Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program (53 page)

In one respect, the JET Program has brought extraordinary change. One
can now go into virtually any public high school in Japan and witness
team-taught English classes that depart radically from traditional teaching
practice. Sometimes, it seems as if the atmosphere of the ubiquitous private
English conversation schools has pervaded public secondary school English
classes. Yet in reality this change is, for the most part, limited to specific
contexts and shielded from the rest of the system, suggesting that it is a
sign of an adaptive and pragmatic response and not a fundamental alteration of the culture. That the implementation of JET reveals internationalization to be defined by most Japanese as linking up with the rest of the
world (rather than as Japanese themselves changing and integrating foreigners into their own society) should remind us that the limits of pluralism in Japan do remain fairly narrow; keeping foreigners at a polite distance rather than socializing them to become part of daily routines is a
process at which a majority of Japanese still excel. By defining internationalization as situational accommodation to Western demands, the JET Program provides a means by which Japan can "do" Western-style internationalization (however defined) while at the same time protecting local
meanings and institutions. What the Japanese have done is to meet the
guests at the door with a great display of hospitality. Assured that they are
only short-term guests, the hosts then focus not on whether the foreigners
are integrated into Japanese society but on whether they are treated hospitably and enjoy their stay.

In effect, the implementation of this plan relies on two different frameworks. Strikingly, virtually everyone continues to go along with the
tatemae (official) version of the program while at the same time devising
various ways to subvert it whenever local priorities and institutions are at
stake. The Japanese appear to be much more willing to live with the resulting contradictions than are the JET participants, whose unhappiness with
the situation creates difficulties that require a considerable amount of time
to manage. Indeed, the larger significance of the JET Program may lie in
how it enacts the interplay between forces for continuity and for change in
Japanese society. The theme of reluctant adaptation is an old one in Japan,
and the parallels between "internationalization" in the Heisei era and "democratization" and "modernization" in earlier eras are certainly more
than coincidental. In spite of the profound technological and economic
changes that have characterized the past century, Japanese have responded similarly to the pressure applied by the foreign consultants brought over
during the Meiji period, the Allied Occupation forces and their educational
consultants in the late 194os, and the JET Program participants today.

In Japan, the reinforcing of ethnic identity in response to external contact seems almost automatic, and I believe that the Japanese to some extent
display what Edward Spicer refers to as a "persistent identity system."8
Spicer suggests that some cultural systems, such as those of the Jews,
Basques, Navaho, and Amish, have demonstrated their ability to survive
over time in different cultural environments. They are characterized by
what he calls "oppositional process": that is, they have continued to resist,
throughout their history, attempts to incorporate or assimilate the groups
into a larger whole. Though Spicer's model seems to be designed to explain
the persistence of certain ethnic groups within a larger nation-state, here
the same process seems to apply to a nation's relations to the larger world
system.

At first glance, the notion of a persistent identity system seems hopelessly rooted in a static, timeless concept of culture. But Spicer argues that
since these systems develop as a response to attempts at incorporation by
outside forces, flexibility and effectiveness in coping with change are key
characteristics.' What this suggests is that "Japaneseness" may change
over time and with increasing external contact.10 New exogenous linkages
may, in direct cultural compensation, generate new standards of identity.
More specifically, attempts at "mass internationalization" such as the JET
Program suggest that the criteria for demonstrating Japaneseness in the
latter part of the twentieth century may increasingly include the ability to
interact with foreigners and the capacity to specify and defend Japanese
culture in ways that avoid a blanket indictment from foreigners, particularly Westerners. In turn, such programs foster these abilities: the JET Program is helping Japanese learn how to talk about diversity in ways that are
more acceptable in international venues. In conjunction with other policies
and forces that increase external linkages, the program is likely to foster
the development of a new generation of young people in Japan who do not
have a hang-up about Westerners, who can hold their own in debates, and
who are not afraid to say "No!"

It is significant that Japanese ministry officials, administrators, and
teachers almost unanimously feel that the JET Program has ushered in
tremendous change. One Ministry of Education official, for instance,
pointed out that English teachers' coordinators are finally getting over the
"gaijin complex": "I think all the prefectures and schools are getting
stricter with ALTs. The honeymoon period is over. When ALTs first came they bent over backward and almost treated them like gods. They couldn't
change their commonsense response and just treat them normally. But
now they realize that outsiders are not strange and we're learning to say
clearly what is good and bad. They've learned not to panic when ALTS
make unreasonable demands." An ETC concurred: "Ten years ago we
couldn't have dreamed about having this kind of talk about ALTs." In spite
of the complaints of some JET participants that one-shot visits to either a
school or a classroom are meaningless, JTLs and students really do believe
that seeing and interacting with one foreigner can make a difference. That
virtually every public secondary school student in Japan has a chance to
see, hear, and talk to a foreigner is an accomplishment not to be underestimated; and it is worth remembering that it never could have been achieved
without the massive resources that only the central government can mobilize.

Furthermore, common sense tells us that achieving physical diversity
may be only the first step in a much longer process. An official in Shiga-
ken's International Affairs Division wrote in an essay of three phases in
the development of the JET Program-the era of astonishment, the era of
acclimation, and the era of understanding. In the first stage, "The schools
and towns hosting ALTs found themselves bewildered. They took it upon
themselves to do vast remodeling work on their apartments, installing
showers and even bilingual televisions, which were still a rarity at the time.
To the people of the town, it seemed as if the aliens had landed. Amidst all
the commotion, countless troubles occurred due to cultural differences."
With the passing of a few years, however, came acclimation, and previously
apprehensive schools and towns began to show interest. JET participants
were requested all over the prefecture, and their numbers soared. "Even in
towns with a population of less than ten thousand, one can find a JET participant riding his or her bicycle around town or shopping in the local supermarket in everyday life. Becoming accustomed to seeing foreign people
has surely caused great strides in the internationalization of the eyes of the
local people." But the real challenge remains: "Even with this internationalization of the eyes of the people, lack of mutual understanding of each
other's cultures still poses the same problems that it did ten years ago....
It is our goal to move on from the stage of internationalization of the eyes
to internationalization of the mind, true mutual understanding."11 The reaction to newcomers anywhere, especially those perceived as tokens, often
follows a similar pattern: only after the initial excitement dies down, and a
different kind of relationship is negotiated, do the possibilities for some
lasting impact emerge. At the very least, a longitudinal view of the JET Program suggests that claims for the unchanging nature of Japanese national character are untenable.

Yet those possibilities should not be overstated. For a Japanese secondary school student, exposure to a JET participant for a number of class periods is not likely to lead to the kind of personal change often triggered by
a long-term sojourn, or even a short-term homestay, abroad. Nor should
we confuse a decrease in overt preferential treatment with a willingness to
accept foreigners as equal members of the group. Becoming acclimated to
foreigners does not necessarily imply giving up Japanese identity, nor does
it mean that the pressure in Japan to conform to a cultural center, along
with the corresponding search for deviants, will end. One Ministry of Education official put it bluntly: "If we lose our identity, who are we? We
must guard our identity while at the same time preparing to live in an international society."

In many ways, the friction surrounding the JET Program is not unlike
that accompanying the opening up of Japan to foreign companies. In both
cases considerable foreign pressure was brought against Japan's insularity.
Both the teaching program and trade liberalization have the government's
official blessing but run into trouble when foreigners are brought into
fixed social patterns. The entrenched attitudes and behavioral habits that
form invisible barriers to change prove difficult to overcome. Yet in neither
case have Japanese officials given up. Japan is inextricably linked to the
global economy and has a very public goal of becoming more cosmopolitan. While the process of opening Japan's markets may be slow, it is
nonetheless steady: in this regard, the difference between the 199os and
the 196os is astonishing. The challenges of managing diversity in schools
and offices across the country may be formidable, but Japan's extraordinary capacity for learning justifies our optimism that the JET Program
may follow a similar course.

What insights does Japan's struggle to cope with diversity hold for understanding the discourse and practice of multicultural education in American society? It might seem at first that we can learn little from a country
that still ranks as one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the
contemporary world, where an ideology of blood still holds considerable
sway. It is tempting to repeat the familiar refrain that Japan is twenty or
thirty years "behind" the United States in coming to terms with diversity.
After all, unlike Japan, Americans have considerable experience living in a
pluralistic society, and some form of multicultural education has been integrated into the curriculum of most elementary schools. Academia is
awash in multiculturalism; even at the corporate level, calls for "diversity
training" are becoming more pronounced. Thus, when we hear that it was
not until May -1997 that the Japanese government finally recognized the
Ainu as a distinct ethnic group, it is all too tempting to shake our heads in
disbelief at the level of overt racial intolerance.

Such a view is dangerous, not only because it ignores the persistent gap
in the United States between the rhetoric of equality and social justice and
the reality of racism and intolerance but also because it profoundly fails to
recognize that our own discourse and practice of multiculturalism are
every bit as embedded in a cultural and symbolic order as are the form and
meaning of "internationalization" in Japan. Thus, the American ALTs in
the JET Program find it easy to protest against the injustice of patterns of
group affiliation based on racial and ethnic criteria in Japan without realizing that their own ideology of individualism carries with it an intolerance
of a different kind.

The popularity of the "salad bowl," the "quilt," and other metaphors
stressing persistent differences notwithstanding, multiculturalism in U.S. society in fact exists within a homogenizing framework of meaning.
Francine Ruskin and Herve Varenne elaborate: