Colonial Education in Taiwan (1) Dōka Policy

Colonial education is one of the most popular research topics especially in Taiwanese academia, and I am afraid that I am very ignorant of the major literature in Taiwan. I will post a part of my term paper on colonial education in two parts here shamelessly even though this is not one of my proudest papers. It is just a personal blog, anyways, so I hope that readers will just enjoy whatever information useful for them.

Thank you, Mark, for your request.

—–
Colonial Education and Dōka in Taiwan

Historians agree on the fact that education in the colonies played a central role in the assimilation (dōka) program under Japanese imperialism, and was unique compared to other modern colonial experiences in the world in a number of ways. Patricia Tsurumi points out that “[w]ith the exception of the Americans in the Philippines, no other colonial power in Asia or elsewhere approached native education with anything like the seriousness of purpose of Japanese educators in Taiwan.” (( E. Patricia Tsurumi, Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 1895-1945. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977. p.225)) Even compared to the Philippine case, where American rulers invested more money on education, “the Japanese probably expended educational funds more effectively.” ((ibid., p.226)) The effort and seriousness that Japanese colonial rulers demonstrated in colonial education reflect the importance of the dōka policy in Japan’s overall colonial strategy.

The dōka policy has often been viewed as a rhetorical and ideological tactic of the Japanese state for governing the colonies and opposing the Western domination of the world. Leo Ching, for example, argues that, by the 1920s, “dōka had consolidated itself as the rhetoric of the Japanese Empire for pacifying the liberal tendencies in colonial Taiwan and differentiating itself from Western colonialism.” ((Leo Ching, Becoming “Japanese”:Colonial Taiwan and the Politics of Identity Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. p.103)) However, for education policy makers in the frontier of colonial Taiwan, the assimilation and Japanization of native people were emphasized not merely as a rhetorical tactic, but as a major goal from the very beginning. The first chief of educational affairs in Taiwan, Izawa Shūji, put it this way in 1895:

In order to maintain the order of the new territory… , it is necessary not only to conquer it with force, but also to conquer the spirit of the people, to make them abandon the old nation’s dreams, and to instill a new spirit in them as Japanese subjects. In other words, it is crucial to Japanize them. We need to convert their thoughts and assimilate them with Japanese thoughts, making them subjects of the same nation. It is, therefore, the duty of public education to conquer the spirit of the people [in Taiwan]. ((Izawa Shūji, “Meiji Nijūhachi nen no Kyōikushakai (Educational Society in Meiji’s Twenty Eight Years), Kokka Kyōiku, vol. 33, 1895. p.10))

Oguma Eiji argues that the logic of dōka was generated not necessarily from the need to differentiate Japanese colonialism from that of the West, but from Japanese leaders’ lack of confidence in their military’s ability to deal with both Western aggression and colonial insurgencies simultaneously. ((Oguma Eiji, Nihonjin no Kyōkai (The Boundaries of the Japanese). Tokyo: Shinyōsha, 1998. pp.72-3)) In addition to military vulnerability, Japanese educators were also lacking confidence in maintaining Taiwan’s economic development. Oguma introduces an article by a teacher in Taiwan who opposed the idea of gaining support from Taiwanese natives by offering vocational training and economic development. It argued, “such a policy might appease to people while they continue to regard the colonial policy as beneficial, but what would happen if they find it unbeneficial to them?” ((Takaoka Takeaki, “Kōgakkō no Shūshinka ni Tsukite (Regarding the Ethic Education at Common Schools),” Taiwankyōikukai Zasshi (台湾教育会雑誌), vol. 4, 1902, in Oguma, p.8) This line of argument that emphasizes the importance of spiritual assimilation was not peculiar to Izawa’s ideology, but shared by many educators in Taiwan at the time. ((For example, Nakano Shingo, “Theory of Educational Conquest (教育征服論),” Taiwankyōikukai Zasshi (台湾教育会雑誌), vol. 3, 1901, also develops a similar argument.))

Izawa advocated a universal elementary school system in Taiwan, envisioning the establishment of an even more progressive program than that found in the Japanese homeland. ((For example, Izawa advocated six years of elementary schooling when there was only four-year elementary education in Japan. He also advocated free education with free meal plans in Taiwan, when Japan had not achieved it yet.
)) However, owing to financial difficulties, not many of Izawa’s ideas were realized immediately. The most important project Izawa implemented during his short-term assignment to the Taiwanese colonial government was the establishment of common schools (公学校). Common schools were to provide Taiwanese native children with Japanese language education, arithmetic and basic sciences. By 1920, twenty five percent (39% among boys and 9% among girls) of school-aged Taiwanese children enrolled in common schools. ((E. Patricia Tsurumi, “education and Assimilation in Taiwan under Japanese Rule, 1895-1945,” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, 1979. p.620))

It was the ideology and policies of Gotō Shimpei, a subordinate of the first Governor-General Kodama Gentarō, that dampened the passion for dōka among the education officials in Taiwan, and turned dōka into a deceptive rhetorical device for the colonial rule. Gotō had become skeptical of the prospect of the assimilation policy after learning about the Western colonial experiences, and he believed that the gap between the Taiwanese and the Japanese was too large to fill. He announced a “No-principle Policy (無方針主義)” regarding Taiwanese education as follows:

The principle of Taiwanese education is “no-principle.” It is impossible to understand people’s minds, unless we spend 75 years if we count 25 years as one generation, or 90 years if we count 30 years as one. We could only consider the educational policy after a long period of time goes by. ((Tsurumi Yūsuke, Gotō Shimpei Den, vol 2. Keiso Shobo, 1965 (Reprinted), p. 373. In Oguma, p.107. Also see Chen Peifeng, ‘Dōka’ no Dōshōimu (“The Same Bed, Different Dreams” in Assimilation Policy). Tokyo: Sangensha, 2001. pp.75-76))

Despite complaints from teachers who had embraced Izawa’s ideas, Gotō opposed the expansion of common schools and the establishment of post-primary educational institutions for Taiwanese natives other than the fields of pedagogy and medicine. ((Patricia Tsurumi (1979), p.619)) Gotō continued to use the term, dōka, however, to avoid criticisms from his opponents in the colonial government. Rather than spiritual Japanization, dōka, for him, primarily meant the process for the Taiwanese to achieve the same level of civilization as Japan did, which he considered would take a long time. Mochiji Rokusaburō, a high-rank official at the Taiwanese colonial government, shared Gotō’s ideology and almost halted the expansion of native education during his ten-year assignment (1900-1910) in Taiwan. For the rest of Japan’s colonial rule of Taiwan after their stay, although access to higher education for the Taiwanese slowly opened up, the main target of Japan’s education policy remained at the low-level, elementary school education through common schools.

Around the time the Taisho era (1912-1925) started, the nature of the dōka policy changed in Taiwan, or in other words, returned to Izawa’s original Japanization model. Kumamoto Shigekichi took place of Mochiji in 1911, and gradually made this shift. In 1913, the colonial government issued the Regulations of Common Schools (公学校規則), which emphasized the equal importance of spreading the national spirit and providing vocational training as the goals of common school education. ((Chen, p.156))Chen Peifeng argues that, facing a strong demand of the Taiwanese for an educational opportunity beyond common schools, Kumamoto realized the very limit of maintaining the Mochiji’s policy of ‘suppression through denial of access to education.’ If Japan continued to deny their access to middle school, many Taiwanese would inevitably choose Christian schools run by foreign missionaries. Kumamoto believed in the need for ‘suppression through the expansion of education,’ rather than “suppression through denial of access” to it. ((Chen, pp.165-170))

During his term in office, Kumamoto prepared the first education rescript, which was approved by the Privy Council in 1918, and revised in 1922. While the original rescript only streamlined the school system for the Taiwanese and maintained the separation between the Taiwanese and the Japanese, the 1922 revision allowed the co-education of Japanese and Taiwanese students in middle schools and other higher educational institutions. This change partly reflected the change in broader course of Japanese colonial policy after suppressing the March First Movement in Korea, and the movement for the establishment of a Taiwanese local parliament in 1919. Den Kenjirō’s inauguration as the first civilian Governor-General in Taiwan in the same year probably created a favorable political environment for the promotion of a more ‘equal’ program between the Japanese and the Taiwanese. However, the abolition of the segregation in higher education did not eliminate the discrimination against the Taiwanese, but rather worsened it. Only a small proportion of them were accepted to those schools originally all-Japanese, and each school maintained an unofficial quota for non-Japanese students. ((Patricia Tsurumi (1977) p. 99-105, Chen, pp.184-186)) Despite this de facto discrimination, Den and other Japanese officials proudly proclaimed the equality on paper as a unique achievement that showed the magnanimity of the Japanese colonial rule. For Kumamoto, dōka meant a complete Japanization, and to achieve the conversion of the Taiwanese, he demanded that they submit not only in the language, but also in “manners, tastes and feelings.” ((Chen, p.190))

Although Leo Ching argues that there is a qualitative discontinuity between dōka and kōminka, ((Ching, Ch.3)) in the education policy and in the schooling system in particular, there is a noteworthy continuity between the two periods. The rule of Gotō and Mochiji, from which Ching gleans the characteristics of dōka, was a temporary deviation rather than the consolidation of the core characteristic of dōka. Both Izawa and Kumamoto embraced a vision of complete Japanization of Taiwanese people as the central goal of education, and continued to suffer the hidden contradiction of promoting “Japanization” while maintaining racial discrimination. This did not fundamentally change when kōminka was launched after Japan began its pursuit of large-scale military aggression in China. Tsurumi argues, “the school system was left more or less intact by the military administrations that began in 1936.” ((Patricia Tsurumi (1977), p.131)) She explains that it was owing to the fact that more resources and attention were directed to war effort, and “because the schools were considered to be doing a good job.” ((ibid., p.132)) The education system rather went through a series of gradual changes, such as the 1933 reform and the 1941 (implemented in 1943) decree for compulsory primary education, primarily to meet the desires of the Taiwanese for wider access to better-quality programs.

The effect of dōka through education in Taiwan seemed to be successful, especially when compared to the Korean case. Kōndo Masami points out that it was young generations educated in common schools who energetically promoted the extension of the colonial government’s control over traditional villages. ((Kōndo Masami. Sōryokusen to Taiwan (Total War and Taiwan), Tokyo: Tōsui Shobō, 1996. p.223-4)) He also points out the unusual excitement towards the new program of voluntary soldiers in Taiwan. There were 417 times more applicants than the openings in 1942, and 600 times more in 1943. ((ibid., p.371-30)) Both Tsurumi and Chen argue that, although common schools spread and educated a great number of Taiwanese children, Taiwanese people only accepted modern changes that the Japanese brought through education, but did not embrace unconditional loyalty to the Japanese nation as subjects of the Japanese emperor. ((Patricia Tsurumi (1979), p.641)) Chen, in particular, traces the attitudes of the Taiwanese intellectuals towards Japan’s colonial education, and finds their strong orientation towards modernization. The gap in intentions between the Japanese rulers and the Taiwanese in education policy, he argues, created the situation of “Same Bed Different Dreams (同床異夢),” which largely remained unchanged during kōminka. ((Chen, pp. 278-9)) The Taiwanese population, he emphasizes, despite an appearance of unconditional assimilation, selectively accepted the values and practices that the Japanese colonizers brought to them.