Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan Eiko Tai Problematizing “Teaching Japanese” Under Japanese colonial rule, the Taiwanese were compelled to study and to speak Kokugo, the national language of Japan.! Yet when Japan acquired Taiwan in 1895 as a result of the Sino-Japanese War, the concept of Kokuigo had only begun to emerge into Jay reach public consciousness. Japanese leaders and intellectuals were still struggling to establish a common language that would both standardize language practice and consolidate the numerous (local) vernaculars, as a ese political discourse and had yet to means to establishing a common consciousness among a populace yet to be unified into a nation. Only gradually did the concept of Kokugo develop amid contentious political and pedagogical debate. In this process, Lee Yeounsuk contends, the Sino-Japanese War played the role of an “initial linking the language problem that shook Meiji Japan to nat ng discourse was Ueda nal explosive? and imperialist consciousness. Central to this emergi postions 7:2. © 1og9 by Duke University PressFall 1999 504 positions Kazutoshi’s version of Kokugo2 In an important 1894 speech, this educa- tional theorist who had come under the influence of European ling established Kokugo as the national language of Japan. Soon he was envision- ing the spread of Japanese to the rest of Asia, In other words, even before its particular structures were completely set forth, the new Japanese national language took on a “double status: ‘universal-imperial’ and ‘particular- national.”s Sometimes referred to as an ideology (ideorogi), Kokugo provided a scheme for the linguistic assimilation of subjugated people into the Japanese nation, Jands of Japan through the nascent public It reached people in the home i school system, as it was concurrently being applied to Japan's first formal colony.! ‘As an institutionally sanctioned doctrine of colonial education, Kokugo ideology implied universalism in the sense of its potential application; it suggested that any person who mastered Kokugo could become Japanese. Its actual implementation, however, was particularistic, since the colonized could never become Japanese regardless of their level of competence in the Japanese language. The distinction between the colonizers and the colo- ed through the family-registry (Raseki) system. general ultimately ensured that nized was strictly mainta Further, the discriminatory legal system i the cultural assimilation of the colonized would fail despite the efforts of scholars and teachers to put the doctrine of Kokugo into practice. Their to the effects of language in 1 at work between col- fruitless struggle suggests not simply a | making imperial subjects; it also underlines the tensi onization and assimilation. The imposition of the Kokugo ideology ulti- mately failed because of these legal bars. Other reasons include the extremely qualified success of the long effort to transform the Taiwanese into speakers of Japanese and the resistance of the colonized to the Kokugo ideology In what follows, I look at how the concept of Kokugo emerged, migrated to Taiwan, and was, for political and economic reasons, applied to colonial education, I then turn to the debates in the 1940s over the reconceptualiza~ tion of Kokugo in relation to the emergence of the concept of Nihongo (Jap- anese language)’ and discuss how language teachers applied the doctrine of Kokugo. Finally I suggest how ordinary people living in Taiwan under Jap- anese rule received Kokugo, in light of the fact that it is now part of theTai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 505 present-day, postcolonial cognitive framework of the majority of Japanese amining the ways in which Kokugo ideology was applied to the project of assimilating the colonized, I want to shed light on what I see as a people. Ine contradiction between colonization and assimilation, as | inquire into the role that colonial educ: ion ultimately played in the process of Japan's lin- guistic unification. Tam personally motivated to tackle this topic because I carry the legacy of colonial education. My father learned Japanese by fiat in Taiwan. He met my Japanese mother when he moved to mainland Japan for the college educa- tion he could not get at home. My interest in the topic also derives from my current occupation asa teacher of Japanese to nonnative speakers of the lan- guage, many of whom are of Asian descent. Since the 1980s the spread of Japanese overseas has been underwritten by the Japane: through both budgetary support and the involvement of governmental organizations. As the chi ¢ government, id of a colonized Taiwanese now teaching Japanese myself, I feel a responsibility to consider the implications of this second tide of the spread of Japanese. The examination of the past, I believe, may offer usa way to shed light on the social significance of the new phenomenon.? The Creation of Kokugo The concept of a Japanese national language, Kokugo, and its legitimization as the standard language of Japan were the products of Western-trained lin- guists and educators, Initially, Japanese thinkers found it difficult even to conceive of such a language. Yet the unity of the Japanese language needed to be assumed before language and nation could be linked.’ Both leaders and intellectuals felt the lack of a unified language, particularly as political circumstances brought pressure to build a modern state. The Japanese lan- guage had yet to be “resurrected.”? Indeed the suggestion that Japan adopt English made by Mori Arinori, who had studied in London and visited the United States, symbolized the pessimism of many Meiji intellectuals toward their language: The commercial power of the English-speaking race which now rul the world drives our people into some knowledge of their commercialpositions 7:2. Fall 1999 506 ways and habits. The absolute necessity of mastering the English language is thus forced upon us. It is a requisite of our independence in the com- munity of nations. Under the circumstances, our meager language, which can never be any use outside of our islands, is doomed to yield to the domination of the English tongue, especially when the power of steam and electricity shall have pervaded the land." When Mori suggested the adoption of simplified English several years after the Meiji Restoration, the concept of Kokugo had yet to be born (thus he was not denigrating Kokugo or the Japanese state).!! ‘The language Mori thought English should replace was actually neither Kokugo nor Nihongo, but Nihon no gengo (the language of Japan), a sum of speech forms that existed in Japan which to his mind posed problems. Breaching the enor- mous gap between the spoken and written language also seemed impossi- ble. Mori further believed that the strong Chinese influence in the writing system posed the biggest obstacle to modernizing the language of Japan. ‘The significance of Mori's statement, therefore, lies in his inability to con- ceptualize a unified linguistic system, the Japanese language, which would be compatible with a unified political system, the Japanese empire.!? ‘The word Kokugo had been used since the Edo era in various ways. example, it could refer to a Japanese dialect or to Japanese as distinet from foreign languages. Gradually it came to be used in association with the con cepts of state (Kokka) and nation (tokumin),! in a large part due to Ueda, who having witnessed the linguistic nationalism of Prussia, brought back to Japan the idea ofa primordial unity of language, nation, and state In an 1894 speech titled “Kokugo to kokka to” [A national language and a state}, Ueda asserted an indivisible link between the Japanese language and the Japanese state, Japan, he argued, was not a multiracial state." In line with the notion of a family state (kazoku kokka) propagated by politi- cal leaders, Ueda narrated a history of the Japanese people in which one family had developed into a unitary people (jinmin), which evolved into one nation (Rokumin). He argued further that what made cooperation within the Japanese nation possible was the Yamato minzoku (Japanese eth- nic nation) possessing the Yamato damashii (Japanese soul), characterized by chitkun aikoke (loyalty to the emperor and love of the country) and aToi | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 507 shared language. He likened this language to the spiritual blood of the Jap: anese from which the national polity of Japan (koketai), “a moral concept that constituted the very essence of the state," drew its primary suste- nance. He declared that language not only symbolized Aokutai but acted like an educator or a benevolent mother who could teach the national (kokumin-teki) ways of thinking and fecling. “Kokugo is the ‘loyal retainer” of the Imperial Houschold;""6 Ueda argued in a formulation that implicitly supported the emperor system as it dignified the language, assigning it an official role within that system. Uncquivocal though he was in weaving the concept of Kokugo as the vital link between the state and its people, Ueda was also keenly aware that a unified linguistic system had yet to be constructed, He immediately began to implement his theory and turned to constructing a stand based on a Tokyo vernacular. The construction of Kokugo took place around the issue known as the Kokugo-Kokuji mondai (the problem of the national ard language language and the national script), which involved two major questions: Which kana syllabary, traditional or pronunciation-based, should be used? To what degree should Chinese characters be allowed? Those who, like Ueda, espoused Western linguistics advocated the pronunciation-based kana syllabary and the reduction or abolition of Chinese cha trast, ultranationalists argued for preserving the traditional orthogra the grounds that meddling with the language constituted the denigration of nd Kokua was influential, first, in rehabilitating the acters. In con- traditional values Ueda's initiativ demic debate over Kokugo-Kokuji mondai and, second, in intervening in the facili- tation of the formation of a standardized Japanese, Kokugo, through the power of the state.!” Kokugo was first disseminated among the Japanese in 1900, when the Elementary School Law integrated it into the school cur- riculum, officially subsuming local vernaculars under the national language as dialects. For Ueda, Kokugo possessed the power to protect kokutai and produce the kokumin character. Kokumin, the putative native speakers of Kokugo, were implicitly assumed to lack all subjectivity and thus to be open to inter- nalizing kokwmin loyalty to the emperor and love of the country. In Ueda’s view, language is the voice of kokeetai “the voice of absolute order and sub-positions 7:2 Fall 1999 508 jugation”; indeed, individuals could become speaking subjects by intern izing kokutai.!8 Ueda’s narrative thus delineated the constitution of national subjects in relation to the state and its official language. But the question arises of what role a national language can actually play in the formation of subjects. Under certain conditions, a shared language can mobilize its speakers to form a new state." Conversely, a state may search for national unity through inventing a national language. E. J. Hobsbawm sheds light on the invented nature of national languages, which are “almost always semi-artificial constructs” and “the opposite of what nation jist myth- ology supposes them to be, namely the primordial foundations of national culture and the matrices of the national mind? Yet Hobsbawm’s emphasis, on state and nationalist ideology overlooks other forces that may support or undermine the state power. Kevin M. Doak points to the importance of analyzing not merely national narratives but “alternative and competing narratives of the ethnic nation.! Prasenjit Duara speaks of “a polyphony of voices” that negotiate their views of the nation; for instance, provincial nar- ratives may play a significant role in constituting national identity.2? The symbolic domination of a national language is further subject to economic prosperity or local pride, and local vernaculars may survive in spite of the ides state power clearly vere punishments some- insistence of statist education? Other forces be affected the reception of Kokugo. Despite the times imposed for using dialects, common people : willing to discard their language habits nor as enchanted by the myths of Kokugo as nationalist intellectuals and teachers had hoped.”* In colonial Taiwan the effect of the Kokugo ideology on the formation of subjects was likewise limited, both because the Taiwanese people insisted on maintaining their speech habits and because of Kokugo’s contradictory role in the colonial context. Besides advoca tion for homogenizing nationals and building a modern state, Ueda also anticipated the spread of Japanese overseas.” In “Kokugo kenkyi nitsuite” [About the study of Kokugo], he expressed his interest in creating common language of Asia as the Japanese national language developed?" Discussing “okumin education and Kokugo education” in 1902, he stated even more explicitly that the Kokugo problem was relevant both to the formation of the Japanese nation and to the spread of the Japanese language to Asia.27 In colonized Japan proved neither ing language standardToi | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 509 Taiwan, I will argue, these two objectives led to the contradiction Benedict Anderson calls “the inner incompatibility of empire and nation? Ucda’s famous formulation of the nation (Rokumin) coinciding with the Japanese ethnic nation (minzoku) cannot be taken for granted, Rather, dis- tinction between the two must be made in order to uncover what Doak finds largely absent in discussions on Japanese nationalism, namely the tory of imagining the nation it » Moreover, in the contemporary academic and political arenas, the quest his- as an ethnic body: n of what consti tuted the Japanese ethnic nation in conjunction with imperial expansion and nation-building was heatedly debated.® The application of Kokugo ide- ology in colonial education raised the question of whether the colon zed could be assimilated by teaching the Japanese the language of empire. It presented an even more fundamental question: What was it, exactly, into which colonials were to be assimilated: the Japanese nation, Japanese ethnic nation, or something else? Kokugo Education in Taiwan Kokugo w: patriotic educator I central to colonial education in Taiwan from the very start. The awa Shaji initiated the teaching of Kokugo to the colo- nized. As an educator who worked with him later recalled, Izawa did not merely envision the Taiwanese mastering Kokugo but was determined to transform them into Japanese through Kokugo education.\! Izawa’s idea of Japanization was based on his own idea of kokka-shugi kydiku (state educa tion), and the goal of Kokugo education was to produce loyal shinmin (impe- rial subjects). According to Yun Kwon-cha, Izawa played an important role in nation- d. Working closely in the Ministry of Edu- cation with his powerful patron, Mori Arinori, Izawa developed a theory of building in the early Meiji peri education based on the idea of perfect human beings whose core characte istic was their belief in chikun aikoku. For him, then, the goal of schooling was to transform pupils into loyal subjects of the emperor, which ultimately prepared them to die for the state. In his vision, even gymnastics and music (subjects that he adopted from Western education) could be used to develop loyalty to the emperor. After Mori's assassination in 1889, Izawa left thepositions 7:2. Fall 1999 510 Education Ministry of Education, establishing the Society for State 1890 to promote his theory of education. At the society's opening ceremony, he extolled Kokugo and insisted on the importance of fostering love and respect for it as a way of developing pride for and love of country. He was exhila- rated to find that his ideas on education were in line with the Imperial Rescript on Education, the principles of moral education promulgated in that same year. Tt was this idea of education in the service of the state that Izawa brought to Taiwan, While political leaders were still pondering how to control the colony, Izawa visited Kabayama Sukenori, who was to be the first governor- general. Impressed with Izawa’s detailed proposals and his knowledge of Chinese, Kabayama decided to entrust to him the education of the people in the new territory. In June 1895, as Taiwan mently resisting the Japanese, Izawa arrived in Taiwan and immediately began to put his plan into practice. Appointed chief of the Bureau of Edu- cation Affairs in the government-general, by July 1895 he had opened an experimental Japanese course for Taiwanese at Shizangan (Zhishanysn), in a suburb of Taipei. At his invitation, some of the Taiwanese gentry and intellectuals in the area sent their children to this first Japanese course in se guerrillas were still vehe- in various ‘Taiwan. In 1896 Izawa established fourteen Kokugo institute ns for the study of Japanese by Taiwanese students and constructed the Kokugo School as the central institution to provide training for inter- locat preters and language teachers.%° Izawa did not, however, dismiss the Taiwanese language altogether. His approach to colo ial education, which drew on his experiences as editor of adopted the idea of kona, or the integration a Japanese-Chinese dictionary. of “us and them,” In practice this to study Kokugo but also urged Japanese people to learn Taiwanese (Min- nan). This approach was pragmatic during the early colonial period, when meant he not only encouraged the natives communication between the Japanese and the natives was extremely dif- ing the word- ficult. Yet as Iwamoto Yumiko argues, itis clear from exami ing of education ordinances that Izawa’s ultimate goal was to transform the colonized into imperial subjects. For example, the Kokugo Institute Ordi- nance stated that the objective was teaching the language and fostering the spirit of the Japanese homeland. Izawa’s belief in state education was evenTai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan, 511 more clearly articulated in the Kokugo School Ordinance, promulgated a few months later, which emphasized chiikun aikoke.” What was significant in Izawa’s accomplishment in Taiwan was that he attempted to inject his belief in state education not only into school facilities and language policies but also into the minds of teachers, By capitalizing on an 1896 guerrilla attack, he successfully established an id al image of a teacher calculated to inspire devotion to education. On New Year's Day 1896, Taiwanese guerrillas attacked Shizangan and killed six education offi- cers. Izawa was behind the construction of a monument at Shizangan com- ating the dead officers’ ded men ation and their sacrifice, designating it “the spirit of Shizangan." The so-called Shizangan incident enabled Izawa tional symbolism to his groundwork for colonial education. | ceremonies, held annually and on special occasions, were staged as spectacular shows. At the first anniversary, Izawa himself contin- ually wept as he gave a speech to the audience of teacher-trainees he had recruited from mainland Japan, exhorting them to adopt the spirit of the six officers. Succeeding annual ceremonies were attended by politicians, educa tors, and thousands of pupils, both Japanese and Taiwanese. The incident was also told as a story in Kokugo textbooks for Taiwanese children and made into a song. Among the many monuments commemorating the spirit was one displaying the engraved brush of Premier Its Hirobumi, demon- strating the home government's endorsement. Significantly, the death of the six educators was mystified for ideological purposes in the Kokugo cam- paign..” Constructing a model for teachers, Izawa planted the value of devotion to Kokugo education in the soil of Taiwan. No doubt he foresaw that teachers would be important agents in the imperialization of their col onized Taiwanese pupils. Importantly, Izawa’s aim was to transform people into loyal subjects, re- gardless of their descent. He approached Han people in Taiwan as i-minzoke (ethnic nation different from the Yamoto minzoku), but for him, competence in Kokugo and loyalty to the Japanese empire would be enough to qualify 2 Taiwanese as a Japanese subject. He thus aligned himself with the school of thought that insisted on the mixed-blood origin of the Japanese race and attributed the supremacy of the race to this heritage rather than to the sup- posed purity of Japanese blood, proclaiming that the “impartiality andpositions 7:2 Fall 1999 512 Early Colonial Policy equal benevolence of the emperor” (isshi déjin) was granted not only to the Yamoto minzoku but to all subjects. Summarizing Izawa’s work, E. Patri cia Tsurumi contends that in contrast to his successors Izawa dreamed of the establishment of schools that “would one day bring Japanese language ftiwanese ris- and culture to every native islander”; he “imaginfed] young 1 ing to the top of the Japanese educational pyramid and making their way into the ranks of the elite that governed the empire’! Izawa’s scheme assumed that Kokugo constituted the essence of the national character, reproduced that character in its putative native speakers (as Ueda had sug- gested it would), and furthermore could foster that essence in those outside this ethnic nation, In other words, as it moved to colonize Taiwan, the Kokugo ideology mutated; it was now interpreted as universal, since any person could become assimilated as a Japanese. It was this universalist ver- sion of the ideology that became an institutionally sanctioned doctrine in colonial education. Izawa paved the way for Kokugo education in Taiwan, setting a prece dent for education in the territories Japan would later rule. But his commit- ment to teaching Kokugo to all Taiwanese was not compatible with the poli- cies of early colonial leaders, who did not consider the assimilation of the colonized to be an urgent goal. Izawa’s proposal for expanding the Japanese language program was rejected, and he was forced to resign his position in after his arrival in Taiwan. His enthusiasm for Kohugo 1897, two years education, however, was inherited by the teachers he recruited and trained, and his idea of transforming ‘Taiwanese into Japanese imperial subjects through Kokugo education survived throughout the half-century history of colonial education in Taiwa n, ‘Taiwan confronted Japanese leaders with the question of how to integrate this first colony into the sion of how to govern it, they consulted Western advisers working in the Ministry of Jus- tice, who recommended two different approaches. The first was an assimi lationist policy, as in Algeria under French rule. The second model was that of the British crown colony, as in the cases of India and Hong Kong, Corre- xis ing empire. Having no clearTai I Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan, 513 spondingly, Japanese leaders were divided into two camps. A leading polemicist for the first approach was Hara Kei, representing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; he wanted to apply the Meiji Constitution and other Japa- nese laws to Taiwan. The other camp, including Gots Shinpei (who was to play an important role in Taiwan), insisted on adopting a “two-systems-one- country” policy, which would dictate control of Taiwan independently from mainland Japan. With this controversy yet to be settled, in 1896 Law 63 granted the government-general the authority to exercise legislative power over Taiwan independent of the home government, First passed with a time s Gotd succeeded in stabili: three years, it was later extended power in Taiwan. The Zing colonial intained throughout the colo- law was essentially ma nial period, although with several nominal changes; the final version, Law 3 of 1921, emphasized the application of Japanese laws to Taiwan and clearly change toward assimilationism. Contradictorily, however, it sub- marked stantially preserved the legislative power of the government-general and thus continued to hinder Taiwanese legal assimilation.# In conjunction with Law 63 and its successors, the family registry (koseki) system played a crucial role in maintaining the distinction betwee the colonizers and the colonized.*5 When the old Nationality Law was promulgated in 1899 and applied to Taiwan, the Taiwanese, who had bee! proclaimed to be shinmin of the Japanese empire, nominally acquired Jap- anese nationality.*® Yet their colonized status was maintained through the family registry system. Established in 1905, it proved especially useful for the military police in suppress 1g political movements and maintaining security.” In contrast, immigrants from the home islands of Japan filed their Aosek? within that domain, (Taiwanese could not transfer their koseki to the home islands.) With various privileges over the colonized, Japanese immigrants—called Naichijin (inner-land people) —were considered part of the Yamato minzoku® Thus the family registry system tightly guarded ethnic Japanese boundaries.” In part because of this legal discrimination, the assimilationist policy that gradually took effect in Taiwan was doomed to failure. Japanese leaders boasted that Japan would succeed where West- ern colonizers had failed, because Japanese rule was based on dabun dashee (same script and same race), the racial and cultural affinity of the Japanesepositions 7:2 Fall 1999 514 and the Taiwanese, as well as on isshi ddjin. But in reality these two ideas proved hollow. It was the team of Kodama Gentard, the fourth governor-general, and Gots, director of civil administration, that first laid the groundwork for establishing colonial power in Taiwan. During their regime between 1898 and 1906, they succeeded in improving social conditions in Taiwan in terms of public security, sanitation, and the economy, while quelling anti-Japanese guerrillas militarily. Advocating the British model of colonialism, Goto insisted that ‘Taiwan, as part of Chinese civilization, should be ruled accord- ing to the habits and customs of the natives; assimilation would be not only impossible but harmful. With a passionate faith in “biological principles,” he argued that social habits and systems evolved over a long period of time, and that any attempt to apply “civilized” systems to an “uncivilized” society was doomed to fail.>! But rather than entirely dismissing the idea of assim- ilation, he instead conceived of a “hundred-year plan” for the gradual evo- lution of Taiwanese society.®? As the Bureau of Educational Affairs came idea of teaching Japanese to all Taiwanese and under Gotd’s control, Izawa’s thereby Japanizing them was discarded, and “gradualism” was adopted in 5 its place! In response to the demand from local administrators for an increase in the number of schools, the common school (Régakk@) system was established for Taiwanese children in 1898. The national budget for the system was very low, however; all school expenses except the salaries of were charged to the local school district, which collected money from taxes and donations from the well-to-do. Hence, only those districts that were affluent enough to support operations were able to establish schools. In. 1900 the chief of educational affairs was forced to resign within a year of calling for the implementation of compulsory education. In 1903 school principals echoed the call, but their request was rejected for financial reasons. Asa result, in 1910 the school attendance rate of Taiwanese children was less apanese teachers than 6 percent. In contrast, more than 90 percent of the children newly arrived from Japan proper attended shogakk@ (elementary school), which was under separate administration.5® Another impediment to the spread of Kokugo education was the Han “Taiwanese themselves, who had their own education system. Both privateTai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 515 Assimilationist Policy and public schools prepared students for Chinese government employment examinations and aimed to enhance the Han Chinese spirit among stu schools dents. The Japanese attempted to attract students from Chin (hobs) by offering at common schools some training in the Confucian clas- sics, an appeal to wealthy ‘Taiwanese. At the same time, the colonial govern- ment placed various forms of pressure on the operation of shobd, including forcing instruction in Japanese history, language, and the Imperial Rescript on Education, translated into Chinese. Yet having historically regarded the Japanese as barbarians, the Taiwanese elites resisted these requirements of the colonial government. Even so, by 1904 the number of Chinese pupils enrolled in Japanese schools actually exceeded those attending shoba. Although Gotd had no particular vision for education, the general diree~ on of colonial education did not diverge much from Izawa’s time, The Common School Regulations promulgated in 1898 embraced two general objectives: the mastery of Kokugo and the development of the Japanese national character, by implication the Kokugo ideology. Some Japanese ed cators protested that teaching the Kokego language was hardly enough for achieving the goal of assimilating the Taiwanese; rather, they emphasized moral education. Yet keenly aware of the difficulty of convincing the Tai- wanese —who historically recognized the model of a Chinese emperor rul ing on the basis of his virtue —to respect the sacred blood of the Japanese emperor, educators often modified the content of their moral education to reflect the value system of the Taiwanese. After 1910, in response to political upheavals such as the revolution in China, the tide of nationalism in Western colonies, the 1 March movement in Korea, and the nationalist movements in Taiwan, the Japanese govern- ment finally adopted an assimilationist approach to the control of its colonies. Hara Kei, a longtime advocate of naichi-enchi shugi (the idea of controlling colonies as extensions of Japan proper), changed the direction of Japanese colonialism after becoming prime minister in 1918, Discontinuing Sto military control of the colonial administration, he appointed Den Ken be the first ci ing to completepositions Fall 1999 516 the integration of Taiwan into the jurisdiction of the Meiji Constitution, Hara passed Law 3, referred to above, which in great measure limited the legislative power of the colonial government? With Den’s declaration of a policy to transform the Taiwanese into the Yamato minzoku, changes such as hiring Taiwanese as public officials and permitting intermarriage between Taiwanese and Japanese were instituted.” Den was in fact attempting accul- turation (Ryoka), a process aimed at civilizing the colonized to be loyal to the emperor while maintaining them in their “proper” low status. Besides extolling the same two goals, the mastery of Kokugo and the development of the Japanese national character, the New Taiwan Education Rescript promulgated in 1922 “allowed” the coeducation of Taiwanese and Japanese, But this new policy brought about neither the improvement of education nor equal opportunity for Taiwanese, contrary to the propaganda of the colonial government. The law contained an important proviso dictat- ing that only those who used Japanese regularly in everyday life could go to schools intended for Japanese, Such people remained rare throughout the colonial period, and the Taiwanese pupils who participated in this form of coeducation never exceeded 1 percent of those Taiwanese who received ele- mentary education.“ Observing the change brought about by this educa- tional reform, Yanaihara ‘Tadao, a contemporary critic of Japanese imperi- alism, argued that this system actually deprived Taiwanese students of higher education, as spots originally intended for Taiwanese were filled by {ven the medical school established for Taiwanese, the Japanese students. only institution offering them a higher education, was absorbed into the primarily Japanese Taihoku (Taipei) Imperial University. Thus, Taiwanese secking higher education had to go to mainland Japan. By the 1920s and 1930s the overall school attendance rate among Tai wanese children was increasing steadily from about 25 toa little over 50 per- cent Yet, as Tsurumi suggests, “the common school was definitely meant to assimilate Taiwanese but only at the bottom of the Japanese social order."6 Kokugo education for adults also expanded in this period, as the pnal education for colonial government emphasized post-element “Taiwanese, along the principle of “agriculture in Taiwan and industry in ary voc! Japan." "This coincided with the expansion of Taiwanese political participation inTai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan Sy the 1930s. In 1934 the first Taiwanese, Ko Ken’ei, was elected as a member of the national House of Peers, and in 1935 certain qualified Taiwanese were given both suffrage and eligibility for clection to local seats. But theory and practice diverged: in actual practice local assemblies power. I little political The Kéminka Policy of Imperializing Taiwan With the start of full-scale war against China in 1937 and the later advances into the South Pacific, the assimilation of the Taiwanese people became an urgent concern for Japanese leaders. In this period assimilation policy was consolidated under the banner of kéminka (imperialization of subject peo- ple). Kondd Masami argues that 4dminka policy emerged during the wartime regime because of the military necessity to mobilize non-Japanese masses for the war. With the war, the strategic importance of Taiwan itself had changed, from a place for producing sugar and rice to a source of matériel and personnel needed in the South Pacific. Initially exempted from military conscription, beginning in 1937 Taiwanese were sent to war as mil- itary servants and, after 1942, as volunteer soldiers. Yet, colonial leaders, especially members of the Taiwan army, feared that most Han Taiwanese hoped for a Chinese victory. Thus, it became imperative to inculcate the ‘Taiwanese with the ideology of emperor worship. As the base for Japan's expansion, Taiwan was increasingly treated more and more as part of Japan proper. Ohe Shinobu describes panese colonial expansion in terms of concentric circles, with mainland Japan as the center; the two colonies, Taiwan and Korea, comprised the next, inner circle; and the mainland China territories formed an exterior circle, to be eventually encom, ssed by the projected Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. this exterior increasingly tightened, and the assimilation of the colonized more and more demanded.” As Mark R. Peattie states, “Now there were only the naichi — s rele expanded, control of the inner circle of colonies was “the inner area’ (the Japanese home islands)—and the gaichi—the outer area’ (Japan overseas) —which were held to comprise a single expanding, Pan-Asian bloc.” As this bloc expanded, Taiwan was becoming more and more naichi-lilpositions 7:2 Fall 1999 518 Meanwhile, military control of the colonial administration was resumed. When appointed governor-general in 1936, Kobayashi Seiz3 proclaimed as his threefold policy advancement to the South Pacific, industrialization in ‘Taiwan, and Aminka, But while his approach to assimilation resembled his predecessors, it differed in scale. Envisioning the diffusion of Kokugo and emperor worship through the entire Taiwanese society, he designed a plan for compulsory education for the colonized, something never seriously con- sidered by previous governments.” The government-general in turn drew upa ten-year plan to promote the spread of Kokugo, and in 1940 stated the goal of enforcing Kokugo study for everyone under seventy. To achieve this goal, the government opened Kokugo schools for all ages, from preschool children to the elderly. Kokugo education for girls and women also became important, as they were seen as agents for disseminating Kokugo into family life. Under the slogan “the use of Kokugo at home,” the “Kokugo home” in which family members spoke Kokugo and lived in the Japanese way came to be officially certified, with door plates designating this special honor, Such families were aterial and social privileges.” Simultaneously, the use of Tai- s was strictly prohibited at school.78 granted 1 wanese vernacul At this final stage, Kokugo was seen as the prime mover and barometer of the Adminka movement, as Kokugo education was implemented to promote the consolidation of military power, A case study of a small Taiwanese vil- lage by Kondo reveals this concatenation, Asserting that the core of Adminka was the everyday use of the Kokugo language, the village administration imposed the use of Kokugo on the villagers not merely as a language for school but as seikatsugo (a language for everyday life). Among the agents of the kaminka movement, the leaders of the Young Men’s Associations, in which Taiwanese youths were obliged to participate, played a significant role in mediating between the battlefield and village life. Recruited from among graduates of common schools, the leaders were first sent to accultur- ation training provided by both the village administration and the colonial government, and were then expected to disseminate Kokugo and the doc- trine of kéminka in their community. These young leaders were subse- quently sent to war as military servants and volunteer soldiers.” During the final years of the war, as the empire's imminent defeat becameTai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 519 clear, the desperate struggle of military officers and soldiers on the battle- field resonated with the Frantic efforts of administrators and educators at home to assimilate the colonized. Long-awaited compulsory education for ‘Taiwanese people began in 1943 with subsidies from the homeland govern- ment Tsuchiya ‘Tadao observed at the time that compulsory education seemed to have been implemented in ccordance with a plan to conscript the colonized. Now Kokugo education clearly had the dual aim of enabling ‘Taiwanese to communicate with Japanese comrades on the battlefield and making them willing to fight for the emperor. By 1942, 65.8 percent of Tai- wanese school-aged children attended school, and the rate increased to 71.3 percent in 1944."7 Yet even in this stage of colonial education, the distinction between the Japanese and the colonized remained. Although the Japanese created the facade of integration by renaming both elementary schools for Japanese and common schools for Taiwanese “national schools” (kokumin gakko), they employed a ranking system that maintained the old hierarchy among schools.7 As Tsuchiya points out, prior to the kaminka movement, most Japanese officials were content to teach language skills without Japa nizing the Tai- wanese.” First implemented mainly for its economic benefit to the home- land and then accelerated according to military necessity, Kokugo education gradually gained the commitment of both the home and colonial govern- ment. Not surprisingly, Izawa made a comeback in the 1940s, when he was recognized as “the father of education in Taiwan. In a 1944 book, the Association of Taiwan Education praised his efforts to apply the ideology off state education to Japan's new territory. The book also revived the ideolog- ically loaded fame of the Shizangan incident! ‘To sum up, the educational doctrine of the Kokugo ideology was central to the colonial aim of assimilating the Taiwanese people. Interpreted as uni- versal, in its implementation, in conjunction with other apparatuses of s te control, Kokugo remained particularistic. Thus the colonized were pre- vented from entering the Japanese nation (kokumin) on the same footing as the ethnic Japanese. Throughout the colonial period, Taiwanese people con- tinued to be controlled as i-minzoku, an ethnic nation different from the Yomato minzoku. The objectives of education rescripts and regulations stress the kokumin d the development of Kokugo language skills as welpositions 7:2. Fall 1999 520 character and spirit, and such documents often referred to the Taiwanese as Kokumin. But they were so designated only when their being kokumin would benefit the home country. When their assimilation was emphasized, on the other hand, they were instead called imperial subjects, shinmin or Kimin, which indicated a closer link to the emperor. Yet both naming st gies belied legal bars to genuine assimilation, as well as resistance on the part of the colonized, The Emergence of Nihongo Education In the advancement (shinshutsu) to the South Pacific that changed the diree- tion of colonial policy, then, Taiwan was part of the larger strategic scheme to build a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In this scheme, Japan would be the political leader “responsible for governance and guidance . . of those peoples who lacked the capacity for independence."** The eduea- tional corollary was the shinshutsu of the Japanese language throughout ‘Asia and eventually the world. It was against this backdrop that the concept of Nihongo emerged specifically to mean Japanese taught to non-Japanese people as a foreign language. The prospect of a long-range “total” war prompted the homeland gov- istration of Japan’s ernment to increase its direct involvement in the admy colonies and occupied territories. The field of education was no exception. When the Association for Promoting Japanese Language Education (Nihongo Kyoiku Shinkokai) was established in 1941, colonial education took a new turn under the increasing control of the central government. The establishment of this organization and its journal, Nihongo, marked the official start of the new field of Nihongo education, Matsuo Ch626, the asso- ciation’s leader, expounded on the orientation of this new field in the pro- logue to the journal’s first issue, stating the mission of building a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere based on Japanese national culture (Roku- min bunka) in order to bring about a new world order; the spread of Japa- nese would be the key to this effort.’ ‘The word Nihongo had been used previously, but with the Co-Prosperity Sphere its usage was now juxtaposed with that of Kokugo. Koyasu Nobu- kuni observes that Andd Masatsugu, a scholar and leading policymaker inToi | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 521 Kokugo education, avoided confronting the conceptual problems of recon- stituting the concept of Kokugo vis-a-vis that of Nihongo. Instead, Ando dis- tinguished between the Kokugo problem, which he determined should be handled by intrastate measures, and the Nihongo problem, which he confined to extrastate measures.*® In a special issue of Nihongo subtitled “The Advancement of Nihongo and its Policy;” Ando argued that the formerly domest problem of the national language and national script (Kokugo Kokuji), once domestic in nature, had begun to be discussed as encompassing an extrastate aspect. Separating the polemic on the overseas spread of Nihongo from the Kokugo Kokuji problem and defining Kokugo as the language that the Japanese nation had inherited from its ancestors, he argued that the reform of both Kokugo and Kokigi should conform to the needs of the Japanese nation; if pursued to promote the spread of Nihongo, reform would only denigrate the sacredness of Kokugo. Nihongo should therefore be spread as a foreign language to Asian countries outside the Japanese state, where Nihongo edu- cation would inevitably remain secondary to education in the native lan- guages The impact of this construction of Kokugo and Nihongo continues even to this day.** in question. Ina subsequent issue of Nihongo, Ando further suggested simplifying the writing system of Japanese for foreign learners to facilitate the spread of the language and argued that teaching Japanese as an embodiment of Japanese culture was idealistic but impractical." Non-Japanese Asians should study Nihongo, which Ando viewed as essentially different from Kokugo, the lan= guage that constituted the essence of the Japanese nation. In contrast, as Koyasu points out, Tokieda Motoki reexamined the con- cept of Kokugo against the background of the contemporary language situ- ation.” Observing that the “Kokugo problem’ crossed the boundaries of the state and thus developed into the “Nihongo problem,” Tokieda probl tized an issue that stood between those two, namely the language situation ma- in Japan's colonies.%" Ando, in contrast, sidestepped this issue by arguing that Kokugo would eventually become the native language for those non- Japanese ethnic groups in Japan’s colonies.”” Tokieda revisited the concept of Kokugo established four decades earlier by Ueda Kazutoshi, his former teacher. Tokieda observed four phases in thepositions 7:2 Fall 1999 522 trajectory of language policy dating from the early Meiji era. The first phase, which lasted for two decades, was characterized by the language pes- simism expressed by people such as Mori Arinori, The second phase was the period of ultranationalism, reaching its climax at the time of Ueda’s 1894 speech. The third opened when Japan came to include non-Japanese ethnic groups, with the acquisition of Taiwan and Korea, The fourth phase, which began as Japan assumed the leading role in the establishment of the Co-Prosperity Sphere, was the period when the question arose of how to spread Nihongo as a common language in this sphere.” In Tokieda’s analysis, the contradiction inherent in the Kokugo problem in Korea (a feature of the third phase) had been overlooked because the eth- nonationalistic (minzoku-shugi-teki) view of the second phase still prevailed in Japan. In other words, Ueda’s theory was developed when the Japanese state, ethnic nation, and language coincided; it was thus valid for precolo- nial Japan, which Tokieda likened to a happy family with no in-laws. But Koreans —whom he called igo-minzoku (ethnic nation speaking a language other than Japanese) —presented a problem for Ueda’s theory. The love for one’s native tongue, Tokieda argued, would naturally evoke in Koreans the love for their own language, since it was their mother tongue, their lan- guage of everyday life, and in Ueda's terms, their “spiritual blood. ‘The question was how to resolve the conflict between the situation in Korea and a colonial policy stressing the expansion of Kokugo. Tokieda tackled this question, beginning from the assumption that language has no existence apart from the language activities of speaking subjects. Thus, in his discussion of Kokugo’s supremacy, he began from a consideration of “subjective value consciousness” (shutai-tekina kachi ishiki). Significantly, for him such consciousness was constituted by the state. Thus he defined Kokugo asa special language laden with value from the point of view of the Japanese state, while Nihongo was merely an object for linguistic study, independent of the Kokugo—that is, the state’s value system. The recogni- tion of Kokugo’s supremacy was thus predicated on the structure of the modern Japanese state. In summary, Tokieda explicitly stated that Kokugo was no longer the monopoly of people in the home islands of Japan, but the property of this state.” This endorsement of state power amounted to the dismissal of the sub-Tai I Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan, 523 Pedagogy jective positions of both colonized peoples and the Japanese who spoke concept of the mother regional vernaculars, But in returning to Ueda’s ing Koreans’ attachment to their language, Tokieda’s tongue and recogni: solution was for Kokugo to be used in Korean homes, where family mem- bers could take pleasure in speaking it. For this reason, Tokieda stressed Kokugo education for girls as future mothers. Thus in the end, Tokieda effectively came to agree with Ando that Kokugo should become the native speech of the emperor's subjects.” Unlike Ands, who sought to preserve da thought Kokugo as the particular language of the Japanese nation, Tok that this form of Japanese should be open to foreigners without any modifi- cation. He envisaged that Kokugo would acquire a universal character as an international, potentially universal language to be shared with foreigners.” Yet the Kokugo versus Nihongo debate underlines the intention of | and intellectuals such as Ando to preserve Kokugo for the Japanese nation The Nihongo/Kokugo distinction further suggests their desire to set a limit aders in assimilating non-Japanese to Japanese culture, to close the boundaries of the Japanese nation linguistically. ‘To the extent that others, like ‘Tokieda, argued that Japanese should become a universal language, the debate reflected the tension inherent in the double status of the Japanese language as both universal-imperial and particular-national.” In suggesting t the context of a colony, this tension could be resolved by making Kokugo the mother tongue of the colonized, Tokie conformed to the colonial lan- guage policy of the r94os.1® Yet the fact that Kokugo education in Taiwan came to be discussed in the journal Nihongo also marked the exclusion of the Taiwanese from the status of native speakers of Japanese. This pos reflected the actual language situation of the colony, where most people n spoke their local vernaculars. While those working in and around the central government debated the reconceptualization of the Japanese language, educators were concerned with how to teach Kokugo effectively in the actual classroom, Their goal was the development of native-like competence in Kokugo. Yamaguchi Kiichiro, the leading colonial scholar of pedagogy, made a substantial con-positions 7:2. Fall 1999 524 tribution to developing a methodology for learners to achieve such compe- tence. Yamaguchi was originally recruited by Izawa to teach in colonized “Taiwan (he was in attendance at the first Shinzangan ceremony), where he had arrived in 1896 as an experienced Kokugo teacher. He stayed until 1911, when he moved to newly colonized Korea. Throughout his forty-eight-year career of teaching Japanese in Japanese colonies and occupied territories, Yamaguchi stayed very close to actual classroom teaching, while at the same time pursuing research and editing textbooks." The significance of Yamaguchi’s work lay in his contribution to the development of chokusetsu-ha (direct method). In his book on this method, he delineated his theory of teaching foreign language and explained the effectiveness of this technique. His inspiration was the method that a French educator, Frangois Gouin, had developed for teaching German a a foreign language, based on his observation of young children learning 102 [py line with Gouin’s method, Yamaguchi argued s their native tongues. that it was crucial to have students learn through authentic language activ- ity, recognizing and mastering the form of the language along with the particular and concrete meanings of the material." The study of language should take place in the context of everyday life, with the “study life” also conducted in the language." Thus the process of learning a foreign lan- guage was to approximate as nearly as possible the acquisition of a native language. Yamaguchi firmly believed that the mastery ofa language would lead to the construction of the personality associated with the language. Indeed, the connection between language and other cultural elements had been one of his core arguments since the early days of h As early as 1904 he made the claim that “the language of a nation contained the whole meta- physical possession of the nation and that the knowledge, emotion, and care! quality of the nation, as well as the people's activities and growth, all resided in the language.” As Komagome Takeshi points out, this assertion sup ported the belief in the Kokugo ideology being constructed by Ueda and others at the time.!0” Yamaguchi later elaborated on a methodology for fostering Japanese cul- ture and spirit, leading the pedagogical polemic on Nihongo. In one article, he undermined the very distinction between jikokugo (native language) andTai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 525 gaikokugo (foreign language) in regard to the learning processes. He argued that the psychological state in which one performed language activities would be the same for both, once one had mastered the new language. The difference between the psychological states involved in speaking guifokugo and jikokugo, he argued, was probably quantitative, not qualitative." In another article, he denounced the widely used “translation method,” argu- ing that it allowed learners to comprehend thoughts and phenomena in their own native tongues without developing any real understanding of Jap- anese culture and spirit. His direct method, in contrast, would help learners expand their scope of understanding in the target language; they would ultimately be able to remember, imagine, and think about things and phe- nomena completely in Japanese, and at this stage they would be able to feel hotodama (word spirit), to understand Japanese culture, and to internalize Nihon seishin (the Japanese spirit)!” In Yamaguchi’ theory, | ter Kokugo in two distinct stages: first they begin to think in Japanese, and in the second stage they internalize Japanese culture and spirit.!"” Like many ‘arners come to n of his contemporaries, Yamaguchi’s ultimate goal was the Japanese spirit. Yet, what is the Japanese spirit? Komagome points out that despite its centrality in colonial educa- tion, the concept was used ambiguously and differently by tho: ¢ educating non-Japanese Asians. Consistent, however, was the consensus that this edu- cation was ultimately in the service of Japanese imperialism.!! One con- temporary believed the essence of the Japanese spirit was faith in the emperor! Although Yamaguchi himself did not offer a definition, his usage of the word was probably close to this interpretation. Also problematic is Yamaguchi’s linking of stage two to the attainment of the Japanese spirit merely by reference to the concept of kotodama (word spirit).!'5 This belief that words possessed spirits of their own that, when spoken, could cause things to happen, documented in folklore since the sev- enth century, had been revitalized in order to hallow Kokugo. It resonated well with the idea implicit in Ueda’s narrative that Kohugo had power in itself. Without resorting to this concept, Yamaguchi could not have com- pleted his assertion that the direct method would foster the Japanese spirit. Recent theory indicates that the mastery of a language cannot be imme- diately linked to the internalization of the ideology associated with the lan-positions 7:2. Fall 1999 526 guage; for “linguistic practice” including “knowledge and proficiency” is distinct from “linguistic ideology.” And it is the latter to which the con- cept of kotodama belongs. Even if, through the direct method, students did learn to think in the language, it remains doubtful whether the consequence of their mastery was their internalizing of the Japanese spirit and becoming faithful to the emperor, Such would have required the internalization of certain ideological assumptions—both those supposedly embedded in the language and those contingent on changing political circumstances facing the empire. The Japanese Teachers In reality, moreover, the heated ideological arguments over the language, its orthography,!!5 and the assumptions underlying pedagogy had little appar- nt impact on the daily practice of classroom teachers in Taiwan, It was clear to teachers that Kokugo was a second language to their students. In Taiwan, where the pronunciation-based orthography was replaced by the traditional one in the early 1910s, even this loaded debate failed to become a major ped- agogical issue. !6 Besides the direct method originally invented in Taiwan, other approaches were also developed and adopted in the colony.!!7 The impetus for each was practical. Yet Japanese classroom teachers were agents of assimilation; with the most direct impact on how the colonized perceived the Japanese empire, their responsibility to help their students to master Kokugo also involved —whether implicitly or explicitly —inculcating the Japanese national character along the lines of Kokugo doctrine.!"* Some teachers did take seriously the possibility of assimilating the Tai- wanese people.!!” Kimura Masuo, a colonial educator in Taiwan for fifteen years, declared without hesitation that the Japanese education of colonized students was successful. The seventeen former teachers of Japanese in Tai- wan who responded to his questionnaires attributed this success to factors such as the assimilationist policy that treated Taiwanese people as Japanese, the educational policy that aimed at the development of Japanese ways of thinking as well as language skills, the superiority of Japanese culture, the sense of trust in Japan held by the colonized, the mild and generous charac- ter of the Taiwanese people, and dabun déshu. Kimura himself emphasizedTai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 527 the devotion of the teachers to their occupation and their students, and doc- umented that some appreciative Taiwanese continued to maintain contact with their former teachers.!20 Sai Mohd relates the case of a Kokugo teacher who had his Taiwanese students stay at his house and showed them how to perform daily routines, such as eating, brushing their teeth, making the bed, and cleaning the toilet, all in the Japanese way, in order to teach them the delicate nuances of the Japanese language in a real-life context. Thi awa's ideal of devotion, the Shizangan spirit. recalls [ Yet it is necessary to interrogate the very notion of this success. For one thing, however sincere Japanese language teachers might have been in their , whatever police and military dealings with their students, their teaching practice—and thus success they achieved —was never independent o! power. Whereas policemen, outwardly symbolizing colonial power, served to remind the colonized of their subjugated position within the Japanese empire, teachers must have presented a less obviously coercive face. But in ict this division of labor was often blurred. Until the first civilian governor general arrived in Taiwan in 1919, Japanese teachers, as public officers, bore swords at ceremonies and kept sabers in their offices that they carried when going out.!2? During the minke movement, public school teachers also provided military training to Taiwanese youths.!25 In aborigine districts, furthermore, education was usually provided by policemen, Some teachers believed that assimilation would end discrimination against the Tai- wanese.!24 But because the aim of assim ation was to foster voluntary sub- mission to the emperor, under the historical circumstances in which their daily practices were situated, even teachers’ devotion and good intentions were destined to serve the goal of Japanese imperialism. And of course, cul- tural chauvinism and patronizing attitudes are so evident in Kimura’s survey. After colonialism, the Taiwanese condemned the notion of the Shizangan spirit and the aim of acculturating the colonized to the detriment of their °5 But it is also true that more than a half century after the end of colonial education, elderly Taiwanese (including some of my relatives) still visit their former Japanese teachers to pay their continued r in the scene of colonial edu native languages and cultures.! pects. In the final analysis, the meaning of what teachers did ion is multifold. On the micro level of personalpositions 7:2. Fall 1999 528 connections, a colonized people such as the Taiwanese may appreciate the tutelage they receive, yet they may be critical when examining such educa- tion against the backdrop of the macro-level social process of coloniali The Japanese Immigrants and the Colenized In the end, the abstract discourse on the concepts of Kokugo and Nihongo and language pedagogy, as well as the best efforts of the most enthusiastic chers, simply failed in predicting the language behavior of real people in the streets of Taiwan, both Japanese and Taiwanese,!2® Their language prac- te: tices took their own trajectories, diverging from the route drawn by colonial scholars and policymakers. Japanese immigrants, in their dealing with everyday chores, let practicality take precedence over Kokugo. As Tsurumi documents, when schools for Japanese in Taiwan started, the children, who came from different parts of Japan and spoke different dialects, invented for their communication in the classroom and on the playing field a com- mon language or “a kind of Taiwan-style abbreviated Japanese without proper word endings." In the 1940s even the level of Kokugo competence of Taiwanes -born Japanese children was found to be considerably lower Adults, too, varied in their native tongues and into the Kokugo they spoke among than on the mainland! fused their familiar, dialectal phrases themselves. Further, in the streets of Taiwanese cities, where Japanese needed to communicate with local Taiwanese who spoke little Japanese, these two groups of people together invented a pidgin Japanese in which Japanese words were put together in a Taiwanese order.” Predictably, this patois was severely criticized by officials as denigrating the sacredness of Kokugo.!*9 If Japanese people maintained diverse speech habits despite the state’s imposition of Kokugo, so indeed did the Taiwanese. Statistics show that after the fdminka movement began, the number of people who understood Japa- nese increased rapidly; comprising less than 4o percent of the Taiwanese population before 1937, their numbers increased to §7 percent by 1941 These official statistics are impressive. But as Murakami Yoshihide points out, the actual Japanese-language competence of persons counted in such statistics is questionable. With little opportunity to use the language, formerTai I Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 529 students were apt to forget it completely after leaving school. Sixty percent of the Taiwanese lived in rural areas where they met few Japanese, and even those who lived in cities had little contact with the immigrants. In addition, the statistics included those who studied months panese for only seve on breaks from farming.!82 As Robert L. Cheng states, “monolingual Japa- nese children existed even in Taiwanese families,” but such cases were restricted to special situations, such as “in government housing areas where the Japanese population was proportionally higher” or areas where differ- ent groups of Chinese descent lived together with Kokugo as their common language. More importantly, language practice | education must still be seen as far from successful when evaluated against its ultimate goal, that is, the tra side, color nsformation of the colot ed into Japanese. The development of Kokugo competence did not necessarily lead to the cultivation of the Japa- nese spirit on the part of the colonized, as Izawa, Yamaguchi, and many teachers had believed it would. The majority of Taiwanese people simply never internalized the Kokugo ideology. Although they might maintain Shinto altars or Japanese flags in their houses, they never internalized the values associated with these Japanese national symbols but, instead, contin- ued their own cultural practices. ites did | japanese superbly. Yet, even for those people, whether as a result they were Japanized is a different issue. They studied Kokugo as a language of civilization so that they could acquire modern knowledge and succeed in colonial society to the fullest extent pos ‘To be sure, many Taiwanese el rn to use ible. But there were also Taiwanese who used their competence in the colonizer’s language to liberate themselves and to challenge the goal of assimilation that Kokugo education was supposed to achieve.!> Just as many educated Taiwanese people refused to speak Japanese, there were also those who excelled in the language yet refused to be honored as members of the “Kokugo home” by the colonial government.!35 Those adopting the customs of the Kokugo home faced criticism from their coun- trypeople for the betrayal of their culture, and those who spoke Japanese without a Taiwanese accent aroused antipathy.')7 A story pass among le d down s tells of a Taiwanese who walked all the hilly way from An to Taipei just to avoid speaking Kokugo at a train station. In hispositions 7:2. Fall 1999 530 analysis of a Taiwanese village, Kond6 concludes that a compulsory draft was impossible because of the presence of a group who stubbornly refused to speak Japanese, thus demonstrating the failure of the kaminka movement to penetrate Taiwanese communities.) In conclusion, the Kokugo ideology had little impact on the majority of Taiwanese people. They were far from becoming Japanese, either in their language behaviors or, even more certainly, in their mental attitudes. As Albert Memmi taught us more than thirty years ago, “under the contempo- rary conditions of colonization, assimilation and colonization are contradic- tory."!40 While the colonizers struggled to theorize and put into practice the Japanization of non-Japanese people, the colonized knew very well that they were in reality precluded from becoming Japanese, however well they were able to speak the language. Nor did they fail to notice the social and legal discrimination that they suffered by virtue of being colonized. It is true that for a small number of Taiwanese, Kokugo did not rem: ina mere tool but began to penetrate their value system as well.!*! Their sought-after identification with the Japanese was, however, destined to fail. As Memmi rightly points out, “in order to be assimilated, it is not enough to leave one’ group, but one must enter another; [at this point] he meets with the colo- nizer’s rejection!" The assimilationist policy of imperial Japan in Taiwan was never imple mented apart from the legal distinction between the colonized and the col- incided with ethnic difference, pervaded the lives of both Japanese and ‘Taiwanese, and in turn probably helped them to consolidate onizers, which c mutually the respective ethnic boundaries that separated them. Assimilation was in fact popular among neither Japanese immigrants nor the Taiwanese themselves, The former resisted because they wanted to maintain their privilege and because of their chauvinistic attitudes.!** Kokugo, which schol- ars and administrators assumed would foster loyalty to the state, was clearly perceived by both groups to be the language of ethnic Japanese. For the peo- ple in the streets of Taiwan, Kokugo was the language of the Yamato min- soku, just as Ueda argued it should be, not the language of all the people under the Japanese empire, as Tokieda had advocated.Tai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 531 Conclusion In the context of Japanese colonial educ jon, the Kokugo ideology provided a scheme for the assimilation of the colonized. Policymakers variously played down or stressed the goal of cultural assimilation of the colonized, depending on the changing direction of colonial policy, itself shifting according to changing strategic, economic, and military aims, while contin uing to maintain legal discrimination against the Taiwanese. Certain schol- ars of pedagogy, such as Izawa and Yamaguchi, seriously sought to Japanize the colonized through Kokugo education. Following their lead were Japa- nese classroom teachers, the first-line disseminators of the language and its ideology. Despite policy, theory, and local efforts, however, the mass of Jap- ane: and Taiwanese continued to speak their native languages, acquiring Kokugo language skills to varying degrees without internalizing the ideol- ogy. Further, most Taiwanese people either ignored or rejected the idea of becoming Japanese, Nevertheless, with modifi ions of its arguments, emphasis, and inter- pretations, the Kokugo ideology thrived throughout the period of Japanese imperialism and survived into postwar Japan. After the war's end the uni- versal application of the Kokugo ideology was abandoned as a proj the ideology instead became an essential component of the theory of Japan asa single-ethnic-nation state (tan'itsu minzoku Rokka-ron), which has dom- inated the minds of the majority of Japanes and in the postwar era, underwrit- ing their strong sense of ethnic national identity." Interestingly, Ueda's equation of kokumin and minzoke, which arguably posed problems when the narrative of assit principal thesis i been a the postwar development of Kokugo theory.!"5 In short, Kokugo has come to be regarded as the tightly guarded, exclusive property of Nihonjin. In the postwar era, the a self- Tron milation was applied to Japan's colonies, has ationalist narrative on Kokugo has become -vident component of the cognitive frameworks of the Japanese." ly, colonialism may have been crucial to the formation of this postwar Japanese c ncept of Kokugo. By continuously posing questions about where to draw the boundaries of a Kokugo speech community or the boundaries of the Japanese nation and by persistently separating the colo-positions 7:2. Fall 1999 532 nized from ethnic Japanese, colonial education (which purported to stretch Kokugo toward the universal-imperial) actually helped to consolidate it as a particular-domestic language. The assimila onist colonial education, which required the idea of openness to Japanese culture, paradoxically served to facilitate the process of exclusion that helped to enable the establishment of, Japaneseness.” The past decade has witnessed the second tide of the spread of the Japa- nese language to non-Japanese peoples. While, in this context, Japanese has been taught as Nihongo, there has also emerged a growing tendency to use the term Nihongo in place of Kokugo domestically, for example, in the names of academic subjects and departments. Koyasu criticizes the scholars debating the special topic ““Kokugo’ or ‘Nihongo’” in the June 1994 the journal Nihongo-ron, on the grounds that the discussion neglects the political and historical significance of the term Nihongo.'¥” As the term Nihongo reemerges, many scholars engaged in Japanese education seem to be indifferent to its colonial history. In this they risk approximating the suc of behavior of the politicians who have angered Japan's neighbors by their m, refusal to acknowledge the outrages of imper This being the case, classroom teachers of Japanese must be especially alert to the political significance of our work. This requires an awareness of, the evolution of the concept of Nihongo in modern Japanese history, lest we devote ourselves blindly to an unrecognized political goal superimposed on our personal objectives. At this historical moment, when the isomorphism between the Japanese blood and the Japanese language is a thesis often taken for granted by many Japanese," I join with those Koreans residing in Japan who call themselves Nihongojin (Japanese-speaking person). In this implicit assertion of hybrid- ity, attempt both to suspend the Nihonjin-Kokugo thesis and to be cautious about my own strategic position as it unfolds.Tai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Toiwon 533 Notes 6 ‘The initial stage of this project was supported by an Affirmative Action Award from San Francisco State University. I thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments. | also thank Naney Kool and Janet ‘Tallman for editing the article. “The Taiwanese” here include the aborigines and the Han, both culturally and linguistically diverse. According to the Japanese national census, of the Taiwanese population of 2.8 mil- le focuses on education for the Han; I plan a separate essay on education for the aborigines. Kokugo can be ti lion in 1897, more than go percent were Han Chinese. I ted differently, depending on how one interprets the first character, Aoki, which can mean cour ince this term docs not specify try, state, nation, oF nation-state country, it discourages its users from perceiving the language vis-a-vis other national languages; rather, it encour- ages them to see a unity of the language, the state, and themselves as natural. Lee Yeounsuk, “Kokugo” soit shiso: Kindai Nikon no gengo ninshiki (The thought of Kokago: Language awareness in modern Japan] (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1996), 72. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of National ism (London: Verso, 1983), 81. Anderson uses this phrase to describe the role of German in Austro-Hungary after the mi ineteenth century, Prior to the acquisition of Taiwan, Japan had colonized Hokkaidé (including Chishima), Okinawa, and Ogasawara but treated them as part of Japan proper under the Meiji Consti- tution, See Tamura Sadao, “Naikoku shokuminchi toshite no Hokkaido” [Hokkaido as an internal colony], in Kindai Nihon to shokuminchi [Modern Japan and its colonies} (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1992), —yg5 Toriyama Ichir®, Kindai Nihon shakai to “Okinateujin”:“Nihonjin" ‘ni nar toi koto [Modern Japanes society and “the Okinawans”: Becoming “Japanesc”] (Tokyo: Nihon Hydron, 1990); and Alan S. Christy, “The Making of Imperial Subjects in Okinawa,” positions 1, no. 3 (winter 1993) 607~639. For the differences between internal and formal colonization, sce Matayoshi Seikiyo, Nihon shokuminchika no Taiwan to Okinacua [Ti wan and Okinawa under Japanese colonial rule] (Okinawa: Aki Shobd, 1990). ‘The word Nihongo was often pronounced as Nippongo during this period; I spell it as ‘Nihongo throughout the text for consistency and to follow current custom in Japan. Hirataka Fumiya, “Language-spread Policy of Japan" International Journal of the Sociology of Language 951992): 93-108. Of the literature on Japanese colonial education written in English, the work of E. Patricia “Tsurumi has been by far the most important. S 1895-1945, Naoki Sakai argues that eighteenth-century discourse projected se her Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, Harvard University Press, 1997). 2ambridge, Ma idealized unity of the Japanese language onto the ancient world in such a way that “the present was analyzed as a lack” or a loss of a primordial unity. Japanese was “stillborn” into this discourse. See Naoki Sakai, Vaices of che Past: The Status of Language in Eighteenth-Century Japanese Discourse Dornell University Press, 1992), 310-311.positions 7:2. Fall 1999 534 a 1 5 “Tose Sakai’ term, fukhuts. Ivan Parker Hall, Mori Arinori (Cambridge, Mass Harvard University Press, 1973), 189. Le argues that later critics such as Yamada Yoshio, Ohno Susumu, and Tokieda Motoki neglect this fact when they accuse Mori of attempting to abolish Kokugo in favor of English. Lee Yeounsuk, “Mori Arinori to Baba Tatsui no Nihongo-ron” [Theories of the Japanese language by Mori Arinori and Baba Tatsuil, Shiso [Thought], no. 795 (ygo}: 4964. Furuta Tosaku, ““Kokugo’ ishiki no seiritsu” [Establishment of Kokugo consciousness}, in Nihon no gengo bunka [Language culture in Japan|, ed, Puruta (Tokyo: Nihon H0s0, 1989), 61-73 From this context Ueda appears to use the term jinshe (race) to mean ethnicity. Irokawa Daikichi, The Culture of the Meiji Period, trans. and ed, Matius B. Jansen (Prince- ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1685), 247. Ueda Kazutoshi, "Kokugo to kokka to,” in Meiji bungaku zenshit ‘The complete works of Meiji literature}, vol. 44 (Tokyo: Chikuma, 1968), 108—113. Nakamura Tetsuya, “The Nation-State-Building and National Language Discussions in the Meiji Era’ Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, the University of Tokyo 27 (1987): 207-216. Lee, “Kokugo” toit shitd, 122-123, For example, see Monsur Musa, “Politics of Language Planning in Pakistan and the Birth of ‘a New State” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 118 (1996¥: 63-80. F. J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: nbridge University Press, 1990), 54. Kevin M. Doak, “What Isa Nation and Who Belongs? National Narratives and the Ethnic Imagination in Twentieth-Century Japan,’ American Historical Review 102, 00.2 (April 1997): 283—309, 284~285. In this he concurs with those stressing the ethnic foundation of national identity. Prasenjit Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 10. For example, sce Mary S. Erbaugh, “Southern Chinese Dialects as a Medium for Reconcili- ation within Greater China,” Language in Society 24, no. 1 (March 1995): 79~94. See also Kathryn A. Woolard, “Language Variation and Cultural Hegemony: Toward an Integration of Sociolinguistic and Social Theory,” American Ethnologist 12, no. 4 (November 1985): 738-748. Before the start of radio broadcasting in 1925, standard language in its spoken form was far from established in Japan. See Tessa Carroll, “NHK and Japanese Language Policy,” Lan- guage Problems and Language Planning 19, no. 3 (fall 1995): 271~293. In. 1942 Kieda Masuichi, a professor at a teacher-training school, deplored the fact that many Japanese made light of Kokugo. See Kieda Masuichi, Kokugo no michi [Way of Kokugo] (Osaka: Dek. ijima, 1942), 90-102. Lee, "Kokugo” toit shisd, 152-153,Tai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwon 535 28 29 30 3h 32 33 4 35 37 38 39 40 4" B 4 Ueda Kazutoshi, "Kokugo kenkyi nitsuite” in Meiji bungaku zenshi, 442 114-118, Ueda Kazutoshi, “Kokumin kydiku to Kokugo kyoiku” [Kokumin education and Kokugo education], in ibid., 146-155. Anderson, Imagined Commaunities, 98. Doak, “National Narratives and the Ethnic Imagination?’ 284. See Oguma Eiji, Tan'itsu minzoku shinwa no kigen (The myth of the homogeneous nation] (Tokyo: Shinyo-sha, 1995). Kokufir Tanetake, Taiwan niokeru Kokugo kydiku no tenkai [Development of Kokugo educa- tion in Taiwan] (Taipei: Daiichi Kyoiku-sha, 1931; rpts Tokyo: Taji Shobd, 1088). Yun Kwon-cha, “Meiji-zenki kokumin kei building theory in early Meijil, Kyoikugaku kenkya [Studies on education] 49, no. 2 (1983): 195-204. Sai Moho, Taiwan mi okeru Nihongo kydiku no shiteki kenkyi [A historical study of the teach- ing of Japanese in Taiwan] (Taipei: Dongwu University, 1980), 568569. Tbid., 567-568. ne. Hirotani Takio and Hirokawa Toshiko, “A Comparative Study of the Poliey of Cotonial Education in Formosa and Korea under the Rule of Japan,” Bulletin of the Faculty of Educa tion, Hokkaidé University 22 (1973): 19-92. Iwamoto Yumiko, “Sh0ji Izawa and Japanese Language Education: The Groundwork for Japanese Language Education in Taiwan{" Journal of Japanese Language Teaching 60 (1986): nage Sai, Nihongo kydiku no shiteki kemkyit, 547-549. Konds Sumiko, “Shizangan Spirit Journal of Japanese Language Teaching (0 (1980): 42~53- Oguma, Tan‘itsu minzoku shinsca no kigen, 65~7 fon no tenkai” [Development of nation- ‘Tsurumi, Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 43. Nihongo kyaikt no shiteki Renky, 573-581. Haruyama Meitetst, “Meiji kenpd taisei to jwan tachi” [Meiji constitutional system and colonial ruile in Taiwan], in Kindai Nihon to shokteminchi (Tokyo: Lwanami, 1993), 4:31—50. ‘Tanaka Hiroshi, “A Historical Survey on the Voting Rightand the Compulsory Military Ser- vice of the Formosan and Korean Peoples under the Japanese Colonization,” Journal of the Faculty of Foreign Studies, Aichi Prefectural University 9 (1974): 61—06. Officially, this was the kokd ehdsabo system. Ibid., 68, Ubukata Naokichi, “Tan‘itsu minzoku kokka no shisd to kind” [Thought and function of a single-ethnic-nation state}, Shisd, no. 656 (1979): 23~37- ‘The Han were called Taiteunjin (Taiwanese) or Hontajia (is Intermarriay id people). c between Neichijin and Taiwanese was not legalized until 1917; then, typically, Taiwanese men married Japanese women, with the latter registered in their husbands’ kasekipositions 7:2. Fall 1999 536 50 5 52 3. 54 35 56 37 3B 39 60 61 62 68 69 70 n B "4 Haruyama, “Meiji kenpo taisei to Taiwan te Kitaoka Shin’ichi, Gotd Shinpei (Tokyo: Chaks Shinsho, 1988), 40. Mark R. Peattie, nial Empire, 1895-1945, ed. Ramon H, Myers and Peaitie (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1984), 80-127. Concerned only with developing a Japanese-speaking network among local elites, Gord told Japanese Attitudes toward Colonialism, 1895—1945)" in The Japunese Colo his education personnel that “they must take care to sce that Taiwanese did not hecome edu cated above their stations in life” See Tsurumi, Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 23, Hirotani and Hirokawa, “Comparative Study of the Policy of Colonial Education” 21~22. Sai, Nihongo kyaiku no shiteki kenky2, 49, 75-76. ‘Sho Scikan, Nihon shokuminchi-ka niokeru Taitwan wan under Japanese colonial rule] (Tokyo: Taga, 1993), 113. Ibid., 116~117, Komagome Takeshi, “I-minzoku shihai no ‘kydgi’” [Doctrine for the control of other ethnic ions), in Kindai Nikon to shokumtinchi 4:13 Haruyama, “Meiji kenp® taisei to Taiwan tachi, ‘Shi, Taiwan kydiku-shi, 9. Sai, Nihongo kyoiku no shiteki kenkyi 172. Yanaihara Tadao, Teikokushugi-ka no Taiwan | Taiwan under imperial rule] (Tokyo: lwanami, ikue-shi [A history of education in Tai- 19345 Fpt.,Lwanami, 1988), 158-159, Sho, Tereoan kyaiku-shi, 194, Sai, Nihongo kydiku no shiteki kenkyl, 159. ‘Tsurumi, Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 145. Sho, Taiwan dydiku-shi, 184, Ng Yuzin Chiautong, Taitean sdtokefic [Colonial government in Taiwan] (Tokyo: Kydikusha, 1981), 135—137, 155=158. These reforms were no doubt efforts to appease activists of the “movement for the establishment of a Taiwan parliament” (Taitean gikai secchi undo), which was founded in 1921. Their fifteenth and final petition was turned down in 1934. Kondé Masami, “The Mobilization of War Service Laborers and the Policy of Complete Japanization in Wartime Taiwan,’ in Historical Studies of Taiwan in Modern Times (Tokyo: Ryokuin, 1988), 6:115—164. Ohe Shinobu, “Higashi Ajia shinkyd teikoku no kotai” [Change from the old to the new. empire in East Asia], in Kindai Nihon to shokuminchi 1: Peatte, Japanese Attitudes toward Color Kondo, “Mobilization of War Service Laborers.” 121. Taiwan kydikw-shi, 205-207. Sai, Nihongo kydikte no shiteki kenkya, 169. Konds, “Mobilization of War Service Laborers,” 142~148.Tai I Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan 537 a 6 Sai, Nihongo kybiku no shiteki Renkyti, 79. Tsuchiya Tadao, “Taiwan Hontdjin no kominka to gimu kyoiku no shiko" [Imperialization of the Han Taiwanese and the implementation of compulsory education}, in Koktmin kyike 5 kenkytikai (Tokyo: xno doko [Direction of education for the nationals}, ed. Kyoiku shic Meguro, 1943), 166-186. Conscription of the Taiwanese began in 1945. 77 Sai Nihongo kydiku no shiteki kenkyit, 163. 78 Ibid., 75. 79 Tsuchiya Tadao, “Taiwan niokeru ‘komin! 10" [Education for imperialization in Tai- wan), in Gendai kydikugake [Modern education] (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1962), §:343~ 347 80 Sai, Nihongo kydike no shiteki Renkya, 383. Re 85 6 87 88 90 ou 92 93 4 % 96 iwan kySikukai, /saseu Shiji sensei to Taiwan kyoike [Lzawa Shai and education in Taiwan] (Taipei: ‘Taiwan kyoikukai, 1944), 1~2. Tenaga Saburo, The Pacific War, 1931-1945 (New York: Pantheon, 1978), 154. In contrast to the term Kohugo, whose first chara Aokee (state), means “the Japanese state” only 10 its members, the term Nihongo identifies the language as Japanese (Nihon) and thus opens up a compar Komagome Takeshi, “The Policy of Japanese Language Education during the Sino-Japanese War: Plans of the Ministry of Education and the Asia Development Board,” Bulletin of the Facitty of Education, the University of Tokyo 29 (1990): 179~ 188. ‘Matsuo Chizi, “Hakkan no ji” [A remark on new publication], Nohongo 1, no. 1 (19415 tpt, ‘Tokyo: Toji Shobs, 1985):4~5 Koyast Nobukuni, “*Kokugo’ wa shishite ‘Nihongo’ wa umareta ka” [Has “Kokugo" di And (Auguist 1994): 45-57 And6 Masatsugu, “Nihongo no shinshutsu to Nihongo no kyaiku” [Advancement of Japa- c perspective on the language. LP sw of contemporary thought] 22, n0..9 as “Nihongo” been born? |, Gendai shisd [Res nese and Japanese education], Nihongo 1, no. 2 (1941; rpt., Tokyo: Toji Shobd, 1985): 4—10. 49. And Masatsugu, “Nihongo no muzukashisa” [Difficulty of Japanese), Nikongo 2, no. 3 (19425 ept, Tokyo: Taji Shobs, 1985): 411 Koyasu, “*Kokugo’ wa shishite ‘Nihongo’ wa umareta ka,’ 4 ‘Tokieda Motoki, “Chosen niokeru Kokuugo seisaku oyobi Kokuo kyoiku mo shi future of Kokugo poli “Toji Shobs, 1985): 54 Ando, ‘Tokieda, “Chasen niokeru Kokugo scisaku.” Ibid., 58-59. Ibid. 6, 60-61 Ibid., 62, Here Tokieda recuperates the concept of mother tongue by placing it in relation to Koyasa, **Kokugo' wa shishite ‘Nihongo’ wa uma IThe and Kokugo education in Korea}, Nihongo 2, no. $ (19425 rpt., Tokyo: 3 Nihongo no muzukashisa.”positions 7:2 Fall 1999 538 98 102 103 104 105 106 107, 108 109 the state rather than to the ethnic nation. This shift neutralizes the contradiction in Ueda's narrative, in which Kokugo had been represented as the mother tongue of the ethnic Japa- at most of them spoke regional vernaculars nese, in spite of the fact tl By using the supremacy of the Japanese state to justify both the spread of Kokago among Jap- anese, in preference to dialects, and the spread of Kokugo among Koreans, Tokieda avoided any consideration of the potentially different effects of Kohugo education on the respective ethnic consciousnesses of these peoples. Tbid., 61. For a discussion of still other views, see Lee, “Kokugo” toit shiso, 282-310. In Taiwan, Terakawa Kishio, a prominent scholar of phonology, wrote in 1942 that the Japa- nese language the Han Taiwanese spoke could be called a Taiwan dialect of Kokugo, based ‘on the accent with which certain Japanese sounds were pronounceds the Han Taiwanese ‘were thus native speakers of a dialect of Kokugo. See Terakawa Kishio, Teiwan niokeru Kokugo on‘in-ron [Phonology of Kokugo in Taiwan] (Taipei: Taiwan Gakugei, 1942), 659. Sai, Nihongo kyaikw no shiteki kenkyi, 480—481. Yamaguchi Kiichird, Gaikokugo toshite no waga Kokugo hydju-ho [Methodology of teaching our national language asa foreign language] (19335 rpt., Tokyo: T3ji Shoba, 1988), 472-474. Ibid., 121 Ibid., 154~165. Ibid., 161—163, Yamaguchi Kiichir®, Taitedn kydikukai sasshi [Taiwan Education Association journal] 27 (1904), cited in Komagome, “I-minzoku shihai no ‘kyogi” 140. Translated by the author, Komagome, “I-minzoku shihai no ‘kyogi;” 140. Yamaguchi Kiichird, “Jikokugo to gaikokugo” [One's national language and a foreign lan- guage}, Nihongo 2, no. 3 (1942; tpt. Tokyo: Taji Shobo, 1985): 12=17. ‘Chokusetsu-hd to taiyaku-ho 2” [Direct method and translation Yamaguchi Kiichiro, method 2], Nihongo 2, no. 9 (19425 tpt, Tokyo: Taji Shobb, 1985): 1425, Komagome has recently speculated that a fundamental, qualltative difference exists between the psychological state of the native speaker and that of the kinguage learner. His position is part of the debate on the linguistic relativity hypothesis. See Komagome Takeshi, “Yam- aguchi Kiichird no Nihongo kyoju riron” [The theory of teaching Japanese by Yamaguchi Kiichira}, Tokyo daigakw kenkyashitsu kiy6 [Bulletin of the faculty of the Research Office, University of Tokyo] 15 (1989): 88~100, esp. 93-94. For arguments on this hypothesis, see John A. Lucy, Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulasion of the Linguistie Relativity Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Komagome Takeshi, “The Plan of the ‘Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (Dai Toua Kyouciken)’ and the Policy of Educating Japanese Language: The Analysis of ‘Japanese Book (Nippongo Dokuhon)’ Edited by Ministry of Education,” Kysikushi-gakkai kiyé [Bul- letin of the faculty of the Society of Education History] 32 (1989): 70~86.Tai | Kokugo and Colonial Education in Taiwan, 539 112 Matsuo Sutejird, Kokiugo to Nihon seishin {The national language and the Japanese spirit} (Tokyo; Hakusui-sha, 19309), 19~53. 113, Komagome, “Yamaguchi Riichiro,’ 94 114 § ary,” Language in Society 22 (1993): 337-359. 356. 115, Within the Ministry of Education, the debate over Nihongo centered on whether to adopt tusan Gal, “Diversity and Contestation in Linguistic Ideologies: German Speakers in Hun traditional or pronunciation-based orthography in textbooks for non-Japanese. The tradi tionalists prevailed until 1944. See Komagome, “Plan of ‘Great East Asia Co-prosperity Spher 116 Haruyama Yukio, “Taiwan no Kokugo kyoiku sankanki” [Observation notes on teaching Kokugo in Taiwan}, Nihongo 2, no. 2 (1942: rpt., Tokyo: Taji Shobd, 1985): 49-57. 117 Sai, Nihongo kydikee no shiteki henky, 183-257. 118 The scholar Kokufis Tanetake stated in 193r thatit “was not simply teaching Kokugo but fus- ing the spiritual life of the Taiwanese onto that of the Japanese and bringing unity between the two groups of people.” See Kokufu, Taiwan niokeru Kokuga kyaikee no tenkai, 1. The translation is mine. 119 This was in cont tothe indifference of most other Japanese in Taiwan to assimilation. See Hirotani Takio, “Taiwan no shokuminchi shihai to tenndsei” [Colonial rule in “Taiwan and the emperor system], Rekishi-gake kenkyi@ [History studies}, no. 547 (1085): 163—173. 120 Kimura Masuo, “Teaching of Japanese Language in Formosa,’ Journal of the Faculty of Edt ster cation 8 (1966): 116, tar Sai, Nihongo kydiku no shiteki Renkyt, 168. 122, Hirotani Tikio, "Nihon tochi-ka no Taiwan niokeru kégakkd kydiku” [Education at com mon schools under Japanese rule in Taiwan), Kushiro tanki daigake kiyd [Bulletin of the fac- ulty of Kushiro Junior College] 13 (1986): 1-49. 133, Hirotani Takio, “Shokuminchi kydiku to Nihonjin kyéshi” [Colonial education and Japanese teachers], in Kaisa Nihon kydikw-shi (Lectures on the history of Japanese education] (Tokyo. Daiichi hoki, 1984), 3:361~ 381 124 Hirotani, “Taiwan niokeru kogakko kyoiku. 34. a5 Sai, Nihongo kyaiku no shiteki henkys2, 572, 126 Tn 1943, 6 percent of the total population of 6.6 million were Japanese. S sGtokwfit, 240-241 127, Tsurumi, Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 33. 128 Sai, Nihongo Ayaikw no shiteki kenkyi, 392. 129 Kawami Komatard, “Taiwan nioite shiyd sareru Kokugo no fukuzatsu-sei” [Complexity of Kokugo used in Taiwan], Nihongo 2, no. 3 (1942; rpt., Tokyo: Taji Shobs, 1685): 32~39. 130 Shi Gang, Shokuminchi shikai to Nihongo (Colonial rule and the Japanese language] (Tokyo: Sangensha, 1993), 79-80. 131 Sai, Nihongo Ayoikue no shiteki henkyti, 620. Ng, Tainanpositions 7:2. Fall 1999 540 132 Murakami Yoshihide, “Aspects of Japanese Language Policy in Taiwan,” Tenri University Journal for Linguistics and Literature 144 (1985): 21~35. 133 Robert L.. Cheng, “Language Unification in Taiwan: Present and Future,” in Language and Society: Anthropological Issues, ed. William C. McCormack and Stephen A. Warm (New. York: Mouton, 1976), 541-578. Sce also Sai, Nihongo kyaiku no shiteki kenkyt, 180. 134 Hirotani, “Taiwan no shokuminchi shihai to tennidsei.” 171—173. 135. The activist Sai Baika, involved in the movement for the establishment of a Taiwan parlia- ment, opposed assimilationist policy and worked to preserve the Han Taiwanese culture. Worried that the Taiwanese would be taught a second-class Japanese, he argued for main- taining traditional Chinese writing and contrived a system for transcribing a Taiwanese ver~ cular. See Kond6 Sumiko, “Sai Baika no Roma-ji unds” [Roman-character movement by Sai Baika], Kokusai korya kenkyaa [Studies of international exchange] 1 (1985): 39-59. 136 Ko Seikai, “Kogakko seikatsu” [Life at common school], in Kindai Nihon to shokuminchi geppo (Modern Japan and its colonies] (Tokyo: Iwanami, 1992), 1:7—8. 137 Ng Yuzin Chiautong, “Boku ga taiken shita Nihon tchi-jidai” [My experience of Japanese rule}, in Nazo no shima Taiwan [Mysterious island, Taiwan] (Tokyo: JICC, 1991), 227-228. Sho, Taieean kydikte-sht, 209. Kondo, “Mobilization of War Service Laborers.” 163 Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized (New Yor Hirotani, “Taiwan no shokuminchi shihai to tennosei.” Memmi, Colonizer and the Colonized, 124. : Orion, 1965), 127. For example, Japanese expressed opposition to the movement for the legal assim Taiwanese in the 19105. See Ko Seikai, Nihon tochika no Taiwan: Teikd 10 danttsu (Taiwan under Japanese rule: Resistance and oppression} (University of Tokyo Press, 1972), 168~178. 144, For the origin of this theory see Oguma, Tan'itsu minzokw shineew no kigen. 145 In the postwar version of Ueda’s narrative, the words hohe and Yamato minzoku have been replaced by kokuseki (nationality) and Nihonjin (the Japanese), respectively, as Kokugo has come to symbolize Japanese culture instead of fokutai. For cultural nationalism, sce Yoshino Kosaku, Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan (New York: Routledge, 1992). 146 In other words, it has entered what Pierre Bourdieu calls “doxa.” See his Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 168. 147 Koyasu, “*Kokugo’ wa shishite ‘Nihongo’ wa umareta ka.” 148 My Japanese students have asked me, “Does the Japanese language have the Japanese spirit in it?” and “Can the Japanese speak Japanese properly because of their blood?” As Masiko Hidenori points out, the theory of Japan as a single-ethnic-nation state, currently under fire in academic circles, still prevails in everyday discourse and notably in school textbooks. See his Ideorogi toshite no “Nihon” ["Japan” as an ideology] (Tokyo: Sangensha, 1997).Copyright © 2003 EBSCO PublishingCopyright © 2003 EBSCO Publishing