Social education and social work in Japan: from an education welfare theory perspective

The position of social education in law

Social education in Japan is regulated by law, facilities are set up and operated accordingly, as are the staff who are positioned within it. Broadly defined, social education includes not only projects carried out by the social education administration, but also the activities of non-profit organisations and other community activities as nonformal/informal learning. In this article, however, in order to clarify its differences from social welfare, the legal systems of both will first be described. The definition of the Social Education Act, as stipulated by the Social Education Division, Lifelong Learning Policy Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is outlined in Box 1 below.

As made evident by the law, everything outside the school curriculum falls under social education. However, the educational content of each local government is diverse because the prioritised content differs depending upon the issues faced by the region. For example, local governments where ageing is a major regional issue will focus on health and cultural activities for older people, whereas areas which are high in foreign migration will concentrate on projects that aim to promote multicultural coexistence. The following are administrative duties stipulated by the Social Education Act, some of the specific content of which is focused on and summarised in Box 2.

In Japan, education provided to children by their parents is generally referred to as home education. Although social education administration does not intervene to support families, many are sustained by local child-rearing circles held at social education facilities. Social education facilities are attended by children on Saturdays, Sundays and after school where, among other things, they learn social etiquette by spending time with local adults and other children. This can help with their home education. The law states that social education falls between school education and home education (although it is sometimes considered part of home education). As demonstrated by the assigned work content of each local government, social education administration has a wide scope. The directors of social education are assigned as professionals who are responsible for these businesses. MEXT explains the role of directors of social education in Box 3.

Until April 2020, it was necessary to have obtained the designated credits for social education at university in order to assume a role in the social education profession and be verified as a director of social education by the Board of Education of local government. However, because the system does not make extensive use of social education expertise, anyone who has earned a given number of credits can now call themselves a ‘social educator’ (Shakai kyoiku shi). As this is a new system, there is limited feedback regarding the placement and utilisation of social educators, but there is the expectation that they would be proficient in a wide range of fields and settings, such as schools, social welfare administration and non-profit organisations, as social pedagogues are in Germany and the Nordic countries.

The legal status of social welfare

In this section the Social Welfare Act, established by the MHLW, is described. First, the definition of social welfare will be examined, after which the definitions for each of the services summarised and introduced (see Box 4).

The social welfare services described above will have a lot in common with the social work/social welfare of other countries. However, in Japan, directors of social education are rarely involved in these projects. Similarly, certified social workers are not involved in the administration of services that are classified under the Social Education Act. Legally, these are completely separate and, therefore, the professions have different requirements. The laws governing certified social workers are reviewed in Box 5.

Certified social workers require a national qualification, and therefore must take the national examination after obtaining the designated credits at university. Only after passing the exam are they able to take on the title of certified social worker and work as a professional in charge of the above-mentioned services, regardless of whether they operate in the public or private sector. The qualifications of the three professions are shown in Table 2.

Under the current legal system, these professions are divided systematically, and so social education and social welfare are kept entirely separate. However, historically, former social education included areas that closely resemble current social welfare, and there was a time when the distinction between social education and social work was not so clear.

The historical development of social education

As previously mentioned, the term social education in Japan originated in 1877. The term was first used by Yukichi Fukuzawa, a philosopher and educator, in one of his lectures. Fukuzawa’s portrait is on the current ¥10,000 note, and he is well known throughout Japan. His thoughts and remarks had a great influence on society at the time. He anticipated that young people would play a leading role in the modernising society of Japan, preached the need for the young to continue self-education after leaving school and advocated for social education as a type of ‘education in society’ as opposed to the education received in school. One could say that the idea of lifelong learning had already been conceived in Japan at that time. Fukuzawa only used the term ‘social education’ in his lectures, but one of his students, Jiro Yamana (who theorised social education with him), wrote the book Social Education Theory (1892), which was the first written account of the theories of social education in Japan (Matsuda, 2007, p. 7).

Subsequently, pedagogues interested in the connection between society (shakai) and education (kyoiku) sought to refine the theory of social education. German philosophers and pedagogues were central to this development. For example, Otto Wilman, Fredrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Paul Bergemann and Paul Natorp garnered attention from the end of the 1890s until the early 1900s. The Japanese translations of Sozialpädagogik (by Natorp in 1899) and Sozialpädagogik (by Bergemann in 1900) were published between 1901 and 1902 (Matsuda, 2007, p. 18). In these works are matters pertaining to education, such as education for children with disabilities and child protection or adult education, which had been lacking in social education at the time. With the establishment of social education, and through its comparison with social pedagogy, contemporary researchers discovered an overlap between social pedagogy, social education and social work (Matsuda, 2007, pp. 38–9). Taking as Fukuzawa’s starting point ‘social education as self-education’, social education expanded to comprise concepts that included the socially vulnerable, while maintaining adult education as one of its pillars. In such a fashion, the concept of Japanese social education went on to develop by incorporating predominantly German ideas on social pedagogy. Incidentally, it was not until in the 1970s that Japan took notice of Herman Nohl’s theories that were introduced for example in the Nordic countries.

With the theorisation of social education and the expansion of social education practices in 1919 after the First World War, the Ministry of Education established the ‘Ordinary Academic Affairs Bureau Section 4’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Section 4’), which was responsible for the administration of social education. Section 4 was responsible for the management and implementation of adult education, libraries, museums, special education and youth work. In 1924, Section 4 was renamed the ‘Social Education Division’. The entertainment industry was added to the list of matters under their jurisdiction, and public social education services were expanded (Matsuda, 2013, pp. 29–30). Around the same time, in 1920, the ‘Social Bureau’ was established in the Ministry of the Interior, which was placed in charge of relief services.

The Social Education Division was established under the Ministry of Education, but it was the Social Divisions or Education Divisions in local prefectural governments that became responsible for carrying out Section 4 work. With the administration of social education under local government, the directors of social education were progressively placed in charge of services. However, the placement of these directors varied from region to region; some were assigned to the Social Division and some to the Education Division. Even though the arrangements differed, the tasks for which they were responsible were similar (Matsuda, 2004, pp. 167–8). As will be described later, with the establishment of the Social Affairs Bureau in the Ministry of Home Affairs, the creation of social departments progressed even in rural areas, and in some areas social workers were assigned to these social departments. At the time, it is probable that the directors of social education and social workers were in charge of almost the same work, and only the placement and title differed depending on the area.

By the 1920s, the theories of social education had evolved on the basis of equal education opportunities and democracy. However, in the 1930s, Japan entered a nationalistic emperor system. All educational activities, not just those related to social education, came to be used to indoctrinate people and send them to war. As far as social education was concerned, the Social Education Division was changed to the Social Education Bureau and transformed into an administrative agency to train the youth and control the minds of adults through propaganda and indoctrination. The former democratically elected Chief of the Social Education Division of the Ministry of Education was removed at an early stage (Matsuda, 2007, pp. 33–5). The nationalist system persisted until the end of the Second World War.

Social education played a major role in rebuilding desolated areas after the Second World War. After reassessing the nationalistic wartime ideas, the Social Education Act was enacted in 1949 grounded in democratic ideals. Based on this law, the government has promoted the establishment of Kominkan nationwide, which serve as regional bases with various functions, such as promoting the region, supporting local industry and community welfare. Based on the ideas derived from social education, residents gathered together, shared wisdom and had discussions about how to rebuild the local society. The enactment of the Social Education Act was significant as it made it possible for services to expand across the entire country. Conversely, the social education administration that was put into place under the Social Education Act was positioned entirely under educational administration. Considering that in the 1920s it was often positioned between the Social Division and the Educational Division, one could say that the administration of social education dealt with a wider range of works related to social work before, rather than after, the war. While post-war legislation was important, due to its limited definitions, the focus was undeniably overly attentive to educational activities and did not include social work. It is patently clear that this system served to highlight the divisions among the administrations.

Since 2000, however, the importance of cooperation between educational administration and social welfare administration has been recognised by researchers, administrative organisations and practitioners, leading to a growing interest in collaboration between education and social welfare. The background of this movement includes the social contexts, such as the rising employment rate among women (Shirahase, 2006) and continuing educational disparities (Hirasawa, Yoshida and Fujiwara, 2013). Neoliberalism has led to the establishment of systems aimed at solving problems that cannot be solved by the family, educational or social welfare sectors alone. Improvements have been made, such as assigning social workers to schools (from 2008), and institutions like the Children’s Comprehensive After School Plan (2014) which is a collaboration of the MEXT (education administration) and the MHLW (social welfare administration) to create a place for children after school. In the area of social education, lifelong learning projects were expanded to encourage the social participation of older people in each region. As a theory that deals with these efforts and practices, researcher interest in social pedagogy has once again increased and several researchers, including the author, aim to build new theories of social education for Japan by following the trends of social pedagogy research in Germany, the Nordic countries, the United Kingdom and the United States. Interest in social pedagogy research is also increasing in the area of social welfare. Thus, it could be said that social pedagogy has instigated a confluence between social education and social welfare.

From social work to social welfare: a historical perspective

This section examines how current social welfare (shakai fukushi) developed from the era of social work (shakai jigyo). In Japan, the history of social work can be traced back to ancient times. A relief system was in place that encouraged relatives and local residents to provide mutual aid to one another when natural disasters, a bad harvest or plagues caused distress to people’s lives. This study focuses on the early 1900s when social work, which formed the basis of current social welfare, was institutionalised, and traces the process that led to the current rendition of social welfare.

The Military Relief Act of 1917 established the Relief Division of the Ministry of the Interior, which evolved into the Social Affairs Division in 1919; however, social work administration, the basis of social welfare, began officially in 1920 with the Social Affairs Bureau (Kikuchi, Shimizu, Tanaka, Nagaoka and Murota, 2003, p. 84). The main duties of the Social Affairs Bureau were matters related to (1) food assistance and relief, (2) military relief, (3) the relief and prevention of unemployment and (4) child protection (Endo, 1991, p. 117). According to survey materials from the Ministry of Interior at the time, these kinds of social work-related facilities and services, such as free midwifery, childcare, child counselling, housing supply, accommodation protection, public markets, basic food canteens, public bathhouses, employment placements, out-of-hospital emergency medical care, free medical care (medical expenses), cultural assimilation projects, settlement work and so on, were carried out by both the public and private sectors (Kikuchi et al., 2003, p. 89). At the time, social work policies had already been established in the UK and other European capitalist countries, and social work was already underway in the United States. The establishment of social work in Japan developed in tandem with each of these countries (Kikuchi et al., 2003, p. 83).

One aspect behind the institutionalisation of social work in Japan was the unification of the administrative structure. After the First World War, as social problems became more serious and the labour movement intensified, it was necessary to unify the administrative structures for social administration and labour administration, which had previously been dispersed among government agencies (Endo, 1991, p. 117). Democracy was tolerated to a certain extent, and policy responses to social and living problems were deemed necessary to maintain social cohesion. Thus, social policy and social work emerged under the slogans of ‘social solidarity’, ‘social improvement’ and ‘labour cooperation’. However, this was accompanied by severe crackdowns on social movements (Kikuchi et al., 2003, p. 82). The Social Affairs Bureau was tasked with formulating and implementing social policy measures and assuming a controlling function for social movements in collaboration with local police agencies. The goal was to control the nation and foster loyalty and patriotism by providing people with the benefits of state social work. In summary, on the surface, it appeared that Japan’s social services at the time was intended to save lives, but in reality it was one of national control.

At the time, social service managers were assigned to prefectural local governments to lead social work. In 1925, the local social work staff system was enacted, and there was progress in the placement of social work managers and assistant social work managers who were engaged in social work administration (Hatanaka, 2011, p. 45). The education for social workers was undertaken by several public and private organisations from the late 1920s. Social work faculties and departments were set up at several universities to provide social work education, but they were abolished and reorganised during the war again China in the 1930s (Kikuchi et al., 2003, p. 122).

In the 1930s, the wartime regime became stronger and, due to the dramatic increase in military spending in the national budget, spending in other areas of the budget was drastically reduced. As a result of the enactment of the National Mobilisation Law, the mobilisation of supplies and labour fell under the authority of government during the war, and every aspect of people’s lives was controlled. The changes in political and social conditions had a great impact on social work. For example, social work was renamed ‘welfare services’ (Endo, 1991, p. 157). Furthermore, spending on relief services and child protection, which had previously been carried out as social services, was reduced, while military spending and the promotion of physical fitness became the central services of government (Kikuchi et al., 2003, pp. 130–1). This system continued until the end of the Second World War, during which time social work hardly functioned. Japanese social work certainly lacked ‘citizenship’ and ‘modernity’ before the war (Yoshida, 1966, p. 94).

During the post-war occupation, Japan began examining its non-military and democratic social work and revising the feudal social work system. Academics, administrators and citizens alike discussed the meaning and importance of peace, freedom, tradition, modernisation and the emperor system. Advocates introduced the social work philosophies of the United States and other Western countries, influencing the democratisation of social work in post-war Japan (Yoshida, 1966). Several Japanese researchers have included social security under the umbrella of ‘social welfare’, however, this meant dispelling the image of militaristic social work (Okamura, Shimada, Yokoyama and Yoshida, 1980). In 1951, the Social Welfare Act was enacted. In this law, the policy of democratic operation of social work projects and logical operation by the public sector were clearly defined (Yoshida, 1966). Thus, social work developed after the Second World War to promote democratic society by changing the term to social welfare.

Conclusion

The institutional position of social education and social welfare and the differences in their historical development has been explored. Institutionally, social education is positioned under educational administration and social welfare under welfare administration and, while the two may cooperate, they cannot merge. However, historically, there was a time when social work and social education overlapped (1910s–20s). At that time, the jurisdictions, systems and professions of the two areas differed, but records show conflicts between the services because both administrations were carrying out similar projects (Ogawa, 1962, p. 49). Over time, following the Second World War, the respective systems were put in place and both areas developed separately. However, after 2000, social welfare and social education officials began to seek cooperation and integration with one another, based on the ideas of education welfare theory. Some researchers are now paying attention to social pedagogy in order to develop education welfare theory as a theoretical or philosophical base.

When social pedagogy was first introduced to Japan, there were many who found something in it that had been lacking in Japanese social education up until that point and they started to observe it closely. Based on its ideas, social education researchers developed theories to include socially vulnerable people. What were the historical and social characteristics of social pedagogy in Japan?

One consideration was its relationship with the welfare state system. When social pedagogy was first noticed in the early 1900s, Japan was in a period of rapid modernisation. During that time, social education officials promoted democracy-based social inclusion to help people lead better lives. However, the war led to a loss of almost everything that had been accomplished. After the Second World War, Japan underwent a period of high economic growth, and neither the areas of social education nor social welfare received much attention from social pedagogy. Since 2000 Japan, like many other countries, has undergone accelerating neoliberalism, which has once again brought social pedagogy into the spotlight. In an era when the country is financially wealthy, a large number of citizens can rely on social welfare services to live a stable life. However, fluctuations in the financial base can make it difficult for more vulnerable citizens in a number of ways. At such times, it may be necessary to provide enhanced services to discover the potential of these people, and to assist them to regain their own lives through educational support. The author does not agree with the idea that the state should forego its responsibility to its people and prefers to believe that individuals are not simply recipients of government services; every citizen can become an active member of society and play their part in building a positive society where people’s well-being is key. At present, some Japanese researchers have high expectations for social pedagogy, and believe it could be an important theory to support the creation of such a society.

On that occasion, the role of social educators could be expected. Social educators could improve the support available to address the social issues which are provided by administrative sections, non-profit organisations and private organisations that have not previously involved directors of social education and certified social workers. However, since the role of social educator is a new one, challenges remain, such as developing curriculum content and the lack of widespread recognition in society. Above all, there is an insufficient theoretical foundation for enhancing collaboration among social education, social work and the other related fields. There is an urgent need to reconsider the concept of social education – widening it to include social pedagogical ideas – and elucidate the significance and issues of social pedagogical practices in Western countries in the Japanese context.