Abstract
As an increasingly internationalized society, Japan’s influence globally is on the rise, especially in the lead-up to the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games. However, as an internationalized country, Japanese society still harbours an ‘us’ and ‘them’ attitude, displaying discursive strategies that enable majority views to prevail. A country based on Confucian philosophy and principles, Japan is a well-ordered society where everyone appears to know their place. As is seen in this article, these ideas are reflected in English-language learning materials, where some groups are perceived as less valuable than others, allowing for surreptitious undertones to prevail within such learning resources. The prejudice and bias contained within English education textbooks in Japan, depicting minority groups at the bottom of the totem pole, are discussed, as the success of this nation should not outweigh the discrimination that exists within it. The article notes important educational policy and then provides a historical overview of English education textbooks used in Japan. It follows with a discussion of recent discursive strategies that enable the majority to present negative views about minority out-groups through a more subtle and covert rhetoric within current textbooks.
Introduction
Various commentators (Befu, 2001; Fujimoto, 2002; Haarmann, 1984) have asserted that, after the Second World War, Japan essentially adopted the USA’s racial hierarchy, with an implication that white ‘Others’ are generally afforded high prestige, whereas non-white ‘Others’ (e.g. Africans, Indians and Chinese) are often maligned. Norton (1995) argued that the role learners make for themselves in society is presided over by their use of English. Consequently, the language and social roles learners are exposed to are critical elements of the language curriculum and, as such, should be carefully scrutinized. If English-language textbooks are indeed interpreted and viewed as representing other cultures, stereotypes and perspectives, these impressions will no doubt impact on a learner’s view of that society/culture in comparison to his or her own. Seemingly simple biases expressed in the discriminatory depiction of foreign characters within textbooks, such as their activities, choice of dialogue, forms of address, occupation, income, dress, perspectives and ways of living, are but a few examples of elements that may impact on a learner’s conscious and subconscious view of that culture. For example, Otlowski (2003) notes that in the Expressway A textbook, three pages are dedicated to the portrayal of Australia. The first picture is of the Sydney Opera House and Aboriginal souvenir T-shirts. The remaining pages are a discussion of ‘Australian Ethnic Crafts’. Otlowski (2003: 12) states that ‘this picture is offensive in that it not only belittles indigenous Australian art by equating it with souvenir T-shirts, but it also depicts none of the achievements the Aboriginal community has made over the years’. He also comments that, within this textbook, there are over 100 illustrations and images, however, there are only four pictures that portray someone who may not be ‘white’. Additionally, even images of classrooms in the UK and the USA depict ‘white’ students and, from these pictures, one can deduce from the classrooms and the students’ dress that they come from upper-middle-class families.
Thus, the portrayal of the users and use of English in the textbooks ‘may be an important source of influence in the construction of students’ attitudes and perceptions to the target language’ (Matsuda, 2002: 196). Furthermore, if social stereotypes serve as a foundation for language attitudes (Cargile and Bradac, 2001), it is likely that the racial hierarchy in Japan may also explain Japanese attitudes towards varieties of English and, subsequently, what cultures and viewpoints should be prevalent in English education textbooks. Kubota commented in an interview with Ana Wu
2
that: we must address larger social issues, including different forms of racism, which perpetuates the racial, cultural, and linguistic hierarchy of power and prevents students from having valuable opportunities to learn about diverse views and human experiences. In this sense, nonnative teachers need to play an activist role. (Kubota, 2009)
Education policy
Several points about the background and rationale for the diffusion of the 2003 Action Plan will be addressed. In the early 1930s, just prior to the Manchurian Incident, when Japanese nationalism was on the rise, the government reduced the number of English classes in schools (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2006). However, when Japan surrendered after the Second World War and the USA started to occupy Japan from 1945, the country was changed politically, economically and educationally through reforms supervised by the General Headquarters, which was organized by the US military (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2006). In 1947, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) initiated the Course of Study (CoS). The CoS is ‘the standards for the school curriculum in order to secure the same level of education all over the country and the content in the Course of Study should be taught in all schools’ (Kashihara, 2008: 2).
With Japan’s boom, beginning during the 1980s, and its dramatic economic return from the War, there became an increasing need for the business sector to be able to communicate in English internationally. With this as the driving force, in 1989 MEXT introduced the ‘Course of Study Guidelines for Modern Foreign Languages’, which were intended to increase communicative abilities in English (Lamie, 1998). McConnell (2000) notes that this 1989 revision of the 1947 CoS was in line with the set-up of the Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme of 1987, which was established to employ native speakers of English and assistant language teachers. It was executed officially through Boards of Education and supported by MEXT, and was considered a major step on the road to the reform and innovation of foreign language education in Japan (Matsuura et al., 2001). Browne and Wada (1998: 106) state that ‘before [the Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme] most students and teachers … had never seen a foreigner beyond television or the movies, much less had a chance to use English as a tool for communication’. The aim of the 1989 CoS was to enhance communicative language teaching and the idea of communicative competence (Ministry of Education, 1989).
With the intention of introducing foreign languages (principally English) in Japan, the 1989 CoS was, however, criticized for failing, as a result of the purportedly top-down nature of the guidelines and subsequent lack of support for teachers (Brown and Wada, 1998). Although the implementation of the curricula may not have been successful, the intention behind them was highly innovative for the time, considering Japan’s history with English-speaking countries. Fujimoto-Adamson (2006) and Sakui (2004) argue that, with regard to the 1989 CoS, concerning English education, two ‘forms of curriculum’ took shape involving English instruction. Both were new methodologies, implemented by the government for students to study English in order to pass a high-stakes examination, which was the driving force of the curricula. Fujimoto-Adamson (2006) states that, as part of the 1989 CoS in senior high schools, oral communication lessons were part of English-language education. This innovative policy was considered to be the government’s first genuine attempt to develop students’ communicative ability.
This brief overview, which does not take account of other historical, military, nationalistic and political aspects, illustrates the introduction of the CoS in 1947, with a significant change in 1989 to officially introduce foreign languages within the education system. This sets the foundation for the Action Plan, which was introduced in 2003 and established the need to ‘cultivate “Japanese with English abilities”’ – the new innovative slogan.
In 2008 and 2009 MEXT introduced a new Foreign Language CoS to ‘develop students’ basic communication abilities such as listening, speaking, reading and writing, deepening their understanding of language and culture and fostering a positive attitude toward communication through foreign languages’ (Ministry of Education, 2011).
1
The Action Plan gives the rationale for the proposal as follows: a native speaker of English provides a valuable opportunity for students to learn living English and familiarize themselves with foreign languages and cultures. To have one’s English understood by a native speaker increases the students’ joy and motivation for English learning. In this way, the use of a native speaker of English has great meaning. (Ministry of Education, 2003)
Regarding the teaching of cultural elements, MEXT states that junior high and senior high school teachers take up a variety of suitable topics in accordance with the level of students’ mental and physical development, as well as their interests and concerns, covering topics … of Japanese people and the peoples of the world, focusing on countries that use English. (Ministry of Education, 2003) Firstly … there are no specific instructions for the evaluation of their students’ physical and mental maturity which they can refer to in selecting their teaching items and Secondly … although the Ministry requires that teachers focus on ‘countries that use English,’ from a practical standpoint, it is difficult to determine which individual nations should be included in teaching materials as an appropriate source of culture related to English in Japanese curricula. (Yamanaka, 2006: 59)
The Action Plan sets the tone for implementing the curriculum, which, as demonstrated, focuses on the ‘international language’ – English – as the main language to be learnt via ‘native speakers’. The use of ‘native speakers’ is the basis upon which much of the overt, yet seemingly imperceptible, contemporary racist discourse is embedded within English education textbooks approved by MEXT. On the other hand, MEXT’s curriculum guidelines explicitly state that: ‘consideration should also be given to the fact that different varieties of English are used throughout the world as means of communication’ (Ministry of Education, 2003).
Historical overview
As far back as the early 1980’s, Hayashino commented on English textbooks in Japan, describing them as boring, monotonous and meaningless (1981). According to Ali’s dissertation (2012) the Mitchell’s New School Geography textbook, published in 1872, classified individuals into five groups: ‘savage’, ‘barbarous’, ‘half-civilized’, ‘civilized’ and ‘civilized and enlightened’. In 1987, Kawano researched and wrote an in-depth analysis of the cultural contents of English textbooks in high schools in Japan. She noted that natives of Australia and Canada were depicted in a patronizing and pessimistic manner, and represented as isolated from mainstream society. Kawano (1987) suggested that textbooks in Japan should contain more dialogue between Japanese people and models of minorities speaking English, as English is a global language. Kawano undertook a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) approach to analysing the cultural content of high school textbooks. Her study concluded by pointing out a number of deficiencies contained in the textbooks analysed. She noted that the content lacked authentic material and was biased towards Western (specifically North America) cultures, depicting them as being superior to Japanese culture, whilst disregarding other East Asian cultures. Furthermore, Kawano’s (1987) comments circled around the superficial and stereotyped depiction of other countries, as well as the neglect of diversity topics and issues related to social problems or racism. Her study found ethnic and cultural bias in the textbooks and pointed out that the dominant groups – white Americans – were portrayed as smart, wealthy and bright. This biased perspective potentially prevents students from becoming proficient in English and deprives them of developing true international awareness: ‘It is shameful if English classes are producing in students near-sightedness instead of a global view, racism instead of intercultural thinking’ (Kawano, 1987: 107).
Kubota noted that the non-native speaker of English, or the ‘Other’, is perceived as uncivilized and inferior to the Anglo speaker of English. Learning English, a language of the ‘civilized,’ has been one of the means for the Japanese to identify themselves with Westerners. Here the Japanese identity is split – although the Japanese are Asians, they have wished to identify themselves with Westerners, and their Asian self as well as other Asian peoples have been perceived as the inferior Other. (Kubota, 1998: 298) the Japanese have been heavily influenced by Western values and racial paradigms, imported along with Dutch learning and Western science in their rush to catch up with the West … [Moreover], in the postwar period in particular … these perduring stereotypes of the black Other have been in large part reinforced by the centrality of American discourse on the nonwhite Other in Japan which … has resulted in Japan’s uncritical acceptance and indigenization of the racial hierarchies they project. (Russell, 1991: 5)
It is therefore no wonder that, even today, textbooks present negative views about minority out-groups, whilst avoiding the damaging charge of bias. Erikawa also quoted from the Standard Jack and Betty textbook, published in 1956, which noted: ‘Some of them [languages] are less important, for there are not many people who speak them. English is one of the most important languages because many people use it’ (Erikawa 1995 in Kubota 1998: 298). Taking this comment at face value and avoiding any context, this is essentially true for the Japanese. Other languages are less important than English and therefore there is no need to learn these languages within the Japanese context. However, this is an example of subtle inequality, presenting a negative view about minority groups/languages whilst masquerading as a valid and legitimate comment. The insinuation of this passage is the superiority of English and native speakers of English, as well as their culture and society. Almost 40 years on from this textbook, March (1992) discussed how it has become fashionable to hold white Others in high regard, and commented that the Japanese have a ‘gaijin [white foreigner] complex’, but that it is also equally essential to look down on non-white Others in order to maintain one’s place in the racialized hierarchy. Textbooks used during the Meiji to Showa periods provide insight and are examples of how the language, culture, values and ideologies were viewed, like time capsules of the hidden curriculum (McGrath, 2002).
As language can be argued to exist in a discourse of power and ideology, McConnell (1999) has commented that Japan has, in fact, drained out the cultural content of English in its educational programmes. However, Hino (1988) has put forward that, since the 20th century, textbooks in Japan have moved away from an overtly nationalistic focus to encouraging international understanding.
So, what about the textbooks that are used today, in the 21st century? Is inequality or bias contained in a subtle or covert manner? Do current English-language textbooks steer away from the internalized Anglo-Saxon views of the world (Nakamura, 1989) and the lens through which the Japanese have viewed other minority groups (Nakamura, 1991)?
Recent Developments
Klein (1985: 30) suggests that omission is alleged to be one of the most prevalent forms of bias, and that reading materials need scrutiny because ‘the most dangerous aspect of omission is that books may very effectively conceal what is left out of them, or even that anything has been left out’. Apple’s (1982) theory on the construction of the curriculum is appropriate to keep in mind when analysing and discussing the diffusion of any curriculum. If society is a product of the past, then the curriculum, like society, will mirror it, containing both strengths and weaknesses. If, as Apple (1982) suggests, a curriculum is never neutral, but a social construction created to serve political interests, reproducing inequality and promoting certain types of knowledge, then the motives and political agenda behind textbooks used to implement the curriculum are relevant to understanding the cultural beliefs and prioritized knowledge that reinforce the dominance of Japanese culture. In October 2014, an International New York Times article criticized Japan’s education strategy for being ‘divided’. The article claimed that: ‘Japan’s simultaneous embrace of nationalism and cosmopolitanism is generating ambiguous signals from its education policy makers. They are rewriting textbooks along what they call “patriotic” lines, alienating their Asian neighbors in the process’ (Ministry of Education, 2014a). In response, the Minister of Education stated: A dramatic change in the direction of education is underway in Japan in order to respond to globalization – not to promote nationalism. The reforms we are undertaking center on three main areas: foreign language education, the internationalization of Japanese universities, and the teaching of Japan’s traditions, culture, and history to strengthen students’ sense of identity. (Ministry of Education, 2014b)
In 2001, a group of three researchers conducted an investigation into the cultural aspects of all 17 of the Oral Communication A textbooks approved by MEXT for Japanese high school students. The study examined whether more ‘concrete culture’ was included in those textbooks, as opposed to ‘abstract culture’. ‘CC [concrete culture] referred to the tangible manifestations of a culture such as nation, history, geography and products … AC [abstract culture] refers to the more intangible manifestations of culture such as behavior or thinking patterns’ (Ashikaga et al., 2001: 2). Ashikaga et al. noted that abstract culture was extremely important, as latent differences in expectations could lead to difficulty in communication. The results of the study revealed that the textbooks contained 76% concrete culture and only 24% abstract culture content. The authors concluded that abstract culture is not considered a primary learning objective in comparison to concrete culture, even though abstract culture plays an important role in intercultural communication with both majority and minority groups. However, the study lacked substance, as the definition of culture was limited to two categories, with the three researchers noting that they had difficulty agreeing on whether a particular element represented cultural content or not.
In 2011, Göldner’s thesis qualitatively analysed six MEXT-approved junior high school textbooks for their cultural content. Following an in-depth analysis of these books, Göldner came to the following conclusions:
The inside cover of the textbooks contained images of people from around the world and, in some textbooks, the inside page contained a foreign vocabulary section printed in various writing systems (such as Hindi or Arabic), which indeed meets the tenet for intercultural education. However, the ‘great variety’ alluded to at the beginning of the textbooks is narrowed to only a few dominant cultures, with other cultures taking a minority role or being omitted from the narrative entirely. MEXT’s objective to ‘deepen … the understanding of the ways of life and cultures of Japan’ (Ministry of Education, 2003) is, indeed, fulfilled. However, cultural elements referring to Japanese cultures are then taken as a basis for further comparisons to mainly English-speaking cultures, and ‘the clear overload of Japanese cultural references in the textbooks points towards reinforcing Japanese students’ awareness of their Japanese identities’ (Göldner, 2011: 96). Despite the fact that some (two Chinese, one Singaporean and one Indian) ‘non-English-speaking cultures are referred to, they are still underrepresented and appear to be not as “equal” as English-speaking cultures. It is arguable whether this also reflects Japan’s, possibly unconscious, attitude regarding power relations in the globalised world (i.e. attributing more economic and social power to English-speaking cultures)’ (Göldner, 2011: 96). The textbooks are dominated by ‘Western’ characters representing the English-speaking world, and there is no instance of an African character, aside from the images contained on the inside covers. Japan is depicted as culturally homogenous. Although there is a focus on multiculturality in other cultures, there appears to be no interaction between Japanese people and individuals from domestic ethnic or immigrant groups within the textbooks. Additionally, it appears that the global aspect essentially emphasizes diversity in the world outside of Japan, but not within it.
In elementary schools, starting in 2011, textbooks became part of foreign language activities. The first textbook to be published for general use was entitled Eigo Noto. However, this was replaced by Hi, Friends, which is accompanied with a DVD containing songs and videos of English conversation practice, as well as educational and other cultural content. This textbook is actually a good example of exposing students to multiple languages and ethnicities, as one of the first activities in the grade-five textbook is saying ‘Hello’ and ‘My name is’ in other languages, aided by a video of children from different countries around the same age, which indeed meets MEXT’s requirement for developing students’ ‘understanding of languages and cultures through various experiences’ (Ministry of Education, 2008). However, Horii (2015) argues that this arrangement presupposes that only one language is spoken in each nation. She argues that such a presupposition only includes the dominant languages in those countries. This excludes minority – namely, indigenous – languages by ignoring the linguistic and cultural plurality within each country, and perpetuates the existing linguistic and cultural hierarchy by nominating one dominant language and culture from each country.
On page 40 of the same textbook, students are shown lunches from four different countries (the USA, Finland, Korea and India) with an accompanying video. The activity has students listening to the names of the characters in the textbook and selecting what they have for lunch by matching the character with the correct lunch box. This is similar to the scenario in Eigo Noto, but in that textbook it is breakfast instead of lunch. Horii (2015) contends that students are to presume that those who eat kimchi and rice come from Korea and not any other country. She asserts that ‘such matching games not only overlook linguistic and cultural complexities within the country and its communities but also perpetuate the ideology of one language/culture in one country by only selecting stereotypes by nation, instead of challenging them’ (Horii, 2015: 153).
Yamanaka (2006) and Matsuda (2002) both conducted extensive studies on how foreign countries are represented in textbooks in Japan. Both used qualitative methods to code their data, using ‘all direct and indirect references to nations’ and ‘nationality’, respectively. After coding the data and identifying the relevant units, these were later collated for the purpose of counting. These studies discovered that those from English-speaking countries dominated the textbooks, while Asian and African cultures were seldom depicted. In reality, various different people from heterogeneous cultural backgrounds speak English. Consequently, the logical inference is that English-language textbooks should reflect this reality. But the contrary is true, allowing for the inevitable criticism of the English-language textbooks that are used in Japan. Matsuda (2002) further asserts that the main texts and exercises follow the morphological and syntactical rules of American English, and so do vocabulary items and spelling. Matsuda contends that such an approach limits learners’ exposure to the American perspective and deprives students of a valuable opportunity to learn about different variations of English, which may lead them to view other varieties of English as non-standard and deficient. Matsuda conducted an additional study in 2003 with 33 Japanese high school students in a school that had an international exchange programme, where students had either travelled or lived abroad. This study also revealed that 84% of the students wanted to pronounce English as American or British people do.
Such biased sentiments have led to the development of discursive strategies or ‘ways of talking’ that enable majorities to present negative views about minority out-groups or omit their views entirely from the narrative. It was in the context of this inequality, or what has been termed ‘linguistic discrimination’, that Kachru (1985) and other academics sought to advocate the new paradigm of World Englishes. Yet, even as late as 2004, when Kubota conducted a study with 260 Japanese university students majoring in English, asking what kind of English native English speakers should speak, 30% of the respondents answered British or American English, with 40% answering that they should be from inner circle countries. With regard to whether the students favoured the absence of a foreign accent for their example/model when learning English, 89% confirmed that this was required, important or desirable. In Japan, ‘deeply ingrained beliefs that there is a single useful form of English for international communication, and this is standard English, i.e. American and British English’ (Suzuki, 2011: 7), confirm the bias that exists towards the ‘white’ Other, in comparison to English speakers from outside the inner circle countries.
A final study that is worthy of note was conducted by Yamada (2015), which focused on textbooks used in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. She examined 27 textbooks and a total of 232 core lessons, employing both a content and discourse analysis approach. She investigated specific components within the textbooks – namely, the countries/continents and types of people (using grey-scale shading – shaded and non-shaded) represented in those educational materials. Her analysis revealed that people without shading were dominant and people with shading were clearly under-represented. Individuals without shading were from 15 countries, while people with shading were located in only five countries. Yamada found that, in total, one continent and 24 countries were depicted, with coverage of the West (especially North America) being the dominant representation, but that the percentage of Asian countries portrayed increased from the 1990s to the 2000s. Yamada discovered that, in the 1980s, coverage of inner circle countries was 54%, but dropped to 48% in the 2000s. However, with regard to outer circle countries, only one continent (Africa) and three countries (India, Malaysia and Singapore) were included. When Africa was introduced, the textbooks contained no specific names of countries, but only referred to it as ‘Africa’.
Yamada (2015: 63) constructed a table that illustrates a decrease in the percentage of depictions of outer and expanding circle countries from the 1980s to the 2000s. Her data reveals that outer circle countries had a representation figure of 4.8% in the 1980s; 5.9% in the 1990s; and only 1.1% in the 2000s. Additionally, more than a quarter of all of the representations in all of the textbooks were either Japanese or American, and these were the only two nations represented in all editions of the textbooks.
With regard to representations of individuals from different ethnicities or nationalities, Yamada noted that textbooks during the 1980s depicted three nationalities, which increased to nine in the 1990s and then decreased to four in the 2000s. The dominant representations of individuals from other ethnicities or nationalities were individuals from English-speaking inner circle countries. Regarding indigenous people (referred to as ‘native people’) of Japan, they were represented only once in the textbooks analysed, and within the narrative were described as a historical fact with no interaction with contemporary citizens. Finally, Yamada observed that the textbooks analysed portrayed a social distance between characters, with the closest relationship seen between Japanese people and those from the inner circle.
If, indeed, one of the objectives of language textbooks is to operate as a means to facilitate the integration of content about ethnically, racially and culturally diverse people (Sileo and Prater, 1998), it goes without saying that this should be reflected in the language textbooks used in Japan. MEXT in Japan approves certain textbooks that are used as part of the national English language curriculum, and it has been argued that these specific textbooks contain prejudicial content. On page 103 of the Milestone English reading textbook, for example, it is stated: That is why when we Japanese abandon dogs, the English criticize us, saying that we are not fulfilling our responsibility as human beings. It follows from their way of thinking that mercy killing is the proper way of handling unwanted dogs. (Schneer, 2007: 605)
The texts in nationally approved junior high school textbooks present Japanese and Western cultures as facts, and essentializing cultures or peoples through narratives based on ‘critical incidents’ will necessarily misrepresent them, often reinforcing stereotypes and an us-and-them mentality (Schneer, 2007). Kubota (2002) has argued that Japan has failed to manage internal cultural diversity and, as such, the Japanese education system has assimilated non-Japanese citizens instead of integrating them. This is also reflected in the content of the textbooks used for English education, and reflects a childlike understanding of the diversity in the world, limited to one’s own world view as the dominant standpoint. Okano has agreed with this by boldly stating: Japan not only projects itself as an ethnically and linguistically homogeneous nation but most citizens share that view. This derives at least partially from the modern system of education, which has nurtured a sense of what it is to be ‘Japanese’ and assimilated other ethnic groups under its umbrella … Long-standing ethnic groups have become … invisible. (Okano, 2006: 474)
Conclusion
The objectives contained within the Action Plan and the Course of Study regarding foreign language education naturally reflects the changes in Japan's national situation over the years, resulting in the need to “cultivate Japanese with English Abilities.” According to Butler (Liddicoat, 2013), language education in Japan has fluctuated between two primary aims, academic and practical use of the language. Liddicoat (2013) argues that if this is indeed the case, language policies regarding foreign language education will not envisage an inter-cultural objective. Whilst it is obvious that there is a certain degree of inter-cultural communication within the textbooks used today, they appear to be dominated by the ‘white' North American standpoint. From the labelling first articulated in the Mitchell’s New School Geography textbook in 1872 to the research that is presently available, it appears that very little has evolved in the area of English-language textbooks in Japan. It seems that current textbooks are in need of an overhaul by accurately reflecting minority groups as being part of the English-speaking community, as opposed to omitting them from the narrative or depicting them as having a level of English that is not standard. At a minimum, teachers should receive training on how to discuss the issues of bias, racism, inequality and prejudice contained within the textbooks they are presently using, with greater direction from MEXT on how to achieve this. Although teachers in Japan may not have ‘had actual intercultural experiences [and] … do not seem comfortable with how to teach this topic’ (Murayama, 2000: 61), with increasing globalization and the importance of cultural understanding and tolerance in the 21st century, these issues need to be discussed by those teachers who are educating the minds of the next generation. With societal changes, policy enactments vary to different degrees and replicate powerful discourses ‘that compete in shaping the imagined horizons of nation-states and their citizens’ (Ramanathan and Morgan, 2007: 458). Japan is no exception. It is a nation that has ‘developed self-interested and selective habits, appropriating the global code in ways that seek to sustain, with varying degrees of success, the linguistic and sociocultural integrity of [its society]’ (Ramanathan and Morgan, 2007: 455). Many nations display this symptom, and it can be argued that it is not only productive – necessary to maintain identity – but also keeps alive the culture and traditions of that nation. That said, students in Japan should be made aware of the various ethnicities and racial groups within English-speaking countries, instead of the white American view being represented as the dominant standpoint. This would be in line with Kachru’s (1989) World Englishes concept, which was established to reveal the diffusion of English speakers around the world. Above all, the shift needs to come from MEXT and a revision of the CoS regarding the selection of teaching materials and, specifically, a clear definition of ‘suitable topics’ and a practical account of how to evaluate ‘the level of students’ mental and physical development’ with regard to education on the different cultures, identities and viewpoints that exist within the English-speaking paradigm. Additionally, attention to countries where English is spoken as an official language – in particular, expanding circle countries – may aid in making students aware of the increasing spread of English (Graddol, 1997), and would be a deviation from viewing English from inner circle countries as standard, important and desirable. Furthermore, in Japan, publishers, MEXT and textbook reviewers need to find ways of applying a more ‘English as an International Language’ perspective with regard to teaching materials (Matsuda, 2003). This needs to be instituted by MEXT approving textbooks for students from elementary to high school that take a more ‘English as an International Language’ approach, as opposed to the current textbooks, which adopt an ‘English as a Foreign Language’ approach, with content laced with bias and cultural hierarchy.
Commentary on the bias that exists in the area of foreign language education in Japan inevitably reiterates that it can be viewed as a ‘vehicle for the expression of Japaneseness through other languages rather than as a way of mediating between Japanese and other perspectives’ (Liddicoat, 2013: 57), and that it initiates an encoding of Japanese identity (Schneer, 2007: 603).
Some may argue that the overview presented here is hampered by a biased perspective, presenting a predominant but not exclusive reflection of the teaching materials used in Japan today. Some may extend their criticism to include the argument that, with regard to the ‘Other’, challenges exist within Japan and that this is not a static depiction, as it does not reflect complex and emerging global perspectives within nation states about race, power, education and identity. That, as in any country, may in fact be true, but the arguments presented here do not deviate from the implied set of ‘Western’ cultural and racial hegemonic identities as discursively reproduced in English education texts used to teach English to Japanese students. The issue of subtle prejudice and bias against minority out-groups in English education textbooks exists, and some texts are perceived to encourage an acceptance by Japanese students of the racial hierarchies portrayed, where white Others are afforded high prestige in comparison to non-white Others, displaying a cultural predisposition to an authoritarian and hierarchical structure.
In an increasingly globalized world, and with the lead-up to the Tokyo Olympics, students in Japan and Japanese society need to be exposed to the plethora of cultures, individuals and ethnicities which are part of the English-speaking community. Such an introduction will chip away at the long-standing idea that English is a white language, even today, and gradually reduce the perception in Japan that other languages and cultures rate lower on the racial hierarchy that is still currently maintained. Today’s generation needs to be educated about the variety and diversity that exists in the world, in an effort to augment equality and respect for individuals from all nations.