Maiko Odaira: What It Means to Study Literature in Japanese Language Class

Some people might think it sounds like a dream to hear that a new subject called "Literary Japanese" will be established in high schools, but many others likely feel a sense of dread. They might imagine textbooks composed only of "that" (specific kind of) literature, where the teacher's idea of the correct answer or emotional response is forced upon them... But was literature ever really such a thing?

In accordance with the revised Academic Advisory Board guidelines, starting from the 2023 academic year, high school sophomores will study subjects selected by each high school from among "Logical Japanese," "Literary Japanese," "Japanese Language Expression," and "Classical Inquiry." The main concern for those involved in literature is that while "Literature" appears to be respected as an independent field, the system is designed in a way that makes it difficult to actually select due to the number of class hours and the connection to university entrance exams. Furthermore, the perception of "Literature" as something separated to emphasize "Logic" is far too one-dimensional.

The idea that the subject of "Japanese Language" should prioritize the acquisition of language management skills over emotional impact or ways of living is reasonable. However, when that is called "Logic," the "Literature" placed at the opposite pole and kept at a distance is likely imagined as a so-called "appreciation-based" approach where everyone tastes and enjoys the reading together. But that is a somewhat old and limited image of literature.

When I researched introductory literature books and general education textbooks for universities published in large quantities during the 1950s to 70s, I often saw the same commentators making seemingly contradictory claims regarding "appreciation." They would say things like "anyone can intuitively grasp the essence of literature," while also stating "but not everyone can do it" or "there is such a thing as high-level appreciation" (please refer to my book "Dreaming Liberal Arts" for details). If anyone can grasp it, then study is unnecessary; and even if there is a high-level domain, it is unclear how one can reach it. Certainly, there is a sense of value in a secret ritual, but one would have to wonder if that qualifies as an academic discipline.

However, this way of speaking stems from the contradictions of universities during the period of high economic growth when enrollment rates rose. That is, the contradiction of being an institution where anyone was qualified to enter and where expertise was downgraded to general education to prepare students for corporate life, while simultaneously needing to be the highest seat of learning that masters a specialty and bearing the expectations of the parent generation who could not attend college. The rhetoric of "anyone can do it, yet it is high-level" is a device that satisfies both of these at once. Because it fit so well, the act of "appreciation" was highly valued.

Two things can be said from this example. First, rhetoric does not just exist on paper; it is something that convinces people and moves society. Second, if rhetoric is something literary, then as I have just demonstrated by deciphering it, the study of literature is the practice of logically analyzing language. The word "rhetoric" can have a negative impression, as if it were something deceptive, but it is also what effectively articulates matters that were previously vague and moves the human heart. Learning to analyze such language operations and effects is an important aspect of studying literature. "Literature" is one of the media that connects the individual and society, and it is not antithetical to "logic."

In the first place, novels and the like are often called fiction, but I wonder if there is such a thing as fiction that is not rooted in reality at all. There are works that express a sense of discomfort—where a critique of reality becomes an upside-down world and one cannot identify with the trends of the majority—in a specific way. And there are people who sympathize with that. The new Academic Advisory Board guidelines emphasize activities in society and the discussions for that purpose. It goes without saying that this is important, but it cannot be accomplished with manual-like words or words that only summarize and communicate semantic content.

Even when tracing memories of learning from literary materials like "Rashomon" or "Sangetsuki," some criticize that it is not clear what was learned. However, it can be said that language skills are the kind of practice (like riding a bicycle, for example) where once they are internalized, the circumstances of learning them are forgotten. It will be increasingly necessary in the future to make these skills conscious and verbalized so that teachers can convey the methods for improvement to students. Conversely, if what is learned can be summed up as a theme such as "judgment of good and evil" or "Japanese tradition," then that exceeds the scope of "Japanese Language" as a study of language, and it is certainly not literature.

All 11 versions of the "Literary Japanese" textbooks to be used from the 2023 academic year, created by various publishers, included critiques/essays. This is likely an expression of an attitude seeking to question the relationship between literary works and logic. These textbooks generally won't be available to the public until next year, but the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology recently released the examination reports on its website. Looking at these, one can see that the critique materials were generally given the opinion that they were inappropriate in light of the "handling of content shown in the Academic Advisory Board guidelines," which limited materials to "literary texts from the modern era onwards." In response, each publisher adjusted the explanations and questions to manage to include the critiques. I look forward to the future verification of the substance and results of those modifications.