Yukichi Fukuzawa and Social Education

2021/03/11

I am Yoneyama, who has just been introduced. It is a great honor to have the opportunity to give a lecture on this commemorative day, the 186th birthday of Yukichi Fukuzawa. Today, I would like to talk mainly about Yukichi Fukuzawa and the social education activities of Keio University.

Now, since this is a celebration of Yukichi Fukuzawa's birth, I hesitated whether to call him "Fukuzawa-sensei" or, as usual, "Fukuzawa" or "Yukichi Fukuzawa." However, when discussing the figure of Yukichi Fukuzawa within the university, there are aspects that must be viewed historically and academically. Therefore, with all due respect, I will refer to him as "Fukuzawa." In this lecture, I hope to ultimately speak about the contemporary significance and possibilities of Yukichi Fukuzawa.

First, regarding the term "social education" in the title, I think this is a word that is not heard very often lately. A literal translation of "shakai kyoiku" is "Social Education," but in the English-speaking world, this is a very specific term that likely wouldn't make much sense on its own. Rather, terms like "Adult Education" or "Continuing Education" are more common in places like the UK. "Social Education" was used by Professor James E. Thomas of the University of Nottingham, who researched the history of Japanese social education, in his book Learning Democracy in Japan: The Social Education in Japanese Adults. However, this is an extremely rare example, and it could be said that the expression "social education" is unique to Japan.

One reason this term has become less common in Japan recently is related to the historical transitions of the term "social education" in the modern era. Touching on this point makes it feel like a class on social education theory, but in fact, it can be said that Yukichi Fukuzawa was one of the very early examples, or perhaps the first example, of someone using the term "social education."

In Japan, the term "social education" itself was used in the early Meiji period. It was used at the Kojunsha, where many of Fukuzawa's students gathered, and examples can also be seen in Christian media and other sources.

However, because the "social" part was associated with socialism, it seems it was not a very desirable term for the government from the mid-Meiji period onward, and the name "popular education" (tsuzoku kyoiku) came to be used instead.

The term began to be used again as the Taisho period began. In 1924, a "Social Education Section" was established in the Ordinary Education Bureau of the Ministry of Education, and in the Showa period, a department called the "Social Education Bureau" was born. The background of the revival of the term "social education" in the Taisho period is likely related to the attention given to "social work." It seems the term "social education" came to be used again in an effort to promote not just economic relief, but educational relief.

However, the Social Education Bureau established in the Showa period was dismantled during World War II and divided into departments such as the Bureau of Indoctrination and the Bureau of Education. After the war, the Social Education Bureau was re-established, and the Social Education Act was enacted. This law has been amended several times but still exists today.

However, when "Lifelong Education" was proposed by UNESCO in the 1960s, the term "social education" was gradually replaced by that term. In the 1980s, the National Council on Educational Reform began using the term "lifelong learning," which became generalized. The Social Education Bureau also changed to the Lifelong Learning Bureau, and is currently the Comprehensive Education Policy Bureau. In local educational administration, Social Education Sections have changed to Lifelong Learning Sections, and the term "social education" is no longer heard very often.

Incidentally, the Social Education Act defines "social education" as follows:

"'Social education' refers to organized educational activities (including physical education and recreational activities) conducted primarily for youth and adults, excluding educational activities conducted as school curricula based on the School Education Act or the Act on Advancement of Comprehensive Service of Education and Care for Preschool Children."

In other words, it is safe to think of education outside of school education as social education.

Actually, I am embarrassed to say that I myself lived until my third year of university without knowing the term "social education." Since it was the 1970s, it was a time when the term was still relatively common. I learned this word when I took the teacher training course as a third-year student in the Faculty of Economics. Now I train middle and high school teachers at the Teacher Training Center, but the teacher training course used to be within the Faculty of Letters, and there were only two faculty members in charge.

The teacher training course had a compulsory subject called "Principles of Education," and during my student days, this class was held every Saturday during the third period. I wasn't very keen on taking classes until Saturday afternoon, but I thought since I was coming all the way to Mita, I would also take an elective subject in the same teacher training course that was assigned to the fourth period at the time. That was the "Social Education" class.

I still remember it; it was in the South Building before it was rebuilt, and Akira Matsumoto continued to be in charge from the third period. In a very relaxed atmosphere typical of a Saturday afternoon, I took this class without even knowing what social education was, but Mr. Matsumoto spoke about various cases, focusing on the history of social education in modern Japan. A report assignment was given in the class, and researching what was done during the Taisho period in that report was the catalyst for me to specialize in the history of education.

While researching the relationship between Keio University and social education after entering graduate school, I learned that in 1924, Shintaro Ishida, who was then a director of the Gijuku, established an organization called the Adult Education Association. Ishida was a person who served as a secretary at the Gijuku for a long time, and at this association, Keio University professors collaborated with external organizations to develop tutorial classes. Although people related to the Gijuku were involved, it was not an organization of Keio University itself. However, it is an activity called university extension today.

I researched that with interest, but from the perspective of university extension in modern Japan, only Waseda's lecture transcripts came up, making it look as if Keio had done nothing. However, I found that Keio had been actively conducting "regional circuit lectures" since the late Meiji 40s (around 1907).

The predecessor of these regional circuit lectures was the "Shūshin Yōryō: Fukuzawa's Moral Code" dissemination lecture series. "Shūshin Yōryō" was compiled between 1899 and 1900. In the latter half of these dissemination lectures, they not only spread the content of "Shūshin Yōryō" but also spoke to the general public in regional areas about the academic content being nurtured within Keio University. From 1908, this took the form of regional circuit lectures, where Juku teachers actively traveled around the country during spring and summer vacations.

Actually, prior to the "Shūshin Yōryō" dissemination lectures, there was a Juku member who authored the first book in Japan to bear the title of social education. That was Jiro Yamana, who published "Social Education Theory" (Shakai Kyoiku-ron) in 1892.

Yamana, who served as the principal of the Hokkaido Ordinary Normal School, contributed papers on "social education" to the "Hokkaido Education Association Magazine" and the "Kojun Magazine."

Fukuzawa read Yamana's paper published in the "Kojun Magazine" and apparently suggested that it be published in the "Jiji Shinpo." However, Yamana seemed to have the idea of publishing it as a standalone book and declined. What is important is that Fukuzawa gave a certain level of praise to Yamana's "Social Education Theory."

So, how did Fukuzawa himself view social education in the first place? I would like to look back at that a bit further in time.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I believe Fukuzawa may have been the first person in Japan to use the term "social education." This can be glimpsed in a speech given at the Mita Public Speaking Event held in 1877.

"The essence of human (jinkan) social education (not referring only to school education) lies in making people face practical matters quickly, even in a single instance." ("Empty Theories Must Not Stop," Collected Essays of Fukuzawa, Vol. 2)

This part can be read, for example, as a statement to the effect that a carpenter who has built a house once understands things better than someone who has heard about industry a hundred times. Here, Fukuzawa uses the term "human (jinkan) social education." I believe it is safe to say that this is the first usage of "social education."

Some people argue that "human social education" has a different meaning from "social education," but there is no doubt that "human society" (jinkan shakai) here is the same as what Fukuzawa called "jinkan kosai (society)." In "Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning)" and "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization" (1875), the term "jinkan kosai" is used more frequently as a translation for "Society." The word "shakai" (society) first appears in Fukuzawa's writings in the 17th volume (1876), the final volume of "Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning)." The time of the 1877 speech is considered a transition period from "jinkan kosai" to "shakai."

Therefore, the term "human social education" can basically be read as "social education," so he can be said to be the first to advocate social education. For Fukuzawa, social education was thought to mean a form of self-education based on social experience.

Social education at that time had the role of spreading school education, but Fukuzawa did not necessarily think that the field of social education was subordinate to schools. This can be seen in the following sentence in the commentary for Volume 6, "Yukichi Fukuzawa's Educational Essays," by Sumie Kobayashi, who was involved in the compilation of the "Collected Works of Fukuzawa" planned in 1943 during the war.

"The master placed more emphasis on home education and social education rather than school education, particularly stating that society is a 'great classroom,' and argued that things like the spirit pervading society or public opinion should be the central force of education. It seems the master never once used the term social education (omitted)..."

This "Collected Works of Fukuzawa" was intended to be 12 volumes in total, but due to the wartime situation, only the "Economic Essays" was actually published. Although the "Educational Essays" had been compiled, it was ultimately not published, and this sentence is included in "Yukichi Fukuzawa and New Education," which Kobayashi published after the war.

Regarding the last part I just quoted, "it seems he never once used it," that is not the case, as he actually used it as we have already seen. In any case, from such descriptions, I believe social education was a very important area or concept for Yukichi Fukuzawa.

In fact, Fukuzawa was enthusiastically involved in what we would call social education activities today. In 1878, a lecture hall began within Keio University, where Fukuzawa first gave lectures on "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization." Juku students could listen to those lectures for free, but he also made it possible for people from outside the Juku to attend by paying a lecture fee of 1 yen. It was like what we now call a public lecture.

The Mita Public Speaking Event, which had been continuing since before then, also began to attract listeners from outside once the Mita Enzetsukan (Public Speaking Hall) was built. Therefore, I think it can be said that Keio University played a social educational role from a very early stage.

Looking outside the Juku, the Meirokusha, of which Fukuzawa was a member, was a society of intellectuals where they gathered to exchange opinions, spread knowledge, and clarify insights through regular meetings. They then published these in the "Meiroku Magazine" and actively disseminated them to regional areas.

Furthermore, not only the Meirokusha, but also the Kojunsha, established in 1880, basically had the same structure. Fukuzawa said, "While facts show that human society should be recognized as a single classroom, the Kojunsha is as if rules were established in this school to make teaching methods convenient," clearly showing that the Kojunsha was a place of education.

Fukuzawa expected that through associations in society like the Kojunsha, the members belonging to them would mutually fulfill educational functions. He also actively held lectures for the public, not just within the Kojunsha, and went on regional lecture tours. In this way, he thought about spreading the discussions held within the Kojunsha to the world.

Jiro Yamana, whom I mentioned earlier, advocated "social education" in gatherings of the Kojunsha and said in essays contributed to the "Kojun Magazine" and elsewhere that "social education and national education are different things." What this means is that currently, the state is leading education, including schools, but Yamana's argument was that such national education alone is not enough; society must possess more educational functions. He also said that national education alone cannot achieve complete education, and that social education is necessary for complete education separately from national education. The social education Yamana advocated emphasized the creation of various private associations within society and the conduct of education within them.

Fukuzawa, who highly valued these theories of Yamana, also likely considered it important to exchange discussions within private associations through the activities of the Meirokusha and Kojunsha and to disseminate the results to the outside world.

However, unlike Yamana, Fukuzawa did not use the term "national education." This difference is likely because Yamana was from Satsuma. Yamana had one other person he respected besides Fukuzawa: his fellow countryman Arinori Mori, who served as the first Minister of Education. Since Mori frequently used the term "national education," Yamana was likely influenced by that. Of course, it is clear from reading "An Outline of a Theory of Civilization" that Fukuzawa emphasized the nation of Japan, but in Fukuzawa's phrasing, what Yamana called national education would likely be education by the bureaucracy or education by the government.

Fukuzawa basically proposed separating education or scholarship from the bureaucracy. Particularly in the Meiji 10s, he wrote the following in "Independence of Learning":

"If separating scholarship from politics is indeed important for the country, I am one who prays to separate the scholarship of present-day Japan from the politics of present-day Japan."

"My personal theory is to separate the schools of the current Ministry of Education or Ministry of Industry from their respective ministries, make them temporarily the property of the Imperial Household, and then grant them to private citizens of will and knowledge to form the body of joint private schools (omitted)."

Here, Fukuzawa advocates separating schools from the Ministry of Education and others to make them joint private schools. In this way, Fukuzawa believed that school education should be handled by private associations independent of the government. And as can be seen from his evaluation of Yamana's social education theory, he likely thought that social education should also be handled by private associations outside the government. For Fukuzawa, it could be said that education, including school education, was social education conducted by society, separate from the state.

In that sense, Keio University is a school, but it also had the aspect of an association, as it is also called the Keio Gijuku Shachu. While it is different from the modern concept of social education, it can be considered that while being a school, it also fulfilled social education functions.

Modern social education is considered a domain concept under the Social Education Act—that is, a concept indicating the domain outside of schools—but when viewed from the aspect of function, I think we can re-examine social education as education developed by private associations like Keio University in a form independent of the government and bureaucracy.

In the 12th volume of "Gakumon no susume (An Encouragement of Learning)," there is a sentence: "Scholarship is not merely the single subject of reading books." Of course, an individual reading books is one form of scholarship, but for Fukuzawa, scholarship was not just studying hard on one's own, but also trading the knowledge one gathered with others through conversation, and dispersing insights through books and public speaking.

Needless to say, reading can be done alone, but conversation and public speaking cannot. According to Fukuzawa, this was precisely something that could only be done in gatherings like associations. The activity Fukuzawa called scholarship had a much broader meaning than it does today, and I think it is safe to say he called everything from researching to presenting it through interaction "scholarship."

Fukuzawa's "social education" was first about like-minded people gathering, having proper discussions among themselves, and using that to work upon people outside the association.

As is well known, "Shūshin Yōryō: Fukuzawa's Moral Code" was created by his students in Fukuzawa's final years. To spread this to the world, Fukuzawa provided the funds and held dissemination lectures all over the country. In the summer of the year "Shūshin Yōryō" was completed in February 1900, Fukuzawa suggested closing Keio University, selling this land in Mita, and using the proceeds for the dissemination of "Shūshin Yōryō." Ichitaro Fukuzawa and Eikichi Kamata, who was the President at the time, were very bewildered upon hearing this, but of course, it did not happen.

In his final years, Fukuzawa tried to place emphasis on the dissemination of "Shūshin Yōryō"—which could be called the dissemination of social education—the part that radiates outward. What is the meaning of this? I have stated on various occasions that we who are at Keio University now must think about this.

Behind what drove Fukuzawa toward social education may have been the fact that Keio University in the Meiji 30s was no longer the way Fukuzawa had envisioned it. In other words, it may have appeared to Fukuzawa's eyes that the part where people with the same aspirations gather, study, and interact was being lost. If that is the case, I think it is time to reconsider how the current Keio University stands from the perspective of social education.

Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the teacher training work I am usually involved in.

As I said earlier, I learned the term "social education" when I took the teacher training course as a student. I don't think there are many universities that have lectures on social education within their teacher training courses. It could even be called very rare. This might be because Yukichi Fukuzawa was the first to use the term social education, and since then, it has simply been passed down as a tradition within Keio University. However, I believe that has a very important meaning in relativizing what school education is.

Now, social education supervisors, who are professionals in social education, can be referred to as "Social Education Officers." This title of Social Education Officer was proposed about three years ago in a report by the Central Council for Education titled "On Promotion Measures for Social Education Toward New Community Building in the Era of Population Decline." There, the relationship between Social Education Officers and teachers is stated as follows:

"We recommend that teachers and students in teacher training courses take social education supervisor training, take subjects in social education supervisor training courses, and obtain the Social Education Officer qualification. The coordination and facilitation skills required of professional social education personnel are considered necessary skills for teachers as well in order to realize a 'curriculum open to society.'"

At Keio University, we believe that we need teachers who possess a "social education mindset" as advocated by Fukuzawa, not just limited to educational method issues like coordination skills. From this perspective as well, I believe social education is a very important subject for the teacher training course.

The current situation surrounding teacher training is quite severe; while the number of compulsory subjects set by the government is increasing, the reality is that the range of choices at training sites is becoming narrower and narrower. However, as I have discussed, Yukichi Fukuzawa was involved in the roots of the uniquely Japanese idea of "social education." Because of this, I believe we must continue to maintain social education classes, including in the teacher training course, within Keio University.

Thank you for your kind attention today.

(This article is based on a commemorative lecture given at the 186th Yukichi Fukuzawa Birth Anniversary Celebration held at the West School Building Hall on the Mita Campus on January 10, 2021, which was simultaneously broadcast online. Note that some notations in the quoted passages have been modified for readability.)