In 1979 the Japanese government enacted a law that made it compulsory for students considered to have physical, intellectual, or other disabilities to attend special schools, completing its separate special education system under which special schools for those with visual or auditory disabilities had previously been established. The measure was passionately supported by many disability scientists, who believed that such educational policy embodied the principles of nondiscrimination and equality and therefore was an act of social justice. While it did enable students who were excluded from the education system altogether before 1979 to some access to educational opportunities, the law also meant that Japanese society was provided with legal rationale for rejecting students with disability wanting to enter a neighborhood regular school and instead sending them off to segregated special schools.
Before its enactment, various groups of disabled activists and supporters launched nation-wide campaigns against the legally enforced segregation of students with disabilities. A few of them included a sit-in in front of the Ministry of Education building, a 500-kilometer walking demonstration traveling from Gifu to Tokyo, and a well-known "voluntary attending" campaign of a 10-year-old boy, Koji Kanai, who had kept "attending" a neighborhood elementary school in his wheelchair only to be shut out of the school gate for three years. Shinohara, the author of the volume presently under review, got involved with these movements and became one of the few scholars who took an opposing position against the 1979 law. As such, this book was written from the perspective of a scholar who was severely accused of being "non-scientific and non-humanistic" (p. 94) and labeled as a "Trotskyist" or an "extremist" (p. 217) by the dominant figures within the special education field in contemporary Japan.
Throughout the book, Shinohara attempts to conduct comprehensive critiques of various works by five influential scholars whose theories directly shaped education laws and policies for children with disabilities in Japan during the 1970s and '80s. Shinohara spends the first three chapters critiquing the work of Hiroshi Shimizu, as his perspective represented the points of view held at the time by major professional organizations such as the Japanese Association on Disability and Handicap (now called the Japanese Association on Disability and Difficulty) and the Japan Teachers Union.
The core belief that dominated the academic field of special education was called "the principle of ensurement of development" and was used as a scientific rationale to support the segregative 1979 law. According to Hiroshi Shimizu in a book chapter in 1976 titled Disability welfare and the principle of "ensurement of development" in postwar Japan, the principle had emerged and been established through the pioneering work of Kazuo Itoga who founded Omi Gakuen in 1946. Omi Gakuen was an institution for the "mentally deficient children;" Kazuo Itoga later founded (in 1963)Biwako Gakuen, an institution for children with "severe idiocy." Generally believing (albeit with qualifications) in the developmental potential of children with disabilities, Shimizu argued that disability education science in modern Japan should follow Itoga's pioneering efforts and place its highest priority on working to ensure the children's rights to develop. Shinohara, attempting to deconstruct this view, points out that Shimizu ignored the fact that the children were segregated and institutionalized. Shinohara believes this to be the most critical problem and crucial deficit in the admired principle of "ensurement of development." As such, he asks: "How 'good' can the principle of 'the ensurement of development' be that makes segregation tolerable?" (p. 49).
Shinohara also reviewed Itoga's original writings and found that Itoga's philosophy itself took institutionalization for granted as if it were the natural (or the best) fate for the children with disabilities. According to Shinohara, later in his life Itoga questioned and critiqued the discrimination hidden deep in himself, seeing the children with "severe idiocy" as the "abnormal in abnormal" (p. 37) and "uneducable" (p. 38). When Itoga witnessed that those children called "idiots" had shown rich development through relationships with empathetic teachers, he humbly admitted his inner discrimination and was moved by "the discovery of humanity in those idiots" (p. 50). However, as Shinohara keenly points out, Itoga's self-critique did not stretch far enough to question the very fact that such discovery was made "after he segregated those children" (p. 50, emphasis in original) nor to recognize the existence of hierarchical power structure that gave Itoga the power to segregate other human beings. Shinohara also identified the same kind of "arrogant" (p. 50) ignorance in Shimizu's uncritical celebration of Itoga philosophy.
Similarly, in his article, A history of education for the mentally deficient children (1974), Shimizu celebrated the work of Itard, Seguin, and Howe as pioneers of modern humanistic science who believed in the developmental potential of even the most severely disabled children and aimed to ensure their rights to develop. Especially, Shimizu appraised Itard's "revolutionary" experiment on the Wild Boy of Aveyron to reflect an ultimate purpose of special education. In the above article, Shimizu celebrated the power of modern special education as follows: "A boy who as a matter of fact had suffered severe disabilities in his development grew from a human-animal to a human being with personality thanks to the scientific educational programs that was founded on [Itard's] love to the boy" (pp. 15-16, emphasis added). Shinohara pauses here again to problematize the assumptions on which modern science is based. Recognizing the scientific definition of humanness as "being rational" in Itard's experiment as well as in Shimizu's celebration of it, Shinohara sharply critiques such an oppressive view that will inevitably create a devalued category of non-human, or "human-animal" in Shimizu's words, for those who are discarded as uneducable, irrational, and unable to "become human" after the scientific efforts to make them human have been exhausted.
In sum, the author critically explains that the principle of "ensurement of development" is based on a concept of development that presumes a hierarchy from "non-human animals/plants" to "humans," as well as on the idea that education must scientifically help children to acquire human intellect and language so they can become cultured, modernized, contributing human beings that are distinguished from the lower non-human creature. That is, one must work toward and become a human (p. 21) according to the ensurement of development doctrine. Furthermore, as the principle was "brushed up" by one of Itoga's successors, Masato Tanaka, who was influenced by Darwinism and proposed a scientific, neural-based theory of development, both development and humanness were defined in highly technical terms far removed from the concrete realities of children's lives. Humans were scientifically plotted on a developmental scale and treated as abstract, distinct entities that could be classified and ordered hierarchically according to levels of development (p. 136). Thus, Shinohara predicts, those who get plotted as underdeveloped will be either forever "governed by [special] education" or "abandoned as non-human" (p. 20).
In chapter 3, Shinohara analyzes the perspective on disability underlying the "ensurement of development" principle by critiquing several of Shimizu's published works as well as sequel reports published four times from 1971-1975 that put forth political recommendations of the Japan Teachers Union (JTU), which had invited Shimizu as one of the co-researchers on its special committee. Through his analysis, Shinohara highlighted the concept of "basal groups" (p. 63) emphasized in those works as well as the recommended practice of "joint education" (p. 55). In the book, You and me: Educational practices toward joint education, published in 1976, Shimizu and his co-editor explain joint education as follows: "The principle of joint education is that the group of non-disabled children and the group of disabled children, each forming a [separate] basal group as a fundamental unit, grow together and learn from each other in their group-to-group relationships" (p. 63). They further argued that separate learning must be secured first before joint education is pursued, as learning within the basal group is essential for children with disabilities to strengthen the "solidarity of the group," to develop "self-awareness as a disabled," and to "obtain preparatory skills necessary to best benefit from the joint learning with the non-disabled children" (p. 63).
The JTU policy reports advocated joint education based on the concept of basal groups as a progressive educational practice that could solve the problems of both discriminatory segregation and colonizing desegregation. However, founded on the ensurement of development doctrine, the practice of joint education ensures that "[the importance of] specialized education for the disabled will not be undermined in the midst of general education for the normal" (p. 75) and warns that "learning in the group of non-disabled children must not cause the disabled children to undermine their disabilities or to escape from their own basal group" (p. 71).
Reflecting such views in a book chapter written in 1978, Shimizu described an encounter between a non-disabled sixth-grader and Yasuo, a boy with a disability from a nearby special class, and evaluated it as a positive outcome of joint education. It was a sports day in the regular school and the sixth-grader was assigned to help Yasuo. In a short reflection written on a later day, the sixth-grader noted that he was surprised at the degree of Yasuo's disability but was happy when Yasuo smiled upon their holding hands. He described how he was a bit nervous, sweating in his hand that was holding Yasuo's, and that Yasuo participated actively by running on his own without being pulled. The sixth-grader also commented on how Yasuo did not do his best because he did not perform the gymnastic movements they were supposed to do upon reaching the mat area. He added, "I wanted Yasuo to work harder" (p. 59, emphasis in original by Shimizu).
Shimizu evaluated this reflection as a sign of reaching what he called the "third stage" of non-disabled children's perceptions and behaviors toward children with severe disabilities. According to Shimizu, the third stage consisted of "realizing the severity of the child's disability as well as limitations and difficulties the child has on learning and living through the time spent together" and "seeing him or her as a same human being yet as someone who has particular needs and objectives in order to improve or overcome one's disabilities and difficulties, and therefore needs to be given necessary support" (p. 59).
Shinohara presents an alternative interpretation of the sixth-grader's essay. He first pays attention to the student's polite yet distant way of writing toward Yasuo and imagines that the joint education opportunity provided for the sixth-grader and Yasuo was not sufficient for them to develop a close, informal, more friend-like relationship. Furthermore, Shinohara detects an attitude of "distant observer" who evaluated Yasuo's performance and determined that he should have worked harder. He analyzes this to resemble the "objective eyes" of teachers and professionals (p. 60). Thus, Shinohara is alarmed and warns that joint education based on the concept of basal groups "cannot possibly ensure children diverse and multi-faceted opportunities to meet others on a person-to-person level, and will inevitably be constrained within the group-to-group, depersonalized and categorized 'encountering' based on a premise that humans are divided in two groups of 'non-disabled' and 'disabled'" (p. 65). In the above case, Shinohara suspects that the sixth-grader had learned, more than anything else, a glimpse of "professionals-laypersons" hierarchy, performing himself the role of an instant helping professional. In this instance, he had socialized himself into the "educational structure that sends a patronizing message of 'For the disabled children'" (p. 62, emphasis added) rather than experiencing the inclusive nature of reciprocal human relationships.
In contrast to such group-to-group, depersonalized and categorized encounters provided within the framework of joint education, Shinohara finds hope in what he calls "chaotic and lively learning together" (p. 70) and advocates to ensure not scientifically defined development under the government of specialized education in separate space, but rather the cultivation of reciprocal relationships and shared space in which all children live together "now, and here" (p. 64).
In the book, Shinohara provides descriptions and stories that exemplify such inclusive, reciprocal learning, including what he had observed in a fifth-grade classroom in which he had a chance to "student-teach" in 1980. The author shares one of his observations during which the class discussed the upcoming school-wide swimming competition (p. 91). Students wondered how Nika, a classmate with Down syndrome, could participate in the girls' 25 meters relay. Assuming that Nika must need some kinds of measure to reduce her workload, students started with an idea to shorten the swimming length in half. Asked by the classroom teacher if Nika indeed needed such an accommodation, some started to rethink and realized that Nika in fact could swim as well as a few of her classmates. Others, however, stuck with the initial assumption, began searching for reasons why she needed a shortened race such as "Her breath doesn't last" or "She's weak." After seeing that the classmates had difficulties with gaining the perspective of Nika herself, the teacher stepped in and asked Nika if she wanted to swim the entire 25 meters or wanted to swim half of that distance in a way she could understand. Responding to the question, "Do you want to try like everybody else?" (p. 91) Nika deeply nodded her head. Provided with Nika's intent, students continued to submit additional ideas regarding necessary support for her full participation in the 25 meters race such as "Allow her to swim with a floating board" and "Have an accompanying person ready to switch with her when she gets tired." However, as students gradually realized that Nika might in fact not need such major assistance and that she herself wanted to try it anyway, the class finally reached the conclusion that they would give Nika especially loud cheers and to have one of her classmates take over her if she became unable to continue her swimming. On the day of the race, Nika, although pausing and standing on her feet a few times, swam the entire 25 meters on her own, which had certainly exceeded the general expectations held toward Nika by the school staff. The story became news among teachers, some of whom were encouraged to further think about what had made such an extraordinary achievement possible (p. 92).
Nika, who had Down syndrome, a reason for her to be separated and subjected to the specialized education under the "ensurement of development" doctrine, learned in a classroom where the simple yet powerful presumption that "We learn together" had prevailed. Starting from such a presumption, both the children and the teacher had emerged and been empowered as creative members of the classroom community in which everyone was indispensable and everyone's participation was both presumed and valued. Within such a learning community that focused on human reciprocity, Nika had grown beyond the expectations of disability science and been enabled to develop "the sense of 'I' that existed as one of 'us,' and that existed within the responsive relationships with various 'you'" (p. 91).
Ignoring such hopeful sources of possible transformation and persisting in familiar views on disability and humanness, Japanese modern disability scientists and special education specialists defined the concepts of social justice, nondiscrimination, and equality in a way that logically guided the "principle of ensurement of development." Under such formulation, "scientific special education" (p. 104), joint education, and the 1979 segregative law were regarded as consistent with social justice principles in that they aimed to ameliorate children's disabilities and thereby ensure their rights to develop. Shinohara contends that, coated by the modernized rights-based language, the principle of ensurement of development and the legally-enforced segregation had been de-contextualized, de-politicized, and even universalized as a "corollary of human rights history" (p. 53), making it difficult to argue against. The stunning fact that almost 30 years after the 1979 law was enacted, the segregative policy and "joint education" still survives and persists in the renewed governmental Special Support Education system just launched in 2007 seems to prove the longevity and die-hard popularity of rights-based discourse surrounding the ensurement of development principle.
Faced with the urgent need to deconstruct the hegemonic principle of "ensurement of development" that denies many children with disabilities the inclusive lives, Shinohara makes two proposals. First, Shinohara argues that we must question the "modern conceptualization of humanness itself" (p. 109), according to which one must work toward and become a human. Instead, Shinohara proposes a "presumption of humanness" (p. 107), by which humanness is presumed, not earned. Believing this to be the only way to resist the segregative tendencies of modern societies, Shinohara contends that we must be deeply grounded on this presumption and aim at "self-transformative and reciprocal education" (p. 110).
Second, in critiquing intervention programs and educational practices based on the ensurement of development principle, which ignores the complexities that made up the realities of daily lives and instead imposes rigid, instructional, non-reciprocal relationships on children's lives, Shinohara finds validity and hope in the "laypersons' conclusion" that "reciprocal learning in inclusive environment is the essential ingredient to ensure the children's development" (p. 67, emphasis added). Sharply contradicting with the "scientific order" (p. 162) that demands that children acquire prerequisite skills before being allowed to learn in inclusive settings, such transformative discovery made through the lived experiences of the "chaotic and lively learning together" squarely confronts the authoritative disability science and stops it from being universalized.
As such, Shinohara proposes that we "stay being laypersons" (p. 165), remaining doubtful of what science says and welcoming the process of critical self-examination and ongoing reflective dialogue grounded in a raw sense of realities as well as in the careful investigation of everyday contradictions. At the same time, he does not discard completely the value of professionalism. Rather he envisions a professional who strives to participate in the process with a humble resolution to expose her/himself toward the possibilities of being challenged and becoming vulnerable. Then, "the spirit of civil science" (p. 165), which shall be inductive, emancipatory, and inclusive, can emerge. Shinohara proposes this as epistemological resistance against the deductive, categorizing, and de-humanizing treatments of modern disability science represented by the "ensurement of development" principle.
After 20 years, the proposals made in this book are still read as radical and progressive, illuminating the massive forces to maintain the status quo in Japanese contexts. In the meantime, the book also serves as a valuable source of hope, containing rich descriptions of people determined to live inclusively and reciprocally. Shinohara's insightful interpretations of those stories, sometimes presented as an alternative possibility and as confronting resistance against the dominant views, not only enlightens the intricate details of human interactions but also forwards a critical perspective that questions the unquestioned and identifies the unidentified. Thus, the book encourages us to be agents who construct meanings, practices, and knowledge based on "the spirit of civil science" and a vision toward "chaotic and lively learning together," making it a superb resource and a must read for both current and future educators.
