The Concept of Nature Underlying Early Childhood Education and Care from Pre-Modern to Contemporary Japan, via Sozo Kurahashi and Kitaro Nishida
Saved in:
| Title: | The Concept of Nature Underlying Early Childhood Education and Care from Pre-Modern to Contemporary Japan, via Sozo Kurahashi and Kitaro Nishida |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Yosuke Hirota (ORCID |
| Source: | History of Education. 2024 53(3):477-496. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Early Childhood Education Elementary Education Kindergarten Primary Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational History, Early Childhood Education, Educational Philosophy, Environment, Correlation, Foreign Countries, Kindergarten, Metacognition |
| Geographic Terms: | Japan |
| DOI: | 10.1080/0046760X.2024.2304353 |
| ISSN: | 0046-760X 1464-5130 |
| Abstract: | This article examines the Japanese historical concept of nature in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Through modernisation, Japan was infused with Anglo-European philosophy. However, Japan's pre-modern concept of nature differed from that of the West or modern Japan and latently affected the Japanese modern educational system. The concept of nature comprised two modes: "mizukara", meaning "voluntarily" or indicating the mode of the voluntary self or "I," and "onozukara", referring to what is "spontaneously or naturally so" or indicating modes of transcendence beyond the self that permeate Japanese pre-modern reading education and apprenticeship as well as contemporary Japanese society. This study investigates Japanese modern texts by representative educator Sozo Kurahashi and philosopher Kitaro Nishida on education and philosophy to describe the latent and underlying connection between the concept of nature and Japanese ECEC as well as to depict the configuration of educational discourse focused on nature. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1428009 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHfakCwakh6bB4D52mpClmBAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAGzsoNsGb-xWm-BoAIBEICBm6G3KdzAHSpOAA4pg_wuaYA2uKbvZx_pj5w7DRIH4-sgN8iQUE0Vk-VpYHYaj1BiPZpNU4pucCVcnimepXjlYN30lK4TrcqtixGGKeg7OXKvO5ergvCz5alfSxEAcGBhfvVVCqPySW_B36b6NpQCWO7x7ToFihcPyK61qz5ZnKKLoVWfdGB6Ckmwe3AtggJd4nrCJ-nEk1W4eYnY Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0177800189;hed01may.24;2024Jun13.06:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177800189-1">The Concept of Nature Underlying Early Childhood Education and Care from Pre-Modern to Contemporary Japan, via Sozo Kurahashi and Kitaro Nishida </title> <p>This article examines the Japanese historical concept of nature in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Through modernisation, Japan was infused with Anglo-European philosophy. However, Japan's pre-modern concept of nature differed from that of the West or modern Japan and latently affected the Japanese modern educational system. The concept of nature comprised two modes: mizukara, meaning "voluntarily" or indicating the mode of the voluntary self or "I," and onozukara, referring to what is "spontaneously or naturally so" or indicating modes of transcendence beyond the self that permeate Japanese pre-modern reading education and apprenticeship as well as contemporary Japanese society. This study investigates Japanese modern texts by representative educator Sozo Kurahashi and philosopher Kitaro Nishida on education and philosophy to describe the latent and underlying connection between the concept of nature and Japanese ECEC as well as to depict the configuration of educational discourse focused on nature.</p> <p>Keywords: Japanese concept of nature; early childhood education and care; mizukara (voluntarily); onozukara (spontaneously)</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Recently, professionals and researchers of early childhood education and care (ECEC) have become aware of the role of cultural specificities as the background of education. For example, one characteristic of ECEC in Japan is the emphasis on "watching over [<emph>mimamoru</emph>]." In this act, teachers intervene in children's activities as little as possible, respecting the independence of children and the consequences of what happens there by chance. The children's voluntarity and event's spontaneity are important for many Japanese teachers. This is also described by the ethnography of Japanese ECEC published in English by Japanese and American researchers. The following impressive words by a Japanese teacher were recorded there:</p> <p>Japanese teachers wait until children solve their problems on their own. Children know what they are capable of handling. So, we wait. You could say that it is because we believe in children that we can wait. Otherwise, children become people who can't do things without permission. Of course, if they are in a situation where they don't know what to do, we talk it over with them, and then we wait and watch [<emph>mimamoru</emph>] to see what happens.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]</p> <p>According to the teacher, Japanese teachers generally waited for children's voluntary acts and then observed what happened. These Japanese and American researchers thought that the waiting and watching mindset was typical of the contemporary Japanese. The ways of waiting for children's voluntarity and allowing the situation to unfold spontaneously are often described "naturally."</p> <p>Where has the mindset come from historically? This is the research question of this article. I hypothesise that a historical concept of nature has characterised ECEC in Japan. The following is why I choose the concept of nature as the focus of this article. Nature is certainly a common and universal concept. The familiar modern western concept of nature refers first to the flora and fauna, the environment outside the human and the material worlds consisting of human bodies, and second to someone's character or feature. It traditionally permeates western thought and educational contexts,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>] and is commonly accepted even in contemporary Japan.</p> <p>First, I propose that Japan's traditional concept of nature is different from that of the West or that of contemporary Japan (but the traditional one is latent in Japan today). The Chinese characters (which are used in Japan) for the word "nature" are written as 自然. 自 means "of self" (pronounced as <emph>mizukara</emph> or <emph>onozukara</emph>), while 然 means "be made so" (pronounced as <emph>shikaru</emph> or <emph>shikarashimu</emph>). Therefore, 自然 means that "something will happen without any special and artificial action."</p> <p>Note that the Japanese concept of nature was not traditionally used as a noun but mainly as an adverb that contains double meanings: <emph>mizukara</emph> (voluntarily), which indicates the self-voluntary mode, or <emph>onozukara</emph> (spontaneously), which refers to the mode of transcending beyond the self.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>] I will address these double meanings of pre-modern Japanese nature in the conceptual history later. However, to be clear, this article does not intend to explain the uniqueness of the traditional Japanese concept of nature, as its western counterpart also has its own ambiguities[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>] and the Japanese concept of nature after the Meiji Restoration revealed its distinctiveness as a reflection of the western idea (I will address this point later in this article). Indeed, the differences between the western and Japanese concepts are too extensive to be covered by a single study and are beyond the scope of the author's capacity.</p> <p>Considering this difficulty, I shall explain the purpose of this article, which is to demonstrate how the concept of pre-modern nature has underpinned the waiting and watching mindset of teachers of Japanese ECEC up to the present. Moreover, this article aims to examine how the concept of nature incorporates both human voluntarity and selflessness to show the historical specificity of Japanese ECEC theories.</p> <p>To this end, I address one of the most influential theories in Japanese ECEC, which is based on the concept of nature. In particular, I analyse the theory of Sozo Kurahashi (1882–1955), one of the most influential founders of ECEC in Japan. He developed the theory on <emph>yudo</emph> (guidance) and the methodology to balance children's voluntarity and teacher's involvement. In the practice of Japanese ECEC, the guidance is still useful in the manner of <emph>mimamori</emph>.</p> <p>The sources of <emph>yudo</emph> or <emph>mimamori</emph> in Kurahashi's writing were the theories of Froebel and Romantics such as Wordsworth, as well as the understanding of children in Christianity with which he was familiar.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>] After modernisation (the Meiji Restoration), the majority of ECEC theories in Japan, including Kurahashi's, have been based on western concepts. However, if there are some exceptions that cannot be explained fully by western concepts, they can be traditional things rooted in Japanese. At present, these difficulties of explanation or translation make Japanese researchers consider what is characteristic of Japanese culture through reflections on the Japanese style of learning[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>] and educational care, <emph>mimamori</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>] Therefore, I would like to consider the pre-modern concept of nature hidden in this theory of Kurahashi and demonstrate how it is linked to Japan's pre-modern education.</p> <p>Kurahashi has undoubtedly been one of the most representative researchers for ECEC in Japan. However, his text alone cannot explain the depth of the historical and educational concept of nature. This is because Kurahashi simply discussed the relationship between nature and ECEC, implicitly relying on the pre-modern view of nature and without thoroughly explaining it. This article addresses the outline of the concept of nature and the educational system in pre-modern Japan, to consider Kurahashi's Japanese view of nature as well as the thoughts of Kitaro Nishida (1870–1945). Nishida was the greatest Japanese philosopher of Kurahashi's era, attempting to explain Japanese culture based on the concept of nature retained from the pre-modern to the modern era.</p> <p>I investigate such a function of the concept of nature, tackling Japanese educational and philosophical texts from pre-modern to contemporary. The method used in this article is to examine the concept of nature in these texts that has been passed down from traditional Japanese to contemporary times and address the meanings that fail to fit the western concept of nature.</p> <p>This article provides an overview of the concept of nature in pre-modern Japan, discusses the educational system in pre-modern Japan and analyses Kurahashi's theory that focuses on the concept of nature. Further, it compares Kurahashi's theory with that of Nishida's and, finally, critically re-examines the link between nature and education in Japanese culture.</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-3">Overview of Nature in Pre-Modern Japan</hd> <p>In Japan's pre-modern times, most Japanese traditional thoughts were based on Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shinto,[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>] which had coexisted since ancient times, merging and seceding repeatedly.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>] In particular, the Edo period (1603–1868), Confucianism developed peculiar ideas of the country and maintained its traditionally ideological and cultural influence. The ruling class of the Edo period promoted one Confucian school called "Cheng-Zhu" as an orthodox institution. Under Confucian influence, the natural world was expressed with many words, such as <emph>ametsuchi</emph> and <emph>tenchi</emph> (both "heaven and earth"). However, these words denote concrete objects or phenomena in the natural world, and there was no word that referred to nature in general. It was not until the late nineteenth century that it became commonplace to call the whole substance of the outside world "自然," which was established as a translation of "nature" in European languages.[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]</p> <p>According to Minamoto, the public's view of nature formed by such terms during the Edo period consisted of these three aspects:[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> First, "outer nature" is the most understandable to us today and includes the totality of natural things outside human beings. However, during the Edo period, this "outer nature" did not refer to objects that modern western scientists observed, experimented on and controlled.</item> <p></p> <item> Second, "transcendent nature" overwhelms humanity. Simply put, it pertains to a cosmic order called "heaven and earth" that transcends human intelligence and governed human beings.</item> <p></p> <item> Third, "outer nature" appears "transcendent" when disasters strike. Both "outer" and "transcendent" natures also exist inside human beings as "inner nature."</item> </ulist> <p>These aspects were rooted in Confucianism as well as in <emph>tao</emph> (the way). Tao stemmed from the Taoism of Laozi in China and strongly permeated the ruling class and the common people during the Edo period. If <emph>tao</emph> appears outside, it transcends humans in the form of "heaven and earth," and if it manifests inside humans, it refers to human ways and laws.</p> <p>"Outer nature" was also aligned with "inner nature," such as in traditional astrology and physiognomy. These suggested that outer and transcendent nature must correspond to the inner world of human beings and that their inner side must also be understood under the domain of outer nature.</p> <p>"Nature" as unification can be grasped in two major directions from the origin of the word 自然.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>] One direction considers nature as a voluntary state, that is, a state of <emph>mizukara</emph>, while the other treats it as an expression of <emph>onozukara</emph>, that is, a state without the artificial, strongly influenced by Taoism and Buddhism. One notion of Japanese Buddhism that significantly shaped <emph>onozukara</emph> will be explained later.</p> <p>Both <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph> are written the same in Japanese (自ら)[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>] and originally form the meanings of the Japanese concept of nature. However, between the two terms lies a decisive difference in implications: <emph>mizukara</emph> indicates voluntarity, which is based on individuality and self-finiteness, while <emph>onozukara</emph> refers to one's transcendence beyond them.</p> <p>Many Japanese scholars of cultural theory have discussed how meanings such as <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph> have coexisted in the traditional Japanese concept of nature. In a review from classical to modern Japanese literature, Takeuchi argued that Japanese literature was based on the ambivalent concepts of nature and that representative Japanese intellectuals formed their ideas by regarding these two meanings as the same at one time and different at another.[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-4">Japanese Pre-Modern Education</hd> <p>In this section, I will introduce what is recognised as the traditional view of education in Japan. Some previous studies have discussed Japanese indigenous education from various angles and multiple views. For example, Rohlen and LeTendre identified several concepts that characterised Japanese learning culture at the end of the twentieth century: group lifestyle, mutuality and imitation, form, experience, repetition of basics, authority of teachers, effort and struggle.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>] When all connected, they constitute the image of Japanese education: in a group lifestyle, children and learners learn through patterns of basic repetition, and strive through reciprocity and imitation to achieve their own learning outcomes.</p> <p>Furthermore, many studies on Japanese education have commonly accepted that teachers do not teach with language as much as students learn by repeating or imitating. Such methods are regarded as traditional and are now obsolete to Japanese people. Moreover, Japanese education is considered not as a purely domestic style but rather as a fusion of indigenous and foreign ideas during modernisation. Even today, however, non-Japanese practitioners and researchers have found some traces of traditional methods in Japanese education. Discussing the differences between New Zealand and Japanese nursery teachers, New Zealand researchers Burke and Duncan observed that</p> <p>[u]sing non-verbal means of communication as the first method of disciplining a child was viewed as rather unusual by the New Zealand teachers, who admitted that their first response would probably be to speak to the child.... Employing the body and non-verbal cues to guide children was seen as an interesting alternative by some New Zealand viewers, although it is important to remember that Japanese children are socialized into understanding these prompts through regular routines and repetition.[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]</p> <p>Burke and Duncan described a characteristic of Japanese ECEC as "using non-verbal means of communication." This is common to <emph>mimamori</emph>, waiting for and watching children, which is the avoidance of active and verbal interventions by teachers. It is interesting to note that the characteristic of Japanese ECEC was further described as "prompts through regular routines and repetition." Such a repetition of daily routines in traditional Japanese education can be seen as an example of learning via plain reading, called <emph>sodoku</emph>. It is an educational method and a traditional ritual in temples. The textbooks of <emph>sodoku</emph> were imported Confucian books from China. The teacher read them aloud and the children repeated. Tsujimoto explained its characteristics as an educational method that was widespread during the pre-modern period:</p> <p>The method they adopted to this purpose, namely "SODOKU", is not necessarily an obvious choice. After all, why would the endless recitation of text – without even understanding its meaning – be expected to foster any kind of scholarly ability? To understand this problem, we need to realise that recitation was not the end goal, but merely the means to memorisation. Or rather, it was the means to not merely committing the text to one's mind and memory, but to "incorporating" it into one's physical being. By engaging one's eyes to read, one's ears to listen, and one's lungs and mouth to recite, "SODOKU" involved a range of bodily senses and functions in order to etch a text permanently into the body of the student.[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]</p> <p> <emph>Sodoku</emph> did not require understanding the meaning of words but rather instilling them into the body. In addition, Tsujimoto considered it as an "osmosis-type" education, following Azuma's definition. This concept was derived from the perspective of comparing Japanese education with the modern western idea of "instruction." The osmosis model was mainly found in traditional Japanese discipline and education. Azuma thought that such a model was also valid for explaining Japanese modern school education and human relationships:</p> <p>This osmosis model also prevailed in the training of traditional arts and crafts in Japan. The master would not teach. Instead, the live in-disciples would "steal" the art, together with the professional living style and work ethic, while helping the master with his work and doing household chores.[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]</p> <p>Tsujimoto also described how this kind of craftsman's learning overlaps with <emph>sodoku</emph>:</p> <p>Disciples are required to have a relationship to resonate with the master so that they can understand what he feels and thinks without speaking in words. This cannot be done without understanding the subtle breathing of the master, or feeling something like the master's rhythm through embodied sensations.[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]</p> <p>Such a description strongly expresses the <emph>onozukara</emph> of nature addressed in this article. The styles of education for craftsmen who lived with their masters and education for children, such as <emph>sodoku</emph>, have a common foundation. It is to learn in an embodied dimension by living and doing tasks together naturally (<emph>onozukara</emph>). However, disciples and children must not simply be with their masters for their learning. Rather, as Azuma said, they need to "steal" their masters' skills by experiencing them together. This "steal" is to copy. The master, who is a teacher or a skilled craftsman, seldom bothers to teach disciples and students the meaning of actions and hidden customs in daily life or the meaning of words. Therefore, they need to "steal" skills through just viewing them, that is, to learn "by themselves" (<emph>mizukara</emph>) by voluntarily using their senses and perceptions.</p> <p>However, this <emph>mizukara</emph> can be interpreted just from the viewpoint of modern learning, and as a pre-modern idea, <emph>onozukara</emph> or the "osmosis-type" education was more emphasised. Once I put aside on which of these the emphasis is placed, I assert that the two Japanese meanings for nature (<emph>mizukara</emph>/<emph>onozukara</emph>) are embedded here. Disciples and children learn words and works in an osmosis model by intertwining <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>.</p> <p>At present, Japan's educational situation has changed drastically. However, its tendency to prefer the osmosis model persists.[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>] As cited in the previous section, the New Zealand researcher regarded non-verbal means of communication as a Japanese characteristic.</p> <p>Such an osmosis model of education cannot be acclaimed just because it is Japanese tradition. However, neither should it be rejected or disregarded just because it does not fit western educational theory. A more elaborate reflection on what underlies the cultural idea is needed. To consider whether the concept of nature in pre-modern Japan (<emph>mizukara/onozukara</emph>) existed during that time and endures in today's modern education, I intend to examine the theory of ECEC during the early stage of modern Japan.</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-5">Kurahashi's Concept of Nature in Early Childhood Education</hd> <p>The start of early childhood education in modern Japan was marked by the establishment of a kindergarten attached to the Tokyo Normal School for Women (TNSW)[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref21">21</reflink>] in 1876 by Shinzo Seki with the support of Fujimaro Tanaka, Minister of Education, and Masanao Nakamura, President of TNSW.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>] Under the supervision of Tanaka and Nakamura, the educational policy of the kindergarten attached to TNSW became to emphasise self-activity and group education. However, after 1880 when Seki died, Tanaka resigned as Minister of Education and Nakamura resigned as President, the kindergartens in Japan fell into an education that focused on the formal and manual skills of Froebel's gifts.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]</p> <p>In the 1890s, multiple movements emerged that sought to shape kindergarten education principles in Japan based on a deeper grasp of Froebel's ideas rather than on his orthodoxy.[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>] Ota describes the history of kindergarten from 1890 to 1910 as "the process of trial and error in which the Japanese kindergarten struggled to grasp for itself the methodological principles unique to early childhood education, which were different from those of school education, finally 20 years after the transplantation of kindergarten."[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]</p> <p>Representative of this movement was the lineage of pedagogues at the kindergarten attached to TNSW: Goroku Nakamura, Motokichi Higashi, Minoru Wada and Sozo Kurahashi.[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>] Nakamura became the manager of the kindergarten from 1891 and devoted himself to its development and Higashi launched academic research on ECEC. As a teacher at TNSW, Wada engaged in systematic research for ECEC and the training of childcare professionals.</p> <p>In Wada's "Experimental Childcare Studies,"[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref27">27</reflink>] methods of <emph>yudo</emph> (guidance) were argued, which had a great influence on Kurahashi and other researchers in Japan. This <emph>yudo</emph> was shared in the 1910s by Goroku Nakamura and Wada as well as Kurahashi, who thought to abandon the orthodoxy that focused on the manual skills of Froebel's gifts.[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]</p> <p>After these early years, the number of kindergartens in Japan expanded drastically. In 1926, the "Edict of Kindergarten" was issued to improve the institutional status and quality of kindergartens.[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>] During this period, Kurahashi led ECEC in Japan as a professor of TNSW and a manager of its attached kindergarten. Depending mainly on the theories of Kurahashi and his forerunners, ECEC in Japan has been classified as education through children's daily life and play. Kurahashi encouraged children's voluntarity and free activities through <emph>mimamori</emph>.</p> <p>I think that Kurahashi formulated his idea of nature by integrating it into the Japanese concept of nature to form Japanese early childhood educational theory.[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref30">30</reflink>] Kurahashi, citing the words of American psychologist Granville Stanley Hall, described the education fitting children's nature in the essay titled "Youchien Zasso [Essays of Kindergarten]" (1918) as follows.</p> <p>"It is a child's honor to be in harmony with nature. It is an educator's honor to be in harmony with the child," said Stanley Hall. Then, I will make the next deduction from this quote. In order for an educator to be able be in harmony with a child, the educator must be a person who can be in harmony with nature. It is difficult to be able to truly be in harmony with nature, but it can also be a light meaning such as loving nature or having a hobby in nature.[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]</p> <p>Elsewhere in this essay, Kurahashi further discussed the love of nature in the specific case of growing plants.[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>] Kurahashi stated that growing plants was supporting nature. He also said that kindergarten teachers offered the same support. In other words, he described the cultivation of children likened to the support of nature, just as Froebel named the school "Kindergarten."</p> <p>In another essay, "Youchien Sintai [Truth of Kindergarten Education]" (1934), he discussed the concept of guidance in relation to his treatment of nature. He compared a child's daily life at kindergarten to the flow of a river. Kurahashi called the treatment of the flow "guidance"[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref33">33</reflink>] and described it as matching the flow with nature, while keeping it in harmony with the teacher's aims and directions of practice and allowing it to flow without interference:</p> <p>If there may be such a thing as skillful or unskillful in kindergarten education, the one who can direct the flow well is skillful, and the one who cannot do so is not. A good teacher is the one who always guides the flow in the aims and directions, without interrupting it, holding it back, and forcing it to bend, in other words, naturally matching the flow with the teacher's aspirations.[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]</p> <p>Thus, the concept of guidance, which Kurahashi placed at the centre of his work, was discussed in his analogy of the cultivation of plants and the flow of rivers, and explained in terms of natural harmony between teachers and children. This nature referred to real natural things as well as the idea symbolising human harmony.</p> <p>Here, I find that Kurahashi relied on the traditional Japanese view of nature. He likened the development of children to growing plants or flowing rivers. They develop and flow by themselves (<emph>mizukara</emph>). The teacher guides them towards educational purposes and directions. Beyond the voluntarity of the children, the spontaneity (<emph>onozukara</emph>) of the child would be created. This is the content of <emph>yudo</emph> from the perspective of Japanese nature.</p> <p>To consider it further, I shall examine his writing on the characteristics of preschool education, where he regarded the concept of nature as one axis in his theory:</p> <p>Preschool education is basic education. The purpose of this education is not to tailor several parts of mental ability, but to foster the overall development as life energy. Therefore, as the method of doing so, life itself must first be the main focus. Making life itself the main focus means neither leaving the essence as life nor losing the nature as life.[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>]</p> <p>Kurahashi believed that ECEC, which was positioned as the basis of the whole educational process, should develop the entire energy of human life and must therefore be rooted in life. The concept of life was introduced by Froebel. Kurahashi explained this term from two original perspectives: "essence as life" and "nature as life." "Essence as life" requires voluntarity to be activated from one's inner life:</p> <p>The essence as life has various requirements. The first requirement is that it should be voluntary. Life must be more than just exercise, not passive or mechanical, but voluntary from the subject itself. Whether the voluntary is driven by instinct or will, it depends on the degree of development, and many will be mixed, but in any case, it must be triggered from inner life.[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>]</p> <p>Voluntarity originates from the subject itself, and according to Kurahashi it must be stimulated by one's inner life. This voluntarity corresponds to <emph>mizukara</emph>, as Kurahashi stated that voluntarity is inherent in the subject. On the other hand, "nature as life" is as follows:</p> <p>The nature as life should belong to such a voluntary and whole life as the essence as life does. However, it is regarded as natural because its life is ubiquitous everywhere and forever without being created or recreated with consciousness. In other words, it remains a pure manifestation of life. At that time, life is selfless and immersive, with no self-consciousness or consciousness to make efforts. Therefore, for example, like the flow of water or wind, there is no sense of effort. It is pleasant and unpleasant, painful and painless, and this is one, natural.[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]</p> <p>While "essence as life" requires voluntarity to emerge from within oneself, "nature as life" is described strikingly on the following statements: "Life is selfless and immersive, with no self-consciousness or consciousness to make efforts" and "Like the flow of water or the flow of wind, there is no sense of effort." The keywords "selflessness" and "immersion" were derived from the traditional view of nature in Japan. Kurahashi wrote them during the 1930s when such a view of nature was widespread in Japan and European countries.[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref38">38</reflink>]</p> <p>"Essence as life" refers to the emergence of voluntarity from within oneself (<emph>mizukara</emph>), while "nature as life" entails selflessness and immersion, that is, a state of losing self-consciousness. I think that the latter is associated with <emph>onozukara</emph> and that children's lives are discussed in relation to the natural phenomenon of <emph>onozukara</emph> as the flow of water and wind that has nothing to do with self-consciousness. The former life is expressed as essence and the latter life as nature so that this nature in ECEC is compared to the movement of water and wind. <emph>Mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph> were integrated into Kurahashi's education, and to display the means of such integration, he introduced the concept of guidance, which represented his educational theory:</p> <p>It was necessary to guide infants by an environment instead of spoiling their voluntarity. The environment mainly consists of things, but when the educator stands in a position of environment, it becomes a trigger of life. Infants should be guided by the educator's own life.[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]</p> <p>Kurahashi emphasised the voluntarity of infants above all else. In the context of Japanese traditional nature, this voluntarity is <emph>mizukara</emph>. Activities assembled by children and based on their desires are the essence of life and originate from the inner life. As the method of his educational idea, Kurahashi found guidance through the life of educators:</p> <p>There are two cases in this implication [of the guidance by the educator's own life]. The first meaning is the trigger with which the educator brings an infant to the educator's life like the environment does. The life is where the educator actually lives. That is the inspiration, as we usually call it, no need to mention its necessity and value. What's more, the second case is especially important here, and the trigger effect of the movements, powers, and in other words, living strongly on infants is significant as the method of preschool education. When the educator dances happily, the infants can dance as well, and when the educator produces the object enthusiastically, they can as well, and so the educator brings the infant to life. In this case, however, it is not just about bringing into the same life where the educator lives actually, but being enthusiastic makes enthusiasm of the infant, being intense makes tensity and so being with effort makes effort, even if in a different way from the educator. In other words, it is education for life by life itself.[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]</p> <p>Two forms of guidance were described here. The first involved infants imitating the lives of educators. There was more emphasis on the second, in which the stronger life of the educator leads not only to the same inspiration as the first but also to other approaches that transcend the same life. The content was not the same, but the strength of enthusiasm, intensity and effort leads infants to something different from the original. Kurahashi calls this "education for life by life itself." Infants' subjectivity is clearly guaranteed because these two forms also served as guidance. However, the following description shows that the history of educational methods as a three-layer composition was woven into Kurahashi's theoretical composition:</p> <p>The so-called new education method respects that educators are driven mainly centred on the infants. It goes without saying that this method is better than the old educational method in which educators took the initiative in driving infants. However, the education for life by life itself is not perfectly the opposite as an educational method of the educator-centred, in the sense that the life of the educator is first carried out and it is swayed by the infant. And it is also different from the practice of so-called new education methods where educators often end up to too much on the side of the infant without living their own lives.[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref41">41</reflink>]</p> <p>It is argued that the educator was the main actor to which the infant was subordinate in the old education method. Conversely, according to Kurahashi, infants became the main actors and educators were subordinate to them in the new educational movement from the beginning of the twentieth century. Furthermore, Kurahashi envisioned a third educational method after the new education as "education for life by life itself." Educators were not subordinate to children in this way; they also lived voluntarily and life had to be full of enthusiasm, tension and effort. It is strength that drives infants who lived with educators. By stating that "the life of the educator is first carried out and it is swayed by the infant," Kurahashi presupposed the infant's voluntarity of activities, but his main assertion is that the strength of the educator's life drives the infant's activities.</p> <p>I think here that the mode of how infants are driven towards activities corresponds to what is considered as <emph>onozukara</emph> in the Japanese traditional context of nature. So far, it can also be seen that Kurahashi's guidance is a dialectic of <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>. As discussed in the previous section, even in traditional Japanese education, it was important for students to both spend time with a teacher to acquire skills as <emph>onozukara</emph> and copy such skills from communal life and learning as <emph>mizukara</emph>. I can think that the pre-modern Japanese concept of nature, which emphasised both <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>, existed in Japanese education after modernisation.</p> <p>In addition, contemporary ECEC in Japan emphasises the concept of <emph>mimamoru</emph>, which foreign scholars consider a Japanese characteristic. In this educational method, educators do not actively work with children, which fosters freedom, spontaneity and imagination. From this article's investigation of nature, this can be considered as a hidden characteristic from Japanese pre-modern to contemporary education.</p> <p>This article highlights the historical peculiarity of the Japanese concept of nature, arguing that it has served as an undercurrent in early childhood education. In the osmosis-type education of the pre-modern <emph>sodoku</emph> and in Kurahashi's educational theory after the modern period, the concept of nature was situated with the meanings of <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-6">The Concept of Nature in Nishida's Reflection on Japanese Culture</hd> <p>To examine the extent to which the two meanings of the concept of nature have been deeply ingrained in Japanese educational theory, I shall consider the theory of Kitaro Nishida. He is a representative philosopher of modern Japan who attempted to fuse Japanese thoughts, especially Buddhism, with western philosophy, including Hegel's dialectic, Husserl's phenomenology and James's theory of consciousness, and established a philosophy unique to Japan. He founded the Kyoto School and had an enormous influence on Japanese thought from 1910s to the present. Nishida and Kurahashi were contemporaries, but Kurahashi's text (1931) had no direct influence on Nishida's text (1940), and Nishida was not the only thinker who asserted the prominence of Japanese culture as opposed to western culture when Second World War broke out. However, in order to understand the concept of nature on Kurahashi's text historically, the reference to Nishida is necessary as he was an outstanding thinker of that era and his text on nature and Japanese culture had strong influences on the contemporary writers and intellectuals. In addition, recent studies have shown that the Kyoto School philosophers like Nishida and his disciples had had significant influence on the thought of Japanese new education since 1920.[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref43">43</reflink>] This is why I consider Nishida's text as the background of discussion in this article about Kurahashi's text on nature and ECEC.</p> <p>Now I consider Nishida's theory of nature as the representative idea on nature in Japanese traditional culture as well as in Japanese modernity, so that I overlap it on Kurahashi's theory of nature.</p> <p>During the Second World War, Nishida presented Japanese culture as a node between the West and the East:</p> <p>I think the distinguished feature of Japanese culture is, in the direction from the subject to the surroundings, to deny self as much as possible, to see objects in the standpoint from the object, and to act with assimilating into objects: to see objects with a selfless devotion and a sense of immersion into things is the realization of <emph>mushin</emph> or the status as things are by <emph>jinen-honi</emph>, which are all the place we Japanese yearn for.[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>]</p> <p>Nishida thought Japanese culture aimed to assimilate into the object and to dismiss the status of the self as the subject. The term <emph>mushin</emph> (innocence) was influenced by Zen Buddhism, which meant to deny the self, to see it as a thing and to act as if the self were a thing.[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref45">45</reflink>] This idea of self-denial was a critical theme in Nishida's philosophy to include the implication of the fusion of self and otherness, which was inherent in Japanese "nature." Its core was described by the phrase "to see objects with a selfless devotion and a sense of immersion into things." He emphasised that devotion and immersion were entrusted to "the realisation of <emph>mushin</emph> or the status of things as <emph>jinen-honi</emph>." <emph>Jinen-honi</emph> is a religious state advocated by Shinran (1173–1263), a representative Buddhist in medieval Japan. <emph>Jinen</emph> is written as 自然, meaning Japanese nature (pronounced as <emph>jinen</emph> in Japanese Buddhism). Nishida said that the realisation of <emph>mushin</emph> as a thing was the state that Japanese people had wanted in accordance with Buddhism. In addition, what Shinran and Nishida called nature was <emph>mushin</emph> and self-negation, compelling people to delete the self and identify the self with things. In Nishida's theory,</p> <p>Shinran's <emph>jinen-honi</emph> is not just the nature considered in western thought. It is not so-called naturalism, which promotes behaviours according to impulses. It must include losing self to things. Infinite effort must be wrapped in it. It's not just being as it is. At the same time, knowing that your own efforts are not yours. It means that there is something that makes you what you are naturally.[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]</p> <p>Nishida described Shinran's concept of <emph>jinen-honi</emph> as "losing self to things" and "knowing that your own efforts are not yours." Simply put, Shinran's idea of <emph>jinen-honi</emph> refers to self-negation and living by the heart of the Buddha. Shinran's original definition of <emph>jinen-honi</emph> is as follows:</p> <p> <emph>Ji</emph> means "of itself" – not through the practicer's calculation. It signifies being made so. <emph>Nen</emph> means "to be made so" – it is not through the practicer's calculation; it is through the working of the Tathagata's Vow. <emph>Honi</emph> signifies being made so through the working of the Tathagata's Vow. It is the working of the Vow where there is no room for calculation on the part of the practicer. Know, therefore, that in Other Power, no working is true working. <emph>Jinen</emph> signifies being made so from the very beginning.[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref47">47</reflink>]</p> <p>Shinran said that <emph>ji</emph> and <emph>nen</emph> had the same meaning: "being made so." Honi also made the same meaning, but later added the following phrase: "through the working of the Tathagata's Vow." However, they had the same meaning: "being made so," which was called nature. According to Minamoto's explanation, "Shinran said the ultimate religious reality, 'Ultimate Buddha' had no 'shape' and can only be called 'nature'."[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref48">48</reflink>] It can be understood that, in the Japanese Buddhist tradition, the concept of nature was considered not as the whole of natural objects. The influence of Shinran's nature continued even in modern times and significantly contributed to Nishida's ideology. The idea of <emph>jinen-honi</emph> means to abandon the self and to entrust the self to Tathagata (Other Power) and, according to the virtues of Buddhist maxim, includes the concept of nature; 自 <emph>onozukara</emph> (of itself) and 然 <emph>shikarashimu</emph> (to be made so). As mentioned in the previous section, the educational practice of pre-modern Japan emphasised osmosis to something beyond the individual much more than individual voluntarity.</p> <p>Nishida also combined the classical concept of nature in Japan with <emph>mushin</emph>, the idea of abandoning the artificial, and regarded this as a feature of Japanese culture. I think that Nishida asserted individuality of the self and transcendence beyond finiteness as a characteristic of Japanese culture by considering Shinran's <emph>jinen-honi</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref49">49</reflink>]</p> <p>Nishida criticised the "so-called naturalism" as one of the trends in Japanese literature. "Naturalism" corresponds to just being as it is. Nishida's <emph>jinen-honi</emph> was in opposition to this "naturalism." Nishida asserted that <emph>jinen-honi</emph> must imply the lost self and require the self's infinite effort. Meanwhile, from this "effort," I can recognise one of the meanings of Japanese nature, <emph>mizukara</emph>. However, Nishida also stated that such effort referred to "knowing that your own efforts are not yours." "Your own efforts" was surely described as "yours," nevertheless Nishida said, "your own efforts are not yours." That is, your efforts are surely yours but are not yours. This discourse is typical of Zen catechism, wherein a Zen master would ask students such a contradictory question. From such statements as "your efforts are not yours," I can identify the other meaning of nature, <emph>onozukara</emph>. As discussed previously, <emph>mizukara</emph> refers to voluntarity based on self-finiteness and individuality, while <emph>onozukara</emph> pertains to the spontaneity of transcendence beyond them.</p> <p>According to Shinran's and Nishida's Buddhistic idea, the self is situated on the suspension of the contradiction "your efforts are both yours and not yours." In the suspension, the self would be lost and let oneself be as it is. The efforts are also efforts, but "it will be made so of itself." I think that <emph>jinen-honi</emph>, which Nishida regarded as the characteristic of Japanese culture, is the amalgam of <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>. Nishida was one of the prominent philosophers who introduced western philosophy to Japan; his theory was mainly influenced by Hegel's dialectic. Judging from his background, I can consider Nishida's nature to be the equivalent of the <emph>aufheben</emph> of <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref50">50</reflink>]</p> <p>Thus far, I have examined traditional learning theory and the stream of Japanese thought, like Kurahashi's and Nishida's texts. They were shaped through a movement torn in different directions, <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>. The pre-modern implications of nature underlay modern Japan's concept of nature. However, as I describe in detail below, this characteristic was virtually constructed to demonstrate Japanese uniqueness to the world and to make Japan's concept of nature more distinctive.</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-7">A Critical Reflection on the Modern Concept of Japanese Nature</hd> <p>So far, I have described the peculiarity of the Japanese concept of nature, but it may have taken the form of a sock puppet, a kind of self-made manner in the modernisation of Japan after the Meiji period. "Sock puppet" refers to the fact that Japanese intellectuals dared to manipulate the content of the concept of nature to enhance its distinctiveness as compared with that in other countries. The previous section discussed Nishida's emphasis on Japanese nature. His understanding of the concept of nature in Japan showed the distinctiveness of his philosophy discussing "the problem of Japanese culture." At the same time, his view of Japanese nature was intended to highlight differences between Japanese, Chinese and western concepts of nature:</p> <p>Nature as the union of heaven and human in Chinese culture must be different from the idea of nature in the West. However, human beings remain at the centre of nature in China, and heaven is a humanized nature. Yet the nature of Shinran's <emph>jinen-honi</emph> must be one that denies human beings at bottom, in the opposite direction to the Western idea of nature. That is to say, one that is devoted to things.[<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref51">51</reflink>]</p> <p>Nishida featured the Chinese nature as "union of heaven and human" and regarded the heaven as "humanised nature." However, Japanese nature had a unique position: it denied human beings. But Nishida argued that the difference was not merely one that emerged from the promotion of Japanese culture. He stated that Japanese spirit worked as a dialectical <emph>aufheben</emph> of Eastern culture represented by China and western culture. As a result, Japan would be placed on the connection between other cultures:</p> <p>The Japanese spirit gets through from the subject beyond the subject to the bottom of the subject as the truth of things. It vitalises the spirit of Eastern culture and will be directly combined with the spirit of environmental Western culture. In this sense, Japan can be needed for a point of connection between East and West cultures.[<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]</p> <p>In modern Japan since the Meiji period, the concept of nature has played an important role in shaping the country's national identity. That is, modern Japanese thinkers fostered a national identity of modern Japan that was in harmony with nature, as opposed to the modern western world, which would conquer nature.[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>]</p> <p>Summarising the foregoing, Japanese tradition since the Edo period must not be understood from the viewpoints of modern scholars such as Nishida. Although the images of Japanese people in harmony with nature may be recognised, these express reinventions (rediscoveries) of nature by reformulating the concept of nature from modern Japan. Sakai briefly summarised this perspective from the viewpoint of post-colonialism:</p> <p>It was what should be called a historic mission for almost all "non-Western" intellectuals to have to face the problem to establish their own identity by imagining the gap to the West, and to create their own history from the dynamics of imitation and repulsion towards the West.... In short, the history of Japanese thought develops as a disclosure of the ideas of "I" or "we" when researchers identify themselves with the subjective position of "Japanese." However, this emphasis on one's own race or nationality has no meaning unless it is premised on the existence of the opposition.[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref54">54</reflink>]</p> <p>It was unavoidable for Japan, as a non-western country that had to experience a history of late modernisation, to forge its own national identity from its gaps with the West. At that time, the concept of nature was clearly one of the concepts that must be celebrated as bearers of Japanese identity. Not only Nishida but also many modern intellectuals contributed to this concept of nature, which was an outstanding vehicle of Japanese culture and thought, using western nature as a mirror.[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref55">55</reflink>]</p> <p>The concept of nature as part of Japanese historical identity was constructed via backcasting. However, one would not deny that a certain Japanese mindset has persisted. The mindset found as the fusion of voluntarity from the self (<emph>mizukara</emph>) and spontaneity beyond the self (<emph>onozukara</emph>) in the concept of nature would certainly exist, whether or not it was intended to ensure Japanese identity. Even if this was imagined in exaggerated forms after the Meiji period, it has inadvertently survived even in Japan's educational mentality for some generations.</p> <p>It must be recognised that the Japanese mindset became Japan's national identity during the country's modernisation and emerged as a flag of ethnic identity during the competition and war against East Asian and western countries. Nishida invented such a concept of nature specific to Japan at the same time. He is one of the typical Japanese intellectuals who represented the image of Japan as a modern nation that fought against both the West and Asia during modernisation and had to differentiate itself and present a unique position between them.</p> <p>Thus far, I have identified how the concept of nature of the philosophers who were Kurahashi's contemporaries addressed the Japanese national identity of their time. The concept of nature, including the meanings <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>, was reinvented and worked as a flag of ethnic identity. It cannot immediately be judged that Kurahashi's text on nature and education also included an ideology that supported Japanese national identity. Nevertheless, by interpreting the concept of nature with the pre-modern connotation of <emph>mizukara</emph>/<emph>onozukara</emph> and realising that it also impacted the thoughts of the contemporary philosopher, a layout of philosophical thoughts in the 1930–1940s that includes Kurahashi's theory of ECEC becomes evident. It would be too careless to treat the ideas of Kurahashi and Nishida directly as the ideology of Japanese national identity; conversely, it would be too arbitrary to judge their ideas as pure, namely, unrelated to the contemporary ideological layout. Within this layout stood the traditional view of education that was inherited from Japan's pre-modern era and the religious view that simultaneously requested self-effort and self-negation from the people. To situate Kurahashi's idea more precisely in the context of this layout, it may be necessary to analyse his contemporaries in educational and childcare studies as well as in the international movement of new education. However, the texts of both Kurahashi and Nishida can be interpreted as thoughts about the nature of the layout of ideas between the 1930 and 1940s. This article attempts to compare Kurahashi's and Nishida's texts, which show similarity in terms of views of nature and the latent view of nature in Japanese thoughts. The layout is valuable for further historical research on the connection between the Japanese view of nature and education.</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-8">Conclusion</hd> <p>This article found that the Japanese concept of nature, including its two meanings <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>, is deeply ingrained in education and philosophy. Although contemporary Japanese are less conscious of these meanings, they may still influence our educational mentality. Japanese educational philosophy has maintained a balance between acting through one's will and entrusting oneself to something beyond one's will. During the modern period, Kurahashi and Nishida were aware of such pre-modern logic, which they inherited, and integrated into it western modern philosophy. As this article has explained, Kurahashi's and Nishida's theories had a common foundation on the concept of nature. Kurahashi's ECEC theory on guidance depended on the concept of nature to achieve both <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>. Finding this unknown root of guidance is the intended achievement of this article.</p> <p>As seen in the previous section, modern thinkers created Japanese traditions in light of western modernity and other countries' cultures. This was also done in the interests of nationalism as well as the creation of something unique to Japan. While showing awareness of such efforts, this article has addressed the concept of nature that has endured from pre-modern Japan to modern times. This concept of nature is akin to a virus that attaches itself to history and rearranges one's perspective of the past in the reproduction of traditions during Japanese modernisation. Even now, it clearly exists in Japanese education, for example, in the form of <emph>mimamori</emph>. This exploration enables us to reconsider the power of the word "nature" as a historically consistent philosophical product, as well as the ideology of national prestige during the wartime period. I studied such a traditional concept of nature not from a retrospective standpoint but with the intent to clarify the latent mindset. Therefore, the result of this article is that it has aimed to explain the latent layout of the Japanese concept of nature in ECEC.</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-9">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <hd id="AN0177800189-10">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0177800189-11"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Hayashi and Tobin, <emph>Teaching Embodied</emph>, 20. "[<emph>mimamoru</emph>]" is included in the original text.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Taylor's <emph>Reconfiguring the Natures of Childhood</emph> clearly situates the concept in western education since J. J. Rousseau. On the historical theme of connection between education and nature, Rousseau's <emph>Emile</emph> has been often used as a starting point for research. However, previous studies showed that <emph>Emile</emph> was at last introduced fully to the Japanese educational community only after the Second World War. In the early 1900s in Japan, Rousseau was considered a kind of dangerous ideology, and his thought was spreading covertly: Sakakura, "Nihon Niokeru <emph>Emile</emph> No Syoyaku."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> For the English translation of <emph>mizukara</emph> and <emph>onozukara</emph>, I referred to Takeuchi, <emph>Flower Petals Fall, but the Flower Endures</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Collingwood, <emph>The Idea of Nature</emph>; Lovejoy, <emph>Essays in the History of Ideas</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Yonekawa, "Kodomo Wo Mimamoru Hoikusyazo."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Tsujimoto, <emph>Manabi No Fukken</emph>. In recent years, Ueno and other Japanese researchers wrote a book to highlight the peculiarities of Japanese learning in the globalisation era: Ueno et al., <emph>Manabi and Japanese Schooling</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Nakatsubo et al., "Why Don't Japanese Early Childhood Educators Intervene in Children's Physical Fights?"</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Shinto is an indigenous religion without a dogma or a founder. In a view of Shinto, nature represents <emph>kami</emph> (divinity): Asquith and Kalland, "Japanese Perceptions of Nature," 2. In modern Japanese education, Shinto served to display emperor worship and Japanese family ideology (Morikawa, "Ideals of Self-Reliance and Personal Advancement," 56). Shinto's influence on Japanese education and politics was very deep-rooted and strong. However, Shinto was composed with the influx of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism (Sueki, <emph>Nihon Shisoushi No Syatei</emph>, 128), so that it is very difficult to discern what originated from Shinto.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Suzuki, <emph>Nihonjin No Shizenkan</emph>, 128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> For the details, see Saigusa, "Seiyouka Nihon No Kenkyu."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minamoto, "Nihonjin No Shizenkan," 348–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This explanation can also be found in Takeuchi, <emph>Flower Petals Fall, but the Flower Endures</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ら [RA] is a conjugational ending in Kana characters added to Chinese characters.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takeuchi, "<emph>Onozukara" To "Mizukara."</emph></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohlen and LeTendre, "Conclusion" 369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke and Duncan, <emph>Bodies as Sites of Cultural Reflection in Early Childhood Education</emph>, 67. The omission in the quotation is by the author of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsujimoto, "The Corporeality of Learning," 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Azuma, "Two Modes of Cognitive Socialization in Japan and the United States," 280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsujimoto, <emph>Manabi No Fukken</emph>, 173–4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The plain reading, <emph>sodoku</emph>, or the craftsman's learning, which I indicated as a characteristic of Japanese learning, was observed in other countries' traditional education as well. Ong said the following: "They [Human beings in primary oral cultures] learn by apprenticeship – hunting with experienced hunters, for example – by discipleship, which is a kind of apprenticeship, by listening, by repeating what they hear, by mastering proverbs and ways of combining and recombining them, by assimilating other formulary materials, by participation in a kind of corporate retrospection – not by study in the strict sense" (Ong, <emph>Orality and Literacy</emph>, 8). I understand the traditional methods of education, such as <emph>sodoku</emph>, were common to some extent worldwide. However, they have been excluded from the curriculums of western ECEC and public education. By contrast, such traditional methods of education remained in Japan, thus I regard them as having Japanese characteristics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The official name of Tokyo Normal School for Women was changed several times after its establishment, but I consistently use Tokyo Normal School for Women (TNSW) in this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamasaki, "New Education and Taisho Democracy 1900 to 1930s," 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogawa, <emph>Nakamura Masanao No Kyouikushiso</emph>, 439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This article focuses on Kurahashi and his forerunners, but it should not be forgotten that there were several other lineages that had shaped Japanese modern ECEC. As one example, the successes and struggles of 40 years of educational practice of Christian missionary Annie Lyon Howe in Kobe are discussed in Nishida, "A Chrysanthemum in the Garden." It demonstrates that they were not only the fruits of transplanting Froebelian and Christian-based education to Japan, but also a process of assimilation and resistance to the development of Japanese nationalism and militarism. As well as Howe, several Christian women missionaries who came from the United States widely influenced kindergarten education in Japan. See Kumada, <emph>Nihon Niokeru Kirisutokyo Hoikushiso No Densyo</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ota, "'Ie' No Kosodate Kara Syakai No Kosodate He," 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shiraishi, "Meijikouki No Hoikusya Ron," 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wada, "Jikken Hoikugaku," 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suwa, <emph>Nihon No Yojikyouikushiso To Kurahashi Sozo</emph>, 89–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yukawa, "Yoji Kyoiku," 64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The theme of the concept of nature in Kurahashi's thought has not been intensively discussed by other researchers. One exception is the following article: Shishido, "Taisyoki Youji Kyouiku Riron No Kozo." The article explained that Kurahashi's concept of nature supported contemporary Japanese ideas on childhood education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurahashi, "Youchien Zasso," 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurahashi, "Youchien Sintai," 112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurahashi, "Syugakumae No Kyoiku," 427.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 427–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In Yamada, <emph>Zen Toiu Na No Nihonmaru</emph>, it was argued in a case of the German philosopher Eugen Herrigel that Japanese ideas like "selflessness" and "immersion" from the 1920s were reimported into Japan through the acceptance of western countries.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurahashi, "Syugakumae No Kyoiku," 435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid. The phrase in square brackets was added by the author of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 435–6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Although I do not refer enough to the influence of western thoughts on Kurahashi's theory, Yukawa clarifies that Kurahashi's theory of <emph>Yudo</emph> (guidance) relied on the reinterpretation of Froebel in the USA as well as the kindergarten modification by Hall, Dewey and Kilpatrick in the early twentieth century. Yukawa also showed that Kurahashi's theory aimed to harmonise spontaneous activities, as Froebel said, with the purposeful activities of the American Project Method: Yukawa, "Kurahashi Sozo Niokeru Yudo Hoiku Ron No Seiritsu." Following Yukawa's paper, Tanaka identified the practices of Taisho New Education, including Kurahashi, as theories of free activities in accordance with Dewey's theory of correspondence between the self and the other. Tanaka considered this correspondence relationship as the freedom of <emph>mizukara</emph> supported by <emph>onozukara</emph> nature. In traditional Japanese thought, however, freedom was not much emphasised, and I think that Tanaka's perspective of interpreting <emph>mizukara</emph> as freedom is limited to Taisho New Education. See Tanaka, "Kokyosuru Jiyu He."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> One representative example of such studies is Yano, <emph>Kyotogakuha To Jikaku No Kyouikugaku</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida, "Nihonbunka No Mondai," 346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida stated that the thought of connecting nature and <emph>mushin</emph> (innocence) was influenced by Daisetsu Suzuki (1870–1966), who spread Zen all over the world (Nishida, "Nihonbunka No Mondai," 344).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida, "Nihonbunka No Mondai," 369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shinran, <emph>On Jinen Honi</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minamoto, "Nihonjin No Shizenkan," 358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida's work describes Japanese nature as follows: "Nature does not mean environmental nature. It means going from the subject to the bottom of the subject beyond the subject. The idea that reality is equal to existence is not thinking of the absolute out of infinity, but seeing the absolute at the bottom of the self. Therefore, it must not mean that the self sees the world subjectively, but that the self is absolutely denied and that the self disappears" (Nishida, "Nihonbunka No Mondai," 359–60).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida characterised his dialectic as "absolute self-identity of contradictories," which did not fit into Hegel's dialectic. Kosaka, a Nishida scholar, explained Nishida's dialectic included "thesis" and "antithesis" but no "synthesis." See Kosaka, <emph>Nishida Tetsugaku Wo Yomu 3 Zettaimujyunteki Jikodoitsu</emph>, 218–21. I will not further explore this concept, which is the core of Nishida's philosophy, here; rather, I will simply discuss the relation between Nishida's nature and the Japanese concept of nature or Kurahashi's ideas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida, "Nihonbunka No Mondai," 370.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibid., 360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This formulation can be understood from the work of Morris-Suzuki, which I will address later.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sakai, <emph>Nihonshiso Toiu Mondai</emph>, 50–1. The omission was made by the author of the present article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris-Suzuki highlighted that the Japanese concepts of culture, nature, race, gender, etc. were constructed in this manner in Morris-Suzuki, <emph>Re-inventing Japan</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0177800189-12"> <title> Bibliography </title> <blist> <bibtext> Asquith, P., and A. Kalland. " Japanese Perceptions of Nature: Ideals and Illusions." In Japanese Images of Nature: Cultural Perspectives, edited by P. Asquith, and A. Kalland, 1 – 35. Richmond : Curzon Press, 1997.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Azuma, H. " Two Modes of Cognitive Socialization in Japan and the United States." In Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development, edited by P. Greenfield, and R. Cocking, 275 – 84. New York : Psychology Press, 1994.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, R., and J. Duncan. Bodies as Sites of Cultural Reflection in Early Childhood Education. London : Routledge, 2015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collingwood, R. G. The Idea of Nature. Oxford : Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1945.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayashi, A., and J. Tobin. Teaching Embodied: Cultural Practice in Japanese Preschools. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kosaka, K. Nishida Tetsugaku Wo Yomu 3 Zettaimujyunteki Jikodoitsu [Reading Nishida philosophy 3: absolute self-identity of contradictories]. Tokyo : DaitoPublishing, 2009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumada, N. Nihon Niokeru Kirisutokyo Hoikushiso No Densyo [Inheritance of Christian childcare thoughts in Japan]. Tokyo : Kyobunkan, 2022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurahashi, S. " Syugakumae No Kyoiku." [Preschool education.] In Kurahashi Sozo Sensyu [Sozo Kurahashi selected works], Vol. 3, 381 – 445. Tokyo : Froebel-Kan, 1963.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurahashi, S. " Youchien Sintai." [Truth of kindergarten education.] In Kurahashi Sozo Sensyu [Sozo Kurahashi selected works], Vol. 1, 9 – 122. Tokyo : Froebel-Kan, 1965.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurahashi, S. " Youchien Zasso." [Essays of kindergarten.] In Kurahashi Sozo Sensyu [Sozo Kurahashi selected works], Vol. 2, 7 – 420. Tokyo : Froebel-Kan, 1965.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lovejoy, A. O. Essays in the History of Ideas. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1948.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minamoto, R. " Nihonjin No Shizenkan." [The Japanese view of nature.] In Shin Iwanami Koza Tetsugaku 5 – Shizen to Kosumosu [New Iwanami lectures philosophy 5: nature and cosmos], and S. Omori, 348 – 74. Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1985.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morikawa, T. " Ideals of Self-reliance and Personal Advancement: Modern Education in the Meiji Era 1868 to 1912." In The History of Education in Japan (1600–2000), edited by M. Tsujimoto and Y. Yamasaki, 34 – 60. London : Routledge, 2017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris-Suzuki, T. Re-inventing Japan: Time, Space, Nation. London : Routledge, 1997.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakatsubo, F., H. Ueda, and M. Kayama. " Why Don't Japanese Early Childhood Educators Intervene in Children's Physical Fights? Some Characteristics of the Mimamoru Approach." Early Childhood Education Journal 50 (2022): 627 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida, K. " Nihonbunka No Mondai." [The problem of Japanese culture.] In Nishida Kitaro Zensyu [The complete works of Nishida Kitaro], Vol. 12, 275 – 394. Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1966.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nishida, Y. " A Chrysanthemum in the Garden: A Christian Kindergarten in the Empire of Japan." Paedagogica Historica 51, no. 3 (2015): 280 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogawa, S. Nakamura Masanao No Kyouikushiso [The educational thought of Masanao Nakamura]. Tokyo : Cosmohills, 2004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ong, W. J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London : Routledge, 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ota, M. " 'Ie' No Kosodate Kara Syakai No Kosodate He." [From the childrearing in "home" to in the society.] In Hoiku to Kateikyouiku No Tanjyo [The birth of childcare and home education 1890–1930], edited by M. Ota and S. Asai, 9 – 27. Tokyo : Fujiwara Syoten, 2012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohlen, T., and G. LeTendre. " Conclusion: Themes in Teaching and Learning in Japan." In The Japanese Culture of Learning, edited by T. Rohlen and G. LeTendre, 369 – 76. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1996.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saigusa, H. " Seiyouka Nihon No Kenkyu." [The study of Westernised Japan.] In Saigusa Hiroto Cyosakusyu [The complete works of Saigusa Hiroto], Vol. 12, 11 – 207. Tokyo : Cyuokoronsya, 1973.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sakai, N. Nihonshiso Toiu Mondai – Honyaku To Syutai [A problem of Japanese thought as translation and subject]. Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1997.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sakakura, Y. " Nihon Niokeru Emile No Syoyaku." [The First Japanese Translation of Emile by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.] Rikkyo University Department of Education Journal of Educational Research 56 (2013): 23 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shinran. On Jinen Honi. Translated by Yoho Bruno Van Parijs. Accessed January 20, 2024. <ulink href="http://shinranworks.com/hymns-in-japanese/hymns-of-the-dharma-ages/on-jinen-honi/">http://shinranworks.com/hymns-in-japanese/hymns-of-the-dharma-ages/on-jinen-honi/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shiraishi, T. " Meijikouki No Hoikusya Ron." [Theory of the "child carer" in latter term of Meiji Era.] Memoirs of Tottori College of Nursing and Tottori College 61 (2010): 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shishido, T. " Taisyoki Youji Kyouiku Riron No Kozo – Kurahashi Sozo No Hoiku Riron No Kento." [Structure of early childhood education theory in the Taisho Period – Study on the theory of childcare of Sozo Kurahashi.] Bulletin of Aichi Prefectural Women's University / Aichi Prefectural Women's Junior College, Humanity, Society, Nature 13 (1962): 233 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sueki, F. Nihon Shisoushi No Syatei [The range of the history of Japanese thought]. Tokyo : Keibunsya, 2017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suwa, Y. Nihon No Yojikyouikushiso To Kurahashi Sozo [Japanese early childhood education and Sozo Kurahashi]. Tokyo : Shindokusyosya, 2007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suzuki, S. Nihonjin No Shizenkan [The Japanese view of nature]. Tokyo : Sakuhinsya, 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takeuchi, S. " Onozukara" To "Mizukara" – Nihon Bunka No Kisou ["Onozukara" and "Mizukara" – the base of Japanese culture]. Tokyo : Syunjyusya, 2010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takeuchi, S. Flower Petals Fall, but the Flower Endures. Translated by Michael Brase. Tokyo : Japan Publishing Industry Foundation for Culture, 2011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanaka, S. " Kokyosuru Jiyu He." [Toward a freedom of Symphonia.] In Taisho-Shin-Kyoiku No Jissen [Praxis of Taisho new education], edited by M. Hashimoto and S. Tanaka, 413 – 41. Tokyo : Toshindo, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, A. Reconfiguring the Natures of Childhood. London : Routledge, 2013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsujimoto, M. Manabi No Fukken [Rehabilitation of learning]. Tokyo : Iwanami Shoten, 1999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsujimoto, M. " The Corporeality of Learning: Confucian Education in Early Modern Japan." Educational Philosophy and Theory 48 (2016): 64 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ueno, M., Y. Kashiwagi, K. Fujii, T. Saito, and T. Maruyama. Manabi and Japanese Schooling: Beyond Learning in the Era of Globalisation. London : Routledge, 2020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wada, M. " Jikken Hoikugaku." [Experimental childcare studies.] In Taisyo Syowa Hoiku Bunkensyu [The collection of childcare studies in Taisyo-Syowa period], Vol. 10, 9 – 208. Tokyo : Nihon Library, 1978.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamada, S. Zen Toiu Na No Nihonmaru [Nippon-Maru Named Zen]. Tokyo : Kobundo, 2005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamasaki, Y. " New Education and Taisho Democracy 1900 to 1930s." In The History of Education in Japan (1600–2000), edited by M. Tsujimoto and Y. Yamasaki, 61 – 85. London : Routledge, 2017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yano, S. Kyotogakuha to Jikaku No Kyouikugaku [Kyoto school and the pedagogy of self-awareness]. Tokyo : Keiso Syobo, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yonekawa, M. " Kodomo Wo Mimamoru Hoikusyazo: Kurahashi Sozo Ni Miru Kodomo No Songen To Kodomo Wo Mimamoru Kokoro." [The character of childcare workers and the dignity of children: An examination through the works of Sozo Kurahashi.] Sophia University Graduate Research in Education 25 (2012): 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yukawa, K. " Yoji Kyoiku." [Early childhood education.] In Gendai Kyouikushi Jiten [Dictionary of contemporary educational history in Japan], edited by Y. Kubo, T. Yoneda, T. Komagome, and K. Komikawa, 64 – 75. Tokyo : Tokyo Syoseki, 2001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yukawa, K. " Kurahashi Sozo Niokeru Yudo Hoiku Ron No Seiritsu." [Kurahashi Sozo's theory of early childhood education.] In Taisho-Shin-Kyoiku No Jissen [Praxis of Taisho new education], edited by M. Hashimoto and S. Tanaka, 389 – 412. Tokyo : Toshindo, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yosuke Hirota</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref55"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1428009 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Concept of Nature Underlying Early Childhood Education and Care from Pre-Modern to Contemporary Japan, via Sozo Kurahashi and Kitaro Nishida – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yosuke+Hirota%22">Yosuke Hirota</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4722-8817">0000-0002-4722-8817</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22History+of+Education%22"><i>History of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 53(3):477-496. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 20 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+History%22">Educational History</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Philosophy%22">Educational Philosophy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environment%22">Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metacognition%22">Metacognition</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Japan%22">Japan</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/0046760X.2024.2304353 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0046-760X<br />1464-5130 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This article examines the Japanese historical concept of nature in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Through modernisation, Japan was infused with Anglo-European philosophy. However, Japan's pre-modern concept of nature differed from that of the West or modern Japan and latently affected the Japanese modern educational system. The concept of nature comprised two modes: "mizukara", meaning "voluntarily" or indicating the mode of the voluntary self or "I," and "onozukara", referring to what is "spontaneously or naturally so" or indicating modes of transcendence beyond the self that permeate Japanese pre-modern reading education and apprenticeship as well as contemporary Japanese society. This study investigates Japanese modern texts by representative educator Sozo Kurahashi and philosopher Kitaro Nishida on education and philosophy to describe the latent and underlying connection between the concept of nature and Japanese ECEC as well as to depict the configuration of educational discourse focused on nature. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1428009 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1428009 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/0046760X.2024.2304353 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 20 StartPage: 477 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Educational History Type: general – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Philosophy Type: general – SubjectFull: Environment Type: general – SubjectFull: Correlation Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Kindergarten Type: general – SubjectFull: Metacognition Type: general – SubjectFull: Japan Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Concept of Nature Underlying Early Childhood Education and Care from Pre-Modern to Contemporary Japan, via Sozo Kurahashi and Kitaro Nishida Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Yosuke Hirota IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0046-760X – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1464-5130 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 53 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: History of Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
