a journal of the
international council of philosophical inquiry with children
I
and my family -
Comparing
the reflective competence of Japanese and German primary school children as
related to the “Ethics of Care”
Eva Marsal &
Takara Dobashi
Abstract
This paper compares the concepts of Japanese
and German primary school children as they relate to the “ethics of care.” To
do this we have used the research methodology of expanding and replicating an
experiment to test whether the results can be interculturally
confirmed. In our design we replicated the experiment in children’s philosophy
on the question “What are Family Ties?” carried out by Toshiaki Ôse in September 2002 with the 5th grade of the
municipal .primary school Hamanogô in Chigasaki.
Key-words:
Japanese education ;
German education ; comparative education ; ethics of care
Introduction[2]
As a stimulus for discussion, Toshiaki Ôse
told the story of the natural disaster that had befallen the village Kambara:
“On the 8th of July, 1783, the
|
|
Seeing a photograph of the skeleton of a young
woman who during her flight carried an old woman on her back, the Japanese
teacher Ôse had thought “What are the ties of
family?” In this context the children were asked to interpret the situation.
The recorded lesson is reconstructed as a philosophical dialogue
following the five-finger-method of Ekkehard Martens[3],, organized around a sequence of
questions.
1. Phenomenological question:
“Describe the two skeletons. In what situation were the two women when they
died? Please use your imagination and try to come to a conclusion based on the
position of the bones.”
2. Hermeneutic question: “Why were
you thinking they were parent and child? Couldn’t they also have been mother
and daughter-in-law, or have some other relationship?”
3. Analytical question: “How would a situation have to be for me to
be able to help someone else?”
4. Dialectical question: “What would
you do if you were in the young woman’s situation? Would you or would you not
help? What reasons could be given for one or the other position?”
5. Speculative question: “How would
your family behave in such a situation? Would you help one another?” What do you think, how would the old
woman have behaved if she had been your mother or how would you have behaved?”
We replicated this lesson about 4 years later, in January 2007, in the
fourth grade of the
I. Comparison between Japanese and German
children: reasons to help / reasons not to help
In order to discover what place the family has in the ethical
value-pattern, in its coordinates of emotion and motivation, and in the
intellectual hierarchy of argumentation, we investigated the question: “Under
what conditions would the children help or not help in this extreme situation,
where the act of helping could lead to the loss of one’s own life?”
To be able to compare the children’s
statements, we set up a theoretically designed and inductively tested system of
categories, and entered the quantified contributions of the children into it.
The unit (N) does not represent an entire statement, but a single argument,
since many children included several arguments in a single speech sequence.
Contributions in the remainder category, such as information questions, were
not included; only thematic statements were compared. Because this study only
considers two school classes and so cannot claim to be representative, no
significance tests were carried out. Quantitative analysis of the qualitative,
content-analytical research was only done in percentage values. Nonetheless, we
may assume that the children developed and examined the main arguments in a
process of common investigation within the community of inquiry. To make
the children’s testing process visible, at least rudimentarily, the categories
are clarified with central examination sequences from the community of
inquiry.
Reasons to Help /
Reasons Not to Help
Comparison between Japanese and German Children
(in percentages)
Japanese Children (JC): Units N = 89 / German
Children (GC): Units N = 147
|
|
Japanese Children (JC) |
German
Children (GC) |
|
Reasons to help |
72% |
77% |
|
Reasons not to help |
28% |
23% |
Comparing the reasons given for
helping or not helping in a life-threatening situation as percentage values,
there is not much difference between the Japanese and German children. They all
present mostly arguments for why they would aid a helpless person despite the
danger to themselves. But if we look more closely at the arguments, we find
differing profiles that may be culturally determined.
Reasons to Help
Comparison Between Japanese and German Children
(in Percentages)
Japanese
Children (JC): Units N = 64 / German Children (GC): Units N = 114
|
|
Japanese Children (JK) |
German Children (GC)) |
|
Family |
48% |
31% |
|
Acquaintances |
25% |
1% |
|
Feelings |
0% |
12% |
Ethical Posture
|
27% |
56% |
Whereas for the Japanese
children the personal aspect shows the highest variance with 72% —primarily
people they know are rescued, such as family members, friends, neighbors and villagers they have worked with in the rice
fields, for the German children attitudes are in the foreground—68% argue on
the basis of the feelings aroused by the helpless person and the resulting
ethical imperative. Personal reasons only count for family members. The family
is saved out of love and to maintain one’s own sense of security. The fact that
the Japanese children reveal no explicit feelings does not mean that they have
none. On the implicit level these are evident in their statements as a latent
motivational element. The fact that arguments aren’t explicitly based on
feelings probably has something to do with the culture of kokoro.
Japanese children are trained to be aware of their own feelings and the
feelings of others with great depth, precision and differentiation, but to
preserve them as an inner treasure and to not show them outwardly.
Now let us look briefly
at the individual categories. For the Japanese children, the category Family
is the most significant with 48%. They immediately identify the two skeletons
as members of the same family. J502: “Because she was carried on her back, weren’t
they parent and child? That’s the only possible answer.” For the German
children, too, family members are the most meaningful figures. The “family”
category is the second most important with 31%. But the rescue here is
explained with additional arguments, first with the desire to reciprocate for
some of all the parental care, from a sense of the justice of mutual
obligation, (as for example D1-w59: “Maybe the old woman was her mother and…her
mother had done a lot for her, too.”), and second out of a fear of loss:
D1-m253 Jan: “If the old woman were a family member of the young woman, then I
would rescue her, because otherwise maybe the family would be lost,” or out of
love: D1-m287 Denny: “Yes, and I love my mother and if my mother dies, then I
want to die too.”
The category acquaintances/
being acquainted is significant only for the Japanese children, with 25%.
One fourth of the Japanese children would rescue a person who belonged to their
own living space. Spatial proximity is very important to them. As J215 says,
“They were neighbors, living in the same village,” or
J150 (M=Yui) explains: “Since there were only a few
people in the village, the villagers met now and then, […]. And so a frail
older woman could have lived there, and that young woman knew her slightly,
even though they weren’t friends – she had worked with the older woman in the
rice field or seen her in the area.” This reflects the precise awareness of the
various distances, which is also revealed by the degrees of mutual bowing.
Likewise, this may also reflect the Japanese consciousness of the “inside” that
belongs to the intimate/ personal group, in contrast to the “outside” of
strangers. One cares only for one’s own group and keeps a distance from
strangers.
In the category feelings,
children mention fear of death, fear of losing their own lives, fear for the
life of the old woman, fear of losing the family, pity, and the desire to help.
As an example I quote a discussion sequence:
D1-m43: She was very frightened and
didn’t want the old woman or herself to die.
D1-m45: I think if she hadn’t had
the old woman on her back, then she would probably have gone up the stairs a
little faster.
D1-w52: But she wanted to help the
old woman so she wouldn’t die.
D1-w54: Pity. She was sorry for her.
D1-w56: She risked her life for her.
D1-w58: She didn’t want to just
think of herself, I think. She wanted, she wanted to help the poor woman. […]
D1-m69 K Ladem:
What Jo just said, now I don’t see it that way, uh, that at the end, that if it
were a woman she didn’t know, that she wouldn’t have helped her. Because I
would have a different opinion, because I would have preferred to help.
D1-m71 K: I’d also rather say, um,
that she wouldn’t need to be from the family, but she could be, but I would
have helped her anyway, the woman. If I would see that, then I would take pity
on her.
D1-w212 Sophia: If I had seen that
the old woman tripped and was lying on the ground, then I would feel sorry for
her, and I would have taken her with me too. You only have one life.
D1-w223 Elvira: Maybe the woman left
the old woman lying there at first, but then she went a little further, and
then she felt sorry for her.
In the category “ethical
posture of the helper” there is something unique to the Japanese children:
they stand for a “categorical imperative” that can be described,
independent of any given situation, as the principle of a “duty to help.” A
good example is J 188, who states apodictically, “You have to save others.” On
the basis of this thought process, the Japanese children argue using the
dimensions justice and helpfulness, for example J 171 (Boy=Tomonari): “The younger woman, who found the older woman
fallen on the path, was certainly a woman of justice. She thought it would be
possible to carry her on her back and go to the Kannon
temple and save herself.” In response to Ôse’s
question “What do you think? Do people help others they don’t know?” J 235
replied: “They help.” When Ôse then had the children
vote on it, half of them agreed with this position.
A few children attribute
helpful behavior to the personality of the young
woman. One example is the Japanese child J 517: “She couldn’t give up the old
woman, even though she thought, I have to help myself, but I want to help the
old woman too, and then in the end with this drive to help she ran away with
the old woman.” Or the German Lea (D1-w249): “Maybe the young woman was a kind
woman, too, and always a helpful woman.”
For many children,
however, the situational context, which is understood empathetically, leads to
the helping behavior, as when the Japanese children
give the situation of the old woman as a reason:
JK507: Because she was lonely and
lived alone.
JK-508: If someone is lonely and
lives alone, then you help them a lot.
JK 509: Because her leg was bad, and
she couldn’t move it well.
The German children have similar
arguments:
D1-w229k: If for example someone had
broken something and then couldn’t walk so well by himself, then I would help
him.
D1-m251 Johannes: Maybe if it were
some woman, who maybe also had a little son, or something, then I would help,
or if she was pregnant. Because she can’t run very well at all.
D1-m220 Oskar:
If it had been a smaller child, I would have taken it along, first of all
because it hadn’t-, because maybe it had only lived a short time, and second
because it’s light, and you could carry it in your arms, for example.
The children have very
differentiated interpersonal concepts that lead to a high degree of imaginary
helping behavior. But while for the Japanese children
the relationship with people in need is central, the German children explain
the helpful behavior with the helper’s personality
variables. This is why some German
children justify the rescue of family members with additional ethical
arguments, whereas for the Japanese children, this kind of help requires no
further justification. Also for the decisive reasons why no help is given we
see the slightly different shades in the position of family. Thus the Japanese
children have a completely unique category: 12% feel a special responsibility
toward the family one creates oneself, toward one’s spouse and one’s own
children.
Reasons Not to Help
Comparison between Japanese and German Children
(in percentages)
Japanese Children (JC): Units N = 25 / German
Children (GC): Units N = 33
|
|
Japanese Children (JC) |
German Children (GC) |
|
Strangers |
12% |
36% |
|
Refusal of help |
28% |
18% |
|
Life |
48% |
46% |
|
Husband/children |
12% |
0% |
To illustrate this I quote an argumentation
sequence found only among the Japanese children, which was assigned to the
category husband / children.
J 207 (girl=Noriko): Assuming that Tomonari (a boy) would take on the role of that young woman,
while he’s carrying the older woman on his back she might suddenly say “But you
are married and have a wife and child. Can you be allowed to take on the risk
of losing your own life?
J 208 (boy=Tomonari):
I would let my wife and child run on ahead and stay myself in the village to
help.
J 209 (girl=Noriko): You want to stay? Can you
take on the risk of dying? I’m assuming that you don’t know that old woman.
Just assuming. You live together with your wife and child. Your child could be
small and your wife still young. At the beginning of the eruption you want to
try to save the older women who has fallen, right? You want to help in this
hour instead of escaping yourself. Is it permissible for you to cause your wife
and child to mourn your death? Is that permissible?
In the conflict between values, the
family, or more precisely the family one creates oneself, is placed in the
highest position on the scale of responsibility. This dimension is not even
considered by the German children. But 18% of the German children are also
convinced that a mother would refuse the offer of help out of love for her
child; among the Japanese children, 28% believe this. But most of the children
would reject this refusal and help in spite of it.
D1- w273: I think that’s what my grandmother
would say too: “Run, child.” But I would also help her. Right now I can’t—if I
were still so young as now, then I couldn’t carry her on my back, but I’d help
her anyway.
D1- w275 Sophia: My mother would say that too,
because every mother loves her child and I think all mothers would say that to
their children.
D1- w277 Elvira: Maybe my mother would say that
too, but I don’t think I would have left her behind.
D1- w298: If my mother would say that to me,
and if I would run to the road, for example, then I would regret it afterwards,
because she had done so many things for me. Everything, she’s done everything
for me. And I’ve done nothing for her. That is really a dumb situation.
Since 72% of the Japanese children
have already emphasized positively that they would first save the people they
knew, the negation of this statement no longer plays a large role; they have
clearly expressed their position. In contrast to the 36 % of German children
who said that not knowing someone was a reason not to help them, only 12% of
the Japanese children did so.
The most important reason not to
help others in a situation where helping could endanger one’s own life is a
thorough understanding of self-interest. Here the Japanese children score
slightly higher than the German children, with 48% to their 46%. They want to
secure their future enjoyment of life, that is, their central motivation is the
will to live, or to survive.
Here is an example of the Japanese children’s argumentation:
J 96: If this had happened to me, I would have
left the woman behind.
J 148 (girl = Noriko): In those days people
weren’t so kind-hearted. People just took care of themselves. Survival is
everything at such a time. People think only of themselves, only of staying
alive. For that they need all their strength!
J 205 (girl = Noriko): In other words., we
still have plans for our lives. We want to enjoy life ourselves, right?
And similarly, the German children:
D1- m214 Johannes: I would have, I mean, if she
weren’t a family member, and she was already so old, she would have died
sometime soon anyway, I would rather have saved my own life.
D1-m233 Miro: I think
when someone has broken a bone or something like that, then you don’t die when
you help them. But if someone might get killed, then I’d rather save my own
life.
D1-m234 Dennis: I also really think it’s dumb,
when you help other people and risk your own life, and it’s also dumb when you
die.
D1-m235 Miro: It’s
not dumb, but I just wouldn’t do it. No, it isn’t dumb.
D1-m236 Johannes: Actually, I think what Dennis
and the other two said is right. It isn’t dumb, but I also would save my own
life.
D1-m237 Oskar: If
it’s a friend of mine, or someone from the family, then I’d help them. But if it’s
someone I don’t really know, someone who’s older, then I don’t really know
them, then I’d rather save my own life. But if it’s someone I know, someone I
like, then I’d help them.
Results
The children develop a high degree
of ethical reflective competence in the communal process of inquiry. Of the 28%
of Japanese children and the 23% of German children who would not help, a high
percentage reject helping for ethical reasons, based on a conflict of values.
Carrying out the thematized rescue would conflict
with other values, such as the preservation of one’s own life. The only
category that can be defined as unethical is “strangers,” since in this case
help is withheld because the person in need is not a personal acquaintance. But
only an almost insignificant number of the Japanese children would refuse to
help on these grounds. It is only 12% of the barely one third who decided not
to help. Among the German children, this “unethical category” is more strongly
represented. 36% of the 23% would not help because they didn’t know the person
needing help. On the whole, though, the German children show the same profile
as the Japanese children. That is, they represent theories with different
cultural markers, but show identical anticipations and suppositions about their
ethical behavior practice. For both groups the family
is a central value, completely without question for the Japanese children, and
with further explanations from the German children, who in this situation want
to give back all they had received up to that time. This difference could be
related to the differing relationship to the family as an institution. In
Germany the divorce rate is about 33%, which means that about one third of the
children live in broken home situations or patchwork families, and have gone
through painful family experiences, whereas in Japan the family still usually
represents an unbreakable bond. In any case, our investigation shows that both
the Japanese and German children can make use of well developed caring
thinking.
2. The Gender Perspective: Comparison Between
German Girls and Boys
A gender comparison is only possible
with the German children, since only in their case are all the first names
available. Clear gender-related differences that parallel socialization to western
cultural values are revealed here.
Reasons to Help /
Reasons Not to Help
Comparison Between
German Girls and Boys (in percentages)
(Girls: units N = 75 / Boys: units N
= 72)
|
|
Girls |
Boys |
|
Reasons to Help |
89% |
66% |
|
Reasons Not to Help |
11% |
34% |
The majority of German girls and
boys show a high readiness to help; the percentage is higher with the girls,
though, at 89% as opposed to the boys with 66%. With regard to content, their
profiles are also similar.
Reasons to Help
Comparison Between German Girls and boys (in
percentages)
(Girls: units N=67 / Boys: units
N=47)
|
|
Girls |
Boys |
|
Family |
25% |
36% |
|
Acquaintances |
1% |
2% |
|
Feelings |
13% |
8% |
|
Ethical Posture |
60% |
53% |
Help provided by the boys is more
dependent on personal ties, whereas the girls are generally more willing to
help out of sympathy for the helpless person, and feel appealed to on an
ethical plane.
Reasons Not to Help
Comparison between German Girls and Boys (in
percentages)
(Girls: units N=8 / Boys: units N =
25)
|
|
Girls |
Boys |
|
Strangers |
12% |
44% |
|
Refusal of Help |
63% |
4% |
|
Life |
25% |
52% |
In the reasons given „not to help“,
however, there are clear differences. While only 12% of the girls would not
save someone because he or she is a stranger, almost half of the boys give this
reason for not helping. Likewise, half of the boys express a well understood
self-interest with regard to their own lives, whereas most of the girls express
altruistic motives; 63% of them begin with the proposition that the mother says
“Run, child, save your own life.” Only
25% of the girls give their own lives higher priority than the life of the
person needing help.
Conclusion
By using Toshiaki Ôse’s Japanese instructional material “What is ‘Family’?”
the children could reflect on very complex and emotionally disturbing ideas in
a trusting community of inquiry, and could assess for themselves their own
imagined future behavior.
The German children
found the Japanese material very good, especially since it was real and was not
artificially constructed. Especially the boys wanted to know whether everything
had really happened that way, and then showed great respect for the Japanese.
Thus Toshiaki Ôse’s instructional practice made a double research
practice possible, in which the children could investigate their own concepts
and these could then be evaluated within the framework of a cultural
comparison.
Reference
Dobashi, Takara: “INOCHI“ oder die
„Endlichkeit des Lebens“.
Toshiaki Ôse philosophiert mit japanischen Kindern. In: Eva Marsal,
Takara Dobashi, Barbara Weber, Felix G. Lund (Herausgeber): Ethische Reflexionskompetenz im Grundschulalter. Konzepte des Philosophierens mit Kindern. (
Dobashi, Takara: Unterricht als Urwissenschaft ―Takeji Hayashi und das
Philosophieren mit Kindern, in: Eva Marsal & Takara Dobashi (Hg.):
karlsruher pädagogische beiträge, Heft 62, Karlsruhe:PHK, März 2006, S.
105-127.
Hayashi, Takeji / Itô, Kôichi: Jugyô wo Tsuikyûsuru to Iukoto, Tôkyô:
Kokudosha 1990.
Itô, Kôichi: Tamashii
ni Uttaeru Jugyô, Tôkyô: NHK Books 1992.
Martens, Ekkehard: Methodik des Ethik- und
Philosophieunterrichts. Philosophieren als elmentare Kulturtechnik,
Hannover: Siebert 2003.
Ôse, Toshiaki (Repräs. der Verfasser) unter der Leitung von Prof. Dr.
Manabu Satô: Gakkô wo Tsukuru, Tôkyô:
Shôgakukan 2000.
Satô, Manabu: Karikyuramu no Hihyô,
Tôkyô: Seshiki Shobô 1996.