rather persuasive, there remain many more scholars, educators, and coaches in Japan who argue that taibatsu exists because of something uniquely “Japanese.” these people explain taibatsu’s existence in Japanese schools and sports with reference to select aspects of Japanese culture, arguing that Japan’s cultural traditions, norms, or customs are more influential 10  Gelles’s exchange theory of corporal punishment supports Sato’s argument. this theory is based on the assumption “that human interaction is guided by the pursuit of rewards and the avoidance of punishments” (2005, 247). As a result, “parents use corporal punishment toward their children because they can . . . if the costs of using that behavior do not outweigh the rewards” (249, original italics).

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

135

in the minds of would-be taibatsu-using educators than, for example, the Japanese laws that prohibit its use.11 that, or the use of taibatsu is not rational but subconsciously due to this “culture.” in the next section of this chapter, i explore these “culturalist” explanations for why taibatsu exists in Japan, which include the beliefs that taibatsu exists and persists because “Japanese culture trumps Japanese law”; Japanese sports teams are characterized by groupism, spiritualism, and a “winning is everything mentality” that raise the stakes of sports participation and encourage taibatsu; a “samurai ethos” of modesty or the goal of “character development” pervade Japanese sports, and do the same; ascetic practice aimed at training the body and mind is also unique to Japanese sports and sets the stage for “hard training,” including the use of taibatsu; Japanese sports are a performance-oriented, perfectionist realm that generally frowns upon mistakes, and that taibatsu is used to limit such mistakes; and the “strict vertical hierarchy” and “senior-to-junior” discipline found on many Japanese sports teams includes or can quickly lead to use of taibatsu. Japanese Culture Trumps Japanese Law

We saw earlier that taibatsu prohibition laws in schools have been written vaguely enough to be perceived as “weak”; as a result, some scholars argue that, “Japanese culture trumps Japanese law.” for example, imazu argues that taibatsu happens in Japan’s schools because its use is believed to improve the “outward appearance” of the school and the students. in Japanese schools, no one talks about taibatsu because it is more important to create the “appearance that things are going well” rather than for “things to actually be going well” (2006, 247). imazu’s analysis sheds light on three important distinctions prominent in Japanese “cultural” behavior: uchi/soto (“inside/outside”), omote/ura (“front/back” or “explicit/implicit”), and tatemae/honne (“what is said/what is truly believed”). these dichotomies illustrate that what is often most important in Japanese sociocultural life is the ability to “put on a good face for the outside world.” As we saw in chapter 2, the discourse of “managed education” (kanri kyōiku) became popular in the 1970s, and with it came the desire to project both a good image of the school and of the students themselves. imazu explains how this relates to taibatsu: “Taibatsu is seen as an effective method of discipline. Even if an incident is an aberration of the set rule that ‘corporal punishment is illegal,’ it is often considered acceptable as a way to show zeal for changing the outside of the students” (2006, 252). imazu calls this 11  Ben-Ari and frühstück make a similar point with regard to cultural interpretations of violence (2003, 551).

136

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

the “tatemae of taibatsu,” while the honne is the belief that “taibatsu is necessary” in order to keep order in the classroom (257).12 He believes that any voices of resistance against taibatsu, disputing the claim that “taibatsu is necessary,” are rarely heard or seen on “the surface” (omote) of Japanese society. they remain hidden in the “back” (ura), allowing the “taibatsu is necessary” argument to dominate mainstream educational discourse. As a result, imazu asserts that, “Japanese culture is stronger than Japanese law” (233-258); that is, the illegality of taibatsu is less important to Japanese educators than the desire to change “how the students look” to the outside world. Similarly, when Hirota (2001) describes the “rock and a hard place” (itabasami) in which teachers find themselves, he is referring to the dilemma in which teachers must decide between either hitting a child and following a Japanese “norm” (kihan), or not hitting a child and obeying the laws prohibiting the use of taibatsu.13 imazu believes that in these cases “Japanese culture” typically prevails over “Japanese law.” Groupism, Spiritualism, and “Winning is Everything”

Other Japanese authors point to the “culturally unique” nature of Japanese sports to explain taibatsu’s existence within them. for example, Ozawa notes that when people discuss the “uniqueness” (tokusei) of Japanese sports, they talk about “spiritualism” (seishinshugi), “an emphasis on cultivating the mind” (shūyōshugi), “groupism” (shūdanshugi), and a “winning is everything” (shōrishijōshugi) mentality (2002, 148; see also Yoda 2005, 35 and JASA 2008e, 154). Masumoto also argues that sports clubs have “since the Meiji Period become a cultural apparatus that reproduces a groupist ethos and a value perspective of spiritualism” (2001, 277). to Masumoto, taibatsu is more likely to occur the deeper one delves into sports, the more one emphasizes willpower (konjō) and prioritizes winning above all else, and the more “undemocratic” (himinshuteki) one’s sports club becomes (276). A Samurai Ethos that Values Modesty

Still other scholars believe that taibatsu is caused by the “ethos,” or “national character,” of the Japanese people. for example, Nakamura (2007) concludes that the reliance on taibatsu in sports is due to a “samurai ethos” 12  imazu (2006) argues that at schools where taibatsu is used even one time, it becomes easier to use again because new teachers internalize the school’s “unconscious values and norms.” He writes: “this consciousness— that taibatsu is necessary—casts a spell over the school and creates an educational discourse that new teachers simply adopt as axiomatic and start to reproduce all over again” (249). 13  it is important to remember that the laws against taibatsu, like many other laws in Japan, were either influenced by Western thought or suggested by Westerners hired to advise Japanese government officials. As a result, some Japanese see such laws as “inherently Western entities” that are incompatible with Japanese norms, and, by extension, Japanese culture.

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

137

that values modesty. He believes that the Japanese are taught to be modest when they play sports, and that taibatsu is a common tool used to instill such modesty. the use of taibatsu creates a “samurai ethos,” which in turn strengthens one’s modesty.14 Nakamura believes that this “samurai ethos”—and the use of taibatsu to reinforce it—are so unique that it is difficult for foreigners to understand them. Nakamura even argues that sports coaching in Japan is “traditional” and “unique” precisely because of its reliance upon “violent taibatsu” (bōryokuteki taibatsu). Such “violent taibatsu” includes the “slapping of the face” or the “boxing the ears” (binta). Binta, Nakamura asserts, is the surface manifestation of shigoki, or “hard training,”15 which was widely used in the pre-World War ii Japanese military (2007, 8). The Desire to Develop Character

in Nakamura’s mind, this “samurai ethos,” by which he really means “Japanese national character,” illustrates why some believe that there is a uniquely Japanese approach to sports—and the martial arts—that seeks to “develop character” (ningen keisei). for example, Oki, a kendo coach and teacher from Chiba Prefecture, argues that the Japanese “perspective on games” (shiaikan) has its roots in the martial arts, noting that the samurai warrior code of ethics, Bushidō, transformed the martial arts during the peaceful Edo Period, when people began to use martial arts to develop “character” (jinkaku) (2001, 22). At stake in this transition was the future of all body, skills, and mind training, so Oki concludes that vestigial forms of physical punishment once used in the martial arts continue to be used in contemporary physical education classes and sports clubs because these endeavors also aim at developing character. As proof, he cites the fact that shinai, “swords” made of bamboo, are still used as implements to inflict taibatsu (22). Some Japanese scholars worry that this disproportionate emphasis on “character” in Japanese sports serves to justify taibatsu and help it persist. for example, Kubo (2010, 64–65) argues that this “character development discourse” is problematic because 1) the abstract normative assertion that “sports develop character” is not made intelligible on a practical level, 2) it can lead to subjective statements of what “character development” is or should be, 3) many people who believe that sports build character were themselves athletes, often those who performed at a high level, and are therefore predisposed to believe that their success in sports and in life is chiefly due to the character they developed through sports participation, 14  the best-selling author ijuin Shizuka takes a similar position when he emphasizes the importance of modesty to Japanese sports culture in his biography of Hideki Matsui (ijuin 2007). 15  Shigoki derives from the verb shigoku, which denotes the act of threshing rice. Shigoku can mean “to beat,” “to train,” or “to wring out.”

138

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

and 4) there is the danger that sports coaches might conflate all training methods aimed at winning with training methods aimed at character development, including exhaustive training, and therefore conclude that both are “educational” and justified. Ascetic Practice to Train the Body and Mind

“Ascetic practice” (shūgyō) is another means by which Japanese coaches build the character of their charges, so it may not be surprising that this keyword serves as another culturalist explanation for taibatsu. Shūgyō can mean many things: following the Buddhist commandments and finding enlightenment through specific religious actions; practicing various Buddhist teachings; concentrating one’s efforts on the Buddhist path; purifying the spirit by training the body and spirit through the prohibition of the bodily desires; and the pilgrimage that scholars, warriors, and artists (and martial artists/athletes) take to perfect their trade. While these spiritual ideas have been applied to Japanese sports training, especially baseball (see, e.g., Oh and falkner 1984; Matsui 2007), they are also used by ordinary Japanese. A tokyo udon restaurateur once told me that he had spent three years doing shūgyō in Kagawa Prefecture, learning how to make the perfect noodle. Oki describes shūgyō this way: “When i think of shūgyō, i think of the image of a master swordsman, climbing a mountain, sipping a valley river’s water, receiving instruction from a teacher, and swinging a wooden sword against an imaginary opponent” (2001, 146). in the martial arts, shūgyō was for the purpose of learning “form” (kata); there were no “practice games” at the time, as there are in today’s martial arts, so apprentices had to train themselves by imagining battle. they often did this with wooden replicas of swords, at times with implements similar to the aforementioned “bamboo sword” (shinai). terasaki (2001) thus suggests that it is “ascetic practice” (shūgyō) and “penance” (kugyō) that cause taibatsu to be so prevalent in contemporary Japanese sports.16 Emori also believes that taibatsu was once used with the explicit aim of accomplishing shugyō, explaining that in the training of the arts (geijitsu) and martial arts (bujitsu) in particular, as well as in other realms, shugyō was mainly undertaken for the training of the character (jinkaku) (1989, 17). By his logic, taibatsu was for shugyō, and shugyō was for character building. this perspective is further illustrated by the Director of the Research Center on Bodily Education (shintai kyōiku kenkyūsho), Noguchi Hiroyuki, who believes that the infliction of stress on the body forces Zen meditation 16  terasaki (2009) makes this argument because he believes sports are a form of “body education” (shintai kyōiku). “Real education,” terasaki argues, should cultivate a comfortable living body, not cause suffering.

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

139

practitioners to deepen their concentration. Noguchi writes of “Gyo,” which is the second ideograph used in the compound, “shūgyō”: in Gyo the body is utilized as a tool to break through volitional concentration. its method is to focus one’s awareness on certain perceptual occurrences in the body, and to switch the attention, for a while, from one’s thoughts to one’s body. the various ways in which the hands and fingers are held during meditation, known as inso, are a typical example. the deliberate forcing of the body into conditions of stress, strongly associated with the practice of stress, is another. By repeatedly imposing great burden on the body, the practitioner’s attention is forced to switch from mental concentration to bodily concentration. (2004, 19)

Although Noguchi does not explicitly argue that Japanese educators have similar ideas in mind when they choose to use taibatsu, the punishment of the body surely forces taibatsu recipients to concentrate their minds on their bodies, and likely on the pain they are feeling. Because taibatsu puts the body in a similar state of pain or stress, one can learn to concentrate more deeply on the physical activity—in this case, sports training—at hand. A Performance-Oriented, Perfectionist Japanese Sports Culture

the rhetoric of shūgyō and Bushidō in Japanese sports can, though does not always, imply the denial of drinking water during difficult training, which is why some scholars emphasize the performance-oriented, perfectionist nature of Japanese “sports culture” (supōtsu bunka) in their explanations of taibatsu. for example, Ae (1991, 2006) found that sports coaches used taibatsu because they were in the business of instilling “excellence” (yushū) and “improvement” (jōtatsu). Since sports training attempts to improve the body’s ability to do certain “physical” activities (e.g., running or jumping), punishments in sports often involve punishing the body (e.g., extra running, push-ups, or sit-ups), and it is widely believed that the punishment of the body is “good” and can serve the “spirit,” some scholars believe that there is something distinctive about Japanese sports culture that causes punishments to take a physical form (see, e.g., Morikawa 1990, 75; takahashi and Kumeda 2008, 162). Strict Vertical Hierarchy

However, by far the aspect of Japan’s “sports culture” that scholars most often note is the “strict vertical hierarchy” (kibishii jōgekankei) said to be commonplace on almost every Japanese sports team. Many Japanese scholars note that taibatsu is something used by “strict,” “severe,” or “harsh” (kibishii) coaches, or that taibatsu happens because of “strict”

140

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

hierarchical regimes in which older players as well as coaches mete out punishment (see, e.g., Ae 1991; Sawada 1994; Sakamoto 1995; igarashi 2000, 155ff; Sanuki 2005; Masumoto 2001, 277; Yoda 2005, 30).17 for example, Sanuki believes that the authoritarian nature of Japanese sports teams directly leads to the use of taibatsu (2005, 184–185). to him and others, this strict hierarchy is strong on almost all Japanese sports teams. the popular Japanese sportswriter tamaki explains: “Regardless of whether the coach and player are professionals or amateurs, relationships in the Japanese sports world are bound by strong top-down hierarchical relationships of command and obedience, such as the relationship between senior and junior and the relationship between teacher and pupil” (1999, 64). to Masumoto, today’s school sports clubs connect this “rank and file” mentality and “winning is everything” mentality with the “spirit culture of the fighting body” (tatakai shintai no seishin bunka) of Japan’s pre-war military (2001, 277). to these authors, taibatsu furthers a “top-down vertical hierarchy” (jōikatatsu jōgekankei) found on Japanese sports teams. Many of my own informants agree that taibatsu is related to such “strict hierarchy.” they tell me that taibatsu was an “everyday” (nichijōteki) occurrence in their physical education classes and in middle and high school sports clubs, especially soccer, basketball, volleyball, and baseball. During long-term (2008–2009) fieldwork i completed with a tokyo-area university basketball club, which included both men’s and women’s teams and which i call “Mu,” i was able to discuss issues relating to taibatsu on many occasions. Coach K, the head coach of the teams i observed, did not himself believe in using taibatsu—i never saw him strike a player in the year that i observed the teams he coached—but many players on his teams had been the recipients of taibatsu during middle and high school, and the older players on the team did occasionally strike the younger players. Most of these basketball players told me they had once played under “strict” high school coaches who structured their sports clubs hierarchically. these “authoritarian coaches” allowed a “strict” vertical hierarchy to develop and allowed senior members of the team to discipline and punish younger players in severe ways. Many informants explained that college sports training was “much less strict” than high school sports training. this was especially true in terms of the numbers of hours at practice: one player’s high school basketball team had practiced three times as many hours per week (thirty-six hours) as his university team (twelve hours) did.18 He said that both coaches and 17  Similarly, according to tucker and Ross (2005), Donald Black’s legal theory of social control proves that “certain structural features of family life foster parental violence” (2005, 279), including corporal punishment. the more “hierarchical” a family is, they believe, the more likely that parents will use corporal punishment. 18  in his longitudinal study of “burnout” in Japanese sports, Yokota concluded that, “when

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

141

senior teammates struck him often. Another informant described his high school coach as being “extremely strict, like an old-style (mukashinagara) coach” who used “the law of the fist” (tekken seisai).” Such informants saw taibatsu as a “traditional” aspect of Japanese sports coaching pedagogy. Although statistics suggest that taibatsu is most common in male domains, used primarily by Japanese men on Japanese boys (see chapter 3), strict hierarchies and taibatsu are not as uncommon in Japanese women’s sports as one might think. for example, one female basketball player and informant, whose nickname was Sara, told me that during her tenure on a high school basketball team she was consistently struck by her coach in a ritual called “baseball butt bat” (ketsu batto).19 Sara had attended a high school in tokyo that i give the pseudonym “Su,” one of Japan’s most successful high school basketball teams for girls. the Su women’s team won or placed highly in the All-Japan High School Basketball Championships (Intahai) almost every year. Sara and another former Su High player, called Moa, both excelled at Mu as players. (At the time i did my fieldwork, Moa was an Assistant Coach to Coach K on the Mu Women’s team.) for both Sara and Moa, outstanding play at Su High undoubtedly resulted in being recruited to play basketball at Mu. Moa explained that the Su High School basketball coach was well known in the Japanese basketball world for being “extremely strict” (sōtō kibishii). She said that this coach had a reputation for making even the best players sit on the bench and watch the game if they could not perform according to her wishes. When i asked Moa for a specific definition of what the term “kibishii” meant, she said the term meant something like the “demand that players do what she said until they got it right” (dekiru made yaraseru).20 She also explained that she used the term kibishii in a positive sense: “it is precisely because our high school coach was kibishii that we came together as a team. Looking back i think that was why she was kibishii in the first place, so i can approve of her coaching style now.”21 By and large, though, “strictness” is perceived to be characteristic of male sports in Japan, especially baseball and basketball. Male informants echoed the sentiment that “strict” high school coaches created tough students continue to participate in sports club activities, the desire to improve themselves decreases, their emotional exhaustion increases and the relationship between teammates worsens” (2002, 427). 19  Waldstein (2012) also reports that the New York Yankee pitcher Kuroda was “molded by pain,” including the use of ketsu batto. 20  Su’s coach had led the girl’s basketball team for over three decades under the coaching theory of “run, jump, defend,” and the motto of “unlimited effort” (mugen na dōryoku). 21  Assistant Coach Moa often told me that she did not think the Mu Women’s team was playing hard enough. to Moa, the team did not fight hard enough for rebounds or dive for loose balls, signifying that they had a “weak spirit” (ki ga yowai).

142

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

training environments and that college sports were comparatively lenient. Some informants even said that the skills of male players became poorer at the college level because basketball practices there were not as long or as severe as in high school practices. for example, an “old boy” of the Mu club called ito said that male players from Noshiro High School, a “powerhouse” of boy’s basketball in northern Japan, played especially poorly after they entered Mu because practices were not “strict enough for them.” tatsu was a male Mu player who had played at Noshiro. Like many Mu players from Northern Japan, he said that there was nothing else to do in the winters but play basketball or ski. “if the snow is so high that it buries school buses, what else can you do but stay and play inside?” he asked me with a smile. tatsu also chose basketball because he longed to be like tabuse Yuta, the only male Japanese basketball player to ever make a serious attempt at joining a professional basketball team in the National Basketball Association (NBA). At the time tatsu was growing up, tabuse was leading Noshiro to a remarkable feat for any high school team, in any sport, in any country: three consecutive national (Intahai) tournament championships. And since Japanese high schools are only grades ten through twelve, this meant that tabuse led his team to a national championship in each season he was a high school student. Nearly all of the best players on the Mu Men’s team came from a handful of Japan’s most renowned high schools for basketball—Nobeoka Gakuen (Miyazaki Prefecture), Ōhori (fukuoka Prefecture), and Hokuriku (fukui Prefecture), and Noshiro—and with few exceptions they said that the coaches at these high schools were significantly more “kibishii” than coaches in college. One informant called Yuji described the challenges of his high school basketball experiences at Hokuriku in this way: “We lived in tiny dorms like they do at Noshiro; it was really kibishii. Our coach mostly coached us on technique (gijutsu), but he also was pretty strict about our private lives (shiseikatsu). He made sure we were doing our homework, and doing proper greetings, and he made us run if we did not.” Yuji attended Hokuriku as a boarding school. He lived with two teammates in a small room arranged for students studying too far away from their parents’ homes to commute.22 the landlord of this dorm was also extremely “strict,” slapping Yuji and his roommates with slippers when they missed curfew. the upperclassmen (sempai) on Yuji’s team were equally “strict”; in addition to carrying their 22  Yuji had come from a line of talented basketball players; both his parents had been “industrial league” (jitsugyōdan) players. Other players told me that his father was well connected in the Japanese basketball world. After he fell into an argument with his high school coach in Saitama, Yuji was able to transfer to Hokuriku through some of his father’s connections. the move turned out to be successful, because in his senior year, Yuji’s team won the Intahai championship.

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

143

bags wherever they went, Yuji was required to remain silent if his sempai ever told a lie. these sempai refused to let him wear certain brands of basketball shorts or shoes; even the length of his shorts was strictly enforced. Yuji was forced to collect every basketball after practice, and he would be beaten viciously if he did not perform this task swiftly enough, often with his fellow underclassmen alongside. in one incident, he said, junior players were lined up and forced to sit in seiza, then punched and kicked repeatedly. these “strict” “senior/junior” (sempai/kohai) relationships were so deeply ingrained in Yuji that he always made sure he “read his sempai’s mind” so he could better serve them. if a sempai unwrapped a rice ball for lunch, he would immediately take the plastic wrapping from him and throw it away on his behalf. He said he might have been beaten if he did not. underscoring the “feudal human relations” (hōkenteki ningen kankei) and “senior absolutism” (sempai zettai shugi) (Yoda 2001, 64) found on many Japanese sports teams, Yuji told me that he had been trained to be the sempai’s “slave” (dorei). He used an expression i often heard used to describe such difficult school- or sports-based hierarchical relationships: “fourth-year emperor, third-year god, second-year commoner, first-year slave” (yon’nen tennō, san’nen kamisama, ni’nen heimin, ichinen dorei). Moa explained that being a sempai’s “slave” even required speaking in the correct manner. “Our sempai taught us how to use words correctly, words that fit each situation. they taught us how to notice when someone needed something, before they had to ask.” Moa was referring to the fact that kohai are often also required to speak to sempai in ritualized polite language, though they were often responded to in condescending or indifferent speech. Yuji put it this way: We had to think about what our sempai were doing at every moment. the point of it, i think, was to get us to learn how to deal with people that are neither our family nor our friends. Sempai are not friends; they are sempai. Most of the time we use tameguchi (literally, “words that are neither polite nor degrading”) with our friends, but we cannot use these with sempai. We learned to always treat them with a greater respect.

Senior-to-Junior Discipline, a “Sense of Team-ness,” and the Desire to Establish and Maintain Hierarchy and Order

interestingly, then, it was not the coaches who “controlled” the younger players most; rather, it was the upperclassmen. the coaches, Yuji explained, handed the practice “menu” to the captain, remained silent most of the practice, and only spoke up if the team made a serious mistake. (in games, coaches spoke up more.) Otherwise, upperclassmen ran practices almost all by themselves, disciplining underclassmen as they saw fit.

144

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

Although this senior-to-junior discipline was extremely strict, Yuji looked back on his high school team with nostalgia. He said that communal living and shared struggles helped to build team camaraderie, illustrating his point with a rhetorical question: “Don’t you love it when you just look at your teammate on the court and know exactly what he is thinking? this Mu team is different. there are still a lot of people playing for themselves.” He noted that Hokuriku had been successful because there had been no “ball hogs”: players who try and score as many individual points as possible. Everyone believed in the “team system” and had prioritized team victory over individual accomplishment. in this respect Yuji was contrasting Hokuriku with his Mu team, which he said had too many “individuals” (kojin). to Yuji, sempai/kohai relations and the term kibishii were associated with a strong “sense of team-ness” (chimu-tte kanji) and he suspected that the lack of “team-ness” on Mu was the reason the team was not winning as often as Hokuriku had.23 this sense of “team-ness” suggests a common desire that many Japanese athletes—indeed, many Japanese people—have: to be part of an orderly, harmonious team (group) in which one’s role is clearly defined. this is perhaps why “strict hierarchy,” even when it includes taibatsu, is not always perceived in such a negative light. So long as an individual feels that their presence within the group has purpose, they will be content or at least willing to obey the orders of their seniors. the importance of belonging to a group may also explain why taibatsu is perceived to uphold certain “traditional” Japanese values, such as hierarchy and order. in Japanese schools and sports, taibatsu is sometimes used to control, order, or stabilize what may be seen as an “unstable” group of adolescents or young adults. in fact, many Japanese teachers see youth as a liminal group substantively unlike that of children or adults, which needs to be molded into adults. in 2011, after a short lecture i delivered at Kobe university, one law student illustrated this point for me as he explained his experiences with middle school taibatsu. He took a marker and began drawing a circle on the dry erase board toward the front of the classroom. Outside that circle he drew a stick figure, and then he said, “Taibatsu is used to get this person back into the circle.” Beyond Culturalism the aforementioned culturalist arguments used to explain taibatsu might at first glance seem rather compelling, but most of them exhibit relatively little supporting evidence. for example, groupism is a common mentality 23  Later in the season, Yuji broke his wrist in practice when he slammed into the basketball goal. He had to have surgery and missed all of the team’s league games, but he still cheered for his teammates from the sidelines, managing to clap with one hand on his arm cast.

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

145

for sports teams in any nation; winning is a top priority, and in some cases the top priority, for sports coaches wherever they lead; and spiritual approaches, strict vertical hierarchy, and peer discipline are quite commonly found on various sports teams around the world. furthermore, although many observers of Japanese education and sports have put forward “culturalist” arguments to explain the existence and persistence of taibatsu, we should not be convinced by arguments that essentialize Japanese culture and reduce it to an imagined entity, because such “imagined communities” (Anderson 1983) betray the rich diversity clearly evident within Japanese society and culture. for example, Emori’s (1989) aforementioned argument about taibatsu’s connection to the Buddhist idea of shugyō offers an overly simplistic culturalist explanation for the use of taibatsu. if anything, it seems more likely that shugyō was simply the rarified religious rhetoric that was used to rationalize the use of taibatsu or other rigid disciplinary regimes of that time. invoking “ascetic practice” helped educators justify their controversial actions and helped recipients believe that their bodily sacrifice had a higher purpose. Emori’s dichotomous categorization of “Japanese versus Western perspectives of the body” also shows that, although there have been a few scholars who have bucked the trend,24 many of the aforementioned culturalist views depend upon imprecise imaginations of “the West” or “the Western sporting body.” they assume that all Western sporting bodies are the same just as they assume that all Japanese sporting bodies are the same. However, as table 5.1 shows, just as there is no single “Japanese” body type, no single “Japanese” view of the body, and no single “Japanese” opinion of taibatsu, no such things exist in the West, either. the rich 24 

Some Japanese sports scholars who do not take such ideas of “Japaneseness” for granted have detailed the historical roots or specific social contexts in which this strong sense of shared cultural identity was formed (see, e.g., Komuku 1994; Ariyama 1997; inagaki 2001; Sogawa 2005, 2006). Ariyama (1997), for example, “excavated” the historical context in which the All-Japan High School Baseball Championships (Kōshien) developed. Komuku also explains how Kōshien reproduces “Japaneseness,” writing, “Kōshien has been called a national event . . . it is not just simply a sporting event, [though]. Kōshien has become a model for the Japanese of the basis of traditional values . . . through Kōshien Japanese people are reeducated and realize their identities as Japanese people” (1991, 174). Komuku argues that “Kōshien culture” supports “Japanese culture” and functions to “form” Japaneseness (163). He also argues that the Asahi Shimbun and other mass media outlets have used high school baseball in order to create an ideal sense of what it means to be Japanese. Similarly, though many Japanese scholars who study Japanese sports construct a simplistic and monolithic West to use for comparison, inagaki acknowledges the problems that come from envisioning such a monolithic “Western sports culture” (2001, 95). He disputes the use of “Western sports culture” as the basis for cultural comparison, arguing that “the more you clarify the uniqueness of a culture, the more it becomes unsuitable to call things ‘East’ or ‘West,’ and such concepts soon after dissolve” (97).

René Descartes france, 1596–1650 a.d.

italy, 1452–1519 a.d.

Leonardo da Vinci

Various, 1100–1500 the Scholastics saw the human body as “evil” because it was associated with “carnal vice” a.d. (Hughson 2009, 33). At this time, Christian ideas were influencing ideas of the body.

Scholastics

italy and England, da feltre (1378– 1446 a.d.), Ascham (1515–1568), Elyot (1490–1546)

Rome, 106–43 b.C.

Cicero

English and italian Humanists

Greece, 638–558 b.C.

Solon

Descartes saw the body as “machine-like but not a machine per se.” this was a break from humanistic holism. the oft-quoted statement, “i think therefore i am,” reveals Descartes’ belief that the mind rules the body/soul.

Da Vinci saw the body as a machine, or anatomical art. He had a “scientific” understanding of the human body before “science” as a formal pursuit existed. “Art” was “science” at this time, and da Vinci seamlessly blended the two. He followed the Greeks in this holistic view of human intellectual inquiry.

Humanists “valued corporal existence and recommended instruction on physical exercise and games in their programmes for the development of the well-rounded individual,” and da feltre saw sports as education for the purposes of citizenship and creating well-rounded humans (Hughson 2009, 39). Elyot saw violence as anathema to education, which he believed was the real purpose of sports (Hughson 2009, 39).

for Cicero, Roman gladiatorial contests showed fighters’ discipline and loyalty to their masters and “gave the audience a view of the old Roman soldier spirit” (Hughson 2009, 25).

Solon said, “Every boy should be taught to swim and read” (Hughson 2009, 24). this was the foundation of Western humanistic holism or humanistic education and is similar to the Japanese idea of “bunburyōdō,” which can be translated as “dexterity with both sword and pen.”

Plato believed that physical education should be aimed at producing healthy soldiers, that “my body is everyone’s body” (Hughson 2009, 22). He based his argument on a hierarchical view that the body is inferior to the soul (mind) and therefore must be trained. this idea set the stage for Descartes’ mind/body split, or Cartesian dualism.

Greece, 428/7– 348/7 b.C.

Plato

Belief regarding the purpose(s) of sports

the Greeks used sports to seek “arête”—an amalgam of “virtue, skill, prowess, pride, excellence, valor, and nobility . . . a quest for perfection”—so that Zeus would look upon them favorably. they also used sports to maintain social order (Hughson 2009, 20).

Place and time

Ancient Greeks Ancient Greece

Thinker

table 5.1 Historical Philosophies of the Sporting Body in the Western World

Victorian Britain, Spencer (1820– 1903), Arnold (1822–1888), Shaw (1856–1950), and Pater (1839–1894)

the Metaphysical Club was founded at Harvard in 1872 by pragmatists Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, and Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce and James in particular believed in mindbody unison, rather than Cartesian dualism (Mechikoff 2009, 255). Around this time, sports were increasingly seen as a way of overcoming new health problems associated with urbanization and city life, as well as a way to mitigate the moral corruption that America’s new cities were said to incubate (Mechikoff 2009, 267). this was therefore the first time that American sports were discussed by Americans as holding the potential to build character, manliness, discipline, and other virtues (Mechikoff 2009, 272).

Building on the English Humanists, who had begun to see sports as holding educational potential, various Victorians made the link more explicit. Spencer wrote, “the sportive activities to which the instincts impel, are essential to bodily welfare. Whoever forbids them, forbids the divinely appointed means to physical development” ([1860] 1993, 172). Arnold advocated “muscular Christianity,” though not to the extent that he was portrayed in Tom Brown’s Schooldays (Hughes 1857). Arnold was not a fan of organized sports or games, but instead of “recreation” for “pure play” (Hughson 2009, 29). He wanted to train the mind and soul, not necessarily the body, to achieve morality. Although Arnold is often credited with spreading “muscular Christianity” in modern sports, it was actually his students at Rugby School who did much of this work (Mangan 1981, 16–18). Arnold wanted to reconcile Greek thought with Christianity and was later labeled as a “muscular Christian,” while Pater represented a “muscular pagan” (Hughson 2009, 29). Pater was more concerned with sports as art or culture, and sport to Pater was not about Christian ideas of “moral goodness.” Meanwhile, Shaw was altogether critical of “sports as education” rhetoric, which was popular at the time. He said that, in reality, sports are violent and argued that sports should be used only to tire out young boys so that they cannot cause mischief (Mangan 1986).

Romantic poets conceived of morality as a product of experience and the bodily senses; it was not imperial Great from the realm of the mind. Blake wrote: “Surrender to your instinct, intuition and imagination!” Britain, Wordsand Shelley wrote: ”Poetry is . . . divine . . . [it] comprehends all science” (Hughson 2009, 41). worth (1770– 1850), Coleridge (1772–1834), Blake (1757–1827), Shelley (1792–1822)

1872 Nineteenthcentury American Pragmatists, especially members of the Metaphysical Club

Victorians (Spencer, Arnold, Shaw, Pater)

Romantic Poets and Artists (Wordsworth, Coleridge, Blake, Shelley)

Around this time, the term “physical culture” (leibesubungen) was increasingly “used in medical inquiry to describe the healthy development of the human body through physical exercise” (Hughson 2009, 36). (this term was later borrowed by Japan as “shintai bunka”.) Hitler wanted to develop such “physical culture” to display Germany’s “racial superiority.”

Sports as “physical exercise,” “human movement,” or “kinesiology.”

Many scholars now see “sports as culture” or “sports as physical culture,” although in the uS this idea has developed differently from Germany in that it has been associated with bodybuilding rather than sports science or sports medicine. for example, Park argues that “when culture is conceived as a set of shared conventions by which human beings orient themselves to the world and to each other, give meaning to their existence, and engage in a whole range of symbolic interactions, the importance of studying games and sports in historical contexts becomes apparent” (Park 1983, 99). Others believe that “sports should be done for sport’s sake” or that sports should not blindly accept scientific approaches. Hoberman (1992), for example, sees “science” as a system created by humans, a system that cannot and should not take over our lives. He argues that there is an obsession today with sports performance and productivity that is to the detriment of “sports as culture” or “sports as morality-inducing activities.” Now sports are simply tools for building “mortal engines,” no matter the cost (1–32). these tools are “dehumanizing,” he argues, because people no longer think about the moral relevance of sport. the example he most compellingly employs is steroid use, where the “scientific” justification of building one’s muscle blinds the user to various personal and social problems caused by drug abuse.

1920s and 1930s Germany

today

today

techno-scientific-based sports medical doctors and researchers

Sports researchers working in “hard science” fields

Sports researchers working in humanities, arts, and “soft science” fields

Sources: Hughes 1857; Spencer [1860] 1993; Park 1983; Mangan 1986; Hoberman 1992; Hughson 2009; Mechikoff 2009.

Belief regarding the purpose(s) of sports

Place and time

Thinker

table 5.1 (continued)

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

149

historical diversity of Western opinion regarding the “sporting body” undermines any claim to homogeneity. the assertion that “character development” through sports is a uniquely Japanese phenomenon, as teachers like Oki assert, is equally unfounded. the goal of character development in or through “physical cultural activities” (e.g., martial arts, physical education, sports) is actually rather widespread among the sporting nations of the world. the idea of “character development through sports” first originated institutionally in the elite “public schools” of the united Kingdom and was adopted and employed in nineteenth- and twentieth-century America and Japan, among other nations (Mangan (1986, 2003).25 initially, sports were used in British public schools to cultivate dutiful, male officials capable of protecting the interests of the British Empire in far-flung colonies, and many nations have come to use sports for similarly imperialistic or nationalistic purposes. Although Japan had already been practicing character development through the martial arts, she incorporated character development through sports during her own, fast-paced program of modernization in the late nineteenth century. Sports were introduced to Japan around the time it adopted a new and “Western” education system in the Meiji Period (1868–1912). they were quickly adapted, spread, and controlled by this education system (Guttman and thompson 2001; tamaki 1999; Katsuta 2002). the idea that sports could cultivate character was a byproduct of this introduction. As in the united Kingdom, sports and physical education were at the time believed to produce healthy, able bodies for Japan’s imperial project. this belief was applied in both the military and industry, and, like the united Kingdom, mostly involved boys. in Japan today, “character” (jinkaku, or ningensei) has a lot to do with conforming to social demands, which is actually a rather widespread desire among educators in a variety of nations. in Japan, “character development,” which can also be referred to as “human formation” (ningen keisei), “personality formation” (jinkaku keisei), or “character education” (jinkaku kyōiku), implies learning how to “think of others” and how to fit into the social group. tsukuba university sociology of education professor Kadowaki Atsushi therefore argues that Japanese children learn “social 25  in fact, ikeda’s book, Jiyu to kiritsu: Igirisu to gakkō (Freedom and Discipline: Schools in England), which was initially published in Japan in 1949, showed the Japanese people how discipline could cultivate gentlemen. Based on firsthand experiences—ikeda grew up in England and attended Cambridge—this book showed how the culture of the English public school cultivated a sense of liberty within a strong disciplinarian system. Clearly this idea resonated among many Japanese educators at that time, and it appears that it still does; Goodman found that the book was being read by Japanese children as late as the 1990s ([1992] 2010, 128).

150

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

power” (shakairyoku) through sports, or, “how to read other people’s feelings and offer sympathies” (quoted in Nagai 2004, 160). Such “social power” is a culturally desirable characteristic encouraged by Japanese society, but not uniquely so. thinking of others and conforming to social demands are relatively universal expectations among human adults. if there is a difference between character development in Japan and character development in “the rest of the world” (kaigai), it is only one of degree. if anything, the current goal of “character development” in Japanese sports is likely the product not of a “unique Japanese culture” or “Japanese tradition” but of a peculiar institutional tendency to appoint teachers to coach school sports clubs who have little or no knowledge about the sport they are hired to coach. Although not always the case, many Japanese sports coaches have rarely played the sport they are coaching, because they are schoolteachers expected to coach an extracurricular sports team as an extension of their classroom teaching duties. As a result, these teacher-coaches can impart neither practical sports skills nor practical sports techniques, which means they feel they are only truly qualified to teach moral lessons. “Character development through Japanese sports” may therefore appear to be a cultural phenomenon, and some like Oki might judge its prevalence in Japanese sports to be due to “cultural factors,” but it is more likely a function of the longstanding institutional decision to require Japanese classroom teachers to also act as sports coaches. Character lessons are something these teachers know they can teach with some authority, which cannot always be said for the sport they are entrusted to coach. Nihonjinron: Myths of a Monolithic Culture

Contrary to these attempts to attribute the existence of various phenomena in Japan to “Japanese culture,” culture is just one of many factors influencing educational disciplinary practices in Japanese schools and sports today. unfortunately, as we have seen, culturalist explanations disproportionately dominate Japan’s discourses of discipline, limiting our opportunity to better understand the many remarkable transitions in taibatsu histories, the various contexts in which the practice is manifest today, and the rich ethical debate over Japanese sports and classroom pedagogy. these culturalist assertions will not surprise dedicated Japanophiles; they are part of what are known as nihonjinron.26 Nihonjinron are perhaps best understood as articulations of “cultural nationalism” (Yoshino 1992), 26  Other terms that refer to similar and often interchangeable discourses are “theories of Japan” (nihonron), “theories of Japanese society” (nihon shakairon), and “theories of Japanese culture” (nihon bunkaron).

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

151

usually positive theories or arguments that emphasize the uniqueness— and sometimes superiority—of Japanese ethnicity or race, culture, society, or mentality.27 Common examples of nihonjinron include assertions of a unique form of Japanese “groupism,” vertical hierarchal relations, and shared ways of thinking and communication that “only Japanese people can understand” (see, e.g., Nakane 1973; Dale 1990; Yoshino 1992; Befu 2001; Gudykunst and Nishida 2004). the term “unique” has been used to describe a Japanese artistic sense (Sasaki 2010), brain structure (tsunoda 1985), and economics (Economist 2006), among other things. the existence of the four seasons and the swift transitions between them are said to color the “Japanese way of thinking” (Ackerman 1996). the geographical isolation of this “island nation” (shimaguni) has justified Japanese isolation and, at times, insularity (ivy 1995, 1). Even the historical trend of wet rice cultivation, which required the frequent sharing of an ox to plow the fields, was said to have fostered a “uniquely Japanese” group- or community-first mentality (Befu 2001, 19). Nihonjinron can also be understood as “push backs” against the forces of what their proponents perceive as Western imperialism or neocolonialism, passionate rejections of the Other in order to identify (or re-identify) the Self. Since formal, institutionalized religion is not always the first way that modern Japanese construct their identities, the act of choosing one’s cultural or ethnic identity by reproducing or consuming nihonjinron may be the most important choice modern Japanese make to identify themselves as Japanese (see Wood 2011, 89). in other words, the Japanese have deployed such “culturalist” arguments in an attempt to take control of the narrative of what constitutes their Japaneseness. After all, Western scholars, journalists, and travel writers have long sought to define Japaneseness themselves, likely vexing Japanese who see themselves, or wish to see themselves, in rather different terms.28 in a sort of battle of “cultural nationalism,” such Japanese compare themselves not with other Japanese, but with Others of the West, often Others from the united States, in order to emphasize their ethnically Japanese 27  Yoshino (1992) argues that certain products of cultural nationalism were often produced by the Japanese government and Japanese companies not just for foreigners to read but also for the Japanese to learn how to better express the “heart” of their own Japaneseness when interacting with foreigners. for example, the Ministry of international trade and industry produced the magazine, Look Japan. 28  there are some foreign scholars (see, e.g., Mcfarlane 2007) who continue to argue that it is Japan’s “unique culture” that offers the best explanation for various social phenomena, although they comprise only a minority. Such scholars wrongly assume that this “culture” is static and unchanging, and they believe that Japan is “uniquely unique” among the nations of the world.

152

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

Self, traditional culture, cultural uniqueness, or tradition of Japan. the prevalence of culturalist arguments in Japanese sports research may exist because many Japanese see sports as international “battles,” conceptualized in ethno-nationalistic terms, thus cultural explanations seem most appealing to researchers (see, e.g., Shukert 2002; Miller 2011b). this idea that sports are ultimately realms for international competition may also explain why there appear to be more “culturalist” arguments made about taibatsu in Japanese sports than about taibatsu in Japanese schools. Meanwhile, in the united States, as in other multicultural nations, this process of “Othering-to-identify-the-Self” often takes place within its own borders, with people emphasizing how their own race, creed, class, or religion distinguishes them from those who are national compatriots but racial, ethnic, or religious “Others” (in the united States these assertions have lately been sensationalized by the media as “the culture wars” of “class warfare”). Many Japanese have chosen to undertake this “Othering” on an international basis, focusing on the ways in which they are a unique people, but in the process they conveniently ignore the various racial, class, and religious differences within Japan’s own borders. Of course, even if “Japanese culture” were in fact monolithic and unchanging, and even if it were incomprehensibly “unique” among the cultures of the world, it would neither cause nor explain taibatsu. While it may not be unique that Japanese deploy such culturalist arguments to explain sensitive social issues such as corporal punishment, especially since the Japanese population is highly literate and there is a large industry associated with the explanation of Japanese youth problems (Goodman, imoto and toivonen 2011),29 “Japanese culture” cannot be blamed for taibatsu’s existence, just as we cannot blame “American culture” for the continued existence of corporal punishment in its many homes, schools, and sports. Similar, though perhaps not identical, forms of physical punishment continue to happen all over the world, as they have for many centuries, so if it is “culture” that causes “corporal punishment,” it is “human culture.” in a 1996 article in Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Benjamin Hill called for a “cultural interpretation of rule-related behavior in Japanese schools” (92) echoing Benedict in arguing that there was a “distinctly Japanese pattern” in people’s reactions to the use of physical discipline: interviewing Japanese teachers and non-teachers, i encountered a broad range of opinions regarding the use of physical punishment in child 29  the problem is that culturalist explanations do not solve the problem so much as create it (Goodman, imoto, and toivonen 2011). “Culture” can help sell the importance of a “social problem” and bring it to our attention, but it seldom helps us better understand the problem itself.

Purported Causes and Plural Cultures

153

rearing, from forthright advocacy to vehement opposition. the variety of opinion is similar to what i would expect from Americans. But when Japanese are asked how they would react to acts of corporal punishment in schools, a distinctly Japanese pattern emerges. Whereas Americans recognize the prerogative of parents in deciding how children should be disciplined, Japanese recognize a similar prerogative of teachers and hesitate to deny a teacher’s right to use taibatsu, even when personally opposed to corporal punishment. (104, my italics)

in fact, as this book has shown, there are a significant number of people in Japan whose attitudes toward school taibatsu do not follow such a “distinctly Japanese pattern.” As we saw in chapter 4, many vocally protest or vehemently deny a teacher’s right to use taibatsu. As we saw in chapter 2, people have protested against taibatsu have for over a century. As we saw in chapter 3, when the practice is used, it is used in a variety of contexts and in tandem with other disciplinary methods. the rich historical debate between taibatsu advocates and taibatsu opponents, which clearly continues today, undermines the claim that discipline in Japan is “culturally” different from discipline in the “West,” as scholars such as Hill would have it. the continuing debates over taibatsu make it too difficult to say that there is only one “distinctly Japanese pattern” of discipline. Although many scholars have insisted that taibatsu exists because of something intrinsically Japanese, or that it can be explained by something inherent in Japanese culture, there is a better, if however more complex, interpretation, as we will see in the next and final chapter.

CHAPtER 6

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse “Grandpa cracked the whip down/It stung a long, long time Daddy picked that whip up/Cracked that back of mine In a moment of confusion/Got a grip on me I wonder how that whip now/Is in the hand I see.” —Lyrics from “Chains” by Railroad Earth

The Importance of Historical and Cross-Cultural Analysis the many discourses of discipline encircling the term taibatsu have shaped the way that Japanese people view their pedagogies, their education system, and their sports culture. these discourses include the ways that foreigners as well as Japanese have discussed taibatsu. in certain cases, most notably Professor Murray’s introduction to Japan of New Jersey’s early anti-taibatsu laws, the things that foreigners have said about physical punishment have had significant influence on the course of Japanese educational history. After all, taibatsu would not likely have been made illegal in Meiji Japan without Professor Murray. Perhaps it is not terribly surprising, then, that many Japanese locked in the aforementioned culturalist mindset look overseas for comparisons in order to strengthen their explanations for why taibatsu exists. if you believe that all Japanese are the same, act the same, and think the same, then it makes sense to ignore historically-informed explanations for why taibatsu exists and jump right to explanations that emphasize the aspects of Japanese culture that make it “uniquely different” when compared with other cultures. these aspects could include culturally Japanese conceptions of the body, mind, or spirit. As a result, in many cases the debate over discipline has been simplistically shoehorned into two polarized camps—a rigid, disciplinarian, and “Japanese” camp, and a lenient, accommodating, and “Western” camp. in introducing a variety of voices in this book, including those of Japanese students, athletes, teachers, coaches, and scholars, i have tried to transcend these simplistic, dichotomous understandings of taibatsu because such cross-cultural comparisons are incomplete if not outright inaccurate, and because these assertions of cultural uniqueness mostly lead nowhere.

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

155

Comparing cross-culturally is simply not enough, especially when it is undertaken with limited precision. Such comparisons generally lead to misrepresentations about what “culture” means. there is as much diversity of thought, opinion, and practice in Japan as in any other nation, and to say otherwise only serves to reinforce powerful, enduring stereotypes, such as the belief that the Japanese are a homogenous race of people who all think and act the same. french historian, philosopher, and social theorist Michel foucault left a major mark on the social sciences, to simplify a complex theoretical project, by insisting that we “historicize” social phenomena in order to examine the nature of power and social change on a deeper level. Historicizing taibatsu—that is, showing how various actors have discussed taibatsu at various points throughout Japanese history—has been a central aim of this book, precisely because such simplistic cross-cultural comparisons only tell us part of the story. in this final chapter, i close by offering a few interpretations of what taibatsu means, building primarily on foucault’s influential body of work. first, though, i show how Emile Durkheim accurately theorized punishment as a social ritual that creates strong bonds of trust between inflictor and recipient. then i show how the “ecological” nature of taibatsu suggests that the very definition of “power” might be best understood in local, contextualized terms. finally, i explore the foucauldian relationship between power and discourse—specifically power in a “productive” sense—to show how taibatsu as an “apparatus of power” disciplines through the body, causing both bodies and minds to express themselves in accordance with the system’s demands. While there are many sociological theories that might be used to interpret taibatsu’s meaning, foucault’s stands out because it shows how, through the “subjectification” of the human body, taibatsu routinizes individual behavior and convinces many observers and those in the next generation to believe that the use of taibatsu is both educationally effective and morally justified. this explains the mechanism by which various young Japanese come to approve of taibatsu in such great numbers; it is also why they choose to use taibatsu when they become parents and educators themselves. Why should we care about what foucault might have said about taibatsu? it is important to remember that Japanese perceptions of what taibatsu is and whether it is ethical or not (“emic accounts,” from the linguistic term, “phonemic”) are different from scholarly theories of what taibatsu means or symbolizes (“etic accounts,” from the linguistic term, “phonetic”). Applying foucault’s work, especially his ideas of “power relations,” “violent relationships,” and “bio-power,” can help us better interpret “how taibatsu works” in Japanese society, that is, it can help us cultivate a

156

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

strong “etic” account of taibatsu, but this application is only possible—and potentially profitable—now that we have sufficiently seen how the Japanese themselves perceive the practice. Theories of Power, Violence, and the Body Durkheimian Ritual Bonds and the Essential “Power” of Taibatsu

What exactly does the existence of “corporal punishment” in Japanese schools and sports tell us about “power”? in many cases, taibatsu might well be interpreted as a ritual that forges a bond between inflictor and recipient. Durkheim (1938) thought that punishments brought people together, strengthened their sense of shared values, and helped to forge a common identity because they were social rituals. Based on statistical data gathered from the Japan General Social Survey (JGSS), the Japanese sociologist of education iwai draws on Durkheim in his assertion that taibatsu has come to function as a ritual1 that maintains interpersonal ties and symbolizes hierarchal relations as well as “corrects action” (2008a, 326– 327).2 in this way, taibatsu can establish “ritual bonds” of trust.3 the logic behind such reasoning is as follows: since there are laws against the use of taibatsu, the relationship between student and teacher becomes a matter of trust. Knowing that the act is unlawful, for the taibatsu to “work” the student must trust that taibatsu is indeed, as the educator insists, for “his own good,” and the teacher must equally trust that the student will not reveal his illegal action to higher authorities. this theory of taibatsu as ritual bond hints at taibatsu’s essential “power”: it can function as “violence” by establishing and maintaining the existing hierarchy or social order, but advocates can, when pressed, simply explain it away as “education” or “love” done for the interest of the child.4

1  iwai uses Goffman’s definition of ritual: “Among members of a group, something that creates a sense of solidarity, and then strengthens this sense of solidarity through [social] interactions” (2008a, 314). 2  iwai concludes that “many people are convinced that taibatsu cannot be stopped,” noting that more than half the Japanese population approves of taibatsu, regardless of whether it is used by teachers or parents (2008a, 313). 3  Collins also shows that corporal punishment creates a “ritual bond between parent and child,” defining ritual as “an interaction that creates or enforces feelings of social membership, drawing boundaries between insiders and outsiders and setting moral standards for members to show their loyalty to the group and its symbols” (2005, 208). finally, he suggests that sports are the “main forum of large-scale, intense ritualistic group assembly in modern society” (213). 4  On the other hand, terasaki (2009) argues that it is a dangerous bet to use taibatsu because doing so could also compromise this “trust relationship” between teacher and student.

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

157

Taibatsu, “Abuse,” and the Situational Meaning of “Power”

the ability to speak about physical discipline in a positive light, all the while knowing that its use serves the same function as “violence,” also highlights the “power” inherent in the privileged position we call “educator.” in fact, debates over the morality and educational value of taibatsu largely hinge on whether one believes that taibatsu represents an “abuse of educator power” or not. Some claim that taibatsu is an example of “abuse” not only of the child but also of the position of “power” guaranteed to a teacher or coach by virtue of their profession (Young 1993, 132).5 However, the point at which taibatsu stops being “discipline” (shitsuke) or “instruction/guidance” (shidō) and becomes “abuse” (gyakutai) (or “violence” [bōryoku]) is subjective, contingent on context and circumstance, and depends upon the intentions and emotional state of the educator as well as the willingness of the recipient to accept the punishment as justified. Some scholars say that the point at which taibatsu stops being “discipline” and becomes “abuse” is when the teacher loses control and stops using taibatsu for the “sake of the child” and instead uses “violence” to satisfy his own “will to power” (see, e.g., imabashi 1986, 2; Shinagawa 1990, 75). Taibatsu cannot always be seen as an “abuse of power” because in Japan, submission to physical punishment may sometimes be viewed as a type of “power” (or perhaps more accurately, “maturity”) in and of itself. indeed, as we have seen, many Japanese students and athletes themselves accept the use of taibatsu as “educational,” showing that they do not consider themselves “victims” of an “abuse of power.” On the contrary, they believe they are beneficiaries of the “love” or at least “guidance” of their senior, coach, or teacher (see, e.g., Shinagawa 1990; Asahi 2006). A teacher’s “dominance” (and use of physical punishment) and a student’s “submission” (and receipt of physical punishment) may therefore, in some cases at least, be seen as part and parcel of each other: an ecological exchange of obedience for instruction, violence for love, and pain for growth. through the pain of punishment, the coach, the player, and perhaps even the very relationship between them, “grow(s).” As a result, a student or athlete who bears such punishment may in these limited cases be considered “stronger” or more “powerful” than a player who is not willing to accept such punishment. Since it is often class leaders and team captains who are the recipients of taibatsu, one might say that it is the student or athlete who is not hit who is “neglected,” rather than the other way around. “Powerful” may thus be an adjective ascribed not only to the “inflictor” of taibatsu, but to the “recipient” of taibatsu as well, because 5  this is especially the case in a society like Japan, which is known to respect its educators and give them more authority than in other countries (Saito 1990, 196).

158

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

accepting such punishment, especially without complaint or resistance, requires a great deal of “strength.” this interpretation suggests that conventional Western understandings of “power” may not fully account for the nuance involved in hierarchical, trust-based relationships in Japan. While the English term “hierarchy” implies the existence of both “the powerful” and “the powerless,” and while in many Western democracies today even the term “hierarchy” can carry a rather negative connotation, perceptions of hierarchy in Japan are not the same. “Hierarchy” is not always viewed in a negative light in Japan, and younger Japanese are in many cases more likely to trust authority figures than are their counterparts in such Western democracies. As we have seen, many of these young people approve of taibatsu because they believe that their seniors are looking out for them, acting in their best interest, and punishing only out of “love.” Foucault, “Power Relations” vs. “Violent Relationships,” and the Productive Nature of “Power”

in the last few decades, definitions and theories of “power” in the social sciences have begun to be rethought, largely as a result of the work of Michel foucault. Rarely, though, has foucault’s great body of scholarship been applied to the study of Japanese classroom or sports education. foucault was skeptical of conventional definitions of “power,” although he chose to highlight the time-specific rather than place-specific aspects of these definitions, writing: “that something called Power, with or without a capital letter, which is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist. Power exists only when it is put into action” (1982, 219). foucault insisted that he did not study “power” per se; rather, he studied the history of “how humans were made into subjects,” or, in another articulation, how a new “economy of power relations” was necessary (219). this “economy,” he believed, needed to start not from a study of those “in power,” but those in resistance to it.6 to foucault, “power relations” were characterized by the “governing” and “structuring” of the “possible field of action of others”; in other words, controlling the possible actions that one could or could not take (1982, 221). Such a conceptualization of power relations supposed that people subjected to power were free and not slaves, and that each individual was “thoroughly recognized and maintained to the very end as a person” (220). it also meant that subjects were free to decide for themselves 6  foucault often turned traditional subjects of social science and humanities inquiry on their heads, studying not the powerful but those resisting it, not the sane but the insane, not the punishers but the punished (see Rabinow 1984).

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

159

whether or not they wanted to do what the system demanded them to do. As a result, those “in power” often need not take any action (e.g., using violence) to keep subjects in line because subjects willingly toe the line without such coercion. this point underscores why he believed that “power relations” were not the same as “violent relationships.” foucault argued that whereas power relations represent “an action upon an action,” a violent relationship “acts upon a body or upon things; it forces, it bends, it breaks on the wheel, it destroys, or it closes the door on all possibilities. its opposite pole can only be passivity” (1982, 220). in other words, violence has only one consequence: silence and inaction. Power relations, on the other hand, depend upon there being at least the potential for resistance by the side subject to power, even if they do not always choose to act on that potential. foucault’s conception of “violent relationships” suggests that students and athletes who are “victims” of physical punishment would, on a day-to-day basis, have very little room to exercise their agency in any meaningful sense, and that their fate as “passive subjects” would be sealed.7 Of course, some acts of taibatsu might represent both a “violent relationship” and “power relations,” depending on the particular incident and circumstances. What we can say with relative certainty is that foucault’s conceptualizations of “violent relationships” and “power relations” explain, in rather compelling terms, why some people advocate taibatsu and why others do not, as well as why some “victims” of taibatsu do not always see themselves as “victims” at all. for example, foucault’s distinction between “violent relationships” and “power relations” helps us better understand how the two polarized ethical camps (detailed in chapter 4) debate the value of taibatsu. those who question the value of taibatsu characterize the practice as a “violent relationship” in which the recipient has no choice but to remain passive in the face of the perpetrating educator, losing self and/or agency in the process. However, those who advocate the value of taibatsu would not characterize the practice as an act of “violence”; rather, they would likely see it as representing (justifiable) “power relations” in 7  Yoneyama also asserts that students, despite their potential agency, accept the hierarchy and develop a “vested interest” in obeying the teacher (1999, 146). Her analysis of the Japanese school and its disciplinary regimes echoes much of foucault’s writing, but unlike foucault, who only hinted at advocacy or resistance, she calls for students to break this passivity. Yoneyama argues that the only real hope for the Japanese high school—a landscape she paints with dark colors—is the students themselves and their ability to exercise their agency to change the system from within (249), or, as foucault might phrase it, turn a “violent relationship” in which the victim has no choice but to be passive into a “power relationship” in which the victim has the choice to resist.

160

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

which the perpetrator of taibatsu not only limits the available options for action the recipient has, but also “produces” certain forms of “positive” behavior (e.g., willful obedience). foucault calls this the “productive nature of power”; “power” routinizes behavior and shapes consciousness regarding what forms of behavior are acceptable or unacceptable, thereby “producing” certain discourses and forms of knowledge (e.g., the idea that obedience to authority is good). this is why foucault would likely have interpreted taibatsu as an action that makes power “real” and shapes subjects’ “reality.” Taibatsu can expand or limit the range of actions that individuals can take. it does this for both the “perpetrator” and “victim” of taibatsu, as well as for onlookers. Having used taibatsu once, the “perpetrator” will be expected to resort to it again (which explains the phenomenon of the “corporal punishment teacher” (taibatsu kyōshi) detailed in the last chapter); having received taibatsu once, the “victim” will likely make choices to avoid such punishment in the future. Similarly, having seen such graphic punishment firsthand, onlookers will also likely adjust their behavior to fit the system’s needs, not wishing to become “victims” themselves. in short, “power,” unlike “violence,” can “produce” action as well as limit it.8 Bio-Power and “Subjectification” through the Body

Although it is unclear whether foucault would have himself categorized taibatsu as part of a “violent relationship” or as an “apparatus” of “power relations,” the case could be made that “power relations” are more effective in terms of shaping human behavior. this is because “power relations” demand that recipients of taibatsu as well as potential recipients of taibatsu actively fall in line with what they think the perpetrator of taibatsu desires them to do, act, or be. foucault calls this phenomenon “bio-power” (Rabinow 1984, 17). “Bio-power” represents one of three ways that foucault believed humans are made “subjects.” the first way was by “dividing practices,” in which people were separated into categories (e.g., separating the sane from the insane by putting the latter in mental hospitals). the second way was by objectifying people as subjects in a process that Rabinow calls “scientific classification.” According to foucault, in this process life, labor, and language were all structured into disciplines. thus, the fact of being alive became objectified in the fields of natural history or biology and the fact 8  foucault’s theory of power here runs counter to the Marxist idea that power is always a repressive force. foucault labels this the “repressive hypothesis” (Rabinow 1984, 301–329). to foucault, “power” can be productive as well as limiting. Power not only curtails freedoms and limits individuals; it also produces certain forms of behavior and causes certain events to occur.

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

161

of laboring became an issue of economics, and over the years that followed their establishment, these disciplines and their discourses achieved a “high degree of internal autonomy and coherence” (Rabinow 1984, 9). these disciplines thereby classified people’s lives, labor, and language scientifically. finally, for foucault people are made into subjects by their own “subjectification” of themselves (Rabinow 1984, 7-11). in this third way, which Rabinow believes is foucault’s “most original contribution” (1011), people apply “technologies of power” upon themselves that “power” would have applied had they not done so. in a sense, they do power’s job for it, so power does not have to. take for example the case of a Japanese high school baseball team. When one player is named captain, he is demonstrating what foucault means by “dividing practices,” because he is “divided” from the rest of his group. When a coach strikes the captain for some reason, he is further divided from the group because he alone is made into a “subject” of violence. When the captain or other players thereafter routinize their own behavior in order to conform to their coach’s wishes, or at least what they perceive to be their coach’s wishes, they are acting out foucault’s third way by turning themselves into subjects.9 this is the process by which “bio-power” works through the human body to make people into “subjects” and routinize their behavior, causing them to internalize the system’s demands and adapt their behavior accordingly. School- or sports-based taibatsu fits well with foucault’s conception of “bio-power” because sports and classroom education represent rather regimented and confined spaces in which educators by definition must control bodies and force them to do (or not do) certain actions (Burstyn 1999, 32). the body is thus a key part of this equation. “Bio-power” creates a mechanism that routinizes behavior as people “not in positions of power” begin to adapt their behavior and move their bodies in line with what those “in power” would want. foucault explains: “the body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out 9  Bourdieu’s idea of “symbolic violence” is similar. to Bourdieu (1991), “symbolic violence” refers to the imposition of ways of thinking and perception upon the “powerless” or “less powerful.” these “powerless” people then take this existing social order to be just and right. “Symbolic violence” might be seen as more “powerful” than actual physical violence in that it is subtle and embedded in the everyday modes of action and structures of cognition of individuals. However, taibatsu should not be understood as “symbolic violence,” at least not as the primary analysis. the regimes of discipline that taibatsu is often associated with might be considered “symbolic violence,” but the act of taibatsu itself is actual “physical violence.” Taibatsu does of course signify a “symbolic” expression of “power,” and these symbolic repercussions are no doubt significant, but the physical aspect of the act cannot be disregarded or downplayed.

162

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

its tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs” (quoted in Rabinow 1984, 173). in short, “power relations” use taibatsu or other examples of “violence” to control bodies, but also to control minds. “Bio-power” can thus explain why some people remember their taibatsu experiences through rose-colored glasses. As we have seen throughout this book, many people who make arguments advocating the use of taibatsu today are former recipients of taibatsu themselves. Many of these people have come to believe that current successes in their lives are chiefly due to the discipline that taibatsu (and other forms of “strict, hard training” once instilled). Even many years later, recipients of taibatsu are, as foucault would have predicted, “deploying their bodily actions voluntarily . . . in accordance with the system’s needs (quoted in Burstyn 1999, 32). Silence, Words, and Actions: How Discourses of Discipline Are “Powerful” in Their Own Right foucault’s intellectual project was to contextualize and historicize such voluntary bodily actions in order to better understand them, situating “concrete systems of punishment . . . in their fields of operation” (Rabinow 1984, 170, 172). Based on the above contextualized and historicized account of taibatsu, which has attempted to “situate the system” of “corporal punishment” in Japan’s schools and sports “in their fields of operation,” we have been able to see that the act of taibatsu has significantly influenced Japan’s discourses of discipline, and that the reverse has also been true. No doubt the act of striking a child matters much, but the words people use—and the connotations they carry—also matter because they reveal how people feel about the punishment of the body, why they think it happens, and whether they think it is right or wrong.10 Just as the act of taibatsu has produced various discourses of discipline, these discourses of discipline have likewise shaped Japanese consciousness, both individual and collective, regarding not only whether Japanese educators should use taibatsu or not, but also the very pedagogical styles that Japanese educators have chosen to employ. As foucault explains, “to speak is to do something—something other than to express what one thinks . . . to add a statement to a pre-existing series is to perform a complicated and costly gesture” (1972, 209). the acts of taibatsu have contributed to the creation of these various discourses, and the discourses, which have largely blurred

10  Bourdieu makes a similar point in his Language and Symbolic Power (1991). in that volume, he argues that language is both a means of communication and a medium of power through which people can express their competencies and re-emphasize their social standing. What we say, as well as how we say it, matters more than we think.

Discourses of Power and the Power of Discourse

163

rather than clarified the proper limits of discipline, have opened space for the acts to continue. these various discourses of discipline in Japanese schools and sports have also led to considerable definitional confusion regarding taibatsu, allowed people like totsuka Hiroshi to claim that taibatsu is synonymous with “education,” set the stage for media frenzy over incendiary cases such as the totsuka Yacht School incidents, kept the percentage of punishments for Japanese schoolteachers who used taibatsu illegally surprisingly low (30 to 45 percent), and precipitated a recent refusal by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to define what taibatsu means or measure how prevalent it has become. With so much confusion over the definition of the term, the MOE seems to have given most teachers (the other 55 to 70 percent) who use it the benefit of the doubt in cases “that might be taibatsu,” even though the practice has been continuously illegal since World War ii. it seems likely that the MOE’s recent re-casting of taibatsu as “child abuse” (jido gyakutai) is a response to this definitional confusion; the government seems to have concluded that it no longer has control over this powerful term, so they have attempted to get rid of it altogether. thus the MOE appears to have realized that the words we use matter, but what they have failed to acknowledge is that the words we do not use matter, too. indeed, our discourses of discipline— or the lack thereof— are at least as “powerful” as the physical act of physical punishment itself. if the MOE had made it unequivocally clear what the term taibatsu meant, and if they had categorically punished all teachers who themselves admitted to breaking the School Education Law, the multivocalism of this key term might well have never developed. While we may never know that for certain, what we do know is that the ambiguous definitional web that tanaka fujimaro and David Murray first spun eventually came to entrap the very Ministry where they once worked. these acts of disciplinary “violence” dubbed taibatsu, as foucault might well have predicted, have led mostly to passivity and inaction, not only for the “victims” of the act itself but for the enforcers of the law as well. the MOE is now rather “powerless” to understand, let alone control, a term it long ago introduced to the Japanese language.

EPiLOGuE

Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth “It is not part of a true culture to tame tigers, any more than it is to make sheep ferocious.” —Henry David thoreau

in late 2011, Harvard psychologist, linguist, and popular science writer Steven Pinker published an 802-page tome on violence entitled The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. in it, Pinker channels the “civilizing process” hypothesis of Norbert Elias (1939) in arguing that a variety of factors—the rise of the state, which gave order to what otherwise would have been Hobbesian anarchy; the rise of cities, which established new codes of conduct that became so deeply ingrained that people’s very psychology changed; the spread of literacy, which widened our “circle of empathy”; the strengthening of various rights-based movements (women’s, gay, animal, civil), which forced people to conclude that “everyday” acts of violence such as beating one’s wife or kicking one’s dog were “antisocial”; the spread of trade, which turned potential enemies into potential business partners; the rise of democracy, which required “un-like-minded” people to get along peacefully; and the reliance on thinking itself, which over time eroded our hot-blooded impulses—have led to what he believes is, in historical terms, a relative lack of violence in Western society today. in order to craft his argument, Pinker relies rather heavily on statistics, such as the number of deaths incurred during major wars or conflicts in relation to the total human population of the time. By this particular measure, for example, the Second World War was the ninth bloodiest war of all time, the first World War the sixteenth. Such reliance on the quantification of violence is rather narrow-minded, though. What of the more insidious forms of violence that scholars have explicated, such as Pierre Bourdieu’s illumination of “symbolic violence”? What of the constant threat of violence established by modern tyrants and terrorists alike? What of the various meanings of violence to humans, even if these meanings cannot be quantified? Death toll from war is certainly a tempting means of comparing brutality over time, but it does not tell us everything we need to know about violence. Moreover, as Kolbert (2011) notes in her review of The Better Angels of Our Nature,

Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth

165

even as Pinker counts the deaths he more or less ignores several important and gruesome examples of violence that have occurred in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries, notably Europe’s many decades of brutal colonialism, the fifteen million people killed in the first World War, and the fifty million more killed in the Second World War. She notes that Pinker fails to show how technological advances in recent human history have made new weapons easier to produce and easier to kill with, as well as how “modern” ideologies such as fascism and communism have developed alongside. finally, in his attempt to show that human culture today is less violent than human culture of years past, Pinker gives short shrift to the atrocities of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, as well as the notorious brutality of the Japanese in the mid-twentieth century. these omissions effectively confine Pinker’s study to an examination of violence in the Western World, and are thus problematic for any book attempting to “explore the essence of human nature.” While Pinker titles his first chapter “A foreign Country” because it catalogues human violence in the past, he ought to have included more information about violence in actual foreign countries, especially those outside of Europe and the united States. Pinker might be forgiven for this omission, or perhaps he will later publish an addendum with thoughts on violence in the non-West, but there is a greater problem with his book. Between the many lines within Pinker’s book is the false assumption that “Western culture,” no matter whether it is defined as the “Western culture of today” or the “Western culture of yesterday,” can be measured in homogenous, holistic terms, and that a study of this homogenous entity can speak for “human nature” on a global scale. Eager to provide an accessible understanding of the “problem of violence,” Pinker ascribes meaning to the “Western culture of yesterday” that is far too general and all-encompassing. Humans back then, like humans today, no doubt had disagreements about how violent they should be and how much violence they should tolerate. instead of detailing such disagreements over the value of violence, as i have here, Pinker ignores this ever-present diversity of opinion in order to measure some imagined and holistic culture’s level of violence in mathematical terms, as if “today’s culture” were in a statistical war with “yesterday’s culture,” with victory awarded to the culture and time period with the lowest ratio of death toll to total population. The Case for a Japanese “Culture of Violence” Along similar lines, the death of tokitaizan in 2007 (see the introduction for details) led some to question whether “violence” in Japanese sports, including the use of taibatsu, could be explained in cultural terms. this time, however, the people invoking the term “culture” assumed not that

166

Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth

“today’s culture” and “yesterday’s culture” were facing off in a mathematically measurable battle of bloodiness, but rather that culture ought to be understood as something “traditional” and “enduring,” that a culture was either inherently violent or inherently nonviolent, and that, either way, this characteristic never changed. this too, i believe, is a misguided way of thinking about culture and violence. in the wake of tokitaizan’s death, various members of the media asserted that a “culture of violence” had plagued sumo wrestling for all time. A journalist for the New York Times argued that the “hazing” leading up to tokitaizan’s death represented not an isolated incident, but rather a “fact of life in sumo stables”: “Hazing, including corporal punishment, has long been considered a fact of life in sumo stables, feudal-like camps where wrestlers are expected to live and train. in a practice called kawaigari, older wrestlers repeatedly throw a novice down on the ring, ostensibly to toughen him up but also to mete out punishment” (Onishi 2007). i watched multiple Japanese television programs that covered tokitaizan’s tragic death, including one in which a participant said that the bullying experienced in sumo stables was no different than the bullying faced by members of college and high school baseball teams (Asahi tV, October 1, 2007, 9 am). He concluded that a “violent culture” (bōryokuteki bunka) was common to Japanese sports. it is not only the Japanese who are interested in whether their culture is “violent” or not; this issue has intrigued many foreigners visiting or viewing Japan. if writings by early visitors are to be believed, Japan was comparatively lenient—and “non-violent”—in its child-rearing practices before its first wave of sustained contact with the West, following the long period of isolation known as sakoku. in the second half of the sixteenth century, a Christian missionary named Louis flores wrote that “the Japanese never use the whip on their children” (quoted in Nakagawa 1986, 172–173) and Sir Rutherford Alcock (1809–1897) agreed (see Emori 1989, 84). two centuries after flores, well-known Japanologist and tokyo imperial university Professor Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850–1935) labeled Japan a “heaven for children” (akanbo no tengoku). Based of these accounts, it might be argued that the Japanese were “in the beginning a naturally more lenient race than the European races” (Emori 1984, 7–8). Perhaps the Japanese were indeed “gentle” with their children prior to opening up to the outside world, perhaps these foreigners only had the opportunity to observe the gentler members of the Japanese population, or perhaps the Japanese simply refrained from hitting their children in the presence of foreigners. Whatever the case, many people who have taken an interest in the issues of discipline and punishment in Japan have considered them in cross-cultural perspective, and many among them have

Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth

167

felt the need to conclude one of two things: that the Japanese are either always strict or always lenient, that they always employ violence to educate or they never do. Outside Japan, images today occasionally reflect a nation rife with strange customs, such as sadistic sex or gruesome homicide, but these images must never be considered the “full reality” of Japanese social life. Such images might have us believe that there is a some pathological cultural tendency in Japan that predicts strange sex and heinous violence more often than in other nations, but, at least in the latter case, there is no single view of violence in Japan, as this research on corporal punishment has shown. there is no denying the fact that violence is “evident” in various realms of contemporary Japanese life, as it is many other societies. there are examples of violence found in everyday social customs, such as the practice of slapping someone to get their attention. (People often grunt “Oi!” as they do this.) Girlfriends and wives occasionally slap their boyfriends and husbands in public if they say the wrong thing, and although this often seems playful, it is not uncommon. Violent acts are not infrequent on Japanese television game shows, either; some examples include slapping or hitting contestants when they provide incorrect answers, and games in which participants willingly run into walls or men are kicked in the testicles for failing to correctly pronounce various uncommon Chinese characters (kanji). Japanese films are said to be among the goriest around, too; admiring American filmmakers such as Quentin tarantino routinely borrow ideas from them (Rose 2004). Physical punishment has also been used in Japanese religious practices, especially in some sects of Zen Buddhism. in some places, Buddhist temples sell “bamboo swords” (shinai) to teachers so that they can perform taibatsu in school. if Zen Buddhism has been seen as an important origin of this so-called “culture of violence,” Japanese sports have equally been considered a major realm for its current manifestation, perhaps because of the monastic ascetic regimes of training said to be effective in both realms. Some examples of sports violence tempt us to conclude that Japan has “culturally violent” tendencies. for example, one of Japan’s most famous professional wrestlers, Antonio inoki, who became a celebrity after years of championship-level wrestling, including a draw against Muhammad Ali in the 1970s in what would later be seen as one of the first mixed martial arts (MMA) bouts, popularized an act that many Japanese coaches have come to use as a form of taibatsu: “boxing the ears” (binta). During a school visit in the 1980s, after his retirement, inoki offered to show the students his strength by bracing himself as two of the students punched him in the stomach. When one of the students hit him a bit too hard, inoki vigorously slapped the student across the face, knocking him down. the student was

168

Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth

an inoki fan, so he quickly rose, bowed deeply, and thanked the wrestler for slapping him. A live clip of the incident was aired on Japanese television, and it soon achieved cult status. Even today, various Japanese celebrities continue to request this slap from inoki to “instill courage.” they call it the “fighting Spirit Slap” (tōkon binta or tōkon chūnyū). Beyond Culturalist Explanations of Corporal Punishment and Violence Despite such “evidence,” though, it is too difficult to conclude that these examples prove that Japan has a “culture of violence.” Culturalist explanations of this kind ignore or overlook the diversity of pedagogy and practice within Japan, wrongly assuming that Japanese culture is a unique, monolithic entity incomparable with the cultures of elsewhere. Such explanations also incorrectly assume that societies have “traditional” customs that never change. is it not possible that tokitaizan’s tragic death reflected not necessary “traditional Japanese practice,” a “culture of violence,” or “the culture of Japan,” but rather the downright deplorable individual decisions of the coaches and senior wrestlers under whom he trained? Certainly the actions and choices of tokitaizan’s senior wrestlers and coaches—as well as the actions and choices of takeuchi Emi’s coach and totsuka Hiroshi—say something about specific people living within Japanese society, but they neither explain the “essence of the Japanese people” nor the nation of Japan as a whole. Every society contains people who are capable of becoming violent, or, perhaps put more accurately, there will always be moments in which some people will resort to violence. understanding what those moments are and how exactly they arise is a far more meaningful endeavor than simply blaming them on culture. Asserting that Japanese culture is inherently “violent” also overlooks equal “evidence” of nonviolence in Japan. Various sects of Buddhism (other than Zen) preach strict nonviolence. in fact, there were Buddhist proclamations as early as the ninth century in which physical discipline was prohibited on the grounds that it was “unmerciful” (Emori 1984, 16). According to Emori, people who used physical discipline at that time would be considered members of an “alien species” (16–17). Japan also chose not to use capital punishment for three-and-a-half centuries during the Heian Period (794–1185), an unprecedented “non-violent fact” that Schmidt attributes “to a combination of the rulers’ . . . deep Buddhist faith and the fear of evil-minded spirits of revenge” (2002, 191). Even today, similar “evidence” of nonviolence can be found in scholarly examinations of contemporary Japanese institutions. According to Katzenstein, for example, “contemporary Japan eschews all military and police violence” (1996, 1). Of course, although some may argue that the “traditional method of raising children in Japan was merciful and gentle” (Nakagawa 1986, 172),

Beyond the “Violent Culture” Myth

169

one can no more conclude that Japan has a “culture of nonviolence” than they can say that Japan has a “culture of violence.” Just as we cannot justifiably assert that a “culture of violence” dominates Japanese sumo (or in any other Japanese sport for that matter), nor can we deny the heterogeneous approaches taken by various Japanese educators in both schools and sports. Why is it that so many observers of Japan have felt the need to see this nation in black and white terms? At first glance, the population of Japan certainly appears to be comparatively more ethnically homogenous than other nations. Certainly it is undeniable that Japan has long been a relatively isolated archipelago, that she has maintained relatively conservative immigration policies since opening up to the outside world, and that both of these facts have caused the observable racial make-up of the population to appear relatively homogeneous, at least when compared with multiethnic, largely immigrantpopulated nations such as the united States, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia. As a result, perhaps, many—both Japanese and non-Japanese alike—have accepted the “hegemony of homogeneity” myth (Befu 2001) as if it were gospel, choosing to assume that “ethnic homogeneity” predicts “homogenous cultural behavior.” in the process, such people overlook not only the ethnic diversity of contemporary Japan, but also the rich diversity in the ways that people do things in Japan (e.g., how schoolteachers teach, sports coaches coach, and educators talk about discipline). to what do we owe such oversight? this book has contended that cross-cultural approaches to research on punishment and discipline in Japan that are ahistorical and unreflexive have served only to perpetuate assumptions of Japanese homogeneity. in an attempt to transcend such assumptions and assertions, this book has explored how the Japanese have talked about taibatsu over time in order to challenge the rather many casual attempts to use “culture” to explain the causality of “corporal punishment.” the explanations of and justifications for taibatsu may at first glance seem somewhat distinct to Japan, and therefore require a cultural explanation, but the physical punishment of children happens all over the world, in various contexts and in various situations, and the factors that lead to a teacher deciding to raise his hand upon a child are too complex to be neatly explained by “culture.” “Culture” cannot be the sole culprit because there is nothing inherent in the Japanese people, nor anything “traditional” in “the Japanese way,” that makes “Japanese culture” any more or less violent than the “culture” of any other nation. Difficult as it may be for scholars like Pinker to admit, there is no “essence of human nature” that we can rely upon to explain the roots of violence, nor some “essence of culture” that makes violence more likely to happen in one place, rather than in another.

Appendix 1

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

鈴木茂

生徒をなぜ殴れない (Seitō wo naze nagurenai)

ごま書房

1979

Suzuki Shigeru

Goma Shobo

Why Can’t We Hit Students? 沖原豊

体罰 (Taibatsu)

Okihara Yutaka

第一法規

1980

Dai ippōki

Corporal Punishment 宮下清 Miyashita Kiyoshi

体罰のすすめ (Taibatsu no susume) Recommending Taibatsu

光風社出版 Kōfūsha Shuppan

Published by 学校災害から子どもを守 学校災害と校内暴力・ author 体罰 る全国連絡会 (Gakkō saigai to kōnai National Liaison Meeting bōryoku・taibatsu) for Protecting Children “School Violence, Taibatfrom School Disasters su, and School Disasters” 上之郷利昭 Kaminōe toshiaki

スパルタの海　 (Suparuta no umi) the Spartan Sea

1980

東京新聞出版局 tokyo Shimbun Shuppankyoku

1982

1982

Appendix 1

172 Author

Title of Book/Article

牧柾名・今橋盛勝

教師の懲戒と体罰:学校教 総合労働研究所 育と子どもの人権 Sōgō Rōdō (Kyōshi no chōkai to Kenkyūjo taibatsu: gakkō kyōiku to kodomo no jinken)

Maki Masana and imabashi Morikatsu

Publisher

Year 1982

taibatsu and the Discipline of teachers: Children’s Rights and School Education 池上正道 ikegami Masamichi

体罰・対教師暴力：体験 的非暴力教師宣言 (Taibatsu・taikyōshi bōryoku: taikenteki hibōryoku kyōshi sengen)

民衆社

1983

Minshūsha

Corporal Punishment and Violence Against teachers: Experiential Appeals from Anti-Violence teachers 今橋盛勝・安藤博 imabashi Morikatsu and Ando Hiroshi

教育と体罰：水戸五中事 件裁判記録 (Kyōshi to taibatsu: mito goju jiken saiban kiryoku)

三省堂

1983

Sanshōdō

teachers and Corporal Punishment: A Court Record of the Mito Goju incident 今橋盛勝 imabashi Morikatsu

中学校教育実践選書48 ・体罰 (Chūgakkō kyōiku jissen sensho 48・taibatsu) Middle School Education Practice, Selected Works #48: Corporal Punishment

あゆみ出版 Ayumi Shuppan

1983

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

173

Author

Title of Book/Article

杉田荘治

学校教育と体罰：日本と 学苑社 米・英の体罰判例 (Gakkō kyōiku to taibatsu: Gakuensha nihon to bei・ei no taibatsu hanrei)

Sugita Shoji

Publisher

Year 1983

School Education and Corporal Punishment: Court Cases from Japan, America, and England 杉田荘治 Sugita Shoji

アメリカの体罰判例30選 学苑社 (Amerika no taibatsu hanrei Gakuensha sanjū sen)

1984

thirty Judicial Precedents of American Corporal Punishment 星野安三郎　他 Hoshino Yasusaburo et al.

江森一郎 Emori ichiro

体罰と子どもの人権 (Taibatsu to kodomo no jinken)

エイデル研究所

1984

Eideru Kenkyūjo

Corporal Punishment of Children and Human Rights 江戸時代の体罰観：研 究序説 (Edo jidai no taibatsukan: kenkyū josetsu) “An introductory Study on the Concept of Corporal Punishment in the Edo Period”

日本の教育史学 Nihon no Kyōikushigaku, 27 (1): 4–24

1984

Appendix 1

174 Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Published by 日本弁護士連合会第28回 学校生活と子どもの人 人権擁護大会シンポジウ 権：校則、体罰、警察へ author ム第1分科会実行委員会 の依存をめぐって (Gakkō seikatsu to kodomo Japan federation of Bar no jinken: kōsoku, taiAssociations, 28th Meetbatsu, keisatsu e no izon wo megutte) ing, 1st Subcommittee Meeting of the Symposium on the Protection of School Life and Children’s Rights: Regarding Human Rights the Reliance on School Rules, Corporal Punishment and the Police 子どもの人権と体罰 研究会

教師の懲戒と子どもの人 権：現場からの報告 (Kyōshi no chōkai to kodomo no jinken: genba kara no hōkoku)

学陽書房

Year 1985

1986

Gakuyoshobo

Research Group on “Corporal Punishment and the Human Rights of the Discipline of teachChildren” ers and the Human Rights of Children: An On-the-Ground Report ＮＨＫ取材班・今橋盛勝 体罰 (Taibatsu) NHK Reporting Corps and imabashi Morikatsu Corporal Punishment

日本放送出版協会

体罰を考える (Taibatsu wo kangaeru)

日本図書文化協会

青木孝頼・真仁田昭 Aoki takayori and Manita Akira (eds.)

1986

Nihon Hōsō Shuppan Kyōkai (NHK)

Nihon tosho thinking about Corporal Bunka Kyōkai Punishment

1986

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

175

Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

尾上宏・高野範城

子どもの人権と管理教 育：いじめ・体罰、校則 の実態と法的問題点 (Kodomo no jinken to kanri kyōiku: ijime, taibatsu, kōsoku no jittai to hōteki mondai ten)

あけび書房

1986

Ogami Hiroshi and takano Norishiro

Akebi Shobo

Managed Education and the Human Rights of Children: Legal issues and the State of Affairs of School Rules, Corporal Punishment and Bullying 村上義雄 Murakami Yoshio

体罰・いじめ・登校拒否 脱出へ (Taibatsu, ijime, tōkōkyohi dasshutsu e)

草土文化

1986

Sōdobunka

towards the Elimination of School-Refusers, Bullying, and Corporal Punishment 村上義雄・中川明・保 坂展人 Murakami Yoshio, Nakagawa Akira, and Hosaka Nobuto (eds.) 今橋盛勝　他 imabashi Morikatsu et al.

体罰と子どもの人権 (Taibatsu to kodomo no jinken)

有斐閣

1986

Yūhikaku

Corporal Punishment and the Human Rights of Children 教師の体罰・暴力：どう したらなくせるか (Kyōshi no taibatsu, bōryoku: dō shitara nakuseru ka) How Can We Eliminate Corporal Punishment and Violence by teachers?

学事出版 Gakuji Shuppan

1987

Appendix 1

176 Author

Publisher

Year

東京弁護士会少年法改正 子の声・親の声・教師の 声　校則・体罰・「いじ 問題対策特別委員会 め」アンケート集約　 (Ko no koe, oya no koe, kyōshi no koe: kōsoku, tokyo Bar Association, taibatsu, ijime anketo Special Committee on Countermeasures on the shūyaku) issue of the Revision of An Anthology of the the Youth Law Voices of Children, Parents, and teachers Regarding School Rules, Corporal Punishment, and Bullying

東京弁護士会

1987

子どもの人権と体罰研究 子どもの＜人権＞と学校 会・体罰と管理教育を考 　父母・教師・弁護士た ちの記録 える会 (Kodomo no “jinken” to gakkō: fubo, kyōshi, Research Group on bengōshitachi no kiroku) “Corporal Punishment and the Human Rights Children’s “Human of Children”: Meeting to think about Corporal Rights” and the School: Records of Parents, Punishment and Manteachers, and Lawyers aged Education

草土文化

中野勇 Nakano isamu

Title of Book/Article

tokyo Bengōshikai

Sōdōbunka

学校体罰判例の研究：体 ぎょうせい 罰克服への道 Gyōsei (Gakkō taibatsu hanrei no kenkyū: taibatsu kokufuku e no michi) Research on Judicial Precedent of Corporal Punishment in Schools: the Road to Overcoming Corporal Punishment

1988

1988

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

177

Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

江森一郎

体罰の社会史 (Taibatsu no shakaishi)

新曜社

1989

Emori ichiro

Shinyōsha

A Social History of Corporal Punishment 「 月間高校生 」編集部 Editorial Department of the Monthly High School Student

管理・校則・体罰：問題 点と改革の方法 (Kanri, kōsoku, taibatsu: mondaiten to kaikaku no hōhō)

高校出版

1990

Kōkō Shuppan

Management, School Rules, and Corporal Punishment: issues and Methods for Reform 体罰をなくそう：人権侵 犯事件からみた体罰　 (Taibatsu wo nakusō: jinken shinpan jiken kara mita tokyo Law Bureau (Busi- taibatsu) ness Research Meeting “Let’s Eliminate Corpoon Human Rights) ral Punishment: Seeing Corporal Punishment as a Human Rights’ Violation”

東京法務局人権実 務研究会

青木孝頼・真仁田昭

図書文化社

東京法務局人権実務研 究会

Aoki takayori and Manita Akira (eds.)

体罰を考える (Taibatsu wo Kangaeru)

1990

tokyo Hōmukyoku Jinken Jitsumu Kenkyūkai

tōsho Bunkasha thinking about Corporal (Reprinting with new publisher) Punishment

1990

Appendix 1

178 Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

森川貞夫

なぜ体育教師は暴力、体 罰教師になるのかという 声にたいして (Naze taiiku kyōshi wa bōryoku, taibatsu kyōshi ni naru no ka to iu koe ni taishite)

体育研究

1990

Morikawa Sadao

Taiiku Kenkyū, 34 (1): 74–80

“Regarding Voices that Say ‘Why Do Physical Education teachers Become Violent, Corporal Punishment teachers?’” 今橋盛勝 imabashi Morikatsu

いじめ・体罰と父母の 教育権 (Ijime, taibatsu to fubo no kyōikuken)

岩波書店

1991

iwanami Shoten

Bullying, Corporal Punishment, and Parents’ Right to Educate 鈴木孝子 Suzuki takako

子どもたちの悲鳴　 体罰 風媒社 シンドロームの学校で fūbaisha (Kodomotachi no himei: taibatsu shindorōmu no gakkō de)

1991

Screams of the Children: At a School with Corporal Punishment Syndrome 渡辺法子 Watanabe Noriko

先生、娘を殴らないで　 富士市岳陽中学体罰事件 (Sensei, musume wo naguranai de: fujishi gakuyō chūgakkō taibatsu jiken) Please, teacher, Don’t Hit My Daughter: the fuji City Gakuyō Middle School Corporal Punishment incident

風媒社 fūbaisha

1991

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

179

Author

Title of Book/Article

阿江美恵子

暴力を用いたスポーツ指 東京女子体育大学 紀要 導の与える影響 (Bōryoku wo mochiita supotsu shidō no ataeru eikyō) Tokyo Joshi Taiiku Daigaku Kiyō, 26 (1): 10–16. “the Effects of Sports Guidance that Employs Violence”

1991

ケン・スクーランド（山 学校の憂鬱：アメリカ人 早川書房 教授の見たいじめ・体罰 本俊子　訳） (Gakkō no yū’utsu: amerika Hayakawa Shobo jinkyōju no mita ijime Ken Schoolland (Yamamoto toshiko translation) taibatsu)

1992

Ae Mieko

Publisher

Year

the Gloomy School: Corporal Punishment and Bullying Seen through the Eyes of an American Professor **The Gloomy School is a translation of the English language book Shogun’s Ghost by the same author** 知る権利のための市民調 査・浦和 urawa Citizens’ Survey to Know about Rights

小林剛 Kobayashi tsuyoshi

体罰問題と情報公開 (Taibatsu mondai to jōhō kōkai)

埼玉非核平和通信

1992

Saitama Hikaku Heiwa tsūshin

“the Corporal Punishment issue and Open information” 「いじめ・体罰」がなぜ 起きるか　 (Ijime, taibatsu ga naze okiru ka) Why Do Bullying and Corporal Punishment Occur?

明治図書出版 Meiji tosho Shuppan

1993

Appendix 1

180 Author

Title of Book/Article

塚本有美

あがないの時間割：ふた 勁草書房 つの体罰死亡事故 Keisōshobo (Aganai no jikanwari: futatsu no taibatsu shibō jikō)

tsukamoto Yumi

Publisher

Year 1993

the Class Schedule of Atonement: two Accident Deaths by Corporal Punishment 牧柾名　他 Maki Masana et al.

懲戒・体罰の法制と実態 (Chōkai, taibatsu no hōsei to jittai)

学陽書房

1993

Gakuyō shobo

the Current State of Legal issues Regarding Discipline and Corporal Punishment 宮田 和信 Miyata Kazunobu

体育専攻学生の体罰意識 (Taiiku senkō gakusei no taibatsu ishiki) “A Study on the Corporal Punishment Consciousness of Students in a Physical Education Course”

魚住博孝 uozumi Hirotaka

さまよえる子供たち　 愛という名の教育は失 われた (Samayoeru kodomotachi: ai to iu me no kyōiku wa ushinawareta) Wandering Children: the Lost Education Called Love

鹿屋体育大学学術 研究紀要

1994

Kanoya Taiiku Daigaku Gakujutsu Kenkyū Kiyō

近代文芸社 Kindaibungeisha

1995

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

181

Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

坂本秀夫

体罰の研究 (Taibatsu no kenkyū)

三一書房

1995

Sakamoto Hideo

Sanichi Shobo

Research on Corporal Punishment 藤田昌士 fujita Shōji

日本の教育課題第４巻： 生活の指導と懲戒・体罰 (Nihon no kyōiku kadai dai 4 ki: seikatsu no shidō to chōkai, taibatsu)

東京法令出版

1996

tokyo Hōrei Shuppan

“Japanese Educational issues (Volume 4): Corporal Punishment, Discipline, and Life Guidance” 杉山洋一 Sugiyama Yoichi

生徒指導主事の体罰意識 に関する調査研究：学校 運営への関わり展望して (Seito shidō shuji no taibatsu ishiki ni kansuru chōsa kenkyū: gakkō un’ei e no kakawari tenbō shite) “Survey Research Regarding Perceptions of Corporal Punishment by Student Guidance Leaders: Developing a Relationship with School Management”

東京大学大学院教 育学研究科教育行 政学研究室紀要 Tokyo Daigaku Daigakuin Kyōikugaku Kenkyūka Kyōiku Gyōseigaku Kenkyūshitsu Kiyō, 16 (1): 99–116

1997

Appendix 1

182 Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

平田淳・岡田賢宏

体罰が発生する「構造」 とその個別性：判例研究 方法論に関する一つの新 たな試み (Taibatsu ga hassei suru “kōzō” to sono kobetsusei: hanrei kenkyū hōhōron ni kansuru hitotsu no aratana kokoromi)

東京大学大学院教 育学研究科教育行 政学研究室紀要

1998

Hirata Jun and Okada takahiro

“A Case-by-Case Study of the Structures which follow Corporal Punishment in School and a Consideration of their individualities” 石川義之 ishikawa Yoshiyuki (ed.)

親／教師による：体罰 の実態 (Oya/Kyōshi ni yoru: Taibatsu no Jittai)

Tokyo Daigaku Daigakuin Kyōikugaku Kenkyūka Kyōiku Gyōseigaku Kenkyūshitsu Kiyō, 17 (1): 29–49

Shimane universi- 1998 ty Law, Letters and Society Research institute

“the Reality of Corporal Punishment According to Parents and teachers” 小林せいこ Kobayashi Seiko

体罰を考える (Taibatsu wo kangaeru) “thinking about Corporal Punishment” In t. Nakatani and M. Namimoto (eds.), Gendai Kyōiku wo Kangaeru (Thinking about Modern Education), 36–40.

北樹出版 Hokujū Shuppan

1999

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

183

Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

寺崎弘昭

イギリス学校体罰史「イ ーストボーンの悲劇」と ロック的構図 (Igirisu gakkō taibatsushi [iisutobōn no higeki] to rokku teki kōzu)

東京大学出版社

2001

terasaki Hiroaki

tokyo Daigaku Shuppansha

the History of Corporal Punishment in England: the Eastbourne tragedy and the Lockean Labryinth 菊幸一 Kiku Koichi

体罰と暴力 (Taiiku to bōryoku)

世界思想社

2001

Sekai Shisosha

“Corporal Punishment and Violence” In Sugimoto, Atsuo (ed.), Taiiku Kyōiku wo Manabu Hito no tame ni (for those Learning Physical Education) 岩井八郎 iwai Hachirō

経験の連 鎖-JGSS-2000/2001によ る「体罰」に対する意識 の分析

東京大学社会研究 科（社研）

tokyo Daigaku Shakai Kenkyūka “the transmission of Ex- (Shakken) periences: An Analysis of Opinions about Physical Punishment using JGSS2000/2001,” Japan General Social Survey 2000/2001, Volume 22

2001

Appendix 1

184 Author

Title of Book/Article

Publisher

Year

大木 雅博

勝つための監督術：だか ら体罰は必要だ (Katsu tame no kantokujutsu: Dakara taibatsu ha hitsuyō da)

文芸社

2001

Oki Masahiro

Bungeisha

Coaching techniques for Winning: that is Why Corporal Punishment is Necessary 金子 毅

体罰教師 (Taibatsu kyōshi)

Kaneko takeshi

長栄社

2002

Chōeisha

Corporal Punishment teacher 森田ゆり Morita Yuri

しつけと体罰 (Shitsuke to taibatsu: kodomo no uchinaru chikara wo sodateru michisuji)

童話館

2003

Dōwakan

Discipline and Corporal Punishment: the Path to instilling inner Power in Children 牧僚子 Maki Ryoko

それでも体罰をやめられ ませんか (Sore demo taibatsu wo yameraremasen ka) Even then You Can’t Stop using Corporal Punishment?

新風者 Shinpūsha

2005

Selected Taibatsu-Related Research

185

Author

Title of Book/Article

阿江美恵子

ここがおかしい、日本の 体育研究 スポーツ：運動部と暴 Taiiku Kenkyū, 54 力問題はスポーツ界の (1): 30–33 常識か (Koko ga okashii, nihon no supotsu: undōbu to bōryoku mondai wa supotsu kai no jōshiki ka)

Ae Mieko

Publisher

Year 2006

“this is Strange About Japanese Sports: Do Sports Clubs and Violence Make Common Sense?” 岩井八郎 iwai Hachirō

高橋豪仁・久米田恵 takahashi Hidesato and Kumeda Megumi

東京大学出版社 儀式としての体罰 (Gishiki toshite no taibatsu) tokyo Daigaku Shuppansha “Corporal Punishment as Ritual” In i. tanioka, M. Nitta, and K. iwai (eds.), Nihonjin no ishiki to kōdō: nihonban sōgōshakaichōsa JGSS ni yoru bunseki (Consciousness and Action of Japanese People: Analysis of the JGSS Comprehensive Social Survey (Japan Edition)), 313–328 学校運動部における体罰 に関する調査研究 (Gakkō undōbu ni okeru taibatsu ni kansuru chōsa kenkyū) “An investigation of Bodily Punishment in School Athletic Clubs”

奈良教育大学教育 学部附属教育実践 総合センター Bulletin of Center for Educational Research and Development, 17 (1): 161–170

2008

2008

Appendix 2

Notable incidents of Taibatsu

1976.

ibaraki (Mito). the “Mito Goju Incident”: A physical education teacher strikes a boy who is helping him administer a body strength test. the boy dies a week later, but because the boy had the measles at the time of his death, the teacher is acquitted of murder charges. School officials fail to notify the parents of the victim and forbid other students from attending an all-night vigil for him.

1979– 1983.

Aichi (Mihama). the “Totsuka Yacht School Incidents” (see introduction).

1985.

Gifu. At Nagatsu Shōgyō Prefectural High School, a young girl named takeuchi Emi commits suicide after receiving “persistent taibatsu” (shitsuyō na taibatsu) and being verbally abused (see introduction).

1985.

Gifu. the “Giyō Hair Dryer Incident.” A boy is beaten for bringing a hair dryer on a school trip. A court gives his teacher a three-year sentence for the incident because it “has no relation to education” (kyōiku to wa muen no kōi) (Yoneyama 1999,92 and Watanabe 1986, 45).

1986.

in July, a thirteen-year-old girl is kicked in the face repeatedly for being three minutes late to lunch. in a separate incident, twelve teachers beat another thirteen-year-old girl for several hours because she rode a motorcycle (Young 1993, 131).

1991.

Hiroshima. At a public institution called Kazenoko Gakuen, a school principal puts two children in solitary confinement for two days. they later died of heat exhaustion (Yoneyama 1999, 93).

1995.

in July, a teacher beats a high school girl to death using a roll book (Mogami 1996).

1995.

fukuoka. At Kinki university High School, a boy is killed after receiving violent taibatsu. His teacher justifies his actions as part of his “guidance plans” (shidō hōshin) and says that the school’s administration encouraged taibatsu. Nevertheless, the teacher is convicted of first- and second-degree murder. A local woman gathers 75,000 signatures to reduce his sentence (see Wray 1999, 101).

Notable Incidents of Taibatsu

187

1996.

High school students are beaten “for failing to remain in their beds after midnight on an overnight field trip” (Hill 1996, 93).

1998.

Hyogo. A coach uses taibatsu at a volleyball training camp, causing serious injuries.

2000.

Kumamoto. A teacher forces students to strip off their clothes for “reflection” (hansei).

2001– 2003.

Kitakyushu. Over the course of two-and-a-half years, a table tennis coach repeatedly abuses his students both verbally and physically; the students later develop autonomic nerve imbalance as a consequence. though the teacher was temporarily suspended from work, he was later reinstated.

2001.

fukuoka. A teacher uses taibatsu on his students and threatens that if they tell anyone, he will make sure they cannot take the high school entrance exam. the students stop going to school.

2003.

Wakayama. A kendo club coach repeatedly beats students, causing serious damage to their skin.

2004.

Hiroshima. A teacher threatens students with a kitchen knife.

2005.

Kobe. A judo club trainee complains that his teacher ridiculed him for not having sufficient “spirit” (seishin); he said he was not feeling well. the teacher slapped him with an open palm, killing him instantly.

2005.

Hiroshima. A teacher wields a kitchen knife under a student’s nose. He attests that this was “not to injure,” but to “guide” (shidō).

2005.

Hokkaido. A baseball coach at Komadai tomakomai High School hits his players with a slipper and a steel pole (Asahi Shimbun 2006h).

2005.

Okayama. A baseball coach at Sanyō High School forces players to run naked; he defends his decision by saying it was for “mental training” (mentaru toreiningu). More than half of the club members tell investigators, “i feared that he would become violent if i did not follow his instructions.” An Okayama District Court Judge sentences the coach to three years in prison (Asahi Shimbun 2006i).

2005.

Ehime. A young girls’ basketball team is forced to run naked as punishment.

2006.

Hyogo (Amagasaki). A boy’s volleyball coach repeatedly strikes players at close range with a volleyball. One player suffers an internal brain hemorrhage.

2006.

fukuoka. A girl commits suicide after being bullied by a teacher and other students (Asahi Shimbun 2006j).

2006.

Aichi. A boy dies at a mental institution called “School of Mental Love” (Ai Mentaru Sukuru) after being taken from his home against his will. He is locked in a room at the institution’s dorm. institution counselor Sugiura Shoko is arrested.

188

Appendix 2

2006.

for involvement in incidents ranging from violence between teammates to theft, the Japan Student Baseball Association punishes two universities and thirty-one high schools. Most punishments prohibit teams from traveling to play road games (Asahi Shimbun 2006k).

2006.

the Japan Student Baseball Association (Kōyaren) hands out punishments for eighty scandals. the Jōsō Gakuin High School baseball team is punished for inter-player violence that results in one player’s injury. the team is given a three-month “no road-game punishment.” Komadai tomakomai High School is also warned (Asahi Shimbun 2006h).

2006.

Various locations across Japan. Kōyaren reports ten “bullying” incidents. incidents include sending prank e-mails and ganging up on a player. the coach, manager, and former manager of Kamimura High School are all punished (Asahi Shimbun 2006d).

2006.

A regional Japan High School Baseball federation representative resigns after slapping seven players who had shaved eyebrows. None are injured (Asahi Shimbun 2006g).

2006.

Players from reigning All-Japan High School Baseball champion Waseda Jitsugyō are caught shoplifting (Asahi Shimbun 2006f).

2006.

Violence causes cracked ribs for a Jōsō Gakuin High School baseball player (Asahi Shimbun 2006b).

2006– 2007.

A member of Meiji university “Cheering Club” (ōendan) commits suicide after being bullied. in 2006, the member is forced by upperclassmen to strip naked and has his genitals videotaped. Although the perpetrators call this hazing just “playing around” (ijiri), he is also beaten and hot water is thrown on him. Older members of the squad say they wanted to “punish him with an iron fist” (tekken seisai). the boy tries to kill himself twice in January 2007, leaves the “Cheering Club” later that month, and leaves school entirely in April 2007. He commits suicide in July of the same year (Yomiuri Shimbun 2008).

2007.

fukuoka. A teacher resigns after being handed a three-month suspension for slamming a boy’s head on the school’s concrete floor (Nihon Keizai Shimbun 2007a).

2007.

tokyo. in June, sumo wrestler tokitaizan dies after being beaten by coaches and senior wrestlers (see introduction).

2011.

Osaka. in february, a fifty-year-old social studies teacher and judo instructor, a fourth-rank black belt, hurls two students during class. He also kicks them in the stomach and punches them in the head, causing serious injury (Yomiuri Shimbun 2011). By October, the instructor had been found guilty of murder in child’s death, ordered to pay one million yen ($13,000), but he is not sentenced to jail time.

Notable Incidents of Taibatsu 2013.

189

Osaka. A second-year high school student in Osaka hangs himself after his basketball coach repeatedly beat him. the coach apologizes but the mother asks him at the wake, “‘You can tell that there’s been physical punishment, can’t you? Do you call that ‘instruction’or ‘physical punishment’?” the teacher responded, “it was physical punishment. i’m sorry” (Mainichi Japan 2013).

*A Note on the Sources. unless otherwise noted, all incidents are compiled from Mogami (1996), Edu-garden (n.d.), and various Japanese newspaper articles listed in the bibliography. **A Note on the Japan High School Baseball Federation (Kōyaren) punishments. Prohibitions on “road games” (taigai shiai kinshi): Almost always handed down for incidents involving players only. usually lasting one-to-three months for teams on which there have been incidents of bullying or violence between players. Penitence (kinshin): Given to teams with coaching-related incidents. for example, a fukui high school baseball team was suspended for one month for a coach’s use of violence and a tokyo high school baseball team was suspended three months for a coach who “over-guided” (ikisugita shidō). Warnings (keikoku): Often given for incidents such as drinking, smoking, or coaches involved in traffic accidents (see Asahi Shimbun 2006h).

Appendix 3

Corporal Punishment in the united States “He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loves him chastises him betimes.” —Solomon, Proverbs 13:24

Americans are often shocked and appalled to hear that the Japanese use corporal punishment, hazing, or hard training in their schools and sports. Many quickly conclude that it must be Japan’s homogenous national culture that incubates such behavior. in fact, as this book has shown, nothing could be farther from the truth. Many Americans are also surprised to learn that corporal punishment still exists in the schools of some of their own conservative, mostly socalled “red” states, and that vast swaths of American parents stand by the paddle as their preferred tool of discipline. in fact, as this appendix will show, the debate over corporal punishment in the u.S. is actually quite similar to the debate in Japan. Many of America’s educational ideas were formed in Europe, and corporal punishment was widely used in nations such as the united Kingdom, france, and Germany long before the European colonization of the North American continent. As George Ryley Scott explains in his monumental work on corporal punishment: in the olden days boys and girls both . . . were flogged by their parents at home, and by their employers at work; while the children of aristocracy received their floggings at the hands of their governesses or private tutors, and later at school. Even so long ago as the days of Ancient Greece, pretty nearly a couple of thousand years ago, if history does not lie, the schoolmaster used the birch as an instrument of correction. Homer was flogged by his tutor; so was Horace; and so no doubt were all those who went to school at all. ([1938] 1952, 95)

the list of intellectual luminaries who were beaten in schools is extensive—Erasmus, frederick the Great, Arnold, Coleridge, Milton, Voltaire— and these are just the people who left written records. in Great Britain, corporal punishment existed “from the days when schools were first

Corporal Punishment in the United States

191

established until the beginning of the present century . . . in nearly every school” (Scott [1938] 1952, 95ff). Rote Learning and Christian Love: Corporal Punishment in Early America Corporal punishment continued to be popular in the homes and schools of colonial America. in fact, from the time of its establishment as an independent nation, nearly an entire century passed before any American state prohibited the practice in its schools. Although New Jersey enacted a law in 1867, making it the first in the united States (and later the basis for Japan’s own prohibition), the banning was relatively ineffectual in actually stopping the use of corporal punishment in that state’s schools (Raichle 1979). this was in part because, since the nation’s founding, Puritan values had guided mainstream American values. As Piele writes, the “historical roots of the use of corporal punishment can be traced to the Puritan settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the seventeenth century” (1979, 93).1 in Colonial-era American schools, corporal punishment was used “as a way to force bored students to engage in rote learning of required materials” (Denmark 2005, 48), showing how the “social order” of the school was maintained and a learning environment was created. Raichle explains why: “Learning by rote was the mode. the pupil was either right or wrong: this was a moral as well as an intellectual distinction. the pupil who was wrong was at the same time guilty and a taste of the birch was the suitable punishment to lead to righteousness in the future” (1979, 73). Children in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century America were punished in various ways, but, as we saw is the case in Japan (see chapter 3), corporal punishment was just one among them: Not only the rod but also numerous devices such as whispering-sticks, yokes, and unipods, one-legged stools on which miscreants balanced themselves, were employed to purge the offender of evil. the disciplining arm of the schoolmaster was further strengthened by psychological techniques: name-calling, the dunce-cap, and other means of shaming were standard. fear prevailed in the classroom, on the plantation, on the

1  At that time, corporal punishment was not limited to the home and the school, as Miethe and Lu explain: “Public floggings in the early American colonies were used to enforce discipline, vilify evil and enhance community solidarity, and to deter others” (2005, 35). Most New England settlements, they write, had public whipping posts and corporal punishment was used for a variety of purposes, including “deterrence, retribution, increasing community solidarity, and permanent incapacitation” (92).

192

Appendix 3 ship, in the prison, in the army, and in the servants’ quarters, and it was not unknown between parents and their children. (Raichle 1977–1978, 73)

Many Americans at the time believed in the Christian concept of original sin while simultaneously claiming to have “love for the child”: the fierce passions of Calvinism have often been credited with making colonial New England schools grim places. Calvinists saw the child as a vessel of sin, “unspeakably wicked, estranged from God,” whose independent will was in obstinate conflict with divine will. therefore, they considered beating just, both as punishment and as a way to “break the will” in its resistance to the Lord. But New England churches also preached love for the child, and declared that to withhold love was to offend the Lord. Corporal punishment might be enjoined by Scripture, but Scripture also taught that the child was to be won by kindness. (Raichle 1977–1978, 72)

Above all, one biblical aphorism has contributed to the continued use and perceived value of corporal punishment in the united States. Solomon’s dictum in the Bible, “He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loves him chastises him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24), has over the years morphed into the colloquial maxim, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” this expression has been given considerable weight by advocates of corporal punishment throughout nations in which Christian ideas dominate (Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006, 222). As a result, corporal punishment in some regions of the united States is perceived to be “an old and ingrained method of discipline” (Hyman and McDowell 1979, 5). Religion, Rights, and Privacy: Corporal Punishment in American Homes the theologian Benjamin J. Abelow therefore argues that Christianity has not only shaped corporal punishment, but that the reverse is also true: Painful childhood experience appears to have shaped Christianity, during its formative period, at the most basic level. further, given widespread childhood punishment, abandonment, and neglect for most of history, these parallels have likely been, and in some cases may continue to be, a source of powerful emotional and cognitive resonances among believers and potential believers. for this reason, recognition of pervasive childhood parallels in the New testament may provide important insight into the initial spread and subsequent cultural persistence of Christian faith. (2011, 48)

Owing to these deep, mutually reinforcing connections between Christian scripture and child rearing, corporal punishment is still widely

Corporal Punishment in the United States

193

used in American homes today (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin 1957; Straus 1983; Bryan and freed 1982; Goodenough, 1931/1975; Holden, Coleman, and Schmidt, 1995; Straus and Stewart 1999). As in many industrial countries, including Japan, there are few laws prohibiting American parents from punishing with physical force in the privacy of their own home (Pollard 2003; Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006). Although many states have enacted laws against violent parental abuse, laws in all fifty states in the united States recognize some form of privilege for parents and legal guardians to use disciplinary spanking in the home (Pollard 2003; Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner 2006). According to the Restatement of torts, the most current encapsulation of common law torts, an American parent is “privileged to apply such reasonable force or to impose such reasonable confinement upon his child as he reasonably believes to be necessary for its proper control, training or education” (quoted in Ramsey and Abrams 2008, 119). American parents can and do use corporal punishment without reprisal, so long as this punishment does not become “abuse.”2 Scholars debate the reasons why corporal punishment happens in the American home. Some used to believe that corporal punishment could be explained by parental personality. in the early 1980s, for example, Bogacki argued that “attitudes toward corporal punishment are related to authoritarianism in personality” (1981, 69). Edwards disagreed, however, writing: “parental choice of corporal punishment cannot be predicted from the parent’s level of dogmatism or authoritarianism,” nor can the frequency with which parents use corporal punishment be predicted by the same factors (1983, 111). Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner argue that it is not just one factor but rather “a constellation of beliefs [that] supports laws that allow parents to use physical punishment in the American home,” and “these beliefs include the view that (a) children are the property of their parents, and parents have the right to raise their children as they choose; (b) children do not have the right to negotiate their treatment by parents; and (c) parents’ behavior within the family is private” (2006, 222–223). Strong religiosity in some parts of the united States is also a factor (Gershoff 2002; Holden 2002; Parke 2002; Owen and Wagner 2006). 2  As in Japan, the line between “abuse” and “corporal punishment” is blurry in the united States. American statutory law requires proof of “actual harm.” this means that, as in the case of Raboin v. North Dakota Department of Human Services (1996), corporal punishment that only caused slight bruising is not considered to cause “serious physical harm or traumatic abuse.” However, “the proof of substantial risk of serious injury” is sometimes enough to obviate the need for proof of “actual harm” (Ramsey and Abrams 2008, 119–120).

194

Appendix 3

Race, Gender, and Law: Corporal Punishment in American Schools though the percentage of American parents who say that they rely on corporal punishment to discipline remains high, in recent years an increasing number of u.S. states have banned the practice in schools. While over one hundred national governments around the world have enacted bans on corporal punishment in their schools, efforts to completely outlaw corporal punishment in schools in all u.S. states have not yet been realized. this is because the (il)legality of corporal punishment in American schools depends on state law, district policy, or case law, not federal law (Owen and Wagner 2006, 472). Corporal punishment in American public schools is only forbidden in two-thirds (thirty-one of fifty, as of 2011) of all u.S. states,3 but, according to a website that provides research resources on corporal punishment throughout the world (http://www.corpun.com), corporal punishment remains a “common practice” in the schools of three Southern states— Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi—and it is also used in some of the schools, usually rural, of tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and texas.4 Some state authorities are silent on the issue of whether corporal punishment should be legal in schools, others outright condemn it, and others allow it but specify restrictions regarding who can administer it (e.g., teacher, principal) (Paquet 1982, 53). in states such as texas and New Hampshire, there are laws that explicitly guarantee parents and teachers the right to use physical force against minors. Other states such as California acknowledge this right only to parents, but with “reasonability” restrictions; physical punishments must be determined to be reasonable by a third party, such as Child Protective Services. Various judicial rulings have called for school administrators to give the recipient of corporal punishment “due process” and require corporal punishment inflictors to administer it a “reasonable” manner (Paquet 1982, 53). Perhaps the most important judicial ruling came when the u.S. Supreme Court decided in Ingraham v. Wright (1977) that “corporal 3  the thirty-one American states in which corporal punishment is banned are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, illinois, iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode island, South Dakota, utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia also ban the practice. 4  Grossman et al. (2005) found that corporal punishment was used in approximately three percent of the schools they surveyed in Washington state. their survey also showed that, as is the case in Japan, laws do not always prevent teachers from using corporal punishment; the authors point out that sixteen percent of all corporal punishment incidents in Washington occurred in schools where there were explicit rules against its use.

Corporal Punishment in the United States

195

punishment as a disciplinary tool in public schools did not constitutionally constitute cruel and unusual punishment” and that it was up to states and/or local authorities to determine corporal punishment’s legality in schools (Hyman and McDowell 1979, 3). if the verdict had been different, Ingraham would have established that the practice of corporal punishment was in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the u.S. Constitution, which requires proper notice and an opportunity to have one’s case heard. Ingraham instead held that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to public schools. However, some believe that Ingraham is in direct conflict with the 1989 united Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we saw in chapter 1, this international treaty calls for “nations to take all legislative, administrative, social, and educational measures necessary to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence.” the united States, along with Somalia, is one of only two uN member nations not to ratify this treaty (Gershoff 2002; Pollard 2003).5 Other Supreme Court decisions have noted that public schools have more limited authority to use corporal punishment than private schools (see, e.g., New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985);6 Veronia v. Acton (1995); Board of Education v. Earls (2002)) because in the latter the doctrine of in loco parentis (“in the place of the parent”) applies. in such schools, parents are said to transfer to teachers their “right to discipline.” in public schools, however, “the exercise of authority is not directly analogous to parental authority, but rather subject to constitutional restraints applied to state actors” (Ramsey and Abrams 2008, 121).7 thus, while state law overrides a teacher’s right to physically punish in some states, in others the distinction between public and private schools is essential in determining whether a teacher has this right and to what degree (s)he can exercise it. Corporal punishment is said to be “more prevalent among AfricanAmerican and low socioeconomic status parents, in the South, for boys, 5  According to the Economist (2008), “American officials helped draft the document, but it faces stiff opposition in some quarters of the united States.” 6  in New Jersey v. T.L.O., which was argued in 1984 and decided in 1985, Justice Lewis Powell echoed the sentiments of many Japanese educators in the mid-1980s, writing:

the primary duty of school officials and teachers, as the Court states, is the education and training of young people. A State has a compelling interest in assuring that the schools meet this responsibility. Without first establishing discipline and maintaining order, teachers cannot begin to educate their students. And apart from education, the school has the obligation to protect pupils from mistreatment by other children, and also to protect teachers themselves from violence by the few students whose conduct in recent years has prompted national concern. 7  it should be noted that the Veronia case decided that public schools have “custodial and tutelary” authority that permits “a degree of supervision and control that could not be exercised over free adults” (quoted in Ramsey and Abrams 2008, 121).

196

Appendix 3

and by mothers” (Straus and Stewart 1999, 55).8 in schools, blacks are apparently more likely to be punished than whites (Skiba et al. 2002, 320; Shaw and Braden 1990). in one study, black students were found to be three times as likely to be hit by a teacher than a white child (Gregory 1995). Other racial minorities and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are also dealt with more harshly in disciplinary matters than white Americans. American boys, who are said to be more disruptive than girls, are more likely to be punished corporally; office referrals, suspensions, and expulsions are also handed out to boys at a higher rate. Yet there is no evidence that racial minorities and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are any more disruptive and therefore any more deserving of harsh discipline than whites (see Skiba et al. 2002). Efforts to ban corporal punishment in American schools have often been met by significant resistance, partly because of a regional divide between “liberal” areas of the country, which are primarily located in the Northeast and West, and “conservative” regions in the Midwest and South. Schools that eschew corporal punishment tend to be from the Northeast, in suburban communities, and have a predominantly white student body (farley 1983, 78). Yet even in states in which corporal punishment is illegal, some politicians and teachers wish it were not. in 1996, Mickey Conroy, a state assemblyman from Orange County, California, tried to pass a law that would have reinstated corporal punishment in California’s public schools, but ten Republican assemblymen broke ranks and joined Democrats to reject the bill, forty-seven to nineteen. the bill would not have required school districts to reinstate paddling but it would have given teachers the right to use it if and when they believed it necessary, and only under certain conditions (e.g., when another adult was present and only if the student’s parents had given the teacher written permission). Parents would also have been provided with a written explanation of why their son or daughter had been physically punished. Conroy introduced this legislation following a media frenzy that developed after the whacking of an eighteen-year-old Ohioan who had been caught painting graffiti on cars during a visit to Singapore (see Dillow 2005). upon learning of this “traditional Singaporean punishment,” Conroy wondered if California would be a better place with corporal punishment reinstated. thus he introduced 8  Ember and Ember’s cross-cultural analysis of corporal punishment attempts to explain why minorities and people from lower socioeconomic strata might receive corporal punishment with greater frequency. they write, “in societies that are socially stratified, such as the united States, we would expect that parents toward the lower end of the social hierarchy would be more inclined to practice corporal punishment than those toward the higher end. After all, people on the bottom of the social hierarchy are more likely to feel the pressure of unequal power relations” (2005, 616).

Corporal Punishment in the United States

197

a bill that would have required corporal punishment for any California youth caught painting graffiti. Despite the bill’s failure, some California teachers still believe corporal punishment would be a useful disciplinary tool. As one high school teacher in a semi-urban, lower-income neighborhood of northern California told me in mid-2011, “You could cut my salary 20 percent if you reinstituted corporal punishment. it would be a really effective classroom management tool.” Another teacher who had recently been transferred from a similar, lower-income school to a higher-income school, explained his frustration with classroom discipline with a greater degree of uncertainty: in the absence of parental involvement or the administration addressing the issue of disciplinary problems, what else can a teacher do? How else can you establish civility in your classroom? the administration doesn’t do anything for you; parents aren’t doing anything for you. if the kids are swearing at you and the parents aren’t supporting you, you feel trapped. You feel helpless to the students themselves. Your efforts to mitigate their bad behavior go awry because the only recourse you have is sending them to administration, which is fruitless, or contacting their parents, which is equally fruitless.

this teacher shows why many educators are conflicted about their use of “corporal punishment.” in one recent New York Times article, a South Carolina educator said, “if i could burn that paddle in my stove i would. this is the worst part of my job,” though he acknowledged that corporal punishment had turned his school from “chaos” to order (Adelson 2009). further fueling already blazing debates between “red” and “blue” states, as well as underscoring the ever-present inequalities between white and black America, corporal punishment in American schools, like taibatsu in Japan, will likely remain a very contentious issue. Attitudes Regarding Corporal Punishment Inside and Outside the American Academy Among the most interesting debates over corporal punishment in the u.S. pits “idealist” scholars versus “realist” educators and parents. As we have seen, over the past few decades there has been a considerable movement to eradicate corporal punishment taking shape around the world. this is especially the case among nongovernmental organizations, professional organizations, and scholars (e.g., the Global initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, the Center for Effective Discipline, the Society for Adolescent Medicine) (Economist 2008). Despite their general tendency to disapprove of corporal punishment, however, there has

198

Appendix 3

been considerable disagreement among scholars regarding whether this movement towards eradication is in fact a universal endeavor. for example, Robinson et al. argue that corporal punishment is like “no other practice” in that it “receives such widespread public support and yet also receives a near unanimous call for its abolishment by researchers” (2005, 117). Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner do not believe this is a “unanimous call,” however, as they conclude that researchers of corporal punishment fall into two general categories: “[those] who support an ‘anti-corporal punishment view’ who believe that ‘empirical evidence suggests that physical punishment has negative developmental consequences for children,’ and those who accept that ‘mild to moderate forms of corporal punishment such as normative spanking—especially in loving families—may not have negative consequences and may, under some conditions, even have beneficial effects’ (2006, 224).9 Both sides of this debate, they explain, discourage the “use of severe or frequent punishment as the primary form of parental discipline” (224).10 indeed, there are some scholars who argue that there is a time and a place for corporal punishment if administered properly. Along with Larzelere (2000) and Gunnoe (2003), the psychologist Diane Baumrind (1995, 1996) is widely recognized for her belief that corporal punishment would not be so harmful if it were administered in a controlled manner. She argues that the role of researchers and scholars should not be to impose their values on parents but to offer parents alternative disciplinary strategies that fit with parents’ own values, asserting: in a pluralistic society such as ours, however, where corporal punishment is acceptable to most parents (particularly to parents who are religious conservatives, low-income, or black), and where supportive services are inadequate, any attempt to outlaw corporal punishment in the home is likely to backfire. One unintended consequence of outlawing corporal punishment by parents in this society could well be to increase the incidence of neglect and emotional maltreatment of children by parents who 9  Among the members of this group of “conditional defenders,” Baumrind, along with Larzelere and Cowan, argues that a blanket injunction against the use of corporal punishment is scientifically unsupportable. they assert: “When administered without guilt, under controlled circumstances in a measured fashion, where both parent and child are aware of the reason for its use, physical punishment is likely to deter unacceptable behavior. Corporal punishment administered in private for willful defiance rather than for childish irresponsibility, not in anger, and not to children younger than eighteen months or to teenagers, may well be effective and harmless in that it does not generate hostility, persistent dysphoria, or maladjustment” (2002, 67–68). 10  See also Giles-Sims and Lockhart (2005, 196–197) for a summary of debates among scholars of the ethics and effects of corporal punishment.

Corporal Punishment in the United States

199

believe in the use of corporal punishment and would then view their children as adversaries. (1995, 69)

Despite Baumrind’s views, however, Western research literature is replete with scholarly work calling for the complete eradication of corporal punishment. Such books are not new, either; as far back as 1926, Bagley was demanding an end to corporal punishment in American schools (170ff). in 1941, falk echoed his sentiments: “for education to become an instrument of social reconstruction, the practice of corporal punishment and the attitudes which form the basis of such practice must be eliminated from educational procedure, orientation and thinking” (145). Scott’s volume on the history of corporal punishment, published just a few years earlier, also made a strong case for the abolition of corporal punishment on the grounds that “its evils, its drawbacks, and its disadvantages . . . outweigh hugely and in every possible way, its few virtues—virtues which are based upon the most dubious foundations” ([1938] 1952, 241). Yet these calls have continued because corporal punishment has continued. in the late 1970s, Hentoff repeated Scott’s argument, writing that “corporal punishment makes no sense educationally, psychologically. And its results are long-lastingly pernicious” (1979, xii). Psychologists, medical professionals, and educators are therefore in relatively widespread agreement that corporal punishment is not the best means of disciplining children.11 As in Japan (see especially chapter 4), some Western scholars push for the eradication of corporal punishment with arguments based on “human rights.” in the united Kingdom, where parents may “strike but not bruise,” Parker-Jenkins argues that we must locate the study of corporal punishment “within an overarching theme of human rights,” but one which “does not seek to promote the case for children’s rights in isolation, but rather locates the question within the context of rights and responsibilities of pupils, teachers, and parents” (1998, 145). in other words, we must not see the rights of children within a vacuum. 11  though scholars may be in general agreement that corporal punishment should be eradicated, many of them disagree about exactly how to go about doing so. for example, in Canada (where parents can strike but not on a child’s head or with any object), turner argues against the use of corporal punishment by showing that “there is no moral justification for it and indeed, definite reason to morally condemn it” (2000, xiii). She concludes that Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code—“the law that protects those who punish children in their care by allowing them to hit the children as long as such punishment is ‘reasonable’”— should be repealed (xiv). Meanwhile, some scholars insist that even if laws forbidding corporal punishment in the home were enacted (or ones allowing it repealed), they would be difficult to enforce, so a more practical way of eradicating corporal punishment would be to create a “new norm rejecting corporal punishment that can only emerge by changing public attitudes” (Robinson et al. 2005, 136; see also imbrogno 2000).

200

Appendix 3

Of course, an appeal to human rights is not the only avenue towards eradication. Gershoff calls on researchers to lead the way in making an empirical case that corporal punishment is simply not effective. She writes that it is “the role of scientists in the debate over corporal punishment . . . to establish empirical connections between corporal punishment and potential child outcomes, particularly in longitudinal and prospective studies” so that we can “separate out the emotionally charged aspects of the debate over corporal punishment” and “knowledgeably and responsibly recommend or discourage parents’ use of corporal punishment with their children” (2002, 567). Whether it is based on an appeal to “human rights,” establishing empirical connections to the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment, or changing public attitudes and relevant laws, Western scholars have made a wide range of proposals for how corporal punishment could be eradicated. it is also generally true that most scholars who dedicate themselves to studying corporal punishment make an eradication agenda explicit in their research projects, especially if they are psychologists, medical doctors, psychiatric professionals, or child development specialists. Meanwhile, many “lay people” in the united States still see corporal punishment as a viable disciplinary tool. A vast majority of Americans apparently approve of spanking; Donnelly and Straus report that an “overwhelming majority of adult Americans approve of it” and “close to 100% of parents use corporal punishment on toddlers” (2005, 4). Corporal punishment is discussed with an especially favorable attitude where it remains legal (Bogacki 1981, 70), and approval for corporal punishment is said to be higher in urban areas and the Southeast and lower in rural areas and the Northeast (farley 1983, 78). Some scholars assert that there is growing evidence that “American society may have reached a turning point concerning cultural norms on corporal punishment and the actual use of corporal punishment,” especially in schools (Donnelly and Straus 2005, 5). Similar conclusions were reached many almost a century ago, however, when Bagley wrote that “actual physical coercion” was “disappearing” in American schools (1926, 171). falk made a similar statement in his 1941 Ph.D. dissertation on corporal punishment in the united States: “We found that corporal punishment and the attitudes favoring it to be declining” (145), and Benjet and Kazdin (2003) also argue that favorable attitudes towards spanking have decreased thirty percent since the 1960s. there is some evidence to suggest that corporal punishment is indeed on the decline. for example, a recent analysis of u.S. Department of Education statistics by the Center for Effective Discipline found that the percentage of children hit in u.S. public schools has gradually decreased from

Corporal Punishment in the United States

201

3.5 percent (1,521,896 students) in 1976 to 0.46 percent (223,190 students) in 2006 (Center for Effective Discipline n.d.). While it may be true that the number of students being punished corporally is gradually decreasing and that the number of states prohibiting corporal punishment in schools is gradually increasing, it is difficult to say whether American attitudes have indeed reached such a “turning point.” Many Americans still see the practice as a “necessary evil” to be used occasionally in the home or at school. there thus remains a great divide between lay people and researchers (especially psychologists and medical professionals) regarding the value of corporal punishment. the latter group generally disapproves of the practice, while the former group generally accepts its effectiveness. this may be why scholars such as Donnelly and Straus believe that American society has reached a “turning point.” it likely has within the American academy; on the other hand, in many American homes and in some American schools, as well as in the minds of many American parents and educators, corporal punishment appears rather firmly entrenched as a tried, true, and traditional disciplinary practice. in this sense, the discourses of discipline in the united States are not all that different from those in Japan.

Bibliography

Abelow, Benjamin J. 2011. “the Shaping of New testament Narrative and Salvation teachings by Painful Childhood Experience.” Archive for the Psychology of Religion 33 (1): 1–54. Ackerman, Peter. 1996. “the four Seasons: One of Japan’s Most Central Concepts.” in Japanese images of nature: Cultural perspectives, edited by Pamela Asquith and Arne Kalland, 36–53. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Adelson, Eric. 2009. “the Principal and the Paddle.” Newsweek, May 4. Available at http://www.corpun.com/uss00905.htm, accessed february 13, 2013. Ae Mieko. 1991. “Bōryoku wo Mochiita Supōtsu Shidō no Ataeru Eikyō.” [the effects of sports guidance that employs violence]. Tokyo Joshi Taiiku Daigaku Kiyō 26 (1): 10–16. ———. 2006. “Koko ga Okashii, Nihon no Supōtsu: Undōbu to Bōryoku Mondai wa Supōtsu Kai no Jōshiki ka” [this is strange about Japanese sports: Do sports clubs and violence make common sense?]. Taiiku no Kenkyū 54 (1): 30–33. Akiba, Motoko, Kazuhiko Shimizu, and Yue-Lin Zhuang. 2010. “Bullies, Victims, and teachers in Japanese Middle Schools.” Comparative Education Review 54 (3): 369–392. Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Anderson, Sandra, and Monica Payne. 1992. “Corporal Punishment in Elementary Education: Views of Barbadian Schoolchildren.” Child Abuse & Neglect 18 (4): 377–386. Andrews, David, and Michael Silk, eds. forthcoming. Physical Cultural Studies: A Constitutive Anthology. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Aoki takayori, and Akira Manita, eds. 1990. Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu]. tokyo: tōsho Bunkasha. Aoki tamotsu. 1989. Nihon Bunkaron no Henyō [transitions in Japanese culture theory]. tokyo: Chuo Koron.

204

Bibliography

Aota Noboru. 1996. Samurai Tachi no Puro Yakyū [the professional baseball of the samurai]. tokyo: Bungeishunjū. Aoyama, Kenya. 2003. “A Comparative Study between Japanese and American Coaching.” M.A. thesis. California State university, Long Beach. Arcus, Doreen. 2002. “School Shooting fatalities and School Corporal Punishment: A Look at the States.” Aggressive Behavior 28: 173–183. Ariyama teruo. 1997. Kōshien to Nihonjin: Media no Tsukutta Ibento [Kōshien and the Japanese: A made-for-media event]. tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobundo. Asahi Shimbun. 1991. “Totsuka Yotto Sukūru Jiken Ronkoku” [Prosecutor’s closing argument in the totsuka Yacht School incidents trial]. October 30. ——–. 2006a. “Taibatsu wo Kangaeru, Taibatsu wo Kataru” [thinking about taibatsu/talking about taibatsu]. Special Series, June 9–13. ——–. 2006b. “Jōsōgakuin Yakyūbu de Bōryoku: Hitori ga Rokotsu ni Hibi” [Violence in baseball club at Jōsō Gakuin: One member has cracked ribs]. November 7. ——–. 2006c. “Ijimerareteiru 841 Nin: Kurumeshi ga Anketo” [Kurume City bullying survey: 841 students say they are victims]. November 8. ——–. 2006d. “Jūko de Ijime Shobun Jōshin Kōyaren” [Japan high school baseball federation reprimands ten schools for bullying]. November 16. ——–. 2006e. “Fushōji Hokoku, Kakō Saita Kōsen no Mikomi Nihon Kōyaren” [Scandal report: the Japan high school baseball federation predicts that this year’s total incidents will hit highest in history]. November 24. ——–. 2006f. “Waseda Jitsu Kōkō Yakyūbu ga Genjū Chuii Shobun: Buin ga Settō” [Waseda university High School given firm reprimand in ruling: A player commits larceny]. November 30. ——–. 2006g. “Kagoshima Ken Kōyaren Rijichō ga Mayuge Sotta Seitō ni Hirate Uchi Jinin” [Kagoshima Prefecture director of regional high school baseball federation resigns after slapping student who had shaved eyebrows]. December 6. ——–. 2006h. “Komadai Tomakomai wa Keikoku Gakusei Yakyū Kyōkai ga 80 Ken Fushōji ni Shobun” [Komadai tomakomai High School gets warning: Student baseball association deals with eighty scandals]. December 18. ——–. 2006i. “Yakyūbu Motokantoku ni Yūzai: Buin ni Zenra Ranningu Okayama Chisai Shibu” [Okayama regional court convicts former baseball coach for making players run naked]. March 23.

Bibliography

205

——–. 2006j. “Gakkō [Ijime ga Gennin] Buin no Oya ni Shazai” [School apologizes to parents for “bullying-caused” suicide]. November 8. ——–. 2006k. “Kōkō 31 Ken Daigaku ni Ken no Shōbun Kettei Nihon Gakusei Yakyū Kyōkai [Japan Student Baseball Association decides on punishments for two universities and thirty-one high schools]. October 5. ——–. 2007. “Taibatsu ni Tayoranu Shidō to wa” [What it means to instruct without a reliance on taibatsu]. May 20. ——–. 2008. (English Edition) “three Sumo Wrestlers Guilty in Death.” December 18. Ashkenazi, Michael. 2002. “Inakazumō, fun, and Socially Sanctioned Violence.” in Japan at Play: The Ludic and Logic of Power, edited by Joy Hendry and Massimo Raveri, 115–128. London: Routledge. Associated Press. 2009. “Mom testifies in Ky. Coach trial over Player Death.” New York Times, September 4. Bachnik, Jane. 1992. “the two ‘faces’ of Self and Society in Japan.” Ethos 20 (1): 3–32. Bagley, William Chandler. 1926. School Discipline. New York: Macmillan. Ban, tsunenobu. 1995. “the Characteristic features of Moral Socialization: A Comparison of Japanese and Australian Children.” International Review of Education 41 (1–2): 73–96. Barry, Herbert, Lili Josephson, Edith Lauer, and Catherine Marshall. 1977. “Agents and techniques for Child training: Cross-Cultural Codes.” Ethnology 16 (1): 191–230. Baumrind, Diana. 1995. Child Maltreatment and Optimal Caregiving in Social Contexts. New York: Garland Publishing. ———. 1996. “A Blanket injunction against Disciplinary use of Spanking is Not Warranted by the Data.” Pediatrics 98 (1): 828–831. Baumrind, Diana, Robert E. Larzelere, and Phillip A. Cowan. 2002. “Ordinary Physical Punishment: is it Harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002).” Psychological Bulletin 128 (4): 580–589. BBC News. 2007. “Japan Schools to Rethink Beating.” January 24. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6293849.stm, accessed January 29, 2007. Beauchamp, E. R. and J. M. Vardaman, eds. 1994. Japanese Education Since 1945: A Documentary Study. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Befu, Harumi. 2001. Hegemony of Homogeneity: An Anthropological Analysis of Nihonjinron. Melbourne: trans Pacific Press. Ben-Ari, Eyal, and Sabine frühstück. 2003. “the Celebration of Violence: A Live-fire Demonstration Carried Out by Japan’s Contemporary Military.” American Ethnologist 30 (41): 540–555.

206

Bibliography

Ben-Arieh, Asher and Muhammad M. Haj-Yahia. 2008. “Corporal Punishment of Children: A Multi-Generational Perspective.” Journal of Family Violence 23 (1): 687–695. Benedict, Ruth. [1946] 2005. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. New York: Mariner Books. ———. 1948. Kiku to Katana [the chrysanthemum and the sword]. translated by Hasegawa Matsuji. tokyo: Shakai Shiso Kenkyūkai. Benesse Educational Research Center. 1998. Homerare Taiken Shikarare Taiken Monogurafu Shogakusei Nau [Monograph on elementary school students’ experiences with praise and experiences with scolding] 18 (3). tokyo: Benesse Corporation. Available at http://benesse.jp/berd/ center/open/report/monograph/syo/vol_18_03/index.html. ———. 1999. Kosodate Seikatsu Kihon Chosa Hōkokusho II Kenkyū Shoho [Report #2 on the basic survey of child-rearing life] 19 (1). tokyo: Benesse Corporation. Available at http://benesse.jp/berd/data/ index.shtml. Benjet, C., and A. E. Kazdin. 2003. “Spanking Children: the Controversies, findings, and New Directions.” Clinical Psychology Review 23 (1): 197–224. Benthall, Jonathan. 1991. “invisible Wounds: Corporal Punishment in British Schools as a form of Ritual.” Child Abuse & Neglect 15 (4): 377–388. Berger, Peter L., and thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Blackwood, thomas S. 2005. “through Sweat and tears: High School Baseball and the Socialization of Japanese Boys.” Ph.D. diss. university of Michigan. ProQuest 31-92581. ———. 2008. “Bushidō Baseball? three ‘fathers’ and the invention of a tradition.” Social Science Japan Journal 11 (2): 223–240. Bloch, Maurice. 2011. “the Blob.” Anthropology of this Century 1. Available at http://aotcpress.com/articles/blob. Blok, Anton. 1988. “Review of Riches, David ed., The Anthropology of Violence.” Man: New Series 23 (4): 785–786. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: university of California Press. Bjork, Chris. 2011. “imagining Japan’s Relaxed Education: Curriculum Continuity or Change.” in Reimagining Japanese Education: Borders, Transfers, Circulations, and the Comparative, edited by David Blake Willis and Jeremy Rappleye, 147–170. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Bibliography

207

Bogacki, David f. 1981. “Attitudes toward Corporal Punishment: Authoritarian Personality and Pupil Control ideology of School Personnel.” Ph.D. diss. temple university. Botsman, Daniel V. 2005. Punishment and Power in the Making of Modern Japan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. ———. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited by John B. thompson. Cambridge: Harvard university Press. Bryan, Janice, and florence freed. 1982. “Corporal Punishment: Normative Data and Sociological and Psychological Correlates in a Community College Population.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 11 (1): 77–87. Burstyn, Varda. 1999. The Rites of Men: Manhood, Politics, and the Culture of Sport. toronto: university of toronto Press. Cave, Peter. 2004. “Bukatsudō: the Educational Role of Japanese School Clubs.” Journal of Japanese Studies 30 (2): 383–415. ———. 2011. “Explaining the impact of Japan’s Educational Reform: Or, Why Are Junior High Schools So Different from Elementary Schools?” Social Science Japan Journal 14 (2): 145–163. Center for Effective Discipline. n.d. Available at http://www.stophitting. com, accessed January 29, 2007. Chang, i. J., Rebecca W. Pettit, and Emiko Katsurada. 2007. “Where and When to Spank: A Comparison between u.S. and Japanese College Students.” Journal of Family Violence 21 (1): 281–286. Chantrell, Glyniss, ed. 2004. “Discipline.” Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories. Oxford: Oxford university Press. Chapman, Kris. 2004. “Ossu! Sporting Masculinities in a Japanese Karate Dōjō.” Japan Forum 16 (2): 315–335. Chiba, Naoki. 2008. “Globalization of Basketball and Reorganization of Elite Basketball in Japan.” Paper presented at the international Sociology of Sport Association, fifth World Congress: Sport and Society at the Crossroads, Kyoto, July 26–29. Chugoku Shimbun. 2008. “‘Jūdai na Taibatsu Jiken da Nattoku Dekinai’” Santō Kaisō no Chichi’oya [“i cannot accept the argument that this was a serious case of corporal punishment”: A third-class petty officer’s father]. October 13. Chūjō Kazuo. 1980. “‘Bōryokuteki’ to Iwareru Taiiku Kyōshi no Iibun” [What physical education teachers who are called “violent” have to say]. Shintaiiku 50 (12): 8-43.

208

Bibliography

Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press. Collins, Randall. 2005. “Conflict theory of Corporal Punishment.” in Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective, edited by Michael Donnelly and Murray Straus, 199–213. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. Collins, Sandra. 2007. “Samurai Politics: Japanese Cultural identity in Global Sport.” International Journal for the History of Sport 24 (3): 357–374. Condry, ian. 2006. Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and the Paths of Cultural Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke university Press. Crandall, Edward. 2007. “Corporal Punishment in School.” Saga Shimbun, January 24. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford university Press. Dale, Peter. 1990. The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Daniel, E. Valentine. 1996. Charred Lullabies: Chapters in an Anthropology of Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press. David, Paulo. 2005. Human Rights in Youth Sport: A Critical Review of Children’s Rights in Competitive Sport. London: Routledge. Denmark, florence, Herbert H. Krauss, Robert W. Wesner, Elizabeth Midlarsky, and uwe P. Gielen, eds. 2005. Violence in Schools: CrossNational and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New York: Springer. Devos, George. 1973. Socialization for Achievement: Essays on the Cultural Psychology of the Japanese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: university of California Press. Diamond, Paul. 1999. “is Corporal Punishment Contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights?” Education and the Law 11 (1): 43–52. Dillow, Gordon. 2005. “More than One Side to Conroy.” Orange County Register, September 28. Doak, Kevin M. 2007. A History of Nationalism in Modern Japan: Placing the People. Boston: Brill. Doi, takeo. 2001. The Anatomy of Dependence. New York: Bantam. Donnelly, Michael, and Murray Straus. 2005. Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ———. 1973. Natural Symbols. New York: Vintage Books.

Bibliography

209

Drea, Edward J. 1998. In the Service of the Emperor: Essays on the Imperial Japanese Army. Lincoln: university of Nebraska Press. Dubanoski, Richard A., Masakazu inaba, and Kent Gerkewicz. 1983. “Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Child Abuse.” Child Abuse & Neglect 7 (3): 271–278. Dumont, Louis. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications. Chicago: Chicago university Press. Durant, Joan E., and Gregg M. Olsen. 1997. “Parenting and Public Policy: Contextualizing the Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban.” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 19 (4): 443–461. Durkheim, Emile. [1915] 2008. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Mineola, NY: Dover. ———. 1938. The Rules of the Sociological Method. New York: free Press. Eades, J. S. 2000. “introduction.” in Globalization and Social Change in Contemporary Japan, edited by J. S. Eades, tom Gill, and Harumi Befu, 1–16. Melbourne: trans Pacific Press. Eades, J. S., tom Gill, and Harumi Befu, eds. 2000. Globalization and Social Change in Contemporary Japan. Melbourne: trans Pacific Press. Economist. 1997. “the Struggle to Create Creativity.” June 26. Available at http://www.economist.com/node/91903, accessed february 13, 2013. ———. 2006. “Japan’s Economy.” July 22. Available at http://www. economist.com/node/7193984, accessed february 13, 2013. ———. 2007. “Sumo Wrestling: Heavy Petting.” October 11. Available at http://www.economist.com/node/9963190, accessed february 13, 2013. ———. 2008. “Spare the Rod, Say Some.” May 29. Available at http:// www.economist.com/node/11455006, accessed february 13, 2013. ———. 2011. “America’s Prisons: Sing Sing or the Lash.” June 23. Available at http://www.economist.com/node/18864244, accessed february 13, 2013. Education Rebuilding Council [Kyōiku Saisei Kaigi]. 2007. Shakai Sōgakari de Kyōiku Saisai wo: Kōkyōiku Saisei e no Dai Ippō [Collective education rebuilding for society as a whole: the first step toward the rebuilding of public education]. tokyo: Education Rebuilding Council, Office of Prime Minister and His Cabinet. Available at http://www.kantei. go.jp/jp/singi/kyouiku/kettei/070124honbun.pdf. Edu-garden. 2007. Taibatsu Mondai Shiryōkan (Corporal punishment archive). Available at: http://wiki.livedoor.jp/kyouiku_hiroba/, accessed January 4, 2013. Edwards, Gail N. 1983. “Corporal Punishment and its Relationship to Dogmatism and Authoritarian Child Rearing Styles among Parents

210

Bibliography

of Children in Catholic Parochial Schools.” Ph.D. diss. united States international university. Elias, Norbert. 1939. Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation, Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen, Erster Band, Wandlungen des Verhaltens in den weltlichen Oberschichten des Abendlandes and Zweiter Band, Wandlungen der Gesellschaft. Entwurf einer Theorie der Zivilisation. [Published in English as The Civilizing Process: (Vol I) The History of Manners, Oxford: Blackwell, 1969, and The Civilizing Process: (Vol II) State Formation and Civilization, Oxford: Blackwell, 1982]. Basel: Verlag Haus zum falken. ———. 1986. Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. With Eric Dunning. Oxford: Blackwell. Ellington, Lucien. 1991. Education in the Japanese Life-Cycle: Implications for the United States. Lampeter, uK: Edwin Mellen Press. Ember, Carol R., and Melvin Ember. 2005. “Explaining Corporal Punishment of Children: A Cross-Cultural Study.” American Anthropologist 107 (4): 609–619. Emori ichiro. 1984. Edo Jidai no Taibatsukan, Kenkyū Josetsu [An introductory study on the concept of corporal punishment (in education) in the Edo period]. Nihon no Kyōikushigaku 27: 4–24. ———. 1989. Taibatsu no Shakaishi [the sociology of taibatsu]. tokyo: Shinyōsha. Esashi, Shogo, and Hiroshi Komuku, eds. 1994. Kōkō Yakyu no Shakaigaku: Kōshien wo Yomu [the sociology of high school baseball: Reading Kōshien]. tokyo: Sekai Shisosha. falk, Herbert Arnold. 1941. “Corporal Punishment: A Social interpretation of its theory and Practice in the Schools of the united States.” Ph.D. diss. Columbia university teacher’s College. farley, Arnold Charles. 1983. “National Survey of the use and Non-use of Corporal Punishment as a Disciplinary technique within united States Public Schools.” Ph.D. diss. temple university. fergusson, David M., and Michael t. Lynskey. 1997. “Physical Punishment/Maltreatment during Childhood and Adjustment in Young Adulthood.” Child Abuse & Neglect 21 (7): 617–630. field, Norma. 1995. “the Child as Laborer and Consumer: the Disappearance of Childhood in Contemporary Japan.” in Children and the Politics of Culture, edited by Sharon Stephens, 51–78. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press. foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper Colophon Books. ———. 1981. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. New York: Pantheon Books.

Bibliography

211

———. 1982. “Afterword: the Subject and Power.” in Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, by Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, 208–226. Chicago: university of Chicago Press. ———. 1995. Discipline and Punishment. New York: Vintage Books. ———. 2006. History of Madness. London: Routledge. frühstück, Sabine. 2007. Uneasy Warriors: Gender, Memory, and Popular Culture in the Japanese Army. Berkeley: university of California Press. fukutani Kazuko. 1990. “Taibatsu Mondai wo Okoshi Yasui Kyōshi no Taipu” [the type of teacher who is likely to create a taibatsu problem]. in Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu], edited by takayori Aoki and Akira Manita, 91–96. tokyo: tōsho Bunkasha. fukuzawa, Rebecca Erwin. 1994. “the Path to Adulthood According to Japanese Middle Schools.” Journal of Japanese Studies 20 (1): 61–86. ———. 2006. “Classroom Management, School Culture and Community: An Ethnography of Middle School Discipline Policies.” Hosei university Koganeironshu, volume 3: 13–36. fukuzawa, Rebecca Erwin, and Gerald Letendre. 2001. Intense Years: How Japanese Adolescents Balance School, Family and Friends. New York: Routledgefalmer. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gelles, Richard, J. 2005. “Exchange theory.” in Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective, edited by Michael Donnelly and Murray Straus, 245–254. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. Gershoff, Elizabeth thompson. 2002. “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 128 (4): 539–579. Giles-Sims, Jean, and Charles Lockhart. 2005. “Culturally Shaped Patterns of Disciplining Children.” Journal of Family Issues 26 (2): 196–218. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Goldstein, Donna. 1998. “Nothing Bad intended: Child Discipline, Punishment, and Survival in a Shanty town in Rio de Janeiro.” in Small Wars: The Cultural Politics of Childhood, edited by Nancy ScheperHughes and Carolyn Sargeant, 389–415. Berkeley: university of California Press. Gombrich, Ernst. 2008. A Little History of the World. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. Gonick, Alan M. 1982. “A Study of the influence of Selected factors on Corporal Punishment Attitudes and Practices of Educators in the State of Michigan.” Ph.D. diss. Michigan State university.

212

Bibliography

Goodenough, f. L. [1931] 1975. Anger in Young Children. Westport, Ct: Greenwood. Goodman, Roger. [1992] 2010. “Deconstructing an Anthropological text: A ‘Moving’ Account of Returnee Schoolchildren in Contemporary Japan.” in Unwrapping Japan: Society and Culture and Anthropological Perspective, edited by Eyal Ben-Ari, Brian Moeran, and James Valentine, 121–138. Honolulu: university of Hawaii Press. ———. 2000. Children of the Japanese State: The Changing Role of Child Protection. Oxford: Oxford university Press. ———. 2003. “Child Abuse in Japan: ‘Discovery’ and the Development of Policy.” in Family and Social Policy in Japan: Anthropological Approaches, edited by Roger Goodman, 131–155. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. ———. 2010. “the Rapid Redrawing of Boundaries in Japanese Higher Education.” Japan Forum 22 (1): 65–87. ———. 2011. “Japanese Education and Education Reform.” in Routledge Handbook of Japanese Culture and Society, edited by theodore C. Bestor, Victoria L. Bestor, and Akiko Yamagata, 52–62. London: Routledge. Goodman, Roger, Yuki imoto, and tuukka toivonen, eds. 2011. A Sociology of Japanese Youth: From Freeters to NEETs. London: Routledge. Gough, David. 1996. “Child Abuse in Japan.” Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review 1 (1): 12–18. Gregory, James f. 1995. “the Crime of Punishment: Racial and Gender Disparities in the use of Corporal Punishment in u.S. Public Schools.” Journal of Negro Education 64 (4): 454–462. Grossman, David C., M. J. Rauh, and f. P. Rivara. 1995. “Prevalence of Corporal Punishment among Students in Washington State Schools.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 149 (5): 529–532. Gudykunst, William B., and tsukasa Nishida. 2004. Bridging Japanese/ North American Differences. thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gunnoe, M. L. 2003. “the Whole is Less than the Sum of the Parts: Problems with Meta-Analyses that Seek to Homogenize incongruent Groups.” Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, tampa, fL. Guttman, Allen, and Lee thompson. 2001. Japanese Sports: A History. Honolulu: university of Hawaii Press. Hahm, Chung Hae. 1997. “the Study of Corporal Punishment on the Junior High and High School Athletics.” Korean Journal of Physical Education 36 (4): 143–162. Haj-Yahia, Muhammed, Khader Musleh, and Yousif M. Haj-Yahia. 2002. “the incidence of Adolescent Maltreatment in Arab Society and Some of its Psychological Effects.” Journal of Family Studies 23 (8): 1032–1064.

Bibliography

213

Hayashida Hideki. 1990. “Taibatsu Mondai no Kon’nichiteki Jōkyō” [today’s taibatsu problem]. in Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu], edited by takayori Aoki and Akira Manita, 15–25. tokyo: tōsho Bunkasha. Hendry, Joy. 1986. Becoming Japanese. Manchester: Manchester university Press. ———. 1995a. Understanding Japanese Society. London: Routledge. ———. 1995b. Wrapping Culture. Oxford: Oxford university Press. Hendry, Joy, and Massimo Raveri, eds. 2002. Japan at Play: The Ludic and Logic of Power. London: Routledge. Hentoff, Nat. 1979. “Preface.” in Corporal Punishment in American Education: Readings in History, Practice, and Alternatives, edited by irwin A. Hyman and James H. Wise, xi–xii. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Hill, Benjamin. 1996. “Breaking the Rules in Japanese Schools: Kosoku ihan, Academic Competition, and Moral Education.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 27 (1): 90–110. Hirata Jun, and takahiro Okada. 1998. “Taibatsu ga Hassei Suru “Kōzō” to Sono Kōbetsusei: Hanrei Kenkyū Hōhōron ni kansuru Hitotsu no Aratana Kokoromi” [A case-by-case study of the structures that follow corporal punishment in school and a consideration of their individualities]. Tokyo Daigaku Daigakuin Kyōikugaku Kenkyūka Kyōiku Gyōseigaku Kenkyūshitsu Kiyō 17 (1): 29–49. Hirota teruyuki. 2001. Kyōiku Gensetsu no Rekishi Shakaigaku [the historical sociology of educational discourse]. Nagoya: Nagoya university Press. Hoberman, John M. 1992. Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport. New York: the free Press. ———. n.d. “History of the Science of Human Performance and Sport.” Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine and Science, a website hosted by the journal Sportscience. Available at http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/ drafts/History_sport_science.doc, accessed June 8, 2009. Holden, George W. 2002. “Perspectives on the Effects of Corporal Punishment: Comment on Gershoff (2002).” Psychological Bulletin 128 (1): 590–595. Holden, George W., S. M. Coleman, and K. L. Schmidt. 1995. “Why 3-Year-Old Children Get Spanked: Parent and Child Determinants as Reported by College-Educated Mothers.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 41 (1): 431–452. Holt, Richard. 1992. Sport and the British: A Modern History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

214

Bibliography

Hori, G. Victor Sogen. 1994. “teaching and Learning in the Rinzai Zen Monastery.” Journal of Japanese Studies 20 (1): 5–35. Horio, teruhisa. 2006. “A View of Children in a Global Age: Concerning the Convention of Children’s Rights.” Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook 1 (1): 91–99. Horio, t., & Platzer, S. 1988. Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan: State Authority and Intellectual Freedom. tokyo: university of tokyo Press. Hosaka Nobuto. 1986. “Mayoi no Naka de Ikiru Kyōshi Tachi” [teachers living lost]. in Taibatsu to Kodomo no Jinken [Corporal punishment and the human rights of children], edited by Yoshio Murakami, Akira Nakagawa, and Nobuto Hosaka, 121–143. tokyo: Yūhikaku. Hughes, thomas. 1857. Tom Brown’s Schooldays. London: Macmillan. Hughson, John. 2009. “the Making of Sports Cultures.” Sport in Society 12 (1): 1–140. Hunt, Lynn. 2007. Inventing Human Rights. New York: W. W. Norton. Hyman, irwin A., and Eileen McDowell. 1979. “An Overview.” in Corporal Punishment in American Education: Readings in History, Practice, and Alternatives, edited by irwin A. Hyman and James H. Wise, 3–21. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Hyman, irwin A., and James H. Wise. 1979. Corporal Punishment in American Education: Readings in History, Practice, and Alternatives. Philadelphia: temple university Press. igarashi, Yoshikuni. 2000. Bodies of Memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press. ijuin, Shizuka. 2007. Hideki Matsui: Sportsmanship, Modesty, and the Art of the Home Run. New York: Ballantine Books. ikeda Kiyoshi. [1949] 1983. Jiyu to Kiritsu: Igirisu no Gakkō [freedom and discipline: School in England]. tokyo: iwanami Shoten. ikegami, Eiko. 1995. The Taming of the Samurai: Honorific Individualism and the Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge: Harvard university Press. imabashi Morikatsu. 1986. NHK Ohayo Janaru: Taibatsu. tokyo: Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai. imazu Kōjiro. 2006. “Taibatsu wa Hitsuyō da” [Taibatsu is necessary]. in Kyōiku Gensetsu wo Dō Yomu ka [How should we read educational discourse?], edited by Kōjiro imazu and Daijiro Hida, 233–258. tokyo: Shinyosha. imbrogno, Andre R. 2000. “Corporal Punishment in America’s Public Schools and the u.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Case for Nonratification.” Journal of Law Education 29 (1): 125–147. inagaki, Masahiro. 2001. Supōtsu Bunka no Datsukōchiku [the deconstruction of sports culture]. tokyo: Sōbunsha.

Bibliography

215

inoue Shun, and Yoshiaki Kameyama, eds. 1999. Supōtsu Bunka wo Manabu Hito no tame ni [for people who are learning about sports culture]. tokyo: Sekai Shisōsha. ishii, Motonobu. 2008. “Sports and Psychology i.” Paper presented at the Japan Amateur Sports Association’s Coach Certification Conference, tokyo, August 15. ishikawa Emiko. 1986. “Fubo wa Nani wo Shitara Ii ka” [What should parents do?]. in Taibatsu to Kodomo no Jinken [Corporal punishment and the human rights of children], edited by Yoshio Murakami, Akira Nakagawa, and Nobuto Hosaka, 146–153. tokyo: Yūhikaku. ishikawa Matsutaro. 1990. “Terakoya Kyōiku no Chōkai” [Discipline in temple school education]. in Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu], edited by takayori Aoki and Akira Manita, 44–45. tokyo: tōsho Bunkasha. ishikawa Yoshiyuki, ed. 1998. Oya/Kyōshi ni yoru: Taibatsu no Jittai [the state of affairs of corporal punishment according to parents and teachers]. Matsue: Shimane university Law, Letters, and Society Research institute. ivy, Marilyn. 1995. Discourses of the Vanishing: Modernity, Phantasm, Japan. Chicago: university of Chicago Press. iwai, Hachirō. 2001. “the transmission of Experiences: An Analysis of Opinions about Physical Punishment using JGSS-2000/2001.” Japan General Social Survey 2000/2001 (Volume 22). tokyo: tokyo university, institute of Social Science. ———. 2008a. “Gishiki toshite no taibatsu” [Taibatsu as ritual]. in Nihonjin no Ishiki to Kōdō: Nihonban Sōgōshakaichōsa: JGSS ni yoru Bunseki [the consciousness and actions of the Japanese people: Analysis of the JGSS comprehensive social survey, Japan edition], edited by ichiro tanioka, Michio Nitta, and Kimiko iwai., 313–328. tokyo: tokyo university Press. ———. 2008b. “Yōnin Sareru Oya ni yoru Taibatsu: JGSS 2008 ni yoru Taibatsu ni tai suru Ishiki no Bunseki” [Parental tolerance for the use of physical punishment: An analysis of attitudes toward physical punishment using JGSS-2008]. Nihonban Sōgōteki Shakai Chōsa Kyōdō Kenkyū Konten Kenkyū Ronbunshū [10], JGSS Research Series No. 7. tokyo: tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai. Japan Amateur Sports Association (JASA). 2008a. Sports for All, 2008 [brochure explaining JASA activities]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. ———. 2008b. Nijūseiki Supōtsu Shidōsha: Nozomashii Supōtsu Shidōsha to wa [the twenty-first Century Sports Coach: What is a Desirable Coach?]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association.

216

Bibliography

———. 2008c. Kōnin Supōtsu Shidōsha Yōsei Tekisuto: Kyōtsu Kamoku I [Public sports coach training text: Common course i]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. ———. 2008d. Kōnin Supōtsu Shidōsha Yōsei Tekisuto: Kyōtsu Kamoku II [Public sports coach training text: Common course ii]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. ———. 2008e. Kōnin Supōtsu Shidōsha Yōsei Tekisuto: Kyōtsu Kamoku III [Public sports coach training text: Common course iii]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. ———. 2008f. Kōmin Supōtsu Shidōsha Seidō: Ofisharu Bukku [Public certified coach system: Official book]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. ———. 2008g. Kōnin Kochi Yōsei Kōshūkai [Summer school training for public coaches]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. ———. 2008h. Supōtsu Shidōsha Yōsei Kōza [training course for sports coaches]. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. ———. 2008i. Good Coach, Good Sports: The Publicly Qualified Coach Who Supports Sports Culture. tokyo: Japan Amateur Sports Association. Japan federation of Bar Associations [Nihon Bengōshi Rengō]. 1987. “Kodomo no Jinken Kyūsai no Teian” [Written statement on saving children’s human rights]. tokyo: Japan federation of Bar Associations. Japan Ministry of Education. n.d. Homepage of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and technology. Available at http://www. mext.go.jp, accessed September 9, 2009. ———. 2003. “Japanese Government Policies in Education, Science and Culture 1994, White Paper.” tokyo: Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and technology. Available at http://www. mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpae199401/index.html, accessed October 8, 2008. ———. 2005. “Seitō Shidōjō no Shōmondai no Genjō ni tsuite (Gaiyō)” [Outline regarding the current state of various problems in the guidance of students]. Available at http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/ houdou/18/09/06091103.htm, accessed December 7, 2010. ———. 2006. “Gakkōtō ni okeru Jidō Gyakutai Bōshi ni muketa Torikumi ni tsuite” [Regarding efforts towards preventing child abuse in schools]. Available at http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/ seitoshidou/06060513.htm, accessed September 5, 2009. ———. 2007. “Seitō Shidōjō no Shōmondai ni kansuru Chōsa” [Survey regarding various problems in the guidance of students]. Available at http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/19/01/07012303.htm, accessed November 28, 2007.

Bibliography

217

———. 2007b. Seitō Shidōjō no Shōmondai no Genjō ni tsuite (Gaiyō)” [(Outline) regarding the current state of various problems in the guidance of students]. Available at http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/ houdou/18/12/07060501.htm, accessed October 18, 2008. Japan Ministry of Education, Elementary and Middle School Education Bureau, Society for the Study of School Affairs. 1986. “Kyōmu Kankei Shitsumu Handobukku” [Handbook of Business Related to School Affairs]. tokyo: Japan Ministry of Education, Elementary and Middle School Education Bureau, Society for the Study of School Affairs. Japan Ministry of Justice [Hōmusho]. 2003a. “Jinken Yōgō Iin ni yoru Setsuji ni tsuite” [Regarding instructions by human rights protection committee members]. Jinken no Hiroba, 32 (1): 13–16. ———. 2003b. “Jinken Shinpan Jiken: Tōkei shiryō [incidents of human rights violations: Statistical data]. Available at http: //www.moj. go.jp/, accessed August 4, 2008. Japan Policy Agency. n.d. Homepage of Japan Policy Agency. Available at http: //www.npa.go.jp/, accessed August 6, 2008. Japan Times. 2005. “Girls Say Ex-Coach forced them to Run Nude.” November 12. ———. 2009. “former Stable Master Gets Six Years for Young Wrestler’s Hazing Death.” May 30. ———. 2010. “Ex-Sumo Master’s Six-Year term Cut to five Years over Wrestler’s Death.” April 5. James, Wendy. 1996. “Human Worlds Are Socially Constructed: for the Motion.” in Key Debates in Anthropology, edited by tim ingold, 105– 111. London: Routledge. Jeffs, Angela. 2004. “Empowerment training Draws interest across Japan.” Japan Times, June 5. Jenkins, Simon P. R. 2005. Sports Science Handbook: The Essential Guide to Kinesiology, Sport and Exercise Science, Volumes 1 and 2. Brentwood, Essex, uK: Multi-Science Publishing. Kakinuma Masayoshi, and tsuneo Nagano, eds. 1997. Kōnai Bōryoku [School violence]. tokyo: Hihyōsha. Kaneko, takeshi. 2002. Taibatsu Kyōshi [Corporal punishment teacher]. Nagano: Chōeisha. Kang, Shin Wook. 2004. “A Study on the Actual Condition of inter-Senior Junior Corporal Punishment and the Relationship between Experience to Corporal Punishment and Adjustment to College in Physical Education Majors.” Korean Journal of Physical Education 43 (5): 79–90. ———. 2007. “Analysis of Hypothetical Causal Model on the Corporal Punishment of School Athletic teams’ Coaches.” Korean Journal of Physical Education 46 (1): 135–151.

218

Bibliography

Katsuta takashi. 2002. Kokusai Rūru Kaisei ni Miru Nihon no Kadai [issues for Japan in the reform of international sports rules]. in Nihonjin to Supōtsu no Aishō [the Japanese and the chemistry of sports], edited by tetsuya Nakamura, 117–143. tokyo: Sobunkikaku. Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996. Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan. ithaca, NY: Cornell university Press. Kawatani Shigeki. 2005. Supōtsu Rinrigaku Kōgi [Discourse on sports ethics]. tokyo: Nakanishiya. Kelly, William W. 1991. “Directions in the Anthropology of Contemporary Japan.” Annual Review of Anthropology 20 (1): 395–431. ———. 1998a. “Blood and Guts in Japanese Professional Baseball.” in The Culture of Japan as Seen Through Its Leisure, edited by Sepp Linhart and Sabine frühstück, 95–112. New York: SuNY Press. ———. 1998b. “Learning to Swing in Japanese Baseball.” in Learning in Likely Places, edited by John Singleton, 265–285. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. ———. 2000a. “Caught in the Spin Cycle: An Anthropological Observer at the Sites of Japanese Professional Baseball.” in Moving Targets: Ethnographies of Self and Community in Japan, edited by Susan O. Long, 136–149. ithaca, NY: Cornell university East Asia Papers. ———. 2000b. “the Spirit and Spectacle of School Baseball—Mass Media, Statemaking and “Edu-tainment” in Japan, 1905–1935.” Senri Ethnological Studies 52. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. ———. 2009. “Samurai Baseball: the Vicissitudes of a National Sporting Style.” International Journal of the History of Sport 26 (3): 429–441. Kent, Pauline. 1999. “Japanese Perceptions of The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.” Dialectical Anthropology 24 (2): 181–192. Kidder, tracy. 2003. Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer. New York: Random House. Kiku Koichi. 2001. “Taiiku to Bōryoku” [Physical education and violence]. in Taiiku Kyōiku wo Manabu Hito no tame ni [for those learning physical education], edited by Atsuo Sugimoto,104–122. tokyo: Sekai Shisosha. ———. 2005. “the Japanese Baseball Spirit and Professional ideology.” in Japan, Sport, and Society: Tradition and Change in a Globalizing World, edited by Joseph Maguire and Masayoshi Nakayama, 35–54. London: Routledge. Kim, D. H., K. i. Kim, Y. C. Park, L. D. Zhang, M. K. Lu, and D. Li. 2000. “Children’s Experience of Violence in China and Korea: A transcultural Study.” Child Abuse & Neglect 24 (9): 1163–1173. Kim, Eung-Sik. 2001. “A Survey on traits of Athletics and Coach about Corporal Punishment in School.” Korean Journal of Physical Education 40 (3): 59–70.

Bibliography

219

Kobayashi, Noboru, Masako tanimura, and Yukio Shimauchi. 1997. “Corporal Punishment in the Schools and Homes of Japan.” Paper presented at the Ninth Asian Congress of Pediatrics, Hong Kong, March 22–23. Kobayashi Nobuya. 2007. Kōkōyakyu wa Abunai! [High school baseball is dangerous!]. tokyo: Sosōsha. Kobayashi Seiko. 1999. “Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu]” in Gendai Kyōiku wo Kangaeru [thinking about modern education], edited by t. Nakatani and M. Namimoto, 36–40. tokyo: Hokujū Shuppan. Kobayashi-Winata, Hiroko, and thomas G. Power. 1989. “Child Rearing and Compliance: Japanese and American families in Houston.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 20 (4): 333–356. Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2011. “Peace in Our time.” New Yorker, October 3, 75–78. Komuku Hiroshi. 1994. “Kōshien to ‘Nihonjin’ no Saiseisan” [Kōshien and the reproduction of “Japanese”(ness)]. in Kōkō Yakyu no Shakaigaku: Kōshien wo Yomu [the sociology of high school baseball: Reading Kōshien], edited by Shogo Esashi and Hiroshi Komuku, 162–182. tokyo: Sekai Shisosha. Kondo, Dorinne. 1987. “Creating an ideal Self: theories of Selfhood and Pedagogy at a Japanese Ethics Retreat.” Ethos 15 (3): 241–272. ———. 1990. Crafting Selves: Power, Gender, and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago: university of Chicago Press. Koshino Shogi, and Keiji Miki. 2008. Kōkō ni okeru Kokyoen wo Tachiageru Kokoromi [An attempt to establish a “public sphere” in high school]. Wakayama Daigaku Kyōikugakubu Kyōiku Jissen Sōgō Sentaa Kiyo No. 18. Kratoska, Paul H., ed. 2006. Asian Labor in the Wartime Japanese Empire. Singapore: Singapore university Press. Kreitz-Sandberg, Susanne. 2006. “Youth Deviance in Japan: Class Reproduction of Non-Conformity (review).” Journal of Japanese Studies 32 (2): 451–455. Kubo Masa’aki. 1998. Kochinguron Josetsu: Undōbu Katsudō ni okeru Shidō Gainen no Kenkyū [introduction to coaching: Research on the concept of instruction in exercise activities]. tokyo: fumaidō Shuppan. ———. 2010. Taiiku, Supōtsu no Tetsugakuteki Mikata [Philosophical perspectives on sports and physical education]. Hadano, Kanagawa: tokai Daigaku Shuppan. Kubota, takeshi. 2000. School Revolution: Without Corporal Punishment and Strict Regulations. tokyo: Natsume Shobo.

220

Bibliography

Kuwata Masumi. 2009. “Bōryoku de Konjō wo Yashinaeru Wake ga nai” [there’s no reason to believe violence can instill willpower]. Sports Journal 282 (1): 16–17. Kuwayama, takami. 1996. “Gasshuku: Off-Campus training in the Japanese School.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 27 (1): 111–134. Kyodo News. 2007. “Wrestler’s Death Leads Sumo to Probe training.” October 24. ———. 2008. “MSDf Petty Officer Died after ‘training fight’ against 15 People.” October 14. Lanham, Betty B. 1979. “Ethics and Moral Precepts taught in Schools of Japan and the united States.” Ethos 7 (1): 1–18. Larzelere, Robert E. 2000. “Child Outcomes of Non-Abusive and Customary Physical Punishment by Parents: An updated Literature Review.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 3 (4): 199–221. Letendre, Gerald. 1994. “Guiding them On: teaching, Hierarchy, and Social Organization in Japanese Middle Schools.” Journal of Japanese Studies 20 (1): 37–59. ———. 1999. “the Problem of Japan: Qualitative Studies and international Educational Comparisons.” Educational Researcher 28 (2): 38–45. ———. 2000. Learning to Be Adolescent: Growing Up in U.S. and Japanese Middle Schools. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. Levinson, David. 1981. “Physical Punishment of Children and WifeBeating in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Child Abuse & Neglect 5 (1): 193–195. ———. 1989. Family Violence in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1949. Les Structures Elementaires de la Parente [the Elementary structures of kinship]. Paris: Presses universitaires de france. ———. 1967. Structural Anthropology. translated by Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Light, Richard. 1999. “Regimes of training, Seishin, and the Construction of Embodied Masculinity in Japanese university Rugby.” International Sports Studies 21 (1): 39–54. ———. 2000. “A Centenary of Rugby and Masculinity in Japanese Schools and universities: Continuity and Change.” Sporting Traditions 16 (2): 87–104. Available at http://www.la84foundation.org/ SportsLibrary/Sportingtraditions/2000/st1602/St1602j.pdf, accessed february 11, 2010.

Bibliography

221

———. 2003. “Sport and the Construction of Masculinity in the Japanese Educational System.” in Asian Masculinities, edited by Kam Louie and Morris Low, 100–117. London: RoutledgeCurzon. ———. 2008. “Learning Masculinities in a Japanese High School Rugby Club.” Sport, Education and Society 13 (2): 163–179. Mainichi Shimbun. 2008. “Kaijō Jietai: 15 Nin Aite Kakuto Kunren Jūkka Gakkō no 3 Sō ga Shibō” [Marine self-defense forces: Hand-to-hand combat training against 15 opponents: A third-class petty officer dies]. October 13. Mainichi Japan. 2013. “Basketball adviser apologizes for ‘physical punishment’ of suicide victim at wake.” January 9. Available at http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130109p2 a00m0na007000c.html, accessed february 14, 2013. Maki, Ryoko. 2005. Sore Demo Taibatsu wo Yameraremasen ka [Can’t you stop even using taibatsu?]. tokyo: Shinpūsha. Mangan, J. A. 1981. Athleticism in the Victorian and Edwardian Public School. New York: Cambridge university Press. ———. 1986. The Games Ethic and Imperialism: Aspects of the Diffusion of an Ideal. London: frank Cass. ———. 2003. Militarism, Sport, Europe: War Without Weapons. London: taylor and francis. Masumoto Naofumi. 2001. Bukatsu wa Dono yō na Shintai Bunka wo Saiseisan Shitekita Bunka Sōchi na no ka? [What sort of cultural apparatus, which reproduces body culture, have sports clubs become?]. in Taiiku Kyōiku wo Manabu Hito no tame ni [for those learning physical education], edited by Atsuo Sugimoto, 262–280. tokyo: Sekai Shisosha. Mauss, Marcel. 1934. “Les Techniques du Corps” [the techniques of the body]. Journal de Psychologie 32: 3–4. McCord, Joan. 2005. “unintended Consequences of Punishment.” in Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective, edited by Michael Donnelly and Murray Straus, 165–169. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. McDonald, Brent, and Chris Hallinan. 2005. “Seishin Habitus: Spiritual Capital and Japanese Rowing.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 40 (2): 187–200. Mcfarlane, Alan. 2007. Japan through the Looking Glass. New York and London: Profile Books. McVeigh, Brian. 1997. Spirits, Selves, and Subjectivity in a Japanese New Religion: The Cultural Psychology of Belief in Sukyo Mahikari. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

222

Bibliography

———. 1998. “Linking State and Self: How the Japanese State Bureaucratizes Subjectivity through Moral Education.” Anthropological Quarterly 71 (3): 125–137. Mechikoff, Robert. 2009. A History and Philosophy of Sport and Physical Education: From Ancient Civilizations to the Modern World. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. Miethe, terance D., and Hong Lu. 2005. Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. Miller, Aaron L. 2006. “Taibatsu: Corporal Punishment on Japanese High School Baseball teams.” M.Sc. dissertation. university of Oxford. ———. 2009a. “Taibatsu: “Corporal Punishment” in Japanese SocioCultural Context.” Japan Forum 21 (2): 233–254. ———. 2009b. “Bushidō vs. Science: Beyond Conflicting Pedagogies of Japanese Basketball Coaching.” DPhil thesis. university of Oxford. ———. 2009c. “Taibatsu ni Kansuru Kokusaiteki Dōkō” [international trends regarding corporal punishment]. Sports Journal 282 (1): 14–15. tokyo: Nihon taiiku Kyōkai. ———. 2011a. “Beyond the four Walls of the Classroom: ‘Real’ and ‘imagined’ Change in Japanese Sports and Education.” in Reimagining Japanese Education: Borders, Transfers, Circulations, and the Comparative, edited by David Blake Willis and Jeremy Rappleye, 171–191. Oxford: Symposium Books. ———. 2011b. “from Bushido to Science: A New Pedagogy of Sports Coaching in Japan.” Japan Forum 23 (3): 385–406. ———. 2011c. “Taibatsu: from Educational Solution to Social Problem to Marginalized Non-issue.” in A Sociology of Japanese Youth: From Returnees to NEETs, edited by Roger Goodman, Yuki imoto, and tuukka toivonen, 81–97. London: Routledge. ———. forthcoming. “the ‘Physical Culture’ of Japan: Historical and Contemporary Perceptions of the Japanese Sporting Body” in Physical Cultural Studies: A Constitutive Anthology, edited by David Andrews and Michael Silk. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Miller, Aaron L., and tuukka toivonen. 2010. “to Discipline or Accommodate? On the Rehabilitation of Japanese ‘Problem Youth.’” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus (May 31). Available at http:// www.japanfocus.org/-Aaron-Miller/3368. Millett, Allan Reed, and Murray Williamson. 1987. Military Effectiveness. London: Routledge. Miyata Kazunobu. 1994. “Taiiku Senkō Gakusei no Taibatsu Ishiki” [A study on corporal punishment consciousness of students in a physical education course]. Kanoya Taiiku Daigaku Gakujutsu Kenkyū Kiyō 11 (1): 219–230.

Bibliography

223

Moeran, Brian. 1984. “individual, Group and Seishin: Japan’s internal Cultural Debate.” Man: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 19 (2): 252–266. ———. 1989. “Keywords and the Japanese Spirit.” in Language and Popular Culture in Japan, edited by Brian Moeran, 55–74. Manchester, u.K.: Manchester university Press. Mogami Yoshiko. 1996. “Gakkō Genba ni okeru Taibatsu wo megute” [A consideration concerning corporal punishments in schools]. Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan 35 (1): 147–156. Morikawa Sadao. 1990. “Naze Taiiku Kyōshi wa Bōryoku, Taibatsu Kyōshi ni Naru no ka to iu Koe ni taishite” [Regarding voices that say “Why do physical education teachers become violent or corporal punishment teachers?”]. Taiiku Kenkyū 34: 74–80. Morita Yuri. 2003. Shitsuke to Taibatsu: Kodomo no Uchinaru Chikara wo Sodateru Michisuji [Discipline and corporal punishment: the path to instilling inner power in children]. Nagasaki: Dōwakan. Morrell, Robert. 2001. “Corporal Punishment and Masculinity in South African Schools.” Men and Masculinities 4 (2): 140–157. Moskos, Peter. 2011. In Defense of Flogging. New York: Basic Books. Munroe, Ruth H., and Robert L. Munroe. 1980. “Household Structure and Socialization Practices.” Journal of Social Psychology 111 (1): 293–294. Murakami Yoshio, Akira Nakagawa, and Nobuto Hosaka, eds. 1986. Taibatsu to Kodomo no Jinken [Corporal punishment and the human rights of children]. tokyo: Yūhikaku. Murasaki Nao. 2002. Samurai: Sekai no Jōshiki o Kutsugaesu Nihonjin Asurito no Karada Kankaku [Samurai: the body sense of Japanese athletes overthrowing the common sense of the world]. tokyo: Gentosha. Murphy-Cowan, teresa, and Maurice Stringer. 2001. “Religious Affiliation and Attitudes towards the use of Corporal Punishment in Northern ireland.” Irish Journal of Psychology 22 (1): 55–62. Nagai Yoichi. 2007. Shonen Supōtsu; Dame na Shidōsha, Baka na Oya [Youth sports: useless coaches and stupid parents]. tokyo: Godo Shuppan. Nagaoka Yoshiyuki. 1986. “Kodomo wa Dō Tatakeru ka” [How should children fight?]. in Taibatsu to kodomo no jinken [Corporal punishment and the human rights of children], edited by Yoshio Murakami, Akira Nakagawa, and Nobuto Hosaka, 154–162. tokyo: Yūhikaku. Nakagawa Akira. 1986. “Hōritsu wa Taibatsu wo Kō Miru” [the law views corporal punishment this way]. in Taibatsu to kodomo no jinken [Corporal punishment and the human rights of children], edited by

224

Bibliography

Yoshio Murakami, Akira Nakagawa, and Nobuto Hosaka, 163–196. tokyo: Yūhikaku. Nakamura, Akemi. 2007. “Abe Panel Wants Kids in Class More, Plus Harsher Discipline.” Japan Times, January 20. Nakamura Kei. 2010. “Kikuchi Yusei: Wa Ga Ie no rūru” [the rules in our house: Kikuchi Yusei]. Sports Graphic Number 743: 26–31. Nakamura toshio. 2002. “Hajime ni” [introduction]. in Nihonjin to Supotsu no Aishō [the Japanese and the chemistry of sports], edited by toshio Nakamura, 1–9. tokyo: Sōbunkikaku. Nakamura, Yuka. 2005. “the Samurai Sword Cuts Both Ways: A transnational Analysis of Japanese and u.S. Media Representations of ichiro.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 40 (4): 467–480. Nakane, Chie. 1973. Japanese Society. Harmondsworth, u.K.: Pelican. Nakano Osamu. 1990. “Bōryoku to Taibatsu ga Nakunaranai Riyū” [the reason violence and corporal punishment will not end]. in Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu], edited by takayori Aoki and Akira Manita, 202–203. tokyo: tōsho Bunkasha. Nakatani takeshi, and Masatoshi Namimoto, eds. 1999. Gendai Kyōiku wo Kangaeru [thinking about modern education]. tokyo: Hokujū Shuppan. Nathan, John. 2004. Japan Unbound: A Volatile Nation’s Quest for Pride and Purpose. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Needham, Rodney. 1975. “Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences.” Man: New Series, 10 (3): 349–369. Nemoto, Yasuhiro. 1999. The Japanese Education System. Parkland, fL: universal Publishers. Nichibei Times. 1987. “Many Japanese teachers favor Corporal Punishment.” November 21. Nihon Keizai Shimbun. 2007a. Ijime Taisaku: Taibatsu ni Kijun [A countermeasure to bullying: Setting as on taibatsu]. february 3. ———. 2007b. Taibatsu ya Shūseki Teishi [Taibatsu and suspension from class]. January 25. Nikkan Supōtsu. 2008. Rikishi Shikyu de Moto Tokitsukaze Oyakatara Yonnin wo Taihō e [former Oyakata tokitsukaze and four others will be arrested for the sudden death of sumo wrestler]. January 29. Ninomiya, Akira. 2008. “Taibatsu.” Available on “Japan Knowledge” website http://www.japanknowledge.com, accessed March 9, 2011. Nishijima, Hiroshi, and Atsushi Nakazawa. 2006. “A Sociological Study of institutional Changes of Club Activities in Junior High Schools and the Participating Pattern into Sports/Cultural Activities: focusing on the Economical Background of Students’ family.” tokyo university

Bibliography

225

Educational Research Pamphlet, No. 45. tokyo: tokyo Daigaku Shuppan. Nogami, Natsu. 2005. Discipline and Punishment of Children: A RightsBased Review of Laws, Attitudes and Practices in East Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: Save the Children Sweden. Noguchi, Hiroyuki. 2004. “the idea of the Body in Japanese Culture and its Dismantlement.” International Journal of Sport and Health Science 2 (1): 8–24. Oda Juntaro. 2005. Kochiron [A theory of coaching]. tokyo: Kobunsha Shinsho. Oh, Sadaharu, and David falkner. 1984. A Zen Way of Baseball. New York: Random House. Ohara Yoh. 2008. “Higashikokubaru Chiji: Taibatsu wa Ai no Muchi, Hatsugen ni Sanpi 40ken: Miyazaki Josei Nettoha Kōkai Shitsumonjō” [Governor Higashikokubaru says corporal punishment is the whip of love: in response a questionnaire was made public by a network of Miyazaki women making forty complaints]. Mainichi Shimbun Online, July 2. Available at http://mainichi.jp/area/seibu/?inb=yt, accessed July 3, 2008. Ohnuki-tierney, Emiko. 2006. Kamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers. Chicago: university of Chicago Press. Okano, Kaori, and Motonari tsuchiya. 1999. Education in Contemporary Japan: Inequality and Diversity. New York: Cambridge university Press. Oki Masahiro. 2001. Katsu tame no Kantokujutsu: Dakara Taibatsu ha Hitsuyō da [Coaching techniques for winning: that is why taibatsu is necessary]. tokyo: Bungeisha. Okihara, Yutaka. 1980. Taibatsu [Corporal punishment]. tokyo: Dai ippōki. Onishi, Norimitsu. 2007. “Japan Wrings its Hands Over Sumo’s Latest Woes.” New York Times, October 19. Ōnishi Chūji. 1979. Kyōshi ni totte Jissen to wa Nani ka [What does practice mean to teachers?]. tokyo: Meiji tosho. Ota Juntaro. 2002 [2005]. Kochiron [Coaching theory]. tokyo: Kobunsha Shinsho. Otomo, Rio. 2007. “Narratives, the Body and the 1964 tokyo Olympics.” Asian Studies Review 31 (1): 117–132. Otsuki tatsuyuki. 1989. Te no Nihonjin, Ashi no Seiyōjin [the hands of Japanese, the feet of Westerners]. tokyo: tokuma Shoten. ———. 2002. Nihonjin to Seiyōjin no Undōkan to Supōtsu [Sports and perspectives on the exercise of Westerners and Japanese]. in Nihonjin to supōtsu no aishō [the Japanese and the chemistry of sports], edited by toshio Nakamura, 15–46. tokyo: Sobunkikaku.

226

Bibliography

Otterbein, C. S., and K. f. Otterbein. 1973. “Believers and Beaters: A Case Study of Supernatural Beliefs and Child Rearing in the Bahama islands.” American Anthropologist 75 (5): 1670–1680. Owen, Stephen S., and Kenneth Wagner. 2006. “Explaining School Corporal Punishment: Evangelical Protestantism and Social Capital in a Path Model.” Social Justice Research 19 (4): 471–499. Owens, David J., and Murray A. Straus. 1979. “the Social Structure of Violence in Childhood and Approval of Violence as an Adult.” in Corporal Punishment in American Education: Readings in History, Practice, and Alternatives, edited by irwin A. Hyman and James H. Wise, 107– 125. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Ozawa Eiji. 2002. “Nihonjin no Haibokukan to Supōtsu” [Sports and the Japanese sense of victory and defeat]. in Nihonjin to Supōtsu no Aishō [the Japanese and the chemistry of sports], edited by toshio Nakamura, 143–166. tokyo: Sobunkikaku. Paolucci, E. O., and C. Violato. 2004. “A Meta-Analysis of the Published Research on the Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Effects of Corporal Punishment.” Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied 138 (1): 197–221. Paquet, Ronald A. 1982. Judicial Rulings, State Statutes and State Administrative Regulations Dealing with the Use of Corporal Punishments in Public Schools. Palo Alto, CA: R&E Research Associates. Park, Roberta J. 1983. “Research and Scholarship in the History of Physical Education and Sport: the Current State of Affairs.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 54 (2): 93–103. Parke, Ross D. 2002. “Punishment Revisited: Science, Values, and the Right Question, Comment on Gershoff.” Psychological Bulletin 128 (1): 596–601. Parker-Jenkins, Marie. 1998. “Sparing the Rod: Schools, Discipline and Children’s Rights in Multicultural Britain.” European Journal for Education Law and Policy 2 (2): 145–153. Peak, Lois. 1991. Learning to Go to School in Japan: The Transition from Home to Preschool Life. Berkeley: university of California Press. Piele, Philip K. 1979. “Neither Corporal Punishment Cruel Nor Due Process Due: the united States Supreme Court’s Decision in Ingraham v. Wright.” in Corporal Punishment in American Education: Readings in History, Practice, and Alternatives, edited by irwin A. Hyman and James H. Wise, 91–106. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Pinker, Steven. 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking. Plutschow, Herbert E. 1979. Introducing Kyoto. tokyo: Kodansha.

Bibliography

227

Pollard, Deana. 2003. “Banning Child Corporal Punishment.” Tulane Law Review 77 (3): 575–657. Rabinow, Paul, ed. 1984. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Raichle, Donald R. 1977–1978. “School Discipline and Corporal Punishment: An American Retrospect.” Interchange 8 (1-2): 71–83. ———. 1979. “the Abolition of Corporal Punishment in New Jersey Schools.” in Corporal Punishment in American Education: Readings in History, Practice, and Alternatives, edited by irwin A. Hyman and James H. Wise, 62–88. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Ramsey, Sarah H., and Douglas E. Abrams. 2008. Children and the Law: In a Nutshell. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: thomsen/West. Raveri, Massimo. 2002. “introduction.” in Japan at Play: The Ludic and Logic of Power, edited by Joy Hendry and Massimo Raveri, 1–21. London: Routledge. Reaves, Joseph A. 2002. Taking in a Game: A History of Baseball in Asia. Lincoln: university of Nebraska Press. Rebick, Marcus, and Ayumi takenaka, eds. 2006. The Changing Japanese Family. London: Routledge. Reinholz, Lansing K. 1979. “A Practice Defense of Corporal Punishment in Schools.” in Corporal Punishment in American Education: Readings in History, Practice, and Alternatives, edited by irwin A. Hyman and James H. Wise, 342–347. Philadelphia: temple university Press. Rich, John Martin. 2005. “Moral Development and Corporal Punishment.” in Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective, edited by Michael Donnelly and Murray Straus, 170–182. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. Ripoll-Núñez, Karen J., and Ronald P. Rohner. 2006. “Corporal Punishment in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Directions for a Research Agenda.” Cross-Cultural Research 40 (3): 220–249. Ritchie, Jane, and James Ritchie. 1981. Spare the Rod. Sydney: Allen & unwin. Robinson, Daniel H., Daniel C. funk, Alicia Beth, and Angela M. Bush. 2005. “Changing Beliefs about Corporal Punishment: increasing Knowledge about ineffectiveness to Build More Consistent Moral and informational Beliefs.” Journal of Behavioral Education 14 (2): 117–139. Roberts, Sophie. 2010. “Jews, Citizenship, and Anti-Semitism in french Colonial Algeria, 1870–1943.” Ph.D. diss. university of toronto. Rohlen, thomas. 1983. Japan’s High Schools. Berkeley: university of California Press. ———. 1984. “Seishin Kyōiku in a Japanese Bank: A Description of Methods and Consideration of Some underlying Concepts.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 15 (1): 17–28.

228

Bibliography

Rohlen, thomas, and Gerald Letendre. 1996. Teaching and Learning in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press. Rohner, Robert P. 1986. The Warmth Dimension: Foundations of Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rose, Steve. 2004. “found: Where tarantino Gets His ideas.” Guardian, April 5. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/apr/06/ features.dvdreviews. Ryall, Julian. 2007. “Sumo Wrestler Master in Japanese Death Probe.” Telegraph, September 7. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/27/wsumo127.xml. Saito Hiroshi. 1990. “Taibatsu wa Kyōshi Jishin no Mondai de aru” [Taibatsu is the teacher’s own problem]. in Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu], edited by takayori Aoki and Akira Manita, 196–197. tokyo: tōsho Bunkasha. Saito Naotaka. 2005. Puro Yakyū Saigō no Samurai [the last samurai of professional baseball]. tokyo: Koa’magajin. Sakamoto Hideo. 1995. Taibatsu no Kenkyū [Research on taibatsu]. tokyo: San ichi Shobo. Sankei Shimbun. 2008. Rikishi shikyu jiken kara ichinen…kimete naku konran tsudzuku kyōkai [the Japan Sumo Association continues in chaos with no decision in sight over the sudden death of sumo wrestler]. June 27. Sanuki Hiroshi. 2005. Gakkō to Ningen Keisei [Character formation and the school]. tokyo: Hosei university Press. Sasakawa Sports foundation. 2006. “Seishonen no Supōtsu Raifu Deta” [Data on the sports life of youth]. http://www.ssf.or.jp/books/de_yl_ data2006.html, accessed August 25, 2010; site discontinued. Sasaki Ken’ichi. 2010. Nihonteki Kansei [the Japanese sense]. tokyo: Chūkō shinsho. Satō ichiro. 1999. “Taibatsu” [Corporal punishment]. in Kyōshi [teacher], edited by Hideshi Moriguchi, 157–163. tokyo: Shobunsha. Savini, Dave. 2008. “CPS takes Action on Corporal Punishment: [CBS]2 investigation uncovered Beatings of High School Athletes.” CBS2 News Chicago, October 6. Sawada Kazuaki. 2001. Taiiku Kyōshiron [theory of physical education teachers]. in Taiiku Kyōiku wo Manabu Hito no tame ni [for those learning physical education], edited by Atsuo Sugimoto, 204–223. tokyo: Sekai Shisosha. ———. 1994. “Manuaru kyōiku toshite no kōshien” [Kōshien as manual education]. in Kōkō yakyu no shakaigaku: Kōshien wo yomu [the sociology of high school baseball: Reading Kōshien], edited by Shogo Esashi and Hiroshi Komuku, 113–136. tokyo: Sekai Shisosha.

Bibliography

229

Scarry, Elaine. 1985. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York: Oxford university Press. Schmidt, Petra. 2002. Capital Punishment in Japan. Leiden: Brill’s Japanese Studies Library. Schoolland, Ken. 1990. Shogun’s Ghost: The Dark Side of Japanese Education. New York: Bergin and Garvey. Schrader, Abby M. 2002. Languages of the Lash: Corporal Punishment and Identity in Imperial Russia. Dekalb, iL: Northern illinois Press. Scott, George Ryley. [1938] 1952. The History of Corporal Punishment: A Survey of Flagellation in Its Historical, Anthropological, and Sociological Aspects. London: Kegan Paul international, Limited. Sears, R. R., E. E. Maccoby, and H. Levin. 1957. Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, iL: Row, Peterson. Segal, uma A. 1999. “Children Are Abused in Eastern Countries: A Look at india.” International Social Work 42 (1): 39–52. Serizawa Shunsuke. 1998. Kodomo no Sei to Shi [the life and death of children]. tokyo: Kotokusha. Shaw, Steven R., and Jeffrey P. Braden. 1990. “Race and Gender Bias in the Administration of Corporal Punishment.” School Psychology Review 19 (1): 378–383. Shigematsu Kazuyoshi. 1976. Shōnen Chōkai Kyōikushi [Educational history of youth discipline]. tokyo: Dai ippōki. Shinagawa fujiro. 1990. “Ai no Muchi” [the whip of love]. in Taibatsu wo Kangaeru [thinking about taibatsu], edited by takayori Aoki and Akira Manita, 75–83. tokyo: tōsho Bunkasha. Shukert, Douglas. 2002. “Culture, Nationalism and ‘Saving face’: Sport and Discrimination in Modern Japan.” Sport in Society 5 (1): 71–85. Sogawa, tsuneo. 2005. “What Should Be taught through Budō?” in Budo Perspectives, edited by Alex Bennett, 195–202. Auckland, New Zealand: Kendo World Publications. ———. 2006. “Ethnic Sport, its Concept and Research Perspectives.” International Journal of Sport and Health Science 4 (1): 96–102. Solheim, Joan. 1982. “A Cross-Cultural Examination of use of Corporal Punishment on Children: A focus on Sweden and the united States.” Child Abuse & Neglect 6 (1): 147–154. Song, Ki-Sung. 2001. “Physical Punishment and its Countermeasures in Adult Sport team Management.” Korean Journal of Physical Education 40 (3): 385–420. Spector, Malcolm, and John Kitsuse. 1977. Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings Publishing Company. Spencer, Herbert. [1860] 1993. Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. London: Routledge/thoemmes Press.

230

Bibliography

Spielvogel, Laura. 2003. Working Out in Japan: Shaping the Female Body in Tokyo Fitness Clubs. Durham, NC: Duke university Press. Stensrud, Rockwell, and David Burnett. 1977. “While Americans Debate Classroom Discipline, there’s Not Much Debate in Japan.” US Magazine, June 14. Available at http://www.corpun.com/jpsc7706. htm. Straus, Murray A. 1983. “Ordinary Violence, Child Abuse, and Wifebeating: What Do they Have in Common?” in The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research, edited by D. finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. t. Hotaling, and M. A. Straus, 213–234. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ———. 2003. The Primordial Violence: Corporal Punishment by Parents, Cognitive Development, and Crime. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Straus, Murray A., and Denise A. Donnelly. 2001. Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and Its Effects on Children. Piscataway, NJ: transaction Publishers. Straus, Murray A., and Mallie J. Paschall. 2009. “Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Development of Children’s Cognitive Ability: A Longitudinal Study of two Nationally Representative Age Cohorts.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 18 (5): 459–483. Straus, Murray A., D. B. Sugarman, and J. Giles-Sims. 1997. “Spanking by Parents and Subsequent Antisocial Behavior of Children.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 151 (1): 761–767. Straus, Murray A., and Julie H. Stewart. 1999. “Corporal Punishment by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, Severity, and Duration, in Relation to Child and family Characteristics.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 2 (2): 55–70. Stubbs, Michael. 1991. Discourse Analysis: The Socio-Linguistic Analysis of Natural Language. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Sugano Shinji. 2003. Nippon Yakyū no Seishun: Bushidō Yakyū kara Kōfun no Sokeisen e [the prime of Japanese baseball: from Bushidō baseball to the excitement of the Waseda-Keio rivalry]. tokyo: taishūkan Shoten. Sugiyama Yoichi. 1997. “Seitō Shidō Shūji no Taibatsu Ishiki ni kansuru Chōsa Kenkyū: Gakkō Un’ei e no Kakawari Tenbō Shite” [Survey research regarding perceptions of corporal punishment by student guidance leaders: Developing a relationship with school management]. Tokyo Daigaku Daigakuin Kyōikugaku Kenkyūka Kyōiku Gyōseigaku Kenkyūshitsu Kiyō 16 (1): 99–116. Suzuki, Daisetz teitaro. 1965. The Training of the Zen Buddhist Monk. New York: university Books. tabuchi, Hiroko. 2012. “inquiry Concludes that Nuclear Crisis in Japan Was a ‘Man-Made Disaster.’” New York Times. July 6.

Bibliography

231

Taibatsu Detabesu [Corporal punishment database (wiki)]. 2007. http://www7.atwiki.jp/kyouiku_hiroba/, accessed July 16; site discontinued. takahashi Hidesato, and Megumi Kumeda. 2008. “Gakkō Undōbu ni okeru Taibatsu ni kansuru Chōsa Kenkyū” [An investigation of bodily punishment in school athletic clubs]. Bulletin of Center for Educational Research and Development 17 (1): 161–170. takami, Koushun. 2003. Battle Royale. San francisco: Viz. tamaki Masayuki. 1999. Supōtsu to wa Nani ka [What are sports?]. tokyo: Kodansha. tanaka Kuniaki. 2008. Mite Minufuri ka, Genkotsu ka: Funuke Jōtai no Kyōiku Genba ni Danku Shūto [the fist? Or pretending not to see?: A “dunk shot” on the stupid school]. tokyo: Shūfunotomo. terasaki Hiroaki. 2001. Igirisu Gakkō Taibatsushi: Iisutobōn no Higeki to Rokkuteki Kōzu [the history of corporal punishment in England: the Eastbourne tragedy and the Lockean labryinth]. tokyo: university of tokyo Press. ———. 2009. Taibatsu wa Kyōiku no Hōki [Corporal punishment is the abandonment of education]. Sports Journal 282 (1): 16–17. tijerino, Adamira. 2001. Under Scrutiny: Corporal Punishment and Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Vancouver: the British Columbia institute Against family Violence. tobin, Joseph. 1995. “the irony of Self-Expression.” American Journal of Education 103 (1): 233–258. ———. 2000. “using ‘the Japanese Problem’ as a Corrective to the Ethnocentricity of Western theory.” Child Development 71 (5): 1155–1158. toivonen, tuukka. 2013. Japan’s Emerging Youth Policy: Getting Adults Back to Work. London: Nissan institute/Routledge Japanese Studies Series. tokyo Law Bureau [Business Research Meeting on Human Rights]. 1990. “Taibatsu wo nakusō: jinken shinpan jiken kara mita taibatsu” [Let’s eliminate corporal punishment: Seeing corporal punishment as a human rights violation]. Tokyo Hōmukyoku Jinken Jitsumu Kenkyūkai. tomie Hidetoshi. 2011. Chūgakkō kōtōgakkō no undōbukatsudō ni okeru taibatsu [Corporal punishment in athletic club activities of junior high schools and senior high schools]. Saitama: Saitama Gakuen Daigaku Kiyō Dai 8 Go. tomozoe Hidenori, and Yoshitaka Kondo. 2000. Supōtsu rinri wo tō [inquiry into sports ethics]. tokyo: taishukan. totsuka Hiroshi. 1983. Watashi wa Kono Kotachi wo Tsukuitai [i want to save these children]. tokyo: Kōbunsha.

232

Bibliography

———. 1998. Teki wa Nōkan Ni Aru [the enemy is in the brain stem]. tokyo: Kenko Shinsha. ———. 2003. Kyoiku Saisei: Kore de Kodomo wa Sukuwareru [Educational rebirth: Here’s how we can save our children]. tokyo: Mirion Shuppan. ———. 2007. Honnō no Chikara [the power of instinct]. tokyo: Shinchosha. totsuka Yacht School Web Site. n.d. http://totsuka-school.jp/, accessed May 24, 2010. treml, Jacqueline Noel. 2001. “Bullying as a Social Malady in Contemporary Japan.” International Social Work 44 (1): 107–117. tsuchimochi, Gary H. 1993. Education Reform in Postwar Japan: The 1946 U.S. Education Mission. tokyo: university of tokyo Press. tsuneyoshi, Ryoko. 2004. “the New Japanese Educational Reforms and the Achievement ‘Crisis’ Debate.” Educational Policy 18 (2): 363–394. tsunoda, tadanobu. 1985. The Japanese Brain: Uniqueness and Universality. translated by Yoshinori Oiwa. tokyo: taishukan. tsurumi, Kazuko. 1978. “the Processes of Army Socialization.” in Learning to Be Japanese, edited by Edward Beauchamp, 167–179. Hamden, Ct: the Shoestring Press. tubbs, Walter. 1994. “the Roots of Stress-Death and Juvenile Delinquency in Japan: Disciplinary Ambivalence and Perceived Locus of Control.” Journal of Business Ethics 13 (7): 507–522. tucker, James, and Susan Ross. 2005. “Corporal Punishment and Black’s theory of Social Control.” in Corporal Punishment of Children in Theoretical Perspective, edited by Michael Donnelly and Murray Straus, 277–286. New Haven, Ct: Yale university Press. turner, David A. 1998. “School Reform in England: the function of Norms Relating to Discipline.” Prospects 27 (4): 539–548. turner, Susan M. 2002. Something to Cry About: An Argument Against Corporal Punishment of Children in Canada. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier university Press. turner, Victor. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. ithaca, NY: Cornell university Press. ———. 1974. “Symbols and Social Experience in Religious Ritual.” in Worship and Ritual: In Christianity and Other Religions, edited by Victor turner, 1–21. Studia Missionalia, Rome: Gregorian university Press. ———. 1975. “Symbolic Studies.” Annual Review of Anthropology 4 (1): 145–161. underhill, Ruth M. 1939. Social Organization of the Papago Indians. New York: Columbia university Press.

Bibliography

233

uno, Kathleen. 1991. “Japan.” in Children in Historical and Comparative Perspective, edited by J. M. Hawes and N. R. Hiner, 389–419. New York: Greenwood. ushigome tadahiro. 1996. Samurai Yakyū to Tasukatta Hitotachi [Samurai baseball and the people who saved it]. tokyo: Sanshodo. Wagatsuma, Hiroshi. 1981. “Child Abandonment and infanticide: A Japanese Case.” in Child Abuse and Neglect: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by J. E. Korbin, 120–137. Berkeley: university of California Press. Waldstein, David. 2012. “Yankees’ Kuroda Was Molded by Pain in Japan.” New York Times, July 5. Watanabe takashi. 1986. “Taibatsu no Motorasu “Kyōiku no Kekka” [Educational results brought about by taibatsu]. in Taibatsu to kodomo no jinken [Corporal punishment and the human rights of children], edited by Yoshio Murakami, Akira Nakagawa, and Nobuto Hosaka, 45–57. tokyo: Yūhikaku. Whiting, Robert. 1977. The Chrysanthemum and the Bat: Baseball Samurai Style. New York: Dodd-Mead. ———. 1990. You’ve Gotta Have Wa. New York: Vintage. ———. 2005. The Meaning of Ichiro. Paperback edition. New York: Grand Central Publishing. Willis, David Blake, and Jeremy Rappleye, eds. 2011. Reimagining Japanese Education: Borders, Transfers, Circulations and the Comparative. Oxford: Symposium Books. Willis, Paul. 1997. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. London: Saxon House. Wood, James. 2011. “is that All there is? Secularism and its Discontents.” New Yorker, August 15/August 22. Available at http:// www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/08/15/110815crat_ atlarge_wood, accessed february 13, 2013. Wray, Harry. 1999. Japanese and American Education: Attitudes and Practices. Westport, Ct: Greenwood Publishing Group. Yagi Yuri. 2009. “Saibanrei ni Miru Taibatsu no Genjō” [the reality of corporal punishment as seen through case law]. Sports Journal 282 (1): 12–13. Yoda Mitsuyo. 2001. “Gendai supōtsu no hatten to sono yugami” [the development of contemporary sports and its distortions]. in Kyō kara hajimeru supōtsu shakaigaku [Sports sociology starting today], edited by Sadao Morikawa and Mitsuyo Yoda, 34–72. tokyo: Kyōei. ———. 2005. “Supōtsu to Bōryoku” [Sports and violence]. in Supōtsu Shakaigaku: Rekishi kara Manabu Supōtsu no Mirai [Sports sociology:

234

Bibliography

the future of studying sports historically], edited by Mitsuyo Yoda, 29–38. tokyo: Kyōei. Yoder, Robert. 2004. Youth Deviance in Japan: Class Reproduction and NonConformity. Melbourne: trans Pacific Press. Yokota, Masatoshi. 2002. “Variation in the Motivation and Burnout Scale with Continuation or Discontinuation of Sports in High School Athletes.” Japan Journal of Physical Education, Health and Sports Sciences 47 (1): 427–437. Yomiuri Shimbun. 2008. “Meidai ga ōendan riidaa bu kaisan, bōryoku de gakusei jisatsu no sekinin mitome” [Responsibility confirmed in case of student committing suicide because of violence: Meiji university’s group for leaders of the cheering squad is disbanded]. January 25. ———. 2010. “Taibatsu de Kunkoku 13 Kyōyu ni . . . Aomori” [Aomori Prefecture: thirteen teachers reprimanded for corporal punishment]. December 22. ———. 2011. “Jūdō 4 Dan Shakaika Sensei, Jūgyōchū ni Seito Nagetobasu” [fourth-rank judo black belt social studies teacher hurls students during class]. february 16. Yoneyama, Shoko. 1999. The Japanese High School: Silence and Resistance. London: Routledge. Yoneyama, Shoko, and Asao Naito. 2003. “Problems with the Paradigm: the School as a factor in understanding Bullying.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 24 (3): 315–330. Yoshida, Kensei. 1986. Ōkyōjin (Jaiantsu) Yomigaeru Samurai Yakyū [Samurai Baseball: the tokyo Giants Resurrected]. tokyo: Riidosha. Yoshida, Yutaka. 2002. Nihon no guntai [the Japanese Army]. tokyo: iwanami Shinsho. Yoshimoto, toshiaki. 1998. “the Japanization of Modern Sports.” in Japanese Martial Arts and American Sports: The Historical and Cultural Background on Teaching Methods, Proceedings of the 1996 united StatesJapan Conference, edited by Minoru Kiyota and Hiroshi Sawamura, 3–10. tokyo: Nihon university Press. Yoshino, Kosaku. 1992. Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan: A Sociological Inquiry. London: Routledge. Young, Morley. 1993. “the Dark underside of Japanese Education.” Phi Delta Kappan 75 (2): 130–132. Zeng, Kanming, and Gerald Letendre. 1999. “the Dark Side of Suicide, Violence and Drug use in Japanese Schools.” in Competitor or Ally: Japan’s Role in American Educational Debates, edited by Gerald Letendre, 103–121. New York: falmer Press.

index

abandonment, 192 Abe isō, 99 Abe Shinzo, 75 Abuse, 10, 12, 13, 15, 28, 31, 34, 49, 69, 76– 80, 96–97, 114, 117, 118, 120, 124, 148, 157, 163, 186–187, 193; of children, 28, 76–77, 117, 163; sexual, 31; of power, 157; vs. corporal punishment, 193n1 accident(s), 2, 41, 45, 102, 122–123; and Japanese law, 122–123 achievement, 20 adults, 10, 15, 20, 33–35, 44, 53, 67, 85– 87, 89–90, 95, 109–112, 118, 125, 129, 144, 150, 195–196, 200 age of reason, 35 Aichi Prefecture, 4, 186–187 ai no muchi. See whip of love Alcock, Rutherford, 166 Ali, Muhammad, 167 All-Japan High School Baseball Championships, 145, 188 All-Japan High School Basketball Championships, 141, 142n22 All-Japan High School track Championships, 1 All-Japan Parents and teachers Association, 15 Amae. See dependence Amami-Oshima, 4 American Occupation, 6, 18 amputation, 9 animalistic behavior in humans, 6, 21 Arnold, thomas, 147, 190

Asahi Shimbun, 4, 92, 109, 145 ascetic practice, 99n1, 138–139, 145 assault, 3 authority, 8–9, 63, 76, 93–96, 103, 113, 117–118, 130, 150, 157–158, 160, 195; reluctance to question, 8, 101 autonomic nerve imbalance, 69, 187 Bakufu, See ruling military government in Edo Period bamboo stick/sword, 115, 137–138, 167 banishment, 37, 83, 85, 96–97 baseball, 2,19, 21, 63, 92, 98–99, 104, 106–107, 115, 117, 132, 138, 140–141, 145, 161, 166, 187–189 basketball, 33, 42, 46, 84, 87, 92, 94, 100, 107, 112–113, 120, 140–144, 187, 189 Baumrind, Diane, 34, 133, 198–199 Benedict, Ruth, 21–25, 37n7, 82, 86, 152; and The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, 20–25, 37n7; and culture and personality school, 21; problems with ideas and research methods, 22–25 Bible/biblical, 37, 192 binta. See boxing of the ears bio-power, 155, 160–162 Board of Education v. Earls (2002), 195 body, 9, 11, 13, 25, 28–29, 41, 48, 50, 52, 61, 63, 104–105, 132–133, 135, 137–140, 145– 149, 154–156, 158–162; Cartesian opposition of mind and, 105, 146–147; corporal punishment to train the, 138–139; education of the, 138n16

236 bōkō. See assault bōryoku. See violence Bourdieu, Pierre, 132, 161–162, 161n9, 164 boxing of the ears, 9, 137, 167–168 brain stem, 6 branding, 9 Buddhism, 6, 52, 83, 138, 145, 167–168 bullying, 3, 6, 11, 28, 49, 75–79, 88n7, 92, 122, 166, 188–189; as generally male activity in Japan, 88n7 burnout (in Japanese sports), 140–141n18 Bushidō. See samurai code of ethics Calvinism, 192 Canadian Criminal Code, 199n11 capital punishment, 9, 48, 48n1, 48n2, 117, 168 Center for Effective Discipline, 56, 197, 200 Chamberlain, Basil Hall, 166 character, 5, 35, 64, 99, 106, 116, 126, 135, 137–138, 147, 149–150; development of, 35, 116, 126, 135, 137–138, 149–150; dignity of one’s, 64n15 Child Protective Services, 194 child-centered education, 18, 101 childhood, 34–35, 89–90, 118, 192 child-rearing, 5, 23, 46, 93, 129, 166 children, 1–2, 4–7, 12, 15, 18–19, 23, 25, 29, 31–32, 34–35, 37, 46, 49, 52–54, 58– 60, 63, 65– 66, 69, 74–76, 83– 84, 88– 89, 91, 93–97, 101–103, 105, 109–111, 116–118, 120–123, 129, 131, 134, 144, 149, 153, 166, 168–169, 186, 190–193, 195, 197– 200; human rights of, 11n9, 29, 32, 101, 120–121, 199; as robotic, 19; as things in need of protection, 15 Chinese law, 51 chōkai, 4, 12, 13, 15, 57, 60– 64, 60n12, 64n14, 67, 80, 101, 101n5, 104, 122. See also discipline and shitsuke chōkaiken. See right to discipline Christianity, 6, 37, 47, 146–147, 166, 191–192

Index classroom education, 8, 15, 19, 98, 114, 134, 161 cleaning, 9, 61, 85, 95; as school ritual, 85; as forced activity, 9 Civil Law, 4, 63; Article 822 of, 4, 63 coach (sports), 1– 4, 6–7, 14–15, 19–20, 32– 33, 42– 43, 46, 63– 64, 69–70, 82, 84– 85, 87– 89, 91–92, 94–95, 97–100, 103–109, 111–115, 117, 119–123, 126–127, 130–134, 130n2, 137–143, 145, 150, 154, 157, 161, 167–169, 187–189 coercion, 14, 159, 200 Coleridge, Samuel taylor, 147, 190 Colonial America, 191 colonialism, 16, 151, 165 communication, 97, 101–102, 133–134, 151, 162 confinement, 53–55, 69–70, 70n23, 96–97, 102, 186, 193; solitary, 69, 97, 102, 186 conformity, 18–19 Confucianism, 6 Conroy, Mickey, 196 context, 16–17, 20, 26, 28, 33, 35, 37, 40– 42, 82–97, 110, 145, 148, 150, 153, 155, 157, 162, 169; discipline in, 82–97, 96n15; importance of, 82– 83; Michel foucault and, 154–155 corporal punishment: advocates of/ conditional defenders of, 44n15, 113, 198n9; in Ancient Greece, 146, 190; anthropological approaches to 31– 46, 36n6; in Asia, 13, 15, 35; author’s personal opinion of, 42– 47; beneficial effects of, 34, 35n5, 157, 198; in California, 46, 127, 194, 196–197; Chinese characters for, 13n12, 52; as controversial practice 2, 6, 12–14, 17, 19, 21, 26–29, 43, 67, 81, 104, 134, 145; definitions of, 8–13, 8n8; efforts to eradicate, 114–124, 199n11; exchange theory of, 134n10; Japanese characters for, 13; legal theory of social control and, 140n17; mild vs. harsh forms of 10, 15–16, 32, 34, 39, 66, 69–70, 80, 198; negative consequences of, 34, 198;

Index and pain, 2, 6, 9, 12, 16–17, 31, 33–34, 54, 61, 75, 77, 80, 107, 111–112, 128, 131, 139, 141, 157, 159, 192, 196; as penal reprimand, 27n17; prohibitions of in the home, 15, 31, 31n1, 193, 198–199; prohibitions of in schools, 12, 14,18– 19, 49–50, 56–59, 60– 63; prohibitions of in sports, 63– 64; relationship with religion, 55, 105, 138, 151–152, 192; research about, 32–35; and school violence, 19, 32–33n2, 49, 62– 63, 67– 69, 78, 80; and social complexity as a causal indicator of, 48, 129–130; and socioeconomic strata, 197n8; in South Korea, 33n3, 52n6, 58; as statesanctioned violence, 115n23; theories of, 39n10; theory-driven studies of, 40– 42, 134n10; in the united Kingdom, 88, 96, 116, 116n26, 149, 190, 199; in the united States, 190–201. See also physical discipline and taibatsu corporal punishment teacher, 130–132, 131n4; as hidden role, 131 crime, 4, 27n17, 33, 64n14, 67, 69–70, 70n23, 94n13; corporal punishment as, 4, 69–70, 70n23; recidivist, 27n17; violent, 64n14, youth, 67 criticism (of students and athletes), 53, 83– 85, 84n2, 97 cross-cultural encounter, 16 cruel and unusual punishment, 195 cruel(ty), 9, 52–54, 112, 112n19, 117, 120, 128, 195 cultural essentialism, 125n1 culturalism, 28, 125, 125n1, 144; beyond, 144–153, 152n29 cultural particularlism, 38 culture, 8, 10, 16, 21–23, 25–29, 35– 40, 55, 67, 83, 85, 99, 103, 105, 117, 119–120, 125–153 Daimatsu Hirofumi, 106–107 daimyō. See feudal lords dependence, 93 discipline, 2–29, 37, 39– 41, 44, 46, 50, 52,

237 54–57, 59– 64, 67– 68, 74–75, 77– 80, 82–104, 115–127, 132–135, 140, 143–144, 146, 149–150, 152–155, 157, 161–163, 166, 168–169, 190–192, 194–201; inflictors of, 93–95; languages of 28, 95–97, 97n16. See also chōkai and shitsuke discourse(s): analysis of, 43; about taibatsu by government, 78; about taibatsu by media, 28, 78–79; power of, 154–163 discourses of discipline, 25–26, 29, 127, 150, 154, 162–163, 201; similarity of in the u.S. and Japan, 201 disfigurement, 9 distinction, 86– 87 diversity, 24, 93, 95, 128, 145, 149, 155, 165, 168–169 Dōgen, 115 dominance, 157 dormitory (for athletes), 99, 142, 187 dōtoku. See moral education due process, 194 dunking stools, 9 Durkheim, Emile, 94–95n13, 155–156; and theory of ritual bonds, 155–156 duty, 23, 35–36, 61, 77, 117, 195 East india Company, 53 Edō Period (1603–1868), 53, 53n7, 56, 137, 173; taibatsu during, 53n7 education, 1, 5–20, 26–29, 31, 36–37, 40– 42, 46, 49–51, 53, 55–71, 74– 80, 84– 87, 91–94, 96–98, 100–103, 105–109, 112, 114–122, 125–127, 130–138, 140, 145–147, 149–150, 152, 154–158, 161, 163, 190, 193, 195, 199–200 Education Law of 1879, 14, 51, 56–57, 60n12, 127 Education Rebuilding Council (ERC), 75–76, 75n26, 79, 101–102 education reform, 18, 75 educational breakdown, 18 Ehime Prefecture, 19, 42– 43, 93, 127, 187 Eighth Amendment, 195 electric shock, 9

238 Elementary and Middle School Education Bureau, Young Students’ Division (EMSEBYSD), 71– 81 Elias, Norbert, 48, 164 Enlightenment (the), 39n11, 48 enlightenment (spiritual), 52, 108, 138 entrance-exam hell, 19 Erasmus, 190 ethics, 8, 26, 2–29, 37, 98–124, 137, 198n10 ethnography, 21, 32, 36, 38, 44, 85 etic/emic,155–156 Europe, 47, 53, 116, 165, 190 fair play, 20 family, 7, 23, 84, 89–91, 97, 123, 140, 143, 193 feudal lords, 52 fieldwork, 42– 45, 63, 84– 85, 94, 113, 140–141 flogging, 9, 27, 58, 190–191 flores, Louis, 166 force (physical), 2, 5–7, 9–12, 16, 41, 55, 61, 63, 94, 102, 107, 115, 118, 121, 123, 128, 130–131, 138–139, 143, 159–161, 187–188, 191, 193–194 foucault, Michel, 25, 29, 155–163, 158n6, 160n8 frederick the Great, 190 friendship, 20 fukuoka, 64, 142, 186–188 fukushima Nuclear Accident independent investigation Commission, 8, 21 fundamental Law of Education, 14, 57, 106, 119 futōkō. See school refusal gakkyu hōkai. See educational breakdown gasshuku. See training camp Geertz, Clifford, 38, 38n9 gender, 28, 50, 87– 89, 95 107, 194 General Social Survey of Japan (JGSS), 88, 110, 156 Giyō Hair Dryer incident, 69, 186 gladiators, 128

Index Global initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 31, 197 globalization, 15–16, 39; importance of anthropology in age of, 15n15, 16 group 8, 96n14, 135–136, 144, 151; activities, 96n14; identity, 96n14; groupism, 8, 135–136, 144, 151 growth (developmental), 84, 108, 112–113, 122, 157; perception of due to taibatsu, 112–113 guidance, 7, 28, 63– 64, 66, 71, 74, 76–77, 92–93, 97, 100, 103–105, 108, 121, 131, 133, 157, 186 guilt, 2–3, 23–24, 70, 97, 117, 188, 191, 198 guts, 106–107, 107n9, 112, 117, 136 gyakutai. See abuse habitus, 132, 132n6 hankō. See samurai fief schools hard training, 3, 46, 64, 80, 98, 100, 107, 112–113, 122, 135, 137, 162, 190 harsh discipline, 15–16, 34, 53, 66, 80, 94, 98, 100, 106, 127, 139, 196 Heisei Period (1989–present), 6, 65 hierarchy, 3, 23, 45, 113, 118, 129, 130, 132, 135, 139–141,143–146, 151, 156, 158–159, 196 Higashikokubaru Hideo, 5, 109 High Economic Growth Period, 62, 107n10 Hikikomori. See social withdrawal Hiroshima, 186–187 Hokkaidō, 91, 186–187 Hokuriku High School, 142, 144 hōman. See holding buckets of water for extended periods of time holding buckets of water for extended periods of time, 9, 55 Homer, 190 homogeneity, 26, 41, 125–127, 149, 155, 165, 169, 190; perceptions of in Japanese culture, 8, 125–127 honor, 23–24, 42, 103, 134, 157n3; for elders 23, 103; for educators, 157n3 Horace, 190 human rights, 11n9, 28, 38, 47, 49, 58, 63,

Index 118, 120–123, 199–200; and Magna Carta, 124n30; as reason to eradicate taibatsu 120–124 hunting, 128 ibaraki Prefecture, 186 ijime. See bullying imperialism, 151 inaction, 25, 94n13, 159, 163 indebtedness, 23 Ingraham v. Wright (1977), 194–195 in loco parentis, 4, 195 inoki, Antonio, 167–168; fighting spirit slap of 167–168 insularity, 8, 151 insult, 23, 131 Intahai. See All-Japan High School Basketball Championships international relations, 16 interpretive anthropology, 38; versus explanatory anthropology, 38 ishihara Shintaro, 5, 5n6, 18 ishii tokichiro, 99 isolation (of children), 37 isolation (of Japan), 16, 57, 151, 166, 169 iwakura Mission, 50 Japan: as civilized nation, 27, 48, 56; as heaven for children, 166; as imperial power, 16, 23, 48– 49, 58, 60, 113, 149; as isolated nation, 16, 57, 151, 166, 169; as mirror for better understanding one’s own society, 25, 36; as nation with hidden complexities, 21; as non-violent nation, 166, 168 Japan federation of Bar Associations (JfBA), 11 Japan football Association, 63n13 Japan General Social Survey (JGSS), 88, 110, 156 Japan (National) Police Agency, 67 Japan (Amateur) Sports Association (JASA), 63, 88, 122, 122n29 Japan Student Baseball Association (aka Japan High School Baseball federation, JHBf), 63n13, 188

239 Japan Sumo Association, 2–3 Japanese military, 41, 41n14, 58, 60, 107, 113n21, 126, 137, 140, 149, 168 Japanese Self-Defense forces (SDf), 15, 41, 130 Japanese values, 23, 144 Japanese culture, 6, 8, 21, 2–26, 28–29, 38, 55, 125–126, 130, 134–136, 144–145, 150, 152–154, 168–169; conventions of, 8; perceptions of shared national, 8; stereotypes of, 21, 24, 123, 155; as unique, 21, 24, 28, 43, 126, 130, 134–137, 145, 149–152, 154, 168; vs. Japanese law, 135 Japanese economy, 5, 15, 17–19, 60; relationship with education system, 15, 17–19 Japanese education, 12, 14, 17, 26, 40– 42, 49–50, 56, 60, 62– 63, 69, 74, 76, 80, 85– 86, 94, 97, 101, 103, 107, 118–120, 127, 130–131, 145, 154; dark side of 40– 41, 40n12, 69n22, 127 Japanese educators, 17, 28, 49– 50, 80, 93, 95–96, 100, 103–104, 108, 121, 127, 130n2, 133–134, 136, 139, 149, 162, 169, 195 Japanese national anthem, 99n1 Japanese schools, 7–9, 13–17, 19, 23, 25–26, 28–29, 37, 49, 56, 59, 64– 67, 70, 74–75, 82– 85, 93, 95, 111, 115–116, 119, 121–122, 125–127, 131, 134–135, 144, 150, 152, 156, 163 Japanese society, 5– 6, 17, 23, 26–27, 60, 89, 93, 95, 114, 130, 136, 145, 150, 155, 168 Japanese spirit, 21, 106–107, 112, 114, 126, 133, 136, 140, 187 Japanese sports, 19–21, 42, 63, 100, 106–108, 113, 119–120, 127, 130, 133, 135–141, 143, 145, 150, 152, 165–167 Japanese students, 7, 10, 11, 11n9, 18, 20, 23–25, 29, 40, 43– 44, 51, 54, 57, 59, 61– 63, 66n19, 67– 69, 74–77, 80, 84– 85, 87– 88, 90, 92, 92n11, 93, 95n14, 97–99, 101–103, 107–112, 114, 116–118, 120–122, 131–132, 134–136, 142, 144, 147, 154, 156–157, 156n4, 159, 159n7, 167

240 Japanese teachers, 11, 14, 58, 62, 67, 70, 93, 105–106, 108, 134, 144, 152 jidō gyakutai. See abuse of children jinkaku. See character Jōsō Gakuin High School, 188 judo, 187 juken jigoku. See entrance-exam hell Kamimura High School, 188 Kanagawa Board of Education, 119n27 kanri kyōiku. See managed education Kant, immanuel, 17n16; categorical imperative of, 17n16 Kawakami Ryōichi, 18 Kawasaki City, 15n14; prohibition of taibatsu in homes in, 15n14 Kazenoko Gakuen, 69–70, 186 keel-hauling, 9 kejime. See distinction Kendo 137, 187 Kibishi(sa)/(i). See strictness kibishii jōgekankei. See strict vertical hierarchy Kimi ga yo. See Japanese national anthem Kinki university High School, 186 Kitakyushu, 69–70, 187 Kobe, 69, 144, 187 Kobe takatsuka High School, 69 Kochi Prefecture, 98 Kodansha, 2 Komadai tomakomai, 187–188 kōnai bōryoku. See school violence konjō. See guts Korean flogging Ordinance, 58 Kōshien. See All-Japan High School Baseball Championships Kōyaren. See Japan Student Baseball Association (JHBf) Kurokawa Kiyoshi, 8, 21 Kuwata Masumi, 117 kyōgokōkō. See powerhouse high schools language(s), 12–13, 28, 39, 43– 45, 60– 61, 63– 64, 77–78, 80, 84, 87, 91, 95–99,

Index 101–106, 117, 133, 143, 160–163; of discipline, 95–98 law, 4, 10–12, 14–16, 19, 27, 29, 31–32, 36, 41, 43, 46– 47, 50–51, 56– 69, 71, 75, 77, 80, 87, 104, 106, 109, 115, 119–120, 122–127, 132, 134–136, 141, 144, 154, 156, 163, 193–196, 198–200 lifestyle management, 84– 85 love, 3, 7, 11, 34, 37, 60, 67, 97, 108–109, 111–112, 122, 124, 156–158 loyalty, 23, 106, 146, 156; to the Emperor, 23 made in Japan, 8 mafia, 94 Magna Carta, 123, 123n30 maltreatment, 31, 198 managed education, 14, 49, 67– 69, 68n20, 78, 130–131, 135 Manyōshu, 51 Mao Zedong, 165 Marx, Karl, 160n8; repressive hypothesis of, 160n8 match fixing, 2n1 Matsui Hideki, 132–133, 132n7, 137–138, 137n14 Media, 4–5, 7– 8, 28, 40– 41, 49, 62, 67, 69–70, 71, 75, 78– 80, 100, 117, 145, 163, 166, 196 Meiji Period (1868–1912), 27, 50, 52, 58, 62, 79– 80, 136, 149 Meiji university, 188 Meitoku Gijuku High School, 99, 99n1 mental health, 34, 35n5 mental violence, 31, 195 Middle Ages, 51, 51–52n5 Mihara Osamu, 99 militarism/-ist, 24, 41, 60, 107 Ministry of Education (MOE), 2n1, 5,10– 11, 18, 20, 29, 50, 58, 65, 68, 70, 73, 77, 91, 117, 119–120, 125–126, 132, 163 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and technology (MEXt). See Ministry of Education Ministry of Justice (MOJ), 57, 61– 62, 67, 75–77, 75n27, 91n9, 120–121, 121n28

Index mixed martial arts, 41, 167 Miyazaki Prefecture, 5, 109, 142 mondaiji. See problem children moral development, 35 moral education, 93, 103, 105–106, 108 Morishita fushio, 122–123 moxa cautery, 37, 37n7, 53– 54, 53n7 multivocal symbol, 28–29, 39, 39n10, 163 Murray, David, 50–51, 50n4, 57, 59, 154, 163 mutilation. See disfigurement Nagatsu Shōgyō Prefectural High School, 186 Nara Period (710–794), 51 National Basketball Association (NBA), 142 national character, 21–24, 136–137 National institute for Education Policy Research, 18 nationalism/-ist, 60, 124, 149–152 neglect, 31, 117, 157, 192, 198 neocolonialism, 16, 151 Nero, 47 New Jersey, 50, 50n3, 57, 154, 191, 195 New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), 195, 195n6 Nihon Hōsō Kyōkai (NHK), 66, 174 nihonjinron. See theories of Japanese uniqueness ningen keisei. See character development Nobeoka Gakuen, 142 Noguchi Hiroyuki, 138–139 nōkan. See brain stem Noshiro High School, 142 Not in Education, Employment or training (NEEt), 5 obedience, 3, 8, 41n14, 62, 100, 121, 129– 130, 140, 157, 160; reflexive, 8 Ogawa Shigejirō, 58 Ohōri High School, 142 Okayama, 187 Olympics (1964 in tokyo), 4, 106–107, 113 Orange County, 196 Osaka, 52, 121, 188–189 ostracism, 23, 54, 96–97

241 pain, 2, 6, 9, 12, 16–17, 31, 33–34, 54, 61, 75, 77, 80, 107, 111–112, 128, 131, 139, 141, 157, 159, 192, 196; and human creation/destruction, 33–34n4 parents, 1, 3–5, 14–15, 32, 50, 52–53, 59– 61, 63, 66, 68, 83– 84, 87, 89, 93–94, 93n12, 96, 101, 108–112, 114, 122, 126, 129, 131–134, 131n3, 140, 142, 153, 156, 186, 190, 192–200 participant observation fieldwork, 42– 44 patriotism, 75 pedagogy, 3, 5, 26, 38, 43, 49, 68, 86, 98–100, 102–103, 109, 114, 141, 150, 154, 162, 168 peer discipline, 23, 33, 54, 82, 93–95, 145 penal code, 58, 58n10 performance, 19, 97, 108, 135, 139, 148 physical discipline, 3n2, 6–7, 11, 13, 16, 39, 41, 56, 59, 77–79, 101, 110, 115, 125, 152, 157, 168; euphemistic language used to justify, 7 physical education, 68, 74, 91–93, 100, 112, 130–131, 133–134, 137, 140, 146, 149, 186 physical education teachers, 91–93, 130–131, 134, 186 physical force, 12, 118, 193–194 pinching, 37 Pinker, Steven, 48, 48n1, 164–165, 169 Pol Pot, 165 power, 8, 11–12, 15–16, 25, 29, 48, 62, 64, 99–100, 109, 129, 154–169; and harassment, 11n11, 12; relations, 155, 158–162 powerhouse high schools, 99n1, 142 praise (for students and athletes), 53, 83– 85, 84n2, 95–96 problem children, 4 punishment, 1, 3, 5–17, 20–21, 24–29, 31–59, 63, 65– 68, 70–72, 75, 77– 80, 82– 85, 87– 88, 91–92, 95–98, 100–102, 104–105, 107, 110, 114–122, 126–131, 133–135, 137, 139–140, 152–160, 162–169, 187–201; of criminals, 27, 47, 51, 53, 58, 128; Puritan values, 191; as social ritual, 155–156

242 Qing Empire, 58 Raboin v. North Dakota Department of Human Services (1996), 193n2 racial hierarchy, 45, 148 racking, 9 reflexivity, 27, 36, 45, 169 relaxed education, 18, 74–75, 74n24, 75n25, 101 Restatement of torts, 193 ridicule, 23, 96–97,187 rights. See human rights right to discipline, 4, 15, 60, 62– 64, 67, 101, 101n5, 122, 195; in loco parentis, 4n4, 195 right to use corporal punishment, 59– 60, 67, 101, 153 ritual, 38n8, 85, 141, 155–156, 156n1; corporal punishment as bonding, 156n3; Goffman’s definition of, 156n1 Romans, 47, 128, 146 rugby, 107, 147 ruling military government in Edo Period, 58n10 Russia, 87n5, 96n16; corporal punishment in imperial, 87n5, 96n16 Rutgers university, 50–51 sakoku. See isolation (of Japan) samurai, 21, 51–56, 100, 103, 106, 135–137; code of ethics, 100, 103, 137, 139; ethos of, 135–137; fief schools, 53–56 satori. See enlightenment (spiritual) Schneider, David, 38 school: moral authority of, 94; refusal, 4; violence, 19, 33, 49, 62– 63, 67– 69, 78, 80 School Education Law of 1947, 57, 60– 64, 60n12, 64n15, 66, 77, 163; Article 11 of, 14, 57, 60, 63– 64, 64n15 schooling, 23, 114; formal, 23 scolding, 53, 64, 83– 84, 95, 97, 132 Scott, George Ryley, 47 scripture, 192 seated meditation, 52 Second World War. See World War ii

Index Seiryō High School, 132 Seishin. See Japanese spirit seishin kyōiku. See spiritual education seiza. See sitting on the soles Self-Defense forces (SDf), 15, 41n13, 130 self-discipline, 42, 85– 87, 87n4, 100, 121, 121n28 self vs. other, 25 sempai/kohai. See senior/junior relationships Sengoku Period (1550–1614), 52 senior/junior relationships, 2–3, 3n2, 3n3, 7, 112, 135, 143–144, sex(ual), 12n11, 31, 167; abuse, 31, corporal punishment as sexual activity, 27n17; harassment, 12n11; and the whip of love, 108n14 shame, 23–24, 97,114; culture of, 23; vs. guilt culture, 23 shidō. See guidance shigoki, 3, 112–113, 137, 137n15. See also hard training and shūgyō shinai. See bamboo stick/sword shitsuke, 3, 7, 12, 13, 52, 104–106, 111n18, 157, See also chōkai and discipline shūgyō, 99, 138–139, 145. See also ascetic practice, hard training, and shigoki Siberia, 87 silence, 62, 80, 94, 94n13, 159, 162 Singapore, 196 sitting on the soles, 1, 9, 12, 61, 121, 143 social: anthropology, 39, 39n11; change, 26, 155; constructionism, 38; facts, 39; problems, 38, 71, 76, 79– 80, 148, 152; withdrawal, 4 socialization, 20, 84, 84n3, mechanism of Japanese schools, 84n3 Society for Adolescent Medicine, 197 soldiers, 24, 37, 41, 113, 146; Japanese in WWii, 37, 41; Japanese in Self-Defense forces (SDf), 15, 41, 130 Solomon, 37, 190, 192 Somalia, 195 spanking, 10, 17, 34, 39, 193, 198, 200 spiritual education, 37, 107

Index sports: and character development, 135, 137–138, 149–150; coaching pedagogy, 43, 141; culture, 120, 137, 139, 145, 154; in development of, 149; education, 8, 15, 19, 49, 98, 100, 134, 158; as international competition, 20–21; introduction to Japanese, 149; Japanese as hotbed of taibatsu, 20, 92; and martial arts, 137, 149; public schools of the united Kingdom, 149; training 8, 138–140 Stalin, Joseph 165 statistics, 64– 67; limits of for understanding taibatsu, 64– 67 strength, 84, 100; taibatsu for cultivating, 84 stretching, 9 strictness, 3, 5, 104, 112, 114, 126–127, 139, 141–142, 144 strict vertical hierarchy, 135, 139–140, 145 striking, 6, 9–12, 37, 107, 113, 162 structuralism, 38 submission, 16, 24, 157; student’s when accepting taibatsu, 157 suffering, 9, 11, 33, 47, 55, 77, 138 suicide, 1, 4, 7, 107, 122, 186–188 sumo, 2–3, 2n1, 166, 169, 188 symbol, 23, 26, 28, 37–39, 49, 59, 80, 96, 103, 132, 148, 155–156, 161–162, 164 symbolic interactionism, 37–38, 148 symbolic violence, 161n9, 164 table tennis, 69–70, 187 taibatsu: 1986 MOE definition of, 10–11, 9n9; 1987 JfBA definition of, 11; as abuse, 10, 12–13, 15, 28, 49, 77–79, 96–97, 114, 117–118, 120, 124, 157–158, 193n2; advocates of, 103–114; arguments for and against, 98–124; author’s personal opinion about, 27; causes of, 125–153; comparisons with European corporal punishment, 53; conceptual overlap with other Japanese terms, 13, 98–124; contexts of, 82–97; culturalist theories

243 of, 134–144; and desire to develop character, 137–138; and desire to establish order, 23, 34, 67– 68, 108, 130, 134, 136; detractors of, 114–124; and detrimental psychological effects, 97n17, 111n18, 118; difficulty defining, 8–13; in disabled schools, 91, 91n8; as discipline (shitsuke), 104–105; and discontinuation of MEXt statistics, 71–74; as educational problem, 64– 67; as educational solution, 67– 69; educational value of, 116, 157; as emotional violence, 16–17, 115–116; ethics of, 98–124; extreme incidents of, 7– 8, 40, 69–70, 79, 92, 99; and failure to observe or enforce existing education laws, 64n17, 134; forms of, 83– 87; gendered use of, 87– 88, 88n6; as guidance (shidō), 103–104, 103n7, 104n8; histories of, 47– 81; in the home, 15, 31, 34, 37, 39, 65, 83, 115, 128, 191, 193, 198–199; and human rights, 120– 124; implements of, 137–138; initial banning of, 48, 56n9; introduction of term to Japanese, 50–51; Japan’s ambivalent relationship with, 16, 29, 50, 71; Japan’s perceived toleration of, 14; and Japanese pattern of discipline 128, 153; inflictors of, 93–95; legality/ illegality of, 14, 20, 49, 57, 122, 124, 136; as lightning rod, 95; and limits of verbal communication, 133–134; and managed education, 14, 49, 67– 69; as marginalized non-issue, 71– 80; mild vs. severe/strict/harsh forms, 10, 15–16, 32, 34, 39, 66, 69–70, 80, 198; as multivocal symbol, 26, 28, 37–39, 49, 59, 80, 103, 155–156; myths about, 13–15; as necessary evil, 15, 49, 59, 64n17, 101, 105, 201; opinion surveys about, 12; and overemphasis on winning, 119–120; perceived effectiveness of, 35, 78, 85, 108; and perception of growth, 112–114, 113n20; and physical superiority, 132–133, 133n8;

244 taibatsu (continued) punishments for teachers who use, 14, 70; as reflection of immaturity, 119; for sake of individual, 17, 157; and samurai ethos of modesty, 135–137; in school, 15, 68, 77–78, 91; and senior-tojunior discipline, 143–144; for social control, 129, 140; spaces used for, 88–92; in sports, 56, 63– 64, 92, 111, 114, 119–120, 136–137, 139; and statistics, 64– 67, 66n18, 66n19; and strict vertical hierarchy, 139–143; structural theories of, 130–134; theories of, 154–163; vs. violence. 4, 7, 11, 13, 15–17, 33–34, 38, 63– 64, 89, 115–117, 115n22; youth and adult approval of, 110–112, 110n15, 110n16 taibatsu kyōshi. See corporal punishment teacher taibatsuken. See right to use corporal punishment taishō Period (1912–1926), 59 takeda Yorimasa, 2 takeuchi Emi, 1, 106, 168, 186 tanaka fujimaro, 50–51, 56, 163 tanaka Kuniaki, 86– 87, 112 tate shakai. See vertical society tatemae/honne, 43– 45, 135–136 teamwork, 20, 33; and a sense of teamness, 143–144 temple schools, 52–56, 53n8 tendai, 115 terakoya. See temple schools theories of Japanese uniqueness, 145n24, 150–151, 150n26, 151n28 tobita Suishū, 106 tokitaizan (Saitō takashi), 2–3, 7, 106, 165–166, 168, 188 tokitsukaze (Yamamoto Jun’ichi), 2–3, 7 tōkōkyohi. See school refusal tokyo, 5, 18, 42, 44, 50, 62, 106, 113, 122, 138, 140–141 tokyo Olympics (1964), 106–107, 113 torture, 47, 58, 96–97, 128, 161 totsuka Hiroshi, 1, 3–7, 5n5, 15, 17, 43,

Index 62, 69–70, 70n23, 77, 79, 106, 122, 163, 168, 186 totsuka Yacht School (tYS), 3– 4, 6, 7n7, 15, 15n13, 62; incidents, 3–7, 6, 15, 62, 69, 79, 122, 163, 186 toughness, 2 training camp, 4, 85, 91 trust, 19–20, 23, 59– 60, 63, 67, 93, 95, 105, 119, 130, 150, 155–156, 156n4, 158 turner, Victor, 38–39, 38n8 twain, Mark, 80 united Kingdom (u.K.), 88, 96, 116, 149, 190, 199; public schools of, 88, 116, 149 united Nations (uN), 31, 99n1, 120, 195; Commission on Human Rights, 120; Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), 31, 120, 195 united States of America (u.S.), 10, 17, 24, 27, 42, 48, 85, 88, 93, 95, 126–127, 151–152, 165, 169, 190–201; corporal punishment in, 190–201; Department of Education, 200; Office of War information, 22; states in which corporal punishment is banned, 194n3 values, 23, 33, 50, 55–56, 60, 103, 106, 114, 129, 130, 136, 144–145, 156, 191, 198 verbal reprimand, 83, 97 Veronia v. Acton (1995), 195, 195n7 vertical society, 3n2, 132, 132n5 violence, 2– 4, 3n3, 7, 11, 11n10, 13, 15–17, 15n15, 19, 26, 28–29, 31, 32n2, 33–34, 38, 48– 49, 52, 62– 64, 67– 69, 68n20, 77–78, 80, 82, 82n1, 88–92, 88n7, 91n8, 97, 104, 111, 114–122, 115n22, 115n23, 116n24, 119n27, 124, 128, 131, 133, 135n11, 140n17, 146, 156–170, 188–189, 195n6; anthropology’s contribution to the study of, 82n1; Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic, 161n9, culture of in Japan and abroad, 164–169; difference between corporal punishment and, 10–13, 16–17, 115–117; educational value of, 116n24; as generally male

Index activity in Japan, 88n7; meanings of, 164; mental, 195, Pinker’s theory of decline in amount of, 164–165, role of in modern armies, 15n15 violent culture myth, 164–168; beyond the, 168–169 violent relationships, 155–160, 159n7 Wakayama, 187 West(ern nations/erners), 14–16, 18, 21, 24–25, 27–28, 32, 35, 48–50, 58–59, 116n25, 123–125, 128, 133, 136, 136n13, 145–146, 149, 151, 153–154, 158, 164– 166, 199–200 whip of love, 3, 7, 11n10, 60, 67, 108–109, 108n14, 111, 122, and sadomasochistic sexual fantasies in manga, 108n14 whipping, 51, 54–55, 191

245 winning is everything, 119, 135–136, 140, 145 Witches of the East, 106 World War ii, 6, 14, 21–22, 37, 41, 45, 49, 56, 60, 62, 100, 107, 130, 137, 163–165 Yacht School incidents. See totsuka Yacht School incidents Yamashita tomoshige, 132 Yaōcho. See match fixing youth, 5, 8–10, 19–21, 28–29, 63, 67– 68, 75, 89, 109–112, 119–120, 144, 152, 197 youth crime, 67 yutori kyōiku. See relaxed education zazen, See seated meditation Zen Buddhism, 52, 83, 108, 115, 138, 167–168, 186

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES The Institute of East Asian Studies was established at the University of California, Berkeley, in the fall of 1978 to promote research and teaching on the cultures and societies of China, Japan, and Korea. The institute unites several research centers and programs, including the Center for Buddhist Studies, the Center for Chinese Studies, the Center for Japanese Studies, the Center for Korean Studies, the Group in Asian Studies, the East Asia National Resource Center, and the InterUniversity Program for Chinese Language Studies. Director: Associate Director:

Wen-hsin Yeh Martin Backstrom

CENTER FOR BUDDHIST STUDIES Chair: Robert Sharf CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES Chair: Andrew Jones CENTER FOR JAPANESE STUDIES Chair: Steven Vogel CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES Chair: John Lie GROUP IN ASIAN STUDIES Chair: Bonnie Wade EAST ASIA NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER Director: Wen-hsin Yeh INTER-UNIVERSITY PROGRAM FOR CHINESE LANGUAGE STUDIES Executive Director: Thomas B. Gold