Language and Intercultural Communication

ISSN: 1470-8477 (Print) 1747-759X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20

Japanese Nationalism and the global Spread of

English: An Analysis of Japanese Governmental
and Public Discourses on English

Yuko Kawai

To cite this article: Yuko Kawai (2007) Japanese Nationalism and the global Spread of English: An
Analysis of Japanese Governmental and Public Discourses on English, Language and Intercultural
Communication, 7:1, 37-55, DOI: 10.2167/laic174.0

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2167/laic174.0

Published online: 05 Jan 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 796

View related articles

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmli20
Japanese Nationalism and the Global
Spread of English: An Analysis of
Japanese Governmental and Public
Discourses on English
Yuko Kawai
Department of English, Tokai University, Kanagawa, Japan
Globalisation has accelerated the spread of English internationally, challenged
nationalisms and put nation states in a dilemma in which they have to promote
English, a foreign language, in addition to their national languages. Focusing on the
proposal in January 2000 to establish English as an official language of Japan, this
study attempts to understand and critique how English is represented in relation to
Japanese nationalism in government and popular discourses and thereby explores
implications for teaching English as a foreign language and intercultural commu-
nication.

doi: 10.2167/laic174.0

Keywords: Japan, language planning, nationalism, English as an official

language

Today’s globalisation has accelerated the international spread of the English

language, a process that is due to the political, economic and cultural influence
of Britain and the USA. English is now used as a common language for global
business and for the latest communication and transportation technologies.
Nation-states stress English language education because perceived deficiencies
in English language ability are equated with their inability to survive in a
globalising world. A consequence of the global spread of English is that it
challenges nationalism and puts nation-states in a dilemma in which they have
to promote the English language
a foreign language
as well as indigenous
national languages that often play a strong symbolic role for nationalism.
In Japan, the tensions arising from globalisation are manifested in the
intensification both of parochial nationalism and English language education.

1470-8477/07/01 037-19 $20.00/0 – 2007 Y. Kawai

Language and Intercultural Communication Vol. 7, No. 1, 2007

37
38 Language and Intercultural Communication

In recent years, Japanese nationalism has been expressed in problematical

ways. For example, Hinomaru and Kimigayo ,1 which are associated with
Japan’s imperial and military aggression, were legally designated as Japan’s
national flag and national anthem respectively in 1999. Using the law,
municipal boards of education have demanded public schools to display
Hinomaru and sing Kimigayo in school ceremonies. In March 2004, the Tokyo
Board of Education reprimanded about 200 Tokyo public school teachers and
administrative staff members who refused to stand up and sing the national
anthem in graduation ceremonies (Okumura, 2004). In another instance, in
2002, the Central Council for Education, Japan’s key government panel for
education strategy, proposed an amendment of the Fundamental Law of
Education and insisted that the concepts of patriotism and Japanese cultural
awareness should be added (Arita, 2002).2 After the proposal was published, it
was found that public primary schools in 11 prefectures planned to assess
sixth graders’ ‘patriotic spirit (aikoku-shin )’ as part of social studies grades in
school reports in which students were evaluated on their level of loving and
respecting Japan and their consciousness as Japanese (The Asahi Shimbun,
2003 ).
At the same time, English language education is stressed more than ever
before. In January 2000, an advisory commission to the late Japanese Prime
Minister Obuchi Keizo suggested adopting English as an official language of
Japan in the report ‘The Frontier Within: Individual Empowerment and Better
Governance in the New Millennium’. Although the report contained issues
other than the proposal to adopt English as an official language of Japan,
media and popular attention focused on this controversial issue, which
triggered a heated debate among the Japanese. Following the report, the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT)
published an ‘Action Plan for Producing English-Speaking Japanese’ in April
2003, a strategy that began to be implemented in April 2004. This plan
proposed various measures to improve the English language proficiency of
Japanese people, measures such as adopting English as the language of
instruction for some high school pupils, and introducing English language
education at primary school level (MEXT, 2003).3
The present study focuses on the official proposal, made in January 2000,
that English should be adopted as an official language in Japan. I examine how
the English language is depicted in governmental and public discourses. The
global spread of the English language has often been discussed as issues of
English as an international language (e.g. Smith, 1983) and English linguistic
imperialism (e.g. Phillipson, 1992). Although the importance of the role of
English as an international language cannot be denied, considering English as
if it were a ‘neutral’ language that can be owned by any people obscures the
fact that different Englishes are not yet equally and fully legitimated. At the
same time, although it is meaningful to warn about the global spread of
English as a form of linguistic imperialism, doing so without taking into
account the political dimension of national languages can end up as support
for parochial nationalism. Yasuda (1997: 405) contends that ‘those people who
condemn English linguistic imperialism do not scrutinize the Japanese
language from a similar perspective. If they do not do so, their seemingly
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 39

reasonable arguments will simply promote Japanese linguistic nationalism’

(translated from Japanese by the author). The Japanese language has its own
imperial past of having imposed itself on people in colonies such as in Korea,
Taiwan, Manchuria and other areas of Asia. The Japanese language has been
constructed by suppressing local dialects and ethnic languages within Japan
and disseminating a dialect spoken in Tokyo as standard Japanese through the
public educational system and media (Mizuhara, 1994). If English is the
dominant language in the world, Japanese is equally domineering for people
in Japan who communicate in languages other than standard Japanese in
everyday life. In this respect, Japanese is not very different from English,
although the two are very different in terms of their global influence and
prevalence.
The point of this study, therefore, is not to argue whether this particular
context exemplifies English as an international language or English linguistic
imperialism. It is to understand and critique how English is portrayed in
relation to Japanese nationalism and thereby explore implications for inter-
cultural communication and for the teaching of English in areas like Japan, in
which English is learned as a foreign language (not as the first or second
language).

Language and Nationalism

Two views of national language
Nationalism and language have been tightly connected (e.g. Anderson,
1991; Hobsbawm, 1990). Anderson (1991): 6), defining the nation as ‘an
imagined political community
and imagined as both inherently limited
and sovereign’, stresses the importance of language for creating nations as
follows: ‘the most important thing about language is its capacity for generating
imagined communities, building in effect particular solidarities ’ (Anderson,
1991: 133; emphasis in original). Although national languages are ‘almost
always semi-artificial constructs’ (Hobsbawm, 1990: 54), nationalism often
uses national languages for making the nation look ‘natural’. A national
language plays a key role in turning diverse people into a nation but it is
conceptualised in different manners by different nationalisms. These can be
roughly categorised into the essentialist view and the instrumental view.
The essentialist view is exemplified by two German scholars, Herder (1772/
2002) and Humboldt (1836/1988), who stressed the significance of national
language as the embodiment of the national spirit. Herder (1772/2002: 153)
described a national language as the ‘characteristic word of the race, bond of
the family, tool of instruction, hero song of the father’s deeds, and the voice of
these fathers from their graves’. For Herder, not only was a nation ‘natural’ like
a family but so also was ‘the unity of the familial language in one nation’
(p. 151). Herder’s views are similar to those of Humboldt, whose work on
language was influential in German linguistics in the 19th century. According
to Humboldt (1836/1988: 46), ‘language is, as it were, the outer appearance of
the spirit of a people; the language is their spirit and the spirit their language’
because ‘every language receives a specific individuality through that of the
40 Language and Intercultural Communication

nation’ (p. 152); in short, ‘language . . . communicates the national character’

(p. 153).
The instrumental view is articulated by Renan (1882/2001: 172), who
claimed that ‘languages are historical formations, which give but little
indication of the blood of those who speak them’. For Renan, there was
nothing essential about the relationship between a language and a people; the
connection between them was a political construct. Renan (1882/2001: 172)
posited that ‘the political importance attached to languages results from the
way in which they are regarded as signs of race’. The key difference between
the essentialist and instrumental views of national language perhaps lies in
their assumptions about the nation. In the essentialist view, the nation is
assumed to be comprised of one ethnic group, or in other words, nationality is
identical with ethnicity; in the instrumental view, the nation is presumed to
accommodate multiple ethnic groups. Taking Switzerland as an example,
Renan (1882/2001: 171) argued that ‘the will of Switzerland to be united, in
spite of the variety of her languages, is a much more important fact than a
similarity of language’. This idea is shared by John Stuart Mill (1861/2001: 144)
who claimed that ‘among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they
read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the
working of representative government, cannot exist’. Unlike the essentialist
view, Mill did not regard that the nation inherently had one common
language; rather, national language was conceptualised as a tool or instrument
of creating ‘fellow feeling’ among its potential members and thereby uniting
them as a nation.
The two views of national language are related to two types of nationalism
suggested by Smith (1991): ethnic-genealogical nationalism and civic-territorial
nationalism. The former emphasises ethnic and genealogical unity among its
members whereas the latter stresses territorial unity or its members’ will to
share the same territory and be united as a nation. Smith’s idea of the nation,
which recognises some primordial aspects of the nation, slightly differs from
those of Anderson (1991) and Hobsbawm (1990). For example, Smith (1989/
2001: 335) postulates that ‘nations can be seen as both constructs or visions of
nationalist (or other) elites, but equally as real, historical formations that
embody a number of analytically separable processes over long time-spans’.
Yet Smith’s two categories of nationalism can be applied to the examination of
different nationalisms if the issue of whether ethnicity is real is set aside.
Taking into account Anderson’s (1991: 6) argument that nations are ‘distin-
guished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style that they are
imagined’, it is possible to postulate that the difference between the two types
of nationalism lies in the styles in which nations are imagined.
Ethnic-genealogical nationalism relates to the essentialist view of language
because highlighting ethnic unity presupposes that the nation consists of a
single ethnic group. Thus in this line of thought, national language is more
likely to be designated as intrinsic or inherent in the nation and stressed as a
strong symbol of the nation. On the other hand, in civic-territorial nationalism,
national language is less likely to be regarded as such because the presence of
various ethnic groups within a nation is premised. Therefore national
language is viewed as an instrument that unites these groups.
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 41

Japanese language and Japanese nationalism

The essentialist view of national language has been influential in Japan.
Ueda Kazutoshi, who studied comparative linguistics in Germany in the
late 19th century and later shaped Japan’s national language policy as a
director in the Ministry of Education, is said to have played a critical role
in establishing the Japanese language as the national language (Lee,
1996). Referring to the essentialist view, Ueda (1894/1968: 110) stressed
the importance of national languages for nation-states: ‘the Japanese language
means ‘‘spiritual blood’’ for the Japanese. Japan as a nation-
state is maintained with this blood’ (translated from Japanese). Ueda
attempted to essentialise the Japanese language as an entity that embodies
the nation and ‘naturalised’ this view by analogy to parenthood: ‘the Japanese
language is . . . the nation’s mother’ (p. 112, translated from Japanese by the
author).
When Ueda wrote these statements, however, Japanese was not yet
established as a national language. As late as 1900, Ueda (1900/1968: 131)
stated that ‘in our empire, we have not yet had our national language in a strict
sense’ (translated from Japanese by the author). Defeating Russia in the Russo-
Japanese War (1904
05) intensified Japanese nationalism, which led to
consolidating Japanese as a national language (Lee, 1996). Since then the
Japanese language has been an important nationalist symbol. In postwar
Japan, the academic genre nihonjinron 4 played a key role in constructing
Japanese cultural nationalism (Aoki, 1991; Yoshino, 1992). In the nihonjinron,
‘the view that language uniquely expresses Japanese thought and even the
primordial essence of Japanese ethnicity’ (Befu, 1993: 111
112) has been
stressed. For example, trying to explain the ‘unique’ psychological state of the
Japanese, amae , in a bestseller nihonjinron book, Doi (1973: 14) contends that ‘if
there was anything unique about the Japanese psychology, it must be closely
related with the uniqueness of the Japanese language’ and also states that
‘the language comprises everything which is intrinsic to the soul of a nation’
(p. 15).
Accelerating the international spread of English, globalisation challenges
the secure position of the Japanese language. English spread around the
world because of the colonisation of Africa, Asia and other parts of the
world by the British Empire and the subsequent political, economic and
cultural power exercised by the USA. Today’s globalisation, ‘the compres-
sion of the world and intensification of consciousness of the world as a
whole’ (Robertson, 1992: 8), strengthens the position of English as the most
dominant language of business, the Internet, and influential cultural
products such as films and music. English is referred to as a global
language (Crystal, 2002), an international language (Smith, 1983) or a world
language (Conrad, 1996). Under these circumstances, Japan is torn between
the nationalistic sentiment that it does not want to undermine the
importance of the Japanese language and the necessity of promoting English
language education. The texts discussed in the next section illustrate
this tension.
42 Language and Intercultural Communication

Texts and Analysis Procedure

The first text that I examine is the report ‘Nihon no Furontia wa Nihon no Naka
ni Aru: Jiritsu to Kyōchi de Kizuku Sinseiki [The Frontier Within: Individual
Empowerment and Better Governance in the New Millennium]’, published
in January 2000. The report was prepared by an advisory commission to
the late Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi, the Commission of Japan’s Goals in
the Twenty-First Century (CJGTC). The CJGTC was formed in March
1999 with 16 members
professors,5 journalists, business executives
and other professionals
appointed by Prime Minister Obuchi. The report,
which consisted of six chapters, was published on a governmental website
(http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century) in Japanese and English, and two
chapters of the report (Chapter 1 and 6) were published also in Korean and
Chinese.6 I focus on the first chapter, titled ‘Overview’, and the sixth chapter,
titled ‘Japan’s Place in the World’, because these two chapters discuss the
proposal to make English an official language of Japan.7 I examine the
Japanese version of the report but refer to the English version for direct
quotations. When the English version does not seem to convey words and
meanings of the Japanese version sufficiently, I supplement them with the
Japanese version.
The second text that I analyse is made up of 390 opinions8 that the general
public posted on the website of The Mainichi Shimbun (http://www.mainichi.
co.jp), the third largest Japanese national newspaper, regarding the CJGTC’s
proposal to adopt English as an official language in Japan.9 The website
featured a debate section between 1999 and 2004.10 The editorial staff chose a
topic from current political, economic and social issues and readers responded
to it. The topic ‘What do you think about English as the second official
language of Japan?’ was the second of 25 topics debated in 2000. I retrieved the
opinions from the website of The Mainichi Shimbun in May 2001. Opinions are
mostly written in Japanese except for seven opinions written in English by
authors who currently live outside Japan and could not type in Japanese
because their computers did not support the language.
I analyse how the English language is depicted or represented in these
two texts. Representation refers to ‘the production of meaning through
language’ (Hall, 1997: 16). According to Hall (1997), representation is
theorised in three different approaches: the reflective approach, the inten-
tional approach and the constructionist approach. In the first approach,
language is regarded as a way of accurately conveying the true meaning
embedded in objects, ideas and people. In the second approach, however,
true meaning is not considered to exist; communicators create their own
meanings about things and ideas through language. Privileging the social
characteristic of language, the third, constructionist approach proposes that
meanings beyond the communicator’s intention are constructed through the
system of signs. The constructionist approach suggests that individuals do
not construct meanings freely; members in a linguistic community use the
language system to make things mean and, at the same time, participate in
creating the system.
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 43

Analysis
The constructionist approach accords with the theoretical framework of this
study, in which the nation is defined as an imagined community and national
language as a means of creating the nation. The English language is a means of
creating meanings representing entities in the world, and at the same time it is
also represented as an entity in the world. Representation is enabled through
signification
the process of articulating or combining the signifier and the
signified (Hall, 1997). As I read through the texts, I looked for the words ‘eigo
[English]’, ‘gengo [language]’ and ‘kotoba [language or words]’ and attended to
sentences and paragraphs that talk about English and language in general.
Then I analysed them by asking how the English language as signifier is
combined with various signifieds, and thereby how meanings to do with
English are produced in the texts.

The English language represented in the report ‘The Frontier Within’

English as the international language
In the governmental report ‘The Frontier Within’, the English language is
regarded not as a foreign language spoken in specific nation-states such as the
USA, Britain and other areas but as ‘the international lingua franca’ (e.g.
CJGTC, 2000b: 4, 13, 20; CJGTC, 2000d: 20) throughout the report. The
commission contends that English should be treated ‘not as simply a foreign
language but as the international lingua franca’ (CJGTC, 2000b: 10).
In addition, English language ability is regarded as part of ‘global literacy’
(p. 4) along with the ability to use information technologies. The commission
posits that ‘the basic components of this new literacy [global literacy] are the
mastery of information-technology tools, such as computers and the Internet,
and the mastery of English as the international lingua franca’ (p. 4). By
framing English as the international language and English proficiency as
global literacy, it enables the commission to propose that ‘in the long term, it
may be possible to make English an official second language [of Japan]’ (p. 10).
The suggestion to adopt English as an official language of Japan sounds
reasonable if English is everybody’s language and English language compe-
tence is thus neutralised as a form of global literacy.
Furthermore, the commission justifies the proposal by defining an ability in
English language as what the Japanese are supposed to acquire for the sake of
the nation. The commission insists that ‘this [adopting English as an official
language] is not simply a matter of foreign language education. It should be
regarded as a strategic imperative [for Japan]’ (CJGTC, 2000b: 10). Accordingly,
English as the international language is the language for interactions among
nation-states, not among people with various linguistic backgrounds. Learning
English is intended not for fostering a better understanding among indivi-
duals, but for the sake of Japan as a whole.

English as a tool
In the report, English is portrayed as a simple tool, like a hammer or a can
opener, which serves as a way of neutralising or ‘de-culturalising’ English.
Although the word ‘dōgu [tool]’ is not translated literally in the English version
44 Language and Intercultural Communication

of the report, the Japanese version postulates that ‘the English language is
saiteigen no dōgu [the minimum tool]’ (CJGTC, 2000a: 20). Not only does the
commission attempt to de-culturalise English by treating it as a neutral tool, it
also tries not to make English look very important by arguing that English
proficiency is ‘saiteigen no dōgu [the minimum tool]’ and ‘mottomo kihonteki na
nōryoku [the most basic skill]’ to understand the world (CJGTC, 2000a: 20).11
At the same time, the words such as saiteigen [minimum] or mottomo
kihonteki [the most basic] can also function to emphasise the importance of
English. Although the commission mentions the importance of the Japanese
language for Japanese culture and traditions and of studying languages other
than the English language, it argues that ‘nevertheless, knowledge of English
as the international lingua franca equips one with mottomo kihonteki na nōryoku
[the most basic skill] for knowing and accessing the world’ (CJGTC, 2000a: 20;
CJGTC, 2000b: 10). That is, in order to know the world, being skilled in English

the international language
is indispensable: knowing only Japanese or
other foreign languages does not give people access to the world. Although it
is claimed in the report that ‘Japanese is a wonderful language’ (CJGTC,
2000d: 20), Japanese does not provide a means for Japan to survive the
intensification of cultural and economic competition that globalisation brings.
According to the report, the ‘mastery of global literacy by the people of a
country will determine whether the country’s power in the international
politics of the twenty-first century will wax and wane
and is also likely to
determine whether the country rises or falls’ (CJGTC, 2000b: 4). Whether Japan
remains competitive in global markets and international politics depends on
the Japanese people’s global literacy or English language ability. Japanese,
which is not the international language, is not sufficient for Japan’s survival
under globalisation.
English is not simply a tool; it serves as a way of promoting Japanese culture
in the world. It is claimed in the report that ‘if we treasure the Japanese
language and culture, we should actively assimilate other languages and
cultures and show other countries the attraction of Japanese culture by
introducing it in an appropriate fashion in kokusai gengo [the international
language]’ (CJGTC, 2000c: 132; 2000d: 20).12 What is argued here is that if
Japanese people think that the Japanese language is important, they should
learn and use other languages and cultures, the international language or
English in particular, as a tool to make Japanese culture appreciated in the
world.

The English language represented in public opinion

The representations of English as the international language and a tool
constructed in the governmental report are supported in some postings to the
public website and rejected in others. English is depicted as the international
language and also not as an international language, but postings that deny the
idea of English as an international language are very few in number. Moreover,
English is described not only as a tool but also as a cultural force in the public
postings. English is viewed as a tool rather than a cultural force in relatively
more postings, although the difference is not significant.
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 45

English as the international language

In the public postings, English is portrayed as ‘the international language’
(e.g. 60), ‘the common language of the world’ (e.g. 72), ‘the official language of
the world’ (e.g. 43) or ‘the world language’ (e.g. 135).13
English is considered the international language for communication not
only among nation-states but also among people who speak various
languages. For example, one person posits that ‘the most useful tool in
communicating with people from other countries is English. In this sense,
English is the international language’ (276). The writer of another posting
states that ‘some people would question whether English is the only
international language. Nowadays educated people can speak three or four
languages, but they always speak English. That is why people learn English
first’ (244).
Depicting the English language as the international language is a way of
rationalising the necessity of learning English and regarding the powerful
status of the English language as a reality. One person contends that ‘the issue
is not whether it [the prevalence of the English language] is a result of invasion
by Britain and the United States but that English is the most understood
language in the world’ (275). In the following opinion, a similar claim is made:
‘we cannot avoid admitting that English has become the common language of
the world. Even though that is a result of the history of invasion, we need to
face the reality’ (213).
The writers of these postings accept present reality while recognising the
past (i.e. invasion or colonisation). Some people, however, accept the present
situation without reference to the past. One posting postulates:
Some people say that [adopting English as an official language] means
worshipping Western culture, and it is important to value Japanese
culture. But think about the number of people in the English speaking
areas. Can’t you think that [the prevalence of the English language] is
just the matter of numbers? It does not make sense to regard it as
Westernisation. (157)
In this posting, history is ignored, and English is advocated as the international
language simply because it is currently used by more people than any other
language. Also one person claims that ‘English is the world language now.
Describing that as Western invasion into Asia does not make sense. Japan will
be left behind if you keep talking like a survivor from the 19th century’ (186).
That is, according to this argument, what happened in the past should not
influence present attitudes to or decisions about the status of English.
Depicting English as the international language is also a way of making
English a de-culturalised and therefore neutral language. This point is
exemplified in the following postings: ‘English is no longer the language of
the United States or Britain; it is the common language of the world’ (49);
‘what seems to be missing in Japan’s English language education is teaching
English as the international common language. That is because . . . teachers
who are ‘‘fans of Britain and the United States’’ teach English focusing on
British and American cultures’ (44). In these opinions, English as the
46 Language and Intercultural Communication

international language is separated from British and American Englishes and

thus is dissociated from their cultures.
In some postings, the reality of English as the international language should
not be accepted but questioned. The historical development of English
internationally still matters today. One posting states that ‘it is true that
English is the common language of the world. English, however, spread
around the world because of British invasion and colonisation of Asia and
Africa’ (36). Another expresses a similar idea: ‘the English language has spread
around the world only because of the influence of the United States and
Britain in which English is the first official language and also because of
colonisation, which is very similar to the Japanese language imposition in
Korea and Taiwan’ (114). These writers emphasise the factors that have made
English the international language and view the dominant position of English
critically.
English not as the international language
A very few postings deny the international status of English. The postings in
which English is depicted as the international language assume the world is a
place where almost everyone speaks English. In contrast, in the postings in
which English is not viewed as the international language, the world is not
such a place. One person claims that ‘English appears the common language of
the world . . . but the world is not comprised of only countries where people
speak English as their mother tongue like the United States and Britain’ (84).
One posting claims that ‘I heard that it is only in Japan . . . that the English
language is considered as ‘‘the international language’’. All languages are local
languages. Privileging English narrows our view of the world’ (23). This
person regards the status of English as the international language as a myth
that holds true only in Japan and also questions the idea of the international
language because all languages are equally local and the concept of the
international language violates the principle of equal relations among
languages.
English as a tool
As in the governmental report, English is portrayed as ‘a tool of
communication’ (e.g. 335), ‘a means of communication’ (e.g. 236) and ‘a skill
like a computer skill’ (e.g. 238). English
not any other languages
is
regarded as a means or a tool to understand and interact actively with the
world. One writer contends that ‘if people do not learn English at all, you will
be ignorant of the world and cannot deal with different racial people. This is a
big problem.’ (158). Learning Chinese or Korean, for example, does not allow
Japanese people to see the world; it is only through English that people can
understand the world. Likewise, a person argues that ‘I strongly support the
proposal in order for Japanese children not to be left behind in the world in the
future’ (328). Put simply, if the Japanese speak only Japanese and do not learn
English, they cannot keep up with what is happening in the world.
Viewing English as a tool does not mean completely rejecting English as a
cultural force. One person claims that ‘English is just a means of communica-
tion, but I oppose English language education conducted in a way that hurts
the good characteristics of Japanese nationals’ (126). The author of this posting
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 47

acknowledges that English can be taught in a way that influences the Japanese
people: English is not just a mechanical tool; it is culturally influential. This
person, however, still tries to view English as a tool. Another person, opposing
the proposal to adopt English as an official language but stressing the
importance of learning English, states that ‘the issue here is English as a
means of communication and business. I do not think it leads to the discussion
of English as a ‘‘language’’.’ (31). This argument recognises that there are two
kinds of English: English as a tool and English as a language
a cultural entity

and it is argued that Japanese people should learn English as a tool.

English as a cultural force

The number of postings in which English is also depicted as a powerful
cultural force is slightly smaller than the number in which English is
represented as a tool. The proposal to adopt English as an official language
of Japan is opposed because language in general ‘cannot be separated from
culture’ (12), ‘is culture’ (e.g. 152), ‘is the foundation of culture’ (363) and ‘is
directly and deeply concerned with nation-states and their people’ (7).
As language is inseparable from culture, English is a force that affects and
even changes Japanese culture and people. One person posits that ‘if English
were adopted as an official language of Japan, the uniqueness of Japanese
culture would disappear, and we could not sustain the continuity of its
history’ (27). In one posting, it is contended that ‘I believe thinking in English
will change the nature of the Japanese’ (57). It is also argued that English might
even stop Japanese people being Japanese: ‘most people think in the language
they speak. If English became an official language of Japan, people would
think in English . . . . I would not call such people Japanese whatever
nationality they have’ (141). Likewise, a person claims that ‘the Japanese are
Japanese because we think in the Japanese language. If children were taught in
English when they are young, they would be confused and grow as half-
Japanese . . . They will become people with colonial mentality’ (295). In these
opinions, language is understood in an essentialist manner: the Japanese
language is what makes people Japanese. Thus becoming fluent in English
would reduce or even erase ‘Japanese-ness’.
However, those postings that view English as a cultural force also
acknowledge its instrumental function. One person contends:
I think children should learn English as ‘music’. They still can learn
reading and writing in English after they become older. I think it is
important to master the Japanese language before learning the foreign
language. Language is not just a means of communication but identity
for the nation. But it is not possible to master English sounds if people
are not taught them while they are young. (115)
The depiction of English as music is an analogy that seems less threatening
than a depiction of English as a cultural force that changes one’s identity. By
arguing that children should learn Japanese first, the author of this opinion
suggests that learning English before Japanese would damage their identity.
Considering English as a cultural accomplishment, like music, acknowledges
that it is a cultural force, and yet removes its more sinister aspects.
48 Language and Intercultural Communication

English serves Japan

In some postings, English is described as an entity that serves Japan, the
Japanese people and even the Japanese language. One posting regards English
as necessary to sustain Japan’s position in the world: ‘Japanese people in
general absolutely need to be able to use English in order for Japan not to
become a third-class country in the twenty-first century’ (49). Similar ideas are
expressed in the following two postings: ‘if the Japanese do not master
English, we will just perish’ (145); ‘it [English] is a very convenient and
necessary language with which Japan and each Japanese person can be
successful in the international community’ (322).
The English language is also regarded as useful to make Japan and Japanese
culture known and recognised in the world. One person postulates that ‘I
think it is an important task for the Japanese to make good use of English as
the common language in order to have Japanese culture and history under-
stood internationally’ (175). In another posting, a similar claim is made: ‘in
order to take advantage of English in a real sense, Japanese people should
learn languages as a tool including English after learning many things about
Japan and stocking up on many ideas that you want to disseminate to the
world’ (19). These people consider that learning English is important because
English can promote Japan and Japanese culture overseas.
Moreover, the English language makes Japanese people more appreciative
of the Japanese language and so they become more, not less Japanese. One
advocate of the official language proposal posits that ‘I think having a different
language around us will give us a good chance to recognise our native culture’
(144). Another also argues that ‘Japanese people are said to have a lower
degree of identity [as Japanese] . . . If many Japanese people master English as
an international means of communication, Japanese identity becomes clear,
and as a result, Japan as a nation-state also becomes distinctive’ (24). That is,
the Japanese people will become more aware of the Japanese language and its
culture by having a difference
the English language
at hand because an
external cultural force would function to produce a sense of solidarity and
similarity amongst the Japanese, who as individuals are diverse.
Both English as a tool and English as a cultural force can serve Japan. One
person argues that ‘English as a tool is far more useful than other international
languages’ and stresses ‘the importance of English as a means of communica-
tion [for Japanese business and culture] to survive’ (374). In this opinion,
English is depicted as an instrument that helps Japanese business and culture
survive globalisation. Another posting describes again how English can be
viewed as a positive cultural force because it will raise the Japanese people’s
awareness of the distinctiveness of their own culture:
Learning a language means learning its culture. Learning the Japanese
language means learning Japanese culture; learning English means
learning English culture. Through learning other cultures, I believe we
will find ourselves rethink about and become more aware of Japanese
culture . . . We will respect Japan and Japanese culture more. (77)
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 49

Conclusions
Japanese nationalism and the English language
The governmental discourse follows the instrumental view of language, and
so represents English as an international language (in uncritical senses) and as
a tool. Detached from its cultural and historical contexts, English is treated as if
it were a de-culturalised, neutral instrument of communication, which is
considered not to affect ‘Japanese-ness’. The public discourse differs from the
governmental discourse insofar as English is portrayed not only as a tool but
also as a cultural force in accordance with the essentialist view of language.
Thus English is described as representing the culture of other nations, a
culture that is often seen as more powerful than Japanese culture. Another
difference is that in the public discourse the status of English as the
international language is both supported and challenged, although opinions
that wholly reject English as the international language are very limited in
number.
What emerges in the governmental discourse is a ‘new’ type of Japanese
nationalism, while in the public discourse an ‘old’ type of Japanese
nationalism coexists with the new nationalism. Following Smith’s (1991)
categorisation, the new nationalism is compatible with civic-territorial
nationalism, and the old nationalism with ethnic-genealogical nationalism.
The old nationalism is ethnic nationalism in the sense that the Japanese
language is essentialised as the embodiment of Japanese-ness. Therefore to
establish English as an official language of Japan is unacceptable because
fluency in Japanese is a potent nationalist symbol, and the Japanese who are
fluent in English are therefore perceived as ‘less Japanese’. Even if the role of
English as a cultural force that strengthens Japanese identity is recognised, the
establishment of English as an official language of Japan is not welcomed.
The new nationalism is civic-territorial nationalism in the sense that the
Japanese language, which is de-essentialised and de-culturalised, does not
guarantee Japanese ‘uniqueness’. Language is merely an instrument, and thus
the adoption of English as an official language is welcome as long as Japanese
people’s English language ability serves Japan’s national interests. The shift to
civic-territorial nationalism is also demonstrated in the government report in a
subsection titled ‘Establishing Immigration Policy’ in the first chapter:
To respond positively to globalisation and maintain Japan’s vitality in the
twenty-first century, we cannot avoid the task of creating an environment
that will allow foreigners to live normally and comfortably in this
country. In short, this means coming up with an immigration policy that
will make foreigners want to live and work in Japan. (CJGTC, 2000b: 13)
This statement discards Japanese homogeneity, which has been designated as
another important characteristic of Japanese-ness in the nihonjinron (e.g.
Yoshino, 1992). What is postulated here is that Japan should not be a nation-
state constituted solely by the Japanese; Japan has to be a multiethnic society.
Japan needs to open its door to foreigners because ‘achieving greater ethnic
diversity within Japan has the potential of broadening the scope of
the country’s intellectual creativity and enhancing its social vitality and
50 Language and Intercultural Communication

international competitiveness’ (CJGTC, 2000b: 13). Foreigners are needed

because the diversity that the foreign population will bring is crucial to cope
with globalisation that accelerates the flow of people, things and ideas.
However, only ‘foreigners who can be expected to contribute to the develop-
ment of Japanese society’ (p. 13) are welcomed. In this view, foreigners are
treated as if they, like English in its instrumental function, were tools that serve
Japan. A heterogeneous Japan simply implies a version of ‘corporate multi-
culturalism’ (Davis, 1996: 41), a multiculturalism translated for Japan’s
economic (thus national) interests.

Implications for English language teaching and intercultural

communication
Viewing English from a strictly instrumental perspective is problematic,
especially when its instrumental value is endorsed unconditionally without
referring to the past. Although this may be a way of making English less
threatening to Japanese nationalism, it also serves to support the idea of
English as ‘a neutral and transparent medium of communication’ (Pennycook,
1994: 9). Pennycook argues that this idea is widely held by ESL professionals
who consider the English language to be ‘neutral because, although there may
be some critical reference to the colonial imposition of English, its subsequent
expansion is seen as a result of inevitable global forces’ (p. 9). Thus the
representation of English instrumentally as an international language is
hegemonic in Gramsci’s (2000) sense. Hegemony is maintained not simply
through domination but as a result of negotiating and reaching some kind of
consensus with the dominated. People are not simply forced to learn English,
they are persuaded that it is in their best interests to learn English. Through
portraying English as a neutral, international instrument of communication,
the Japanese government legitimises its promotion of English language
education and its call for the Japanese people to spend time and money on
mastering the language. This portrayal provides a way of rationalising the
necessity to learn English without national sentiment being threatened, while
simultaneously sustaining the dominant position of English.
At the same time, the essentialist view of language that describes English
as a cultural force that threatens Japanese culture is equally problematic. As
the posting that defines the Japanese as people who think in the Japanese
language implies, an overemphasis on the cultural associations of English
leads to essentialising the Japanese language, culture and identities. Hall
(1996: 115) posits that ‘without relations of difference, no representation could
occur’, thus observing that the process of making meaning requires systems
of difference. Consequently, constructing meanings about the English
language in the context of this study necessarily involves creating meanings
about the Japanese language: English is made to mean in relation to Japanese.
Regarding the Japanese language as an essential cultural condition of
‘Japanese-ness’ is oppressive for foreign residents in Japan as well as ‘non-
typical’ Japanese such as Ainu, Okinawans and Korean Japanese, and
multiethnic/racial Japanese because those who speak non-standard varieties
of Japanese or try to revive or sustain their ethnic languages are labelled
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 51

outsiders. As a result, such ‘non-typical’ Japanese may be hesitant about

learning their ethnic languages, or they may indeed be denied opportunities to
learn them. The equation of Japanese language and identity perpetuates
xenophobia and parochial Japanese nationalism in which foreign residents,
ethnic minority groups and multi-ethnic/racial Japanese are ostracised as the
‘non’ Japanese and the ‘less’ Japanese, as opposed to the ‘pure’ Japanese.
Martin and Nakayama’s (1999) dialectical approach to intercultural com-
munication provides a useful perspective for teaching English as a foreign
language. Martin and Nakayama (1999: 15) contend that six dialectics,
which ‘are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive’, operate in inter-
cultural communication: cultural
individual, personal/social
contextual,
differences
similarities, static
dynamic, present
future/history
past and
privilege
disadvantage dialectics. Their dialectical approach advocates the
importance of understanding intercultural communication incorporating
seemingly opposite viewpoints simultaneously. For example, people engaging
in intercultural communication are both individual and cultural beings; their
communication behaviours are influenced by both personal and social/
contextual factors; people from different cultural backgrounds are similar to
and different from each other. The dialectical approach is applicable to English
language teaching/learning contexts, because the process of teaching/learn-
ing English as a foreign language itself is an intercultural communication
experience: the process involves going back and forth between the first
language and the target language and becoming aware of the two languages’
syntactic, phonetic, semantic and pragmatic differences and similarities.
Adapting Martin and Nakayama’s (1999) approach, I argue that in teaching
English as a foreign language it is necessary to view English with the fol-
lowing, overlapping four dialectics: cultural
instrumental, international
local,
present
future/past and oppressive
empowering dialectics.
Rejecting the cultural dimension of English and treating English solely as a
tool can lead to support for the hegemonic position of English, whereas
rejecting its instrumental dimension and focusing on its cultural origins can
deprive EFL learners of agency and the possibility of ‘owning’ English (the
cultural
instrumental dialectic).
Stressing English as a local language (i.e. American or British English) and
teaching it only by referring to US and British cultures limits EFL learners’
understanding of various Englishes and can work to sustain the current
hierarchy of English in which American and British Englishes are seen as the
‘legitimate’ forms of the English language and other Englishes as ‘illegitimate’
forms (the international
local dialectic).
Celebrating English as the world’s main international language without
taking into account the past and present factors that have led to its current
status can also end up sustaining the hegemonic position of English. For
example, it is important to teach English as an international language by
providing learners with the opportunity to become familiar with various
Englishes spoken in Asia and Africa. That, however, is not sufficient if the
notion of English as an international language is not scrutinised by looking
into present and historical power inequalities embedded in the notion and if
52 Language and Intercultural Communication

learners are not invited to question why English has come to be spoken in
these areas (the present
future/past dialectic).
English can be empowering when it is used as a common or international
language for mutual understanding among people with various linguistic
backgrounds. Yet the status enjoyed by English as a medium of inter-
national communication can also involve oppressive power relations between
those people who acquire English as their first language and those who do
not, when so-called ‘non-native’ speakers of English are silenced (or feel
silenced) because their English proficiency ‘fails’ to reach the level of so-
called ‘native’ speakers of English. At the same time, overstressing the
oppressive dimension of English can end up intensifying parochial linguistic
nationalism, for example, through a dichotomy that characterises English as
‘their language’ and Japanese as ‘our language’ (the oppressive
empowering
dialectic).
It is crucial to ensure that in classrooms, besides learning English grammar,
pronunciation and vocabulary, learners are provided opportunities to think
about how they view the language by contextualising it historically, politically,
economically and culturally. The two processes can be integrated, for example,
through using these issues as discussion topics or by critically reading existing
textbooks and course materials. By taking a dialectical approach to English
language teaching, I believe that English language teaching can become a
process of helping students view the world critically, reflexively and multi-
dimensionally, a process that is indispensable for ethical intercultural com-
munication.

Acknowledgements
This paper is a revised portion of a doctoral dissertation submitted at the
University of New Mexico in December 2004. Professor Bradford ‘J’ Hall
directed this study. I would like to thank the dissertation committee members
and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. An earlier version was
presented at the 11th annual convention of the International Association of
Intercultural Studies, Taipei, Taiwan, July 2005.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Yuko Kawai, Department of

English, Tokai University, 1117 Kitakaname, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-1291,
Japan (yukawai@keyaki.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp).

Notes
1. Hinomaru literary means ‘rising sun’, and Kimigayo means ‘imperial reign’.
2. The revision of the law is still under debate.
3. Currently most Japanese children start learning English as a regular subject in
seventh grade (in junior high school).
4. Nihonjinron literally means the study of the Japanese people and refers to ‘the vast
array of literature which thinking elites have produced to define the uniqueness of
Japanese culture, society, and national character’ (Yoshino, 1992: 2).
5. Their fields of expertise were political science, economics, psychology, bioscience
and music (CJGTC, 2000f).
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 53

6. As of August 2005, the Chinese and Korean versions were no longer available. The
two chapters (Chapter 1 and 6) of the report were translated into Chinese and
Korean probably because in preparing for the report, the CJGTC exchanged ideas
with politicians, government officials, journalists and researchers in South Korea
(in total 18 people) and China (21) as well as the USA (16) (CJGTC, 2000e). It is in
these two chapters that the proposal to establish English as an official language of
Japan is mentioned.
7. In the PDF version, the English version has 21 pages for the first chapter and 22
pages for the sixth chapter.
8. Although in total 395 opinions were posted, five opinions were omitted because
two opinions (nos. 286 and 338) were missing and three opinions (nos. 303, 311 and
377) were posted twice.
9. As of 1999, the circulation of The Mainichi Shimbun was 3,962,917 (Japan Audit
Bureau of Circulations, n.d.).
10. In April 2004, the debate section was terminated when the website of The Mainichi
Shimbun was integrated into the website of Microsoft Network (MSN) Japan.
11. In the English version, the two Japanese phrases are not literally translated.
‘Saiteigen no dōgu ’ is translated as ‘a prerequisite’, and ‘mottomo kihonteki na
nōryoku ’ is translated as ‘a key skill’, neither of which seem to convey the nuances
of the Japanese words sufficiently (CJGTC, 2000b: 10).
12. In the English version, ‘kokusai gengo ’ is inappropriately translated as ‘in their
languages’.
13. The numbers inside the parentheses after opinions, for example, (60) indicate that
this is e.g. the 60th opinion posted on the website.

References
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism . London: Verso.
Aoki, T. (1991) Nihonbunkaron no henyō: Sengo nihon no bunka to aidentiti [The
Transformation of Japanese Studies: Postwar Japanese Culture and Identity] . Tokyo:
Chūō Kōron Sha.
Arita, E. (2002) Education law is facing radical changes. The Japan Times October 31.
Available on the LexisNexis database. Accessed 30.7.05.
Befu, H. (1993) Nationalism and nihonjinron . In H. Befu (ed.) Cultural Nationalism in East
Asia: Representation and Identity (pp. 107
135). Berkeley, CA: Institute of East Asian
Studies, University of California at Berkeley.
Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-First Century [CJGTC] (2000a) Sooron
[Overview ]. On WWW at http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/houkokusyo/
1s.pdf. Accessed 11.05.03.
Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-First Century [CJGTC] (2000b) Overview.
On WWW at http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/report/pdfs/3chap1.pdf.
Accessed 11.05.03.
Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-First Century [CJGTC] (2000c) Sekai ni ikiru
nihon [Japan’s place in the world ]. On WWW at http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/
21century/houkokusyo/6s.pdf. Accessed 11.05.03.
Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-First Century [CJGTC] (2000d) Japan’s place
in the world . On WWW at http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/report/pdfs/
8chap6.pdf. Accessed 11.05.03.
Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-First Century [CJGTC] (2000e)
Fuzoku shiryoo [Appendix ]. On WWW at http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/
houkokusho/0a.html. Accessed 11.05.03.
Commission on Japan’s Goals in the Twenty-first Century [CJGTC] (2000f) Nijyū isseiki
nihon no kōsō kondan-kai membā ryakureki [CJGTC members’ profile ]. On WWW at
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/990517menba.html. Accessed 4.8.05.
Conrad, A.W. (1996) The international role of English: The state of the discussion. In
J.A. Fishman, A.W. Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds) Post-imperial English: Status
54 Language and Intercultural Communication

Change in Former British and American Colonies, 1940
1990 (pp. 13
36). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Crystal, D. (2002) English as a Global Language (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Davis, A.Y. (1996) Gender, class, and multiculturalism: Rethinking ‘race’ politics.
In A.F. Gordon and C. Newfield (eds) Mapping Multiculturalism (pp. 40
48).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Doi, T. (1973) The Anatomy of Dependence . Tokyo: Kōdansha International.
Gramsci, A. (2000) Some aspects of the southern question. In D. Forgacs (ed.)
The Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916
1935 (pp. 171
185). New York:
New York University Press.
Hall, S. (1996) Cultural identity and diaspora. In P. Mongia (ed.) Contemporary
Postcolonial Theory: A Reader (pp. 110
121). New York: Arnold.
Hall, S. (1997) The work of representation. In S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural
Representations and Signifying Practices (pp. 13
64). London: Sage.
Herder, J.G. (1772/2002) Treatise on the origin of language. In M.N. Forster (ed.) Herder:
Philosophical Writings (pp. 65
164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, E.J. (1990) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Program, Myth, Reality (2nd
edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Humboldt, W. (1836/1988) On Language: The Diversity of Human Language-structure and
its Influence on the Mental Development of Mankind . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Japan Audit Bureau of Circulations (n.d.) Sinbun hanbaibusuu shuyou zenkokushi hikaku
[The circulation of major national newspapers ]. On WWW at http://members.at.
infoseek.co.jp/jnl/007gyoukai/02/02.html. Accessed 16.11.03.
Lee, Y. (1996) ‘Kokugo’ to iu shisō [The Idea of the ‘National Language’] . Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Martin, J.N. and Nakayama, T.K. (1999) Thinking dialectically about culture and
communication. Communication Theory 9 (1), 1
25.
Mill, J.S. (1861/2001) Considerations on representative government. In V.P. Pecora (ed.)
Nations and Identities: Classic Readings (pp. 142
148). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology [MEXT] (2003) Eigo ga
tsukaeru nihonjin no ikusei no tame no kōodō keikaku [Action plans for producing English-
speaking Japanese ]. On WWW at http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/15/03/
03033102.pdf. Accessed 15.7.03.
Mizuhara, A. (1994) Edogo, Tokyogo, hyōjungo [Edo Language, Tokyo Language, and
Standard Language] . Tokyo: Kodansha.
Pennycook, A. (1994) Cultural Politics of English as an International Language . London:
Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Okumura, T. (2004) Kimigayo: Seishōji ni fukiritsu, toshokuin 40 nin wo shobun

tokyōi hōshin [The national anthem: The Tokyo board of education reprimanded 40
teachers and staff members who refused to stand up]. The Mainichi Shimbun May 24.
On WWW at http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp. Accessed 4.7.04.
Renan, E. (1882/2001) What is a nation? In V.P. Pecora (ed.) Nations and Identities:
Classical Readings (pp. 162
176). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture . London: Sage.
Smith, A.D. (1989/2001) The origins of nations. In V.P. Pecora (eds) Nations and
Identities: Classic Readings (pp. 333
353). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Smith, A.D. (1991) National Identity. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press.
Smith, L.E. (1983) English as an international language: No room for linguistic
chauvinism. In L.E. Smith (ed.) Readings in English as an International Language
(pp. 7
11). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
The Asahi Shimbun (2003) Love marks. 8 May. Available on the LexisNexis database.
Accessed 6.6.05.
Ueda, K. (1894/1968) Kokugo to kokka to [The national language and the state]. In S.
Hisamatsu (ed.) Meiji bungaku zenshū 44 kan: Ochiai Naobumi, Ueda Kazutoshi, Haga
Japanese Nationalism and the Spread of English 55

Yaichi, and Fujioka Sakutaro shū [The Meiji Era Corpus vol. 44: The Works of Ochiai
Naobumi, Ueda Kazutoshi, Haga Yaichi, and Fujioka Sakutaro] (pp. 108
113). Tokyo:
Chikuma Shobō.
Ueda, K. (1900/1968) Naichi zakkyogo ni okeru gogaku mondai [Language issues after
opening Japan to foreigners]. In S. Hisamatsu (ed.) Meiji bungaku zenshū 44 kan:
Ochiai Naobumi, Ueda Kazutoshi, Haga Yaichi, and Fujioka Sakutaro shū [The Meiji Era
Corpus vol. 44: The Works of Ochiai Naobumi, Ueda Kazutoshi, Haga Yaichi, and Fujioka
Sakutaro ] (pp. 131
137). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.
Yasuda, T. (1997) Teikoku nihon no gengohensei [Language Policies in the Japanese Empire] .
Yokohama, Japan: Seori Shobō.
Yoshino, K. (1992) Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan: A Sociological Enquiry.
London: Routledge.