History education

 The book is organized into five chapters, with chapter one serving as an introduction to this study, chapters two through four each focusing on an analysis of the chosen individual countries, and chapter five as a summary of analyses and conclusions, as well as indicating future implications. The chapters each are laid out for the reader to navigate the analysis and argument by understanding a brief historiography and background of postwar education in each country, the impact of the actors and regimes, and the author’s overall method and analysis. In researching how the curricula of each country present the past, Dierkes has chosen five specific themes or historical events to examine comparatively: ‘the first mention of “Japan” or “Germany” in history’, ‘large peasant uprisings’ (Kaga Uprising in Japan and the German Peasant War), ‘foundation of the modern nation-state’ (the Meiji Restoration in Japan and the German Empire in 1871), ‘the democratization of the political system’ (Taishō Democracy in Japan and the Weimar Republic), and ‘the demise of democracy under fascist totalitarianism’ (Asia Pacific War and National Socialism and the Second World War).

One thing that remains a bit unclear regarding the book is the timeframe in which this “postwar” study is conducted and why. The author notes that a random sampling of textbooks was done for the study of each country in five-year intervals. The core of Dierkes’ analysis in chapter two examines East German textbooks and curricula from 1945 to 1989, while chapter three examines West German textbooks and curricula from 1950 to 1990. Certainly, here he has chosen the years to define “postwar” as 1945 up to the reunification ofGermanyin 1990 following the end of the Cold War. However, his rationale for years included for his study of Japanese teaching materials/textbooks is not as clear. For many scholars, postwarJapanmeans 1945 to the present day, and as seen in chapter 4, the textbooks for the author’s core study are from a range of years between 1951 and 1998, but he also examines textbooks randomly through the year 2006. What exactly does Dierkes see as the years encompassing “postwar”Japan, and how does this impact his comparison of German postwar educational policy-making regimes? Perhaps a minor question to consider, but nonetheless an important question that should have been clarified for this comparative history.

Despite this, Dierkes’ study of the material is quite comprehensive for utilizing a method of random sampling (e.g., over thirty textbooks were examined and compared against one another in the case ofWest Germany). A listing of all titles of curricula and textbooks examined in this study are listed chronologically in an appendix at the back of the book. One interesting thing learned from this comprehensive study of theGermanysandJapanis the power and role that academic and scientific historiography played in giving authority to those who oversaw reform of history education curricula. In his comparative examination of these three countries, the author provides his data and findings by way of tables. In chapter 2 and 4, for example, two of these tables help to explain significant shifts in school historiography during the postwar era inEast Germany(Table 2.1) and reveal that little changed in history curricula over forty years inJapan(Table 4.1). Although the results show differences, Dierkes also points out the similarities, emphasizing that overall, history education is subject to policy-making in bothGermanyandJapan.

In his study of Japanese textbooks, however, I found it curious that the author did not examine the Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho (New History Textbook), the very book at the center of the current debate over history education in Japan since it was first published in 2001. On page 168, Dierkes states that he did not use the book because it is considered to be a “commercial disaster” and argues that it is not a “well-written or well-constructed textbook.” While this may be the case, it is this very textbook that elicits reaction from neighboring countries, and the United States, today –so why not compare this book with others used as part of this study in order to better understand the impact of institutions and actors and their role in educational policy? This textbook, although a “commercial disaster,” is slowly gaining in popularity among the public since its first edition was published, and the fact remains that it is the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) who continues to approve subsequent editions for use in the classroom. I think the author may have missed an opportunity to further explore how influential institutions truly are with the omission of an examination of the material and terminology used in the New History Textbook. However, perhaps it was in the best interest of his research and method of random sampling to exclude it, and while it is an important part of the debate over postwar education in Japan today, it is perhaps a topic better explored further as part of a different study.

The main contribution is perhaps his finding that “collective trauma” is not the primary reason for changes to postwar educational policy in Germanyand Japan. Dierkes aims to show how internal factors (i.e., specific actors and institutions) versus external factors (i.e., occupational reforms and international relations) tend to have the greatest impact on postwar educational policy. Therefore, this piece is an important contribution to the field of not only sociology, but also history of education studies. Overall, Postwar History Education in Japan and the Germanys mediates the gaps in the scholarship that fail to emphasize the importance of specific actors and politics in the control and development of educational content and the role of postwar educational policy in creating a sense of national identity. Moreover, from this text readers learn that controversies and debates over postwar history education in Europe and Asia easily transcend boundaries and share commonalties, and in the case ofJapan, should thus be considered in a comparative framework in order to better understand how regional problems might best be solved in the future.

 Elizabeth Dutridge-Corp is a Ph.D. candidate in East Asian History, Michigan State University (dutridge@msu.edu)