Introduction of the speaker
My name is Shinya Tateiwa, and I work at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan.
It is a great honor for me to be invited and given a chance to speak to you all here today.
First, I would like to mention beforehand that the subject of this
conference, that is, the theme of people with
disabilities and education is not at all my field of study.
I am completely unfamiliar with the area of special education, and
would like to ask you to forgive me for my ignorance.
My academic specialty is sociology.
I should mention though, that I have not done much empirical research,
and most of my work, especially recent work, has been done in the area
of normative theory.
One of the directions of my research has been the problem of possession
and distribution of goods and labor, and this resulted in such books as
On Private Property
and
Equality of Freedom
.
One of my newer books is a joint work called
Repairing the Tax.
Another area of research, an area, which, I believe, has a deeply
rooted connection with the theme of this conference, is the area of
bioethics.
My recent books in this field include
Good Death (?)
and
Sole Life.
Last year in November I was invited to a symposium related to this
theme that was held in the National Assembly Member's Building, Seoul.
And all of this work was is some way or other connected to the
difference and segregation between the dis-ability and ability.
Another book in a more descriptive vein is another joint work,
Ars Vivendi: Sociology of Diabled People Who Left Home and Institution, the first edition of which was published in 1990.
It was an attempt to look into the history and significance of
independent living movement in Japan.
I am told that preparations for publication of the Korean translation
of the
enlarged and revised edition are already on their way.
Another book published in 2004 was
ALS: Immovable Body and Breathing Machine.
This book is an attempt to describe the feelings, actions and everyday
lives of people with ALS, probably the severest disability of all, by
quoting texts written by them, and to look into the manifold problems
they face.
Actions, which are self-evidently necessary
While conducting my research in these areas, I also work as a professor
at the Ritsumeikan's
Graduate School of Core Ethics and Frontier
Sciences.
Also, I serve as a program leader of a Global COE (Center Of
Excellence) Program under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology of Japan. We were selected by the Ministry to
receive funding and named our program
Ars Vivendi: Forms of Human Life
and Survival.
In our graduate course we currently have a large number of people
with disabilities and people with close connection with those with
disabilities. For example, we have six graduate students with visual
impairments and three students using wheelchairs.
And one of the important issues we are advocating in our center is that
people with disabilities or illnesses can become one of the driving
forces of the research, and our center shows an example of a framework
that enables them in that respect.
One of the successes of this undertaking was the publication of
Techniques of Support for Students with Visual Disabilities.
This text is now also available in
Korean (booklet and website) and (in part) in
English (website only)
Through this effort we cannot but be involved in the issue of education
for people with disabilities and research by them.
And I, for one, strongly believe that since it is unquestionably a
necessity, it has to be promoted with any and all sciences providing
the conceptual basis. In this context, though it does not only concern
the aspects of education and research, we have started a research
program entitled
Communication with Bodies that Differ: Ideas and Systems of Real Practical Use, which focuses on people who have difficulty communicating because of physical disabilities or visual or hearing impairments.
The subject of today's symposium is the interdisciplinary approach, and
our research also received funding in the category of Research in New
Areas of Science (with research task proposed) by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and many
researchers, especially young researchers, are participating in it from
every field of the humanities and social sciences, such as philosophy,
sociology, and economics. Although naturally the role of science and
technology is sometimes deterministically important in this area, no
researchers from the fields of natural science participate in our
program. Naturally, we fully understand the importance of such research
and development, but our aim is to think about how technology shall be
used, to examine its institutional framework and the social aspects of
its existence, trying to come up with propositions regarding the paths
it shall take in the future, and for that reason we treat technology as
premise and do not try to engage in its particulars too much.
For example, one issue we are examining is the current state of efforts
to create systems to provide text data for books and other written
materials that can be used with a computer to allow people with visual
impairments to hear text read aloud or to increase the size of printed
text. We are examining the progress of attempts to resolve problems
related to copyright in this area.
However, forgive me for a repetition, what has to be done has to
be done, and it does not really matter what the science used to push
for the issue is called.
And Ars Vivendi - the name we used to describe our own activities - was
chosen with an idea to inquire into and think about what is necessary
for people to survive.
And what is known as Disability Studies in its large part is a
practical undertaking, a science oriented at social reforms.
It is also an undertaking mainly driven forth by people with
disabilities, who point out various difficulties they have to face in
the areas of education and research and suggest points that need to be
improved.
Japan Society for Disability Studies
was founded in 2003, and I have been also doing my humble share
participating in its activities as one of its members and a director.
Last year
The 6th Annual Convention of Japan Society of Disability Studies
was held at Ritsumeikan University, and one of the
symposia "Talking about Support of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education" was
essentially organized by our graduate students.
Many things had been said about the support for students with
physical disabilities and with hearing/visual impairments, some points
had already been implemented, so university students with internal,
mental, or developmental disabilities were invited to offer their
presentations.
However, it was not always peaceful
Thus, our objective - to pave the way and promote education of and
research by people with disabilities further - is very clear, its
justifiability is unquestionable, and a large part of our activities
can and shall be pursued on a simple basis that every means that can be
used shall be, everything that can be done should.
Yet in one aspect the dispute has not yet been resolved, and there
is still room and need for careful thought.
As you probably have already guessed, this aspect is the dispute
regarding integrated education on one hand and special education on the
other.
I believe it is worth describing to you what has happened around this
issue in the past 40 years in Japan. The time available is just as
limited as my knowledge on the matter, so my narrative shall be very
brief, but let me try nevertheless to look back upon its history in
Japan.
Although schools for visually impaired and school for the deaf and
dumb became a part of compulsory education comparatively early after
the Second World War, the period when school for children with physical
or mental disabilities were not included in the framework of compulsory
education was quite long.
In this context there were some children with disabilities who went to
study at regular schools and attended regular classes, and some who
attended classes for the disabled established at regular schools,
but for those whose disability was on the more severe end of the
continuum there was a period when they could not attend school at all,
being "temporary exempted from enrollment at school" or "exempted from
enrollment at school" completely.
Among the leaders of the disabled movement, who were born in the period
from the 1930s to the 1940s, that is, people I personally know, there
are quite a few who did not (could not) go to school and so had to
learn to read and write themselves
01.
It was so for quite a long time until from 1971 to 1973 a plan to
create schools for children with physical or mental disabilities was
announced, and the date of enforcement of incorporation of special
education schools within the framework of compulsory education was set
at April 1, 1979.
To put it concretely, the parties involved and persons concerned were
divided into two camps: those who essentially agreed with the plan of
1979 of making Special Education Schools compulsory, and those who
essentially disagreed with it.
In other words, there were people who perceived it as a step forward
for the education of physically and mentally disabled children on
the one side, and people who saw it as merely one more brick in the
wall of segregation of children and adults with disabilities from the
society, and kept criticizing it, strongly demanding for inclusion of
those with disabilities into regular schools and classes.
This confrontation was in part between the government that was pushing
for inclusion of special education schools in the framework of
compulsory education on the one side, and those opposing it on the
other, but there was a confrontation among people with disabilities and
those related to them at the same time.
Small time "politics" get involved
Partly it was due to "political" circumstances peculiar to Japan.
I believe that this issue is rarely mentioned in scientific
conferences, so I would like to say a few words on the matter.
In Japan, as in many countries and regions around the world, there was
a period of some years starting from the second half of the 1960s, when
a fairly intense social movement raged mainly at universities all over
the country. This movement was called "University Struggle" or
"University Dispute", and was mainly concerned with the issue of the
Vietnam War, and also the systems of management, research, and
education employed at universities.
This movement was led by several factions collectively called the "New
Left" on the one side and the "United Protest Movement" on the other.
These groups were quite diverse with no real unity among them, and
intense internal conflicts were quite common, which is one of the
factors that eventually led to the decline of the movement, but one
thing they had in common, and that is the hostile feelings they all had
against the Japan Communist Party.
For that reason, conflict between these groups and the Japan Communist
Party and student organizations related to it was inevitable.
Partly the conflict was revolving around such issues as understanding
of the relationship between Japan and the U.S., or understanding of
imperialism, but also in such areas as science, education, medical
care, and welfare, the New Leftists were more skeptical and more
critical about the conventional science, regarding "reforms" advocated
for by the other side as too lax, often clamoring for nothing less than
"demolition" of the present system.
Also, they voiced the need to rethink the rule of specialists (though
some of them were specialists themselves) or attacked it.
For some time there were groups advocating "academic reforms" in
academic societies of such sciences as psychology and psychiatry, and
these appeared on the same general wave.
Needless to say, in terms of national scale, both of the confronting
parties of the New Left were but a small minority.
However, in the areas of welfare and education, the influence exerted
by the reformist political parties in general and the Japan Communist
Party in particular was quite strong.
Particularly in the area of welfare services and education for people
with disabilities, a communist nationwide organization composed of
university researchers, teachers, people engaged in welfare and medical
care, and families of people with disabilities wielded considerable
influence.
And in 1979, during the reforms to include special education schools
into the framework of compulsory education, this camp took the side of
the conservative parties that were running the government at the time,
embracing essentially the same views on the issue.
Most probably, this move was dictated by the idea that the reform in
that form could, in fact, pass, which, was given the poor state of
education for people with physical and mental disabilities at the time,
a step forward. Moreover, they stressed the ideas of "overall
development", that was also backed up by the belief in progress of
people and society that appears in some Marxist doctrines.
They argued that it is good to provide environment best suited to the
needs of the individuals, where highly scientific and adequate
assistance of the specialists shall help them develop their abilities
to the fullest.
Others, on the other hand - including those, who had already become
antagonistic to this party and organizations connected to it regarding
other issues, and also people who drifted away from political disputes
altogether, or people who were averse to them from the start and those
indifferent to political disputes - protested against the inclusion of
special education schools into the framework of compulsory education,
saying that it is segregation of people with disabilities from the
society of the healthy, that it is nothing but discrimination.
Actually, there had already been attempts to assert the right of those
with disabilities to attend regular schools for some time.
One case I know myself is of a person with cerebral palsy, who in 1967
at the age of 26 demanded permission to enter an elementary school of
the area he lived in, and succeeded in 1970.
Later, in the period around 1971 to 1972 small groups attempting to
gain admission to regular schools and regular classes started to appear
all around the country. Some university professors who participated in
the social reform movement described above also took part in these
attempts.
Also a national organization of people with disabilities called "
National Disabled Liberation Movement" formed in 1976 strongly objected to the inclusion.
Moreover, in 1981 after the reform was passed, a new organization called "
National Liaison Committee for Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Regular Schools" was formed and connected people attempting to enter regular schools around the country.
This organization is still continuing its activities.
By the way, I entered university just around that time, in 1979, and
this issue was disputed at a conference of the university student
council.
At the time in student councils of many universities there was still an
ongoing fight for the leadership, largely between the two powers
mentioned above.
And that is why the issue came up as one of the bills of our
conference.
At the time I decided to take the side of those opposing segregation,
and my position essentially has not changed since then.
And for that reason my presentation is somewhat biased, which I want to
add to be fair to the other side.
What has been said?
So why did I tell you all this information, information about
something mainly concerning just one country, something not many people
of that country knew even at the time, something many have since
forgotten and even more have never known? Confrontations, especially
political confrontations, are often confrontations for confrontations'
sake, and these quite often exhaust themselves with time.
Yet sometimes such confrontations drive arguments to their limits,
uncovering the deepest roots of the problems, laying them bare in their
entirety and displaying the possibilities they entail - or at least
they can be interpreted in this vein.
In case of this problem, many people would probably say that
arguments of both of the sides are important.
In other words, they would say that it is fundamentally good when there
is no segregation, and that that is something we need to strive for. At
the same time it is important to raise everyone's abilities - both
academic and other. For that reason, what we need is to pursue both of
the endeavors, trying to find the best balance between them.
And I, more or less, subscribe to this view of the matter.
In essence, I have no objection to it.
However, at the same time I feel that the situation is not that simple.
That is, is it really so simple to have these two important aspects
coexist?
And how much and for what reasons should we attach importance to one or
the other?
These questions are still left unanswered.
And thus it seems that - having understood what the opponent said - it
would also make sense to try and listen to what those who "made bold"
to take the most extreme position and stick to it to the end, had to
say.
A large number of books on this issue has been published in Japan since the second half of the 1970s (you can find a
list with a part of them, as well as chronological tables and some other information on our website, though, regrettably, at present it is only available in Japanese).
Also there is a journal "
Welfare Labor Quarterly",
which was launched in 1978 mainly due to the inclusion of special
education schools into the framework of compulsory education and its
countermovement, and it continues featuring this problem once every
year.
There are many bulletins and other texts published on the matter.
The problem is what is being said there.
One slogan often appearing there is "Local School for Every Child".
There is also abundance of the phrase "studying together".
Another set of words used is kyosei and kyoiku (living together /
studying together), making use of the fact that in Japanese the
character for "education" and that for "togetherness" are pronounced
the same.
The argument given there is that a school should be seen not merely as
a place to study, yet, more importantly, as one of the spaces defining
our lives, and that rather than pursuing the best possible conditions
for study and increasing abilities, it is more important for a child
with disability to meet and live together with children without
disabilities.
Also, books with such titles as
Anti-development Theory (1977),
Myth of Intellect (1980),
"Early Diagnosis and Treatment" as a Problem(1987), and
Treatment as a Fantasy
(1988) are published and presented as written or compiled by psychology
researchers, academic societies and medical practitioners. As
adversaries of their argument these texts largely draw quotes from
theories of scholars of the "supporting faction" I described above -
many of whom were also the leading members of academic societies of
special education or welfare services for the handicapped - subjecting
them to intensely close examination and severe criticism.
And two books with the subheading "High School even for those with Zero Points!" were published in 1986 and
1989.
Both were written by parents of children with disabilities.
Gradually it becomes possible for people with disabilities to attend
regular schools.
The number of people attending elementary or junior high sections of
special education schools as well as those attending ordinary
elementary and junior high schools is also increasing.
And this is the context, in which the demand is made for people with
disabilities to have the right to attend high schools, even if they
have no points in their entrance examinations.
The argument here is not that this or other child can or will be able
to study if appropriate support is given.
The argument is that children should be allowed to go to high school,
even if they cannot and will not be able to study.
Connection with Disability Studies
As far as I know, among people participating in the Society for
Disability Studies and other academic societies - although some were
involved in the movement more and some less, so there is definitely a
difference in the strength of feeling of involvement, and also there
are some among the members, who are almost completely ignorant of the
facts and arguments I have described earlier - but, be it as it may,
there is a large number of people who support the side proclaiming
"kyosei and kyoiku".
A book truly representative of this trend is a voluminous work entitled
Paradigm Change in the Education of Children with Physical and Mental
Disabilities: A Theoretical Step towards Integrated Education (1994)
by
Masatsugu Hori, who among his other duties, serves as a director of the Society.
From my point of view, disability studies both in Britain and in the
U.S. - probably especially in Britain - in its evolvement was primarily
closely tied to the social activism of people with disabilities, and
its relationship with movements against discrimination and segregation
has always been very strong.
It has thus always counterpoised integration to segregation.
Following this stance, it naturally opposes division of the educational
space.
That aside, as you probably know, there is a separate discussion and
arguments regarding people with disabilities who can be viewed as a
linguistic and/or cultural minority, such as those with hearing
impairments, for whom special schools serve both as places of learning
and also spaces important to establish and sustain the community.
The arguments here are centered on the critique of the specialists
rule, demanding such schools to be run with persons with disabilities
as the highest authority. Previously the activities - not only of
organizations of the faction that supported inclusion mentioned above
but also of other associations of people with disabilities - were
mainly driven forth by the families, especially parents of those with
disabilities and specialists in the fields of medicine, welfare, or
education. Social activism and organizations centering on or run by the
people with disabilities themselves began to appear after the 1970s.
Organizations such as the National Disabled Liberation Movement
mentioned above and also
Aoi Shiba no Kai, which is a group of people with cerebral palsy, are some of the examples.
It is worth mentioning that in the camp opposing the inclusion there
was a large number of people without disabilities such as educators or
doctors, but they also made sure to ask the opinion of the disabled
beforehand about any issues concerning the latter.
And at the very core of both the movement by people with
disabilities and disability studies lays a claim that we should not
treat their problem as a problem of an individual or his or her body
(naturally including the mental faculties) but that we should treat it
as a social construct from start to finish.
There is a commonly shared view here that in a society that attaches
value to "being able", a society where being able does in fact work to
the advantage to the people, life is difficult for those having
"disability" - a "disabling" trait.
In essence, the argument goes as follows: if one cannot do something
herself, there is no sense in wasting her effort in trying to do it
alone. Instead, she should use any and all means available to change
the surroundings, be it reconstruction of her living environment, using
the opportunities available to her or asking for help from others.
And in that sense their views are closer to kyosei and kyoiku (living
together / studying together) camp.
What should we question them / my personal opinion
However, the common view regarding the spaces society establishes for the purpose of education is very different.
For example,
Sayo Kitamura,
who has taught for a long time at elementary and junior high schools,
who is also actively involved in the "National Liaison Committee for
Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Regular Schools" and has
written and edited many books,
has once asked: if it is just for a person with visual impairment
to take an examination using Braille points, why can't a person with
mental disability take an examination using someone else's head to aid
him? (I also quoted this episode in my book
On Private Property).
Of course, since the purpose of examination is to measure mental
faculties of the person taking it, borrowing others' mental faculties
would completely defy the purpose.
Still, having answered this question, we are faced with yet another:
why is it that we need to have our abilities measured in such a way,
why does it lead to us being accepted or rejected, and should we be
content with this state of affairs?
I believe that the existence of this long strife between two camps
in Japan, camps that both in their views and claims were critical of
the system, but of which one was advocating for development and
education (in what they called the "right" sense of the words), while
the other, though admitting the earnestness and good intentions of
their opponents, remained skeptical, gives us many clues (though, as I
see it, not answers) to such questions as how to conceive ability,
dis-ability (as a state of not having ability), and the actions aiming
at increase of such ability.
And now let me give you my very personal view of the matter.
I am afraid that as the time available to me is limited, I will not be able to give you the whole story.
Yet I think that I should try to at least quickly go through some of my views, omitting my grounds for holding them.
1) Our society is in fact functioning so that one benefits by being able.
Consequently, one benefits by becoming able.
However, there are no fundamental justifications for it.
2) It is both necessary and good for the society when one becomes
able.
However, if we look into the problem setting the present condition of
the society stated in 1) aside, for an individual - contrary to what we
tend to believe - to become able is not always or necessarily good.
And, especially if we do in fact agree that it is good for an
individual to become able, we need to look very carefully into at what
price she become able and weigh the merits against the losses
02.
3) To learn from experience (and not as a mere knowledge) that our
society is made up of very diverse people is sometimes more important
than learning anything else.
There can be no unconditional and absolute right to choose who one
studies with (and who one does not study with).
And, in that sense, the argument driven forth by "kyosei and kyoiku"
camp is quite reasonable.
4) A state of affairs where education and also education that is
tailored to individual needs is not denied shall be established,
maintained in effective state and actively promoted.
Yet it shall only be promoted on the firm basis of the three points
above.
However, the system called education has in certain aspects
functioned as a system that blinds us to the arguments stated in 1) and
2).
Moreover, those whose presence complicated the matters for the system
for a misplaced reason that "it is for their own good" were kept away
from the system elsewhere, which contradicts the argument stated in 3).
And we at the very least should be more conscious of this fact.
>TOP
Notes
01
It seems that regarding this point the situation varies by country.
For example, in the U.S., the movement was started by Ed Roberts who
was a student in University of California, Berkeley, and it evolved
mainly in universities.
In South Korea, the movement was started by people with slight polio -
by the way, Ed Roberts also had polio, though his disability was quite
severe - who went to universities and incorporated the arguments and
methods of the student movement of the time.
As for Japan, it is only after the 1980s that college-educated
activists started to account for a certain part of the movement in
Japan.
As far as I see it, normally those with slight disabilities often try
to blend in the society ruled by the majority (and often are
successful) and for that reason they rarely appear at the foreground of
the movements, but in South Korea people with slight disabilities took
a stand at the forefront of the battle in a situation when it was
difficult for those with more severe disabilities to take part in
social activism on the one hand, and the student movement enjoyed large
influence in the society on the other, by acquiring the force and the
ideas from the general student movement of the time.
02
Refer to author's article "Is it really better when you aren't disabled? (1)" in "
The Claim of Disability Studies" edited by Jun Ishikawa and Tomoaki Kuramoto, Akashi Shoten, 2002, regarding this issue.
cf. Daegu University
http://eng.daegu.ac.kr/
Translation by OKAMOTO Yura
Proofread by
KATAOKA Minoru