Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program (24 page)

While the comments and behavior of some of the program coordinators
could easily be seen as exemplifying what Donna Haraway calls the cannibalistic logic that readily construes other cultural possibilities only in
terms of resources for Western goals and actions, I believe such an interpretation falls short.14 First, there were strong and weak versions of this reformist approach, even among the program coordinators. Philip and Caroline, for instance, while sharing the underlying goal of change, differed
dramatically in their willingness to use confrontational strategies to
achieve their ends. Second, youth and idealism undoubtedly played a role
in this stance. Their relative lack of job experience may have led program
coordinators to blame "Japanese bureaucracy" for problems common to
bureaucratic organizations more generally. Third, the program coordinators were a unique subset of the pool of JET participants. Members of the
initial group were selected because they had become known in their local
areas for championing reform while at the same time acknowledging the
importance of Japanese approaches. They tended to be idealists, viewing the
goal of the JET Program as transforming not only English education but
also Japanese society more generally. In addition, as spokespersons for and
representatives of the JET participants they were under some pressure to
achieve results, and the gap between program rhetoric and reality was especially acute during the early years.

Finally, their disparaging stance toward Japanese bureaucracy can be
seen as a kind of cultural performance: they take on the role of "foreigners
trying to show Japanese how to do internationalization." With the best of
intentions, and intensely desiring to help bring positive change to a culture
in which they found many attractive features, they set themselves up for
frustration. At times their exuberance overruled their common sense. It is also worth noting that a similar attitude toward Japanese culture can be observed among the "hired foreigners" (oyatoi gaikokujin) of the Meiji period and the educational consultants brought in during the Allied Occupa-
tion.ss In many cases these individuals saw Japan as fertile ground for
experimentation; as they tried out ideas whose implementation in the
United States had been quite problematic, they developed sudden amnesia
about those earlier difficulties.

The Japanese Response

The contrast between the generally negative evaluations of the program
coordinators and the positive assessments of Japanese officials could not be
starker. While Ministry of Education officials remained lukewarm about
the program-after the rash of accidents and suicides, one official noted
with a hint of smugness, "They must be really worried over at CLAIR
right now. I do wonder about the future of the program"-the other two
sponsoring ministries had no such doubts. At the midway point of the first
year of the JET Program, a report by the Second Cultural Affairs Division
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated,

Though it may be a bit premature to evaluate the program since it is
only six months old, judging from the voluminous reports, the impressions of participants, and the fact that only a small handful of people
have gone home early (most for personal reasons), this ministry can
say with certainty that the program is making a tremendous contribution to the promotion of our country's internationalization both in
terms of bringing about historical reform in English language education and fostering international exchange and mutual understanding
and goodwill."

The expansion of participating countries itself testified to the program's
success in achieving the goals of this ministry. Home Affairs Ministry reports were very upbeat as well and cited the overwhelmingly enthusiastic
response of local governments throughout Japans' They also noted that
the percentage of JET participants who returned home early had decreased
from a high of 3.1 percent (26 out of 848) in 1987-88 to less than 2 percent
by i99o-91. This percentage, which compares very favorably to the rates
of premature departure in other youth exchange programs, has continued
to fall (see table 4).ss

My first impulse was to dismiss these reports as just more examples of
bureaucratic whitewashing. Yet when I posed this question in 1990 to a former secretary-general of CLAIR, he confirmed the positive evaluation:
"Actually, we expected much more serious problems than we've had so
far-AIDS, rape, illegitimate children. The JET Program is going much
better than anyone thought it would." The roots of these favorable assessments lie in the very different model of internationalization that Japanese
officials brought to the program. My first clue to that difference came
when I bumped into the secretary-general of CLAIR at a reception in 1989.
I asked him how things were going and, somewhat inebriated, he replied
enthusiastically, "Experience is everything! Experience is everything!"
His comment seemed straightforward enough, even simplistic; and yet the
more I thought about it, the clearer it became to me that he was voicing the
philosophy of "learning by doing" (karade de oboeru) that has been shown
to be a cornerstone of Japanese approaches to learning in a variety of con-
texts.59

What I believe the secretary-general was saying was this: We can talk
about internationalization all we want, but the best way to learn is to jump
right in and rub shoulders with each other. To an anthropologist who is accustomed to lecturing on the virtues of cross-cultural orientation and the
need to learn more about one another before working together, this advice
seemed counterintuitive. Diversity is not an end in itself. Without nurturance and careful instruction, placing diverse peoples together may just as
easily result in intolerance, misunderstanding, and the confirmation of
preexisting stereotypes. It also ran contrary to the sensibilities of the program coordinators, who had long pressed CLAIR officials to provide Japanese officials involved in the program with a more substantive orientation
on cultural differences.

SOURCE: Adapted from The JET Program(me): Five Years and Beyond (Tokyo: Council
of Local Authorities for International Relations, 1992), 80.

But for the Japanese involved, internationalization never implied erasing national boundaries or coming to know others as "autonomous individuals." Instead, it was seen as a process of improving understanding between groups who, it was assumed, would always be fundamentally
different. Most ministry officials saw the JET Program not as dramatically
changing Japanese society but as providing the experience that they felt
was a precondition for true learning to take place. On the one hand, foreign
youth would increase their understanding of Japanese society. On the
other hand, a whole cadre of Japanese officials, national level and local,
would be trained in Western styles of negotiation and interaction. One
CLAIR official noted, "We're getting our own internationalization just by
being here in CLAIR and interacting with the program coordinators. You
know, Japanese can't just 'do' kokusaika (internationalization). We have to
'touch it' first."

Given this framework, one could easily have predicted serious problems
in the program's infancy, as expectations were adjusted on all sides. In spite
of these problems in implementation, however, what impressed me most is
that Japanese officials at CLAIR and at the sponsoring ministries did not
give up. One by one, they took on virtually every difficulty raised by the
JET participants and wrestled with it: sometimes holding their ground,
sometimes capitulating entirely, but more often than not reaching some
kind of compromise. Before examining in more detail the learning curve at
the national level (see chapter 6), we need to journey downward through
the administrative system to examine the diverse and contradictory ways
in which the JET Program was translated into practice in local prefectures
and cities, schools and classrooms.

National-level bureaucrats in Japan by and large subscribe to a theory of
administrative guidance according to which they pressure prefectural officials, who pressure local school officials until the desired policy outcomes
are achieved. But how are national-level directives and guidance received
and interpreted at the prefectural level? What administrative niche does
the JET Program occupy within local boards of education? The key figures
in this process are the teachers' consultants, who constitute a relatively unstudied yet key educational conduit between the national and local levels.
Who are these people, and what is the nature of the environment in which
they work? What are their experiences with the assistant language teachers, and how do they evaluate these experiences? This chapter explores the
intersection of internationalization and the bureaucratic model at the prefectural level, largely through the eyes of two prefectural administrators
assigned to coordinate the JET Program from 1987 to 1990.'

Almost five months after my arrival in Japan, I first met Tanabe-san and
Sato-sensei. My Japanese mentor at the local university had graciously
agreed to provide an introduction to prefectural officials overseeing the JET
Program, and our taxi glided up to the prefectural office at about ten minutes to the hour. Too early. Though a light rain was falling, we stood outside for a few moments so that we might enter the education wing at exactly 9:0o A.M. Satoshi Sakai, the division chief for school guidance
(shidobucho), rose from his desk at the head of a cluttered but cozy office
holding a dozen individuals. He quickly motioned to his assistant, Tanabesan, who led us to a private guest room. We exchanged business cards and
pleasantries, and Sakai explained that Sato-sensei, the English teachers'
consultant (ETC), would not be able to join us as he was visiting a school
that morning.

The meeting itself took less than a half hour, and my mentor did virtually all the talking. After explaining my affiliation with the university, and
my general aim of exploring the prefectural system for receiving JET participants, he asked me to present the resume and statement of purpose that
I had carefully prepared in Japanese. This, and the fact that I spoke some
Japanese, seemed to relieve both officials considerably.' I immediately liked
Tanabe-san, sensing a genuineness and earnestness in his manner. When
he asked me what specific help I would need, I replied that if I could visit
some host schools for ALTs and observe a few seminars for JET participants, I would be most grateful. The meeting ended abruptly, and we were
ushered gracefully to the door with assurances that Tanabe-san would be
in touch. It was only later that I realized how crucial this introduction
would be in allowing me to see behind the curtain that prefectural officials
intentionally draw around most of their activities.'