Basic Tensions

In Japan, the subject position is invisible at the national-curriculum level. However, it is worth hypothesising that there is still an invisible tension between the subject and method positions, and this tension creates the following subsequent tensions.

• Cultural induction versus Personal and Social Learning

The subject position attempts to induct young people into the cultural heritage of the traditional Japanese theatre (e.g. noh theatre, kabuki theatre, etc.) or the Japanese Modern Drama (e.g. Mishima Yukio, Hisashi Inoue, Oriza Hirata, etc.).56 In contrast, the method position aims to develop students’ personal and social skills or understanding (e.g. Dazai, 2000; Fukuda, 2005; Green, 2003; Green & Owens, 2010; Kobayashi, et al., 2010; A. Okada, 1994; Takao, 2006; Takeuchi, 1989; J. Watanabe, 2007).

outcomes in later life: ‘Taking part in sports, constructive activities in clubs, groups or classes and volunteering during the teenage years has a positive impact on outcomes in later life: increasing educational attainment; reducing offending and smoking; and reducing the likelihood of depression. There is also evidence that involvement in positive activities helps prevent teenagers from being drawn into anti-social behaviour and crime. Wider activities can also help to broaden young people’s horizons, developing their understanding of other cultures and religions and key issues such as sustainable development’ (SSES, 2005, p.25-26).

This creative-and-cultural movement, then, brought specialists together from the different sectors of theatre, the arts, and education in order to develop ways of working together (Evans & Swain, 2009b). In 2010, the eleven organisations published the Drama and Theatre Manifesto together: ‘The Manifesto recognizes a common sense of purpose and a shared belief in the contribution drama and theatre makes to the quality of children’s lives in school and beyond. It is a call to action to young people, parents, teachers and theatre practitioners to unify their efforts and ensure that young people have access to drama and theatre’ (Adamson, et al., 2010, p.1).

The important point is the manifesto makes connections between ‘drama and theatre’, ‘school and beyond’ or ‘young people, parents, teachers and theatre practitioners’. Students can have a wide range of educational experiences with a wide range of people. The organisations include Equity, National Association of Youth Theatres (NAYT), National Council for Drama Training (NCDT), National Operatic and Dramatic Association (NODA), Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), Theatre for Young Audiences (TYA) England, National Association of Teachers of Drama (NATD), National Drama (ND) and Theatre Education Forum (TEF), Action for Children’s’ Arts (ACA) and National Skills Academy for Creative & Cultural Skills (NSA-CCSkills). 56 _{In addition to Japanese traditional theatres and Modern Drama, Japanese drama teachers in the subject position} may often teach Western classics (e.g. Shakespeare, ancient Greek plays, etc.) and Western Modern Drama (e.g. Samuel Beckett, Anton Chekhov, Arthur Miller, etc.) as well.

• Engeki versus Engeki-teki

The subject position is associated with the noun ‘(en)geki’ (theatre/drama) and the English term ‘theatre’; the method position is associated with the adjective ‘(en)geki-teki’ (theatrical/dramatic) and English term ‘drama’. Engeki indicates different sorts of public performances and productions. In contrast, engeki-teki suggests (often improvisational) forms of drama with almost no sense of a ‘performance’ or ‘production’ (e.g. Kobayashi, et al., 2010; Koike, 1990; A. Okada, 1985; Tomita, 1958).

• Product versus Process

The subject position gives value to the final stage of making a dramatic performance. In contrast, the method position gives value to the process of making a dramatic performance (e.g. A. Okada, 1994) – although it is also true that some Japanese drama teachers in the method position have been aware of the importance of valuing both product and process for the past fifteen years (e.g. Dazai & Yamada, 1998; Tadashi, Fukuda, Iwakawa, Hirai, & Sasaki, 2007; J. Watanabe, 2007). In other words, the method position emphasises ‘the engagement in the activity itself’ (Fleming, 2003, p. 14).

• Form versus Content

In principle, form and content in drama are related to each other: ‘Form comes about only through the formalization of a particular content and a precise signified’ (Pavis, 1998, p.153). In the field of drama in schools, however, the subject position values

form because without form, we cannot produce a product and we cannot contribute to the economic development of the nation and the maintenance of the national heritage. In contrast, the method position values the content of drama: in other words, what actors (students) create with different dramatic forms: characters, scenes, places, tensions, relations, atmospheres, and ultimately ‘meanings’ in theatre.

In England, there may have been other tensions – e.g. ‘measurable outcome versus immeasurable outcome’, ‘class/exam versus beyond the curriculum’, ‘direction versus autonomy’, and ‘reception versus production’ (in my conversation with Neelands). However, in Japan these four tensions mentioned above have been obvious.

5.5. Conclusion

Thus far, we have noted that there have been three positions in the Japanese fields of drama in schools: drama as part of Japanese Language, drama as a method of learning, and drama as creative and cultural education. Invisibly, there has been drama as an arts subject, too, as the method position cannot define itself without the subject position. In relation to Chapter 2, we may see hyogen education as belonging to the method position. Above all, the most fundamental positions in the fields of drama in schools are the subject and method positions.

Using the theoretical perspectives of Bourdieu and Bernstein as heuristics, I have demonstrated that each of the subject and method positions corresponds to a particular genre of theatre, educational codes and most importantly, social class: the

subject position corresponds to bourgeois theatres (e.g. the National Noh Theatre), collection codes (e.g. post-1961 Curriculum Guidelines) and the middle-class (political) ideology (e.g. the Liberal Democratic Party)57; the method position corresponds to avant-garde theatre (e.g. the Honda Theatre) and integrated codes (e.g. the 1947 and the 1951 Curriculum Guidelines) and the dominated-class (political) ideology. In addition, the division between the subject and method positions at least creates the four basic tensions in Japan: cultural induction versus personal and social learning, (en)geki versus (en)geki-teki, product versus process, and form versus content.

Each of the subject and method positions has advantages and disadvantages. The subject position allows students to be specialists in theatre, but has a risk of isolating them from other people and limiting their personal and social development, as it disassociates the knowledge and skills of the theatre from other areas of knowledge and skills, and the everyday lives of the students. In the subject position, students familiarise themselves with particular theatrical traditions (for Japanese students, this indicates traditional Japanese theatres including noh theatre, kyogen theatre and kabuki theatres, and the Japanese Modern Drama), but they may not have a good knowledge of the avant-garde theatre and alternative or other types of theatre, such as community theatre, applied theatre, theatre of the oppressed, free theatre, drama therapy, and drama in schools. Moreover, the subject position imposes bourgeois ideology and consciousness on students; the method position, meanwhile, imposes working-class ideology and consciousness on them. Therefore, it is

57 _{A further research will be needed to see to what extent the Liberal Democratic Party consists of middle class} today.

important for us to find a way of filling the gap between subject and method positions. All these suggest that hyogen education must take the subject position into greater consideration.

There are differences between the Japanese and English fields of drama in schools. Firstly, one of the major differences between them is that there has been no subject position in the Japanese field. This is because drama has never been an official subject in the Japanese national curriculum and because, unlike secondary schools in England, no secondary school in Japan has introduced drama to their curriculum even as an optional subject. Secondly, there is a tension between the subject and method positions in the drama-as-English position of England. However, the drama-as-Japanese-Language position of Japan has tended to neglect the subject position. Thirdly, with the emergence of the National Curriculum, the method position of England has redefined itself by realigning the Drama-in-Education tradition within the field of theatre. However, in Japan no one has attempted to do so because there has been no subject position in the Japanese field of drama in schools. Consequently, the method position of Japan has still kept rejecting the subject position. Fourthly, the creative-and-cultural position of England stresses creative and cultural learning, since it originates in the NACCCE report All Our Futures (NACCCE, 1999) and the green paper Culture and Creativity (DCMS, 2001). In contrast, the creative-and-cultural position of Japan stresses the zest for learning and communication skills, since it originates in the 2002 Curriculum Guidelines and the 2009 Council for the Promotion of Communication Education.

it is important for them to identify the reason why the Japanese field cannot establish the strong subject position and the reason why the Curriculum Guidelines of Japan cannot put drama into the national curriculum. Secondly, the drama-as-Japanese- Language position has tended to neglect the study and performance of play. It is too easy to say that the study and performance of play are not important in the Japanese Language class because the Curriculum Guidelines says so. But it may be worth thinking about the value of the study and performance of play in the Japanese Language class. Thirdly, the method position does not take the subject position into consideration. However, if we value the subject position, it may be worth reorganising the method position in relation to the subject position. Fourthly, the creative-and-cultural position of England stresses creative and cultural education, whilst that of Japan stresses the zest for living and communication skills. Are they essentially the same or not? I will explore some of these questions in the following chapters.